Exactly. What makes it even worse is that the official Uverse statement doesn't remotely address why their stated goal (a la carte option) is incompatible with a free month-plus trial. They're turning down games for free that they know a lot of subscribers want, and they don't even have the decency or guts to give an honest explanation. That's pathetic. [/McClain]
It makes no sense for Uverse to offer a promotional for a channel that they do not offer. HBO periodically offers free promotionals for their channels that last a few days, and you can also call up and get a free 3-month promotional if you want. But the goal of that is to sign up new viewers, which is only possible if the channels are offered in the channel line up, which CSN obviously isn't. This is not something that the service providers like Uverse will take seriously, nor should they.
It makes absolute sense when they don't have to pay for it and their customers want it. It costs them nothing. They get to provide value-added to their customers...and it doesn't cost them a dime. Again...if they don't do this, then it shows the charade they're running in their whole point about looking out for their customers first in this negotiation. Bottom line is...as their customer, who the hell cares if it makes sense from Uverse's perspective? I don't pay them to consider their persective. The question is, as a consumer, does it make sense from my perspective...I'm the one forking over the money for their product on a monthly basis. You have a chance to offer me free programming for a month and you choose not to do it? Ridiculous. I'll take my business elsewhere when the contract expires.
Stroke of genius by CSN, and really backs the providers into a corner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why the providers don’t want to do this. From the beginning, to most, CSN has always looked like the bad guys. If the providers get the channel and air it for a month, then pull it afterwards because a deal doesn’t get done, they’ll immediately look like the bad guys. It’s nothing but a tease that would just piss everyone off if it played out that way. If the providers don’t take the offer, then it looks like they just don’t care about what their customers want. Yet again, backing them into a corner. IMO, it looks like there are no real negotiations going on – And this is just a ploy to fan the flames. In the end, Direct, Dish, AT&T, etc… All know that most of the upset fans aren’t going to switch to Comcast. They know that even though you may be pissed, you’re going to still pay that bill this month, next month, and the next, and the next…
There actually is logic to rejecting this on the part of the providers. Behavioral economics studies show that people are angrier if they are offered something and then have it taken away than if they aren't ever offered it in the first place. Here, the providers face this dilemma (brilliant move on the part of CSN). Right now, they have leverage because people simply aren't switching away and aren't showing interest in switching away. But give them the product for a month and then take it away, and you'll have more angry viewers. The question for them is whether they'll piss off more people (like you) by rejecting the offer than they would taking it and then taking the channel away in a month. If they are dead-set on a particular valuation and don't feel CSN-H is going to move from their valuation, then there's really no incentive for them to accept the offer.
It's not the concept I disagree with. It's whether it's applicable to the situation. In my opinion, there's nothing new being offered because consumers have seen the product (Astros baseball) on television before, most within the past 7 months. They're not going to suddenly see the games, realize that they love the games, and then go ape**** when they miss them again. If they like watching baseball, they already know they're missing the games. This isn't comparable to offering HBO, a product most people have never seen. If you disagree with me on that, that's certainly your right. But don't speak for me. I get and understand the concept just fine. It's whether it's applicable to this particular situation that I debate.
As a UVerse subscriber I don't want the free preview. You can't miss something you never had, while if I get CSN for a month and then it is taken away I will be angrier than I am now. Just a ploy by CSN to make the providers look bad, its a lose lose situation for them. Lets say your kid wants an xbox. Give them an xbox for a month and then take it away and tell them you will give it back when you can pay it off, but you don't know when that is. Trust me you will have wished you would have never given it to them in the first place.
Did your kid have an XBox his entire life until last October? If he did, my guess is that he's already as pissed at you as he's going to get. If anything, he might thank you for giving him a month's reprieve. If your analogy doesn't involve the kid having an XBox his entire life, then it's a flawed one for this.
I get that...but as a paying customer, I want the channel. Even if it's only for a month. And if they have the opportunity to get it to me for free for a full month...at no cost to them...and they don't...I'm going elsewhere as soon as I can.
I wish they would take the offer and give me the games for a month, but you are spot on with your analogy. There are a few that are already really pissed about this, but it's obvious that the number that is really upset isn't as great as what csn/jimbo/les thought it would be. Give people the games for a month and take them away and the number of people who are upset would certainly rise. Both sides fully understand that. It is a good ploy by csn because it will likely turn some of the pressure away from them and towards the providers regardless of what decision the providers make on this. I think csn knows this isn't going to get resolved anytime soon and I think they are looking for ways to get people off of their backs. I also wonder if csn is feeling some pressure from the people buying ads on the channel. I don't know exactly how all of that works, but if i'm a big company and i'm spending big bucks on commercials, and I know that only 40% of the market is going to be able to see, i'm probably going to begin to look for other market's to spend my advertising bucks in, or at the very least want drastically reduced costs for the ads I bought on csn
I think your analogy is flawed. You can't name one person who would be ok with losing 6 months of local sports, then be able to catch one VERY insignificant month, then lose it again indefinetly. It doesn't matter that fans have seen the Rockets and Astros play before. So what.... The point is that the fans can't see them right now. And the providers would be fools to pull this number: Spoiler http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/4590975/*****s-be-like-i-got-you-a-dollar-o.gif
I think a better analogy would be if you were in a NAZI DEATH CAMP for 6 months. Then they release you but tell you you have to come back a month later.
He doesn't understand that, he gets the games, he can watch them at home. This is simply a thread that he can come on and post thoughts, he isn't truly involved in this whole thing
It's like you're dating Kate Upton. But then you find out that she has a half-sister from Calgary who walks with a limp and has a pet monkey. I mean...what do you do?
No, I can't name one person who would be OK with that. But the thing is: they're already not OK. That's my point. They're already angry, be it with the provider, CSN or both. How does this make it worse? If anything, it might make it better for all sides by giving them a month's reprieve to calm down. This isn't some new programming that's going to blow their minds. This is a known product that they've watched for years and years. Customers already know they're missing games. They're already upset. If you want an analogy, let's say you love warm weather and have lived in Texas your whole life, and your company transfers you to Alaska on October 1. Then, come December, they think of letting you work from home (in Texas) for 30 days, on the stipulation that you have to return to Alaska on January 1. Would you rather just stay in Alaska? And come January 1, would you be any more angry at your company than you were on October 1? The "downside", in the sense of customers being upset when the games are taken away, is ALREADY HAPPENING. There's no secret. This isn't "can't miss what you never had". Everyone knows. Sorry.
The answer is: Lease the Monkey to work on Hollywood blockbuster. Take the proceeds and fix the sister's limp. then date them both.
