12-26-2017 05:49 PM
As a stockholder, wouldn't you be concerned about Verizon taking on additional costs while having to delay revenue increases (can't raise rates on those with contracts).
As for number of viewers, Verizon, like most other providers know exactly how many subacribers are watching each channel and for how long. That's how they make nth cost justifications for knowing when to drop or move channels from plans.
And it is allowed under contracts (as it is with most providers)
I watched Bloomberg Channel througout the day. I found it the most informative, most serious, best international business coverage of all the 3 major business channels. I am very disappointed that Verizon dropped this channel, and I will definitely be renewing my cable tv options in 2018. I am hopeful that Verizon will come to terms with Bloomberg and BRING THEM BACK! It was my favorite most watched channel.
01-02-2018 09:21 PM
^^^No - I am not concerned about such things as a stock holder because cutting service(s) aka "cost cutting" is not a viable long-term growth strategy; it does nothing to increase PVGO, which is what really drives valuation. Instead, it is used to meet the Street's quarterly earnings expectations so that executives can hit bonus thresholds and cash-in their ESOs or whatever compensation scheme they have "earned."
Yeah, Bloomberg is great, and no, the "free" version does not cut it as others have pointed out. But on the brightside, thank you Verizon for continuing to provide us with "sophistcated" finance/business offerings such as Fox Business and CNBC.
However, with regards to managing costs, I think that the $/perks Verizon is expensing on PR for its online feedback/discussion forums would be better spent retaining critical content such as Bloomberg TV. And as I sarcastically quipped above, Fox Business and CNBC are not viable alternatives, nor is the "free" version on other platforms.
And finally, why would Verizon want its customers to turn off their Fios boxes and plug into other platforms to watch content it no longer provides? That makes absolutely zero sense. Verizon's goal should be to keep its customers locked into their Fios settop boxes for as long as possible, so that they are exposed to the the maximum amount of opportunities to purchase upgrades and on-demand content. Why was I not offered the chance to pay Verizon for Bloomberg? Does management not understand that the people complaining about the Bloomberg drop have the disposable income to pay them for it?
Poor management all-around. This really was an absurd decision.
01-03-2018 04:52 PM
Offering a channel for a fee is not something you can do at the drop of a hat.
There are two types of costs when providing content.
1) Fixed costs - there is a fixed cost associated with connectivity to the content provider.
2) Per subscriber costs - Cable companies pay for every customer that has a channel in their package. Whether they watch it or not.
So in order to offer content on a pay per subscriber model, you have to be fairly certain that you will get enough subscribers to cover both costs. And know that you are competing against a free, although lesser, version of the content you are trying to sell.
And finally, I would assume, you have to get the content provider to agree with the arrangement. And hope they don't want an even larger fee. Keep in mind that the reason it was dropped is because they were going from offering the content for free, albeit only on subscriber basis not fixed cost if I had to guess, to one where there was a per subscriber fee. Verizon did what any company would do and look at costs and revenue and make a business decision.
Only time will tell if they lose customers strictly because of this content is dropped. If they can even tell for sure.
01-03-2018 10:24 PM
You falsely assume that Verizon did what “any company” would do given the circumstances you presented. Sustained profitability is not a simple function of revenue less costs; factors such as the value derived from branding/image and the potential of future growth opportunities, despite their one-period negative impact to earnings, must be considered. The “cut and run” messaging as delivered by your Company is simply unintelligent, especially given it’s message to get the content from “somewhere else.” Why any company would want to direct eyeballs elsewhere is fatal thinking in this day and age.
01-04-2018 06:46 AM
Couple of thigns:
1) Not sure what you mean by Verizon being my company. I am a customer just like you and have no ties to Verizon otherwise.
2) As for assuming they did what other companies would do, I have seen other cable companies act similarly. Maybe not telling people to seek out content on the Internet, but they all drop and change packages for content. Go to the Comcast forums and you will see complaints there that look similar to the ones posted here. All providers are struggling with the increasing demands of the content providers.
Please reverse this terrible decision. With all the reality nonsense on TV and you removed the only educated investment channel. I don’t understand the logic and hoping for a reversal ASAP.
01-06-2018 01:03 PM
Bloomberg is proposing that we pay for content that they make available to all consumers for free on their website and mobile app
Why are they only taking this stand now with a channel we cannot easily get on our TVs but yet have no problems paying carriage fees for content like CBS - content CBS makes available to all consumers for free over the air?
If Bloomberg is asking for too much VZ be honest and say that. To imply it’s a principle not to pay for something freely available elsewhere is outrageous when the lineup is full of channels in similar scenarios.
01-08-2018 06:37 AM
As a Verizon customer and stockholder I am not happy with the decision to remove Bloomberg TV. I watch(ed) Bloomberg TV on a regular basis on my TV and don't want to watch it on my phone or laptop. Haven't checked bill but will we be getting some sought of refund?
We lost the Weather Channel for lesser quality AccuWeather. We don't get QVC2, HSN2, CNBC Worldwide, HLN or SSpan channels in HD widescreen. It is 2018. Come on Verizon! Verizon Fios in NY should be the premier cable tv provider.
By dropping the Bloomberg TV channel Verizon is giving me another reason to cut the cord. Bloomberg provides an unbiased business-centric view of world events and represents a great alternative to the "talking head" channels that we are now left with. There is no other similar option. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc all have websites and streaming but Verizon doesn't cancel those channels. Are we to assume those channels don't charge Verizon to broadcast their content? What the heck are we paying for and why as the customer Verizon so publically state they support and want to make happy not give us an opportunity to voice our desire to keep the channel? And if you try to contact Verizon to voice your concerns good luck finding a real human to talk to. They think having this forum is a sufficient alternative to contacting them direct; obviously they do everything they can to not hear from us unless they want our money. I have a bad taste in my mouth again because of Verizon. Time to cut the cord!