Fox threatens to take network off OTA, make subscription-only.

[SirFozzie]

News Corp. threatens to charge for Fox - Steve Friess - POLITICO.com

The networks are losing their dominance over American viewers and this is their way of fighting back.

[SackAttack]

Please don't throw me in that briar patch.

[Desnudo]

Threatens who?

[SirFozzie]

Everyone. They're fed up with services like Hopper and the like (they mention one such service in the article).. that they would rather stop providing programming to affiliates and just make "the Fox Network" and leave their affiliates to rot.

[RainMaker]

The irony of Rupert Murdoch shilling for big government.

[panerd]

Football and occasional Saturday Cardinal games is all I think I watch on that network. Sadly much like Directv and the Sunday Ticket Fox would have me by the balls with this move. I think their best bet for an impact would be to do it in September.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The irony of Rupert Murdoch shilling for big government.

Not really much irony about it. Does anyone actually believe that Murdoch isn't part of the machine? (I guess I should say anyone capable of critical thought not the FoxNews afternoon audience)

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Everyone. They're fed up with services like Hopper and the like (they mention one such service in the article).. that they would rather stop providing programming to affiliates and just make "the Fox Network" and leave their affiliates to rot.

I suppose that holds water until Sunday ticket monopoly is up in 2015. If fox was off the tv, I don't think I'd miss it. I'd actually miss FX a lot more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Probably worth noting that each of the networks is pretty well positioned to do the same thing. CBS, NBC and ABC all have a large presence on cable (same as Fox) and could make the same move at some point.

Do I think Fox will do it, at least any time very soon? Nah.
Do I think it's coming? Yes, quite possibly.

[Butter]

If it does happen, what happens to all these OTA stations? Do they also become cable only?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If it does happen, what happens to all these OTA stations? Do they also become cable only?

In a vacuum, they become effectively orphaned without much programming and without any ready way to fund the locally produced programming they do have.

Of course, this wouldn't happen in a vacuum.

Whether new networks emerged to try to fill the void (can you imagine what those lineups would look like, a veritable D-list of shows) or if existing minor/micro networks like Retro, RFD TV, and the like would see an increased profile ... well, that's the $64 question.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In a vacuum, they become effectively orphaned without much programming and without any ready way to fund the locally produced programming they do have.

Of course, this wouldn't happen in a vacuum.

Whether new networks emerged to try to fill the void (can you imagine what those lineups would look like, a veritable D-list of shows) or if existing minor/micro networks like Retro, RFD TV, and the like would see an increased profile ... well, that's the $64 question.

I think it's somewhat like what we're seeing now in indie gaming. While they would start slow, they could establish the product and eventually, over the long term, because the favored option because they're much more customer focused than their OTA predecessors.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think it's somewhat like what we're seeing now in indie gaming. While they would start slow, they could establish the product and eventually, over the long term, because the favored option because they're much more customer focused than their OTA predecessors.

Honestly, I'd say there's a better chance of pigs flying than seeing that happen. Look at what the customers have made it clear they want (check the ratings), it ain't local.

And what they want isn't something financially feasible for local stations to produce in the quantity required, especially not with revenue streams that would be a tiny fraction of what they are currently.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Honestly, I'd say there's a better chance of pigs flying than seeing that happen. Look at what the customers have made it clear they want (check the ratings), it ain't local.

And what they want isn't something financially feasible for local stations to produce in the quantity required, especially not with revenue streams that would be a tiny fraction of what they are currently.

I agree that it likely won't happen. I was just answering the question of what could occur if it were to happen.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

if existing minor/micro networks like Retro, RFD TV, and the like would see an increased profile ... well, that's the $64 question.

If that means more Mollie B Polka Party, I'm in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flounder

If that means more Mollie B Polka Party, I'm in.

I was thinking 18 hours of Hee-Haw reruns but that still leaves 5 hours for Mollie and 1 hour for the Daily Hog & Cattle Update.

[RendeR]

I want to see Fox go this route. They'll be dead within 2-3 years for lack of income.

The NFL will drop them entirely for breach of contract, sue them and win a ridiculous amount of money. Every other major sport that Fox broadcasts will do the same.

Sure Fox will maintain probably the largest ratings average of any CABLE network. Too bad those don't hold a candle to the ratings levels of the broadcast networks overall. Their advertising dollars will dry up.

Its a hollow threat, but tis one I'd LOVE to see them try. Fox is probably the most pathetic example of a broadcast network that I've seen in my 44 years of existence.

[molson]

The president and chief operating officer of News Corp. has an amazing mustache. I don't know where, or if, that fits into all of this, but I feel like it should.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by molson

The president and chief operating officer of News Corp. has an amazing mustache. I don't know where, or if, that fits into all of this, but I feel like it should.

Does he twirl the end of it?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I was thinking 18 hours of Hee-Haw reruns but that still leaves 5 hours for Mollie and 1 hour for the Daily Hog & Cattle Update.

Actually, I would think they'd just do reruns of cable broadcast with some kind of delay (6 months? A year?). Lots of syndication, and continue with local news. Some might even go full time with their alternate digital channels with 24 news, weather and traffic. The viewership will be smaller, but (and you might know this better than I), the profits might actually be better for the local broadcasters. This all might be a lot closer to reality than we think.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Actually, I would think they'd just do reruns of cable broadcast with some kind of delay (6 months? A year?). Lots of syndication, and continue with local news. Some might even go full time with their alternate digital channels with 24 news, weather and traffic. The viewership will be smaller, but (and you might know this better than I), the profits might actually be better for the local broadcasters. This all might be a lot closer to reality than we think.

The reruns of the cablecast would be at the content provider's (i.e. the networks) discretion. And I doubt they'd be willing to play along unless the dollars were huge ... and the diminished ratings they'd draw for the affiliates wouldn't justify huge dollars.

The typical alt digi 24 hr news channel draws a rating of less than 0.1. (i.e. 1/10th of 1% of all households). Spots there are usually sold at anywhere from $1 to $5 per, and that's in cases where they aren't simply bonused outright as freebie value-addeds.

The minimal profit tied to those comes from them being largely repurposed or automated content that's derived from the existing newscasts on the regular channel. Local news is the most expensive part of local station operations now, without the primetime cash cows those would often cease to exist (or at least would cease to be in their current recognizable form).

[SirFozzie]

Here's the story on time:

Murdoch’s News Corp. Threatens to Pull Fox Off the Air in Aereo Dispute | TIME.com

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Does he twirl the end of it?

This post did not get enough love

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The typical alt digi 24 hr news channel draws a rating of less than 0.1. (i.e. 1/10th of 1% of all households). Spots there are usually sold at anywhere from $1 to $5 per, and that's in cases where they aren't simply bonused outright as freebie value-addeds.

Describe this to me again? It sounded to me like I could create an ad, and pay $1-$5 to have it on the air somewhere. Then again, I'm guessing alt digi means online only so no one is watching anyways.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Describe this to me again? It sounded to me like I could create an ad, and pay $1-$5 to have it on the air somewhere. Then again, I'm guessing alt digi means online only so no one is watching anyways.

You got it with the part at the end

There's thousands upon thousands of local TV stations+local cable systems (i.e. FoxNews or CNN or whatever but only airing in your market on that one cable system during the local breaks) where you can get on the air for literally the proverbial "dolllar a holler". But you also get what you pay for, or in some cases, even $1 a spot is overpriced.

[sterlingice]

Ok, so I was thinking about ala carte programming in the shower last night (as an aside: I get so many great ideas there and I forget 9/10ths of them- I need to start a thread about feasible ways to write in the shower: totally serious).

The criticism against is that you end up with less stations overall because bundling is essentially subsidization. However, we end up with a lot of crap trying to capitalize on some sort of reality tv buzz to catch lightning in a bottle and build a network. What was the last cable network you could think of that tried some other format for more than 6 months before panicking and trying to blast with tons of reality tv (or something syndicated), trying to see what sticks.

These days, if you want a new scripted show, you shop to TNT, TBS, AMC, FX - networks with some pockets. Meanwhile, a lot of other stations like the host of "learning" channels or even niche channels like SyFy or FoodTV have sank into the reality tv morass, removing "cooking" or "science fiction" with the latest darwinistic contest for who can be the next chef on an actual show or hunt ghosts eighteen different ways. Hell, CourtTV became TruTV.

Does thinning the herd stop some of the splintering and kneejerk move towards cheap reality tv? Or does it just take, say, 50 channels out of 200 off the top and the ratios remain the same?

Another very valid option is that maybe I'm looking at the paradigm all wrong. We're in a transitional period where tv dies a slow, lingering death as the internet takes over in the next 20 years. It will look like the newspaper landscape: you have some who made good transitions (New York Times) and others who aren't while alternative sources that weren't there 20 years ago (say, HuffPo, DailyBeast, etc) rise up and take the place of the ones who went away.

SI

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by molson

The president and chief operating officer of News Corp. has an amazing mustache. I don't know where, or if, that fits into all of this, but I feel like it should.

this was the only part of the article that interested me

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll comment more later (gotta run out the door) but one quick thought re: network patience

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hell, CourtTV became TruTV.

It was CourtTV for 17 years before the switch. And it's probably one of the most successful switches I can think of, ratings soared & put them into a completely different tier of networks because of the changes.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, basically you may find a lot more stations going to reality programming if a la carte hits because... well, it gets ratings.

Also, IIRC, AMC basically was able to do Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc, because of cable fees giving them some cash to take a risk on serialized drama. Mad Men is still losing money on its own, but is kind of a loss leader, showing that AMC is serious about dramatic shows which helps it gain a Walking Dead which makes it money.

[RainMaker]

Wouldn't we still see bundling though? I mean only a handful of companies own most of the cable networks. Wouldn't Fox still force you to take all their other cable channels (FX, Fox News) if you wanted their main one?

I still think we are a ways from any of this stuff happening and this is all grandstanding by a company butthurt that they can't get the laws to eliminate their competition.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't we still see bundling though? I mean only a handful of companies own most of the cable networks. Wouldn't Fox still force you to take all their other cable channels (FX, Fox News) if you wanted their main one?

Well, under a legislated ala carte system, presumably they couldn't.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I said I'd try to come back to this later, I guess I actually made it

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Does thinning the herd stop some of the splintering and kneejerk move towards cheap reality tv? Or does it just take, say, 50 channels out of 200 off the top and the ratios remain the same?

If I had to guess, you'd be looking at the death of close to half the existing networks (not quite, but nearer that than 1/4). Removing those almost surely just consolidates what works under fewer roofs.

As always though, I feel strongly that it's worth noting that networks don't particular give a crap what you watch just that you watch in sufficient quantity to justify the show's cost. Dramas, sitcoms, police procedurals, reality, news, sports, whatever. Watch it & they'll put it on.

The issue that people often take with reality shows (or whatever the whipping boy is at a given moment) is, IMO, extremely misplaced. If you want to be mad at something, look at the people ahead & behind you in line at the grocery store and the bank and the concession stand at the game. They're the reason those shows have their prominence in the landscape, not the networks. The latter is simply providing what has a sufficient market to be justified.

Another very valid option is that maybe I'm looking at the paradigm all wrong. We're in a transitional period where tv dies a slow, lingering death as the internet takes over in the next 20 years.

I think there's a fair chance of that being the case. Maybe not so extreme as a total disappearance but with every passing day the percentage of people who consider TV as their primary source of entertainment & information gets just a little bit smaller. I think TV in general - especially broadcast but ultimately cable as well - is headed in the same direction as the late night talk shows: decreasing relevance.

[kcchief19]

The Fox to cable is a total bluff. They would have to completely rebuild their business model, and there is no way they could sustain their ratings.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

(as an aside: I get so many great ideas there and I forget 9/10ths of them- I need to start a thread about feasible ways to write in the shower: totally serious).

SI

Simple, get waterproof survey pages. They are super cheap, and you can write on them while they are under a tap if you really wanted to. Our field guys use them in the rain with pencils and it works really well. Maybe to work in the shower you might need to use wax pencils but it'd be a pretty easy deal overall. My fee is 10% of whatever profits your great ideas generate.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by nilodor

Simple, get waterproof survey pages. They are super cheap, and you can write on them while they are under a tap if you really wanted to. Our field guys use them in the rain with pencils and it works really well. Maybe to work in the shower you might need to use wax pencils but it'd be a pretty easy deal overall. My fee is 10% of whatever profits your great ideas generate.

Unfortunately, I believe that making a deal where the person has no chance to agree or disagree with it isn't legally binding. If you feel you should bring a lawsuit, after lawyer fees and converting to Canadian, you will be entitled to 1 free picture of me in the shower, drawn on a waterproof survey page in stick figure style.

However, as you can see, my ideas, well- they're not the greatest but can be slightly interesting. I was looking for something possible reusable but all of my ideas like dry erase board above the shower or wax pencil get pretty dirty and would probably end with either much grief from my wife or me cleaning the shower. A lot.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As always though, I feel strongly that it's worth noting that networks don't particular give a crap what you watch just that you watch in sufficient quantity to justify the show's cost. Dramas, sitcoms, police procedurals, reality, news, sports, whatever. Watch it & they'll put it on.

The issue that people often take with reality shows (or whatever the whipping boy is at a given moment) is, IMO, extremely misplaced. If you want to be mad at something, look at the people ahead & behind you in line at the grocery store and the bank and the concession stand at the game. They're the reason those shows have their prominence in the landscape, not the networks. The latter is simply providing what has a sufficient market to be justified.

I think that's an oversimplification as the networks are the gatekeepers but it has become much more "democratized" in the last 30 years. They still control what gets major ad pushes and what doesn't as well as picking what even gets a shot in the first place.

Then again, if I were an evil genius into eugenics, a sterility beam on the carrier wave of certain programs might actually do society some good. And these thoughts were all made possible by nilodor! Bwahahahahaha!

SI

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Then again, if I were an evil genius into eugenics, a sterility beam on the carrier wave of certain programs might actually do society some good. And these thoughts were all made possible by nilodor! Bwahahahahaha!

SI

Figure out a way to make this happen and I'll gladly contribute to your Kickstarter campaign.