[opendtv] Re: News: Fox Playing Hardball With Balky Affils
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 18:23:48 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> So here we are today - the underlying business model of
> Free TV in exchange for spectrum is NO LONGER TENABLE.
> No Bert I provided the quote. Please read it again.
> Along with the other Big 4 networks, Fox considers the
> traditional single-stream, advertising-based network
> business model no longer tenable and seeks a second
> stream from affiliates, the executive said.
Fox did NOT say that FOTA TV is no longer tenable. Fox merely wants an extra
pound of flesh from the broadcasters, which it expects to get as kickback from
the retrans consent revenues the broadcasters get, in addition to the part of
the ad revenues going to the comgloms already.
So once again, had Fox been pulling their content from the OTA stations, that
would have been a real change. Instead, what they did amounts to little more
than what we have been seeing for years. Negotiations between broadcasters and
MVPDs, or something that will lead to that very same thing. In short, nothing
really new here.
> I mean they pull their content from the MVPDs, who
> are then pressured by viewers, who long ago decided
> that antennas are anachronistic
Can't legislate away stupidity, Craig, know what I mean? The more quick-witted
ones are cutting the cord, or at least using the bypass route. The congloms
provide the obvious alternative, and claim to want to continue to provide that
alternative. People are certainly free to be obtuse, and play into the hands of
the congloms. I say, let them, as long as the congloms are willing to provide
the alternative.
> Clearly the broadcast networks could bypass
> local broadcasters and become cable networks. But
> they prefer to milk a business model that is "no
> longer tenable."
A very unconvincing argument. If the main conglom channels can make more from
becoming just a cable network TODAY, then what's stopping them? What are they
"sucking every dime" from, if they could suck more dimes doing things
differently right now? Something's been missing from this repeated analysis of
yours. I don't pretend to know what it is, though.
[Broadcasters providing two main conglom network streams.]
> This is just a matter of shaking the broadcasters down.
> If a station can deliver two major networks they can
> afford to give the networks a larger percentage of
> their retransmission payments.
But that was exactly my point! It's called competition. This is what SHOULD be
happening in OTA TV, and I would expect the broadcasters themselves to insist
that they be allowed to negotiate whatever conglom carriage they can, from any
of the congloms. We have cases now where an affiliate, e.g. the Fox and the CBS
affiliates, are wasting a huge amount of spectrum. Why on earth is that
happening? The affiliate can make more ad revenues if they carried more
lucrative programming, both from OTA ads and from MVPD retrans consent and a
portion of ads, and then they could better afford to kick back more to the
congloms. Their transmitter costs would not increase, so this should be a no
brainer.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
