or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information - Page 2945

post #88321 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Interesting that 3 articles about ala carte get posted on the same day. Does anyone really believe that ESPN will cost $30/mo?

No, I think that's a scare tactic.
post #88322 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Here we go again...
Quote:
“It’s a very serious question mark whether consumers would have lower bills or cheaper service as a result of a la carte,” [National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. chief Michael Powell ] said, citing past studies including one by the Federal Communications Commission in 2004.

Rubbish. Believing this is like believing smoking cigarettes will improve your health.

I remember an "a la carte" trial with TVRO subscription prices in the late 80's. A la carte pricing was compared to package pricing from several distributors. For the same number of channels, package pricing was an easy winner. To save any significant amount, consumers felt they had to drop too many of their watched channels. They would rather pay the small extra amount to have access to a channel or two that they actually watched only a few times each year.
post #88323 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Interesting that 3 articles about ala carte get posted on the same day. Does anyone really believe that ESPN will cost $30/mo?
$30?

Of course not.

However, back when the Disney Channel started, it was a $9/month ala carte channel. Now, as part of a package, it costs subscribers around $.50/month.

All together, ESPN's suite of channels are around $7/month or so (while ESPN get's a lot of dough, the rest of the ESPN channels are significantly cheaper).

Currently, HBO's package is around $17 a month on top of your cable or satellite package.

My guess, ESPN's pricing would end up similar to that - somewhere in the $15/month range for their lineup. High value events would very likely go to a pay per view model through them.
post #88324 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dad1153 View Post

Business Notes
Going a la carte would destroy pay-TV industry, analyst says
By Ryan Faughnder, Los Angeles Times - Jul. 15, 2013


If the pay-TV industry undid the practice, known as bundling, it would lose about $70 billion, or half its revenue, annually, she said. In an ominous prediction, Martin concluded that unbundling could halve the total market capitalization of the TV ecosystem.

“Our calculations suggest that if the TV bundle starts to degrade, $400 million of market capitalization will turn into $200 million over 10 years, based on the datapoints from music and newspapers,” Martin wrote in a note to clients Monday.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-pay-tv-a-la-carte-20130715,0,3607664,full.story

So, put another way, the pay-TV biz is currently overvalued by ~$70 billion per year vs. performance in a true "free-market" system. biggrin.gif

That's like a 100% markup over wholesale ... or something ... wink.gif Nice racket. biggrin.gif
post #88325 of 93675
Destroy? I don't think it would mean the end of the world.....Hollywood could stand a rebooting, too; where's Snake Plisken when you need him?
post #88326 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

So, put another way, the pay-TV biz is currently overvalued by ~$70 billion per year vs. performance in a true "free-market" system. biggrin.gif

That's like a 100% markup over wholesale ... or something ... wink.gif Nice racket. biggrin.gif
You could say that about a lot of things:

- Soda
- Cereal
- Bottled water
- Clothing

All of those items have a huge markup. Further, if you're at a restaurant, you can't choose which provider of soda. At a grocery store, you're often at the mercy of how much a company paid for shelf space there.

Apple creates a closed market system where their devices and services are tied together to a point that most other products won't fully function with them.

Further, there are plenty of things that become far overvalued just by applying some sort of specialty to them. As someone who rides a motorcycle, I can't tell you the number of times I've shopped for parts at the hardware store where the same $.10 screw would be $2.50 with a motorcycle brand logo on the bag.

I could buy all the parts of a car individually, but it would be far more expensive than buying the car already built, too.

I buy eggs by the dozen because buying the 6 packs are more expensive - to the point where it's cheaper to dump a few I don't use than buy fewer. Certainly, having one or two delivered each morning just for that meal would be astronomically more expensive.

Think of cable and satellite as the warehouse store where you buy in bulk. It may cost you more overall (a 24 pack of towels costs more than a single roll), but you save per item verses buying in smaller quanities.
Edited by NetworkTV - 7/17/13 at 3:20pm
post #88327 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

I remember an "a la carte" trial with TVRO subscription prices in the late 80's. A la carte pricing was compared to package pricing from several distributors. For the same number of channels, package pricing was an easy winner.

Oh, come on… seriously?

Any time items are separately available, the package price cannot exceed the combined price of all the items, or else people would just buy separately.

The issue is what happens when products are not sold separately at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

I could buy all the parts of a car individually, but it would be far more expensive than buying the car already built, too.

I buy eggs by the dozen because buying the 6 packs are more expensive - to the point where it's cheaper to dump a few I don't use than buy fewer. Certainly, having one or two delivered each morning just for that meal would be astronomically more expensive.

Think of cable and satellite as the warehouse store where you buy in bulk. It may cost you more overall (a 24 pack of towels costs more than a single roll), but you save per item verses buying in smaller quanities.

Bundling is not the same as buying in quantity, nor is it the same as buying a complete product, whose various individual parts are individually useless.

Bundling is when you have to buy meat, milk, and eggs, in order to get bread. Sure, if you want all those things, that may be a bargain for you, but if you’re vegan, you’re going to pay a very high price for your bread.

But this has all been hashed and rehashed countless times here, and just as the cattle on my grandfather's farm probably thought the nice old man who brought them hay to eat when the ground was covered with snow was just there to provide them a long and happy life, there are many who will always believe that the advertiser driven TV market is all about keeping prices low for the viewer.
post #88328 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

So, put another way, the pay-TV biz is currently overvalued by ~$70 billion per year vs. performance in a true "free-market" system. biggrin.gif

That's like a 100% markup over wholesale ... or something ... wink.gif Nice racket. biggrin.gif
Note: that's REVENUE not PROFIT.


In any event, we're rehashing the same tired a la carte arguments. Partly my fault. Let's move on.
post #88329 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Oh, come on… seriously?

Any time items are separately available, the package price cannot exceed the combined price of all the items, or else people would just buy separately.

The issue is what happens when products are not sold separately at all.
Bundles are everywhere.

If I want the sport alloy wheels on my car, I have to buy Feature Group 106A, which includes leather seating, sport style monochrome grill and rear environmental controls with auxiliary audio connections. I can't just buy the sport alloy wheels.

At a lot of restaurants, a main dish comes with two sides whether I want them or not.

If I want Netflix on my X-Box, I have to buy X-Box Live (which is somewhat like how you have to get HBO).

Quote:
Bundling is not the same as buying in quantity, nor is it the same as buying a complete product, whose various individual parts are individually useless.

Bundling is when you have to buy meat, milk, and eggs, in order to get bread. Sure, if you want all those things, that may be a bargain for you, but if you’re vegan, you’re going to pay a very high price for your bread.

But this has all been hashed and rehashed countless times here, and just as the cattle on my grandfather's farm probably thought the nice old man who brought them hay to eat when the ground was covered with snow was just there to provide them a long and happy life, there are many who will always believe that the advertiser driven TV market is all about keeping prices low for the viewer.
It depends on your perspective.

If you think of each channel as it's own entity and source for specific content, then your eggs, milk and meat analogy applies.

However, if you merely think of them as conduits for content that can change as the channels see fit depending upon popularity, then those channels are really just rolls of towels in a package. Those channels can be anything, but they're all still just channels. They're all the same until programming is put on them.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable comparing the system to a buffet or salad bar. For one price, you get a lot of things you can sample from or choose to ignore. You can't just buy lettuce or a slice of prime rib.

BTW: you don't make friends comparing people to cattle.
Edited by NetworkTV - 7/17/13 at 5:35pm
post #88330 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

$30?

Of course not.

However, back when the Disney Channel started, it was a $9/month ala carte channel. Now, as part of a package, it costs subscribers around $.50/month.

All together, ESPN's suite of channels are around $7/month or so (while ESPN get's a lot of dough, the rest of the ESPN channels are significantly cheaper).

Currently, HBO's package is around $17 a month on top of your cable or satellite package.

My guess, ESPN's pricing would end up similar to that - somewhere in the $15/month range for their lineup. High value events would very likely go to a pay per view model through them.

That sounds a little low for all the ESPN channels. ESPN 3D is supposed to be around $2.70 per subscriber. I just wish I could get rid of all the ESPN channels and pocket the savings. And the few times I do watch ESPN it is certainly with a DVR. The one thing I do not want to watch live is a sports game. Since there is so much downtime when nothing is going on. Between the commercials and other times players are standing around, I want to be able to fast forward through it. I would rather watch a scripted show live than a game.
post #88331 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

If you think of each channel as it's own entity and source for specific content, then your eggs, milk and meat analogy applies.

Well, obviously, that's how those of us who favor a la carte see it.

Quote:
However, if you merely think of them as conduits for content that can change as the channels see fit depending upon popularity, then those channels are really just rolls of towels in a package. Those channels can be anything, but they're all still just channels. They're all the same until programming is put on them.

And just as obviously, this is how many in the TV industry see it. But bundling promotes and facilitates this perspective. When a viewer cannot realistically cancel, say, The Opera Channel if it decides to remake itself into The Country Cooking Channel, then sure, everything is the same as everything else. But I don't see that as a good thing.

Quote:
Maybe you'd be more comfortable comparing the system to a buffet or salad bar. For one price, you get a lot of things you can sample from or choose to ignore. You can't just buy lettuce or a slice of prime rib.

I'm fine with buffets, as long as the restaurant/food industry doesn't structure itself such that it is effectively impossible for any restaurant to operate any other way. If it were so structured, I'd have the same objections as I do to the pay TV industry.

Quote:
BTW: you don't make friends comparing people to cattle.

Don't take it personally. I watch some commercial TV, myself, ya know. smile.gif

But as has been pointed out here many times, in the commercial TV business, the viewer is the product, not the customer, so the analogy holds.

If you don't want to be one of the "cattle", then limit your viewing to non-commercial services only.

Bottom line: the idea that bundling is good for the viewer is industry hype. The reality is that it's great for content suppliers, who reap cartel prices, and for advertisers, who get lots of cheap advertising through the proliferation of channels, but it squeezes middlemen like TV channels and cable companies, and it gouges viewers.
post #88332 of 93675
Technology/Business Notes
Pushing the Right Buttons
Apple’s Move Into TV Relies on Cooperation With Industry Leaders
By Brian Stelter, The New York Times - Jul. 18, 2013


James Best Jr./The New York Times

When Apple wanted to revolutionize cellphones, it held hands with AT&T. The partners fought endlessly, but the public loved the finished product: the iPhone.

Now, as Apple tries to reimagine television, it is taking the partnership route again, collaborating with distributors like Time Warner Cable and programmers like the Walt Disney Company on apps that might eliminate the unpleasant parts of TV watching, like bothersome set-top boxes or clunky remote controls.

Apple’s broader strategy — what its chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, recently called its “grand vision” for television — remains shrouded in secrecy, as everything Apple-related tends to be. Some analysts continue to predict, as they have for years, that the company will someday come out with a full-blown television set.

Whether or not an iTV ever materializes, the company’s more modest steps, like improving the $100 Apple TV box that 13 million households now have and adding access to cable channels through the box, suggest that its strategy stands in stark contrast to Google’s, which is contemplating an Internet cable service that would compete directly with distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable.

Reports emerged earlier this week that Google has held talks with several channel owners about licensing channels for such a service, but no content deals are within reach.

Apple weighed something similar years ago, but its executives concluded that it should work with the industry’s powerful incumbents, rather than against them.

“Apple’s probably going to have greater access to content by deciding to cooperate,” said Natalie Clayton, who oversees digital video research for Frank N. Magid Associates.

Case in point, Apple last month turned on HBO and ESPN apps for Apple TV owners, much to the delight of all involved. But those work only for people who have an existing cable or satellite subscription.

Coming next is an app from Time Warner Cable, allowing some of the company’s 12 million subscribers to watch live and on-demand shows without a separate set-top box. The app will effectively add an Apple layer on top of the TV screen, providing what its proponents say is a programming guide that is far superior to anything offered by Time Warner.

Apple has talked in-depth with other big distributors about similar apps, according to people involved in the talks. Its intent is to collect a fee from distributors in exchange for enhancing their television service and in that way, theoretically, make subscribers more likely to keep paying for cable.

“They’re trying to apply their software expertise, their user interface expertise,” one of the people said. (The people, both at distributors and programmers, insisted on anonymity because they said public comments would interfere with the private talks with Apple.)

Apple has sought support from programmers as well. It has proposed, for instance, an ad-skipping technology that would compensate networks for the skipped ads by charging users. While the idea is far-fetched, it intrigued some of the channel owners who were briefed about it and excited Apple followers when it was first reported by the technology writer Jessica Lessin earlier this week.

For Apple, further moves into television could neutralize some of the skepticism about the company’s future since the death of Steve Jobs in 2011. Investor concerns that the company might not have another iPhone- or iPad-level innovation on the way have dragged down its stock price, which topped $700 for the first time last September, but has recently hovered closer to $400.

For the time being, Apple TV is a small part of its business — something best suited to “hobbyists,” as Mr. Cook put it at the D: All Things Digital conference in May. At that time, he hinted at the opportunity Apple saw in the living room, calling traditional TV watching “not an experience that I think many people love” and “too much like 10 or 20 years ago.”

It is easy to see how Apple could help. Products like Apple TV and Roku, which connect TVs to the Internet’s wealth of streaming content, have proliferated because the set-top boxes that cable companies supply have not kept up with shifts in consumer behavior. But the streaming boxes remain a somewhat niche technology.

Apple could choose to market its box more heavily, especially as competition heats up from Amazon and other companies. Or it could eliminate the need for any box at all by building its own TV set. Reports this week that Apple may acquire PrimeSense, a maker of motion-sensing technology that could be used to control a TV without a physical remote, prompted a new round of guessing about that.

In Apple’s partnership approach, some see the company placing a multitude of bets, recognizing that television could evolve in any number of ways.

Through Apple TV, it is simultaneously supporting established distributors and programmers as well as a parallel universe of streaming TV, as represented by Netflix, Hulu and Amazon.

Last month, in a little-noticed move, the company approved an app for Sky News, the British-based cable news channel. Sky could already be streamed live free on the Web, but by creating an app for Apple TV, the channel gained access to the television sets in 13 million homes without the need for complex negotiations with cable companies.

The Sky News app is free, but the software that powers it, from a company called 1 Mainstream, also allows for à la carte subscriptions.

Asked about the implications of the app, Rajeev Raman, the chief executive of 1 Mainstream, said: “It’s a learning year for Apple. And it’s a learning year for all of us, to say, O.K., what really does work?”

In effect the app is a more direct route to consumers for Sky News. Bloomberg TV, already available on cable, tried something similar earlier this year by cutting a carriage deal with Aereo, the streaming service backed by Barry Diller. But Aereo is antagonistic toward networks and existing distributors; Apple, at least for now, is positioning itself as a friend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/business/media/apples-move-into-tv-relies-on-cooperation-with-industry-leaders.html?ref=media&_r=0
post #88333 of 93675
Let me ask, why would it be bad if 20-50% of cable channels disappeared? How many Storage war shows do we need? How many Pawn shop shows do we need? How many honey Boo Boo's do we need? Seems to me crap has expanded to fill the available space. I'd like some form of Ala carte. I think competition has worked against the average subscriber, instead of bringing the price down it's forcing the price up with various outlets bidding for the same content.

Perhaps I'm a satiated viewer, but when D recently had the various "free" weekends of HBO, Showtime and the lot I watched and recored a total of ONE show. In the past I'd record a number of things and watch them later. For me there is more content than I can possible watch, seasonally I go through a dump lots of content off my DVR, stuff that I thought I'd like to watch, but never got the interest up enough to do so. Who knows with fewer outlets perhaps quality would go up.
post #88334 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

Let me ask, why would it be bad if 20-50% of cable channels disappeared?

They've already disappeared from my channel guide. I can see my guide now has three new additions about to be slotted in. TVG HD, Reelz HD, EWTN HD, UP HD all are about be deleted from my guide. I expect the 50 people who watch those channels will be happy to see them.

I'm still rolling my eyes at FXX. I like FX a lot but they barely have enough original content to fill a schedule as it is. Does the world need another version so the programming will have to be divided and the rest of the schedules filled with more reruns and edited movies? I don't remember hearing any viewer say "Gee, we really need another version of FX. They have far too much content."
post #88335 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Bundles are everywhere.

If I want the sport alloy wheels on my car, I have to buy Feature Group 106A, which includes leather seating, sport style monochrome grill and rear environmental controls with auxiliary audio connections. I can't just buy the sport alloy wheels.

I'd "buy" your argument, if it weren't for the "fact" that it's clear to anyone with half a brain that "cable" bundling exists solely to drive up the final cost to the the cable co which, of course, is passed directly to the end "consumer" all while claiming the most "billboard space" you can grab.

Please explain why we need 3 channels of MTV (none of which really programs music content anymore,) Plus 2 VH1's (I haven't bothered to look at those in at least 13 years.) But no, if you actually want music programming you've got to subscribe to "Palladia," which, of course, cost extra because a) It's on the uber-special HDTV tier/bundle and b) It actually has music programming.

... Clearly, things have gotten way out of hand. smile.gif

PS: Yes, the same applies to the Auto industry ... OTOH, I've never bought or even leased a new car, although I've occasionally flirted with the idea ... so far I've managed to talk myself off of the ledge each time. biggrin.gif
post #88336 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

Please explain why we need 3 channels of MTV (none of which really programs music content anymore,) Plus 2 VH1's (I haven't bothered to look at those in at least 13 years.) But no, if you actually want music programming you've got to subscribe to "Palladia," which, of course, cost extra because a) It's on the uber-special HDTV tier/bundle and b) It actually has music programming.

Ha I was actually watching Palladia tonight and it's such a sad indictment of US music television that without all the Euro concerts and UK programming it would mostly be old episodes of Unplugged and Daryl Hall, and his show is made for the internet!
post #88337 of 93675
right,Congratulations on almost bringing the old server to its knees as I am sure this will as well over time. 12.gif
post #88338 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

I remember an "a la carte" trial with TVRO subscription prices in the late 80's. A la carte pricing was compared to package pricing from several distributors. For the same number of channels, package pricing was an easy winner.

Oh, come on… seriously?

Yes, seriously. In a situation of 100 people buying a package of 30 channels for $30, each channel would get $100. So if they went a la carte and only 25 people bought that channel, the channel would have to charge $4 to earn that same $100. Suddenly, people got only 7 channels for their same $30 ($28). That's fine if they only wanted 7 channels. But if they wanted 10 channels? 15 channels? Boy, did they love a la carte.
post #88339 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

Let me ask, why would it be bad if 20-50% of cable channels disappeared?

That's fine, as long as I didn't watch one of the failed channels.
post #88340 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

That's fine, as long as I didn't watch one of the failed channels.

If a channel fails it has only itself to blame. When you offer a decent level of quality programming you will have no problem finding enough viewers to watch. That's how HBO has survived when it too has barely enough content to fill one channel but still insists on pointless additions like Zone and Signature.
post #88341 of 93675
TV Notes
On The Air Tonight
THURSDAY Network Primetime/Late Night Options
(All shows are in HD unless noted; start times are ET. Network late night shows are preceded by late local news)

ABC:
8PM - Wipeout
9PM - Motive
10PM - Rookie Blue
* * * *
11:35PM - Jimmy Kimmel Live! (Mary-Louise Parker; Idris Elba; Rhye performs)
(R - Jul. 8)
12:37AM - Nightline

CBS:
8PM - The Big Bang Theory
(R - May 2)
8:31PM - Two and a Half Men
(R - Feb. 14)
9:01PM - Big Brother (LIVE) SD
10:01PM - Elementary
(R - Nov. 1)
* * * *
11:35PM - Late Show with David Letterman (Liev Schreiber; comic Adam Newman; Cold War Kids perform)
12:37AM - Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (Jeffrey Tambor; Cristela Alonzo performs)

NBC:
8PM - The Winner Is...
(R - Jul. 11)
9PM - The Winner Is...
10PM - Hollywood Game Night
* * * *
11:34PM - The Tonight Show With Jay Leno (Anthony Hopkins; comic Amy Schumer; Robert Randolph and the Family Band perform)
12:36AM - Late Night With Jimmy Fallon (Ryan Reynolds; comic Bob Saget; Fall Out Boy performs; Michael Winslow performs with The Roots)
1:36AM - Last Call With Carson Daly (Buzz Aldrin, The Indecent, Big Black Delta)
(R)

FOX:
8PM - Hell's Kitchen
(R - May 9)
9PM - Hell's Kitchen

PBS:
(check your local listing for starting time/programming)
8PM - The 'This Old House' Hour (R - Jan. 17)
9PM - Frontline: The Real CSI
(R - Jul. 15)
10:30PM - Antiques Roadshow: Louisville
(R - Jul. 15)

UNIVISION:
8PM - Premio Juventud 2013 (Three Hours)

THE CW:
8PM - The Vampire Diaries
(R - Jan. 31)
9PM - Beauty and the Beast
(R - May 9)

TELEMUNDO:
8PM - Dama y Obrero
9PM - Marido en Alquiler
10PM - El Señor de los Cielos

COMEDY CENTRAL:
11PM - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Author Sarah Vowell)
11:30PM - The Colbert Report (Jeff Bridges)

TBS:
11PM - Conan (Jeff Garlin; Olivia Munn)

E!:
11PM - Chelsea Lately (Snoop Lion; Thomas Dale; Kerri Kenney-Silver; James Davis)
[/b]
post #88342 of 93675
TV Notes
‘Rookie Blue’ Is A Veteran: ABC Renews Cop Drama For Fifth Season
By The Deadline.com - Jul. 17, 2013

ABC gave its Toronto-set cop drama an early renewal today, shrugging off the show’s season-low numbers from last week. Instead, the network pointed out that Rookie Blue is the summer’s No. 1 show in total viewers for its 10PM Thursday slot, resulting in its most-watched season since 2010.

Produced in the Great White North by ICF Films and Entertainment One, the series stars Missy Peregrym and Gregory Smith as cops who still feel like rookies despite their four years on the job. Charlotte Sullivan, Enuka Okuma, Travis Milne, Peter Mooney, Ben Bass, Priscilla Faia and Rachael Ancheril co-star. Production on Season 5 will begin in January for a summer 2014 premiere.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/07/rookie-blue-renewed-abc-season-5/
post #88343 of 93675
TV Notes
Wendy Williams Reality Series, John Rich Variety Show Coming to TV Guide Network
By Jethro Nededog, TheWrap.com - Jul. 17, 2013

TV Guide Network (TVGN), co-owned by Lionsgate and CBS, has landed two new series with popular daytime talker Wendy Williams, and "Celebrity Apprentice" champ, country singer John Rich in addition to two more unscripted series slated to debut in the fall: "Mother of All Talent" and "Tequila Sisters."

Under the working title, "Wendy Williams Project," the opinionated radio personality-turned-daytime talker gives TVGN's cameras a backstage look at her life. The series will go behind-the-scenes on "The Wendy Williams Show," as well as follow her as she prepares for her Broadway debut in "Chicago" as prison matron Mama Morton.

Williams will also executive produce under her company, Wendy Williams Productions, alongside additional EPs Kevin Hunter, Lisa Knapp and Jill Ramsey.

As for the "John Rich Project" (working title), the Big & Rich singer gets the chance to do a little of everything. The ambitious primetime show will include celebrity interviews, musical performances as well as go behind the scenes of Rich's life at his home, "Mount Richmore" in Nashville.

25/7 Productions will produce with David Broome (“The Biggest Loser”), Yong Yam and Marc Oswald set to executive produce.

TVGN announced two more unscripted series for the fall programming slate. Read the official descriptions below:

MOTHER OF ALL TALENT: This eight-episode docu-series follows the dynamic mother-daughter duo Nikki and Lorri, who have built one of the nation’s leading talent agencies for kids straight from their quirky hometown in Staten Island, N.Y. This comedic yet aspirational series will capture what it takes to find and manage children in showbiz, while also contending with overly ambitious stage parents. Mother Nikki can be blunt and overbearing, while daughter Lorri always makes things right for the clients. Managing kids is a strange and demanding business. The jobs are real, the competition is stiff and the stakes are high. MOTHER OF ALL TALENT is produced by Jarrett Creative (“Boston’s Finest”) with Seth Jarrett and Julie Insogna-Jarrett as Executive Producers.

TEQUILA SISTERS: Old-world family values and new-generation ideals collide in this eight-episode docu-soap series that follows the real lives of the Marins, an affluent, multi-generational Hispanic family living in Southern California. The show follows Mexican-born family patriarch and tequila entrepreneur Bill and his wife Lori, as they raise four beautiful daughters—Jen, Lauren, Jackie and Catherine—while fighting to pass along traditional values of family and marriage when faced with the seductions of Hollywood lifestyle. The girls, all in their 20s, try to find their independence while facing questions of assimilation, boyfriends and dating, sibling rivalries and changing economic times for the family. The show spotlights the dynamics and drama of being a Marin, which can be explosive and combative at times, but always rooted in love. TEQUILA SISTERS is produced by Rogue Atlas Productions in association with Lionsgate with Eli Frankel (“Amazing Race,” “Braxton Family Values” and “American Chopper”) as Executive Producer.

http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/wendy-williams-reality-series-john-rich-variety-show-coming-tv-guide-network-103931
post #88344 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

ESPN overbids and forces many sports off free tv, while that same overbidding costs people with no interest in sports to pay significantly more for cable/sat service. Time to take them off their gravy train which is clearly against the public interest.

I agree 100%. This is why we need ala carte so people who have no interest in sports wouldn't have to feed their monopoly. Other channels that show reality crap would go off the air and people would only pay for what they are interested in.

When ESPN couldn't pay for the billion dollar contracts they recently signed let them lose the rights to them and let other networks bid on them.
post #88345 of 93675
One thing people seem to overlook about cable bundles v. ala carte is that channels themselves are bundles. True ala carte would be just the actual shows and events you want to watch. Most of what I watch is scattered all over the place. There's probably a dozen channels where I only watch one thing on that particular channel.
post #88346 of 93675
I bet people would still spend the same with an a la carte service that they do now.
post #88347 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi Master View Post

I agree 100%. This is why we need ala carte so people who have no interest in sports wouldn't have to feed their monopoly. Other channels that show reality crap would go off the air and people would only pay for what they are interested in.

Sadly, as much as I despise shows like Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, etc they are top-rated shows and I highly doubt they'll be leaving anytime soon. I would rather pay for the bundle and the crap that goes with it to ensure that the programs that I do enjoy stay on the air.
post #88348 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by joblo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

I remember an "a la carte" trial with TVRO subscription prices in the late 80's. A la carte pricing was compared to package pricing from several distributors. For the same number of channels, package pricing was an easy winner.

Oh, come on… seriously?

Yes, seriously. In a situation of 100 people buying a package of 30 channels for $30, each channel would get $100. So if they went a la carte and only 25 people bought that channel, the channel would have to charge $4 to earn that same $100. Suddenly, people got only 7 channels for their same $30 ($28).

This is not how the world works. It's not a question of how much they "would have to charge".

No offense, but you need to take a basic Econ course, and learn about supply and demand. (It's off topic for the thread...)

I'm on my way out of town for the weekend, so I'm outta here. smile.gif
post #88349 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

That sounds a little low for all the ESPN channels. ESPN 3D is supposed to be around $2.70 per subscriber. I just wish I could get rid of all the ESPN channels and pocket the savings. And the few times I do watch ESPN it is certainly with a DVR. The one thing I do not want to watch live is a sports game. Since there is so much downtime when nothing is going on. Between the commercials and other times players are standing around, I want to be able to fast forward through it. I would rather watch a scripted show live than a game.

$2.70 just for their 3D channel? Man, they're making a lot of money off of everyone else for the 113 people who watch 3D! biggrin.gif
post #88350 of 93675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhufnagel View Post

When you pay 50-100% more on a contract than what you paid on the previous contract, with no serious competition, then I would say you're overpaying.

RSN's pay good money because they are directly competing against local stations for content. Who was ESPN competing against during most of the last 20 years? Versus? TNT? Like I said nothing serious.

What in the world are you talking about? Why on earth would ESPN pay more than they have to for content? Are you just ignoring the broadcast channels bidding for content? The broadcasters certainly bid on the NFL. They bid on college. Heck, the trend now is for the college football conferences to start their own networks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Hot Off The Press: The Latest TV News and Information