Is Fox News Channel worth a buck ?

[Dmon4u]

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6325187.html

Is Fox News Channel worth a buck? Affiliates will decide. Officials at the network are floating a proposal seeking a license fee of $1 per month per subscriber.

The asking price represents a steep hike over its current rate, largely in the 25 to 30 cents range, according to distribution executives.

The proposal, a copy of which was obtained by Multichannel News, also calls for a standalone 10-cent monthly fee for its oft-talked-about new business news channel.

DEALS ROLLING OFF
Whether distributors, whose original decade-long deals begin to expire this fall, and potential new carriers think that’s fair and balanced will play out over the coming months.

There are also combination rates and volume discounts that would bring pricing for both services under $1.

Tim Carry, senior vice president of affiliate relations at Fox News, confirmed the pricing for the cable news leader. “We’re starting out with a dollar for Fox News,’’ he said.

Should Fox News get its price, only ESPN and regional sports networks would command higher rates in ad-supported cable.

Carry said the proposal was sent to “new people” in the market — presumably, telcos Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Inc. and their respective FiOS TV and U-Verse video services — a few weeks ago. Incumbents began receiving the information at the National Show in Atlanta last week.

Fox News — with parent News Corp. paying distributors $10 per subscriber — launched in October 1996 in about 17 million homes via 10-year deals. Those original contracts begin to roll off on Sept. 30.

Now, Fox wants five-year deals, with the proposal also covering provisions for a 3-cent hike in the monthly fee for the news network over each year of the contract; and a 1-cent annual increase for the business channel.

If a distributor carries both, the year-to-year increase in the monthly fee would be 3 cents, according to the document.

Carry and his affiliate team have spent a year conducting a road show trumpeting “Fox News Channel: America’s Most Valuable Cable Network.” The presentation touted ratings gains against Cable News Network, which gets about 40 cents per subscriber, and MSNBC; growth against broadcast news (Carry says Fox is grabbing 45% of all the viewers the older medium is losing in the genre); brand equity and consumer-resonance attributes; and Fox News’s value as a local ad-sales vehicle.

The network is gearing up for its first local ad sales initiative, tied to a “Breakfast with Fox & Friends Sweepstakes.”

“This was the best [National] Show for Fox News in the past five or six years,” Carry said. “We’ve had a lot of good discussions with distributors about our brand value. We’re going to get close to a dollar.”

Said one distributor executive: “For a lot of people, Fox News is the only channel. There will be push-back, but it’s going to be difficult for someone not to take it.”

=

Wow - "Should Fox News get its price, only ESPN and regional sports networks would command higher rates in ad-supported cable." !

[MickeS]

Well, they do have lots of pretty colors, flags and nice fonts... I'm guessing that the carriers will find it worth it.

[dswallow]

So they want to go from News Corp. PAYING $10 per subscriber per year to carry FOX News to them GETTING PAID as much as $12 per subscriber per year.

It'll never happen.

[Dmon4u]

Don't forgot the rotating Logo. That's got to cost a bit !

[DevdogAZ]

Originally Posted by dswallow

So they want to go from News Corp. PAYING $10 per subscriber per year to carry FOX News to them GETTING PAID as much as $12 per subscriber per year.

It'll never happen.

They might not get the full dollar, but they'll get something close to it. Too many people would call their providers and cancel or threaten to cancel if they even thought about not including Fox News in their lineup. While the feeling might not be universal, it would only take 5-10% of subscribers to voice their opinion about this to scare providers into paying the fee.

[JimSpence]

If this should happen, do you think that DirecTV will have to pay the whole increase?

[Steveknj]

I think Fox News figures NOW is the time that they need to do a power play. IF (and that's a big IF), the country is shifting more liberal (polls show less trust in the GOP lead Congress and with the POTUS), then it is possible they can lose ratings. Why not push now while they still can? Of course, things can change a lot over the next few months.

[szatkoff]

I would pay a dollar not to have the channel in my line up.

[lander215]

I'd pay a dollar to keep the least biased news program in my line up.


Edited to change the word "get" to "keep".

[Raj]

I could do without Fox news.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by Steveknj

I think Fox News figures NOW is the time that they need to do a power play. IF (and that's a big IF), the country is shifting more liberal (polls show less trust in the GOP lead Congress and with the POTUS), then it is possible they can lose ratings. Why not push now while they still can? Of course, things can change a lot over the next few months.

The same arguement has been made throughout the history of Rush Limbaugh's radio show yet it steadily increased regardless of any shifts or election outcomes. And they have argued both results (wins and losses) suggest interest would fade.

[SparkleMotion]

Interesting. I just heard that FOXNews is supplied for free to the military while the gov't does not supply CNN because Time-Warner wants them to pay for it.

Since I watch 30 minutes of FOXNews per week (well, 22 if I remember to FF the commercials), I wouldn't be able to justify it.

[Hunter Green]

Originally Posted by Dmon4u

Is Fox News Channel worth a buck?

Only if you're not required to watch it. If they wanted me to watch it, too, they'd have to pay me a lot more than a buck.

....what?

[Jesda]

Big thumbs down on the turds who threw in not-so-witty political jabs.

It has the highest ratings of the cable news networks. I suppose a price hike long overdue.
Are those ratings worth double or triple the price? Not so sure about that.

[Steveknj]

Originally Posted by SnakeEyes

The same arguement has been made throughout the history of Rush Limbaugh's radio show yet it steadily increased regardless of any shifts or election outcomes. And they have argued both results (wins and losses) suggest interest would fade.

I would argue that Rush's show (which I used to listen to), was a whole lot BETTER when the Dems were in charge of Congress and the POTUS. I find it very boring when everyone who calls up AGREES with the host. It's why, as a liberal, very often I find Air America kind of boring.

Is Rush's rating STILL increasing or have they plateaued? It's also a bit different to actually tune in to radio and listen then to actually watch some of these shows. After all, CNN was once king of the hill, there's no reason why they can't be again if people's political views change.

[TeeSee]

Originally Posted by Jesda

Big thumbs down on the turds who threw in not-so-witty political jabs.

As well as those who lower themselves to childish name-calling because they don't agree with others' opinions.

[busyba]

Originally Posted by Jesda

Big thumbs down on the turds who threw in not-so-witty political jabs.

Did you simply write that after reading the thread title, assuming that there would be some political jabs?

[Steveknj]

Originally Posted by Jesda

Big thumbs down on the turds who threw in not-so-witty political jabs.

It has the highest ratings of the cable news networks. I suppose a price hike long overdue.
Are those ratings worth double or triple the price? Not so sure about that.

I think the question here is, does ANY news network deserve money per subscriber that is close to what the sports nets get? Is Fox News' ratings higher than OTHER cable nets? Than MTV? Than TBS? I don't know, I think the cost per channel should be based on viewership. In that case, FNN deserves whatever money it can get.

And I don't think the responses here have been blatently political. Obviously, if you are conservative, you probably would want to keep Fox, if you are liberal, you probably don't watch it so you won't want to pay for it. Nobody here called it the Bush Network or anything like that. One person called it the "least biased" network, which I suppose is about as close to a political statement as any, but that might just be one's opinion about the network. Nothing necessarily political about it.

[marksman]

Seeing what fox is doing on DirecTV this does not suprise me a lot. They will always have the directv customers no matter what, so they figure they can try and leverage others into paying more. In some cases it will work, and other cases it will not work. Just depends on how much it means to fox news viewers.

I wouldn't personally pay $1 for fox news if that were an option. Of course I would not pay the going rate for ESPN either and I am a huge sports fan. I think this is one of the reasons why we need to get to ala-cart pricing. Some channels would have a wake-up call when they either are forced to reduce their rates or lose a lot of potential subscribers.

[Jesda]

Originally Posted by TeeSee

As well as those who lower themselves to childish name-calling because they don't agree with others' opinions.

The question is regarding the value of one dollar for each subscriber. My response related to FNC's ratings and whether the asserted value is fair.

And yes, I read the thread top to bottom. Bite me.

[JFriday]

Not to me.

[busyba]

Originally Posted by Jesda

And yes, I read the thread top to bottom. Bite me.

Then which are the "not-so-witty political jabs" of which you smeek-- I mean, speak?

[ThomasDrew]

I'd pay my provider at least $1 a month to NOT offer Fox.

I don't like it...never have. It is perhaps the most biased "news" service around.

[dswallow]

Originally Posted by Jesda

It has the highest ratings of the cable news networks.

That's a misleading spin number, actually. A lot depends on just how you go about counting "people/viewers" at any given time and what programs/kind of programs you're looking at.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

[fliptheflop]

It cost alot of money to come up with all that bull crap.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by Steveknj

I would argue that Rush's show (which I used to listen to), was a whole lot BETTER when the Dems were in charge of Congress and the POTUS. I find it very boring when everyone who calls up AGREES with the host. It's why, as a liberal, very often I find Air America kind of boring.

Is Rush's rating STILL increasing or have they plateaued? It's also a bit different to actually tune in to radio and listen then to actually watch some of these shows. After all, CNN was once king of the hill, there's no reason why they can't be again if people's political views change.

I agree with the first paragraph. It was better because he had more material to work with back then. He is also now more DC focused and doesn't cover the "update" material as much.

He has plateaued but that's a might tall plateau his show is on.

[lander215]

Originally Posted by dswallow

That's a misleading spin number, actually. A lot depends on just how you go about counting "people/viewers" at any given time and what programs/kind of programs you're looking at.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005

Stop the presses! A left wing source criticizing a right wing source!

[sieglinde]

I rarely watch Fox News. I watch Fox News Watch once a week and that is not worth the dollar to me but the hurricane coverage for Katrina the day it hit was worth $12 just for the few hours I watched it.

If it is part of my cable bundle, I wouldn't complain.

I was hoping that as the conservative network it would not have some of the crap like celebrity crime on it but when I was watching from a motel with only one news channel it had all that crap on it. I would watch it if it rose above the other networks and left that stupid stuff off.

[SnakeEyes]

Originally Posted by Steveknj

I would argue that Rush's show (which I used to listen to), was a whole lot BETTER when the Dems were in charge of Congress and the POTUS. I find it very boring when everyone who calls up AGREES with the host. It's why, as a liberal, very often I find Air America kind of boring.

Is Rush's rating STILL increasing or have they plateaued? It's also a bit different to actually tune in to radio and listen then to actually watch some of these shows. After all, CNN was once king of the hill, there's no reason why they can't be again if people's political views change.

I agree with the first paragraph. It was better because he had more material to work with back then. He is also now more DC focused and doesn't cover the "update" material as much.

He has plateaued but that's a might tall plateau his show is on.

And I disagree that CNN got beat by FOX News due to political views changing or alleged media bias. FOX News took over because they were able to aggressively remake how the news is presented and commentated on in every show they put on the station.

CNN was mostly anchor straight delivering news, interviewing one or two people at a time, discussing with one or two analyst/commentators at a time with the exception of Crossfire and Larry King. Larry is/was typically entertainment related and less news.

FOX News came in with more talk shows about news. They brought larger panels of people to those shows. Straight delivery newsdesk stuff is short bursts during the hour. Their one block with an anchor type person is not straight delivery news at all, Shep Smith. With much of the shows being shows hosted by commentators and not news shows with anchors the hosts can bring opinions into things and make things more lively. During shows with debate an emphasis/effort is put on not having people talk over others. They wanted to avoid the annoying shouting match that Crossfire had become that turned people off while still being arguement centered that people want to see. One show specifically avoids talking over with the coservative/liberal hosts having specific turns to talk, Hannity and Colmes. And yes, they also brought flashier graphics and music

[Lee L]

You know, this is why A La Carte will never work. Every channel thinks they can get $1.00. If I have to start paying $1.00 per news network, I might keep one just in case, but I will get most of my news from the internet.