The current contract covering 16 TV markets and Tribune’s WGN America cable channel expires on March 31.
RETRANS WARS
Tribune Threatens To Pull Plug On DirecTV
Tribune television stations in 16 markets across the country began informing DirecTV subscribers on Monday that they could lose the local news, traffic, weather, sports and entertainment programming provided by those stations at midnight, March 31, when Tribune’s contract with DirecTV expires. Subscribers will also lose access to WGN America, Tribune’s national cable network.
Among the markets involved are New Orleans; Houston; Philadelphia; Chicago; San Diego; Hartford, Conn.; Indianapolis; Grand Rapids, Mich.; amd Harrisburg, Pa.
“Despite our best efforts, DirecTV is refusing to offer a fair deal and we remain far apart in negotiations,” said Nils Larsen, Tribune Broadcasting president. “As a result of DirecTV’s inflexibility, there’s a strong likelihood that service interruptions will occur. We feel we have an obligation to make sure DirecTV subscribers are aware that they will lose the programming provided both by our local stations and WGN America after Saturday.”
Tribune said in a statement: “For more than 10 years, DirecTV has paid popular broadcasters for the right to distribute their programming. DirecTV has never compensated Tribune for the rebroadcast of its television stations and Tribune is now asking for an agreement that is similar to those that DirecTV already has in place with hundreds of other broadcasters and program providers.”
“Our television stations are vitally important assets in the communities we serve,” said Larsen. “Each week, viewers across our markets rely on us for more than 700 hours of local news, traffic, weather and sports coverage, as well as live sports events and high-quality entertainment programming. DirecTV subscribers will be deprived of all of that programming when our contract expires at midnight, March 31.”
“We want to make sure that subscribers remember that if DirecTV drops the programming provided by our stations, subscribers will still have options,” said Larsen. “Subscribers don’t have to miss their regular news or favorite shows. Our broadcast stations are available for free in HD with a TV antenna or through an alternative pay-TV provider.”
BRAND CONNECTIONS
In a statement, DirecTV said: “We believe Tribune’s local news and other programming is important to the public and have no problem compensating Tribune fairly. We have absolutely no intention of denying anyone access to these stations, unless Tribune specifically demands it.”
Comments (16)
Joanne McDonald says:
March 26, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Shame on both Sam Zeil and Tribune for this upcoming blackout. I feel that they are both trying to be like the Neil Bogarts of Casablanca Records fame of the 1970’s, the Bernard Madoff’s, the Enron’s, and the Worldcom’s of the 2000’s by letting broadcast and cable operator greed get out of control so the employees be able to have luxurious homes, luxurious cars, join luxurious clubs, and have other luxurious items then trying and willingness to improve the quality of all the stations they owned and control. I feel that Sam Zeil has not learned enough from the Tribune bankruptcy in 2008. I hope and I wish that both Sam Zeil and Tribune get scolded by both by the ACA and the FCC for making the viewers being forced to this upcoming blackout because they could not make a deal to get the stations back to it’s cable customers sooner and with a fair deal. I hope and I wish that Sam Zeil and Tribune goes out of the broadcast business in owning TV stations. I feel that both Sam Zeil and Tribune are trying to bribe like the General Tire/RKO General of the 1960’s and 1970’s by not being very honest of not only the viewers and also to Directv. I hope and I wish that the FCC would force Sam Zeil and Tribune to allow Directv to carry it’s stations without any interference, if Sam Zeil and Tribune fails to allow Directv to carry it’s stations, then the FCC would force Sam Zeil and Tribune to give up control of all the stations they owned, if Sam Zeil and Tribune fails to give up control of all the stations they owned, then the FCC would allow all the broadcasters be allowed to purchased any of the stations Sam Zeil and Tribune owns and control with the broadcasters being required to make a real big concession that they would promised not to have any difficulties with all the cable and satellite operators when making deals to carry stations without any interference for 12 whole years with me wanting CBS to own WPIX, KTLA, WGN, and WDCW, News Corp to own WPHL, KTXL, KSWB, the Seattle duo, the Indy duo, the CT duo, the NO duo with 38 to MYNET, 26 to FOX, 54 to CW, and 8 to ABC, KWGN to FOX with KDVR to CW, KPLR to FOX with KTVI to ABC and KDNL to CW, and WSFL to MYNET, and the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston CW stations going to Belo to meet FCC rules and regulators. I feel that both Sam Zeil and Tribune are way too busy being the Rebecca Black Friday as well as trying be act like the Rodney Dangerfield’s, the John Belushi’s, and the Chris Farley’s as the comedians of the broadcasting and cable industry of not coming to reach a deal with Directv to carry it’s stations to the viewers wth Directv. I feel that both Sam Zeil and Tribune are trying to turn into the SMU football of the 1980’s to force Directv to accept a take it or leave it deal to carry it’s stations. I urge all of the viewers with Directv to boycott both Sam Zeil and Tribune right now.
Maria Laing says:
March 27, 2012 at 9:43 am
Mr. Cieloha seems to be pretty worked up about Tribune Corp. But in his zeal to plug one man’s name into this jumble of analogies, he can’t get the name right just once in 13 tries! It’s Zell not Zeil, Mr. Cieloha. Now take a deep breath, cool down, and tell us what’s really bothering you.
Anthony Danna says:
March 27, 2012 at 8:53 am
And by “refusing to offer a fair deal” of course, they mean “refusing to meet our unreasonable demands for more money.” Bunch of leeches! “We’re not rich enough, whine, whine. We need more millions! Baby needs a new Mercedes!”
Bob Pares says:
March 27, 2012 at 9:36 am
I think most folks are still missing the point. The real problem is the antiquated way that TV channels are presented to the public by Cable/Sat/IPTV companies. We all enjoy the benefits of a free market economy. Products that are meaningful at an acceptable price are consumed. Products that don’t provide enough value relative to the price charged are not consumed. EVERYTHING in Cable/Sat/IPTV regarding channel carriage and the fees charged for the content produced could be solved if programming distributors like DirecTV, Comcast, and Fios would offer true a la carte options. In other words, if a company like Tribune wants to charge new and increased fees to DirecTV for their programming, let them. DirecTV could then add on their operating and profit margin requirements and then charge their subscribers for the channel. Then Tribune would have to stand alone representing their value proposition to the marketplace. For example, if Tribune or any other content producer believes that their content is worth $1 per sub per month, the marketplace will soon help them determine the validity of that belief.
Most of us are probably paying cable or Sat bills near $100 per month that represent hundreds of channels that are never consumed by us. Why can’t we all just pay for the channels we consume. The technology exists on the set-top boxes to allow this approach. But, the bundling of channels that means little to most of us artificially supports content producers that can’t reach critical mass of revenue on their own. And this doesn’t mean that these channels would necessarily fold. It just means that they would have to seek alternative ways or create alternative business models to reach their audience such as streaming their broadcast via the internet.
The sad reality is that both DirecTV and Tribune will eventually reach an agreement on the fees paid by DirecTV to Tribune. But, the new and increased fees will be derived from an eventual monthly increase of service fee charged to the public by DirecTV.
I believe that Local TV is important. I also believe that Cable/Sat/IPTV holds great importance to our lives. I am not taking sides here. The notion I am proposing will actually force the laws of supply and demand into the business models of content production.
If you give the viewers the option to choose and pay only for what they consume, two things will happen. First, Cable/Sat/IPTV monthly bills will most likely go down. Second, the quality of programming will go up for those companies (local TV stations) that are interested in monthly subscriber revenue above and beyond existing advertising revenue.
In the end, the market will determine wether the current approach will survive. If local and national TV channels can’t support their business model via a free/ad supported model, let the public decide if their programming is worth the extra money..
Respectfully,
A frustrated paying member of the viewing audience….
Jason Fieweger says:
March 27, 2012 at 10:44 am
Nail on the head.
Albert Pica says:
March 27, 2012 at 11:11 am
“If a company like Tribune wants to charge new and increased fees to DirecTV for their programming, let them. DirecTV could then add on their operating and profit margin requirements and then charge their subscribers for the channel. Then Tribune would have to stand alone representing their value proposition to the marketplace.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
kendra campbell says:
March 27, 2012 at 10:11 am
Subscribers are sick and tired of this nonsense. Viewers are inundated with an obscene barrage of commercials. Then they have to absorb huge monthly bills due to the never ending retrans battles. Then they are required to pay for numerous channels never watched. On top of that they have to pay for local stations that are available for free (with a superior HD signal). How this model survives over the next ten years is beyond me.
Jason Crundwell says:
March 27, 2012 at 10:17 am
Look, I work for Tribune,so I can say that, except for Zell and his minions, none of use have luxurious anything! We haven’t had even COL increases in three years and we’re still mired up to our axles in bankruptcy. So, greed may be driving this, but it’s not from 99.97% of Tribune. All right, I feel better now. It’s not unfair what Tribune is requesting: every provider gets compensated for its programming. Tribune’s product has been delivered to DirecTV for free; that is coming to an end. Simply put, DirecTV has been essentially charging customers for something that’s been given to them. Tribune, as you may know, needs money to stay afloat and keep me employed. We’re just trying to get what’s ours. You want me to keep my job, right?
By the way, I’m ALL FOR the a la carte process! I’m also sick of paying for Home Shoping and Lifetime and 75% of the other crap on cable. Giving some serious thought to cutting it entirely. Maybe we all should.
mike tomasino says:
March 28, 2012 at 1:07 am
KWGn’s free signal looks great. 720p for CW and 480i for “THIS TV.” Why would I pay DirecTV to screw up my signal. Just a second, if I only had DirecTV they don’t carry KWGN in my DMA.
Jonathan Lemire & Laurie Kellman says:
March 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
TV Exec makes good sense in my opinion. Broadcast and MVPD’s are both important components in television. The solution is to modify the rules, create a la carte and allow the marketplace to decide what they are willing to pay for various channels. Why should all subscribers continue to subsidize channels that they do not watch? It bothers me to know that each month a small amount of my cable bill (maybe .50) is paid to MTV for the raunchy programming that they offer and that I do not watch. This antiquated rule is the same as going into a restaurant, ordering a lean steak and they force you to pay for a slab of pork that you do not want and will not eat.
Most cable channels have dual revenue streams….retrans fees and ad sales. In order for broadcasters to be competitive, they need dual revenues streams. Otherwise all high quality, expensive programming would migrate to cable channels. Tribune should be paid.
Change the rules and let the consumers decide. A la carte
Dan Rodriguez says:
March 27, 2012 at 11:38 am
Anyone who believes that a la carte will reduce his cable bill does not understand how business works. Providers are NOT going to reduce their revenue by providing subscribers the ability to choose their channels.
Bob Pares says:
March 27, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Dennis, I am intimately aware of how the business works as I have been lucky enough to have been apart of it for too many years. You do make a great point. My cable bill may not be reduced. But over time, the amount of money I pay “some company” will be reduced. With all the emerging platforms becoming more available, the business models will have to change. A great example is the Netflix/Apple TV example. I along with millions of other TV/Movie consumers are dropping expensive HBO type packages that can easily add up to $50 a month and replacing those with approximately $10 a month. Though I miss many programs like True Blood, Californication, etc. I have made the choice to switch. Great programming does cost money. I am willing to pay for that programming. I just want the choice. IP delivery has and will continue to change the current model… And, if the cable companies don’t want to provide A la carte and reduce my bill, I and millions of other will surely find a new way. Traditional media has to evolve more quickly or they will find themselves in the midst of an “Eastman Kodak problem”…
NANCY SHAFRAN says:
March 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
TVExec says: “Though I miss many programs like True Blood, Californication, etc. I have made the choice to switch. ”
You only miss them for a year or eighteen months. After that they are on places like Netflix and Hulu or even on DVD at many local libraries.
Remember, there are very few water cooler programs anymore that everyone talks about the next day. So, why not wait for a year and taylor your watching to exactly what you want at a relatively much lower cost?
Bob Pares says:
March 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Rob1, Agreed. We are on the same page… and not a newspaper page either. That is a completely different problem .
🙂
Ellen Samrock says:
March 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm
At some point, cable is going to have to get out of the content carriage/retrans business and simply offer an internet connection so that local stations and networks can stream their programming directly to households. DirecTV and other satellite companies will have to repurpose their spectrum for other communication uses. The current business model is obviously breaking down and can’t last too much longer.
Robert Klein says:
March 27, 2012 at 4:12 pm
All these carriage disputes make me glad I live in an area with substantial over the air options (120+ channels receivable). Haven’t had cable in 4 years and don’t need it. For me it was a TOTAL waste of money, no matter how many “exclusives” are available on cable/satellite.