The W
Views: 97627090
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 0340
The W - Movies & TV - Broadcasters vs. Cable companies round, um, 3?: News Corp vs. Time Warner
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.82
Pages: 1
(2227 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (5 total)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 360 days
Last activity: 321 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.38


Let's start by saying this affect all Time Warner cable customers because it also includes minor News Corp cable channels like Fuel, Fox Reality Channel, Speed Channel, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Sports World Espanol, and FX in the deal. But the major impact appears to be subscribers in Los Angeles, New York, and Dallas, who would lose their Fox and MyNetworkTV affiliates from their cable.

News Corp wants $1 per subscriber per month for their Fox affiliates in those 3 markets. Of course Time Warner is comparing this to ransom.

It's hard for me to say which faceless corporation is right in this. On the one hand, News Corp is saying "Hey, give us $1 per subscriber. That's what TNT gets, and Fox gets higher ratings than TNT every hour of the day." That sounds reasonable to me.

As the quote up top says, Time Warner is saying they shouldn't have to pay for broadcast networks that air free, but that doesn't fly with me. If Time Warner is profiting from having Fox on their cable, then they should share some of that profit back to the network. That's like taking the free peanuts at the bar, mixing in some raisins, and then selling it to the other bar patrons at a profit.

On the other hand the networks are also profiting from being on cable. For simplicity sake, let's say viewership drops 20% if the cable company drops them (from people too lazy to install rabbit ears). That's 20% less viewers of their commercials, so they've just lost 20% of their advertising revenue. This lost revenue is the amount the broadcaster made from being on cable.

Bottom line is that it would be nice if all the cable companies and all the major broadcast owners got together and just figured out what the going rate should be for this. But given the way these contracts all end at different times, this is the kind of thing that we can expect to continue to happen for a while.
Promote this thread!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 18 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
It could have gone to arbitration as requested by Time Warner, but Fox knows they are being ridiculous so they declined.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo

    It's hard for me to say which faceless corporation is right in this. On the one hand, News Corp is saying "Hey, give us $1 per subscriber. That's what TNT gets, and Fox gets higher ratings than TNT every hour of the day." That sounds reasonable to me.

    As the quote up top says, Time Warner is saying they shouldn't have to pay for broadcast networks that air free, but that doesn't fly with me. If Time Warner is profiting from having Fox on their cable, then they should share some of that profit back to the network. That's like taking the free peanuts at the bar, mixing in some raisins, and then selling it to the other bar patrons at a profit.


Well, there's a huge difference between TNT on cable and Fox on cable. Namely, for that dollar per subscriber the cable company gets a certain amount of ad time every hour. That can be substantial revenue for the cable company.

Beyond that, of course, most customers can get the Fox station without cable. Or, at least, they could have back in the days when everyone had a rooftop antenna and signals were analog, which reached more people. Are people really paying cable to watch the over-the-air channels? Well, yeah, some are, especially those who are far from the broadcast towers. I don't know how many, though. So the comparison to TNT isn't fair...but I'm not sure how far off it really is.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 15 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47
The reality is that after 50 years the business model is changing and these stations are getting killed in ad revenue. From what I have read, within a few years there may be no free broadcast tv.



Perception is reality
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02
From: Champaign, IL

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 min.
AIM:  
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Well, there's a huge difference between TNT on cable and Fox on cable. Namely, for that dollar per subscriber the cable company gets a certain amount of ad time every hour. That can be substantial revenue for the cable company.

    Beyond that, of course, most customers can get the Fox station without cable. Or, at least, they could have back in the days when everyone had a rooftop antenna and signals were analog, which reached more people. Are people really paying cable to watch the over-the-air channels? Well, yeah, some are, especially those who are far from the broadcast towers. I don't know how many, though. So the comparison to TNT isn't fair...but I'm not sure how far off it really is.


You're forgetting the (sadly) very popular Fox News Channel and the 85 (may be an exaggeration) Fox Sports Networks that are included in this $1 per subscriber dispute.

In all fairness, my company goes through the same thing with all the cable/satellite companies they deal with every few years (though it basically works out to one service provider a year). Currently Mediacom is the one we're fighting with, and all we have is OTA channels.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Thread rated: 5.82
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Something Something Something Dark Side
Next thread: Sherlock Holmes
Previous thread: Power Rangers: RPM finale
(2227 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
save your money for the freakazoid! set in 3 weeks.
Related threads: TV Ratings - 12/21 to 12/27 - TV Ratings 12/14 to 12/20 - TV Ratings 12/7 to 12/13 - More...
The W - Movies & TV - Broadcasters vs. Cable companies round, um, 3?: News Corp vs. Time WarnerRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.169 seconds.