DTV not offering any "new" programming? - Page 4

bicker · 08-12-2009, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim58hsv

"Slow as compared" to the number of stations not utilizing their subchannel space yet despite there being plenty of free, fledging networks looking for a home in the local ota markets.

The word "slow" made it sound like you were comparing this to some other comparable situation.

Some affiliates have decided that it isn't worth the bother or isn't worth the stolen bandwidth to provide sub-channels. Just because there is the ability for there to be space doesn't mean that the space needs to be made, nor used. That's why I didn't think "slow" made any sense.

bicker · 08-12-2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim58hsv

Both ThisTV and RTV are now carried on many cable systems due to their exposure on ota channels and not the other way around.

How are those channels doing, in terms of profit?

bicker · 08-12-2009, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron62

Bicker (and I'm not picking on you, I just want proof) always seems to discuss how profitable cable and satellite companies, yet DirecTV isn't exactly doing so well with earnings. Is there any evidence or direct comparisons on the net about OTA earnings and cable and satellite providers? Do the large networks distinguish how much profit they earn off of OTA compared to cable, or are we limited to ThisTV and RTN earnings?

Money is always the point, when you're talking about a business.

I think the best thing folks can do is keep an eye on the industry press. You'll see, there, very frequently articles that outline how much less revenue is coming in, even for network affiliates.

Folks who deny the fact that OTA is facing a crisis are just going to be that much more surprised when things start happening as a result of that crisis.

bicker · 08-12-2009, 02:35 AM

And beyond the local stations, if you think the networks are safe, that's also not correct:

Quote:

Financially, the networks are on shaky ground, partly because they rely almost solely on advertising. CBS reported that for the fourth quarter of last year, as the recession deepened, operating income in its television segment declined 40 percent, even though it was by far the most-watched network. In the second week of February, CBS had 12 of the top 20 shows, according to Nielsen Media Research.

News Corporation, which owns Fox, reported operating income of $18 million in broadcast television, compared with $245 million a year ago. And Disney’s broadcasting business had a 60 percent drop in operating income.

For years the major networks raised their ad rates, despite the shrinking audience, because they still offered advertisers a larger audience than anyone else.

“More dollars are chasing fewer eyeballs,” said Gary Carr, director of broadcast services at TargetCast tcm, a media and marketing company.

[Source: The New York Times]

Tim58hsv · 08-12-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

How are those channels doing, in terms of profit?

That's something I've wondered about too but never been able to find an answer for.

My suspicion would be that due to the economy and the fact that both are relatively new business ventures. they're still in the red. Being in the red isn't uncommon for any new, expanding business during their first years of operation.

I did find an interesting link which, among other things, ponders the profitability of digital subchannels. Apparently the heads of ThisTV are claiming that their affiliates could see profits in excess of $1,000,000 a year by airing their network on subchannels. Sounds too good to be true and you know what they say about "if it sounds to good..."

But who knows? I guess only time will tell.

Here's the link

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._DTV_World.php

O-O · 08-12-2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim58hsv

I did find an interesting link which, among other things, ponders the profitability of digital subchannels. Apparently the heads of ThisTV are claiming that their affiliates could see profits in excess of $1,000,000 a year by airing their network on subchannels. Sounds too good to be true and you know what they say about "if it sounds to good..."

But who knows? I guess only time will tell.

Here's the link

Digi-Channels Enjoy Brave New Post-DTV World - 2009-06-20 11:00:00 EDT | Broadcasting & Cable

You never know. Just thinking aloud here, but

- their overall overhead seems really low
- the content that they broadcast probably costs them very little

EscapeVelocity · 08-12-2009, 09:11 AM

Bingo!

If you are broadcasting then a subchannel costs you very little and not using it to earn profit makes littel sense. Especially if you are broadcasting a duplicate of the primary channel or a black screen with logo already.

bicker · 08-12-2009, 09:37 AM

That makes the most sense to me: Broadcast your main channel, time-shifted by 3 hours.

Tim58hsv · 08-12-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-O

You never know. Just thinking aloud here, but

- their overall overhead seems really low
- the content that they broadcast probably costs them very little

Interesting and something I never thought of. These digital subchannels could be making a profit almost from the starting gate.

That could explain how Lukens Communication is able to start up a 2nd digital subchannel (TuffTV) while also operating RTV. Money, money, money.

Aaron62 · 08-12-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscapeVelocity

Bingo!

If you are broadcasting then a subchannel costs you very little and not using it to earn profit makes littel sense. Especially if you are broadcasting a duplicate of the primary channel or a black screen with logo already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim58hsv

Interesting and something I never thought of. These digital subchannels could be making a profit almost from the starting gate.

That could explain how Lukens Communication is able to start up a 2nd digital subchannel (TuffTV) while also operating RTV. Money, money, money.

But here's the kicker, and not to draw the conversation away from what the OP intended, but we're losing PQ for each added subchannel. I'm using Piggies post here even though it's more of a hypothesis,

Quote:

I can't see where the current system if you satisfy both content and picture quality crowd can have but a single subchannel and only if the main content is 720p without upsetting the picture quality crowd.

Do we really want a ton of "new" programming?


Home \| DTV & HD News \| Today's Posts \| JakesDTVBlog.com Interview \| Join DTV USA Forum