Slashdot Mirror
Viacom and DirecTV Reach New Agreement
An anonymous reader writes "About 10 days after Viacom pulled 26 channels from DirecTV over a contract dispute, the two companies have finally come to an agreement that should have DirecTV fans in need of their MTV rejoicing. While precise details of the newly agreed upon contract weren't made public, Bloomberg is reporting that the new contract is for 7 years with Viacom set to receive more than $600 million a year from DirecTV. That represents a 20% payment increase from the previous contract and is slightly below the 30% increase, or $1 billion, Viacom was initially pushing for."
The disturbing part of this dispute, to me, was how Viacom pulled its shows from the internet in addition to DirecTV. Advertising your side of the story is one thing, but going out of your way to directly frustrate viewers who are interested in your shows seems like bad business.
And the public library is still free.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. I wouldn't put MTV in the keep category. Perhaps in the 80s with Liquid Television and Remote Control. But, their reality TV is abysmal, at best. Nick is great for kids. 2. Yeah, the commercials really bug me. In most of the EU, there's a huge "Commercial" text on the screen with a timer counting down to 00:00 so you know when the programming will be back on. Sometimes, it's 5mins and it's great that I know exactly how long I have.
"The disturbing part of this dispute, to me, was how Viacom pulled its shows from the internet in addition to DirecTV. Advertising your side of the story is one thing, but going out of your way to directly frustrate viewers who are interested in your shows seems like bad business."
This was one of DirecTVs key complaints. Why should DirecTV pay for content that Viacom was giving away for free on the internet? Not really an incentive to "pay" for that same content.
I've said that for years. PLUS, if so many of Viacom's channels are primarily AD-supported (MTV and Nickleodeon runs TONS of commercials), pulling the channels off of Direct TV means fewer viewers, meaning the advertisers are getting ripped off by Viacom. Viacom and companies like it should be PAYING the cable and satellite companies to carry their channels. If you want to charge for access to the channels, those channels shouldn't be double-dipping and showing commercials as well....
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
No, because this is only Viacom. All programmers continually pull this shit. The only solution is to start paring the number of channels. The programmers anticipate this and keep large groups of channels together in all-or-nothing packages. The same things people bitch about the cable or satellite companies doing are the same things the programmers do to the providers. Providers need to start holding their ground on these things and be willing to permanently give up certain channels if necessary.
That's part of the reason Cable/Satellite doesn't offer "build-your-own" packages where you can choose the channels you want....
The PBS IQ/PBS Kids is a great kids channel. It is one of the digital OTA channels from PBS.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Nick is not great for kids. Nick is great for lazy parents.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Redstone et al. at Viacom got exposed to a big hot reality beam during the last two weeks.
The chronology of events is astonishing to me. Viacom pulls their content from DirecTV. DirecTV actually argues that their subscribers can get their Daily Show fix from the Internet thereby introducing millions of dearly paying subscribers to a delivery platform they had previously slouched away from. Viacom reacts to this by briefly pulling their content off the Internet, punishing millions of people that have never subscribed to DirecTV. Under pressure by their streaming advertisers and outraged Internet audience Viacom relents and puts the content back up!
DirecTV should have held out longer. Viacom blinked when they discovered they couldn't abuse their audience with impunity. That's when you're supposed go for the jugular.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
It's not like people cancel or refuse to subscribe due to the commercials.
Oh YES they do. That is a reason why people are "cutting the cord" more and more each year, although the primary ones are cost and ease of use. Don't think it was coincidence that they shut off the Internet distribution channels at the same time either. It was paramount that during this dispute that people paying for cable did not get any kind of inkling of what a world without Cable TV could be like.
I was an "early adopter" of Cable TV free lifestyle. It's a lot easier now than it was nearly 10 years ago too. Legal or not, there are more and more ad free distribution channels popping up each day.
Once people experience ad free programming it becomes very addictive. You start to realize the incredible mind numbing bullshit you have to wade through just to get some programming. The times I have been over at friends houses watching TV with them, just channel surfing, was painful. It is close to 50% commercials now, and something like 80% of every channel you are flipping to is currently playing a commercial. I think they got smart and synced up their commercials so that you will be watching a commercial no matter what if you are surfing.
People only put up with advertisements because they are complacent and/or don't know about a solution to not have them. It is not surprising that once a solution becomes available that people jump.
Disturbing and bad business to pull their shows from the Internet? Any other action would have been like suicide for Viacom. As it stands right now, I guarantee you that non-trivial percentage of Viacom subscribers through DirectTV now have the knowledge and impetus to cut the cord for good.