Steely Dan Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 It seems to me that the NFL is being really stupid here. They are missing out on a lot of advertising revenue by being stubborn. They are also asking an incredible amount of $.70 per household. That's ridiculous, IMO. If the NFL Network was available on a sports package they would be reaching millions more people and would benefit from increased advertising revenue. They also need to look at the network as a 24 hour advertisement for the NFL. If they can make money off it then even better. If they offered it free every cable TV company would put it on a basic tier. If the network starts gaining viewers then they could ask for money for each household. I can't blame the cable TV companies. As much as I want the NFL Network I think the cable TV companies, for once, are right. I'm no fan of cable TV companies but I agree with them here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 It seems to me that the NFL is being really stupid here. They are missing out on a lot of advertising revenue by being stubborn. They are also asking an incredible amount of $.70 per household. That's ridiculous, IMO. If the NFL Network was available on a sports package they would be reaching millions more people and would benefit from increased advertising revenue. They also need to look at the network as a 24 hour advertisement for the NFL. If they can make money off it then even better. If they offered it free every cable TV company would put it on a basic tier. If the network starts gaining viewers then they could ask for money for each household. I can't blame the cable TV companies. As much as I want the NFL Network I think the cable TV companies, for once, are right. I'm no fan of cable TV companies but I agree with them here. ESPN can charge around $3/household to show poker and spelling bees, but the NFL shouldn't charge $0.70/household? Why would the NFL offer it for free, especially since a lot of people are leaving cable to go to Dish/DirecTV to get NFL Network (I have no numbers to back it up, but I believe it was Comcast who actually filed an injunction to try stopping the NFL from recommending switching to Dish/DirecTV -- so it must've had at least a minor effect on defections). Also, I think smarter people than us have been calculating advertising revenue, and if they were losing more money by "holding out" than they would by giving in, they would've already given in by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I hate the cable companies but have to stick up for them here. It is their right to show the station to their consumers in the format they please, the NFL is trying to force them into this and give them access to a ton of eyeballs to sell their product and their advertising to. CNN charges $5 per year, the NFL wants to charge $8.40 ESPN can charge around $3/household to show poker and spelling bees, but the NFL shouldn't charge $0.70/household? The cable companies have decided that they will lose subscribers if they don't offer ESPN, so they pay it. It is their right, and their decision. And i think the price is closer to $2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I hate the cable companies but have to stick up for them here. It is their right to show the station to their consumers in the format they please, the NFL is trying to force them into this and give them access to a ton of eyeballs to sell their product and their advertising to. CNN charges $5 per year, the NFL wants to charge $8.40 The cable companies have decided that they will lose subscribers if they don't offer ESPN, so they pay it. It is their right, and their decision. And i think the price is closer to $2. I'm not saying that Cable companies don't have the right to say no. However, the NFL has the right to say they won't sell the product for less than $X and that they don't want their product sold on a higher tier. The cable company has no right to set the price, which it sounds like they're trying to do. If you don't want to spend $4,000 on a new plasma TV, then you don't buy the TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 I can't blame the cable TV companies. As much as I want the NFL Network I think the cable TV companies, for once, are right. I'm no fan of cable TV companies but I agree with them here. Are you in Harriet's back pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 7, 2008 Author Share Posted April 7, 2008 ESPN can charge around $3/household to show poker and spelling bees, but the NFL shouldn't charge $0.70/household? Why would the NFL offer it for free, especially since a lot of people are leaving cable to go to Dish/DirecTV to get NFL Network (I have no numbers to back it up, but I believe it was Comcast who actually filed an injunction to try stopping the NFL from recommending switching to Dish/DirecTV -- so it must've had at least a minor effect on defections). Also, I think smarter people than us have been calculating advertising revenue, and if they were losing more money by "holding out" than they would by giving in, they would've already given in by now. It's a 24 hour advertisement for the NFL that should create new fans. The money they lose in subscription fees will be made up to some degree by an increase in advertising revenue due to a large increase in ratings. As for smarter people calculating advertising revenue how much are they making now? How much have they lost by being pig headed? I'm not saying that Cable companies don't have the right to say no. However, the NFL has the right to say they won't sell the product for less than $X and that they don't want their product sold on a higher tier. The cable company has no right to set the price, which it sounds like they're trying to do. If you don't want to spend $4,000 on a new plasma TV, then you don't buy the TV. Why can't the cable company say how much their willing to pay? Are you in Harriet's back pocket? Who the hades is Harriet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Philster Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Adelphia added NFL Network, ESPNU, and some other channels to their Buffalo cable subscribers and hiked the rates $2.22 a month. When Time Warner took over, they dropped NFL Network (and some other channels, I believe) but kept the rates at the higher rate. Kinda hard not to blame Time Warner in this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Who the hades is Harriet? Dis is she Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 Dis is she Ohhhhhhhhhh, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I think the NFL is wrong. Why would most people care about NFL offseason and there are a lot who do not care enough to watch cable tv football during regular season? I also think the same about all of the speciality channells - golf, religion, etc. but it is hard enough to prevent price creep no matter who you have as a provider - cable, fiber or satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I'm not saying that Cable companies don't have the right to say no. However, the NFL has the right to say they won't sell the product for less than $X and that they don't want their product sold on a higher tier. The cable company has no right to set the price, which it sounds like they're trying to do. If you don't want to spend $4,000 on a new plasma TV, then you don't buy the TV. And the cable company doesn't want to carry the channel at $X. Pretty simple. If the NFL drops its price to $Y, then maybe the cable networks will carry it. There are plenty of ways for people to get NFL Network if they're dying to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Adelphia added NFL Network, ESPNU, and some other channels to their Buffalo cable subscribers and hiked the rates $2.22 a month. When Time Warner took over, they dropped NFL Network (and some other channels, I believe) but kept the rates at the higher rate.Kinda hard not to blame Time Warner in this very good point right here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 And the cable company doesn't want to carry the channel at $X. Pretty simple. If the NFL drops its price to $Y, then maybe the cable networks will carry it. Exactly. My complaint with the cable company, and why I side with the NFL, is that they're trying to force the NFL to put the network on a sports tier. If the NFL doesn't want their product on the sports tier, then they shouldn't be forced to, but NYS did just that. http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6441200.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Adelphia added NFL Network, ESPNU, and some other channels to their Buffalo cable subscribers and hiked the rates $2.22 a month. When Time Warner took over, they dropped NFL Network (and some other channels, I believe) but kept the rates at the higher rate.Kinda hard not to blame Time Warner in this Adelphia went out of business because of mismanagement; outside analysts said they were not making enough and Time Warner did want to make the same mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I have to be honest, I have direct tv & I think the NFL Network is the most overrated channel there is. All they do is show old games & stupid segments like "look who is talking now". I watch the NFL Network once in awhile during the season & very rarely in the offseason. The offseason is brutal. Check out there lineup today. It is pathetic. Cable subscribers, I know it is easy for me to say because I have it, but your really not missing that much. The only thing IMO it is worth having is when they show the late season games on there & they also show a few 3rd tier bowl games for people that are interested in that. The other thing is, if you want the NFL Network so bad, the easy solution is to just switch to Direct TV or Dish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I have to be honest, I have direct tv & I think the NFL Network is the most overrated channel there is. All they do is show old games & stupid segments like "look who is talking now". I watch the NFL Network once in awhile during the season & very rarely in the offseason. The offseason is brutal. Check out there lineup today. It is pathetic. Cable subscribers, I know it is easy for me to say because I have it, but your really not missing that much. The only thing IMO it is worth having is when they show the late season games on there & they also show a few 3rd tier bowl games for people that are interested in that. The other thing is, if you want the NFL Network so bad, the easy solution is to just switch to Direct TV or Dish. There are times when it is 'must see'. Sr. Bowl week, the combine and Games come to mind. If the Bills were winning more than losing the replays each week would also be fun. Can you imagine being able to re-watch a game during the 90s when the team was humming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 There are times when it is 'must see'. Sr. Bowl week, the combine and Games come to mind. If the Bills were winning more than losing the replays each week would also be fun. Can you imagine being able to re-watch a game during the 90s when the team was humming? Your probably right, if the bills were winning more I would probably watch it more because they would most likely be covered more. But I just do not find it that interesting most of the times. The combine is fun & so is the SR Bowl, but the offseason for the most part is a real drag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Your probably right, if the bills were winning more I would probably watch it more because they would most likely be covered more. But I just do not find it that interesting most of the times. The combine is fun & so is the SR Bowl, but the offseason for the most part is a real drag. NFL Network's draft coverage is also far superior to ESPN (or at least it has been the past couple of years). Not having Mel Kiper automatically puts it up a notch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 NFL Network's draft coverage is also far superior to ESPN (or at least it has been the past couple of years). Not having Mel Kiper automatically puts it up a notch Not so very long ago that would be considered blasphemy, but not so today. Berman & Jackson have slipped (IMO). Then you add in all of the other idiots looking for face time and you have a circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts