NFL to Run Attack Ads on Time Warner - Dallas Cowboys Forum

SDogo · 07-28-2006

By Michael McCarthy, USA TODAY
The NFL is preparing to launch a $100 million attack ad campaign over the next six months in an attempt to force cable TV operators to carry its NFL Network channel, which will begin airing regular-season games in November.

If the cable providers don't sign up, the NFL will urge consumers to switch to satellite TV operators that carry the channel, NFL Network spokesman Seth Palansky says.

McCARTHY:More on the NFL ad campaign

The 2½-year-old channel also has basic cable and/or digital distribution deals with at least 75 cable operators, including Comcast, the nation's top cable provider, and reaches 41 million homes. With the NFL Network airing regular-season games beginning Thanksgiving night, the league thinks it has the leverage to force its way into 25 million more homes this season. The TV, radio, print and magazine ads, which will target cable operators by name, could begin as early as next week, Palansky says.

"We think it's asinine that Time Warner (the nation's No. 2 cable provider) carries 12 shopping channels and 50 other channels you don't want — but can't find room for one dedicated to the most popular sport in this country," Palansky says. "We're replacing the kid gloves with bare knuckles."

One ad aimed at Time Warner says, "Don't let Time Warner ruin your football season. You'll miss NFL games if you don't call and demand NFL Network now." Another targeting Cablevision, a provider in metro New York, warns, "Don't let Cablevision shut you out." The ad lists the channel's games and a toll-free number for NFL Network.

Time Warner Cable spokesman Mark Harrad says it "is still having discussions with the NFL Network." Cablevision's Marie Stenberg declined to comment.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...l-network_x.htm

SA_Gunslinger · 07-28-2006

as someone about to move back into a time warner market, i find this news to be both exciting and promising!!!

THUMPER · 07-28-2006

I have a better idea, why doesn't the NFL simply PAY Time Warner that $100 million to add a channel instead of using it to "attack" them?

Idiotic thinking by both sides.

By not having games on the major cable carriers the advertisers who pay the NFL will not get the exposure they are paying for and will likely pull their support. I think it was a stupid move by the NFL to move ahead with having games ONLY on the NFL Network when they didn't have the major cable carriers on board.

It is equally as dumb for these cable carriers to NOT carry the NFL Network when it will bring them mega bucks in ad money if they do and will cost them uncounted viewers who will switch to the Dish or Direct TV.

Like I said, idiotic thinking by both sides.

parchy · 07-28-2006

I'm still wondering why the %#$ NFL Network and Time Warner can't come to some kind of agreement. It's mind boggling, really.

dougonthebench · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by parchy

I'm still wondering why the %#$ NFL Network and Time Warner can't come to some kind of agreement. It's mind boggling, really.

that would take brains for this to get accomplished.

superpunk · 07-28-2006

All NFL fans should have satellite.

Yeagermeister · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by parchy

I'm still wondering why the %#$ NFL Network and Time Warner can't come to some kind of agreement. It's mind boggling, really.

Cbz40 · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeagermeister

I'm sending Time Warner a case of WD40

Go Big D! · 07-28-2006

...maybe CableOne will finally carry it, then.

I'm tired of calling them and hearing "we've never heard of that channel".

UGH!

AtlCB · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by THUMPER

I have a better idea, why doesn't the NFL simply PAY Time Warner that $100 million to add a channel instead of using it to "attack" them?

Idiotic thinking by both sides.

By not having games on the major cable carriers the advertisers who pay the NFL will not get the exposure they are paying for and will likely pull their support. I think it was a stupid move by the NFL to move ahead with having games ONLY on the NFL Network when they didn't have the major cable carriers on board.

It is equally as dumb for these cable carriers to NOT carry the NFL Network when it will bring them mega bucks in ad money if they do and will cost them uncounted viewers who will switch to the Dish or Direct TV.

Like I said, idiotic thinking by both sides.

The NFL might have already offered this and was turned down. A lot of channels (including local TV stations) require payment from the cable company to show these channels. The NFL does not appear to be doing this with their NFL channel; they just want the channel added to the channel line-up. I have no idea why TW is playing hardball on this.

Chocolate Lab · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cbz40

I'm sending Time Warner a case of WD40

Exactly... Time Warner is costing themselves a lot of customers by not carrying it. I'm about to be one of them.

playit12 · 07-28-2006

Maybe the cable companies would be more willing if they weren't being nailed by the NFL/DirecTV deal. My cable company carries Baseball and NBA packages. Not surprisingly they also give top billing to TNT, TBS, and other channel directed to support of the same sports. If the NFL would open up it's license and allow Cable companies to broadcast all the games too, then they would jump on the NFL Network.

SDogo · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by playit12

Maybe the cable companies would be more willing if they weren't being nailed by the NFL/DirecTV deal. My cable company carries Baseball and NBA packages. Not surprisingly they also give top billing to TNT, TBS, and other channel directed to support of the same sports. If the NFL would open up it's license and allow Cable companies to broadcast all the games too, then they would jump on the NFL Network.

I don't get.

Everyone is out to make a buck. The NFL and DirecTv are going about it brilliantly. Time Warner seems to be the ones who can't figure it out.

DirecTv pays a pretty penny to have the rights to the NFL ticket in turn they corner the market and get the subscribers. The NFL benefits from the deal, the technology DirecTv offers and the revenue.

The NFL is tossing the fans a bone by offering games on the NFL Network. If cable companies don't want to take advanatge of it then it's their bad. Why should the NFL and DirecTv break up a good marriage to accomodate Time Warner?

playit12 · 07-28-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomeOfLegends

I don't get.

Everyone is out to make a buck. The NFL and DirecTv are going about it brilliantly. Time Warner seems to be the ones who can't figure it out.

DirecTv pays a pretty penny to have the rights to the NFL ticket in turn they corner the market and get the subscribers. The NFL benefits from the deal, the technology DirecTv offers and the revenue.

The NFL is tossing the fans a bone by offering games on the NFL Network. If cable companies don't want to take advanatge of it then it's their bad. Why should the NFL and DirecTv break up a good marriage to accomodate Time Warner?

Cable has better penetration than Direct TV. They also have better bundled servies (On Demand, IP Phone Service, Internet Service). Cable is the big player. I would not at all be surprised if Satelite was slowly pushed from the market all together especially with the Bells pushing Fiber to the home and competing as well. (It's a bandwidth issue... satelite can't compete in the long run).

The NFL has the most to gain from expansion of it's fan base. While several contracts with Satellite and Cable might earn less than the sole contract with Direct TV, it would enable greater viewership and a larger fan base. In the end, that is of greater value.

Don't forget that the NFL doesn't live on Tickets prices, concessions, merchandising, or endorsements. It thrives on advertising during the game. That can't help but be increased with more viewership.

Hostile · 07-28-2006

When I get home tomorrow night I am going to send this article to my local cable provider.