Why not apply that logic to every single channel, then? It's ludicrous to charge every single cable customer for HGTV and Oxygen. I can think of dozens more that I don't watch, too. Yes, they're less money than CSN, but that's not the principle. The principle, as you said, is charging every single cable customer for a channel not every customer will watch. I'd be with you on that, if the providers were willing to extend that same logic across the board -- but they aren't. Likewise, I don't think there's a single RSN out of the 50+ in the US that isn't on the basic tier of the team's home market. And yes, many are at $3+ per subscriber. The point CSN is making, and I think it's a valid one, is why they should have to make this sacrifice when no one else does. If the providers want to hold RSNs across the country hostage on every negotiation or renegotiation and put them on a higher tier, fine. They're not, though. It's just about CSN Houston. As for not having agreements in principle before, unfortunately, that's just not how business gets done these days. I hate it too, but RSNs think they can get their best deal by waiting until a deadline and getting the provider to blink. Sadly, in this case, that didn't work. One thing I can promise you, though, is that it's not about forcing people to switch to Comcast. In the areas the Rockets and especially Astros need to be, most people don't even have that option. My parents live in the Beaumont area and are diehard supporters of Houston sports... they'd switch to Comcast in a heartbeat, if they could, just for the games. They can't, because Comcast isn't offered there. Same goes for Central Texas, South Texas and most of East Texas. It's such a shame. Ultimately, that's why I think a deal gets done within the next week... the Astros just have too much to lose, from a market share standpoint relative to the Rangers, if they go multiple years with no exposure in the state. And that's exactly what will happen if a deal isn't imminent. After April, there's nothing left to make providers budge off whatever their current offer is... not until at least one of the Rockets/Astros is an annual contender, and that's likely years away. I think that's too much of a price for the Astros in particular (the largest stakeholder) to pay, but we'll soon find out.
I'm not assigning "blame" to Comcast. On the contrary, I believe their strategy all along was to promote subscribers to their system (win/win, pay us or pay us). All of this sports programming is small potatoes to their real bottom line issues, annual subscribers, ad revenues for Comcast owned content, and marketing synergy opportunities. I'm quite sure they see the Astros and Rockets as 'loss leaders' that add value elsewhere anyway. How else can you explain the Wharton MBA's starting a season, paying for the product and acting like situation was unforeseen. Incompetence with tens of millions at stake? I think not.
See my prior post. Comcast isn't even available to the majority of the Astros/Rockets markets. I think, in general, you're putting entirely too much of the strategic thinking on the Comcast/NBC Sports Group component of the deal. Remember, about 78% is owned by the Astros and Rockets. They're the true decision makers here. As far as what the Astros/Rockets were thinking, the whole thing comes down to timing. That's where the mistake was made, in my opinion. They saw FSSW wasn't treating Houston teams fairly (which is true). They knew they could make a kickass network that Houston fans would love. They knew there is a market for it, which there is. Everything was great in theory, except for one thing... the launch date (October 2012) came at basically an all-time low in fan interest. The Rockets had missed the playoffs for three straight years. The Astros are in the middle of a lengthy rebuild. And the providers came ready to use that leverage against CSN Houston. Simple business. In a perfect world, CSN Houston could accept a lower number for now and then renegotiate higher in two years when the interest/ratings are much higher. But in business, it doesn't work that way. Whatever the number they ultimately agree on is, it'll be for a very lengthy contract and the precedent it sets for the eventual renegotiation will be significant. That's why Crane keeps referring to the importance of the per subscriber figure for years down the line. Basically, CSN Houston knows the ratings for both teams in 2-to-4 years will be much higher than the figures being "calculated" from the past couple years. But it's hard to get providers to budge without cold, hard data, and it's not as if they'll renegotiate in good faith in two years if and when that happens. So we're at a stalemate. They'll never admit it publicly, but my guess is if they could do it all again, they'd find a way to delay the launch date until October 2014. The timing just couldn't have been worse, relative to the fortunes of the two teams involved. That's where the mistake came.
You are very kind to say that was the only mistake. I think we both see the situation in a similar light, but I believe comcast is continually making mistakes with the way they are handling this. To me, they have the most control in the process and the ability to apply pressure if they wanted to. They could release the details of their offer and a comparison to networks across the nation. They could use information as their tool to prove their case. Yet they continue to play in the shadows with everyone else. If what your are offering is fair - show the comps to prove it up. Make it be know publicly so that you are no longer the main target of criticism. Put the pressure back on the providers to come to the table. Make it ugly and make it go away. the same problem we have with our soft media not holding teams accountable (but also providing safe harbor for complete loons - carl everett) is coming into play with this issue. It got ugly in NY because people care enough. I'd love for the same to take place here.
I think you'll see the gloves come off and specific numbers unveiled if a deal isn't reached in April. As the CSN guy said, there's certainly some value in the fact that negotiations aren't toxic yet -- they're still "at the table" in a sense and being civil. Whoever makes the first move in leaking the "confidential" information will be starting an all-out war, and there's a risk there. Perhaps that should've happened in November, but the sad truth that's becoming more apparent is that April 2 was always the deadline. It was always about the Astros. (By the way, I definitely think that the Astros changing ownership was harmful to the Rockets' cause for this season. When the CSN agreement was forged, Drayton ran the Astros and had a working relationship with Les and the Rockets. Not so much with Crane. The past two or three weeks, on both sides, have been particularly heated... and now with the latest ad rollout, there's an intensity to get a deal done that simply wasn't there in late October and early November.)
The thing which is the 'tell' from CSN is the fact that they keep using the word 'negotiations', while at the same time repeating the mantra of 'we are asking for what's fair' and 'fair market value'. This translates to me as" 'We refuse to budge from our original asking price, and instead have pursued a strategy of trying to use the fan base to put pressure and force leverage against the carriers.' That's what it all says to me. Which means using the word 'negotiations' is a best disingenuous, and at worst an outright lie. This is why people have reflexively sided against CSN here, even though clearly the carriers are no angels in this situation either. It's because we instinctively know BS when we smell it. And this 'we are negotiating every day' just smells untrue when we can all see that there is no progress being made. That's not 'negotiating'. Memo to CSN: if you have not come down from your original asking price, that is not 'negotiations'. That is the OPPOSITE of negotiating, that is stonewalling and making the fans pay the price. LOWER YOUR PRICE AND GET THE FREAKING DEAL DONE
NBA LeaguePass is on sale right now, 49.99 or 29.99.... anyone know what zip codes are not being blacked out in Houston Area?
Speaking of this ^^^ is the full on-demand archive available for all Rockets games? (even the blacked-out ones?)
I think that's a stretch. For all we know, the gap could be large enough that CSN has come off its original asking price but is still nowhere near a deal acceptable to the providers. Either way, we should find out soon. April 2 seems like the true deadline date, and if a deal isn't struck by then, I think the gloves come off and a lot more legit information is leaked to the public. (Plus, I think there's an outside shot that local politicians might get involved when all three teams -- Rockets, Astros and Dynamo -- are playing and none are made available.)
