News Article: Colorado Avalanche Media Coverage Part II

[Pokecheque]

It’s stupid on both ends. The collusion from the big 3 is ridiculous, but the incessant whining from altitude is also pretty obnoxious.

I think that's more desperation than anything else. But again, I don't wish to make Altitude out to be the heroes here. I'm kinda on their side, mainly because f*** DirecTV and those other providers, but I'm plenty annoyed at the other side as well.

The REAL losers here are us fans and local drinking establishments where us fans gather. There are a lot of people involved who need to get their shit together, that's for sure.

Again, if I could wave a magic wand and turn back time, I'd make it so the TV and radio rights stayed right where they were with Fox Sports/Root/Whatever the hell it's called now, and The Fan. I always thought the creation of an exclusive TV and radio network for the Avs and Nuggets was a huge mistake. That said, I don't like the methods being taken now to try and wipe them out of existence.

 

[Tweaky]

Fox Sports/Root/Whatever the hell it's called now,

That would be AT&T SportsNet Rocky Mountain. Wholly owned by WarnerMedia, who in turn is owned by AT&T. Who also owns DirecTV....

"On October 22, 2016, AT&T reached a deal to buy Time Warner for $108.7 billion. If approved by federal regulators, the merger would bring Time Warner's properties under the same umbrella as AT&T's telecommunication holdings, including satellite provider DirecTV.[60][61] The deal has faced criticism for the possibility that AT&T could use Time Warner content as leverage to discriminate against or limit access to the content by competing providers.[62] --Wikipedia

Footnote 62 links to the following article:
Why the AT&T-Time Warner Deal Is So Unpopular

 

[wayninja]

One of the big wigs at KKSE gave an interview on moser/lombardi podcast this morning (about a min in). It's basically a lot of what we've been discussing here (and obviously pretty 1 sided), but should be more concrete than hearsay.



Denies that initial offer to big 3 was a "big raise in rates", says initial increase ask was "nominal"

Big 3 rejected, so KKSE round 2 was status quo extension for 1 year, and 5% increase after that.

2 carriers came back back with 50% cut, 1 carrier came back with 70% cut. Claims that big 3 know that these offers are not "economically viable."

 

[chet1926]

One of the big wigs at KKSE gave an interview on moser/lombardi podcast this morning (about a min in). It's basically a lot of what we've been discussing here (and obviously pretty 1 sided), but should be more concrete than hearsay.



Denies that initial offer to big 3 was a "big raise in rates", says initial increase ask was "nominal"

Big 3 rejected, so KKSE round 2 was status quo extension for 1 year, and 5% increase after that.

2 carriers came back back with 50% cut, 1 carrier came back with 70% cut. Claims that big 3 know that these offers are not "economically viable."

How could Altitude possibly ask for a increase? They have a garbage channel with minimal viewership and only two programs anyone cares about. They don't deserve an increase. That's like asking for raise when you are one of lower end performers.

As for the decreases that are supposedly being requested by the the big 3 those seem harsh. And very clearly an attempt to make Altitude go away.

I can see why there is a standoff going on. Both sides are in the wrong. There is going to have be some real big compromises by both sides, I don't see this ending anytime soon because both sides seem extremely stubborn.

 

[wayninja]

How could Altitude possibly ask for a increase? They have a garbage channel with minimal viewership and only two programs anyone cares about. They don't deserve an increase. That's like asking for raise when you are one of lower end performers.

How could they not ask for an increase? Do costs of things where you live go down over time? 5% after 1 year is basically inflation.

As for the decreases that are supposedly being requested by the the big 3 those seem harsh. And very clearly an attempt to make Altitude go away.

I can see why there is a standoff going on. Both sides are in the wrong. There is going to have be some real big compromises by both sides, I don't see this ending anytime soon because both sides seem extremely stubborn.

The thing that is in the wrong is the model. The introduction of carriage fees into cable television setup this showdown. And now we see it played out every year, more and more often. The big 3 (IMO) are trying to head this off by consolidating 'future proof' rights, which right now, is live sports.

But the model is still there. And every sports team still plays by it. Until it fully goes away, we are going to see this kind of shenanigans played over and over.

 

[Balthazar]

When 3 different teachers call home to tell you that your kid is having attitude issues, the problem isn't the teachers.

If all 3 asked for respectively 50%, 50% and 70% decrease in price, that means Altitude's viewership numbers are garbage and didn't meet projections.

 

[wayninja]

When 3 different teachers call home to tell you that your kid is having attitude issues, the problem isn't the teachers.

If all 3 asked for respectively 50%, 50% and 70% decrease in price, that means Altitude's viewership numbers are garbage and didn't meet projections.

This isn't a fair analogy though. Teachers typically have nothing to gain by colluding on their disciplinary decisions...

Do you really believe that Altitude's viewership has fallen by 50-70% over the last 15 and 5 years. I find that impossible to believe.

 

[chet1926]

How could they not ask for an increase? Do costs of things where you live go down over time? 5% after 1 year is basically inflation.



The thing that is in the wrong is the model. The introduction of carriage fees into cable television setup this showdown. And now we see it played out every year, more and more often. The big 3 (IMO) are trying to head this off by consolidating 'future proof' rights, which right now, is live sports.

But the model is still there. And every sports team still plays by it. Until it fully goes away, we are going to see this kind of shenanigans played over and over.

I guess I'm confused, so you're saying even if you do a bad job you should automatically get a 5% raise because of inflation? That sounds like a pretty sweet deal, do a bad job get a raise because costs are going up.

Unfortunately in the real world, if you aren't meeting standards out going above you're probably not going to get a raise, even if there is inflation or cost of living is going up etc.

 

[wayninja]

I guess I'm confused, so you're saying even if you do a bad job you should automatically get a 5% raise because of inflation? That sounds like a pretty sweet deal, do a bad job get a raise because costs are going up.

They are doing a bad job? I was unaware of that. But bookkeeping 101 says that if costs you X to do something, then you need at least X to do it. If you only get X, and inflation goes up 5%, then really you need X +5% to keep doing it.

Unfortunately in the real world, if you aren't meeting standards out going above you're probably not going to get a raise, even if there is inflation or cost of living is going up etc.

I'm not going to claim that I've reviewed everyone's personnel records at Altitude/KKSE, but I'm willing to bet some of the people there do a great job and probably deserve a raise.


Let me take a different tack, because I keep seeing this getting said. Their viewership is "garbabge." When did the channel go from being decent to being "garbage?" Can you point to specific point in time that this happened?

 

[chet1926]

This isn't a fair analogy though. Teachers typically have nothing to gain by colluding on their disciplinary decisions...

Do you really believe that Altitude's viewership has fallen by 50-70% over the last 15 and 5 years. I find that impossible to believe.

Or the viewership was never good to begin with and hasn't gotten much better.

 

[wayninja]

Or the viewership was never good to begin with and hasn't gotten much better.

But good enough that 5 years ago this deal made sense....

 

[CharlesPuck]

They are doing a bad job? I was unaware of that. But bookkeeping 101 says that if costs you X to do something, then you need at least X to do it. If you only get X, and inflation goes up 5%, then really you need X +5% to keep doing it.



I'm not going to claim that I've reviewed everyone's personnel records at Altitude/KKSE, but I'm willing to bet some of the people there do a great job and probably deserve a raise.


Let me take a different tack, because I keep seeing this getting said. Their viewership is "garbabge." When did the channel go from being decent to being "garbage?" Can you point to specific point in time that this happened?

Not a bad job in how they produce their products. A bad job of bringing eyeballs to their channel and therefore to Comcast to charge advertising rates.

 

[chet1926]

They are doing a bad job? I was unaware of that. But bookkeeping 101 says that if costs you X to do something, then you need at least X to do it. If you only get X, and inflation goes up 5%, then really you need X +5% to keep doing it.



I'm not going to claim that I've reviewed everyone's personnel records at Altitude/KKSE, but I'm willing to bet some of the people there do a great job and probably deserve a raise.

Well the numbers seem to suggest that Altitude isn't doing the best performance wise. I have no idea, as really there hasn't been much info on the topic, but it doesn't seem like the big 3 would be attacking Altitude if they were performing well. I don't disagree with your bookkeeping logic, but if there numbers are as bad as the big 3 are suggesting then maybe Altitude needs to look into cutting costs not adding to them.

As for the employees I'm sure they do a good job. But are underperforming companies really handing out tons of raises? Probably not.

 

[chet1926]

But good enough that 5 years ago this deal made sense....

And how bad have the Avs and Nuggets been over that stretch? Their 2 best products have been widely terrible sans a couple of seasons. Would not be shocked if they had a drastic decrease in viewership during that time.

 

[Boulder Avalanche]

That 5 percent increase Altitude was asking them just accounting for inflation that has occurred and will occur by the time the deal ends. Altitude seemingly is willing to accept the same deal in real dollars as last time (despite the Denver media market growing and two of the teams being considered contenders at some level). The cable companies can absorb the costs but they are not willing to. They desire the rights more than anything and while both sides are to blame, the ones holding all the leverage are the cable companies which means this impasse will continue until Altitude caves.

 

[RockLobster]

One of the big wigs at KKSE gave an interview on moser/lombardi podcast this morning (about a min in). It's basically a lot of what we've been discussing here (and obviously pretty 1 sided), but should be more concrete than hearsay.



Denies that initial offer to big 3 was a "big raise in rates", says initial increase ask was "nominal"

Big 3 rejected, so KKSE round 2 was status quo extension for 1 year, and 5% increase after that.

2 carriers came back back with 50% cut, 1 carrier came back with 70% cut. Claims that big 3 know that these offers are not "economically viable."

"Big 3" asking for as big of a decrease as they are is rather indicative of what they hope happens (Altitude going out of business); but Altitude asking for any sort of increase given their paltry viewership and relatively small (at absolute best) value they provide for these carriers is just as bad.

If the viewership was there, then I could sympathize a bit more with Altitude. But it appears they agree with the number the "Big 3" said their viewing audience was.

Over the past year, more than 95% of Altitude subscribers watched less than the equivalent of a game per week.

That is absolutely pathetic viewership numbers. Coincidentally, I just read a chapter on strategic digital media that was all about reaching current and new customers & changing customer behaviors. Altitude basically finds themselves being number 4 out of 4 different customer types--difficult to acquire & dificult to retain. The viewership is deemed to have low CLTV (customer lifetime value) but for some reason Altitude believes that they should receive payment as if the opposite were true.

Again, at this point they're relying on the appeal to emotion logical fallacy coupled with peripheral route persuasion. That only works for so long (and I suspect that the dam is breaking somewhat in regard to their support). They are more-or-less asking these companies to keep them in business, rather than providing a product that proves worthy of being in business.

 

[Pokecheque]

When 3 different teachers call home to tell you that your kid is having attitude issues, the problem isn't the teachers.

If all 3 asked for respectively 50%, 50% and 70% decrease in price, that means Altitude's viewership numbers are garbage and didn't meet projections.

Three corporations colluding with one another to snuff out an independent network has nothing to do with "Attitude issues."

And take it from a former youth hockey coach, just because a bunch of parents agree on one thing doesn't make them right, nor does it make them smart.

 

[SirLoinOfCloth]

I find it fun that this keeps being called a standoff. Like its two sides bitterly battling it out. What it sounds like to me is that KSE asked for X, and the big 3 said f*** off.

The standoff is over. The big 3 likely have walked away unless KSE can come back with something compelling. So for Altitude to keep going on about dontblockmyavs etc, just seems so desperate. Why would the big 3 engage? They already said no.The fact that avs streams on nhl.tv are 'brought to you by dontblockmyavs' is ridiculous. That is a sponsorship slot that could be given to a paying sponsor.

That doesn't mean to say that I agree with the stance taken by the big 3, in fact, I liked watching altitude (when I had cable), but Altitude have to realize this shit is over unless they suck it up and make cuts. Getting a handful of people to call up comcast to complain won't do anything, they don't have the viewership to make a dent. So they need to change tack somehow and quickly before they fully sink (boat puns ftw). Thinking that this is a vindictive manoeuver to kill Altitude is pretty egotistical. They probably couldn't care less about whether Altitude survives. They are more concerned with money and if this deal doesn't make financial sense then why would they bend to some small RSN.

Altitude should have been more prepared for this - these next few seasons are going to be huge for Denver hockey and basketball fans and they are missing out.

 

[wayninja]

And how bad have the Avs and Nuggets been over that stretch? Their 2 best products have been widely terrible sans a couple of seasons. Would not be shocked if they had a drastic decrease in viewership during that time.

But that makes no sense on the face of it. If the viewership numbers are in direct proportionality to team performance, then this would be disingenuous time to cut rates by 50-70% given last year's performance by both teams and the current years prospect...

"Big 3" asking for as big of a decrease as they are is rather indicative of what they hope happens (Altitude going out of business); but Altitude asking for any sort of increase given their paltry viewership and relatively small (at absolute best) value they provide for these carriers is just as bad.

If the viewership was there, then I could sympathize a bit more with Altitude. But it appears they agree with the number the "Big 3" said their viewing audience was.

I still haven't seen hard viewership numbers or previous years comparables. The only numbers I've seen are cherry picked for dramatic effect. which brings me to...

Over the past year, more than 95% of Altitude subscribers watched less than the equivalent of a game per week.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There are NO "altitude subscribers." Altitude does not exist on a tier by itself or as an a la carte add on for any of the big 3 (and never has). So, they are using their ENTIRE subscriber base to dilute this number. I'm willing to bet that the same or similar applies to every team in their own RSN's as well that are offered with basic packages.

The viewership is deemed to have low CLTV (customer lifetime value) but for some reason Altitude believes that they should receive payment as if the opposite were true.

Yes. They do. Just like every other RSN that keeps getting ignored in this conversation.

Again, at this point they're relying on the appeal to emotion logical fallacy coupled with peripheral route persuasion. That only works for so long (and I suspect that the dam is breaking somewhat in regard to their support). They are more-or-less asking these companies to keep them in business, rather than providing a product that proves worthy of being in business.

Well, we just don't have the numbers, so regardless of what emotional tactic they employ, they are following the business model of countless other sports networks here. They aren't doing anything revolutionary or special. They're only special because they are isolated from in-house ownership of the networks being asked to distribute them. Another fact which keeps getting ignored.

 

[willy702]

When does KSE go the local broadcast route? Seems there really is no alternative if the offers indeed were that low.

 

[wayninja]

Not a bad job in how they produce their products. A bad job of bringing eyeballs to their channel and therefore to Comcast to charge advertising rates.

Comcast wouldn't get Advertising revenue as far as I'm aware. Any advertising slots on the channel would be sold by KKSE. The only "revenue" Comcast would get is the base subscriber and the "regional sports fee" they charge for each.

Unless they have some sort of revenue sharing agreement, but I'm not able to find any info on that.

 

[S3rkie]

"Big 3" asking for as big of a decrease as they are is rather indicative of what they hope happens (Altitude going out of business); but Altitude asking for any sort of increase given their paltry viewership and relatively small (at absolute best) value they provide for these carriers is just as bad.

If the viewership was there, then I could sympathize a bit more with Altitude. But it appears they agree with the number the "Big 3" said their viewing audience was.



That is absolutely pathetic viewership numbers. Coincidentally, I just read a chapter on strategic digital media that was all about reaching current and new customers & changing customer behaviors. Altitude basically finds themselves being number 4 out of 4 different customer types--difficult to acquire & dificult to retain. The viewership is deemed to have low CLTV (customer lifetime value) but for some reason Altitude believes that they should receive payment as if the opposite were true.

Again, at this point they're relying on the appeal to emotion logical fallacy coupled with peripheral route persuasion. That only works for so long (and I suspect that the dam is breaking somewhat in regard to their support). They are more-or-less asking these companies to keep them in business, rather than providing a product that proves worthy of being in business.

Yeah as much as I hate defending huge companies like Comcast, the most infuriating part about this, is how little KSE has done with Altitude to change with the times. Their piss poor attempt at a streaming platform, their lackluster coverage of games. In the last 10 years the most they've changed programming wise is creating short Avs 360 behind the scenes videos, that are leagues behind the content other teams generate. As much as it sucks now I wouldn't be upset if Altitude folds and forces some chaos in which hopefully something new would rise. For a company as small as alititdue and directly tied into the success and growth of the team, you'd think they'd have a scrappier approach to pushing the limits and getting new viewers interested attached.... Nope lest just shit out our product and expect everyone to come to us.

 

[wayninja]

When does KSE go the local broadcast route? Seems there really is no alternative if the offers indeed were that low.

That's a good question. I'm really not sure what they are thinking here. As untenable as a 50-70% cut in rates is, a 100% rate cut is even more so.

They threw out that thing about "exploring Amazon", but that doesn't seen genuine or serious.

The only other thing they can do is buy a local broadcast station and go OTA and rely solely on advertising revenue, which is likely also a HUGE cut.

Altitude is doomed. The only good reason that I can think of that they haven't already sold the rights or declared bankruptcy or something is because of how rich Kroenke is. He can weather a siege for as long as he's willing to operate at a loss.

 

[S3rkie]

That's a good question. I'm really not sure what they are thinking here. As untenable as a 50-70% cut in rates is, a 100% rate cut is even more so.

They threw out that thing about "exploring Amazon", but that doesn't seen genuine or serious.

The only other thing they can do is buy a local broadcast station and go OTA and rely solely on advertising revenue, which is likely also a HUGE cut.

Altitude is doomed. The only good reason that I can think of that they haven't already sold the rights or declared bankruptcy or something is because of how rich Kroenke is. He can weather a siege for as long as he's willing to operate at a loss.

If they were smart they would be doing block parties every home game, and watch parties every away game, go all in on the events and get some rowdy crowds to at least build some buzz and excitement around a good team. Get people posting on socials genuinely about having a good time, that will piss off the bars and restaurants that will start pressuring their reps at the big 3, and that's going to make alot more noise than a billboard and a half assed hashtag. They just put zero effort into everything.

But also if they were smart they would've prepared an actual strategy years ago when talks about extending the deal were going no where.

 

[RockLobster]

But that makes no sense on the face of it. If the viewership numbers are in direct proportionality to team performance, then this would be disingenuous time to cut rates by 50-70% given last year's performance by both teams and the current years prospect...



I still haven't seen hard viewership numbers or previous years comparables. The only numbers I've seen are cherry picked for dramatic effect. which brings me to...



This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There are NO "altitude subscribers." Altitude does not exist on a tier by itself or as an a la carte add on for any of the big 3 (and never has). So, they are using their ENTIRE subscriber base to dilute this number. I'm willing to bet that the same or similar applies to every team in their own RSN's as well that are offered with basic packages.



Yes. They do. Just like every other RSN that keeps getting ignored in this conversation.



Well, we just don't have the numbers, so regardless of what emotional tactic they employ, they are following the business model of countless other sports networks here. They aren't doing anything revolutionary or special. They're only special because they are isolated from in-house ownership of the networks being asked to distribute them. Another fact which keeps getting ignored.

You're hanging on the word "subscriber" when I feel it's obvious they meant viewer. They have the numbers. That quote is saying that 95% of Altitude viewers watch the equivalent of less than 1 game a week. That's just pathetic viewership.

***EDIT***

Actually let's say that they do mean subscribers, as in everyone who subscribes to the sports tier package that gets altitude. Even at that level, that's still abysmal viewership and still classifies Altitude firmly in the category "difficult to acquire and difficult to retain" / "high costs & low CLTV"

I don't think that other RSN's, like Fox Sports RSN's, matter in this particular instance because I think those different markets could offer more in the way of sports programming by way of baseball. Altitude doesn't have that to add to their bargaining power. Not to mention that hockey is just doesn't pull in the same viewership that basketball, football, and baseball pull in. Right or wrong, hockey seems to pace behind those other three. I don't think it helps that the Nuggets aren't very good either, so they're not necessarily helping to pull in viewers anyway (not to mention the NBA just being a f***ed up league to begin with).

The reason I bring up the methods for which Altitude is arguing is because it's relevant and indicative (to me as someone who studies this) that Altitude knows they don't have a strong negotiating stance, so they're leveraging all their power into short-sighted methods. An appeal to emotion only lasts for so long. Utilizing peripheral route persuasion has been shown to not last as long as utilizing central route persuasion (because central route persuasion deals with more than just emotional reasoning--it traffics in data and facts).

At the end of the day it's still not that one of these two sides is the winner and the other is the loser. Both sides are losers and the fans are the ones who lose the most because of the inability to view their respective favorite teams. I just happen to think that Altitude needs to accept that the product their currently offering is not valued the same on the market place as it once was (or as they are currently valuing it themselves).