Oh yeah? How about, "Viacom cuts its own throat"?
I'm a Patt Morrison fan, but my view of the dispute between Time Warner Cable and Viacom is quite a bit different from hers.
Maybe it's because I don't have cable, but I feel compelled to stand up for Time Warner here, even as it prepares to cut much of the country's televisions off from SpongeBob, Jon Stewart and the genius of Jimmy Neutron. At the heart of the matter is Viacom's demand for more money for the privilege of carrying its channels. IMHO, it's the wrong demand at the wrong time. And the big loser here could be Viacom, which needs Time Warner more than Time Warner needs Nickelodeon, MTV, BET and the host of other Viacom cable networks.
You could argue that recessions are good for cable operators -- people spend less on entertainment away from home, raising the value of packaged home-entertainment bundles such as cable and satellite. But as the jobless rate climbs, it's hard to imagine Time Warner extracting sizable rate increases from their subscribers in 2009. More important, as Patt notes, Viacom puts its shows online, free of charge. So while it's asking Time Warner for more money for its channels, it's flooding the market with a cheaper version of the same product. This may be just the first in a long series of battles between multi-channel video providers and TV networks, and Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt seems eager to fight them.
Today, the amount of ad revenue generated online is a fraction of the $21.8 billion that cable networks collect through the Time Warners of the world. In a similar dispute with broadcaster LIN TV earlier this year, Time Warner held its ground for almost a month, keeping the LIN channels off the air before the two sides settled (terms were not disclosed, so there's no telling which side caved). During that time, the cable operator helped its customers hook their TVs up to the Internet to catch some of the programming that LIN had provided. My guess is, most cable customers would be willing to do that for a few channels, as long as they continued to get the bulk of their favorites through the usual route. That's why I think Time Warner's got the stronger hand here.
SpongeBob image courtesy of Nickelodeon
We already pay for thier channels by watching all those commercials! Broadcast TV has LESS commercials, so in some ways they are already overcharging. Also it is really Viacomm against us, because Time Warner would pass it on to us. If they want to charge more let them offer the channels ala cart and see how many of us pay up. Let the marketplace figure it all out.
We should be paying cable just for the service of bringing us the channels. The providers get ad revenue and if they don't have ads, they can ask us to sign up and pay seperately. That puts the decision in our hands.
Posted by: nocable | December 31, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Hey Nick, TW won't be the one sucking it up and paying..YOU will. Guarantee if Viacom gets away with this, you'll see every one of them (Disney, NBC/Universal, etc) come looking for more money (which again YOU will be paying).
Posted by: informed citizen | December 31, 2008 at 06:24 PM
I have Time Warner Cable and I will lose these channels in a few hours. i called the cable company and asked them, since they are removing 19 channels that I pay for will they replace these channels. they said no. So I asked them when my bill would be adjusted, they don'tknow when. So Time Warner is ripping off its customers. Your still paying for these channels you don't have. I would have gladly paid 25 cents, the cable company should have asked its customers what they wanted. I don;t want them speaking for me. I'm calling Verizon.
Posted by: Amy | December 31, 2008 at 06:24 PM
Viacom's ad revenue is down and they want MORE money from Time Warner to send them their feed. This is a BLACKMAIL attempt by Viacom and has NOTHING to do with Time Warner and Bright House.
I say cut the damned feed and let their revenues from ads fall even farther! They will come back to Time Warner and Bright House on their knees.
Time Warner should hold its ground! If Viacom was broadcasting commercial free programing I could understand this but they are NOT.
Posted by: Chris | December 31, 2008 at 03:11 PM
Viacom needs to think of the consumers first - Please don't pull these channels from Time Warner Cable or Brighthouse Networks!
http://www.floodthelines.com/viacomdontpullchannels/
Posted by: FLMom | December 31, 2008 at 03:06 PM
Time warner needs to suck it up and pay. This is not the first time they have tried to strong arm someone into accepting a crappy deal. Viacom has about %20, and are only getting 2.5% of revenue. Don't those numbers seem a little off? If they need to cut costs then why don't they strong arm channels that nobody watches. Like: UPN, Bravo, or any of the other 1000's of channels that 1 person watches a day!
Posted by: Nick | December 31, 2008 at 01:52 PM
I'm with you on this. You people should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you in this day and age of economic crisis use my sons favorite TV shows and channels as pawns in your quest to make a few extra million dollars. You think by taking it to the people you may force the cable channels hand. I already pay an exorbitant amount for cable and I have to pay extra for my sons favorite channel Noggin and now I am going to have to tell my 3 year old son that greed is taking away his channel and his shows. I am a single mother going to school full time and raising my son and you people are being ridiculous. GREEDY! GREEDY! GREEDY! Holding my sons shows as ransom when there are people here in this country starving and out of work and struggling so that you can keep up your outrageous lifestyles. May God have mercy on your souls!!
Posted by: Sue | December 31, 2008 at 01:50 PM
It's too bad it didn't happen earlier when my children were growing up and there was no way to keep that garbage off the set. Don't tell me about locking, my kids found out in one afternoon that you could reset the parental lock by turning the controller off and on.
Posted by: Robert | December 31, 2008 at 01:50 PM
No Colbert or John Stewart? That satellite system is looking like a good alternative.
Posted by: Christopher | December 31, 2008 at 01:50 PM
There is a lot of manipulation of facts going on with this issue.
Time Warner really wants Viacom to drop it's internet feeds of its most popular shows. That is why they state it is of less value now than it has been. The Cable companies FEAR the potential of web based TV. (Think about it bandwidth charges, net neutrality, all cable company issues).
Truths:
Viacom charges amount to less than 2.5% of the operating cost of Time Warners Programming. Which as of Sept. was less than $24 per customer (check their financial reports to stock holders).
Even if every Viacom channel had a 36% cost increase it would amount to less than 1% overall cost (approx. $0.24) increase to Time Warner, but there is the chance other suppliers will also charge more.
If Viacom drops it's internet feeds I'm sure Time Warner will pay the difference, but if this plays out like it appears it will be bad for both of them.
Posted by: James | December 31, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I don't understand something here. If the cable companies don't carry the channels then the broadcasters lose advertising revenue because they don't have as many eyeballs watching their shows.
So now we as consumers have to pay for the privilege of supporting stations which already rake in the dough from advertisements.
Let them see how far they go if no one carries their signals.
Posted by: Monte | December 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Viacom is asking for a very small increase in comparison to the much higher percentage that their popular shows are watched on Time Warner. Leave me with more infomercials and filler stations and it's just one more solid reason to go satellite.
Posted by: Tom | December 31, 2008 at 12:17 PM