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).