Here is the deal though, I heard Lopez talking about this article this morning on 610, described what he wrote about. Within 5 minutes I heard Lopez do a commercial for Comcast! So really does anyone expect him to say something different?
I'm with you, thought I'd put it in the thread though. I didn't know he did a Comcast commercial, but I could've guessed after reading the article.
John Lopez is the last place I would go for any information/opinions. Wish that guy would disappear already. Luckily he's been moved to 610 where I never have to hear him anyways. Uninformed and idiotic man.
The Rockets and Astros are clearly investing a lot of money into their PR campaign around this, but it does not appear to be working out for them very well.
just called uverse and they said they don't have any financial compensation for not providing the games. any specific angles you guys are using?
LOL, I wonder how much CSN paid Lopez to write this "article". Reading it, it literally sounds like it was written by Matt Hutchings and Lopez just added his name to it. It hits all their moronic talking points: This point is so DUMB, I really can't believe Matt Hutchings....er, "John Lopez" is still trotting it out there. The providers are charging every month for FSN - which they still carry. Why would the carriers be expected to not charge for a channel they are still carrying? The providers weren't the ones who yanked the games away from FSN, it was the teams. And customers are getting credits because they are threatening to cancel, not because the providers are fraudulently charging them for Rockets/Astros games. Yeah, I'm sure that's the main sticking point for the providers. Not the carriage fee or the basic vs. premium tier issue......but the name of the network. Really, Matt? Er....."John"?
Huh? Do you really think radio hosts are biased to the commercials they do? They're from sponsors who pay big money to have the talk show guys read their materials. It's no different than KHOU airing the CSN Houston commercial. KHOU isn't implicitly endorsing CSN by doing that -- it's just a paid advertisement and a way for the station to stay in business. In the talk radio format, it's common practice for the hosts themselves to read many of the ad spots. I think even the Chronicle has had the "iwantCSNHouston.com" ads, so by your logic, they're not a credible source either.
I read very clearly. You're implying that Crane's financial decisions and/or statements this season may be an indicator how much he will spend down the line. That's simply not true.
Of course they may be an indicator. You don't know that. You're way into the Rockets, Astros kool aid.
The providers were the ones, however, that decided to pay big bucks on a long-term contract for FSN in Houston without any guarantee that the main product (local pro sports games) would remain in place. Basically, carriers are charging $3/subscriber (one of most expensive on extended basic) for a channel whose peak offering is now Big 12 college softball and Rodeo wrap-ups. It all could've been avoided with a stipulation that the rate be dependent on maintaining the rights to the Astros/Rockets and/or giving themselves an "opt out" clause in the contract under that scenario. There's plenty of blame on both sides, certainly, but I firmly agree with them on that point. The price you're paying your provider (this is for those that haven't gotten a discount, yet) for FSN every month was based on FSN having the rights to local professional teams. If that rate isn't reduced when the main value goes away, then your provider did a ****ty job of negotiating and you shouldn't be the one held responsible. To give the providers credit, they do seem to recognize this and have been willing to give appropriate discounts, when asked. That's because the broader point is a valid one, and they know it. They share responsibility.
Sorry, I'm way into common sense and logic. I know that's a foreign concept to you. What is there to gain by the Astros spending money in 2013? They could have signed the top five free agents on the market and still wouldn't come close to cracking .500. It would only serve to diminish the money they have to spend in future contending years, hurt their draft positioning and reduce their draft pool money. It would be completely senseless. Crane says the team will spend big when the foundation is improved. Houston is a market that supports a fairly large ($100 million ish) payroll. Until there is evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to assume that A) he's lying and B) he's going to act in a completely illogical and disproportionate manner. Him not spending money on this abortion of a team in 2013 is completely logical and not an indicator of what he will do when the team isn't god-awful. I'll tell you this much. I know you hate my guts, so if the Astros don't have a $100 million payroll at some point in the next five years, I'll never post on this board again. I don't think you'll make the same promise on the other side, though -- because per usual, you're just b****ing to b****.
I've worked my whole life in journalism, many years in sports journalism, and have direct involvement with sponsors on a day-to-day basis. It might be that I know just a little more about the dynamics of this stuff than you.
Screw CSN Houston. That commercial is lies. IT'S EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT YOU CAN'T WATCH THE ROCKETS GAME. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR TOO MUCH MONEY, IT'S YOUR PROVIDERS. bull****. I had access to my Houston sports team before your station came along. Look at how much they are investing in a bs marketing campaign so they can get the offers near their asking price. Greedy b****es. I swear if Google Fiber comes to Houston I will never, ever use Comcast's services. There is only 1 more game that I can't watch this season, and I wasn't planning on watching it anyways.
Do you not understand what sponsors are and how they work? Without going into specifics, I run several daily publications that typically have sponsors. Many of those companies I personally don't respect and have steered friends of mine away from. Sponsors are buying a banner on a website or a 30-second spot on television or the radio. They're not buying the undying loyalty and love of everyone affiliated with the station they're advertising with. It sounds like you don't even understand what journalism is. It's independent from the sales side.
It does make a lot of outlets less credible, because they aren't going hard after the correct story. Just look at how the chronicle has "reported" on this whole situation. There wasn't more than a peep after the Rockets opener. Sometimes these media outlets won't correctly cover stories because of how it might effect their relationship with the teams. I say all of this respectfully of course
