Who's to blame? NFLN or the cable companies?

[RashanGary]

Even if the NFL could influence 7% to switch total. It sounds like they've already lost a meaningfull portion of their viewers. The NFL just needs to keep pushing. I know I was a person on the fence and this year was the straw that broke the camels back. I can only hope there are a lot more people like me who just want to have the NFLN and don't want to pay for 10 other channels that they don't want.

[RashanGary]

Absolutely; I'm sure I'm not the only one saying I WILL have that channel one way or the other by next year

Actually I wish I had it for the draft coverage too

That's why I'm switching in March.

[MJZiggy]

I'll be curious to see how the cable companies respond to tonight's broadcast. It was quite the marketing adventure from Goodell's interview on.

[Bretsky]

I'll be curious to see how the cable companies respond to tonight's broadcast. It was quite the marketing adventure from Goodell's interview on.

Yes they did

I'll be calling CharterCrap again Monday

[Carolina_Packer]

I don't understand why the NFLN's strategy was not to get the product out there, even if the profits from it weren't as high as hoped, get the masses addicted and then when next agreement comes up, you've earned the right to charge more to the cable companies, and make them look like the bad guy if they were to drop the NFLN. Something tells me the NFLN can afford to lower what they'd be willing to accept from the cable companies to get the product out there.

[RashanGary]

Very good point, Carolina.

[Patler]

I have several problem's with the NFL and Big Ten situations:

The leagues are trying to dictate to the cable companies how to run their business when each is only a small part of the cable company product line.

This is a private negotiation, yet the leagues are trying to bring in conflict resolution procedures, such as mediation. That's fine if you are trying to resolve an existing contract dispute, but essentially this is simply a buyer and a seller negotiating a deal. It's a simple commercial negotiation.

All those meaningless channels you complain about cost virtually nothing for the cable companies to access. That's why they give them to you. The NFL network would be one of the most expensive broadcast source accesses for the cable companies to buy. The companies that are balking at the deal simply want the users of the expensive products to pay for it. Instead, the NFL wants the costs absorbed by all those who have no interest whatsoever in NFL football to pay for it. Yes, in some ways its similar to those other "meaningless" channels, but whereas those might cost a few pennies for each of us, the NFL network is 10x as much.

I am much more upset at the exorbitant price the NFL has put on their product than I am at the cable companies. If they would cut their fees in half, I bet Charter and the others would jump at the deal.

[RashanGary]

All those meaningless channels you complain about cost virtually nothing for the cable companies to access. That's why they give them to you. The NFL network would be one of the most expensive broadcast source accesses for the cable companies to buy. The companies that are balking at the deal simply want the users of the expensive products to pay for it. Instead, the NFL wants the costs absorbed by all those who have no interest whatsoever in NFL football to pay for it. Yes, in some ways its similar to those other "meaningless" channels, but whereas those might cost a few pennies for each of us, the NFL network is 10x as much.

This is just not true. The cable companies want to package the $0.70 NFL network with a bunch of junk none of us want and charge us $10.00 per person for their sports tier. They are the ones jacking the price up a multiple of ten. They don't simply "want us to pay for our channel" as you suggest. They want us to pay for a dozen channels just to get the one we want.

I am much more upset at the exorbitant price the NFL has put on their product than I am at the cable companies. If they would cut their fees in half, I bet Charter and the others would jump at the deal.

I agree with this. If dropping the price a little would help, they could probably do that. They should do it on a short term basis because I think they can take a big chunk out of ESPN's ratings and they'll have more bargaining power next time around.

[Patler]

How many of you remember the discussion from the NFL 10-15 years ago about eventually eliminating all free broadcasts of games? When it was mentioned, there was a huge uproar from fans, so they have quit referring to it. However, I believe that is still their goal, a strictly pay-per-view situation in which you will pay separately for each and every game you chose to watch. Owners mentioned the "unfairness" of people in their homes getting for free what the fans in the stands pay huge money for. That is how they have forced such huge contracts on the networks, the threat of pay-per-view.

Starting their own network was another step toward strict pay-per-view.

Personally, I hope the NFL Network is a complete failure.

[Patler]

This is just not true. The cable companies want to package the $0.70 NFL network with a bunch of junk none of us want and charge us $10.00 per person for their sports tier. They are the ones jacking the price up a multiple of ten. They don't simply "want us to pay for our channel" as you suggest. They want us to pay for a dozen channels just to get the one we want.

You missed the point, the $.70 itself is 10x as much as many of those other channels cost. If the cable companies choose to market it as a package "sports tier" that is their right, and you have the right not to buy it. Its simple supply and demand. If not enough buy it, the cable companies would have to revise their market strategy.

The same thing should be in play with the NFL/cable company negotiations, but the NFL is attempting to skirt the normal market influences on the price of their product.

[RashanGary]

As far as the price goes, it acctually seems calcuated and somewhat fair in my opinion.

Look at ESPN. They get $3.00 per costomer. I don't know what percentage of ESPN's ratings comes from the NFL, but I'd think 30% is a pretty good number. Interpolate ESPN's $3.00 rate to about 30% (the NFL's portion) and I think you have a pretty fair number with $0.70

I think you forget, Patler, that the NFL didn't set the sports market. They are entering an already established market. I'm sure they have some pretty smart people whos job is to place the NFLN in a reasonable bracket before they went to the negotiating table. Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

[RashanGary]

You missed the point, the $.70 itself is 10x as much as many of those other channels cost. If the cable companies choose to market it as a package "sports tier" that is their right, and you have the right not to buy it. Its simple supply and demand. If not enough buy it, the cable companies would have to revise their market strategy.

The same thing should be in play with the NFL/cable company negotiations, but the NFL is attempting to skirt the normal market influences on the price of their product.

I think you missed the point. Big Cable has every right to bully around a new network they way they are and have done in the past, but if the network has a big fan base, they have every right to let the fans know what is happening and every right to ask their fans to switch. Cable isn't used to competition. This whole thing is very new, but it doesn't mean it's wrong just becuase the way TV is purchased is changing. Now we have options and any network that wants to estabilish itslelf can use that rather than being bully's around by what used to be a monopoly.

[Patler]

Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

Very simple, wider appeal and much more programing on ESPN. There are programs on ESPN for any sports fan who has cable.

Explain to me why I should pay $.70 just for you to watch football? I might be willing to pay $.10, maybe, but not $.70.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The cable companies want to package the $0.70 NFL network with a bunch of junk none of us want and charge us $10.00 per person for their sports tier.

So what? They are packaging the product in the way that has the highest profit for them.

The only potential villian in this deal is the NFL Network, not because they too are trying to generate profits, but because they are leveraging their monopoly position, bullying other businesses. Major League Baseball and NFL exist as legal monopolies, but they aren't supposed to be throwing their weight around and swallowing-up ALL of the related business. The NFL Network is way over the line in dictating terms.

[RashanGary]

Take a look at ESPN's rate and explain to me why you think 30% of that is such an unreasonable request?

Very simple, wider appeal and much more programing on ESPN. There are programs on ESPN for any sports fan who has cable.

Explain to me why I should pay $.70 just for you to watch football? I might be willing to pay $.10, maybe, but not $.70.

You underestimate the popularity of the NFL, Patler. Like I said to the Thompson haters, you can make baseless claims all you want but when this thing plays out, the proof will be in the pudding. I'll be here. I havn't said much to the Thompson haters, but when people want to make baseless claims as if they are facts, all one can do is say "we'll see". So we will see Patler.