(11-13-2015 03:13 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 01:50 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 11:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 10:25 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I will try one more time...

It doesn't matter whether or not the the content from i would no longer be available to the stations in ii. The only thing that matters is that the content from i is available ota.

1) I believe the four (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) Nationals already own the ota station affiliates in the biggest American cities. They essentially get the subscriber fees for those affiliate channels already.

2) The remainder (and majority) of the ota channel affiliates in all the other cities have a percentage of their subscriber fees go to the big Four national content providers (it is negotiated with each regional affiliate). After all, these stations show the Nationals programming, but also create and produce their own.



That leaves about 30M homes they can't get subscriber fees for, because those people don't want cable or satellite. The only way to make money on them is by selling advertising. It is still very profitable + I believe it will go the route of govt advocating for these people like with the internet and cell phones.

1) You are partly correct in your claim that the national brands do own some of the stations themselves.

In Mpls/StPaul, the CBS and FOX stations are owned by the national brand. The NBC and ABC stations are not.


I don't think that has much of an affect on my prediction. The stations that are owned by the national brands could easily be sold to broadcasting companies. The broadcasting companies that own the Mpls/STP stations affiliated with NBC and ABC are Hubbard and TENGA. I'm sure there are other companies throughout the country that would be interested in buying the stations.


2) But the point is that the national brands could just deal directly with the cable/sat/etc. companies to distribute their content (Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.) and get much higher carriage fees from those distributor companies, than the fractional fee they may get from the stations. And by the way, the carriage fee the stations get may be a smaller fee than cable channels get. (don't know)

In that scenario, your cable channel package would just have a channel for FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS, instead of carrying the signal of the local affiliate station. It wouldn't have local news/sports, just national news, and so on.



As I've said, I don't think the stations would go away just because they didn't have that national content anymore. So the government would have no more interest in trying to force that national content to remain on the stations than it would have trying to force ESPN, for example, to have its content carried on stations.

1) I said they owned the ota affiliates in the largest US cities. Not Minn/St Paul.

2) We shall see. I don't see where anything you are saying will happen.

The Big 4 are already raking in the big subscriber fees.

The subscriber fees the Big 4 owned ota affiliates get is the same as non-owned ota affiliates. They broadcast the same shows prime time. Local news would outdraw a national broadcast of any show in the news hour time frame (that would be local programming early am as people get ready for work, 6pm and 11pm).

I believe the Big 4 already take around 50% of the subsciber fees that non-owned ota affiliates get. The problem becomes margin when you have to develop infrastructure if the Big 4 take over all the ota broadcasting.

Take 50% from the non-owned ota affiliates for shows you already put out... or try and get the other 50% and have to build out your infrastructure.

1) Irrelevant. The point has been verified, the national brands do own some of the stations around the country.

My counter-point still stands: it wouldn't be hard for those stations to be sold or, at least, spun off.


2) There's no reason to think a national brand owned station gets any different of a carriage fee than an affiliated station. What we don't know is: i) how station carriage fees compare to carriage fees for national cable channels (my guess is smaller, perhaps much smaller) and ii) how much of the fee that affiliated stations get must be then kicked up to the national company (it might be none ... the station might just pay a monthly fee for the national content).



3) In reading your last sentences, you clearly missed the point. Not only that, you went entirely in the other direction.

National brands don't need to build any infrastructure. They don't need to buy more stations.

All they have to do is deal directly with companies like Comcast, DirecTV, etc. Those companies will do all the distributing for them.


If anything, national companies will sell the stations they do own.

1. The business model is already in place. You are talking about losing the local connection to the community altogether. imo, Not gonna happen.

2. It's not hard to Google articles. Subscription fees are in-line, except for comparison to ESPN. The non-owned ota stations kick up on average just under 50% of their subscription fees.

3. Refer to 1.

Your argument is akin to your other statement that advertisers wouldn't buy time on tv for people who use rabbit ears to bring in odd channels, because they were low income... yet the same companies run the same ads (probably at a cheaper rate).

Business models change all the time. ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc. all do just fine without a "local connection to the community". National content doesn't need that.

And the stations wouldn't be going away. So communities wouldn't be losing their local newscasts, etc.

Link please for 50%.

I don't have the link handy but did spot an article claiming Fox was demanding more than some stations were getting from cable and satellite.

(11-13-2015 11:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If the national productions can get more money by going directly to cable/sat/etc. companies, there's no reason they won't explore that.

I've already explained in previous posts why it could provide more revenue. Short answer: carriage fees are worth more than advertising revenue.

Sure, its conceivable that it could under some circumstances ... but you haven't given any substantial reasons to believe that the carriage fees that the national networks and their production arms could receive directly would be greater than what they present earn from their present share of carriage fees of OTA broadcasters and the major basic cable outlets for their primary syndicated content ... and that is setting aside it being so much greater that the expected value of their direct carriage fees are more than their present receipt of carriage fees as owners of OTA stations, share of carriage fees of OTA affiliate broadcasters, and share of carriage fees of major basic cable outlets for their syndicated content, direct advertising revenue as owners of OTA stations and their slots on affiliates, and other revenues associated with the business model you are predicting they will abandon.

Indeed, we are at "peak cable" now, if not past it, and since there is need to drop OTA affiliates to pursue streaming revenue opportunities, if they haven't abandoned their OTA affiliates already in pursuit of these presumed greater carriage fees, it seems that the prospect of that happening over the coming decade should fade.

(11-13-2015 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Business models change all the time. ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc. all do just fine without a "local connection to the community". National content doesn't need that.

These are mature, well established basic cable channels ... and became so during the same time that the national networks did not find it worthwhile to abandon affiliates and, indeed, during which time additional national networks with local affiliates were formed.

Their viability therefore doesn't lend any credibility to a claim that the mutually beneficial relationship between national networks and local affiliates has flipped into a one-sided relationship.

Quote: And the stations wouldn't be going away. So communities wouldn't be losing their local newscasts, etc.

This contradicts your statement that you are conceding that its a financially beneficial relationship on the side of the local affiliates ... if it is, then losing those benefits will obviously result in fewer local stations. That doesn't even need an understanding of the revenue ecosystem of the content producers for national networks ... that much is basic micro Econ 101.

(11-13-2015 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 03:13 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 01:50 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 11:16 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  1) You are partly correct in your claim that the national brands do own some of the stations themselves.

In Mpls/StPaul, the CBS and FOX stations are owned by the national brand. The NBC and ABC stations are not.


I don't think that has much of an affect on my prediction. The stations that are owned by the national brands could easily be sold to broadcasting companies. The broadcasting companies that own the Mpls/STP stations affiliated with NBC and ABC are Hubbard and TENGA. I'm sure there are other companies throughout the country that would be interested in buying the stations.


2) But the point is that the national brands could just deal directly with the cable/sat/etc. companies to distribute their content (Family Guy, America's Got Talent, NCIS, etc.) and get much higher carriage fees from those distributor companies, than the fractional fee they may get from the stations. And by the way, the carriage fee the stations get may be a smaller fee than cable channels get. (don't know)

In that scenario, your cable channel package would just have a channel for FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS, instead of carrying the signal of the local affiliate station. It wouldn't have local news/sports, just national news, and so on.



As I've said, I don't think the stations would go away just because they didn't have that national content anymore. So the government would have no more interest in trying to force that national content to remain on the stations than it would have trying to force ESPN, for example, to have its content carried on stations.

1) I said they owned the ota affiliates in the largest US cities. Not Minn/St Paul.

2) We shall see. I don't see where anything you are saying will happen.

The Big 4 are already raking in the big subscriber fees.

The subscriber fees the Big 4 owned ota affiliates get is the same as non-owned ota affiliates. They broadcast the same shows prime time. Local news would outdraw a national broadcast of any show in the news hour time frame (that would be local programming early am as people get ready for work, 6pm and 11pm).

I believe the Big 4 already take around 50% of the subsciber fees that non-owned ota affiliates get. The problem becomes margin when you have to develop infrastructure if the Big 4 take over all the ota broadcasting.

Take 50% from the non-owned ota affiliates for shows you already put out... or try and get the other 50% and have to build out your infrastructure.

1) Irrelevant. The point has been verified, the national brands do own some of the stations around the country.

My counter-point still stands: it wouldn't be hard for those stations to be sold or, at least, spun off.


2) There's no reason to think a national brand owned station gets any different of a carriage fee than an affiliated station. What we don't know is: i) how station carriage fees compare to carriage fees for national cable channels (my guess is smaller, perhaps much smaller) and ii) how much of the fee that affiliated stations get must be then kicked up to the national company (it might be none ... the station might just pay a monthly fee for the national content).



3) In reading your last sentences, you clearly missed the point. Not only that, you went entirely in the other direction.

National brands don't need to build any infrastructure. They don't need to buy more stations.

All they have to do is deal directly with companies like Comcast, DirecTV, etc. Those companies will do all the distributing for them.


If anything, national companies will sell the stations they do own.

1. The business model is already in place. You are talking about losing the local connection to the community altogether. imo, Not gonna happen.

2. It's not hard to Google articles. Subscription fees are in-line, except for comparison to ESPN. The non-owned ota stations kick up on average just under 50% of their subscription fees.

3. Refer to 1.

Your argument is akin to your other statement that advertisers wouldn't buy time on tv for people who use rabbit ears to bring in odd channels, because they were low income... yet the same companies run the same ads (probably at a cheaper rate).

Business models change all the time. ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc. all do just fine without a "local connection to the community". National content doesn't need that.

And the stations wouldn't be going away. So communities wouldn't be losing their local newscasts, etc.

Link please for 50%.

Well, I think you would have to define "doing fine". Besides espn, those other two don't come close to making what the Big 4 make in monthly subscriber fees. I saw a 2012 article where SNL Kagan estimated Comedy Central earns 16 cents per sub/month.

No doubt that price has gone up since then, but relative to what the Big 4 pull in...

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "won't lose their local newscast" scenario. The issue is more (all) about the the built-in audience it gives the Big 4 for their prime-time shows.

This article is over a year old, but goes more in-depth:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-pla...-224851614

(11-14-2015 08:37 AM)Topkat Wrote:  I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "won't lose their local newscast" scenario. The issue is more (all) about the the built-in audience it gives the Big 4 for their prime-time shows.

This article is over a year old, but goes more in-depth:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-pla...-224851614

One pertinent section is:

Quote: SNL Kagan estimates that networks currently take about 45% of the fees that affiliates receive, but it projects that will rise to about 50% by 2019. And Robin Flynn, the research director at SNL Kagan, says the Indianapolis affiliate change is one of several factors suggesting "it's going to get to 50% a lot quicker."

... so any argument premised on the notion that the networks don't receive carriage fees via affiliates would be silly.

But even more pertinent is:

Quote: The Time Warner Cable dispute reflected CBS's determination. Some analysts see the Indianapolis affiliate change as CBS's attempt to force its dozens of affiliates to play the same kind of hardball with their pay-TV distributors.

"CBS is saying, 'Look, we are getting $1.50 to $2 [per subscriber per month] from the cable companies,'" says Ms. Ryvicker. "'You should be able to get $1.25 to $1.75, and you need to fight for that, because we are going to charge you a programming fee, whether it's 65 cents or 80 cents."

Clearly, the framing of the networks just sitting idle under the old business model until they see the light and follow the advice of some random commentator on a sports forum does not line up with reality of networks thinking this precise issue through very hard and devoting a lot of effort to pursuing what they believe is their avenue to the strongest possible carriage income.

And its not rocket science why they think their avenue to greatest carriage revenue is through pushing their affiliates to play hardball in pushing for greater carriage revenue, instead of through dropping the local affiliates and fighting for carriage as freestanding cable-only networks ... its the combination of network programming and local news and locally syndicated programming that makes a channel that threatens a cable system with the loss of too many subscribers in a local area if they do not decide to carry it.

(11-14-2015 08:37 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 03:13 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 01:50 PM)Topkat Wrote:  1) I said they owned the ota affiliates in the largest US cities. Not Minn/St Paul.

2) We shall see. I don't see where anything you are saying will happen.

The Big 4 are already raking in the big subscriber fees.

The subscriber fees the Big 4 owned ota affiliates get is the same as non-owned ota affiliates. They broadcast the same shows prime time. Local news would outdraw a national broadcast of any show in the news hour time frame (that would be local programming early am as people get ready for work, 6pm and 11pm).

I believe the Big 4 already take around 50% of the subsciber fees that non-owned ota affiliates get. The problem becomes margin when you have to develop infrastructure if the Big 4 take over all the ota broadcasting.

Take 50% from the non-owned ota affiliates for shows you already put out... or try and get the other 50% and have to build out your infrastructure.

1) Irrelevant. The point has been verified, the national brands do own some of the stations around the country.

My counter-point still stands: it wouldn't be hard for those stations to be sold or, at least, spun off.


2) There's no reason to think a national brand owned station gets any different of a carriage fee than an affiliated station. What we don't know is: i) how station carriage fees compare to carriage fees for national cable channels (my guess is smaller, perhaps much smaller) and ii) how much of the fee that affiliated stations get must be then kicked up to the national company (it might be none ... the station might just pay a monthly fee for the national content).



3) In reading your last sentences, you clearly missed the point. Not only that, you went entirely in the other direction.

National brands don't need to build any infrastructure. They don't need to buy more stations.

All they have to do is deal directly with companies like Comcast, DirecTV, etc. Those companies will do all the distributing for them.


If anything, national companies will sell the stations they do own.

1. The business model is already in place. You are talking about losing the local connection to the community altogether. imo, Not gonna happen.

2. It's not hard to Google articles. Subscription fees are in-line, except for comparison to ESPN. The non-owned ota stations kick up on average just under 50% of their subscription fees.

3. Refer to 1.

Your argument is akin to your other statement that advertisers wouldn't buy time on tv for people who use rabbit ears to bring in odd channels, because they were low income... yet the same companies run the same ads (probably at a cheaper rate).

Business models change all the time. ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc. all do just fine without a "local connection to the community". National content doesn't need that.

And the stations wouldn't be going away. So communities wouldn't be losing their local newscasts, etc.

Link please for 50%.

Well, I think you would have to define "doing fine". Besides espn, those other two don't come close to making what the Big 4 make in monthly subscriber fees. I saw a 2012 article where SNL Kagan estimated Comedy Central earns 16 cents per sub/month.

No doubt that price has gone up since then, but relative to what the Big 4 pull in...

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "won't lose their local newscast" scenario. The issue is more (all) about the the built-in audience it gives the Big 4 for their prime-time shows.

This article is over a year old, but goes more in-depth:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-pla...-224851614

The point, which is correct, is that national content does not need and I would argue does not have a "local connection to the community".

You keep trying to argue that local news as a lead in boosts ratings.

But ratings don't matter. That's the entire point. They only matter for advertising content. Not for carriage fees.


You can argue that the national content is getting 50% of the carriage fees that stations get (and again, we don't know the comparison of what those fees are relative to fees of other major, national cable channels), fine. By the way, thanks for the link. I appreciate that.


But my point still stands: why not just deal directly with those cable/sat/etc systems and get 100% of the fee?

It depends entirely if they make more money from a 50% carriage fee plus advertising from the larger ratings of OTA broadcasts, versus the money they'd make with 100% carriage fees plus advertising from the smaller ratings of only cable/sat/etc.


I claim: the carriage fees are much more lucrative than the advertising. I also claim that shows getting the huge OTA ratings now would still get similarly large ratings being only distributed over cable/sat/etc.


I think the national brands know this, too.


All you have to do is look at the Apple TV line up. (this is where I got the idea in the first place) You have "channels" (apps) for HBO, Showtime, ESPN, HGTV, etc. ... and now you have them for FOX, ABC, NBC and CBS. And on those "channels" you'll find just the national content.

So there's no reason it couldn't work the same for cable/sat/etc. packages.

(11-14-2015 10:25 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 08:37 AM)Topkat Wrote:  I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "won't lose their local newscast" scenario. The issue is more (all) about the the built-in audience it gives the Big 4 for their prime-time shows.

This article is over a year old, but goes more in-depth:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-pla...-224851614

One pertinent section is:

Quote: SNL Kagan estimates that networks currently take about 45% of the fees that affiliates receive, but it projects that will rise to about 50% by 2019. And Robin Flynn, the research director at SNL Kagan, says the Indianapolis affiliate change is one of several factors suggesting "it's going to get to 50% a lot quicker."

... so any argument premised on the notion that the networks don't receive carriage fees via affiliates would be silly.

But even more pertinent is:

Quote: The Time Warner Cable dispute reflected CBS's determination. Some analysts see the Indianapolis affiliate change as CBS's attempt to force its dozens of affiliates to play the same kind of hardball with their pay-TV distributors.

"CBS is saying, 'Look, we are getting $1.50 to $2 [per subscriber per month] from the cable companies,'" says Ms. Ryvicker. "'You should be able to get $1.25 to $1.75, and you need to fight for that, because we are going to charge you a programming fee, whether it's 65 cents or 80 cents."

Clearly, the framing of the networks just sitting idle under the old business model until they see the light and follow the advice of some random commentator on a sports forum does not line up with reality of networks thinking this precise issue through very hard and devoting a lot of effort to pursuing what they believe is their avenue to the strongest possible carriage income.

And its not rocket science why they think their avenue to greatest carriage revenue is through pushing their affiliates to play hardball in pushing for greater carriage revenue, instead of through dropping the local affiliates and fighting for carriage as freestanding cable-only networks ... its the combination of network programming and local news and locally syndicated programming that makes a channel that threatens a cable system with the loss of too many subscribers in a local area if they do not decide to carry it.

Pushing their affiliates to play hardball isn't going to increase carriage revenue for the national content.

They're going to take the $1.50 - $2.00, anyway. It's just saying that they think the local affiliates should push to make $1.25 - $1.75, in addition.


Clearly, the maximum revenue from carriage fees would be to take the entire 100%, for themselves, by having just the national content on a dedicated cable/sat/etc. channel. In other words, the FOX channel, or the NBC channel. Not the channel for the local station.


Their shows would see a decrease in ratings. That is true. And thus their advertising revenue would decrease. That is true.


My point is that the increase in carriage fees overmatches the decrease in advertising.

(11-14-2015 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 08:37 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 03:13 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 02:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  1) Irrelevant. The point has been verified, the national brands do own some of the stations around the country.

My counter-point still stands: it wouldn't be hard for those stations to be sold or, at least, spun off.


2) There's no reason to think a national brand owned station gets any different of a carriage fee than an affiliated station. What we don't know is: i) how station carriage fees compare to carriage fees for national cable channels (my guess is smaller, perhaps much smaller) and ii) how much of the fee that affiliated stations get must be then kicked up to the national company (it might be none ... the station might just pay a monthly fee for the national content).



3) In reading your last sentences, you clearly missed the point. Not only that, you went entirely in the other direction.

National brands don't need to build any infrastructure. They don't need to buy more stations.

All they have to do is deal directly with companies like Comcast, DirecTV, etc. Those companies will do all the distributing for them.


If anything, national companies will sell the stations they do own.

1. The business model is already in place. You are talking about losing the local connection to the community altogether. imo, Not gonna happen.

2. It's not hard to Google articles. Subscription fees are in-line, except for comparison to ESPN. The non-owned ota stations kick up on average just under 50% of their subscription fees.

3. Refer to 1.

Your argument is akin to your other statement that advertisers wouldn't buy time on tv for people who use rabbit ears to bring in odd channels, because they were low income... yet the same companies run the same ads (probably at a cheaper rate).

Business models change all the time. ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc. all do just fine without a "local connection to the community". National content doesn't need that.

And the stations wouldn't be going away. So communities wouldn't be losing their local newscasts, etc.

Link please for 50%.

Well, I think you would have to define "doing fine". Besides espn, those other two don't come close to making what the Big 4 make in monthly subscriber fees. I saw a 2012 article where SNL Kagan estimated Comedy Central earns 16 cents per sub/month.

No doubt that price has gone up since then, but relative to what the Big 4 pull in...

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "won't lose their local newscast" scenario. The issue is more (all) about the the built-in audience it gives the Big 4 for their prime-time shows.

This article is over a year old, but goes more in-depth:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-pla...-224851614

The point, which is correct, is that national content does not need and I would argue does not have a "local connection to the community".

You keep trying to argue that local news as a lead in boosts ratings.

But ratings don't matter. That's the entire point. They only matter for advertising content. Not for carriage fees.


You can argue that the national content is getting 50% of the carriage fees that stations get (and again, we don't know the comparison of what those fees are relative to fees of other major, national cable channels), fine. By the way, thanks for the link. I appreciate that.


But my point still stands: why not just deal directly with those cable/sat/etc systems and get 100% of the fee?

It depends entirely if they make more money from a 50% carriage fee plus advertising from the larger ratings of OTA broadcasts, versus the money they'd make with 100% carriage fees plus advertising from the smaller ratings of only cable/sat/etc.


I claim: the carriage fees are much more lucrative than the advertising. I also claim that shows getting the huge OTA ratings now would still get similarly large ratings being only distributed over cable/sat/etc.


I think the national brands know this, too.


All you have to do is look at the Apple TV line up. (this is where I got the idea in the first place) You have "channels" (apps) for HBO, Showtime, ESPN, HGTV, etc. ... and now you have them for FOX, ABC, NBC and CBS. And on those "channels" you'll find just the national content.

So there's no reason it couldn't work the same for cable/sat/etc. packages.

You said above:

<<<<It depends entirely if they make more money from a 50% carriage fee plus advertising from the larger ratings of OTA broadcasts, versus the money they'd make with 100% carriage fees plus advertising from the smaller ratings of only cable/sat/etc.>>>>

I think it is pretty evident from the article which direction ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox are going.

(11-14-2015 10:39 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 08:37 AM)Topkat Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-13-2015 03:13 PM)Topkat Wrote:  1. The business model is already in place. You are talking about losing the local connection to the community altogether. imo, Not gonna happen.

2. It's not hard to Google articles. Subscription fees are in-line, except for comparison to ESPN. The non-owned ota stations kick up on average just under 50% of their subscription fees.

3. Refer to 1.

Your argument is akin to your other statement that advertisers wouldn't buy time on tv for people who use rabbit ears to bring in odd channels, because they were low income... yet the same companies run the same ads (probably at a cheaper rate).

Business models change all the time. ESPN, HGTV, Comedy Central, etc. all do just fine without a "local connection to the community". National content doesn't need that.

And the stations wouldn't be going away. So communities wouldn't be losing their local newscasts, etc.

Link please for 50%.

Well, I think you would have to define "doing fine". Besides espn, those other two don't come close to making what the Big 4 make in monthly subscriber fees. I saw a 2012 article where SNL Kagan estimated Comedy Central earns 16 cents per sub/month.

No doubt that price has gone up since then, but relative to what the Big 4 pull in...

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the "won't lose their local newscast" scenario. The issue is more (all) about the the built-in audience it gives the Big 4 for their prime-time shows.

This article is over a year old, but goes more in-depth:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-pla...-224851614

The point, which is correct, is that national content does not need and I would argue does not have a "local connection to the community".

You keep trying to argue that local news as a lead in boosts ratings.

But ratings don't matter. That's the entire point. They only matter for advertising content. Not for carriage fees.


You can argue that the national content is getting 50% of the carriage fees that stations get (and again, we don't know the comparison of what those fees are relative to fees of other major, national cable channels), fine. By the way, thanks for the link. I appreciate that.


But my point still stands: why not just deal directly with those cable/sat/etc systems and get 100% of the fee?

It depends entirely if they make more money from a 50% carriage fee plus advertising from the larger ratings of OTA broadcasts, versus the money they'd make with 100% carriage fees plus advertising from the smaller ratings of only cable/sat/etc.


I claim: the carriage fees are much more lucrative than the advertising. I also claim that shows getting the huge OTA ratings now would still get similarly large ratings being only distributed over cable/sat/etc.


I think the national brands know this, too.


All you have to do is look at the Apple TV line up. (this is where I got the idea in the first place) You have "channels" (apps) for HBO, Showtime, ESPN, HGTV, etc. ... and now you have them for FOX, ABC, NBC and CBS. And on those "channels" you'll find just the national content.

So there's no reason it couldn't work the same for cable/sat/etc. packages.

You said above:

<<<<It depends entirely if they make more money from a 50% carriage fee plus advertising from the larger ratings of OTA broadcasts, versus the money they'd make with 100% carriage fees plus advertising from the smaller ratings of only cable/sat/etc.>>>>

I think it is pretty evident from the article which direction ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox are going.

For now, perhaps.

I wasn't saying this is happening next year. I said it could happen in our lifetimes.

Bump

For those pondering cable cutting...tread carefully

(11-30-2015 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bump

For those pondering cable cutting...tread carefully

There isn't really much of a decision, in the long run.

You either decide you can live without TV, for the most part, or that your life will go on just fine if you continue to pay the $50-$60/month for cable that you've been paying the last umpteen years.


Yeah, if it just so happens that you literally only watch ESPN, then you can switch to Sling and save some money ... for now.

Don't come crying to me when Sling costs the same as cable.

(11-30-2015 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bump

For those pondering cable cutting...tread carefully

Why? Are you black balled forever if you cut cable/satellite? I cut the chord two months ago. After about 7-10 days t adjust, I'm actually pretty happy with the decision. If things change, I may make another decision someday. Until then, I haven't missed a game yet and the family seems like the content Sling+Hulu+Amazon offers.

(11-30-2015 09:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There isn't really much of a decision, in the long run.

You either decide you can live without TV, for the most part, or that your life will go on just fine if you continue to pay the $50-$60/month for cable that you've been paying the last umpteen years.

What "live without TV" entails in this sentence is not what most people would understand as "living without TV", since it can easily include watching TV for a number of hours each day.

Quote: Yeah, if it just so happens that you literally only watch ESPN, then you can switch to Sling and save some money ... for now.

And what "literally" entails in this sentence is not what most people understand as "literally": the Sling basic package is ESPN, ESPN2, AMC, Food Network, A&E, History Channel, TNT, El Rey, HGTV, IFC, Disney, Polaris, Maker, TBS, Travel, Cartoon Network / Adult Swim, H2, ABC Family, Lifetime, Galavision, and Bloomberg ... which is a smaller basic tier than the normal "Basic Cable", but also somewhat bigger than "literally only ESPN."

Quote: Don't come crying to me when Sling costs the same as cable.

But if it were to cost the same as cable does at present, they'd lose many of their current subscribers, as well as end their growth rate, so it wouldn't be a profit-seeking move.

The way that Sling comes to cost the same as cable is if cable moves closer to the Sling mini-basic tier with lots of $5-$7 additional mini-bundles, instead of additional layers of tiers. That could indeed happen, under competitive pressure from specialized streaming services.

(12-01-2015 07:12 AM)coog1927 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bump

For those pondering cable cutting...tread carefully

Why? Are you black balled forever if you cut cable/satellite? I cut the chord two months ago. After about 7-10 days t adjust, I'm actually pretty happy with the decision. If things change, I may make another decision someday. Until then, I haven't missed a game yet and the family seems like the content Sling+Hulu+Amazon offers.

I basically did the same thing...but you need to get the facts. IMHO it works best for a singles, couple or a young family.

I think most folks reading this board at a minimum would want the Sling Basic with the Sports add on. $25 + tax a month. The biggest thing to understand is it literally can only be used on 1 device at a time. The Brightside is you get WatchESPN though...however, if you sign into WatchESPN and start watching through it you can't use Sling on a separate device.

Or you could find a friend/family member that has cable/satellite and work out a deal with them to share logins

(12-01-2015 09:32 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Or you could find a friend/family member that has cable/satellite and work out a deal with them to share logins

Alex: What is things never said by a millennial

(12-01-2015 07:12 AM)coog1927 Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 09:41 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bump

For those pondering cable cutting...tread carefully

Why? Are you black balled forever if you cut cable/satellite? I cut the chord two months ago. After about 7-10 days t adjust, I'm actually pretty happy with the decision. If things change, I may make another decision someday. Until then, I haven't missed a game yet and the family seems like the content Sling+Hulu+Amazon offers.

Ha, yeah. "I went from paying $60/mo for cable to paying $40/mo for three different services that combined provided a fraction of the new content as cable. And it changed my life."