[opendtv] Re: Reasons for rising MVPD prices
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 01:40:01 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>> However as is often the case, you have to read beyond the headline.
>> In this (two year old) article you posted, look at the first figure.
>> That figure shows that from 4Q07 to 4Q11, total monthly TV viewing
>> per user rose from ~146 hours to ~160 hours. Notice how online and
>> time shifted more than compensate for the loss of live viewing.
>
> What has this got to do with the ratings for the broadcast networks?
You have stated on NUMEROUS occasions that TV viewing in general was way down.
This instead shows you that TV viewing is up. The broadcast network ratings I
covered with another article. You should at least have read the article you
referenced, Craig.
> You are clueless. Other demographics and delayed viewing did not
> make up for the collapse in the critical 18-49 live viewing
> demographics.
Oh shucks, you should have read the rest of the post first. Or gone back and
removed that comment.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/tablets-hurt-network-tv-ad-revenue-tied-to-nielsen-rating.html
> Neilsen ratings have never reflected reality.
Whereas unsubstantiated and long-standing "political" positions carry more
weight? That's funny, Craig. I voiced my skepticism before, on this count, and
the Bloomberg article confirms that skepticism. Too much emphasis was placed on
linear viewing, evidently because advertisers think, or thought, that linear
viewing was the only way their ads would get seen. I've disputed this notion
for a very long time.
> Obviously, Neilsen is responding and measuring delayed viewing now.
> Even with this, ratings are down again this year.
Read it again, Craig. It says: "Of the four, only CBS has drawn more viewers
this season, a gain of 1.5 percent as of May 5, according to Nielsen data. ABC
and NBC are down more than 6 percent, while Fox's audience has declined 20
percent." Which means, CBS viewership is up. Yes, an OTA network. Only Fox
seems to be doing badly. One problem with Fox is their 8-day delay to get
episodes on their web site. CBS has only hours of delay. Maybe that helps. CBS
also has consistently good shows.
> Clearly the live audience ratings only offer a glimpse at who is
> watching what. They are estimates and the live audience for pre
> produced shows is evaporating.
That's what I already told you. And who the h*ll cares? Even Leslie Moonves has
figured out that this doesn't matter. I haven't watched drama shows live for
decades, Craig. Literally. Ever since the 1980s. The live audience pretense is
just posturing, anymore.
> The notion that charging a subscriber fee creates artificial
> profits is absurd.
You are being absurd, Craig. Read and try to comprehend. When a show is
included in a bundle, with no opt out option, what that show charges the MVPD,
and consequently what the MVPD charges consumers, is artificial. Especially so
when the program channel in question is niche, not popular, and is included in
the same bundle as addict-demanded content (aka sports). It is truly crazy how
many times I've had to repeat this *obvious* explanation. You sound profoundly
clueless.
> Your analysis is seriously flawed.
And yet it was repeated at you, verbatim, in:
http://www.multichannel.com/malone-takes-global-view-cable/385898
> Sports is NOT the only high value content in the extended basic
> bundle. More people were watching The Walking Dead Sunday night ...
Sorry, Craig. The Walking Dead is not exclusive to the bundle, and sports is
responsible for the huge increases in fees. You can watch The walking Dead
right after it airs, on demand, from Amazon. Oh well, huh? And sports IS the
content that is raising "the bundle" prices at a high rate, as I said and many
articles too, including this one from Multichannel:
"If 80% of the incremental price pass-through is going to the sports supplier,
there is very little room for inflation or budgetary increases for the
non-sports-driven."
> What the article you posted demonstrates clearly is that the
> content conglom will sell their programs to many middlemen,
> who in turn offer many ways to pay for it.
This shows exactly what I've been telling you, Craig! It shows that any popular
content WILL NOT remain exclusively in "the bundle," **not when** people are
bailing out rather than subsidize the sports franchises. And why should it? Why
should these content owners sacrifice themselves for the sake of overpaid pro
athletes?? You keep calling this "speculation," but here's the perfect example.
> YOU WATCH the overpaid actors on the broadcast network shows.
And guess what, Craig. If everyone watched as I do, the actors would not be
overpaid, and pro athletes wouldn't either! Whereas, Craig, you are actively
supporting both of these outrageously highly paid entertainment industries.
Amazing how you try to twist logic and pretend otherwise.
> Just tried to point out that they are just as overpaid as
> the athletes who you believe are the root of all TV evils.
Well, as sports is gradually becoming unbundled, what with some direct to
consumer ESPN, and some direct to consumer from the leagues themselves, I will
agree that the two types of programming will be becoming more comparable. And,
that's exactly the way it should be. There is no technical reason for bundling
like that anymore, so it becomes ever more difficult for MVPDs, and content
owners, to keep those reins tight. This was also described in a recent article
I posted, which you called "speculation." Remember? Where the author explained
how the bundle comes apart?
But as of now, sports is indeed the only popular content that is mostly still
exclusively in your "the bundle," Craig. And it causes 80 percent of the price
increases of this "the bundle," and it keeps the profits of not-popular niche
channels in this "the bundle" artificially inflated.
Get used to it, Craig. Because in the next several years, it won't get better
for sports fans.
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:
