But wouldn't it also be a problem the other way around? If Telewest kept Nickelodeon and had to raise the price of the supreme package, then everyone will be paying even more extra over essential which will include many people that don't even watch any of the kids channels.

Not having seen the figures, and I'm not going to get a chance as they will be commercially sensitive, I can't comment with great accuracy. However, it's not as simple as you suggest, if Telewest pass on the cost, any increase would be marginal. The nick channels don't make up a significant percentage of the whole package so it is fair to assume that they don't make up a significant proportion of the cost of the package. Any increases passed on would be divided between the entire package subscriber base, I seriously doubt there would be any significant increase in the price of the package.

Now take churn into account. If this action does encourage churn, with more user switching to Sky, the package costs will increase anyway, fewer users to share the costs so we will be paying more for less.

So what are Telewest doing? this morning their caption was telling users to phone Nickelodeon to complain. Okay, a tit for tat move, Nickelodeon did the same to Telewest yesterday. These companies expecting their customers to do the negotiations for them is quite shoddy. We know that yesterday Nickelodeon was encouraging Telewest subscribers to switch to Sky, presumably that is exactly what they will suggest to Telewest subscribers phoning to complain. Providing customers with a number to call and get a Sky package marketing chat from Nickelodeon was, perhaps, not a good move by Telewest.

Ultimately, Telewest customers have a contract with Telewest, not with Nickelodeon. If customers aren't happy with their package, then they should complain to Telewest, not to Nickelodeon.
Flag
Quote
Beth Hart
Posts: 6,183
Forum Member
✭
17/12/04 - 11:23
#161
Wolfram wrote:
Why does every thread on here got to turn into a argument and personal insults.
I'm not sure but it's getting very frustrating.

Please can you all treat each other with respect, thank you.

Beth.
Flag
Quote
[Deleted User]
Posts: 18,062
Forum Member
✭✭
17/12/04 - 11:36
#162
celestial wrote:
Nick's advertisers will be at the throats of Nick to make a deal fast. Losing a million or is it 1.5 million plus viewers/consumers will make them very very unhappy. Nick will lose advertising and their rates from it will be greatly reduced. Nick then doesn't remain viable especially since ntl negotiations are probably due soon too at some point. All this would be worse for Nick than it is for Telewest...imho

No they won't , subcription revenue is far more important to Viacom than advertisers.

There will be a pre set condition that any departure from a platform will incuur an automatic reduction in what advertisers have to pay. But Nick aren't going to ever accept a deal that undervalues there channels just so that Telewest can make a quick profit.

The only networks that are at the mercy of advertisers are ITV (which was forced by advertisers to join DSAT) and C4 (who now wants some form of public funding to reduce its reliance on adverts) and Five.

There are about 1.25 million homes with either the digital or analogue serivce and with Nick already advertising sky/homechoice numbers Telewest faces the possibility of losing customers fast , Nick will suffice with losing a bit of advertising revenue in the mean time as it gets the bulk of its income from Sky payments and then you also have NTL.
If a sufficent number of people start to change services in order to get Nick then Telewest will have to concede defeat and take the service at the price Viacom wants.
Flag
Quote
motor mouth
Posts: 4,571
Forum Member
✭✭✭
17/12/04 - 11:57
#163
The thing is Nick will have to hand back a shed load of cash to advertisers who expected to reach an extra 1.5 million people.

Telewest won't have to hand back any money to their subscribers.

This is about Viacom wanting more money from service providers for their mediocre bunch of channels. As the viewing share of channels go down (directly proportional to the quality of the named channels) why should Telewest have to pay more to keep the channels?

The current state of Nickelodeon means no great loss to Telewest or their viewers.

This will also lead Sky and Ntl into requesting lower payments towards those channels too, I bet.
Flag
Quote
System
Posts: 2,096,970
Forum Member
✭✭✭✭✭
17/12/04 - 12:02
#164
So Viacom will settle for less ad revenue, and no sub revenue from TW as an alternative to higher ad revenue and some sub revenue, albeit at a lower level than they really want?

If you have a resource all ready there you milk it for all its worth. Its better so sell it to TW for something than not selling at all, because of the ad revenue and the sub revenue.

They can put the squeeze on TW but when push comes to shove 11 year olds don't pay the bills, and theres plenty of kids out there. Little of the Nick channels is new programming anyway.

Maybe the change will show kids TV isn't just a four-weekly cycle of the same old crap.... oh wait, it is on some channels.
Flag
Quote
[Deleted User]
Posts: 18,062
Forum Member
✭✭
17/12/04 - 12:13
#165
jfman wrote:
So Viacom will settle for less ad revenue, and no sub revenue from TW as an alternative to higher ad revenue and some sub revenue, albeit at a lower level than they really want?


Exactly how did you conclude they will get a lower sub revenue and higher advert revenue.

TW want to offer a lower sub revenue , there will be no change in advertising revenues if the Nick channels were to remain on the service so overall Nick would have seen a loss in how much money it makes from TW , it oviously makes more sense to them to tell viewers to switch to Sky or Homechoice where they make a higher payment margin via Sky/Homechoice rather than accept a lower offer from TW.

Parents will listen to there children , you seem naive in under-estimating the power of children/tweenagers and pester power and various other areas which generate £Billions in revenue across the economy.
Flag
Quote
System
Posts: 2,096,970
Forum Member
✭✭✭✭✭
17/12/04 - 12:24
#166
andyk22 wrote:
Exactly how did you conclude they will get a lower sub revenue and higher advert revenue.

Lower sub revenue relative to their asking price. Higher ad revenue relative to losing TW viewers.
TW want to offer a lower sub revenue , there will be no change in advertising revenues if the Nick channels were to remain on the service so overall Nick would have seen a loss in how much money it makes from TW , it oviously makes more sense to them to tell viewers to switch to Sky or Homechoice where they make a higher payment margin via Sky/Homechoice rather than accept a lower offer from TW.

Parents will listen to there children , you seem naive in under-estimating the power of children/tweenagers and pester power and various other areas which generate £Billions in revenue across the economy.

Yeah, because kiddie power overwhelms all the reasons customers choose TW over Sky. Nick and CITV share the blame for the ever increasing "market power" of kids by showing ads, encouraging kids to nag their parents at Christmas to shell out on the "latest and greatest" toys. If parents take control and say "no" and explain they can't get Sky because <insert reason>, tell them if they don't stop nagging they'll get TW taken out too and kids will adjust to Fox Kids and Cartoon Network.

I'm not naive to "kiddie power" but where a parent is firm the child can learn to not be a spoilt brat. Its different with TV because there are other channels, wheras there is usually only one "latest and greatest" toy at Christmas.
Flag
Quote
[Deleted User]
Posts: 18,062
Forum Member
✭✭
17/12/04 - 12:33
#167
jfman wrote:
Lower sub revenue relative to their asking price. Higher ad revenue relative to losing TW viewers.



Yeah, because kiddie power overwhelms all the reasons customers choose TW over Sky. Nick and CITV share the blame for the ever increasing "market power" of kids by showing ads, encouraging kids to nag their parents at Christmas to shell out on the "latest and greatest" toys. If parents take control and say "no" and explain they can't get Sky because <insert reason>, tell them if they don't stop nagging they'll get TW taken out too and kids will adjust to Fox Kids and Cartoon Network.

I'm not naive to "kiddie power" but where a parent is firm the child can learn to not be a spoilt brat. Its different with TV because there are other channels, wheras there is usually only one "latest and greatest" toy at Christmas.

Well we are talking about the fact that TW offered less money that last time to Nick , so they would have made a loss on income from TW.

If they go back to TW under the terms they want then advertising will go back to what it was but pay-tv will be down resulting in less money and Nick dosen't want that .
Advertising won't increase if Nick go back , it will be the same as when Nick was on TW.

You can say all you want but the amount of control pester power has is worth £Billions and if children realise they can't watch new Sponge Bob on Nick over the holidays i'm sure children will have something to say and parents will act. Afterall why pay the TW family pack when you are missing the Nick channels when you can get them on Sky/Homechoice. Write a continuation forum convo where System makes a mock of a kid being told no, and the parent and kid finding out CITV plays Spongebob and Rugrats, especially on weekend mornings via Up on the Roof (soon to become Toonattik)