The next time you tune into your local Fox station and its not there, it may not be because your local cable operator was unable to reach an agreement for retransmission consent of its signal. News broke this week that Fox network has been in discussions with its affiliate group to obtain cash for carriage of network programming on their stations. Apparently the talks are not going well and Fox Network is starting to talk to the affiliate stations directly to reach deals. The affiliate board is accusing the network of taking a “divide and conquer” approach. Meanwhile, Fox asserts that they are just trying to get a deal done before they have to pursue “different distribution channels”. Things are getting contentious and now the negotiations are starting to play out publicly as if this was a battle between the stations and a local cable operator.
It seems that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot and the affiliates are none to happy about it. With most of the affiliates having retransmission consent deals in place with local cable operators and the two national satellite providers, the last thing they need is the network asking for a piece of the action that hasn’t been budgeted for. All this comes at a time when a deal between Fox and Time Warner Cable provides a workaround for the big MSO to get the network programming for up to a year should they encounter an impasse with a local Fox affiliate - lending credence to the “different distribution channels” threat.
To be sure, Fox COO Chase Carey has not been shy in saying that the network will pursue these kinds of retrans revenue sharing arrangements, so it should have come as no surprise to the affiliates. All the same this comes off as another instance where a broadcaster makes the spurious argument that they need subscriber revenues to flow back to them in order to “preserve free broadcast TV” all because they are seeing viewership continue to migrate to cable networks and more time spent online, undermining their advertising based business model.
Yes, this is a private business negotiation, but with TV a seemingly American birthright anything that results in viewers being deprived of network programming inevitably becomes a public policy issue. With retransmission consent having such a high profile, and the FCC slated to take it up at its March meeting, one wonders whether this is the wisest time for Fox to be pursuing this so aggressively. In the end, the affiliates will come to an agreement because they need the programming and Fox can’t pull the plug on a wholesale basis without the risk of being called in front of House and Senate panels to answer for its actions. Inevitably it all flows back to the consumer in the form of higher cable and satellite rates, putting even more pressure on consumers who are on the verge of “cord cutting”.
At this point, the rest of the “Big 4” are sitting back to see how this develops. While there are still a lot of unknowns as far as how this will play out, one thing is for certain, if this proves successful for Fox, watch for the rest to follow suit.
Showing posts with label Satellite Operators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Satellite Operators. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Sweeney: ABC – Google TV Deal “Not Close”
In an interview with Reuters, Disney TV chief Anne Sweeney said that although they are in discussions with Google and have seen several demonstrations, ABC is "not close" to doing a deal to provide its content to the Google TV platform. This comes on the heels of both CBS and NBC blocking their content from Google TV.
Sweeney mentioned that piracy is one of the primary concerns, going so far as to say that it was unacceptable to ABC that the Google search platform present pirate sites when consumers search for ABC content on the web. Further, Sweeney indicated that ABC's web strategy is to provide limited programming from current seasons with wider access to prior season programming in order to drive value to the programming that is being shown on the broadcast network - moving the content through windows in a similar fashion as feature films.
In an age of instant Internet gratification and with the lesson of Napster fresh in their memories, it is little wonder that piracy is an issue for the broadcasters. They are being pressured by affiliates and cable operators who are telling them that putting content on the Internet lessens its value. Meanwhile, Gen X, Y and Millennial consumers are accustomed to having content served up at their convenience at a time and place and on the device of their choosing. They are less concerned with how it gets to them and not even remotely concerned with the content owners' business model.
Network executive like Sweeney are paid to follow the money. They are not going to jeopardize broadcast and cable dollars for digital pennies. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the Internet generation believes that content wants to be free; an attitude that undermines the business model of the content owners.
For now it looks like Google TV is on the market with only a limited amount of content. Absent providing "one stop shopping" with a line-up of content that more closely mirrors that of cable and satellite providers, Google TV is destined to be a niche curiosity product. Major content owners will not give away their product cheaply and will continue to demand assurances of security. Until Google can address the "fear of Napsterization", the big players will take meeting but won't be signing any deals soon.
Sweeney mentioned that piracy is one of the primary concerns, going so far as to say that it was unacceptable to ABC that the Google search platform present pirate sites when consumers search for ABC content on the web. Further, Sweeney indicated that ABC's web strategy is to provide limited programming from current seasons with wider access to prior season programming in order to drive value to the programming that is being shown on the broadcast network - moving the content through windows in a similar fashion as feature films.
In an age of instant Internet gratification and with the lesson of Napster fresh in their memories, it is little wonder that piracy is an issue for the broadcasters. They are being pressured by affiliates and cable operators who are telling them that putting content on the Internet lessens its value. Meanwhile, Gen X, Y and Millennial consumers are accustomed to having content served up at their convenience at a time and place and on the device of their choosing. They are less concerned with how it gets to them and not even remotely concerned with the content owners' business model.
Network executive like Sweeney are paid to follow the money. They are not going to jeopardize broadcast and cable dollars for digital pennies. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the Internet generation believes that content wants to be free; an attitude that undermines the business model of the content owners.
For now it looks like Google TV is on the market with only a limited amount of content. Absent providing "one stop shopping" with a line-up of content that more closely mirrors that of cable and satellite providers, Google TV is destined to be a niche curiosity product. Major content owners will not give away their product cheaply and will continue to demand assurances of security. Until Google can address the "fear of Napsterization", the big players will take meeting but won't be signing any deals soon.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Epix’s Epic Struggle
Officially announced in March of 2009 on the heels of a dispute with Viacom sibling’s CBS owned Showtime, Epix boasted $150 million in studio backing. The service initially made its content available online and officially launched its linear HD feed this past October. Take-up by cable operators has been slow, even if the service changed its business model from wanting to be part of a basic or digital tier at a cost of about $1.50 per subscriber the operator to being a premium service, with a premium online component only available to customers of its affiliates – making for a service with the potential to be a new revenue generator for cable operators. Until this week, the only provider that has signed on to carry the service is Verizon. This week, two more operators (Cox Communications, and Mediacomm) signed on the dotted line – both committing to an April 2010 launch.
One would think that a premium service model would be attractive to the operator, but the difficulty comes in selling a new service to subscribers on top of their existing bundle and the risk of the new service cannibalizing other premium services like HBO (owned by Time-Warner Inc.), Starz and the aforementioned Showtime. In part the need for an additional premium service in the market is why many cable and satellite operators like DirecTV and Cablevision indicated no interest in carrying the service when it was announced last spring. This is compounded by the fact that the service is made up of movies that have already been shown in their theatrical, hospitality, home video and VOD windows. Even so, revenue is revenue, and the lack of interest by major MSOs may have been more of a starting point in the negotiations than a definitive statement.
At the end of the day, unless EPIX can sign four of the top five 5 MSOs, they will struggle to become profitable and the three partner studios will be pressured to pull the plug on the service. Even though Comcast is focused on getting the NBC deal done and launching their Xfinity (TV Everywhere) service, and Time-Warner making rumblings that they are considering a rebranding, the multiplatform nature of Epix fits into Comcast’s strategic emphasis on on-demand and online video. Frankly, It’s surprising that they did not move quicker. Could it be that the Epix partners are unwilling to offer equity for carriage or is Comcast pushing for earlier VOD windows from the three partner studios as part of the deal?
On the flip side of the multiplatform aspect of the service, the online portion leaves the satellite providers out in the cold. Even if they could come up with the bandwidth to offer the linear service, DirecTV and Dish Network don’t have any local servers on the ground to cache the online HD service. Particularly telling is that, aside from Verizon, the wireline competitors like AT&T and RCN Corp. have yet to sign on. Ten months after an announcement, Epix has only announced three deals. Without the big guys in the tent, unless a whole lot more come soon, Epix could be history by the end of this year.
One would think that a premium service model would be attractive to the operator, but the difficulty comes in selling a new service to subscribers on top of their existing bundle and the risk of the new service cannibalizing other premium services like HBO (owned by Time-Warner Inc.), Starz and the aforementioned Showtime. In part the need for an additional premium service in the market is why many cable and satellite operators like DirecTV and Cablevision indicated no interest in carrying the service when it was announced last spring. This is compounded by the fact that the service is made up of movies that have already been shown in their theatrical, hospitality, home video and VOD windows. Even so, revenue is revenue, and the lack of interest by major MSOs may have been more of a starting point in the negotiations than a definitive statement.
At the end of the day, unless EPIX can sign four of the top five 5 MSOs, they will struggle to become profitable and the three partner studios will be pressured to pull the plug on the service. Even though Comcast is focused on getting the NBC deal done and launching their Xfinity (TV Everywhere) service, and Time-Warner making rumblings that they are considering a rebranding, the multiplatform nature of Epix fits into Comcast’s strategic emphasis on on-demand and online video. Frankly, It’s surprising that they did not move quicker. Could it be that the Epix partners are unwilling to offer equity for carriage or is Comcast pushing for earlier VOD windows from the three partner studios as part of the deal?
On the flip side of the multiplatform aspect of the service, the online portion leaves the satellite providers out in the cold. Even if they could come up with the bandwidth to offer the linear service, DirecTV and Dish Network don’t have any local servers on the ground to cache the online HD service. Particularly telling is that, aside from Verizon, the wireline competitors like AT&T and RCN Corp. have yet to sign on. Ten months after an announcement, Epix has only announced three deals. Without the big guys in the tent, unless a whole lot more come soon, Epix could be history by the end of this year.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Retransmission Consent Battles Are Over But the War Rages On
OK, so Time Warner Cable, Inc. cut a retransmission consent deal with FOX (News Corp.) just in time for the Sugar Bowl on New Years Day and Medicomm got their deal done with Sinclair Broadcasting before their extension ran out. Both deals got done without cable subscribers having their broadcast feeds cut off. With no more high profile deals pending you might believe the claims from the broadcasting camp that the market for retransmission consent in functioning efficiently and the cable operators should just go away quietly and lick their wounds. Not so.
Before the ink was even dry on the Sinclair deal, Mediacomm CEO Rocco Commisso had a letter on its way to Senator John Kerry (D. Mass) asserting that the retransmission consent system is broken. While some may dismiss this as a sign of a sore loser and broadcasters may argue that Medicomm would not have signed a deal they didn’t like, one should ask whether Mr. Commisso and his cable brethren have a point.
It seems that every time broadcasters lobby on the Hill it is done in the name of protecting “free” television. The recent broadcaster backlash to spectrum reallocation is just the latest opportunity for broadcasters to wave this flag. But in fact, doesn’t retransmission consent prove that there really is no such thing as “free” television. Of course, there are costs involved with producing and broadcasting content, and there is certainly value to the broadcast content. But isn’t it the broadcasters who chose to enter and remain in a business, the backbone of which is providing free over the air television on an advertiser supported basis?
Of course, the argument is always made that when compared to cable services like Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, the broadcasters generate ratings far in excess of cable networks. As such, the argument goes, if broadcaster ratings are four times that of ESPN, then the broadcaster should be entitled to four times the license fee that ESPN collects. If the broadcasters are willing to step up to the plate and offer distributors VOD content, local ad avails and affiliate marketing support the same way cable networks traditionally do, then maybe there is a conversation to be had, but until then a game of “apples and oranges” is being played.
In the end, Retransmission Consent is a consumer issue. It easier for the Consumers Union and politicians to demonize cable operators then to dig in and see that what is actually driving the cost of multichannel video up – the ever escalating license fees paid to broadcasters and cable networks. While FOX may not have gotten the $1.00 out of Time Warner that it was looking for, they certainly did get some cash. Likewise, Sinclair has extracted their “pound of flesh” from Mediacomm and will be back at them for another portion at the end of this year when the deal expires. These are the stories of two of the bigger fish in the pond. Every year there are hundreds of smaller operators and telcos with similar stories that are even worse given their smaller size and limited, if any, negotiating leverage. For them, retransmission consent is yet another transfer of wealth out of their communities and local economies.
To be sure, cable operators like Comcast Corp. and Cablevision are reporting growth in free cash flow. However, once you dig deeper and find out where the growth is coming from you find it is not from traditional basic video services. The real growth is coming from DVR and bundled services relying on voice and data services where the only costs are those of running the physical network itself and content costs are virtually non-existent. As far as the linear video business goes, it seem that operators have become little more than collection agencies for cable networks and broadcasters.
If the cable operators can effectively turn Retransmission Consent into a consumer issue (especially in the midst of a recession) then they may actually have a chance of getting someone’s ear in Washington. Until then, expect the politicians to take credit for pushing operators to keep broadcast signals from going dark, but don’t expect them to get involved in really addressing what’s at the heart of the matter.
Before the ink was even dry on the Sinclair deal, Mediacomm CEO Rocco Commisso had a letter on its way to Senator John Kerry (D. Mass) asserting that the retransmission consent system is broken. While some may dismiss this as a sign of a sore loser and broadcasters may argue that Medicomm would not have signed a deal they didn’t like, one should ask whether Mr. Commisso and his cable brethren have a point.
It seems that every time broadcasters lobby on the Hill it is done in the name of protecting “free” television. The recent broadcaster backlash to spectrum reallocation is just the latest opportunity for broadcasters to wave this flag. But in fact, doesn’t retransmission consent prove that there really is no such thing as “free” television. Of course, there are costs involved with producing and broadcasting content, and there is certainly value to the broadcast content. But isn’t it the broadcasters who chose to enter and remain in a business, the backbone of which is providing free over the air television on an advertiser supported basis?
Of course, the argument is always made that when compared to cable services like Walt Disney Co.’s ESPN, the broadcasters generate ratings far in excess of cable networks. As such, the argument goes, if broadcaster ratings are four times that of ESPN, then the broadcaster should be entitled to four times the license fee that ESPN collects. If the broadcasters are willing to step up to the plate and offer distributors VOD content, local ad avails and affiliate marketing support the same way cable networks traditionally do, then maybe there is a conversation to be had, but until then a game of “apples and oranges” is being played.
In the end, Retransmission Consent is a consumer issue. It easier for the Consumers Union and politicians to demonize cable operators then to dig in and see that what is actually driving the cost of multichannel video up – the ever escalating license fees paid to broadcasters and cable networks. While FOX may not have gotten the $1.00 out of Time Warner that it was looking for, they certainly did get some cash. Likewise, Sinclair has extracted their “pound of flesh” from Mediacomm and will be back at them for another portion at the end of this year when the deal expires. These are the stories of two of the bigger fish in the pond. Every year there are hundreds of smaller operators and telcos with similar stories that are even worse given their smaller size and limited, if any, negotiating leverage. For them, retransmission consent is yet another transfer of wealth out of their communities and local economies.
To be sure, cable operators like Comcast Corp. and Cablevision are reporting growth in free cash flow. However, once you dig deeper and find out where the growth is coming from you find it is not from traditional basic video services. The real growth is coming from DVR and bundled services relying on voice and data services where the only costs are those of running the physical network itself and content costs are virtually non-existent. As far as the linear video business goes, it seem that operators have become little more than collection agencies for cable networks and broadcasters.
If the cable operators can effectively turn Retransmission Consent into a consumer issue (especially in the midst of a recession) then they may actually have a chance of getting someone’s ear in Washington. Until then, expect the politicians to take credit for pushing operators to keep broadcast signals from going dark, but don’t expect them to get involved in really addressing what’s at the heart of the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
