• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Some truth about NFL Network

CigarStone

CigarStone

For once, knowledge is making me poor!
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
11,058
A close friend is the president of one of Time Warner's divisions (let's call him Joe) and in a conversation several months ago Joe shared some interesting stuff. I am sure negotiations have modified this position in the last few months but Joe indicated this was the major stumbling block at that time.

One of the big reasons for the stalemate between cable TV and NFL Network is that NFL Network is trying to tell cable TV what they should charge, and who they should charge, for NFL Network rather than simply negotiating a price for their product and allowing the cable companies to price the cable product as required.

NFL Network has mandated that cable TV charge "every single cable TV customer" a fee for NFL Network being included on cable TV. Time Warner wants to charge the people who "want" NFL Network. NFL Network realizes that such a "user based" fee would be high and they want this high fee diffused by charging a smaller fee to "everyone".

Recently, Roger Goodell proposed to Time Warner that each company submit a proposal and if they couldn't agree, a mediator would intervene. Time Warner said "no thank you" and NFL Network put out a smear campaign saying "we proposed a fair solution and TW refused to even participate"......you may have seen this last week on ESPN and NFL Network. What they didn't say was that the proposals had to be based on NFL Network's basis of "charge everyone". This would be like the fox asking that both sides propose a solution in which he gets to guard the henhouse :0

When I asked Joe why TW doesn't use their media to publicize the truth, he said "we don't think we need to get into a mud slinging contest, NFL Network will probably shoot themselves in the foot soon enough"

Too bad nobody is publicizing the truth!
 
It is always good to hear both sides of the story. "Joe" may be a little off the mark when he says they will shoot themselves in the foot soon enough. I say the NFL Network already shot themselves in the foot when they hired Gumble as the play by play announcer for their games.
 
Well I know I would love to be able to get NFL network. This isn't such a strange request by the NFL network. As I understand it (and I may be misinformed) NFL network wants to be on basic cable such as networks like ESPN. This would require everyone to pay for NFL network but everyone pays for many channels that the majority of viewers never watch. Ideally we could choose the channels we pay for but the cable companies don't give this option. I don't know who is right or wrong in this situation, and I'm not sure the NFL network should be putting NFL games on their network (monopoly?). But if it was my choice I would rather see the NFL network on basic cable and not have to pay and extra $10 a month for a sports tier with 7 channels I will rarely watch and 1 I would watch often.

Edit to add: Bryant Gumbel is terrible as a play by play man.
 
I wouldn't believe everything Joe said. Fact is, in order for me to get the NFL network, I have to buy it in a bundle package which includes mostly women's channels. It's BS. The cable companies have us by the short hairs and they know it.

Doc.
 
Sportsdls said:
Well I know I would love to be able to get NFL network. This isn't such a strange request by the NFL network. As I understand it (and I may be misinformed) NFL network wants to be on basic cable such as networks like ESPN. This would require everyone to pay for NFL network but everyone pays for many channels that the majority of viewers never watch. Ideally we could choose the channels we pay for but the cable companies don't give this option. I don't know who is right or wrong in this situation, and I'm not sure the NFL network should be putting NFL games on their network (monopoly?). But if it was my choice I would rather see the NFL network on basic cable and not have to pay and extra $10 a month for a sports tier with 7 channels I will rarely watch and 1 I would watch often.

Edit to add: Bryant Gumbel is terrible as a play by play man.
Click to expand...

This is all be true and valid...........the difference is that no other network or product attempts to dictate to cable TV who, and what, to charge for their product. They simply negotiate a price for their product and cable TV decides how to charge customers in order to make a profit.

Like Doc pointed out, Cable TV groups channels together on a tier, or package, to make sure they can offer "975 channels with nothing on" but that is their business just like scheduling games and setting ticket prices is the NFL's business. It's just like politicians put a bunch of BS issues on a ballet with an issue they know will pass, grouping NFL network with a bunch of women's channels may be the only way anyone would pay for those channels.
 
Well in that case then the NFL is probably going a little too far. They have way too much power, but have the best sports product on the planet, so they have earned it.
I guess the NFL Network is trying to screw the cable companies, but the cable companies have been screwing us by not allowing us to pick the channels we want to pay for only. They have the technology with digital cable, but would make less. Until the consumer demands it we will be stuck with what they give us.
Looks like the only real losers here are us, the NFL fans.
 
If I were to bet the ranch on who was trying to squeeze more cash out of anyone it would be the cable companies. They have had us as stated earlier "by the short hairs" for a long time. How come the satellite providers are not having the same problem as the cable networks?

I like the fact that the satellite companies have put some competition in the market. The cable companies are running those pittiful commercials about being "your neighbors" what a load of BS.
 
RMac5 said:
If I were to bet the ranch on who was trying to squeeze more cash out of anyone it would be the cable companies. They have had us as stated earlier "by the short hairs" for a long time. How come the satellite providers are not having the same problem as the cable networks?

I like the fact that the satellite companies have put some competition in the market. The cable companies are running those pittiful commercials about being "your neighbors" what a load of BS.
Click to expand...


I am far from a fan of cable TV but, let's face it, you get several months of Cable for the cost of going to one NFL game. You don't have to pay $10 for a beer and $7 for a hot dog while watching cable, you don't have to pay $35 to park to watch cable...........there really isn't a comparison in who has us by the short-hairs :D

Cable TV has the worst customer service I have ever witnessed......the only reason I haven't switched to satellite is because you have to sign up for a long term contract and are limited in what you can do if you don't like it, doesn't work, etc.
 
without a doubt the NFL network is out of line however, who in their right mind would pay for it? There is nothing on the channel from January through September and in fact how many games were actually on NFL network this season 3? They think they are ESPN and obviously are sadly mistaken!
 
I dont want the food, hallmark, we, univision, bet, disney and about 40 other useless channels but Ive got them and Im sure Im paying for them. Add another $1 to my $140 bill and be done with it.
 
Wasy is dead on that the NFL network is no ESPN. 16 weeks of games leaves 36 weeks of dead air. Pre-season and NFL films are not enough to make a mandatory channel. Don't even bother mentioning NFL Europe.

As it stands now, the NFL earns its broadcast fees from the networks who purchase broadcast rights. Then the network( or the cable channel, like ESPN which is ABC) pays for these broadcast rights through advertising dollars earned with adds during the game.

As a satellite or cable subsciber, I have no interest in getting the NFL channel. Especially when I live in Atlanta where the local game is likely blocked out because of low attendance, in which case I am being required to pay for nothing. I am a huge football fan, but college football. I have no interest in the NFL taking up a channel under a basic package, and the current pay access works fine for me. I do not want to subsidize the viewing habits of NFL fans through my cable rates. I do this already by purchasing the beer sold on adds between NFL huddles.

This appears to me that the NFL is trying to cut the networks out to collect the advertising dollars themselves which probably eclipse their broadcast fees threefold. But to do this, they need to show advertiser a bulk viewers by having the NFL network be a part of standard cable. Clearly TW must not believe its subscribers will accept this model, and for me they are right.

The television economic model is under severe pressure based upon internet application like You Tube that are taking away viewers. Then there are the DVR boxes that allow time allocated viewing and the fast forwarding through commercials causing advertisers to question the real impact of a television ad executive demographic data. I think the NFL model is late to market.

Granted, I live in Atlanta, and my nearest NFL teams are Nashville and Jacksonville, and ATL and JAX are in a heated competition for who could care less about their NFL team. I have no love for the cable companies, but the current broadcast model works fine for me.

Cparker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top