Comcast: Revisited
I'm less interested in pointing a finger than I am with finding a course through this minefield. At this point it looks as if there will be no agreement between Comcast and the satelite companies (and Charter). That will be two years without an agreement. Two years. It's time the Blazer organization takes action. I believe there is an opt-out clause in the agreement, but I've yet to hear any specifics regarding the terms and conditions under which such a clause might be executed.
Following the money: The Blazers.
The Blazer organization is looking for cash to boost their bottom line, but that's not all. They're also trying to establish a loyal fan following. The Blazers have always had a good percentage of die-hard fans, but those aren't the ones that make NBA teams the big money. It's the casual fan that is the true revenue maker because there are so many more of them. Hundreds of thousands more.
The Blazers have invested a lot of time and effort in building a team that everyone can be proud to root for, but they're now having their market limited by their Comcast deal. Whether it's the fault of Comcast or not, it's that deal that has hampered the ability of many would-be fans from being able to follow the team when they're not on national TV.
Though the Comcast deal has benefited the bottom line of the Blazer organization to the tune of $10 million per year, they are loosing out on the real revenue generator...fan participation.
Following the money: Comcast.
Big risk equals big reward. Before the Blazers won big in the lottery Comcast was willing to bet heavily on the Blazer organization, outbidding the standard $4 million per year that Fox had been offering. In addition Comcast would establish a new channel with the Blazers as the cornerstone along with other Oregon-centric sporting events. No longer would we be the step-child of Seattle sports options. Similar to Field of Dreams, if you build it, we will watch. We will DEMAND it. They did it. And now they want a return on their investment. I can't blame them for that mentality, but I can blame them for shortsightedness and questionable business expectations.
Comcast wants what it wants because it believes that's what it's worth. That's where they've made their mistake. Much like die-hard fans overvalue their players on the trade market, Comcast has overvalued it's product outside Oregon. It's not hard to understand why the smaller cable companies have agreed to Comcast's deal. They have a larger portion of their subscription base wanting to root for the Blazers. With smaller companies, it's easier for a few voices to be heard when asking for a certain product. Comcast ASSUMED the same deal would work for everyone. Wrong!
Now Comcast is stuck. They've gotten almost everyone in their service area to switch that was really going to, but that isn't anywhere near making this a cost-effective deal for them. $10 million per year plus the costs of running their own sports channel is a big undertaking that requires a broad revenue base. Seattle's loss of the Sonics has likely been an unforeseen bonus for Comcast as it seeks to expand it's subscriber base. What are the odds Seattle people would switch from satelite just to watch the Blazers? Low. I don't expect that to stop Comcast, however. They will likely wait out the current season to see how many more homes they can squeeze before they reconsider their position.
Following the money: Satelite companies
Portland Who? Jail-Blazers? When was the last time they were in the playoffs? Please buy NBA League Pass for only $189.00 for the entire season. Catch every game from the comfort of your own home (except the ones you really want).
The large satelite companies have no interest in being all things to all markets. Remember how long it was before they offered local channels? Direct TV and Dish aren't headquartered in Oregon, and likely don't realize the demand. A few hundred calls or e-mails won't move an entrenched bureaucracy when they think in terms of millions of viewers and not thousands. It's that mindset that will prevent any substantial shift in their negotiation position.
Following the money: Fans
In this trying economy, I cannot fathom why companies wouldn't be trying everything in their power to get my money, especially when I tell them exactly what I'd be willing to pay for.
I want to watch the Blazer games on TV, and I'm willing to pay for it!
Take my money...please!
Conclusion:
The Blazers haven't gotten to the breaking point yet, though they should have by now. Don't confuse a sold out Rose Garden with adequate marketing. So many dollars are being left on the table, it's not even funny.
Comcast has found that it can dictate terms in their pond, but in the big ocean they're just another sucker fish hanging around the large sharks. They've painted themselves into a corner with this deal, and the only way out that's profitable is to stick to their guns.
Satelite providers are trying to meet national expectations rather than market-centric demands. They don't have any incentive to cave to Comcast's demands. Even if every satelite subscriber in Oregon were to cancel their service out of frustration, they would hardly even notice the blip.
Fans are, as always, left to the mercy of outside forces. Frustrating as this ongoing saga has become, I've come to terms with the fact that I'll be watching only ESPN and TNT feeds of the games and listening to Wheels when those aren't an option.
It's a shame nobody wants my money.
4 recs |
43 comments
Comments
Just a small correction...
The sattellite companies never avoided the local channels because they wanted to. The cable companies, (comcast included), engaged in anti-competative practices and refused to provide any channels to the sattelite companies.
Eventually this got so blatent and bad that the federal government passed legislation that any locally available channels that were carried on cable had to be provided to the sattelite companies as well.
The reason some cable channels like CSN don’t fall under this law actually has nothing to do with it being “Comcast’s channel”. The federal government could care less, they were focused on good competition. The reason that it doesn’t fall under the law is because of the way that Comcast defines “cable” and the actual wires that carry the channel. (Basically Comcast specifically uses copper and fiber wires with CSN without any air trasnmission at all, and this combination keeps the federal law taking effect…)
by JordanLeDoux on Dec 24, 2008 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What does carriage of local broadcast channels
have to do with cable companies? Cable companies get those from the local TV stations….so does Satellite. You lost me on that one
That 70's show:
Kelso: Red! I guess ur wondering why I'm going through your stuff. See, I needed to borrow your saw...because I need to chop down a tree...because there's something stuck in it...an animal...a rabbit...and I would like to return that rabbit to the wild so it can lay its eggs!
Red: Kelso, rabbits don't..............how the hell did a rabbit get up a tree?
Kelso: uhhhhhh Eric threw it up there.
Red: Eric threw a rabbit up a tree?
Kelso: Yeah, he's a sadistic bastard.
by 92wastheyear on Dec 24, 2008 11:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hear! Hear!
Well said.
I’m just a Fan. No one wants my money to watch Blazer basketball!
This is my worst season ever for enjoying The PTB playin’. I was again totally shut out on last night’s Game. 95.5 doesn’t pick up well enough to listen to on my home radio. NBA “Listen Live” didn’t work on either Team’s broadcast. The 3×5" illegal internet feeds are crap, even after doubling my DSL band width. I will dbl my band width again, as it is my only hope, to not miss another Game. Sad state of affairs. I used to be able to at least listen to the Games. No “Sport Bars” can get the broacasts either. I just sit at home alone and get plastered.
Elizabeth had a partner and he had a rap from the cops, Him and Lenny Suckerpunch were just out Tooling around
by Lizzy Lowblow on Dec 24, 2008 3:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The internet feeds may be crap, but I'm very thankful for them and the guys that post them.
Good Post STH. Comcast or Dish can have my money I don’t care…. I just want the games.
by tweener on Dec 24, 2008 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The guys who post the internet feeds
have made the season much more enjoyable for me. Here in a low population county with high unemployment, I have no expectations that Comcast broadcasts will become available.
Thanks to Steve for prompting me to google Comcast and … , I learned some new words and had some laughs. Skim down about six subjects: Athinine and enememorial
by OBJuan72 on Dec 24, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed! We should be paying our money to those guys instead of Comcast or any other company.
"Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis" Dave 12/18/08
by shua on Dec 24, 2008 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I had to deal with Comcast for my tv viewing for many years. In 1999 I purchased my home, and immediately got Directv. Have had no issues since.
At that same time I was looking to upgrade my isp, which at the time was dial-up. The first high speed provider in my area turned out to be comcast. I am sure that there are thousands of Blazer fans that subscribe to that service as well.
I haven’t done any research yet, but I am sure there are other high speed providers that have representative services available. Maybe a mass exodus from comcast .net would send a message? If we can’t have it all, we don’t want any of it!
by shamman on Dec 24, 2008 3:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Comcast wants Dish or Direct to subscribe
rumor is they want a ridiculous price.
They want satellite customers to switch. And of course, if someone switches from the bird to Comcast for their teevee service, it makes it easy for Comcast to sell ’em Internet and phone services as well.
by EngineerScotty on Dec 24, 2008 3:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Are they even looking for profit?
You got me thinking. If they DON’T want satelite providers on board, they must expect to make enough money on their current service area to make the investment realistic. Where can they make money?
1. Straight service for TV only (only getting for Blazer games…keeping satelite).
2. Service switch for TV, Internet and Phone (or some combination…leaving satelite).
3. Deals with smaller cable companies.
To me, it seems like they’re leaving a considerable amount of money on the table, but that’s because I’m about making money. Comcast might see the calculation a bit differently. They might see any customer switching from satelite to cable as a plus for them, but also a negative for satelite…a double win. Sure, its less money on Comcast’s bottom line, but it’s also less on satelite’s bottom line to since they’re loosing customers.
I’ll bet that calculation works in some Comcast Exec’s mind, but I question whether that decision is in the best interest of their stock-holders.
by Steve The Hedge on Dec 24, 2008 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
your right
i’ve heard from the team that comcast is currently in the red in regards to CSN. they more than likely overpaid for the channel and the high start up costs and are trying to recoup that money.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
they wouldnt be overpaying
if they could sell to people who can’t get Comcast
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 24, 2008 11:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well if they negotiate at a loss
then they will never recoup their money. its kinda like buying a house and renting it out immediately. it almost never pencils out where the owner would break even or turn a profit. bc if it did, then why wouldn’t the renters just own the place?
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no it's not
there are people who can’t get comcast even if they were willing to buy it. if they can figure out a way to at least work them in to a satelite deal, or figure out a way to expand where they can sell Comcast, they could maxize their profit. there is money sitting there with no one to give it to. Comcast can’t loose money because these people with out moving their entire house can not be customers unless they allow these people to buy their product through another provider.
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 25, 2008 12:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
not necessarily
if comcast chose to expand, they’d probably lose money anyways bc of the infrastructure it takes to set up cable. satellite is available to most of america bc all you need is a dish. with a cable company you need all types of equipment and you can’t be too far away from their central station or whatever they call it. thats why larger cable companies tend to stay in more populated areas.
as far as the moving their house argument. if they sell at a loss, they make some money in the short run, but in the long run they will never make a profit. since they are holding out…they lose money in the short run, but theres a possibility they will get paid off at the end. its no different than an athlete holding out in the preseason.
if you bought a 100 nintendo wiis (@ $250 a piece) at the store and horded them to sell on ebay for xmas, would you sell them as fast as you could for $200? or would you take your time and wait for disparate buyers who will pay you $300? comcast may be losing money now, but they know that this team is on the up and up, and waiting only strengthens their case as the team gets better. if the blazers make the playoffs, comcast might even raise their rates even more.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 25, 2008 1:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That wasn't what I was trying to pointing out
I understand that it cost money for them to expand Comcast’s area of subscription. My point is that Comcast has ZERO ability to make money off a % of the Blazer fan population because they can’t sell Comcast to them. But if Comcast were to figure out a way to sell only to people unable to be Comcast subscribers CCSN Via satellite (such as I can buy Philly’s CCSN) they can at least get some money from people who are unable to be Comcast customers.
The moving house thing was not supposed to be serious. If any one moves to a new house solely because of their cable subscriber, they have bigger issues than trying to watch Blazer games.
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 25, 2008 1:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only people
I feel for are those who have no options. If you live in an area that can’t subscribe to a cable company that carries the games, your getting a raw deal. That being said, if you do have a choice, shut up and change to Comcast. I dont get Sunday Ticket, but I get Blazer basketball. I made a choice. Comcast invested in a product I value, and good for them. Having products your competition does not is just good buisness. Why would they want to share what they own? Right now, its annoying to people that don’t get the games. But in the future, when the Blazers are playing for championships, I think the value of the product will keep going up. Why buy high and sell low? Comcast knows what they are doing.
by bad karma on Dec 24, 2008 4:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
That being said…the money directv gets CSN i’m switching over ASAP. hell i might even go to verizon once they get broadcasts in hd. granted that still doesnt solve my nfl league pass problems.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oops
“the moment directv gets csn…”
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's the rub.
CSN has the monopoly on the games, and that’s all that’s holding their expanded base loyal after switching from satelite. The moment they sell the rights, they’ll loose a chunk of that artificially created customer base back to the satelite providers. That’s probably another reason Comcast is asking what they are. They know their “Blazer ransom switchers” will switch right back if a deal is done.
When a hostage taker lets go of the hostages, he gets busted.
I hate stand-offs.
Get KP it to make them an offer they can’t refuse.
by Steve The Hedge on Dec 24, 2008 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno if that is necessary the case
i think in order to turn a profit they need to get the satellites on boar. they’ve gotten deals done everywhere else except here.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
geat point!
there are so many people who disslike that they have been put in the situation to choose comcast because their back is to the wall that the second they have a chance to stop giving their money to the devil they will. I HATE COMCAST for all the selfish reasons. I get the games at my dorm at school, but my family doesnt and I feel dirty that I am some where down the line paying comcast money even if my houseing is the middle man
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 24, 2008 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
great point
but if “Why would they want to share what they own” is the way Comcast looks at it, as they probably do. we should be more mad at the Blazers for shutting out all these good fans.
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 24, 2008 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the thing is they dont...
they have negotiated deals in every market except for ours according the the blazers.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 11:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
is that true?
because I remember a time when it wasnt every other market that had deals. I can’t find any articles at the moment but Im pretty sure Oregon isnt the only place that can’t figure out the satelite deal. and if we are, why is that?
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 25, 2008 12:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes
blazers management said that every other region has negotiated a deal…i don’t think it has taken more than 2 years in all cases tho. i’m too lazy to find you a link now, but wikipedia says that as well…not that wikipedia is a solid source or anything.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 25, 2008 12:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lucky us
Comcast has chosen to make its stand in Oregon, joy if joys :(
Bayless has been testing the fences for weaknesses
by blazeraddict on Dec 25, 2008 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been talking up the Blazers around the lunch table at work
and to family and friends. But they can’t watch a game unless their at my house. So yeah, Comcast is shooting themselves right on the foot. Many of the big marketing mistakes have been when companies try to corner the market and fail, and by the same token, many juggernaut companies have offered things for free or at little cost, i.e. Google and a host of others.
GO
THE TEACHER ......come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You could hurt somebody in the first row with a shot like that" -
Mike Rice, Portland at Denver 12/22/08
by Blazer1342 on Dec 24, 2008 7:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
so why does Directv get a free pass
but not Comcast? For most of america NFL TIcket > Nba League Pass > CSN.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 8:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
its the Blazers who shot them selves in the foot
if they care about making new fans, they need to put some pressure on Comcast
Being a Blazer fan is fun!
by Blazermaniac77 on Dec 24, 2008 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
unless
they plan on adding new seats…i doubt it bothers them all that much. chances are we will have more and more kgw/national games in the next few years that their exposure nationally will make up the difference between a few locked out fans here.
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 24, 2008 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't expect more TNT or ESPN broadcasts next year
We are already getting more than our fair share with the Oden v. Shaq Oden v. Yao Oden v. Duncan & Oden v. Howard & Oden v. Bynum. Oden won’t be as big of a draw next year.
by tweener on Dec 25, 2008 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
theres still kgw
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 25, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I posted this once before but, Dish Network isn't exactly without flaws...
I’m very doubtful that it’s fair to lay all of this off on comcast.
No KATU if you have Dish Network
KATU no longer available to DISH Network Subscribers
SEATTLE, WA, Dec 18, 2008 — DISH Network’s satellite carriage agreement with Fisher Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCI) expired on December 17, 2008, immediately leaving DISH customers in 7 media markets without the ability to receive Fisher’s programming. Stations no longer available to DISH customers are: KOMO and KUNS in Seattle, KIMA and KUNW in Yakima, KATU in Portland, KVAL in Eugene, KBCI in Boise, KIDK in Idaho Falls, and KBAK and KBFX in Bakersfield.
“Despite Fisher’s good-faith efforts to negotiate a new agreement, we were unable to reach acceptable terms to ensure that DISH provides us fair compensation for the value they receive from broadcasting our stations, which have leading positions in their markets and consistently deliver highly viewed news and programming,” said Rob Dunlop, Fisher’s Senior Vice President of Operations. “Our signal remains available over the public airwaves and through other service providers such as cable or DIRECTV. We regret any inconvenience DISH Network viewers may experience as they look for other options in order to watch our stations.”
by raoulduke on Dec 24, 2008 7:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
"unable to reach acceptable terms to ensure that DISH provides us fair compensation"
= “we wanted more money than all the other local channels that ARE on dish, but dish wouldn’t cave”
Channels 6, 8, 12, 32, etc. seem to have reached “acceptable terms” – I doubt Dish is singling out Fisher. Dish claims that Fisher wants increase rates by 80%, if memory serves.
Dish may not be perfect, but in my personal experience Comcast has shown the least concern for customers of any of the TV programming providers (we have their broadband though, and like it well enough).
I called Comcast to inquire what options I had to ADD Comcast cable to my existing broadband service. The phone rep said he didn’t know exactly what I was talking about (Comcast Sports Northwest, for Blazer games), and after putting me on hold for 20 min, asked if he could call me back.
He never did.
Those guys do just suck.
Good night, Blazer fans, whereEVER you may be.... DAA-daddle-a-DA-da-da-DA-da-da-DAA
by jerome glide porterworth on Dec 25, 2008 8:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i have yet to see a hotel in the nw
that carries comcast nw sports. comcast does carry most the service and usually its the same 100 channels everywhere but i called and complained and they said that the hotel needs to upgrade to the a higher plan because the channel was in the 150’s. comcast can blow me and all my friends too. i will never give them a cent.
by riccc_l on Dec 25, 2008 12:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
My Money is no good either
I would trade my NBA package for Comcast if I could. I live in the country outside of Prineville, OR and the only TV reception I can get is satellite. So I can’t get Comcast.
Radio reception is horrible and comcast has blocked internet broadcast so I am almost blocked from My blazers
hg
No Comcast today Keeps my Blszers away
Harold
by hgvlm on Dec 25, 2008 10:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
In the same boat
I, too, live in rural Southern Oregon with a Dish service. No radio (except extreme static, with sometimes a voice coming through), and no TV, due to Comcast. However bad the internet feeds are, it still gives me an oppportunity to “watch” some of my favorite team. Thanks to all of the BEdgers who post before the game the link where we can see it.
by Holybackboards on Dec 25, 2008 11:56 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why not Charter?
The thing that I can’t get past is the lack of a deal with Charter Cable. If Comcast is waiting for Satelite to cave in order to ensure profit and in the meantime expanding their base at the expense of satelite, then a deal with Charter should be a high priority. Like their deals with other smaller companies, they should be trying to get more people hooked up to cable. Comcast would get the payout and would still be able to vicariously steal customers, hurting the satelite provider’s bottom line.
According to Charter’s website, there are 252,400 people in their West Division – Northwest Market. Which covers Oregon, Washington, and Northern California.
Here’s the deal:
$1.50 per month per subscriber = $378,600 to Comcast per month.
Charter offers the Blazer Channel as a $15 per month Premium Channel (12-month requirement). Anything over 25,240 homes signing up is pure profit! That’s about the size of the Rose Garden…per month. Easy! It would cost less than NBA League Pass too. Who really watches other NBA teams that much anyway?
Comcast gets $4,543,200 per year (10 million annual contract cost). That’s 45% of their contract cost for a relatively small deal. That’s what you call a Cash Cow.
Charter gets the chance to make money and expand their customer base without forcing a rate increase on ALL their subscribers. They take on some risk for the opportunity to make a good reward.
The FANS get a chance to watch their favorite team for the cost of a pizza.
How can that deal NOT be done?
by Steve The Hedge on Dec 25, 2008 1:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Steve
Great Post filled with reasons to back up your propositions. One of the most intelligent analysis I have read. Wish you were the head of Comcast!
by Holybackboards on Dec 25, 2008 2:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think...
By going with comcast the Blazers made themselves available to the majority of people in the market. More people have comcast than satellite in the market. The Blazers made the right choice. They (comcast) have reached deals with all the smaller cable companies other than Charter, that were pretty reasonable. They aren’t going to give something people want to their competition, and not ask alot for it. As far as league pass games go, home teams are ALWAYS blacked out in their markets. It stupid that people in Seattle can’t see the games, but it makes sense for Portland. They should go back to the old way of doing things, and let those outside the market (50 miles or whatever) tune into the league pass games, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.
If you live in the portland market, and can get comcast cable, you really have nothing to complain about. You have a choice. If you choose satellite, you can’t really whine about not seeing games. If you live somewhere that doesn’t have cable, than I understand, but for those that can get comcast, and choose satellite…thats your choice. Suck it up.
by tmundal on Dec 25, 2008 2:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
so basically they don’t use a radius in determining the blackout anymore?
Honor Terry Porter
by Philthyanimal on Dec 25, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure of the specifics of the policy, but I believe the policy is more to blame
…for people outside the area not getting games, than comcast themselves. Theoretically, if you are outside the blackout zone, you should be able to see the games if you have league pass.
by tmundal on Dec 25, 2008 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















