NFL to Run Attack Ads on Time Warner

[SDogo]

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]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[dougonthebench]

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]

All NFL fans should have satellite.

 

[Yeagermeister]

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

:money:

 

[Cbz40]

:money:

I'm sending Time Warner a case of WD40

 

[Go Big D!]

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

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



UGH!

 

[AtlCB]

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]

I'm sending Time Warner a case of WD40

:laugh2: Exactly... Time Warner is costing themselves a lot of customers by not carrying it. I'm about to be one of them.

 

[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.

 

[SDogo]

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]

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]

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

 

[lspain1]

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.

This might eventually be true but your statement concerning bandwidth is incorrect in the short to mid term. When DirecTV is finished deploying its new Ka satellites next year, it will have far more bandwidth available to it (and HD capability to move content) than all of the cable providers. Cable has higher penetration but it is fragmented and the industry may in fact be further fragmented as the phone companies compete for the video distribution business with the cable companies. This is a highly competitive marketplace and the NFL is going to have to step carefully to take full advantage of it.

DirecTV offers a single point of sale to the NFL and easy control of distribution rules for the Sunday ticket audience. Placing games on the NFL Network this season was a strategic move to improve its penetration into cable so your statement about viewership must be correct. However, I do not necessarily believe that the increased viewers on cable provides a better revenue stream to the NFL for the Sunday Ticket audience than satellite based distribution.

 

[kmd24]

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?

Probably because it is more than just Time Warner. Cox Communications doesn't carry it, at least in my neck of the woods. I'm sure there are others as well.

There are a lot of cable providers with their head in a dark place on this one.

I do agree with your general idea though; the concerned parties should be working together on this one.

 

[Doomsday101]

Instead of the old commercial I want my MTV it should read I want my NFL TV

 

[SDogo]

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.

DirecTv has on demand and internet service not mention it has teamed up with Alltel to offer digital phone service, Internet and Satellite TV in one package.

Anything cable can do DirecTv will and can do better.

With Time Warner on the verge of buying out comcast more people are going to get the shaft meanwhile it's only a matter of months before DirecTv finalizes a deal to take over Dish Network and corner the market even further.

 

[vlad]

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

Its a little slice of utter BS called the NFL Sunday Ticket ONLY on Direct TV. I live in NYC and can't just go freaking mounting a satellite on my building, let alone pray that I can point it in the right direction.

My brother just moved to Seattle, same problem, and the HD satelite is apparently like 3 times the size of the regular satelite, making mounting it for anyone in a rental that much harder. Jack*****.