# DirecTV deal hinders a-la-carte HBO Offering



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hbo-web-service-could-trigger-clauses-with-directv-1417648806

Terms in HBO's carriage agreement with DirecTV could hinder the Time Warner Inc. premium network's plans to extend its service to an online a la carte model in 2015, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Factoring in the possibility that HBO could launch such a product when the agreement was carved out several years ago, DirecTV's deal has certain provisions if the a la carte service were to reach 450,000 subscribers nationally or 300,000 in any specific market.

According to the WSJ, the second largest pay-TV operator in the U.S. could scale back its marketing commitments to HBO significantly if those thresholds are met or exceeded. For example, DirecTV would only be required to highlight HBO's service in customer promotions for five months instead of 11 months.

DirecTV, meanwhile, would be able to market HBO's streaming service itself.

Since HBO's deal with DirecTV expires in 2015, coinciding with the debut of the a la carte product, the issue counts more probably as a bargaining chip for the satellite carrier.

DirecTV declined comment, but an HBO spokesperson noted, "Our contracts are confidential, so we don't comment on them. However, DirecTV has been a great partner to us in the past and they will continue to be in the future."


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Doesn't seem like a big deal to me????


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Title is misleading.

DirecTV has far more to lose from an a La carte hbo than hbo does. 

Just the fact that there will be people which will cut the cord after it become available will hurt tv providers. Some stick around for sports but there are also those that stay for HBO. 

HBO gains cord cutters. Every one that signs up is extra money and no commissions paid providers.

Win win for them. Not so much for providers as more and more content moves to the web and out of bundles. Especially when the elephant in the room decides to do it. When it happens it will become a big deal.

Now if people will pay the premium for a few channels will remain to be seen. Especially when they realize the savings isn't that high. We shall see. Not a good time to be in tv delivery. It's peaked and on the way down.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

If Directv loses HBO they lose me. I will not miss my Game of Thrones.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Araxen said:


> If Directv loses HBO they lose me. I will not miss my Game of Thrones.


The article says it gives DirecTV more leverage in the negotiations.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HBO a la cart will never be cheaper for the same content as what people get now with directv with HBO go (or any other provider). HBO won't shoot its own foot. It only wants to expand.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> HBO a la cart will never be cheaper for the same content as what people get now with directv with HBO go (or any other provider). HBO won't shoot its own foot. It only wants to expand.


Agreed. I've always thought it would be priced around $15 - pretty much as it was on C-Band.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Agreed. I've always thought it would be priced around $15 - pretty much as it was on C-Band.


What was the price via DirecTV when it was $15 on C-Band? That may give a hint where the price would be to purchase "a la carte" separate from a large programming provider. (Past performance is not always indicative of future pricing, but it is a hint.)

I'd expect a stand alone to be $5-$10 more than via DirecTV. If only for the hassle factor of maintaining individual accounts (including providing customer service direct to subscribers). Selling via DirecTV or another carrier the customer service calls are handled by the carrier. Having customer service in place for ~20 million subscribers to other channels reduces the cost for DirecTV.


----------



## AmazinglySmooth (Oct 25, 2014)

I expect HBO will be offered stand-along in the $25-$35 range. Why would they offer it for less?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

AmazinglySmooth said:


> I expect HBO will be offered stand-along in the $25-$35 range. Why would they offer it for less?


Reality



James Long said:


> I'd expect a stand alone to be $5-$10 more than via DirecTV. If only for the hassle factor of maintaining individual accounts (including providing customer service direct to subscribers). Selling via DirecTV or another carrier the customer service calls are handled by the carrier. Having customer service in place for ~20 million subscribers to other channels reduces the cost for DirecTV.


$15 is roughly double the wholesale price it is sold to DirecTV for - so that falls right in the middle of your range.

To think they will get $5-$10 over retail price is ridiculous.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

These issues fascinate me, all this over-the-top vs subscriber fees, premium networks and the like. What's so fascinating is that all the deals are just stop gap negotiations toward an inevitable end, and end that all parties can see, but complicate because they need to show a quarterly profit to shareholders. Eventually cable and satellite companies wont offer anything to the content business models. It's just a matter of when, but issues like this and the evolutions going on with Disney and ESPN have put the writing on the wall pretty clearly.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

itzme said:


> These issues fascinate me, all this over-the-top vs subscriber fees, premium networks and the like. What's so fascinating is that all the deals are just stop gap negotiations toward an inevitable end, and end that all parties can see, but complicate because they need to show a quarterly profit to shareholders. Eventually cable and satellite companies wont offer anything to the content business models. It's just a matter of when, but issues like this and the evolutions going on with Disney and ESPN have put the writing on the wall pretty clearly.


Considering 60% of ESPN's revenue is subscription fees, 30% is advertising and 10% other, ESPN still needs Basic Tier/Mass Distribution for it's model to work.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering 60% of ESPN's revenue is subscription fees, 30% is advertising and 10% other, ESPN still needs Basic Tier/Mass Distribution for it's model to work.


Depends. What percentage of TV viewers are sports fans? Since almost every sport has some major games/events on ESPN, most anyone that considers themselves a sports fan will want ESPN. Let's say half of people were sports fans. If ESPN (all channels combined) is getting $8 now, in order to break even they'd need to be willing to pay an extra $8 over what they pay now (i.e. $16 total) for it if there was an ala carte ESPN package. If they're willing to pay an extra $9 for it, ESPN increases their revenue. With creative packaging for additional features designed to get people to pay as close to what they think it is worth (think airline pricing models) perhaps they could get some people to pay $9 and some people to pay three times that much.

People always bring up the fact this has never been tried, but people making a lot of money doing something are always afraid of change. Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA back in the 80s, compared VCRs to the Boston Strangler when they were battling against the legality of the VCR. In the end movie studios ended up making a lot more money as people were willing to pay to buy and rent movies on VHS, even the ones that were broadcast and they could easily record. The MPAA didn't have any actual facts to back up their fear, they just had fear and wanted to maintain the status quo because it was possible to see a scenario where it could hurt their profits.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

And I agree, for now. But they're smartly positioning themselves for the transition away from reliance on providers. Anyone with marketable content is also, and I love reading all the weekly news stories about these apps, Netflix, and the like. If you were making the strategies, wouldn't you look for ways to have your cake and eat it too? That's what the HBO apps (plural) are all about.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Depends. What percentage of TV viewers are sports fans? Since almost every sport has some major games/events on ESPN, most anyone that considers themselves a sports fan will want ESPN. Let's say half of people were sports fans. If ESPN (all channels combined) is getting $8 now, in order to break even they'd need to be willing to pay an extra $8 over what they pay now (i.e. $16 total) for it if there was an ala carte ESPN package. If they're willing to pay an extra $9 for it, ESPN increases their revenue. With creative packaging for additional features designed to get people to pay as close to what they think it is worth (think airline pricing models) perhaps they could get some people to pay $9 and some people to pay three times that much.
> 
> People always bring up the fact this has never been tried, but people making a lot of money doing something are always afraid of change. Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA back in the 80s, compared VCRs to the Boston Strangler when they were battling against the legality of the VCR. In the end movie studios ended up making a lot more money as people were willing to pay to buy and rent movies on VHS, even the ones that were broadcast and they could easily record. The MPAA didn't have any actual facts to back up their fear, they just had fear and wanted to maintain the status quo because it was possible to see a scenario where it could hurt their profits.


By Nielsen/ESPN's own research, only 12.5% of the TVHH ever watches ESPN (there are 114M TVHH in the USA this Season).

So to break even, ESPN would need to charge 8x more than it is now.

You are also assuming all 12.5M TVHH would sub to ESPN (a la carte) at a rate of roughly $60 a month, which is a fallacy, as many would refuse to pay $60 a month....meaning the price to break even would go even higher.

Now, to makeup for the loss of audience this would need to go up another roughly $20+ to compensate for the lost advertising.

So now we are close to $100 a month for ESPN a la Carte.

And let's remember THAT WOULD BE THE WHOLESALE TO MVPD PRICE!

I would also note to you that ESPN rate is already under contract to go up 20% in the next 24 months, so factor that in as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> $15 is roughly double the wholesale price it is sold to DirecTV for - so that falls right in the middle of your range.
> 
> To think they will get $5-$10 over retail price is ridiculous.


They might charge retail ... but they are selling to a market that is trying to get content without paying for other content. HBO will charge what they can. If stream subscribers are willing to pay $20 for HBO without paying for a base cable or satellite package then HBO can set the price that high. They might lose a few customers who would pay $15 but not $20 for a stream only service. But I believe that there are enough in the "cut the cord" crowd who would pay $20. And the slightly higher price would help appease the cable/satellite companies who remain their core distribution channel.



slice1900 said:


> The MPAA didn't have any actual facts to back up their fear, they just had fear and wanted to maintain the status quo because it was possible to see a scenario where it could hurt their profits.


A lot has been done and is still being done to prevent recording. Some of it in technology such as macro-vision and digital rights management. Some of it in watermarking and editing films. If one wants the full movie unadulterated one needs to buy a copy.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well, clearly ESPN has more than 12.5% "ever" watching, given that the most recent BCS NC game got a 14.4 rating and it wasn't the most watched in history. Surely there are some basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, etc. fans who don't watch football who would drive that percentage up further. But I will grant you that 50% is way overestimated, and even at 25% who would pay for ESPN, they would not all pay $18/month extra for it so the math probably doesn't work.

I still think we're fast approaching the day when cord cutters start making a real dent in subscriber totals, and when a provider is losing 5-10% of its customers a year because of the constant rate increases that are mostly caused by sports, playing hardball on pricing and risking losing ESPN or just plain deciding to drop it entirely isn't a big issue if there are only 12.5% of subscribers at risk from that decision.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Well, clearly ESPN has more than 12.5% "ever" watching, given that the most recent BCS NC game got a 14.4 rating and it wasn't the most watched in history. Surely there are some basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, etc. fans who don't watch football who would drive that percentage up further. But I will grant you that 50% is way overestimated, and even at 25% who would pay for ESPN, they would not all pay $18/month extra for it so the math probably doesn't work.
> 
> I still think we're fast approaching the day when cord cutters start making a real dent in subscriber totals, and when a provider is losing 5-10% of its customers a year because of the constant rate increases that are mostly caused by sports, playing hardball on pricing and risking losing ESPN or just plain deciding to drop it entirely isn't a big issue if there are only 12.5% of subscribers at risk from that decision.


It is entirely possible, as the 12.5% ever watching is from around 2010-2011 and no updated information has since been shared (Probably because the flack the Executive who stated it on a panel realized never to make that mistake again). Whether 12.5% or even 15%, the bottom line is, the majority of Households do not watch ESPN. Even this last week, with NFL MNF and College Football Season (which obviously drives higher viewing), ESPN only averaged 2.1M Viewers.

BTW, the reason Sports is always LAST in the TV Newscast (After News and Weather) and has been forever, is because every piece of research shows that only 25% of the public care about Sports - and that is the MAX in the markets with strong Sports presence. Lower in markets without a Sports presence.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Wonder why the Washington Post blankets their front page with Redskins coverage. Nobody is interested. 

And weather is next to last because nobody cares.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Even this last week, with NFL MNF and College Football Season (which obviously drives higher viewing), ESPN only averaged 2.1M Viewers.


The statistic you are looking for is CUME not average viewers. A claim that only 12.5% ever watch ESPN is a claim that 87.5% of viewers have not watched any of the channels during the period one is referring to. If one wants to back up that figure one needs to look at CUME (cumulative viewers) and define the time period one is talking about.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Wonder why the Washington Post blankets their front page with Redskins coverage. Nobody is interested.
> 
> And weather is next to last because nobody cares.


When sports or weather is news it generally gets bumped to "the front page" (print/web) or the beginning of the newscast (radio/TV).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> Wonder why the Washington Post blankets their front page with Redskins coverage. Nobody is interested.
> 
> And weather is next to last because nobody cares.


Incorrect.

Weather is the highest rated feature.

Which is why ABC World News (there is a lie) now often leads the Broadcast with Severe Weather Stories.

Weather is put after news to get people to watch the extra :15 minutes through the Newscast as it has that much of a draw.

As for the Washington Redskins/Washington Post

1) Washington Post does not even update their 2012 Redskins App any longer.

2) Blankets their front page? That is a far reaching OVERSTATEMENT.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> The statistic you are looking for is CUME not average viewers. A claim that only 12.5% ever watch ESPN is a claim that 87.5% of viewers have not watched any of the channels during the period one is referring to. If one wants to back up that figure one needs to look at CUME (cumulative viewers) and define the time period one is talking about.


Incorrect. Cume is "circulation" during the time frame (in this case 1 week).

The number of Average Viewers last week at any time was 2.1 Million.

The Cume was much higher (though still not over 12.5% of the Population). Would have had to be, with MNF pulling in much more than 2.1M.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> When sports or weather is news it generally gets bumped to "the front page" (print/web) or the beginning of the newscast (radio/TV).


Yes, the key word there being WHEN.

However, even if A SINGLE SPORTS STORY is bumped up (rare) - the entire SPORTSCAST is not moved up.

The Washington post might have A story about the Redskins game on the front page on Monday, depending on other news that day, but that does NOT mean it BLANKETS the front page with stories about the Washington Redskins.

More important, what is above the fold.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The number of Average Viewers last week at any time was 2.1 Million.


That is still the wrong number to quote. You are looking for the total number of people who tuned to ESPN at any time ... not the average number of viewers. One could say "on average ESPN gets xx million viewers per week" but saying "last week they averaged xx million viewers" is the wrong number.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> However, even if A SINGLE SPORTS STORY is bumped up (rare) - the entire SPORTSCAST is not moved up.
> 
> The Washington post might have A story about the Redskins game on the front page on Monday, depending on other news that day, but that does NOT mean it BLANKETS the front page with stories about the Washington Redskins.


It depends on what is "news". There could be more than one story about the game if the additional stories are important enough to put on the front page. Or there could be no sports stories on the front page.

I agree that the entire sportscast is not moved ... the story at the beginning of the newscast would be news. They would not continue with other sports unless those stories were also "news". (IE: Just because the Redskins lead the newscast does not mean Australian Rules Football gets moved up.)

Sports toward the end of the newscast gives a chance for final scores to come in and gives more time for the sportscaster to prepare their presentation. Most newscasts I see follow the NWSE pattern. News Weather Sports Entertainment. But (as we agree) when weather sports or other stuff becomes news it gets bumped up.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

oftlog


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> That is still the wrong number to quote. You are looking for the total number of people who tuned to ESPN at any time ... not the average number of viewers. One could say "on average ESPN gets xx million viewers per week" but saying "last week they averaged xx million viewers" is the wrong number.


As I deal with Nielsen numbers daily in the real world and have for a number of years, I am very comfortable with knowing what they mean.

Ads are priced on the viewers that will see the ad air (Share) - not for viewers that might tune to TV (or ESPN) during the course of a week (Cume).

Cume is the total viewers in a week (or whatever time period is specified). Any viewer who simply watched for any small length of time - 1 time during the week (or time frame)- is counted.

The Cume number is ALWAYS bigger than the average for that reason. Not everyone who tunes to TV program watches the entire time.

Average Viewers are the number of viewers averaged (obviously) over that time frame.

In fact your statement "You are looking for the total number of people who tuned to ESPN at any time ... not the average number of viewers." is totally wrong.

If you said stated ""You are looking for the total number of people who tuned to ESPN at any time during the week ... not the average number of viewers." the statement is factually correct in nature, but incorrect, as 2.1M was the average number of viewers at any time on ESPN.

If you were correct and the 2.1M was a Cume number for the week, that would be impossible as 10,872,000 people watched MNF.



James Long said:


> It depends on what is "news". There could be more than one story about the game if the additional stories are important enough to put on the front page. Or there could be no sports stories on the front page.
> 
> I agree that the entire sportscast is not moved ... the story at the beginning of the newscast would be news. They would not continue with other sports unless those stories were also "news". (IE: Just because the Redskins lead the newscast does not mean Australian Rules Football gets moved up.)
> 
> Sports toward the end of the newscast gives a chance for final scores to come in and gives more time for the sportscaster to prepare their presentation. Most newscasts I see follow the NWSE pattern. News Weather Sports Entertainment. But (as we agree) when weather sports or other stuff becomes news it gets bumped up.


Having sat in literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of TV Research Projects over the years, Sports is ALWAYS the lowest rated elements (and tune out on the meters can be seen as soon as Sports Starts in the Newscast). In the BEST markets, only ~25% of the viewers cares about it.

You can tell yourself that News is put last to get the latest scores, but saying repeating it over and over does not make it true.

If you need more proof, just look at the News Teases throughout the day. They NEVER plug to view the News for the latest Sports Story. It is always a News Story and/or Generally a Weather Tease.

Furthermore, look at the promos for the morning shows where the plug "the latest traffic and weather".

Again, Weather is the #1 Element in terms of importance. Has always been that way.

Furthermore, if one can garner 11 minutes in a Quarter Hour, the channel wins the Quarter Hour. That is why so many Newscasts go for 9-11 minutes before the first commercial break.

They put Weather in the 2nd Quarter Hour to get people to watch through to that 2nd Quarter Hour for credit.

After Weather, the meters all drop significantly.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

That's because we don't need local news to find sports news. ESPN, the RSN's, Yahoo, local newspaper websites... I have scores and stories anytime I want. Don't have to wait for the local goober to tell me who won. Weather, on the other hand, is handled better by the people that live here.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

FLWingNut said:


> That's because we don't need local news to find sports news. ESPN, the RSN's, Yahoo, local newspaper websites... I have scores and stories anytime I want. Don't have to wait for the local goober to tell me who won. Weather, on the other hand, is handled better by the people that live here.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Sports has been the lowest (worst) ranked element of a Newscast since LONG before the internet was even a concept - much less a reality.

Nothing has changed in that area. Again, 25% care about Sports in the HIGHEST INTEREST markets. It goes downhill fast from there. I am told by those who have done research since the 70s, it has always been that way with 25% the highest number ever seen.

The fans might have MORE PASSION, but that does not change they are a very small percent of the population.

You've no doubt heard of the vocal minority.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> Wonder why the Washington Post blankets their front page with Redskins coverage. Nobody is interested.
> 
> And weather is next to last because nobody cares.


You have a very interesting concept of "blankets their front page with ******* coverage".

Care to explain that statement?

I have looked at the front page of every Washington Post over the past 30 days. There are usually 8 or so stories on the front page.

Monday 12/1/2014 - Picture of Redskins Losing to Indy - No story on Front Page.

Thueday 11/27/2014 - Story below the fold about "RGIII era appears over"

Saturday 11/22/2014 - Story below the fold - A Longtime fan draws a line in the Stands.

Monday 11/17/2014 - Picture of ******* Fan Holding Nose - Caption "For Redskins fan, this loss had a stench" No Story on front page.

How are 2 pictures and 2 stories on the front page over 30 days seen as BLANKETING THE FRONT PAGE WITH ******* COVERAGE?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As I deal with Nielsen numbers daily in the real world and have for a number of years, I am very comfortable with knowing what they mean.


Well you got it wrong. Your "The number of Average Viewers last week at any time was 2.1 Million." is absolutely not the way to express the total number of people who tuned in at some point during the week.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you were correct and the 2.1M was a Cume number for the week, that would be impossible as 10,872,000 people watched MNF.


YOU are the one providing the 2.1 million number. I am the one asking you for the correct numbers. I did not state that number was the cume. I told you what you, as the "expert", should have already known. Average viewers last week is not cume. Anyone who passed a decent math class knows an average is not a total.

The 12.5% claim was that only 12.5% of subscribers watch the channel (meaning 87.5% of subscribers are paying top dollar for something they never use). To disprove that statement one needs a total of the number of subscribers who watched. Not the average for a week ... but a total.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You can tell yourself that News is put last to get the latest scores, but saying repeating it over and over does not make it true.


As usual, your generalizations fall short of reality. There are many influences at play when setting up the order for a program. I mentioned one of them. I in no way stated that it is the ONLY reason why sports is placed later. It is just one of the benefits of going later. I also only said it once ... so you lie when you say I repeated it over and over.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you need more proof, just look at the News Teases throughout the day. They NEVER plug to view the News for the latest Sports Story. It is always a News Story and/or Generally a Weather Tease.


"Never" is a dangerous word ... all it takes is one tease and once again you are proven to be wrong. In my area teases for sports are often part of the news tease ... Friday night football, High School basketball. Even when sports is not the lead story on the newscast it has been teased. (I live near South Bend, Indiana, so Notre Dame sports is often teased in news teases.)



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Furthermore, look at the promos for the morning shows where the plug "the latest traffic and weather".


At least you didn't say "never" ... because "a wrap up of last night's sports" can be teased. Morning shows are good for "everything you need to know before you go to work" ... including what teams won last night. Perhaps in your area sports is not as important ... after all, TV stations do vary. Don't make a blanket statement about every local station in the country does. You cannot speak honestly about them all.

OK, enough about sports and news ... lets see if anyone wants to discuss HBO.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> Well you got it wrong. Your "The number of Average Viewers last week at any time was 2.1 Million." is absolutely not the way to express the total number of people who tuned in at some point during the week.


Again, I am using the Industry Standard Average Persons, not the James Long "Cume" number which is very rarely ever released as no one really cares (except for perhaps you).

NO Channel releases numbers saying we had xxxx Cume last week (For reasons that ESPN made sure that number was not released again after the mistake several years ago).

Channels release the Average Audience total and in demo.

For the BROADCAST week which runs Thursday - Wednesday, it was 2.1 Million.

For the general public Sunday-Saturday week, the numbers were (obviously) different (1.559M).

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/12/03/espn-wins-week-with-cable-primetime-adults-18-49-primetime-viewers-total-day-viewers-for-week-ending-november-30-2014/334342/



James Long said:


> YOU are the one providing the 2.1 million number. I am the one asking you for the correct numbers. I did not state that number was the cume. I told you what you, as the "expert", should have already known. Average viewers last week is not cume. Anyone who passed a decent math class knows an average is not a total.
> 
> The 12.5% claim was that only 12.5% of subscribers watch the channel (meaning 87.5% of subscribers are paying top dollar for something they never use). To disprove that statement one needs a total of the number of subscribers who watched. Not the average for a week ... but a total.


Again, Cume numbers are not released. It is very rare to get those numbers.

As noted, that was made by an Executive on a panel - surely a mistake never to be made again because of exactly the point being made here.

As also noted, the figure was made in 2010-2011 and apparently it might be as high as 15% based on the BCS National Game.

And get back to me when you can pull detailed Nielsen numbers for channels.



James Long said:


> As usual, your generalizations fall short of reality. There are many influences at play when setting up the order for a program. I mentioned one of them. I in no way stated that it is the ONLY reason why sports is placed later. It is just one of the benefits of going later. I also only said it once ... so you lie when you say I repeated it over and over.


LOL. Guess you have never heard that saying. Actually, you look for the exception to the rule and state that is the majority.



James Long said:


> "Never" is a dangerous word ... all it takes is one tease and once again you are proven to be wrong. In my area teases for sports are often part of the news tease ... Friday night football, High School basketball. Even when sports is not the lead story on the newscast it has been teased. (I live near South Bend, Indiana, so Notre Dame sports is often teased in news teases.)


If the single exceptions to the rule are the best you can do, you are actually proving my point - they are EXCEPTION - a black swan event - it is just not the norm or that important.



James Long said:


> At least you didn't say "never" ... because "a wrap up of last night's sports" can be teased. Morning shows are good for "everything you need to know before you go to work" ... including what teams won last night. Perhaps in your area sports is not as important ... after all, TV stations do vary. Don't make a blanket statement about every local station in the country does. You cannot speak honestly about them all.


Actually I can speak pretty authoritatively about them. Out of roughly 30-50 News Promos on a channel a day, Sports are almost never included.



James Long said:


> OK, enough about sports and news ... lets see if anyone wants to discuss HBO.


HBO has 114 Million Subs Worldwide with a $9B Revenue stream. Simple division shows the APRU is $6.57, though that is a bit higher in the USA.

Standard pricing is a 50% markup by the end seller, especially when it comes to TV Channels, which comes in the $15 area.

That is also where the HBO Online Pricing will come in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually I can speak pretty authoritatively about them. Out of roughly 30-50 News Promos on a channel a day, Sports are almost never included.


On "a channel"? Which one? One of my local channels that mentions sports often in their news teases?
You can speak of what you see ... please don't assume the rest of the world is the same as your experience.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> On "a channel"? Which one? One of my local channels that mentions sports often in their news teases?
> You can speak of what you see ... please don't assume the rest of the world is the same as your experience.


And which channel is that?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, Cume numbers are not released. It is very rare to get those numbers.


Why are they not released? It shouldn't affect negotiations, because the providers will already know to a pretty high level of accuracy how many TV sets are tuned to a given channel at some point during a week/month/year, at least for their own networks. HDMI allows a receiver to know if a TV is on or not, so the people who turn off their TV but not their receiver won't create false data as they would in the days of RCA cables. Directv likely gets data of what is watched when off every single DVR and receiver that is internet connected, which is a lot of their subscriber base now.

Cable companies can grab them off every leased cable receiver or cablecard equipped device, which is getting closer and closer to 100% of TV sets these days - actually it is 100% for those areas where they've dropped analog and clear QAM. They'll know how many receivers were tuned to a channel, when and for how long, how many watched live or near-live, how many recorded and watched later, how many watched what commercials versus skipping them, and how many recorded and never watched. They can tell if someone is present if the remote is operated, and multi tuner DVRs with multiple live buffers make it more likely the remote is operated often enough to let them know at least one person is there actively watching.

Nielsen is increasingly irrelevant to providers because they have their own data that is better in many ways than Nielsen's. Directv cares more about how many of its subscribers watch ESPN, or watch TWC, than they care what the industry average is. If there are numbers Nielsen has it won't release because of pressure from the networks, that just more quickly paves the path to its irrelevance.

If providers were able to equip their equipment with a camera so it could tell how many people are watching, look for eyes to see if they're actively watching or heads down on a phone, and so on they'd love to do so. They'll just have to figure out how much they'll need to bribe congress to come up with some excuse that doing it somehow prevented terrorism so they could pass a law requiring it


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Why are they not released? It shouldn't affect negotiations, because the providers will already know to a pretty high level of accuracy how many TV sets are tuned to a given channel at some point during a week/month/year, at least for their own networks. HDMI allows a receiver to know if a TV is on or not, so the people who turn off their TV but not their receiver won't create false data as they would in the days of RCA cables. Directv likely gets data of what is watched when off every single DVR and receiver that is internet connected, which is a lot of their subscriber base now.
> 
> Cable companies can grab them off every leased cable receiver or cablecard equipped device, which is getting closer and closer to 100% of TV sets these days - actually it is 100% for those areas where they've dropped analog and clear QAM. They'll know how many receivers were tuned to a channel, when and for how long, how many watched live or near-live, how many recorded and watched later, how many watched what commercials versus skipping them, and how many recorded and never watched. They can tell if someone is present if the remote is operated, and multi tuner DVRs with multiple live buffers make it more likely the remote is operated often enough to let them know at least one person is there actively watching.
> 
> ...


Don't laugh. In the last year or so, I believe it was Verizon that filed a patent for a STB that had a camera in it to figure out how many people were watching.

Nielsen has not been relevant in decades for MVPDs to determine what their viewers are watching. Enough cable boxes have reported that for decades.

However, Nielsen is 100% relevant if one wants to sell advertising - as no advertiser will take bulk data from a MVPD when dollars are at stake. And MVPDs have enough trouble trying to sell their Inventory anyway because of the very low GRPs delivered.

For example, on average in Los Angeles it takes 10 Commercials on the Cable News Channels to get the same GRPs A25-54 as you get with 1 Commercial on the Broadcast Stations during a Newscast.

It's why you see a lot of "Dial 1-800-xxx-xxxx in the next 10 minutes and get a second one free!" in this space, as well as promos for shows on other cable channels (as required by contract for "marketing" such as in the HBO contract, VOD Movies and Tivo Commercials (Marketing again).


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Reality
> 
> $15 is roughly double the wholesale price it is sold to DirecTV for - so that falls right in the middle of your range.
> 
> To think they will get $5-$10 over retail price is ridiculous.


Uhm. No. I think you may want to do a lot more public research on that one.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> Uhm. No. I think you may want to do a lot more public research on that one.


I am comfortable with my estimate.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Reality
> 
> $15 is roughly *double the wholesale price it is sold to DirecTV for* - so that falls right in the middle of your range.
> 
> To think they will get $5-$10 over retail price is ridiculous.





Satelliteracer said:


> Uhm. No. I think you may want to do a lot more public research on that one.





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am comfortable with my estimate.


My guess is you are being challenged on the "wholesale price"...


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am comfortable with my estimate.


I am suggesting a bit more research will make you comfortable that your wholesale estimate is not accurate or even close to accurate.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

James Long said:


> When sports or weather is news it generally gets bumped to "the front page" (print/web) or the beginning of the newscast (radio/TV).


You don't live near Washington, DC, do you? The Redskins are on the front page almost every day.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You have a very interesting concept of "blankets their front page with ******* coverage".
> 
> Care to explain that statement?
> 
> ...


Well, buddy, I have lived in the area for 30 YEARS. Take a sample when most Redskins fans don't want to hear about their team because they stink on ice and claim it is a good sample of the last several DECADES. Good statistical analysis.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Drew2k said:


> My guess is you are being challenged on the "wholesale price"...


I am very comfortable with that estimate, unless DirecTV has the worst deal of any MVPD in America (and the world).

Or then again, perhaps you think Forbes is incorrect as well?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/10/22/with-netflix-rolling-is-it-time-for-hbo-to-go-direct/


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> Well, buddy, I have lived in the area for 30 YEARS. Take a sample when most Redskins fans don't want to hear about their team because they stink on ice and claim it is a good sample of the last several DECADES. Good statistical analysis.


ROFLMAO.....your statements do not hold up reality.

A simple Google search of the Washington Post for Redskins Page A1 returns only 123 results (when goes to the last page minus dups) and a simple scan of the results show the go back to October 2, 1961.

Even if you want to argue that Google is inaccurate prior to 1/1/2000, we are still talking about roughly 5,450 days / 123 = once ever 44 days on average.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> On "a channel"? Which one? One of my local channels that mentions sports often in their news teases?
> You can speak of what you see ... please don't assume the rest of the world is the same as your experience.





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And which channel is that?


Again, which station is this?


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am very comfortable with that estimate, unless DirecTV has the worst deal of any MVPD in America (and the world).
> 
> Or then again, perhaps you think Forbes is incorrect as well?
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/10/22/with-netflix-rolling-is-it-time-for-hbo-to-go-direct/


Again, plenty of very good research out there by companies that actually do this for a living. Forbes is a nice magazine for certain things, but I'd invite them (or that particular author) to do the same research I've suggested.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> You don't live near Washington, DC, do you? The Redskins are on the front page almost every day.


We have different sports teams on the "front page" where I live ... I see the Redskins make the news primarily for the controversy over their name. Others may see something different. For my comments in this thread I am referring to promotion of any sport coverage - not just the Redskins.

(Note I said "I see" ... not a blanket statement such as "the only coverage the Redskins get" or "always" or "never" statements. The observations of others may differ while my observations remain 100% accurate for what "I" see.)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Amazing how that supposed South Bend Station blanketed with Sports now has sort of disappeared.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> Again, plenty of very good research out there by companies that actually do this for a living. Forbes is a nice magazine for certain things, but I'd invite them (or that particular author) to do the same research I've suggested.


You are correct, plenty of good research

And they all point at the same area.

Interesting that you can blast me, blast Forbes, (and other sources) but you do not care to back it up with any legitimate source.

Apparently if it was on the Front Page of the Washington Post or NYT you would not believe it either.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Amazing how that supposed South Bend Station blanketed with Sports now has sort of disappeared.


The stations are still there ... and still prompting sports in some of their teases.
Such behavior is not unheard of as one alleged expert claims. 
(With an exaggerated misquote as expected.)

Now ... what can you tell me about HBO? Be truthful.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Why are they not released? It shouldn't affect negotiations, because the providers will already know to a pretty high level of accuracy how many TV sets are tuned to a given channel at some point during a week/month/year, at least for their own networks. HDMI allows a receiver to know if a TV is on or not, so the people who turn off their TV but not their receiver won't create false data as they would in the days of RCA cables. Directv likely gets data of what is watched when off every single DVR and receiver that is internet connected, which is a lot of their subscriber base now.
> 
> Cable companies can grab them off every leased cable receiver or cablecard equipped device, which is getting closer and closer to 100% of TV sets these days - actually it is 100% for those areas where they've dropped analog and clear QAM. They'll know how many receivers were tuned to a channel, when and for how long, how many watched live or near-live, how many recorded and watched later, how many watched what commercials versus skipping them, and how many recorded and never watched. They can tell if someone is present if the remote is operated, and multi tuner DVRs with multiple live buffers make it more likely the remote is operated often enough to let them know at least one person is there actively watching.
> 
> ...


Spoke to some friends in Bristol today. The told me the 12.5% is no longer valid because of the number of "major events" they have wrapped up where people who do not normally ever tune to ESPN happen to be watching (Think BCS/Bowl Games/FIFA etc). They have obviously worked on locking those up over the past several years.

However, with that said, they still would not give me an official figure for "publication".


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> The stations are still there ... and still prompting sports in some of their teases.
> Such behavior is not unheard of as one alleged expert claims.
> (With an exaggerated misquote as expected.)
> 
> Now ... what can you tell me about HBO? Be truthful.


And you cannot name them either.

The magical mystery station that one cannot mention, lol.

Your posts sound about as valid as the Washington Post posting ******* stories on the Front Page everyday.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Interesting that you can blast me, blast Forbes, (and other sources) but you do not care to back it up with any legitimate source.


Satelliteracer is a legitimate source. To suggest otherwise illustrates that you do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> Satelliteracer is a legitimate source. To suggest otherwise illustrates that you do not know what you are talking about.


Directv is very compartmentalized. He might know somethings, but clearly he is out of touch on this one.

Simple math should tell you that.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

Satelliteracer said:


> Again, plenty of very good research out there by companies that actually do this for a living. Forbes is a nice magazine for certain things, but I'd invite them (or that particular author) to do the same research I've suggested.


I'm not clear what research you want done.

The Atlantic very much agrees with me: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/print/2012/06/3-very-simple-reasons-why-you-cant-get-hbo-go-exclusively/258209/

So does the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303496804579364441588141618

(The Atlantic calls the numbers $7 vs. $14, my post and WSJ called them $8 vs. $16... Let's just say we agree as I'm not sure a year later (a) how I arrived at the $16 figure ( b ) we agree it's more or less a 100% markup.)

If you look at the ARPU data, you'll see it's somewhat below these figures, which makes sense given HBO is _typically cheaper_ abroad than it is in the U.S.

I see $4.23B in HBO subscription revenue and year end 127 million subscribers. That yields an ARPU of $2.77/month, which is a bit lower than the real figure to account for subscriber growth over the year. Are U.S. numbers therefore a bit lower than the above figures implied? Perhaps, but domestic subscriptions are just 1/3 of the total.



> "At December 31, 2013, Home Box Office had approximately 127 million worldwide subscribers, which consisted of approximately 43 million domestic premium pay subscribers and approximately 84 million international premium pay and basic tier television service subscribers, including subscribers through unconsolidated international joint ventures"


Keep in mind that these totals also include Cinemax, when sold without HBO / given away as a loss leader / etc. I'm not terribly uncomfortable with believing that the wholesale:retail ratio of 1:2 is more or less accurate. Cable cos. typically spend ~40% of your bill on programming. HBO has a lot of other terms in its deals with respect to marketing and is often given away for finite periods. I suspect these all serve to depress the financial-report ARPU and further buttress the argument the real number is what has been reported by me (and others). The reason I believe this? New subs seem to be contributing nothing to revenues, per HBO, Source: Variety http://variety.com/2014/tv/news/netflix-now-pulls-in-almost-as-much-revenue-as-hbo-but-hbo-is-far-more-profitable-1201087683/



> In 2013, HBO and Cinemax added almost 2 million subscribers in the U.S., which was the highest increase in 17 years, he said. That gave HBO and Cinemax a combined 43 million total subscribers in the U.S., with two-thirds of that represented by HBO, according to Bewkes. In total, HBO has 130 million subscribers worldwide.
> But according to Time Warner, most of those subscriber gains for HBO and Cinemax in the U.S. were not "revenue-producing," meaning the pay-TV affiliates kept 100% of the fees from subscribers for those services. As of the third quarter, HBO had 29.2 million U.S subs and Cinemax had 13.6 million, according to SNL Kagan.


Perhaps you can clarify why you believe the wholesale number is much different? I'm certainly open to explanations of why it's a bit (somewhat?) lower. I'm not likely to believe it's much higher.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

Mark are you the same person as the other guy? Merely asking based on your comments.

I will just say the numbers you are linking to in those articles have a fundamental problem in many ways, including promotional units, Cinemax, US vs Int'l, and HBO movie revenues (studio, not subscription service)


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Directv is very compartmentalized. He might know somethings, but clearly he is out of touch on this one.
> 
> Simple math should tell you that.


First, I'm not here slamming you. I respect your opinion.

I would argue I'm very much not out of touch on this one for any number of reasons, but that is ok. My last comment would be that overly simplifying the math or the constructs without knowing all the variables can lead to some very wrong conclusions.

To each their own.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> First, I'm not here slamming you. I respect your opinion.
> 
> I would argue I'm very much not out of touch on this one for any number of reasons, but that is ok. My last comment would be that overly simplifying the math or the constructs without knowing all the variables can lead to some very wrong conclusions.
> 
> To each their own.


Even if you are the CFO of DirecTV, interesting that you refuse to post links to the "public" information that you claim is available, thus making your claim suspect to anyone but the lemmings.....just as James Long TV Station in South Bend that he refuses to name.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually I can speak pretty authoritatively about them. Out of roughly 30-50 News Promos on a channel a day, Sports are almost never included.


You still have not identified the channel you are referring to in this post. If you want to know what stations are in the market I named I suggest using Wikipedia or another source common to "experts". Perhaps Google or Bing or wherever you are getting your alleged "facts" from. 

The list of stations in my market is irrelevant to a-la-carte HBO. Please do your own homework.

Satelliteracer has tried to explain HBO pricing it but you're not listening. After a while it becomes pointless to attempt to explain it over and over. Especially when you refuse to listen.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

You know what, nevermind, it just isn't worth it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> You still have not identified the channel you are referring to in this post. If you want to know what stations are in the market I named I suggest using Wikipedia or another source common to "experts". Perhaps Google or Bing or wherever you are getting your alleged "facts" from.
> 
> The list of stations in my market is irrelevant to a-la-carte HBO. Please do your own homework.
> 
> Satelliteracer has tried to explain HBO pricing it but you're not listening. After a while it becomes pointless to attempt to explain it over and over. Especially when you refuse to listen.


You made statements that a station in your market was heavy into Sports Promos.

Wikipedia lists no stations in South Bend that are heavy into Sports Promos.

As thus you have not backed up your statements with any facts.

Furthermore, Satelliteracer has not given the"public" sources he insists are out there.

Just as you state in the Dish thread, without Sources, your claims are worthless.

BTW, I spoke with SNL Kagan today and they only lead me to further believe my estimate (and Forbes and every other "public" source listed on this thread) is correct.

And when HBO's online package debuts next April, we will see who is correct on package price - me at $15 or you at $25.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Satelliteracer said:


> You know what, nevermind, it just isn't worth it.


Nice concession speech instead of admitting you are incorrect with your sourceless info.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Wikipedia lists no stations in South Bend that are heavy into Sports Promos.


Your source is Wikipedia! Wow ...

Perhaps I should go add correct the pages right now. Then you can delete it. Then I can correct it.
Wikipedia! ROTFLAMAO Wikipedia!

As for your claim ... You said sports is never teased, I said sports is teased in my market. I didn't say heavy. So perhaps you should learn to read what is written and not what you wish was written.

(ROTFLAMAO Wikipedia!)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And when HBO's online package debuts next April, we will see who is correct on package price - me at $15 or you at $25.


Why do you think their pricing will necessarily be based on what they collect from Directv and other MVPDs? They only care about maximizing their profit, and won't care if they help or hinder the old guard's business model through their pricing.

Hypothetically, if they priced it as $1 more than they get from Directv, and every HBO subscriber on Directv dropped it and subscribed through HBO, it would hurt Directv but HBO wouldn't care because they'd make more money. It is even reasonable to think they would consider pricing it _less_ than what they get from Directv, if they believed that lower price would get them the millions of "cord never" millennials.

On the other hand, if they felt they need to make more from internet subscriptions compensate them for account sharing, they might decide to price it considerably higher than what it costs to get HBO through an MVPD, so only those who subscribe to an MVPD solely because of HBO would become cord cutters as a result of its offering.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

People cannot just say HBO grossed this amount of money and divide it by the number of subscribers to get a per subscriber wholesale price. There are promotion tradeoffs going on and all sorts of other things that will fall outside the gaps of the pure money involved. Everyone knows Satracer is an unimpeachable source and obviously can't give everyone all the inside info of HBO's deal with DirecTV or he would lose his job. He may not even know all the details. 

For instance, every now and then over the years I have gotten HBO free for a month or two. Am I counted as a subscriber? I can't imagine HBO is cool with DirecTV just giving away their channel for a little while so I would think DirecTV maybe pays them the full per subscriber amount for my free month or maybe some discounted amount worked out between them. There are a lot of side points to these deals that I think people are missing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lokar said:


> For instance, every now and then over the years I have gotten HBO free for a month or two. Am I counted as a subscriber? I can't imagine HBO is cool with DirecTV just giving away their channel for a little while so I would think DirecTV maybe pays them the full per subscriber amount for my free month or maybe some discounted amount worked out between them.


I'd guess the opposite ... that HBO works with all of their carriers to offer free previews - without "full price" compensation. The promotions benefit HBO. Subscribers that are not being paid for would reduce the apparent "wholesale price".

As a new customer promo it may help the carrier ... but getting people hooked on HBO so they pay after their personal preview is over (or simply not bother to cancel) helps HBO, providing more long term money.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> *Your source is Wikipedia!* Wow ...
> 
> Perhaps I should go add correct the pages right now. Then you can delete it. Then I can correct it.
> *Wikipedia! ROTFLAMAO Wikipedia!*
> ...


Perhaps you should read what you wrote even 24 hours ago - as Alzheimer's seems to be setting in.



James Long said:


> On "a channel"? Which one? *One of my local channels* that mentions sports often in their news teases?
> You can speak of what you see ... please don't assume the rest of the world is the same as your experience.





James Long said:


> You still have not identified the channel you are referring to in this post. If you want to know what stations are in the market I named* I suggest using Wikipedia* or another source common to "experts". Perhaps Google or Bing or wherever you are getting your alleged "facts" from.


So to recap, you recommended I use Wikipedia to verify your claim that a TV Channel in South Bend promotes Sports heavy in their teases.

I did use YOUR source as you recommended - and then you do a 180.

Never asked about the market. Asked you to specific state which channel(s) you have seen heavy sports teases on locally.

And after 3 tries, you are obviously backtracking on your statements as you have been unable to.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

lokar said:


> People cannot just say HBO grossed this amount of money and divide it by the number of subscribers to get a per subscriber wholesale price. There are promotion tradeoffs going on and all sorts of other things that will fall outside the gaps of the pure money involved. Everyone knows Satracer is an unimpeachable source and obviously can't give everyone all the inside info of HBO's deal with DirecTV or he would lose his job. He may not even know all the details.
> 
> For instance, every now and then over the years I have gotten HBO free for a month or two. Am I counted as a subscriber? I can't imagine HBO is cool with DirecTV just giving away their channel for a little while so I would think DirecTV maybe pays them the full per subscriber amount for my free month or maybe some discounted amount worked out between them. There are a lot of side points to these deals that I think people are missing.


Perhaps you should re-read his post.

Never asked for Private Confidential info.

He stated there was PUBLIC info which supported him, yet he could not produce link to those.

As for your free month or two, DirecTV pays HBO for you.

It is written on their books as either Customer Acquisition Costs or Customer Retention Costs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Perhaps you should read what you wrote even 24 hours ago - as Alzheimer's seems to be setting in.


If you would like to discuss the thread topic continue ... these personal attacks are why you (and others like you) end up getting moderated. The forums have rules. We are generally lenient but there is a line one should not cross.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> So to recap, you recommended I use Wikipedia to verify your claim that a TV Channel in South Bend promotes Sports heavy in their teases.


No. I suggested using Wikipedia if you wanted a list of stations serving the market. I did not in any way say that Wikipedia would report the content of teases for the news. That is something that you apparently wish I said. Just like you keep throwing the word "heavy" around. You are reading what you want to read and not what I have written.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Never asked about the market. Asked you to specific state which channel(s) you have seen heavy sports teases on locally.


And again you refuse to read my actual claim (that my local stations _*mention*_ sports in their news teases) and read what you want to see. "Heavy sports teases" is not in any way the claim I made. Your claim was never ... and you have backed away from never trying to diminish any station that ever teases sports as if it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. And lie about my claims.

Perhaps to you an occasional sports mention in a tease is "heavy". Perhaps in your unnamed market you are right about your stations "never" teasing news. Perhaps in your little world things work the way you think they do ... but there is a world where stations tease sports in their news teases. That larger world is the one I live in. If you have never seen sports teased in a news tease perhaps you should watch more TV.

And now back to HBO ... if we can. Too many posts have been wasted on this silly business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> He stated there was PUBLIC info which supported him, yet he could not produce link to those.


It is not that Satelliteracer _*could*_ not do your homework for you, it is that he decided that it was not worth the effort. He has better things to do with his time than argue with "SomeRandomIdiot" on the Internet. 



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As for your free month or two, DirecTV pays HBO for you.
> 
> It is written on their books as either Customer Acquisition Costs or Customer Retention Costs.


Do you have access to DirecTV's contract with HBO? To DirecTV's contract with any channel? To HBO's contract with any carrier? If you do, great ... otherwise we will just have to rewrite your claim as "I believe" DirecTV pays HBO for you. Expressed as an opinion - not fact.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

But guys, he took some macro numbers and did some basic math on a complex topic with many variables and expects you to accept that.

Accept the source name at face value.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

This has all been a fascinating discussion (and I mean that with all due sarcasm), but I think the point is not what anyone pays for HBO or ESPN today, or even how many people watch the channel according to Nielsen ratings.

The question is how many people would WANT to have access to HBO or ESPN *at any point in time, ever.*

We are one of those households that is likely counted in the 88.5% (or whatever percentage you choose) that "never" watches ESPN. However, we HAVE watched it on occasion over the past year, but those times are so few and far between that they make no difference to the channel's ratings (even when multiplied across all TV households). Yet, we are unlikely to drop ESPN from our subscription should such an option ever become available, simply because we would want to have it available on those occasions when we do want to watch it.

This highlights a key point I have not seen discussed: in addition to the price, the terms will also be significant. Will HBO, for example, require an annual commitment? I think this is likely since otherwise subscribers could come and go when their original content is airing (consistency of revenue is *almost* more important to most businesses than the amount of the revenue).

This a difficult dance for HBO...they could clearly make more money if all their customers paid their $X per month directly to them rather than an MSO middleman. However, those middlemen now are their major source of income. How they structure a stand alone offering so that it attracts non-subscribers without threatening their MSO partnerships will be fascinating.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> This a difficult dance for HBO...they could clearly make more money if all their customers paid their $X per month directly to them rather than an MSO middleman. However, those middlemen now are their major source of income. How they structure a stand alone offering so that it attracts non-subscribers without threatening their MSO partnerships will be fascinating.


Why should HBO care about their MSO partnerships? MSOs can't very well not offer HBO, they'd lose a lot of subscribers if they did so. If HBO undercuts MSO customer pricing the MSOs might not be happy, but there isn't much they can do about it.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

HBO GO as it is setup now - only offers content after it's "AIRED" unless they change and start buying "NEW" Content (example) outbidding Nexflix and Amazon for first run movies The standalone version will be HBO GO as it is now (BUT) for someone who doesn't have the HBO channel - it will appeal to-

AS a current HBO sub and with a couple of DVRS Streaming HBO is not needed (however) seeing NO "NEW" movies (as current) programing listed is showing is forcing me to Amazon (to) Stream and maybe dropping the channel and HBO go as well in the future.

That is the real problem they face and hope to make up lost Revenue from those dropping the channel while saving $ from not adding "new" movies as before being the main reason to have HBO in the first place.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Why should HBO care about their MSO partnerships? MSOs can't very well not offer HBO, they'd lose a lot of subscribers if they did so. If HBO undercuts MSO customer pricing the MSOs might not be happy, but there isn't much they can do about it.


Mso could easily all drop HBO and HBO would struggle big time. People wouldn't leave because of it either I don't think. they'd say I'll save a few bucks or they would add Netflix maybe. Their only leverage is their original
Programming and they don't have that much.

They will not undercut msos.

I think the offering will not be exactly equal to HBO go.


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

HBO has no desire to piss off its mso partnerships. You can be virtually guaranteed this is simply to pick up the cord cutter and get things started for right now and i imagine pricing will be $17 to $20 monthly. High enough so current providers don't have a cow but opens the door to stand alone service should the cord cutting thing really take off.

I don't see them requiring a contract. 

I don't see current sub's caring about the new service because they already get it and more with dvr integration and first run access.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

Doesn't DirecTV benefit from HBO just as much as HBO benefits from them? People act like DirecTV is doing HBO a favor when in reality, they probably make a lot of money off of HBO. 

Besides, I think the threat of DirecTV dumping HBO is a bit unfounded. Could you imagine how quickly people would leave? If there's anything out there that has a passionate fan base outside of sports, it's probably HBO (among a few, select others I'm sure).

Any torn relationship would probably hurt DirecTV more in my opinion, in the short and long run. 

First, the defections. Second, bottom-line related, and finally, such a move would probably only usher more people over to HBO streaming (and the eventuality that may follow), the exact thing I'm sure DirecTV does not want to happen. I don't think HBO has much to lose, no matter what price they set.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They feed off each other but neither would be destroyed if they didn't continue together. But since they can stay together and make more money i don't see HBO undercutting it's mso s on pricing it just wouldn't make any sense for anyone.


----------



## Bambler (May 31, 2006)

I have no idea what DirecTV pays for and adds to (their markup) HBO.

From HBO's persoective, this move is clearly intended to cast a much wider net. Whether they hurt the "middleman" so to speak, probably doesn't matter and if anything might be good for their own bottom line if people drop HBO from the middleman's package and switches to a streaming only service directly from them at a slightly lower cost, but still higher than what they get directly from the likes of DirecTV (depending on what price they ultimately set).

Say we pay (hypothetically) $20 for HBO now through whomever. HBO sees $12 of that (I have no idea what it really is). Their streaming service is introduced at $15 a month. Whatever drop from DirecTV, I'm sure they'll gain from streaming simply because I think HBO is a zero sum service, meaning defections in one part will be negated by additions in another as those people who do subscribe will probably want it regardless of source. 

So now they collect $3 more per month from X subscribers, in addition to the fact that such a service might entice more overall subscriptions, in total, from other sources.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

You can be sure they have a small army of MBAs doing every calculation you can think of, and then some.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We should probably try to use the words cost and price consistently in this discussion. It can get confusing when cost to the customer (generally the price they pay) and cost to DirecTV (the "wholesale" price) get mixed together. The price the customer pays is the one that customers would be most interested in.


I do not believe that HBO is trying to get a customer paying DirecTV $17.99 per month to drop HBO via DirecTV and be paid directly. I believe HBO is looking to pick up customers from non-cable/satellite subscribers.

Sold via DirecTV or other providers, HBO has to provide some streamed content to some subscribers. Their linear channel infrastructure serves the millions of cable/satellite providers who watch via the linear cable/satellite channels. HBO has to support a separate content delivery network for streamers.

A stream only subscriber to HBO does not have the ability to watch via cable/satellite. All of their HBO viewing would need to be supported by HBO's content delivery network. While selling directly to the customer cuts out the middle man and (in theory) HBO could keep DirecTV's markup as profit - it also adds cost to HBO's operation. Subscribers who add to the load on the streaming servers because they no longer have access to linear distribution via cable/satellite. Then add in the cost of billing and customer service for those individual HBO subscribers. Subscribers via DirecTV are supported by DirecTV's billing and customer service.

A move to direct delivery bypassing cable/satellite companies is not pure profit. It also ticks off partners that help HBO stay in business. If HBO decides to "go it alone" and stream without cable/satellite subscription it may cost them more in linear subscribers than they gain in streamed subscribers. Trying to keep a foot in both world is difficult and risky.

That is the threat that DirecTV is making. If HBO wants to bypass DirecTV and other cable/satellite to get to subscribers they do it at the risk of the millions of subscribers DirecTV makes available to HBO.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bambler said:


> I have no idea what DirecTV pays for and adds to (their markup) HBO.
> 
> From HBO's persoective, this move is clearly intended to cast a much wider net. Whether they hurt the "middleman" so to speak, probably doesn't matter and if anything might be good for their own bottom line if people drop HBO from the middleman's package and switches to a streaming only service directly from them at a slightly lower cost, but still higher than what they get directly from the likes of DirecTV (depending on what price they ultimately set).
> 
> ...


Yes but they'd also Lose hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in advertising that is done by msos if they undercut them because who would keep promoting it if they where being screwed at the same time by them?

It's just not that simple imho to screw over their msos by pricing it for less than what you pay at a mso.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

This is great news! I HATE and LOATH the fact that i have to buy the ~150-200 crap basic channels in order to get HBO - If this is infact true, I would get rid of directv in a hot minute. Really, I watch HBO, Showtime and occasionally ESPN and NFL Net.

I lived without NFLn and Sunday ticket for a while, I only watch one MNF game a year, when the packers are on it, and I can sacrifice that if it saves me money

I have to pay for crap i dont want! in the past few days, I have found the baby channel and teh freaking dog channel - I dont have babies or dogs and if I did they damn sure wouldnt be planted in front of the idiot box...

The problem is that people dont wanna pay $hundreds for advertising laiden crap channels. These clowns have even added 15 or 20 new infomercial channels lately! I dont want that ****! Just give me good content at a fair price. That is why this ala carte thing is dangerous.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

What do you really think??

Are you any relation to Mike Greer?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Baby First TV is a PI channel and free

Dog TV is a standalone premium and not part of any package, unless you choose to subscribe to it, you don't get it.

Those infomercial channels are paying DirecTV to be on the lineup. Some of them are also filler and go off air when the bandwidth is needed for SD feeds of NFL Sunday Ticket and other sports packages.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> ...I do not believe that HBO is trying to get a customer paying DirecTV $17.99 per month to drop HBO via DirecTV and be paid directly. I believe HBO is looking to pick up customers from non-cable/satellite subscribers...


Precisely...therefore, whatever they charge for standalone HBO will be somewhat more than what the average cable subscriber pays for the same content. They will NOT undercut the cable providers, for all reasons noted above.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> You still have not identified the channel you are referring to in this post. If you want to know what stations are in the market I named I suggest using Wikipedia or another source common to "experts". Perhaps Google or Bing or wherever you are getting your alleged "facts" from.
> 
> The list of stations in my market is irrelevant to a-la-carte HBO. Please do your own homework.
> 
> Satelliteracer has tried to explain HBO pricing it but you're not listening. After a while it becomes pointless to attempt to explain it over and over. Especially when you refuse to listen.





SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Circle the beginning of April on your calendar.


Appears I nailed both the price (that you stated would be much higher) and the start date 120 days ago, before any of your "so-called" experts. In fact, before anyone anywhere had both items anywhere on the net.....

Guess you banned the wrong person.

Nice try satellite racer....but wrong is wrong.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Diana C said:


> Precisely...therefore, whatever they charge for standalone HBO will be somewhat more than what the average cable subscriber pays for the same content. They will NOT undercut the cable providers, for all reasons noted above.


nice try...but wrong.

It should also be noted that of all the internet traffic Sunday Night, HBO Now made up 0.7% of ALL USA INTERNET TRAFFIC - and the service had been live only a week.

Of course, they do offer a free 30 day trial....but 0.7% of ALL USA INTERNET TRAFFIC is incredible for a service a week old.

And before someone says this includes HBO GO, it does NOT. HBO GO accounted for 3.4% of ALL USA INTERNET TRAFFIC.

All told, both were responsible for 4.1% of ALL USA INTERNET TRAFFIC Sunday Night.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They haven't undercut providers... It's basically the same price,. In fact for many it evidently is the same price. Dtv is a little more because they carry more channels then some of the cable companies. But the lack of streaming of their linear channels can easily equate to the extra $2 it is on dtv than HBO now. 

And since dtv is happily giving people half off HBO for a year I hear, I think they are easily undercutting the new service. And you will never see that happen with HBO now pricing.

And wow is apple making out and is game of thrones huge or what?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> They haven't undercut providers... It's basically the same price,. In fact for many it evidently is the same price. Dtv is a little more because they carry more channels then some of the cable companies. But the lack of streaming of their linear channels can easily equate to the extra $2 it is on dtv than HBO now.
> 
> And since dtv is happily giving people half off HBO for a year I hear, I think they are easily undercutting the new service. And you will never see that happen with HBO now pricing.
> 
> And wow is apple making out and is game of thrones huge or what?


Well, you need to review ALL that was posted 120 days ago - when the so called "experts" who were not banned stated the price of HBO MUCH HIGHER. I stated exactly what DirecTV was paying for HBO and was told over and over I was wrong and I was the clueless one. However, because I was right, that is why DirecTV is able to offer the 50% off, which would not have been possible if it was higher as the so called experts said.

In fact, some said the average price of HBO was almost $18....and so the price would be $20....

Again, I nailed the price it would be offered for, which several on the web had speculated (but not the "acknowledged experts here"), but also posted the start date which was posted nowhere on the Internet last year (except for my post on dbstalk).



James Long said:


> I do not believe that HBO is trying to get a customer paying DirecTV $17.99 per month to drop HBO via DirecTV and be paid directly. I believe HBO is looking to pick up customers from non-cable/satellite subscribers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Well, you need to review ALL that was posted 120 days ago - when the so called "experts" who were not banned stated the price of HBO MUCH HIGHER. I stated exactly what DirecTV was paying for HBO and was told over and over I was wrong and I was the clueless one. However, because I was right, that is why DirecTV is able to offer the 50% off, which would not have been possible if it was higher as the so called experts said.
> 
> In fact, some said the average price of HBO was almost $18....and so the price would be $20....
> 
> Again, I nailed the price it would be offered for, which several on the web had speculated (but not the "acknowledged experts here"), but also posted the start date which was posted nowhere on the Internet last year (except for my post on dbstalk).


Not sure what you are getting at? That HBO doesn't have that big a wholesale fee? and you think they are trying to get all the money directly instead of through dtv and cable providers?

If so, there's a couple things to consider about that...

They are not collecting any fees directly. It's all through third parties still, just like with cable companies. ,I would expect them to be basically selling it to them for resale at the same price they sell it to cable companies, minus a tiny amount since there is no linear live feed.

Second, the reason dtv can afford to do that is they can look at the overall price of everything a customer is getting and then easily afford an extra $8 a month off their bill. People regularly call in and get some money off monthly, so if the customer is getting HBO, they are already getting more money from them in general, so they are actually can lose money specifically in HBO but overall they are not losing, it's made up for by all the other profit on the other channels and the keeping of the customer.

And while we don't have the numbers,ill bet many who have HBO have at least one more premium too. Helps soften the discount even more.

Apple can't bundle HBO now with anything else, it's strictly an add on feature, there is no base value you must spend to get it, so they can't work the numbers like cable companies can. That's why I don't think you'll ever see it discounted anywhere but mso s. They can still pay full pop to HBO after discounting because of the fact that's not the only thing a customer has on their bill. And a free month isn't a long term discount.

I personally expect to be a bit more, but it's close enough I'm not surprised. I just always said it'd never be cheaper to the point of insider cutting, and it isn't. ($10 would have been undercutting imho)

I haven't seen anywhere anything posted about how much dtv or anyone else is actually paying for HBO though. I'd guess the profit margin is close to 15 to 20% for msos and apple and so forth for these services. Maybe it's closer to 25 but I kind of doubt it.

You did good with the timing and the price for sure....


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Not sure what you are getting at? That HBO doesn't have that big a wholesale fee? and you think they are trying to get all the money directly instead of through dtv and cable providers?
> 
> You did good with the timing and the price for sure....


The guilty know who they are.

They stated the fee would be upwards of $20 so as not to cannibalize the MVPDs......not $15 as I stated and held to, despite mods calling me ignorant on the subject.

In a different thread I posted what DirecTV was paying for HBO and Satellite Racer implied I was multiple dollars low - indicating it was closer to $10. James Long supported him and in multiple posts said Satellite Racer was well respected as a DirecTV source and knew what he was talking about.

Again, if the cost to DirecTV was $10, they would not be offering it for 50% off as that would mean they were losing money.

Some people know......some people only think they know.....

I stuck by my statements and was 100% correct.

But I doubt this post will remain here for long as certain people edit and ban when they are wrong.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> But I doubt this post will remain here for long as certain people edit and ban when they are wrong.


Yep sad, But Already been there.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, congratulations on your perspicacity!


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> Well, congratulations on your *perspicacity!*


You got to quit using words I have never heard of or I might need to book mark a dictionary. LOL


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Hah, Jimmie! Hey, I paid good money (or my parents did) for Word of the Day cards in 1960, and I am getting their money's worth.

:rotfl:

The iniquitous are ubiquitous, I always say, and *never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice! *

**


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

You're right. All hail SomeRandomIdiot!!!!!!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...But I doubt this post will remain here for long as certain people edit and ban when they are wrong.


In the 8 years I've been coming here, I've never seen anyone banned from this website for being right, only for being obnoxious.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> In the 8 years I've been coming here, I've never seen anyone banned from this website for being right, only for being obnoxious.


True. One can be right without blatantly violating forum rules.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The guilty know who they are.
> 
> They stated the fee would be upwards of $20 so as not to cannibalize the MVPDs......not $15 as I stated and held to, despite mods calling me ignorant on the subject.
> 
> ...


The only thing I disagree with is your instance that it doesn't cost about ten for HBO. Based on industry margins id expect it to be between 10 and 11 at least sure even higher since HBO is a behemoth.

Like I said DIRECTV can easily give you half off Because they aren't giving you half off of 15. They are giving you 8 off of at least 50 id say. I doubt anyone has HBO that has a bill lower than 50. Most are probably closer to 100 or more that subscribe to HBO.

When I worked retail id give people stuff below cost if its small fries and they where buying other big fry stuff that easily made up for it. Which is what they do with all premiums IMHO.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> What was the price via DirecTV when it was $15 on C-Band? That may give a hint where the price would be to purchase "a la carte" separate from a large programming provider. (Past performance is not always indicative of future pricing, but it is a hint.)
> 
> I'd expect a stand alone to be $5-$10 more than via DirecTV. If only for the hassle factor of maintaining individual accounts (including providing customer service direct to subscribers). Selling via DirecTV or another carrier the customer service calls are handled by the carrier. Having customer service in place for ~20 million subscribers to other channels reduces the cost for DirecTV.


Extending my remarks ...

HBO Now is not the same product one gets when one subscribes to HBO via DirecTV. It is only part of what subscribers get via a DirecTV subscription. HBO Now subscribers do not get the linear channels - they cannot use their satellite equipment to view and store programming for later viewing and they cannot view live programming live. Without the content delivery system DirecTV provides the HBO Now subscriber is not getting the full service one would get via a DirecTV subscription.

HBO has managed to keep their costs down on HBO Now (and the price down) by selling through partners that were not mentioned at the time of my earlier post. Apple and Optimum are taking care of the "hassle factor" of dealing with individual accounts. And it appears that the only way HBO will be sold is through a partner.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Extending my remarks ...
> 
> HBO Now is not the same product one gets when one subscribes to HBO via DirecTV. It is only part of what subscribers get via a DirecTV subscription. HBO Now subscribers do not get the linear channels - they cannot use their satellite equipment to view and store programming for later viewing and they cannot view live programming live. Without the content delivery system DirecTV provides the HBO Now subscriber is not getting the full service one would get via a DirecTV .


Maybe I'm missing something, but what does the linear channels have that can't be viewed on HBO GO or even HBO now?

Sure your talking about the abilities to have recorded programs, But that $18 directv charges doesn't include the ability to record.
Your DVR fee create that ability, so add that to your baseline.

Sure you can get a better deal on HBO from your provider, only if you spend more money on channels someone might not want.
Like Cinemax, Starz ,Showtime. 
So take a customer that has HBO without DVR, maybe you could explain how one could watch any OnDemand or record any programming without spending another $15 on top of their $18 HBO,and basepackage.
$33 verses $15

Seems like HBO Now is a much better deal, and people are dropping HBO from their providers and buying it separately.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but what does the linear channels have that can't be viewed on HBO GO or even HBO now?


Live programming.



damondlt said:


> Sure your talking about the abilities to have recorded programs, But that $18 directv charges doesn't include the ability to record.
> Your DVR fee create that ability, so add that to your baseline.


Paying DirecTV $18 includes delivery to the satellite receivers. Recording is just one example of what one can do once the content is on one's DirecTV receivers. Buying HBO Now does not include delivery ... one must go out and pay for a separate delivery system.

If one wants to be picky about what else they have to pay to get HBO via DirecTV do not forget to remain picky about what else one has to pay for to get HBO Now. The incremental cost of HBO via DirecTV is $18. Fortunately that includes linear delivery.



damondlt said:


> Seems like HBO Now is a much better deal, and people are dropping HBO from their providers and buying it separately.


I am sure you can find examples of "people" who have dropped HBO from their providers. There are also examples of people who got a better deal from their providers when they threatened to drop HBO. If HBO Now ever becomes an issue for DirecTV they will handle it in their next contract negotiation.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but what does the linear channels have that can't be viewed on HBO GO or even HBO now?
> 
> Sure your talking about the abilities to have recorded programs, But that $18 directv charges doesn't include the ability to record.
> Your DVR fee create that ability, so add that to your baseline.
> ...


There are plenty of people that prefer and want the boxing and such that is live.

And I wouldn't be adding the DVR fee. That's something someone will have for all their channels. If you spread it Among all channels it's pennies a month at most per every channel. It's an additional benefit if someone has it. And If you are going to add that you might as well add the cost of the entire package a someone has from the provider as well as the cost of an appletv etc and internet service to the cost of HBO now. And if its hindered Internet the cost of the phone too since without it they pay more for Internet alone. It could go on forever. Both have big underlying costs....

The additional benefit for someone who has a DVR is they can record a movie during the widow HBO has it but they can watch it much later. On HBO now it's only available during the window.

And anyone who doesn't have good internet access is going to find a lot more value in linear channels.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm one of those that need my HBO boxing. Looking at both HBOGo and HBONow, Boxing is not covered in any way I would consider valuable. Mostly classic fight and the shows about boxing. The matches they do have are individual matches, not the show with all the matches that HBO live has.

So after finding all that out, I was leaning strongly towards cancelling the HBONow anyway, but when I called Mediacom about HBO, they offered me $9.95/month for a year and that was the icing on the cake!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> Live programming.
> 
> Paying DirecTV $18 includes delivery to the satellite receivers. Recording is just one example of what one can do once the content is on one's DirecTV receivers. Buying HBO Now does not include delivery ... one must go out and pay for a separate delivery system.
> 
> ...


It cost more than just $18 to get HBO from satellite.
You need a basepackage, and equipment.
So it's not as cut an dry as you are trying to imply.

If you want HBO in HD with Satellite and the ability to pause or rewind live tv that will cost you a minimum of $75. 
That is a sad lineup.
Not to mention you still need to subscribe to internet in order for any satellite on demand.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> If you want HBO in HD with Satellite and the ability to pause or rewind live tv that will cost you a minimum of $75.


If you want HBO Now, you must have internet, that will cost you at least $50 a month for a connection. Then you must add the device on which you plan to watch such content. If you use a mobile phone, you must also take in consideration your data plan, plus the cost of such mobile device. Having HBO Now to watch mobile may even increase your wireless bill as video eats lots of data very quickly.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Still cheaper
And the same mobile phone data usage is no different than using HBO go now, or any Directv streaming, so no valid point there.
And I don't know anyone this day and age without internet already .
Not to mention AppleTV, Roku,Chromecast and Smart Tv devices.


If my Provider didn't give me a spectacular deal on all 4 premiums, I would certainly consider HBO now.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Still cheaper
> And the same mobile phone data usage is no different than using HBO go now, or any Directv streaming, *so no valid point there*.
> And I don't know anyone this day and age without internet .
> 
> If my Provider didn't give me a spectacular deal on all 4 premiums, I would certainly consider HBO now.


The point is that you are adding things to the DIRECTV® price, if you are going that route you also have to add things to the NOW service. For instance you say that you need a base package to get HBO, true, but folks who subscribe to satellite don't only subscribe to get HBO. My points is that if you want HBO NOW, you must subscribe to internet, true, but folks don't subscribe to internet just to get HBO Now. So is a wash.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm not adding anything to any price.
That is the price.
If you don't like seeing it, we'll I can't help that.
Providers are going to continue to raise prices.
Other options are getter better and more affordable.
And if people want to save money, they will consider options that may not involve satellite or cable.

Some of yous obviously have issues with that, but that's fine yous can just keep paying what ever is asked of you, and the rest of us will look for deals.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I'm not adding anything to any price.
> That is the price.


So for me to get HBO Now it will cost me $65 plus $15 = $ 80 a month and this is just access in my home. If I need access OOH, then I need to add $100 for my cell phone bill or I could go an watch Movies at my local Starbucks for free!

With DIRECTV® it cost me nothing! Well around $32 a month. I now I am not your average customer but someone could have the FAMILY package which IIRC is like 30 bucks a month. Add HBO and HD and outlet fee and that is $69.50 monthly. I still come out winning.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> I'm not adding anything to any price.


Sure you did ... didn't you read your own post? 


damondlt said:


> If you want HBO in HD with Satellite and the ability to pause or rewind live tv that will cost you a minimum of $75.


There you go ... adding something to the price.

What you missed when skimming my post is I clearly stated $18 is the *incremental* price. A price that includes linear content including live content not available on HBO Now.

As I said before, if one wants to be picky about what else they have to pay to get HBO via DirecTV do not forget to remain picky about what else one has to pay for to get HBO Now. You may be paying for internet and devices anyways and not want to include them in the "total price" ... DirecTV customers are paying for satellite service and DVR service (if desired) anyways and that should not be included in the "total price".


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

The problem is that you are all starting out with different (and sometimes skewed) basic assumptions.

You have a couple of different use cases:

1) The cord cutter
These users are either ending regular cable service, or never had it. These users already have Internet to have access to Netflix, et.al., so for them, the cost to add HBO Now is $15, for which they get access to streaming only, over broadband or cellular.

2) The basic cable subscriber
These users have cable, but at a lower tier and would like to add HBO. They can either subscribe to HBO Now for $15/month with the same capabilities/restrictions as the cord cutter, or subscribe to "regular HBO" via their provider (e.g. DirecTV) for whatever they charge, let's say $18. For that extra $3, they get everything the cord cutter gets (via HBO Go) and they get linear delivery with whatever functionality their cable subscription allows (such as DVR functionality).

That's more of an apples to apples comparison. If you are a cable subscriber you are not going to upgrade your broadband just for HBO Go, and if you are a cord cutter you are not going to subscribe to cable just for linear access. So any underlying costs for both use cases have to be treated as sunk costs - IOW, in each case the required underlying technology (be it Apple TV, 20 Mb/sec broadband, cable subscription or DVR costs) is already in place by definition of the use cases themselves.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Awesome explanation, Diana! This to is exactly what we have been trying to say all along, but you said a lot better. 


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Actually no. There were some (ie you peds in post 107) who were trying to add the cost of internet, the sunk cost of the device, and for some reason the cost of a mobile device????, which is completely opposite of what Diana is saying.

I don't know anyone who does not have internet. At best, there is a one time cost for the device, which is less than $100. The only thing the $3 extra a month and ongoing cost for a provider gets you, is the ability to watch a dead sport a couple times a month.



peds48 said:


> Awesome explanation, Diana! This to is exactly what we have been trying to say all along, but you said a lot better.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

raott said:


> Actually no. There were some (ie you peds in post 107) who were trying to add the cost of internet, the sunk cost of the device, and for some reason the cost of a mobile device????, which is completely opposite of what Diana is saying.
> 
> I don't know anyone who does not have internet. At best, there is a one time cost for the device, which is less than $100. The only thing the $3 extra a month and ongoing cost for a provider gets you, is the ability to watch a dead sport a couple times a month.


Glad I wasn't the only one who caught that.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

raott said:


> Actually no. There were some (ie you peds in post 107) who were trying to add the cost of internet, the sunk cost of the device, and for some reason the cost of a mobile device????, which is completely opposite of what Diana is saying.


I guess you missed the last past or did not have the ability to comprehend the "juice" of the post.....

But good try on spin tho....



peds48 said:


> The point is that you are adding things to the DIRECTV® price, if you are going that route you also have to add things to the NOW service. For instance you say that you need a base package to get HBO, true, but folks who subscribe to satellite don't only subscribe to get HBO. My points is that if you want HBO NOW, you must subscribe to internet, true, but folks don't subscribe to internet just to get HBO Now. *So is a wash*.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Glad I wasn't the only one who caught that.


Perhaps you should look again....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

raott said:


> Actually no. There were some (ie you peds in post 107) who were trying to add the cost of internet, the sunk cost of the device, and for some reason the cost of a mobile device????, which is completely opposite of what Diana is saying.
> 
> I don't know anyone who does not have internet. At best, there is a one time cost for the device, which is less than $100. The only thing the $3 extra a month and ongoing cost for a provider gets you, is the ability to watch a dead sport a couple times a month.


I know plenty of people with no internet or internet that is to slow in the first place.

But real key is that if someone subscribes to linear they will likely chose the linear HBO option. If they are a cord cutter they'll chose the HBO now option. There are underlying additional Fees from both sides but HBO isn't less expensive one way or the other. It's basically the same add on price no matter which way you go.

You can't say it costs more with a cable company simply because you have to buy some other package first because the same principal applies to now as well. You need more than just the $15 it costs for HBO.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I know plenty of people with no internet or internet that is to slow in the first place.
> 
> But real key is that if someone subscribes to linear they will likely chose the linear HBO option. If they are a cord cutter they'll chose the HBO now option. There are underlying additional Fees from both sides but HBO isn't less expensive one way or the other. It's basically the same add on price no matter which way you go.
> 
> You can't say it costs more with a cable company simply because you have to buy some other package first because the same principal applies to now as well. You need more than just the $15 it costs for HBO.


"Glad I wasn't the only one who caught that".


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

I agree to an extent, however the ability to get HBO will continue to drive some (especially the younger generation) to cutting the cord. The entire discussion started because some felt HBO would charge the cord cutters more for the service because they did not want to anger the delivery providers. That didn't happen and since then, there has been a lot of seemingly defensive spin trying to argue HBO Now is still more expensive.

Essentially, unless you are the .01% of the country that is a boxing fan, they are the same.



inkahauts said:


> I know plenty of people with no internet or internet that is to slow in the first place.
> 
> But real key is that if someone subscribes to linear they will likely chose the linear HBO option. If they are a cord cutter they'll chose the HBO now option. There are underlying additional Fees from both sides but HBO isn't less expensive one way or the other. It's basically the same add on price no matter which way you go.
> 
> You can't say it costs more with a cable company simply because you have to buy some other package first because the same principal applies to now as well. You need more than just the $15 it costs for HBO.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Sorry,

I don't receive free equipment from any provider.

I don't receive free service from any provider.

I don't work for any provider, nor do I post here with an aspiration to get a job with any provider.

I don't own stock in any service or tech provider.

I've been with Directv since 1997, but my identity isn't derived by my choice of provider or any other tech product.

I have no reason to "spin", I call it like I see it.



peds48 said:


> I guess you missed the last past or did not have the ability to comprehend the "juice" of the post.....
> 
> But good try on spin tho....


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

raott said:


> I agree to an extent, however the ability to get HBO will continue to drive some (especially the younger generation) to cutting the cord. The entire discussion started because some felt HBO would charge the cord cutters more for the service because they did not want to anger the delivery providers. That didn't happen and since then, there has been a lot of seemingly defensive spin trying to argue HBO Now is still more expensive.
> 
> Essentially, unless you are the .01% of the country that is a boxing fan, they are the same.


Given all the boxing on TV these days, I'd bet your .01% number is way out of whack!

HBONow is slightly less than linear HBO, but you get less for less money. That said, many of us got HBO from our cable/sat providers for about $10/month for 6 to 12 months.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> HBONow is slightly less than linear HBO, but you get less for less money.


That is the "key" everyone seems to be missing....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

raott said:


> ... there has been a lot of seemingly defensive spin trying to argue HBO Now is still more expensive.


HBO Now is not the product I expected when the discussion began last year. I am not saying that HBO Now is more expensive ... but HBO via a linear provider offers more than HBO Now. The differences should be considered when doing a comparison.

At the end of the day all that matters is what each individual subscriber wants ... If a person does not want live programming and have Internet and a device they like then HBO Now will work. If a person has a linear subscription their provider works fine to get HBO.

For all the bluster about people cancelling HBO via their linear provider to subscribe to HBO Now has anyone in this thread done that? I see reports of people who threatened to cancel and got a better deal from their linear provider. But I do not see support for a claim that linear providers are losing a lot of customers to HBO Now. And as long as people do not cancel the linear providers will not have to worry about HBO Now.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Read the writing on the wall for pricing:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/hbo-showtime-reportedly-want-exemptions-from-internet-data-caps/


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> Read the writing on the wall for pricing:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/03/hbo-showtime-reportedly-want-exemptions-from-internet-data-caps/


The "separate lane" seems to be a question of legality ... but if HBO (and others) do what Netflix is doing and install servers at the ISP it could pass muster and not be illegal. HBO buys hosting service from each ISP, uses Internet bandwidth to load their server space at each ISP, then each ISP's customer gets their content from servers on their ISP ... with data caps only applying it Internet traffic - not traffic on their ISP's network.

As long as they are treating like traffic the same way (all external traffic the same, all internal traffic the same) they should be OK.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

The way its going, everything will be available online linear wise and on demand wise as it is now basically via traditional means, but it will be more expensive by the time they are done and then everyone will go back to broadcasting and on demand, just like we have now. But switched video wont be used, it'll just be ip based...

The advantage for cable is they may be able to make everything more efficient and squeeze higher internet speeds. For Directv, they will be able to broadcast to anyone just about anywhere without hogging up ANY bandwidth for regular internet (assuming ATT goes through.)

And I don't think this is whats going to drive people to cut the cord. LOCALS and basic cable channels will be more likely to cause that kind of thing.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The "separate lane" seems to be a question of legality ... but if HBO (and others) do what Netflix is doing and install servers at the ISP it could pass muster and not be illegal. HBO buys hosting service from each ISP, uses Internet bandwidth to load their server space at each ISP, then each ISP's customer gets their content from servers on their ISP ... with data caps only applying it Internet traffic - not traffic on their ISP's network.
> 
> As long as they are treating like traffic the same way (all external traffic the same, all internal traffic the same) they should be OK.


The largest part of that whole article to me is that they know there are going to be bandwidth cap enforcement, and new ones, in the future. They're trying now to get early deals to not have them impacted so they can sell their service without a middle man. Ignore the fast lanes and interconnect fees. The real issue will be data caps. Most providers already have them and the choice to enforce them is varied by market. Comcast already uses the Xfinity portal which doesn't count bandwidth if you sign in to the service through that. However that requires a tv subscription for those sites. A cable companies wet dream right now is to have content providers sell direct to consumers and they just provide the bandwidth. They can ignore the contract negotiation side of the business and charge healthy premiums for more data which costs them pennies to the tens of dollars of profit.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I actually think this was one of the reasons they decided to allow companies to seek HBO now. They think it might help get their content to customers easier and avoid data caps


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Shades228 said:


> The largest part of that whole article to me is that they know there are going to be bandwidth cap enforcement, and new ones, in the future. They're trying now to get early deals to not have them impacted so they can sell their service without a middle man. Ignore the fast lanes and interconnect fees. The real issue will be data caps. Most providers already have them and the choice to enforce them is varied by market. Comcast already uses the Xfinity portal which doesn't count bandwidth if you sign in to the service through that. However that requires a tv subscription for those sites. A cable companies wet dream right now is to have content providers sell direct to consumers and they just provide the bandwidth. They can ignore the contract negotiation side of the business and charge healthy premiums for more data which costs them pennies to the tens of dollars of profit.


That would seem sensible if 55%-60% of MVPD revenue was not coming from Video.

If you think it is MVPD's wet dream to lose almost 2/3rds of their revenue, then you do not understand business.

Furthermore, hard costs are distributed across Video and Broadband fees (and hard costs are over half your bill).

So if Video goes away, your Broaband bill would have to go up 50% just to pay for headend costs lost, fiber, distribution, et al.

Better rethink that golden goose.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well I wonder. If internet cost you 50 now and TV is say 100 and they run around 20% a margin you'd be looking at them needing to add just $20 to the internet bill to get back the costs lost in direct income from subs. Ad dollars is another question though... I'll have to ponder how that might be recouped other ways.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> The only thing I disagree with is your instance that it doesn't cost about ten for HBO. Based on industry margins id expect it to be between 10 and 11 at least sure even higher since HBO is a behemoth.
> 
> Like I said DIRECTV can easily give you half off Because they aren't giving you half off of 15. They are giving you 8 off of at least 50 id say. I doubt anyone has HBO that has a bill lower than 50. Most are probably closer to 100 or more that subscribe to HBO.
> 
> When I worked retail id give people stuff below cost if its small fries and they where buying other big fry stuff that easily made up for it. Which is what they do with all premiums IMHO.


If you would bother to look at HBO revenue and divide by 30M subs x 12 months, you would see your number is wrong.

But god forbid anyone here do something so simple.

Besides, the number is widely known by financial analysts - who have long discussions with CFOs in order to issue buy or sell ratings on stocks.

It does not take a math genius.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

James Long said:


> The "separate lane" seems to be a question of legality ... but if HBO (and others) do what Netflix is doing and install servers at the ISP it could pass muster and not be illegal. HBO buys hosting service from each ISP, uses Internet bandwidth to load their server space at each ISP, then each ISP's customer gets their content from servers on their ISP ... with data caps only applying it Internet traffic - not traffic on their ISP's network.
> 
> As long as they are treating like traffic the same way (all external traffic the same, all internal traffic the same) they should be OK.


You missed the point.

MVPDs are charging Netflix to install servers at their locations.

If one understands how the internet works, one knows that the weak point is where the 2 Companies hand off the internet connection to each other.

Depending on what backbone the MVPD used, the entire Netflix traffic is(was if server at MVPD) at one POP in the USA.

Netflix has some much of the internet traffic (Over 30% of the USA internet traffic is usually around 15% is YouTube) the connection at the hand-off point was not big enough to handle all the Netflix bandwidth.

Companies like Verizon, TWC, Comcast etc refused to pay more more to have greater bandwidth for the interconnection between backbones - as they did not care if Netflix subs suffered - especially as they saw it as a threat.

Netflix could not make Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Charter, TWC et al to pay to upgrade their internet capabilities at these points where the data was handed off - and again - the MVPDs were in no mood to help Netflix out.

So finally Netflix offered to pay ISPs to put their Servers on their backbone, bypassing the weakest link.

Netflix is not happy about it - but it solved the problem.

Netflix is hoping that with Title 2 that they can get away from this expense - and it will be on the ISP to pay to update their connections - where Netflix data cannot be throttled at the weakest point.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You missed the point.
> 
> MVPDs are charging Netflix to install servers at their locations.


As they should in a "fee for service" world. They are getting a service from those partner ISPs ... hosting and on-network data delivery.

Think about it this way: If all of Netflix's servers were in one place how big of a farm would they need? They would need to distribute the load between servers and pay some ISP for a connection to the world. Why not spread the servers out across the country? They are paying for servers and hosting anyways, they might as well pay for servers and hosting where the data is delivered instead of concentrating all of their servers in one city.

It makes a lot more sense to distribute their servers. And if they have the ability to do such distribution where a smaller competitor cannot that works in their favor to give them a competitive advantage.


----------

