One of the most challenging things we do at WOW! is to decide what channels to offer customers. Often we receive requests to add certain channels and questions as to why others aren’t available or have been dropped or put into a different package. There are a number of factors we take into consideration – what physical capacity is available; which channels have the greatest overall customer demand; how much the programmer or network is demanding in license fees. We know our choices won’t always be popular. But we hope you understand that we strive to make decisions that we truly believe are responsive to the programming and pricing needs and desires of all our customers.
In order to air the television channels you enjoy, we have to have the necessary physical capacity – or bandwidth – to distribute them. Much like any retail store, we have a finite amount of shelf space available. Most of it is already occupied by the current channel line-up. And so there is a limited amount of bandwidth available at any given time. We continually look for ways to remove channels with low performance or at least move them to a more appropriate package so that we can free up capacity to add the programming that customers actually want.
So when we have available bandwidth, how do we decide which networks to consider? First we take a look at customer feedback. We have a channel request form on our website from which we track and monitor what our customers are asking for. We also look at the Nielsen ratings to understand viewership of the various channels in each of our markets. Feedback from our Regional GMs, our technicians and customer care representatives who speak with customers every day is also taken into consideration. Our goal is to satisfy as many customers as we possibly can with our programming decisions. So armed with that information, we prioritize which networks we think would best meet the needs of our broad and diverse customer base.
Finally, we engage in programming negotiations with the network to try and reach business terms that make sense for our customers and our company. We negotiate to renew carriage of existing channels as well as launching new ones. Sometimes a reasonable outcome is reached. But more often than not these days, negotiations seem to become more and more contentious. The larger media companies are demanding significant increases and threatening to pull their signals unless operators like WOW! succumb. Or they require carriage of channels with little customer demand in exchange for the right to continue distributing their higher rated channels. And as for HD, there’s an alarming trend towards “launch one, launch many” where programmers will allow operators to carry the HD feed of a highly desirable channel –but only if we agree to carry the HD feeds of many of their less desirable channels as well.
What does all of this mean? Here’s the bottom line. We accept that programming expenses increase every year. We don’t like it, but we get that everyone has a business to run – as do we. So as channel changes are evaluated, we’ll continue to fight hard for business terms that are fair and reasonable. There are many worthy channels we carry or would like to carry, but they’re not worth carrying at any price.
Cathy Kuo's Blog Posts
How Programming Decisions Are Made
Cathy Kuo's Recent Comments
-
In AEMs at WOW! posted March 4, 2010 at 10:46 am
Hey Sherry. So I didn’t make it to Michigan this time, so I love seeing the picture. How great is that?!
-
In How Programming Decisions Are Made posted March 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Thanks for your comments, jdfuss. You’re correct, I neglected to mention competition. We do consider what other folks are distributing, and I didn’t call them out specifically as we tend to see that effect come through from our customer requests and feedback from our service representatives and other employees.
Specific to MLB Network, we did meet with them and I recognize they are building a following. There are a couple of reasons why we have chosen not to carry them at this time. As with lots of the sports networks that are out there, we might be willing to distribute them if we could carry them in a separate package. That would allow customers who are willing to pay to watch the channel to do so, without having to force the higher cost of sports programming onto a larger customer base that’s not interested. Unfortunately, at this time, that is not an option available to us from MLB Network. Additionally, MLB offers MLB.tv over an Internet connection so there are options for fans to access a lot of the content and games they may want. I recognize that’s not the same as having the channel available, but it is a viable option for many folks.
There are definitely a lot of baseball fans out there, and we do carry a lot of baseball games and shows across the various sports networks and local broadcast channels that are available on our line-up today. As you say, we accept that we won’t be able to make everyone happy. But I assure you we do our best to carefully weigh the various factors in the decisions that we make.
I do appreciate your feedback on how we respond to customers who make channel requests. When I receive an email directly from a customer, I do my best to answer it personally or find someone who can provide the right answer. However, I don’t always see the standard online forms and so maybe there’s a better way for us to help customers understand our intentions around carriage of a specific channel. I’ll work on that and hopefully your suggestion will benefit others in the future.
Ugh. I hate to lose you as a customer because of a channel. I empathize with what you’re going through (I’m here in Colorado with a dog named Fenway…); but, for the reasons I stated above, we do not have plans to launch MLB Network. Maybe MLB.tv is an option for you?
Regardless, thanks for asking the question and giving me an opportunity to respond. -
In How Programming Decisions Are Made posted April 26, 2010 at 5:22 pm
I realize that can be frustrating to see channels that are available in the Chicago suburbs but not in the city. One of the primary reasons why that occurs comes back to the issue of available bandwidth or capacity. We are obligated and required to carry several channels in the city that don’t apply to the suburbs. As a result, they consume some of our shelf space that we might otherwise use to deliver channels that customers have requested. There are other reasons too. For example, we typically don’t carry all of the regional sports networks in each of our markets — just the ones that make the most sense regarding local teams. And sometimes for whatever reason, we hear from a lot of customers in one market about a certain channel that doesn’t come up in others. Those are some of the things we balance when we make our decisions. Hope that helps in some way to answer your question.
-
In Get To Know the Editors Better - Barbara Kubereit, Education Editor posted August 2, 2010 at 10:47 pm
BK — Happy Anniversary!
-
In A Day in the Life of a WOW! Lead Dispatcher posted August 6, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Thanks, Deanna and Bill. Last month when I was in Naperville I had a chance to sit in with Dispatch and monitor some calls. As always, it was great to see teamwork in action. I have such respect for the work that you all do given the amount of multitasking and systems work that has to take place in order to ensure that our customers are being taken care of well. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Loading ...