arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-19-2014 01:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote: HBO is a horrible example to use, because they are a la carte anyway. They are not bundled in with anyone's basic cable fees. It makes sense for them to do that. They don't lose anything at all. Not the same as say ESPN, USA or TNT doing it.
By he way, some of you all impress me with your George Costanza'esque methods of being cheap. I bow to you.
But HBO isn't really ala carte.
You can't call HBO and buy HBO. You have to buy service from Comcast, Dish, Direct, or AT&T. They do marketing for HBO, manage the subscriptions and collect the money.
|
|
09-19-2014 01:54 PM |
|
bluesox
Heisman
Posts: 5,295
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 84
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
I wonder if Larry Ellison will now make a move into the NFL since he is retired. He is worth 46 billion so he could pull a paul allen and go crazy with spending. Build his own stadium in LA and buy a team to move into it…cost 3-4 billion. Of course, the NFL probably does't want any owner to spend money building a stadium.
|
|
09-19-2014 02:45 PM |
|
C2__
Caltex2
Posts: 23,634
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-19-2014 01:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (09-19-2014 11:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote: LOL, well I am that guy who goes and orders a soft drink at the bar (I don't drink) and maybe a kid's meal or appetizer.
App, soda, and tip still puts you at $10 minimum. That's $40 per month, $50 one of those months (the five saturday month).
But I don't go every weekend and besides, I don't pay all of my bills as of this moment, though that will change.
|
|
09-19-2014 03:16 PM |
|
Tom in Lazybrook
Hall of Famer
Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-19-2014 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-19-2014 01:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote: HBO is a horrible example to use, because they are a la carte anyway. They are not bundled in with anyone's basic cable fees. It makes sense for them to do that. They don't lose anything at all. Not the same as say ESPN, USA or TNT doing it.
By he way, some of you all impress me with your George Costanza'esque methods of being cheap. I bow to you.
But HBO isn't really ala carte.
You can't call HBO and buy HBO. You have to buy service from Comcast, Dish, Direct, or AT&T. They do marketing for HBO, manage the subscriptions and collect the money.
Its coming. Its already here in places where you can avoid paying sports programming fees. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/se...television
|
|
09-20-2014 10:09 AM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-19-2014 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-19-2014 01:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote: HBO is a horrible example to use, because they are a la carte anyway. They are not bundled in with anyone's basic cable fees. It makes sense for them to do that. They don't lose anything at all. Not the same as say ESPN, USA or TNT doing it.
By he way, some of you all impress me with your George Costanza'esque methods of being cheap. I bow to you.
But HBO isn't really ala carte.
You can't call HBO and buy HBO. You have to buy service from Comcast, Dish, Direct, or AT&T. They do marketing for HBO, manage the subscriptions and collect the money.
Actually yes, you can.
But anyway HBO is the definition of Ala carte. And is he "proof" of how much channels will cost ala carte vs wholesale.
|
|
09-20-2014 07:01 PM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-20-2014 07:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (09-19-2014 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-19-2014 01:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote: HBO is a horrible example to use, because they are a la carte anyway. They are not bundled in with anyone's basic cable fees. It makes sense for them to do that. They don't lose anything at all. Not the same as say ESPN, USA or TNT doing it.
By he way, some of you all impress me with your George Costanza'esque methods of being cheap. I bow to you.
But HBO isn't really ala carte.
You can't call HBO and buy HBO. You have to buy service from Comcast, Dish, Direct, or AT&T. They do marketing for HBO, manage the subscriptions and collect the money.
Actually yes, you can.
But anyway HBO is the definition of Ala carte. And is he "proof" of how much channels will cost ala carte vs wholesale.
The HBO price is kept down because HBO has no consumer billing department, spends far less on advertising than say Netflix because so much of the advertising is done by providers, they spend far less on servers because most of the on-demand content comes off provider servers.
HBO can't make the same profit per customer selling direct so they likely raise their price or take a big hit on Wall Street.
|
|
09-21-2014 02:39 AM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-21-2014 02:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-20-2014 07:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote: But anyway HBO is the definition of Ala carte. And is he "proof" of how much channels will cost ala carte vs wholesale.
The HBO price is kept down because HBO has no consumer billing department, spends far less on advertising than say Netflix because so much of the advertising is done by providers, they spend far less on servers because most of the on-demand content comes off provider servers.
HBO can't make the same profit per customer selling direct so they likely raise their price or take a big hit on Wall Street.
That just makes it worse. I was pointing out how HBO goes for over $15.00 a pop for a single channel. And people balk when others say that if everything went to a la carte that those channels will cost at least $10-$15 per month, with channels like ESPN going for $30 or more.
If your notion is that HBO is undervalued that makes it even worse.
BTW focusing on HBO's costs, is a bad strategy. You say they don't have a consumer billing department or advertise (HBO adversities a lot), but leave out that they spend far more on original programming than any cable network by far, and the rights they pay to get movies are pretty hefty too. HBO has a lot of overhead. But they also have 29 million subscribers collecting $15.00 or so gross per month in the US, and another 85 million worldwide (yes worldwide HBO has more subscribers than there are homes in the US). That's why they make so much money. And that's why comparing them to Netflix, which has the same number of US subscribers (29 million), but not even a third of the worldwide subscribers HBO has (they have 36 million) is apples to oranges in terms of revenue or profit capacity.
|
|
09-22-2014 10:07 AM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-22-2014 10:07 AM)adcorbett Wrote: (09-21-2014 02:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-20-2014 07:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote: But anyway HBO is the definition of Ala carte. And is he "proof" of how much channels will cost ala carte vs wholesale.
The HBO price is kept down because HBO has no consumer billing department, spends far less on advertising than say Netflix because so much of the advertising is done by providers, they spend far less on servers because most of the on-demand content comes off provider servers.
HBO can't make the same profit per customer selling direct so they likely raise their price or take a big hit on Wall Street.
That just makes it worse. I was pointing out how HBO goes for over $15.00 a pop for a single channel. And people balk when others say that if everything went to a la carte that those channels will cost at least $10-$15 per month, with channels like ESPN going for $30 or more.
If your notion is that HBO is undervalued that makes it even worse.
BTW focusing on HBO's costs, is a bad strategy. You say they don't have a consumer billing department or advertise (HBO adversities a lot), but leave out that they spend far more on original programming than any cable network by far, and the rights they pay to get movies are pretty hefty too. HBO has a lot of overhead. But they also have 29 million subscribers collecting $15.00 or so gross per month in the US, and another 85 million worldwide (yes worldwide HBO has more subscribers than there are homes in the US). That's why they make so much money. And that's why comparing them to Netflix, which has the same number of US subscribers (29 million), but not even a third of the worldwide subscribers HBO has (they have 36 million) is apples to oranges in terms of revenue or profit capacity.
HBO can't keep investors happy if they add additional overhead that reduces profit margin.
And they won't keep consumers happy if they reduce investment for content.
That's why I think if HBO ever offers a standalone product that it will be priced in the $35 to $50 range.
Of course, there is always the possibility that they may join ESPN's crusade to make internet more like cable and let ISP's collect the money and authorize the access.
|
|
09-22-2014 12:48 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-22-2014 12:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote: HBO can't keep investors happy if they add additional overhead that reduces profit margin.
WTF are you talking about? HBO does not have individual investors. They are owned by Time Warner. yes like any division they have goals and standards to meet, and they are highly profitable for Time Warner as it is, but they have the freedom to increase overhead if they chose to if they thought it would help down the line, just like any other subdivision. HBO has a LOT more overhead than you think. Many of their original shows cost more to produce than network shows, despite making many fewer of them. When the Sopranos was on, for example, it was far and away the most expensive show on TV (until 24), without question. Despite only producing like 12 episodes every four or five years compared to 24 episodes per year for most network shows (yes that was an exaggeration on the episode number). They also spend mega, mega bucks on movies. Sometimes shelling out $50 million just to get the rights for one movie. HBO has a shitton of overhead. They just have a lot more revenue.
(09-22-2014 12:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote: That's why I think if HBO ever offers a standalone product that it will be priced in the $35 to $50 range.
HBO already has it's pricepoint. If they offer it as standalone in the current environment, the price would likely be the same as it is now, as it would be an increase in their current price (currently cable companies get a cut of it). My point was it shows in good detail what the pricepoint of what other channels would be in an ala carte world.
|
|
09-22-2014 02:38 PM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-22-2014 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (09-22-2014 12:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote: HBO can't keep investors happy if they add additional overhead that reduces profit margin.
WTF are you talking about? HBO does not have individual investors. They are owned by Time Warner. yes like any division they have goals and standards to meet, and they are highly profitable for Time Warner as it is, but they have the freedom to increase overhead if they chose to if they thought it would help down the line, just like any other subdivision. HBO has a LOT more overhead than you think. Many of their original shows cost more to produce than network shows, despite making many fewer of them. When the Sopranos was on, for example, it was far and away the most expensive show on TV (until 24), without question. Despite only producing like 12 episodes every four or five years compared to 24 episodes per year for most network shows (yes that was an exaggeration on the episode number). They also spend mega, mega bucks on movies. Sometimes shelling out $50 million just to get the rights for one movie. HBO has a shitton of overhead. They just have a lot more revenue.
(09-22-2014 12:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote: That's why I think if HBO ever offers a standalone product that it will be priced in the $35 to $50 range.
HBO already has it's pricepoint. If they offer it as standalone in the current environment, the price would likely be the same as it is now, as it would be an increase in their current price (currently cable companies get a cut of it). My point was it shows in good detail what the pricepoint of what other channels would be in an ala carte world.
WTF are YOU talking about? HBO is part of a publicly traded company which you seem to be aware of so I don't know why you go smartass right there when you already understand that investment firms are combing their data.
And why replow the ground already discussed on overhead which I addressed
Take your piss poor day out on someone else.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2014 02:59 PM by arkstfan.)
|
|
09-22-2014 02:58 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
My day is perfectly fine. You just are going out of your way to not make any sense. Like way out of the way. If you don't like me pointing glaring holes in your argument, stop making them.
|
|
09-22-2014 03:08 PM |
|
prp
2nd String
Posts: 463
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Tartans!
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
HBO being owned by Time Warner is the primary reason why it's never been offered without a cable subscription. Time Warner has lots of less popular cable channels to sell, and while many people may pay for HBO a la carte, far fewer are going to shell out for the others. Those other channels depend on keeping as many people hooked on cable as possible and tying a popular channel like HBO to cable subscriptions is one way to keep the subscriber numbers up. Disney uses ESPN for the same purpose. Back when ESPN3 first launched, access was provided through your ISP account and almost every event on ESPN with the exception of NFL was available. There was no need to have a cable TV account if all you wanted was ESPN broadcasts. These days, though, most of the popular content is tied to your cable TV account.
|
|
09-22-2014 03:32 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
(09-22-2014 03:32 PM)prp Wrote: Back when ESPN3 first launched, access was provided through your ISP account and almost every event on ESPN with the exception of NFL was available. There was no need to have a cable TV account if all you wanted was ESPN broadcasts. These days, though, most of the popular content is tied to your cable TV account.
Yeah that was a colossal blunder there when they set that up.
Of course the cable companies (who were often the ISP's) were not amused when ESPN took that option away, even though it was why most of them signed up for ESPN 3, and ESPN made them pay for it a second time when they called it WatchESPN, yet still charged them the same full price for ESPN3 sans the TV channels, that got them to pay for it in the first place.
It's like a successful version of what Netflix tried to pull when they tried to split up the streaming and DVD services.
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2014 10:21 AM by adcorbett.)
|
|
09-22-2014 04:08 PM |
|
PirateTreasureNC
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
Posts: 36,249
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 617
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
|
RE: Sports Rights Fees Bubble....
Its not the fees but the price points that certain channels appear in.
Then you get into what you actually watch.
Then you have to pay for the internet that you use.
If everyone breaks off cable tv for just their internet bandwidth to end up streaming everything they watch again then I bet those cable ISP providers start charging somewhere down the line for either increased loads/usage --one way or the other someone is getting their money.
My own personal habbits basically have me dropping any kind of movie channel packages because of the amount of moves I buy and my netflix subscription. Just don't need it. And in the few months I paid for HBO I watched it so little that its $15/mo was not worth it based on time watched. That said, the Sports Tier I do get is almost needed so I can see the games I want to. I have bypassed sports packs ala NFL DirecTicket/NHL Center Ice/ .... whatever because there are enough games on already that those just aren't worth it.
|
|
09-23-2014 12:25 AM |
|