News Article: Colorado Avalanche Media Coverage Part II

[Foppa2118]

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 **** off.

I haven't been following this as closely as others, but the impression I've always had is that KSE asked for X, and the big 3 said f*** off. Then the big 3 offered X, and KSE said f*** off.

Then both sides just stopped negotiating and dug in. Now it's a battle of who needs who more.

Which is why KSE probably needs to cave first.

 

[Foppa Frossa]

 

[wayninja]

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.

I'm not sure what that means. What is an "altitude viewer"? Just anyone that has ever watched altitude in the past, ever? If I'm hanging on it, it's because it's important to the calculation of what is being discussed. I think you are making an assumption here. Comcast isn't going out of their way to clarify this.

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 ****ed up league to begin with).

Again, we are just making assumptions without numbers. Sure, they may have more in the way of programming. They may also charge more. They may also collude with each other because it's in house owned. You don't find it funny that the odd man out in Dish is the one that seems to have the largest number of RSN disputes?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Nuggets aren't very good either?" I assume you mean viewership and not performance?

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).

I don't think anyone is arguing that they have a strong negotiating stance. The strength of their stance doesn't factor into what is an obvious colluded attempt to sink them though. They have no choice but to appeal to customers desire for their product (at least at this stage of the game).

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).

I disagree here. The big 3 know that they can live without altitude, and that altitude cannot live without them. They are leveraging this in a scorched earth campaign to make altitude lose WAY more than they do. In the long run, it will benefit them. All parties here are guilty of not giving one shit of who is caught in the crossfire though.

At the end of the day, the big 3 will be the winners here. They can still charge customers for this, and not pay a cent back to altitude, and eventually the cost for these sports programs will likely get folded into their own networks so they can milk every last dollar out of them.

Kroenke may be a devil here, but IMO he's the lesser of them.

 

[SirLoinOfCloth]

I haven't been following this as closely as others, but the impression I've always had is that KSE asked for X, and the big 3 said **** off. Then the big 3 offered X, and KSE said **** off.

Then both sides just stopped negotiating and dug in. Now it's a battle of who needs who more.

Which is why KSE probably needs to cave first.

Agreed. If the offer from the big 3 really was as low as people have rumored, I would take that as a f*** off from them. Knowing that KSE would never accept, or could never accept. KSE will always lose this battle. No way the big 3 cave to them.

If Altitude had a solid streaming platform (or piggy-backed on one) with no blackouts I would be happy to pay what I pay NHL.tv (~$120+ a year) to watch Avs games. Per subscriber/viewer, I wonder how that compares to what a deal with Comcast would be. I just hope they are not just sitting around crying about this and they are trying to do something because this does not end well for Altitude.

 

[wayninja]

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"

Abysmal compared to what? How many "subscribers" of AT&T sportsnet, that is also included, also watch a game per week?

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Out of curiosity....wonder what kind do the Flyers have with Comcast.

 

[CharlesPuck]

Altitude just needs to sell already. They are hurting themselves by not airing their own teams games.

 

[RockLobster]

I'm not sure what that means. What is an "altitude viewer"? Just anyone that has ever watched altitude in the past, ever? If I'm hanging on it, it's because it's important to the calculation of what is being discussed. I think you are making an assumption here. Comcast isn't going out of their way to clarify this.

WTF do you mean "what is an 'altitude viewer'?" Is that a joke question? The statement is rather clear, in my opinion and it can be summarized as such: "Altitude vieweing numbers = dog s**t"

Again, we are just making assumptions without numbers. Sure, they may have more in the way of programming. They may also charge more. They may also collude with each other because it's in house owned. You don't find it funny that the odd man out in Dish is the one that seems to have the largest number of RSN disputes?

We have the numbers, you keep getting hung up on the use of the word "subscriber" or asking "what is an 'Altitude viewer'?" We do not currently have "Well Altitude had this many total viewers during the last year..." data, but when it's not being disputed that 95% of people who have access to watch Altitude tuned in to less than 1 game a week, then I'm not sure we need more data to come to the aforementioned conclusion

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Nuggets aren't very good either?" I assume you mean viewership and not performance?

I mean that the Nuggets have largely, for the last 15 years Altitude has been in existence, a dog-shit franchise. They have been bad, not so bad as to draft in the top-3/5 of the draft, but just bad. From there if you have a bad team it's not going to be surprising if your viewing audience is low. But no, I do not have any numbers to back that up, other than lumping them in with the total Altitude viewership which has been purported to be abysmal.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they have a strong negotiating stance. The strength of their stance doesn't factor into what is an obvious colluded attempt to sink them though. They have no choice but to appeal to customers desire for their product (at least at this stage of the game).

The do have a choice though--accepting that they're not going to make out like bandits like they have for the last 15 years. I don't think they should be forced into accepting a 50-70% reduction, but I do believe they need to accept that they're going to see a reduction.

I disagree here. The big 3 know that they can live without altitude, and that altitude cannot live without them. They are leveraging this in a scorched earth campaign to make altitude lose WAY more than they do. In the long run, it will benefit them. All parties here are guilty of not giving one **** of who is caught in the crossfire though.

If the "big 3" know they can live without Altitude then why isn't more pressure being exerted onto KSE for acknowledging that they have a business that is no longer sustainable?

At the end of the day, the big 3 will be the winners here. They can still charge customers for this, and not pay a cent back to altitude, and eventually the cost for these sports programs will likely get folded into their own networks so they can milk every last dollar out of them.

Cable and Satellite companies are clinging to an archaic model. The more customers they lose to cord-cutting, the more they're going to squeeze the existing ones until there's nothing left to squeeze. And I believe that day is coming faster than they will admit. I do not consider them winners here, not in the slightest. There are ways to watch the games. It may not be considered ethical (or legal), but there are ways. Aside from that, it's not the "big 3"'s fault that Altitude is (seemingly) no longer a sustainable business (which I say considering they absolutely need these contracts to keep themselves going, and I would not be surprised if they're still running at a net loss on Stan's bottom line).

Kroenke may be a devil here, but IMO he's the lesser of them.

Not a chance in hell that either side can claim a "lesser of two evils" title at this point. They both suck, one just has a better negotiating position and would normally be able to wait out the other side...only the other side has Wal-Mart money that can be thrown towards this bad investment.

 

[wayninja]

Altitude just needs to sell already. They are hurting themselves by not airing their own teams games.

Yep, probably. I'm not sure there is any other way out for them. They can't distribute their product. Period. They either sell the rights, or continue to operate at a loss indefinitely, or stop broadcasting. There's only 1 real choice in that mix.

I guess there's a 3rd alternative, which is to take a "bad" deal for a short term while actually exploring other viable alternatives (IPTV).

 

[Foppa2118]

Yep, probably. I'm not sure there is any other way out for them. They can't distribute their product. Period. They either sell the rights, or continue to operate at a loss indefinitely, or stop broadcasting. There's only 1 real choice in that mix.

I guess there's a 3rd alternative, which is to take a "bad" deal for a short term while actually exploring other viable alternatives (IPTV).

Yeah, it's easy for me to say, but unless they think they can squeeze more money out of the big 3 in the next few weeks, they should just take the best one year deal on the table right now, and spend the rest of the year planning for the future without the big 3, and give themselves more leverage.

They clearly didn't plan very well for this scenario because it seems like they're just now looking into options like Amazon. Which means they're not gonna get a great deal there either because they're desperate.

The big 3 may not have much leverage in the future anyway, so KSE can return the favor down the line if Stan wants.

 

[wayninja]

WTF do you mean "what is an 'altitude viewer'?" Is that a joke question? The statement is rather clear, in my opinion and it can be summarized as such: "Altitude vieweing numbers = dog s**t"

I mean exactly what I said. How does one become an "altitude viewer"? If I watched a game 5 years ago, am I a viewer? If I have the channel in my subscription, but haven't tuned in, am I a viewer?

It's not a joke. What is confusing you about it? Viewership only has meaning for subscribed customers. You can't watch a channel that you don't have. And not watching a channel that are paying for anyway doesn't really have much meaning.

What does comcast get out of Altitude having "high" viewership, if they don't get any more money at all for that? That's a serious question.

We have the numbers, you keep getting hung up on the use of the word "subscriber" or asking "what is an 'Altitude viewer'?" We do not currently have "Well Altitude had this many total viewers during the last year..." data, but when it's not being disputed that 95% of people who have access to watch Altitude tuned in to less than 1 game a week, then I'm not sure we need more data to come to the aforementioned conclusion

I'm not getting hung up on it... you are the one twisting it around. I always took subscriber to mean subscriber, then you tried to change the definition to some nebulous "viewer." If we are back on the same page with it meaning "anyone who has (had) access to the channel, then 95% of the entire comcast subscriber base in the regions that Altitude is offered doesn't seem that low to me. If we are talking about 20 million people, 5% is 1 million people. Is 20 million the number of subscribers? I don't know... Hence the "we don't have the numbers."

I mean that the Nuggets have largely, for the last 15 years Altitude has been in existence, a dog-**** franchise. They have been bad, not so bad as to draft in the top-3/5 of the draft, but just bad. From there if you have a bad team it's not going to be surprising if your viewing audience is low. But no, I do not have any numbers to back that up, other than lumping them in with the total Altitude viewership which has been purported to be abysmal.

The nuggets are in similar situation as the avs. They made they playoffs last year, and have high expectations again this year. They are a team definitely on the rise.

I enjoy this conversation, but I have to run. I'll respond to the rest later. Nice talking to you!

 

[Babel Salamander]

I mean that the Nuggets have largely, for the last 15 years Altitude has been in existence, a dog-**** franchise.

I mean, this is just a wrong statement, sorry. They've had, at worst, three terrible seasons in the last 15 years. They made the playoffs the first 7 years of Altitude's existence, until 2012. They had a terrible stretch for three seasons, the two terrible Brian Shaw years, and Michael Malone's first year wasn't great, but they've been improving every year since then. So 3 out of 15 years they've been bad. The Avs have been worse over that stretch by any objective measure.

 

[AvsRobin]

Does Altitude broadcast the Colorado Eagles games? If not, why not?

 

[expatriatedtexan]

Does Altitude broadcast the Colorado Eagles games? If not, why not?

I don't believe they do and they probably wouldn't want to anyways....I mean they have a myriad other shows that are all killing the market.

 

[Pokecheque]

I think this ends with Altitude capitulating, which likely means some serious downsizing and an eventual sale. I just don't see how they have any leverage in this particular battle. It'd be quite something if the Big Three lost customers en masse because of this, but we know they won't. Hell, even I haven't canceled my DTV account.

 

[willy702]

The real problem is you can't be the only one in this spot. If most NHL teams were in this predicament then everyone fights the battle with less money and of course the players take the hit too. Now its the players taking a mini-hit, but one team is getting hammered financially while having to compete with teams who have no change in revenues.

Hard to say what's going on behind the scenes, but the NHL and NHLPA have a ton at stake here too. Everyone is watching them to make sure they don't screw it up for everyone else. Its sort of the feeling every team has had while Dubas and the Leafs wreck the RFA pay scale, if Altitude caves insanely you will have everyone else all over KSE saying they are ruining the NHL.

 

[Bonzai12]

from 2017 -

Avalanche see dramatic 57 percent decline in television ratings on Altitude – The Denver Post

From 2018 -

Report: Nuggets still battling low TV ratings despite modest increase

"Despite seeing their ratings climb by 8 percent, the Denver Nuggets have the fourth-worst local TV ratings this season among 27 NBA teams Sports Business Journal analyzed.
Only the Orlando Magic (0.61), Los Angeles Clippers (0.58), the Atlanta Hawks (0.58) and Brooklyn Nets (0.42) drew lower ratings on their respective regional sports networks."

 

[Chileiceman]

Altitude doesn't even have to pay for their content, since they own all of it. Not sure why they would need the same subscriber fees as other RSN's who do have to pay for content.

 

[Balthazar]

I think this ends with Altitude capitulating, which likely means some serious downsizing and an eventual sale. I just don't see how they have any leverage in this particular battle. It'd be quite something if the Big Three lost customers en masse because of this, but we know they won't. Hell, even I haven't canceled my DTV account.

I'm ok with a 3rd party doing the Avs games. I don't need my hockey broadcast to look like an infomercial anyway.

 

[CharlesPuck]

This is turning into a Bill Wirtz situation...

Like how is it blacking out your product better than just selling it.

 

[AvsCOL]

This is a great example of how massive conglomerates can change the rules and ruin the experience for the smaller guys. There is absolutely a solution here where both parties can make money, and co-exist, but one side is straight up bullying the other into getting what they want.

I really hope Altitude can figure something out, I really enjoy the TV personalities, but I really don't see any way this works out for them. Like people said, the absolute best case scenario is them downsizing, and that alone will damage the product they want to give to the public. Not a great situation.

 

[Pokecheque]

I'm ok with a 3rd party doing the Avs games. I don't need my hockey broadcast to look like an infomercial anyway.

In the end so long as I am able to watch Avalanche (and Nuggets) games and the production value is good, then I'm fine with whatever. But I still hate how this is going down. The tactics the providers are engaging in shouldn't be allowed, and no way in f***ing HELL should providers be allowed to also own networks of any kind.

 

[wayninja]

Yeah, I don't give a f*** who owns the rights or does the broadcasts, but this stalemate where only the fans seems to suffer sucks.

 

[wayninja]

Comcast just announced they are going to start giving partial credit back on bills for those missing altitude. Smart PR move by them. Dish is handling "on a case by case basis" and DTV says "NO REFUNDS!"

 

[Bonzai12]

Comcast just announced they are going to start giving partial credit back on bills for those missing altitude. Smart PR move by them. Dish is handling "on a case by case basis" and DTV says "NO REFUNDS!"

huh I will be interested to see how this goes. Does the package cost go down in future months now as well?

Direct TV has always been bush league - their stance doesn’t surprise me