News about VERSUS for Charter Cable Subscribers

[KzooShark]

Someone backed down, since they reached "an agreement in principle"

 

[Los Tiburones]

Just heard the same from Charter on the phone while complaining about my bill.

 

[X-SHARKIE]

AWESOMEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[OG6ix]

**** versus!

 

[puck57]

Great news for you guys- maybe all our e-mails had just a little effect afterall- no matter how- just good that you'all will still have Versus for the playoffs.

 

[Matthew]

Don't forget the hours of quality Bull Riding we will miss.

Versus delivers to the masses again. Great success!

 

[Sotnos]

Don't forget the hours of quality Bull Riding we will miss.

LOL

Versus did have an ad during the game tonight (on Sun Sports, Tampa) telling people to call Charter to complain, and I don't think their service is even available in this area.

 

[uncletravellingmatt]

Good news...

It looks like both parties are happy to announce that a resolution has been reached and there will be no interruption in service.

 

[EbencoyE]

Actually, ABC/Disney knows what they can get away with charging for ESPN, and they know they'd catch holy hell from fans of every sport except hockey if they ever caused a ruckus.

If Versus isn't a profitable operation, they shouldn't be on the air. And if they aren't a profitable operation, Gary Bettman shouldn't have signed a deal for his games to be there.

If Versus is a profitable operation, they should know enough not to rock the boat when it comes to this kind of stuff. Seriously, I can't imagine that the NHL is pleased about the prospects of every Charter customer being shut out of Stanley Cup playoff games that aren't on RSNs.

The last thing the NHL needs to do is rock the boat with the fans. After what they put us through in 2004-2005, they owe us at least that much.

I'd rather be number 1 on Versus than relegated to the level of lawn darts and cup stacking on ESPN. Atleast Versus' coverage is good. I couldn't care less if Joe Sixpack can't watch hockey between beating his wife and working on his truck just because it's not on ESPN.

Gary chose the channel where hockey would be treated with respect and where the NHL could actually make some money. I respect his decision.

 

[iceman64]

I'd rather be number 1 on Versus than relegated to the level of lawn darts and cup stacking on ESPN. Atleast Versus' coverage is good. I couldn't care less if Joe Sixpack can't watch hockey between beating his wife and working on his truck just because it's not on ESPN.

Gary chose the channel where hockey would be treated with respect and where the NHL could actually make some money. I respect his decision.

Versus is bad network to have the NHL on, they do a good job but the network is a joke and hard to find. Should have found a way to get the NHL on TNT, they have done wonders for the NBA. Worse decision of the year was the mid-week all star game on Versus.

 

[steepler]

Versus is bad network to have the NHL on, they do a good job but the network is a joke and hard to find.

I see this argument from time to time and always wonder what is meant by this. I mean how incompetent does someone have to be if they can't find a tv channel, and I'm not exactly sure what is so hard about it all yuo have to know is how to work a remote. I can maybe accept that people might not stumble onto the channel as easily if it's not located close to the popular channels, but that's a little different than claiming that it's hard to find.

Also I used to live in America and I know yuo could not do this then, but these days with digital cable, DVRs ans such can yuo not make yuor own channel lists.

 

[iceman64]

I see this argument from time to time and always wonder what is meant by this. I mean how incompetent does someone have to be if they can't find a tv channel, and I'm not exactly sure what is so hard about it all yuo have to know is how to work a remote. I can maybe accept that people might not stumble onto the channel as easily if it's not located close to the popular channels, but that's a little different than claiming that it's hard to find.

Also I used to live in America and I know yuo could not do this then, but these days with digital cable, DVRs ans such can yuo not make yuor own channel lists.

I don't have a problem finding if but most do. Let's face it, it's like a business.....location,location, location and if a channel is tucked in a tier with bad channels the chances of a surfer landing on the station are minimal. It's not like it's next to ESPN or CNN, Fox News or a main spot like that. Plus there is little to no advertising spent by the network or the cable company for the network.

 

[Bruce Ciskie]

I'd rather be number 1 on Versus than relegated to the level of lawn darts and cup stacking on ESPN. Atleast Versus' coverage is good. I couldn't care less if Joe Sixpack can't watch hockey between beating his wife and working on his truck just because it's not on ESPN.

Gary chose the channel where hockey would be treated with respect and where the NHL could actually make some money. I respect his decision.

If the NHL did a revenue-sharing deal with ESPN, you'd be amazed by what you saw from the WWL.

Gary chose the money grab because he doesn't believe in his product. If he believed in his product, he would have done the revenue-sharing deal with ESPN, and he could have ended up making more there than he got in the money grab from OLN. However, that would have required him and his minions to make an effort at marketing the sport. ESPN would have done their part, because the better job they did, the more money they'd make.

(Note: Gary only did the revenue-sharing deal with NBC because it was his only shot at getting on a broadcast network. Basically, he had no choice there.)

 

[Drury_Sakic]

I don't place all the blame on Gary, I think Comcast(its them that owns ONL/Versus right ? ) sold 'em a bill of goods that never came through. When this all started OLN was going to become the "new" ESPN. All sports all the time... The network talked about picking up NCAA Football games on odds and ends nights that the other networks did not... MLB games were on the Table and even a few odd NLF games were in the mix.... The network was going to expand to 60 some million more houses(not even close yet from what I have seen) in the US and get itself lowered into expanded basic packages with all major companies....


But here we are today, with none of that happening.... Heck, Time Warner(was adelphia) still only gives Vs. on digital cable bundles in Southern California(HUGE market) The Channel is something like 259 or something... and you have to flip through a bunch of channels you do not get (unless you have like a 200 dollar cable bill) to get to it unless you know exactly what station you are looking for(which is not the market the NHL needs to expand to)....


Versus broadcasts are good, better than ESPN was.... but they are still in mono sometimes(****ing horrible)... the network has not grown like it set out to do...

I really don't understand why Betman did not sell the NHL to 2-3 networks.... Have OLN cover the eastern conference(as comcast is a major power out there) and ESPN do the West. Having two networks also breeds competiton between the two to ice a better product and promote their game better.

 

[kdb209]

If the NHL did a revenue-sharing deal with ESPN, you'd be amazed by what you saw from the WWL.

Gary chose the money grab because he doesn't believe in his product. If he believed in his product, he would have done the revenue-sharing deal with ESPN, and he could have ended up making more there than he got in the money grab from OLN. However, that would have required him and his minions to make an effort at marketing the sport. ESPN would have done their part, because the better job they did, the more money they'd make.

(Note: Gary only did the revenue-sharing deal with NBC because it was his only shot at getting on a broadcast network. Basically, he had no choice there.)

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that either:

a) A revenue sharing deal was ever offered by ESPN.

or

b) that if there was one it would "could have ended up making more there than he got in the money grab from OLN"

or

c) that "ESPN would have done their part" to have marketed the NHL.

ESPN didn't really market the NHL in the past, when it was just as much (if not more so) in ESPN's interest to do so. ESPN had already announce the cancellation of NHL Tonite before the lockout. If ESPN had picked up its option during/after the lockout or negotiated a new deal, all games would have been relegated to ESPN2. Is there any evidence whatsoever that ESPN would have treated the NHL any differently now.

The revenue sharing deal with NBC does not make the league (or NBC for that matter) much money - and thats on a national broadcast network with a 1.1 national rating. So, why would you expect a revenue sharing deal on a cable network (where the NHL averaged a 0.23 it's last 3 years) to bring in some windfall of profits??? Note that ESPN/ESPN2 receive the bulk of their revenues from per-subscriber fees paid by the cable cos, (not ratings sensitive advertising), revenues which would NOT been shared with the NHL under any mythical revenue sharing deal.

Note that the ratings on OLN/VS, even with a lower household penetration, on a less well known network, actually have been quite competitive with what the NHL was getting on ESPN2. (0.20 vs 0.23).

 

[Bruce Ciskie]

I don't place all the blame on Gary, I think Comcast(its them that owns ONL/Versus right ? ) sold 'em a bill of goods that never came through. When this all started OLN was going to become the "new" ESPN. All sports all the time... The network talked about picking up NCAA Football games on odds and ends nights that the other networks did not... MLB games were on the Table and even a few odd NLF games were in the mix.... The network was going to expand to 60 some million more houses(not even close yet from what I have seen) in the US and get itself lowered into expanded basic packages with all major companies...

Didn't the NHL go through this with SportsChannel? OLN was ambitious, but anyone who really thought it through had probably figured out that they weren't going to get very far.

I really don't understand why Betman did not sell the NHL to 2-3 networks.... Have OLN cover the eastern conference(as comcast is a major power out there) and ESPN do the West. Having two networks also breeds competiton between the two to ice a better product and promote their game better.

Because OLN wasn't going to pay for one conference, and ESPN probably wouldn't have jumped on board without assurances that they'd at least get the first two games of the Finals.

I do agree with the premise of this, but having NBC working with ESPN would have done the same thing. Remember, they aren't corporate bedfellows like ABC and Disney are.

I'd love to absolve Bettman of responsibility here, but he was offered a chance to stay with a visible sports entity, and instead took what is a pretty small amount of money (albeit guaranteed money) to go to a startup network who had no true promise of future success.

Hilariously, Bettman continues to refuse to acknowledge this blunder, insisting that Versus is a great television partner, even though they've done nothing to grow the game, and the fact that Bettman sold them the All-Star Game and the first two games of the league finals has only given the hockey haters more easy fodder for their monologues.

(Yeah, I shouldn't care about that stuff. But I do. I can't stand it when this great sport is nothing more than the butt of jokes for so many people. I know they're simply spouting off because they think it's cool to do so, and they've probably never given hockey a fair chance, but it still aggravates me. And I don't think the commissioner of the league should be knowingly giving these people more reasons to crack jokes at our expense.)

 

[Bruce Ciskie]

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that either:

a) A revenue sharing deal was ever offered by ESPN.

or

b) that if there was one it would "could have ended up making more there than he got in the money grab from OLN"

or

c) that "ESPN would have done their part" to have marketed the NHL.

I'll tackle these one by one.

A) It was pretty widely known throughout the industry that ESPN wanted a revenue-sharing deal similar to the one NBC got.

B) Please. They're making a shade over $2 million per team from OLN. I don't doubt for a second that, with the proper marketing work by the league and ESPN, that both sides could have pulled at least that much, even if ESPN insisted on doing all the playoff games themselves instead of taking feeds from CBC or TSN. Even if it didn't make that much, it's hardly worth risking your remaining shot at exposure.

C) If the chance to make a profit is on the line, ESPN would have done it. They've done a marvelous job with Arena Football because they have a stake in the health of the league and the success of this TV arrangement. A no rights fee, revenue-sharing deal would be a no-lose for ESPN.

ESPN didn't really market the NHL in the past, when it was just as much (if not more so) in ESPN's interest to do so. ESPN had already announce the cancellation of NHL Tonite before the lockout. If ESPN had picked up its option during/after the lockout or negotiated a new deal, all games would have been relegated to ESPN2. Is there any evidence whatsoever that ESPN would have treated the NHL any differently now.

You say "relegated" as if ESPN2 was still missing from a bunch of homes that get ESPN. This isn't nearly as true as it was even five years ago. Virtually everyone who gets ESPN gets ESPN2. Not only that, but ESPN has two HD channels, and they would have done every NHL broadcast in HD (unlike Versus HD, ESPNHD and ESPN2HD are available for pretty much everyone who has HD).

The revenue sharing deal with NBC does not make the league (or NBC for that matter) much money - and thats on a national broadcast network with a 1.1 national rating. So, why would you expect a revenue sharing deal on a cable network (where the NHL averaged a 0.23 it's last 3 years) to bring in some windfall of profits??? Note that ESPN/ESPN2 receive the bulk of their revenues from per-subscriber fees paid by the cable cos, (not ratings sensitive advertising), revenues which would NOT been shared with the NHL under any mythical revenue sharing deal.

Note that the ratings on OLN/VS, even with a lower household penetration, on a less well known network, actually have been quite competitive with what the NHL was getting on ESPN2. (0.20 vs 0.23).

1. Does the NHL receive a per-household cut from NBC? Why would ESPN be any different? Revenues aren't solely driven by ratings. You can make money with programming that has awful ratings. Just ask WFAN radio in New York, where the ratings aren't that great, but the revenues are better than pretty much any radio station in the country.

2. You're comparing pre- and post-lockout ratings. Sorry, but there's no way ESPN draws the same dismal ratings now that they did then. NBC has bad ratings because they don't always pick good games, and their timeslots are dreadful.

3. Like I said before, Bettman took the OLN money grab because he doesn't believe in his product. He doesn't think it can pull a number in the states, and he thought a revenue-sharing deal with a cable network would be a disaster. In exchange for the money, he gave up his All-Star Game and the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals, which ESPN could have out-rated by broadcasting a hot-dog eating contest marathon. Basically, he sold his league's visibility for what amounts to $2 million per team.

4. The one thing I am not condoning, in any way, is how ESPN has ignored the NHL since they gave up broadcast rights. But guess what? Whether you think it's okay for them to do that or not, we all knew it was going to happen, and Bettman walked anyway.

5. In the end, it's no skin off my face. I get Versus, and I get most of their NHL HD offerings. I get HD Net, and I get Center Ice. And I'm not going to stop watching because I think Bettman made a monumental mistake or because I'm mad at him for not owning up to it.

 

[X0ssbar]

Gary chose the money grab because he doesn't believe in his product. If he believed in his product, he would have done the revenue-sharing deal with ESPN, and he could have ended up making more there than he got in the money grab from OLN. However, that would have required him and his minions to make an effort at marketing the sport. ESPN would have done their part, because the better job they did, the more money they'd make.

(Note: Gary only did the revenue-sharing deal with NBC because it was his only shot at getting on a broadcast network. Basically, he had no choice there.)

Gary went with the OLN/VS. b/c he didn't want ESPN to de-value the product any further from a cable standpoint.

ESPN was going to regulate the NHL to ESPN2 only and also was only going to televise 40 games. OLN/VS. was by far the better offer not only from a monetary standpoint but also from a coverage standpoint. There are also a lot of built in triggers that ensure VS. increases its distribution or else they'll have to pay a penalty. Please do me a favor and read through this article below before you go any further with this hearsay and speculation -- you have no facts whatsoever that back up any of your claims. Here are a couple of bullets to get you started:

• All of the OLN games, up to 78 during the regular season, will be exclusive to the network and not blacked out in the local markets. That’s nearly twice the 40 exclusive games that ESPN2 would have had if ESPN had exercised an option to continue its NHL contract. In the last NHL season, ESPN had only 20 exclusive games.

• The rights fee is $65 million the first year, $70 million the next year and then $72.5 million, slightly more than what ESPN was slated to pay had it kept its NHL rights.

• Comcast guarantees $20 million worth of promotion per year.

• There’s also a penalty clause if OLN does not make a sizable jump in its distribution, currently in 64 million out of 90 million U.S. cable homes.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.feature&featureId=1694

ESPN had its chance with the NHL and treated as a filler and doormat. There is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that ESPN would have done anything more than they had in the past to promote the league on a fee less deal. Also Versus is well on its way to drawing comparable if not better ratings than ESPN2 - which according to the article above is the only network ESPN would have shown games on.

The Versus audiences are up 30 per cent. What's more, the average audience of 216,000 is larger than the ESPN2 average in the final year of its NHL contract in 2003-04 (209,000 viewers). However, there is an important qualifier. To protect the regional networks, ESPN2 was blacked out in the home markets of the two teams playing in the game it was telecasting. Versus's broadcast is not.

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070327.wspttruth27/GSStory/GlobeSportsHockey/home

 

[kdb209]

I'll tackle these one by one.

A) It was pretty widely known throughout the industry that ESPN wanted a revenue-sharing deal similar to the one NBC got.

This claim has been bandied about, but I have never seen a link to back it up - I've asked for one in the past and have never gotten a response.

B) Please. They're making a shade over $2 million per team from OLN. I don't doubt for a second that, with the proper marketing work by the league and ESPN, that both sides could have pulled at least that much, even if ESPN insisted on doing all the playoff games themselves instead of taking feeds from CBC or TSN. Even if it didn't make that much, it's hardly worth risking your remaining shot at exposure.

That "shade over $2 million per team" is actually more than the league would have gotten if ESPN had picked up it's option during the lockout. Again, why would you expect any more marketing on the part of ESPN than they did in the past - when they reduced the number of games, dropped NHL tonite, and announced (before the lockout and decision to not exercise their option) that any games would be on ESPN2, not ESPN.

C) If the chance to make a profit is on the line, ESPN would have done it. They've done a marvelous job with Arena Football because they have a stake in the health of the league and the success of this TV arrangement. A no rights fee, revenue-sharing deal would be a no-lose for ESPN.

They didn't market the NHL when they paid an up front rights fee and got to keep all of the profits. Why would they have any more incentive to market it now, when they would split any incremental profits?

You say "relegated" as if ESPN2 was still missing from a bunch of homes that get ESPN. This isn't nearly as true as it was even five years ago. Virtually everyone who gets ESPN gets ESPN2. Not only that, but ESPN has two HD channels, and they would have done every NHL broadcast in HD (unlike Versus HD, ESPNHD and ESPN2HD are available for pretty much everyone who has HD).

I say relegated, because the NHL games on the Deuce got less than half the ratings as on the mothership.

1. Does the NHL receive a per-household cut from NBC? Why would ESPN be any different? Revenues aren't solely driven by ratings. You can make money with programming that has awful ratings. Just ask WFAN radio in New York, where the ratings aren't that great, but the revenues are better than pretty much any radio station in the country.

Because NBC doesn't get any per household revenues. ESPN gets $2-$3/month per cable subscriber (from the cable cos) whether they watch ESPN or not. ESPN doesn't share those subscriber fees with the NFL, NBA, or MLB and they certainly wouldn't with the NHL. ESPN makes significantly less revenues in advertising than does NBC, so what makes you think that revenue sharing deal with ESPN would make money where one with NBC does not.

2. You're comparing pre- and post-lockout ratings. Sorry, but there's no way ESPN draws the same dismal ratings now that they did then. NBC has bad ratings because they don't always pick good games, and their timeslots are dreadful.

NBC's ratings last season were virtually the same as ABC's the two years before the lockout - 1.0 vs 1.1. Do you have any justification to back up your claim "there's no way ESPN draws the same dismal ratings now that they did then" - other than wishful thinking. Given that all ESPN games would be on ESPN2 and none on ESPN, it is almost certain that ESPN ratings would be worse than ESPN's pre-lockout ones.

3. Like I said before, Bettman took the OLN money grab because he doesn't believe in his product. He doesn't think it can pull a number in the states, and he thought a revenue-sharing deal with a cable network would be a disaster. In exchange for the money, he gave up his All-Star Game and the first two games of the Stanley Cup Finals, which ESPN could have out-rated by broadcasting a hot-dog eating contest marathon. Basically, he sold his league's visibility for what amounts to $2 million per team.

What did he really give up - a 0.24 on ESPN2 vs a .20 on OLN?

The leagues alleged "visibility" on ESPN did squat for the league in the years before the lockout. Why would it suddenly be a boon now.

Also, in the post CBA world of a 54% partnership with the players, Bettman had a fiduciary responsibility to maximize revenues - which any hypothetical revenue sharing deal with ESPN certainly would NOT do.

4. The one thing I am not condoning, in any way, is how ESPN has ignored the NHL since they gave up broadcast rights. But guess what? Whether you think it's okay for them to do that or not, we all knew it was going to happen, and Bettman walked anyway.

ESPN was already ignoring the NHL when they still had the rights. They were not marketing it. They were dropping the number of games shown and moveing them all to the Deuce. They had already cancelled NHL Tonite. Why do you think ESPN would have treated the NHL any differently post lockout, even if they got your mythical revenue sharing deal - and don't say that a revenue sharing deal would give them any more incentive than when they paid up front and collected all of the revenues.

5. In the end, it's no skin off my face. I get Versus, and I get most of their NHL HD offerings. I get HD Net, and I get Center Ice. And I'm not going to stop watching because I think Bettman made a monumental mistake or because I'm mad at him for not owning up to it.

You still haven't given any substantiated basis for your claims of why this is a "monumental mistake".

Anti-GB people always make the claim that he is always sacrificing the interests of existing fans in search of new ones. The OLN/VS deal is actually much better for the vast majority of existing fans - the coverage and treatment is so much better than being the unwanted stepchild on ESPN.

 

[Alchemy]

LOL This is now ********... yesterday on versus on the bottom of the screen charter had a scroll that said it wasnt cancelling versus

 

[Jets4Life]

The NHL needs to get back on ESPN...

 

[Weary]

This claim has been bandied about, but I have never seen a link to back it up - I've asked for one in the past and have never gotten a response.

Gary Thorne: Once the NHL gave the deal to NBC for nothing but revenue sharing, ESPN was not going to pay the option fee.

Also, in the post CBA world of a 54% partnership with the players, Bettman had a fiduciary responsibility to maximize revenues ....Why do you think ESPN would have treated the NHL any differently post lockout, even if they got your mythical revenue sharing deal - and don't say that a revenue sharing deal would give them any more incentive than when they paid up front and collected all of the revenues.

If an NHL-NHLPA revenue-sharing deal results in a fiduciary responsibility to maximize revenues, wouldn't an ESPN-NHL revenue-sharing result in the same?

 

[Bruce Ciskie]

ESPN was going to regulate the NHL to ESPN2 only and also was only going to televise 40 games. OLN/VS. was by far the better offer not only from a monetary standpoint but also from a coverage standpoint. There are also a lot of built in triggers that ensure VS. increases its distribution or else they'll have to pay a penalty. Please do me a favor and read through this article below before you go any further with this hearsay and speculation -- you have no facts whatsoever that back up any of your claims. Here are a couple of bullets to get you started

So where has this sizeable jump been? Has it happened? What is the "penalty"?

What has Versus/OLN done to market the NHL that ESPN didn't when they aired the games? Again, look at what ESPN has done so far with the Arena League. They have a significant stake in the league's viability, moreso than just the payment of a rights fee, and they're acting like it.

What's funny is that you bash me for not having any facts, but the NHL took this deal with no facts in hand, only empty promises that OLN would go get all this other sports programming and be a player in sports television.

They're such a player in sports television that you have to compare OLN's ratings with ESPN2's ratings. OLN is so bad that even year two can't be compared to the bad ratings ESPN was getting.

(Hilariously, the article you linked stated that OLN had no plans to change their name, yet the name change was announced even before OLN had done one season of NHL games.)

You can say what you want about OLN's "commitment" to hockey. But their ratings are still a joke, and they still don't touch what ESPN was able to pull (with, according to you, no marketing effort whatsoever).

What's been a bigger blow to the image of the NHL on the overall sports landscape - anything ESPN did or didn't do when they had the league, or this:

Versus' playoff viewership did not increase as much as it or the league might have hoped. Versus reached a viewership of about 611,000 households (610,836 to be exact) for Game 1 of the 2006 Stanley Cup Finals. This figure was 39% fewer households than what ESPN drew for the Stanley Cup series opener two years earlier (though ESPN reaches about 20 million more homes, and many more hotels and sports bars). Game 2 was seen in slightly fewer households (605,501).

Yeah, blame this on ESPN, too. I'm sure it's somehow their fault that OLN still can't be seen in many hotels (in my travels during the winter, I think I got it in one hotel, and that was in Anchorage).

 

[iceman64]

NHL needs to get involved with TNT, they do a great job with basketball and this year will carry some MLB playoff games.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

NHL needs to get involved with TNT, they do a great job with basketball and this year will carry some MLB playoff games.

TNT IS ESPN iceman64, same scenario will happen there as ESPN treated the NHL

WTBS, NOT TNT, is carrying MLB after solely handling just the Braves and NASCAR still is involved w/ Liberty Media, & TNT who now essentially owns those networks.