Exactly, there's risk for both sides. In fact, I'm pretty confident ratings WILL be low, given that it typically takes a few weeks for the casual viewer just to figure out that a new channel is on the lineup. I really don't think the effect of this offer on negotiations is significant for either side. As I said, for the providers, I don't think the diehard fans are suddenly going to be way more angry come June 1. They're already well aware that they're missing the games. For CSN, I don't think low ratings would be that damning, considering the unprecedented nature of the trial. More than anything, I think this gives everyone involved a break.
LOL. If I was a shameless, unapologetic shill for the Astros and Rockets, I would agree with that too. They want you them to turn it on and then be ready to turn it off again if the negotiations don't radically change direction in the next 30 days, which there is no reason to believe that they will. This is a great idea for the Astros and Rockets to try and market their product. But it helps the cable providers not at all, and it provides a vehicle for the Astros and Rockets to try and rile up the hammerheads who would be pissed at the possibility of the channel being deactivated again and who would just automatically blame that on the cable companies out of ignorance; and perhaps also as a result of misleading remarks from the sports teams, of which we have already seen a good many. You are right about one thing. This is a PR stunt by the sports teams. And it is designed to be for their benefit and not the benefit of the fans or anyone else.
Who exactly is going to get riled up? The 8-month-old children who don't remember what it was like to watch the Astros on TV? Because other than them, I don't think this is going to be some revelation. People have seen the Astros on TV before. People are already aware they're missing the games. If they're inclined to be angry at the providers, they already are. Can you find a single person in this thread, or on Twitter or anywhere else, that is changing their stance on "who to blame", based on this? I don't care who it's "designed" to benefit. Who it DOES benefit are fans who for five weeks can actually watch their teams play. If the providers are so stubborn as to reject that, even at no cost and little-to-no-harm to their own business, then they're ****ing assholes who deserve to be blamed.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9079203 Comcast offering a one-month "freeview" of their channel for one month. Yeah, right... I can watch "the Astros."??? SWEET. NOT. I still CANNOT watch it.
You are hilarious. The other providers are going to pass and it's going to look like CSN wants to charge an arm and a leg for what they can't give away free. I swear Bozo is driving the CSN bus. Blackout the Rocket's the playoff drive and then show the double A Astros as a magnanimous gift to the people. We're The Skeeter's not available? I bet the advertisers are re-negotiating, I bet Jim Crane is raising his voice to his media managers.
Idiots like this almost make me happy with the blackout. I know most are a lot more informed, though.
Unlike you, I've got no dog in this fight, I managed just fine. I am merely watching the new industry paradigm shaping up before our eyes for the entertainment value. Business schools are going to teach this.
I do not believe that. In this thread you have posted a purely CSN bias at a level of sophistry that implies that you are a paid shill. I do 'blame' CSN because what I had was good enough, I paid for my coverage and was happy with it. The appearance is that the owners colluded to create a monopoly of multiple local sports in order to maximize their profits at my expense. Sports have always been 'allowed' monopolies with regulatory exclusions and have been supported with public monies because they are useful in society to entertain the people and create bonded communities. But at some point, the people will say "hey billionaires, enough is enough". That to me is interesting. First CSN, next 'Too Big To Fail' Banks. It's a lot bigger than just Astros baseball. And the funny part is how fumble handed and unsophisticated the big money has been through this. If business should have learned anything from the big banks about real power, it's that you have your collusion agreed to by all the big money players before you announce anything. The back room distribution deals should have been done before anything was public. Do we think ATT and Liberty Media wouldn't have happily gone along with this if they were making more money too?
Since it's absolutely free...and I'm a paying customer...I'm going to be peeved if UVerse doesn't pick this up until the end of the month. If this whole thing turns on price, alone...then there's no reason for Uverse not to pick it up when it's abso-frickin-lutely free.
It's called balance. There's no need for me to repeat the argument against the CSN side; it's been made thousands of times. What's not being said is the other side of the story; that while CSN shares blame, the providers are greedy themselves and aren't the noble defenders of fairness that many make them out to be. Point me to a thread where the consensus is that the providers are horrible, and I'll be more than happy to rip CSN to shreds, too. Plenty of people know me on this board. I have absolutely zero affiliation with CSN, the Astros, Rockets, Dynamo or anyone else involved in this. I simply blame both sides and want a deal to get done, and the best way to do it is to apply pressure to each of them and hope they come to the middle.
They're not going to pick it up, because it will spur demand. "You don't miss what you never had", etc. It's a sneaky ploy by CSN to paint the providers as the bad guys. I have to LOL at this though: Matt Hutchings, president and general manager of the network owned by the Astros, Rockets and NBC Sports Group, said the offer would result in a “sizable loss that our network will take on, but we feel that it is the right thing to do.” These guys have no shame. You lose *nothing* by offering a free trial period, because you're not currently *making* anything since the channel isn't picked up. The "right thing to do" for them is nothing more than a marketing ploy. This is like lighting someone on fire, pissing on them to (temporarily) put it out, and then telling them they're welcome when you're finished.
What's up with that KTRK article? They said they've offered it to the providers free as a trial. They're making it seem like it's available now and I can tune in.
worst lawyer ever never give an inch when your opponent is showing weakness, that's when you step on his neck
Um, yes. I'm more than happy to have a beer with you, if you bizarrely care enough to learn what I do. I have absolutely zero to do with CSN. I don't think I've ever even spoken one word to anyone employed by them, even.
Unless you're six months old or younger, that quote is completely ridiculous. CSN Houston isn't some revelation. People have had the Astros/Rockets/Dynamo on TV for years. They already know they're missing the games. If they're inclined to blame the providers, they already do.
I don't drink beer, I sit in my Mom's basement and type on the internet; so you'll have to tell me what you do right here, because you spout the company line like you're paid to do it. No one I know "blames" the providers, not here, not in The Chronicle, not on sports radio, not the The Mayor. For you to insist otherwise just confirms you live in a CSN bubble.
