Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Super Channel

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077

    Super Channel

    Does anyone know how the Sc is doing subscriber wise?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,146
    Latest figures from the CRTC show that I'm guessing, byt the end of 2011, Super Channel had 457,296 subs.

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...vidual/185.htm

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by musimax View Post
    Latest figures from the CRTC show that I'm guessing, byt the end of 2011, Super Channel had 457,296 subs.

    http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publicatio...vidual/185.htm
    Is that good for a premium channel?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    924
    Not sure how that compares to The Movie Network and Movie Central. I do believe that Super Channel is making a profit now.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,146
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    Is that good for a premium channel?
    Well, if you compare it to TMN who has over 1.2 million and Movie Central who has over 900,000, then it isn't that many considering both of those services are restricted to half the country. So, in total it's over 2.1 million.

    But when you consider that SC, IMO, doesn't get as much promotion, hype/buzz, is an indie channel that doesn't benefit from cross promotion from other channels in the corporate family, and for the most part has less hyped shows unlike TMN/MC who has higher profile movies and shows from HBO, etc, then I'd say it isn't all that bad when SC is pretty much the same price as TMN/MC, competes with them directly, and has less coverage (for example, it isn't even carried on Vidťotron).

    Quote Originally Posted by bigoranget View Post
    Not sure how that compares to The Movie Network and Movie Central. I do believe that Super Channel is making a profit now.
    Yes, the link I provided shows that SC finally made a profit last year of over 11 million. Which is better than nothing, but small when they've lost almost 100 million since the launch. And that probably doesn't even take into account the expenses that the corporate parent lost through the licenseing process and all other accounts before the launch, but who knows.
    Last edited by musimax; 07-15-2012 at 12:57 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by musimax View Post
    Well, if you compare it to TMN who has over 1.2 million and Movie Central who has over 900,000, then it isn't that many considering both of those services are restricted to half the country. So, in total it's over 2.1 million.

    But when you consider that SC, IMO, doesn't get as much promotion, hype/buzz, is an indie channel that doesn't benefit from cross promotion from other channels in the corporate family, and for the most part has less hyped shows unlike TMN/MC who has higher profile movies and shows from HBO, etc, then I'd say it isn't all that bad when SC is pretty much the same price as TMN/MC, competes with them directly, and has less coverage (for example, it isn't even carried on Vidťotron).



    Yes, the link I provided shows that SC finally made a profit last year of over 11 million. Which is better than nothing, but small when they've lost almost 100 million since the launch. And that probably doesn't even take into account the expenses that the corporate parent lost through the licenseing process and all other accounts before the launch, but who knows.
    What do you think the chance is they will put the plug on it?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,106
    What do you think the chance is they will put the plug on it?
    If they are making a profit (as was mentioned) then why would they pull the plug on it?! I think a better question to ask is what are the chances that they might sell?! I wonder if Rogers might be interested in making a play for Super Channel to compete against Bell, who will soon own The Movie Network?! It would be interesting to see Bell & Rogers go head to head in Pay TV movies like they do with Sports. :D

    If Rogers gets their hands on Super Channel, I think it could become a viable competitor to TMN as they have the $$ to sign deals with major studios for content. It also has the bonus of being a national service so they can compete for customers right across the country. ;)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    If they are making a profit (as was mentioned) then why would they pull the plug on it?! I think a better question to ask is what are the chances that they might sell?! I wonder if Rogers might be interested in making a play for Super Channel to compete against Bell, who will soon own The Movie Network?! It would be interesting to see Bell & Rogers go head to head in Pay TV movies like they do with Sports. :D
    It wouldn't be worth it for Rogers, TMN/MC already has all the better programming lineup secured through muilt-year deals and SC programming isn't worth $16 a/month for two HD channels.

    Not to mention that Astral & Corus is reporting a subscriber loss for their pay-tv channels. Could be why Astral is willing to sell? Sell why your still flying high and leave before it become more worthless then a blackberry.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,146
    Quote Originally Posted by ottawasnowdog View Post
    What do you think the chance is they will put the plug on it?
    If it continues to make a profit like it currently is, then I see no reason for them to shut it down. Will they continue to make a profit like they are now? That's the question. They cut expenses down from almost 74 million in their second year of operation (2009) to only over 18 million last year. And the vast vast vast majority of that was programming costs (over 62 million in 2009 to only over 12 million last year). So, with such a HUGE cut in programming, which is really the biggest factor when it comes to keeping customers, will that affect new subscribers joining in the future or preventing current ones to drop it? Well, they've been cutting programming costs dramatically ever since 2009 and they've still been growing subs, so it isn't hurting them much at all yet. But who knows in the future.

    So, instead of shutting down, like CDN Viewer said, it may seem more likely that they could sell at some point.

    But to be honest, why the hell would anyone want it? These pay TV licenses mean nothing these days. Why would someone like Rogers purchase it when they could honestly just start their own pay TV network and compete with TMN/MC. The CRTC licensing process is so loose and pointless that Rogers could get a couple licenses for some cat B channels and launch them as pay tv channels like Hollywood Suite did. So, there you go, get a pay tv network without the debt of SC, the purchase price, and pretty much zero programming commitments like all the other cat B channels.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    It wouldn't be worth it for Rogers, TMN/MC already has all the better programming lineup secured through muilt-year deals
    Those deals will expire eventually and at that point Rogers could submit a bid, although I don't know if they would want to get into a bidding war with Bell- neither one would come out a winner in the end IMO.

    On second thought, I think the current setup of offering TMN and also making content from TMN & HBO Canada available through their VOD service is probably more preferable to Rogers then buying or launching their own Pay TV service.

    SC programming isn't worth $16 a/month for two HD channels
    I think Super channel should get rid of 2 channels, I think 4 is too many especially considering that they don't have enough content to fill them all. They should restructure their service and focus more on international series & films- there is currently no service that airs foreign films. They could air the best TV series & films from Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia & UK), Asia (Hong Kong, South Korea & Japan) & Australia, I would definitely subscribe to a channel that offered this content and I am sure there many others that would as well?!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    They should restructure their service and focus more on international series & films- there is currently no service that airs foreign films. They could air the best TV series & films from Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia & UK), Asia (Hong Kong, South Korea & Japan) & Australia, I would definitely subscribe to a channel that offered this content and I am sure there many others that would as well?!
    They already do air a lot of foreign films and Australian and UK series. Maybe they need to promote that more.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    Those deals will expire eventually and at that point Rogers could submit a bid, although I don't know if they would want to get into a bidding war with Bell- neither one would come out a winner in the end IMO.
    Not to mention battling with Shaw with Movie Central at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    On second thought, I think the current setup of offering TMN and also making content from TMN & HBO Canada available through their VOD service is probably more preferable to Rogers then buying or launching their own Pay TV service.
    Rogers customers still have to pay Astral/Bell for VOD services along with the channels and Bell hasn't hid the fact that it wants everything it owns to remain exclusive to Bell Mobile/TV customers and will fight to obtain such right with every dollar they have.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Not to mention battling with Shaw with Movie Central at the same time.



    Rogers customers still have to pay Astral/Bell for VOD services along with the channels and Bell hasn't hid the fact that it wants everything it owns to remain exclusive to Bell Mobile/TV customers and will fight to obtain such right with every dollar they have.
    I don't think it would be smart to pull all of there channels from the likes of Rogers.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Bell hasn't hid the fact that it wants everything it owns to remain exclusive to Bell Mobile/TV customers and will fight to obtain such right with every dollar they have.
    Where did Bell say they want to keep everything they own exclusive to Bell costumers? You have stated this several times but there is no evidence that Bell wants to do this. Just because they didn't want a total ban on keeping content exclusive doesn’t mean they wanted to keep all their content to themselves. You can assume that’s what they wanted, but that’s a theory, not a fact.

    The CRTC announced the ban of keeping content exclusive (among other things which unfairly punished vertically integrated BDU’s while giving an unfair advantage to their competitors) more than a year ago. If Bell is planning to fight this with every dollar they have then they are sure taking their time.

    The facts are the CRTC doesn’t allow them to keep content to themselves, and Bell has yet to appeal the decision. So far the only issue is with sharing NFL broadcast rights since the NFL is refusing to allow Bell to sub-license NFL content (which is totally understandable and is 100% an issue with the NFL, not Bell)
    Last edited by TVViewer; 07-25-2012 at 04:01 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The CRTC announced the ban of keeping content exclusive (among other things which unfairly punished vertically integrated BDU’s while giving an unfair advantage to their competitors) more than a year ago. If Bell is planning to fight this with every dollar they have then they are sure taking their time.
    So, hypothetically, you'd be ok with Bell striking a deal with Apple so that tomorrow morning, the iPhone would work exclusively with Bhell customers?

    I'm in my living room. If I want to watch CTV and TVA shows on demand using the terminal plugged on my HDTV, I have to subscribe to both Bell Fibe AND Vidťotron? You see no problem here?

    By extention, I have to carry three cellphones, one with Bhell, one with Vidťotron and one with Rogers if I'm interested in watching CTV, TVA and Citytv shows on a cellphone? You still see no problem here?

    Get real !
    Last edited by InMontreal; 07-25-2012 at 06:54 PM. Reason: typo
    We had a good run: 2006 to 2020. Thanks for the informations and debates.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    I should clarify. I don't think it's good or smart for Bell or anyone to keep all their content exclusive. My point was I don't see it as unfair. They are a private business who decided to invest in content, and although I think they should share it, and I think in almost all cases it's in their best interest to share it, I don't think they should be FORCED to.

    My main point was that Bell never said they wanted to keep all their content exclusive to Bell. They aren't allowed to keep their content exclusive and they have yet to fight the decision. I didn't want to start a debate on if Bell should be allowed to keep all their content exclusive (I will edit my post if that helps) I just wanted to point out that they never stated they want to.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 07-25-2012 at 04:04 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Where did Bell say they want to keep everything they own exclusive to Bell costumers? You have stated this several times but there is no evidence that Bell wants to do this.
    Its was widely talk about various articles during and after the NHL/NFL Bell vs Telus dispute.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Just because they didn't want a total ban on keeping content exclusive doesnít mean they wanted to keep all their content to themselves. You can assume thatís what they wanted, but thatís a theory, not a fact.
    You have to assume in this case, because facts are nothing more than end result. I'm saying what is there next move before they cause damage, your saying lets wait until the damage is done and go from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    The CRTC announced the ban of keeping content exclusive (among other things which unfairly punished vertically integrated BDUís while giving an unfair advantage to their competitors) more than a year ago. If Bell is planning to fight this with every dollar they have then they are sure taking their time.

    Ut sit magna, tamen certe lenta ira deorum est - "The wrath of the gods may be great, but it certainly is slow."


    How fast do you expect the legal system to run? And just because hasn't been reported in awhile doesn't mean they've stopped.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    By the way, I see no problem with Bell wanting to keep the content they spent billions to acquire for themselves. They made the decision to make a billion dollar investment in content, why should they have to share that investment with their competitors? So what if it gives them an advantage, they made the billion dollar investment, their competitors did not. Thereís nothing unfair about that.
    Its not the investment, but the control of content. They'll soon own 40% of all speciality channels in Canada, and in theory they can own 100%.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Letís say Telus made a huge investment on this amazing PVR technology, that would surely give them an advantage over their competitors, should they be forced to share it? Of course not.
    But there isn't a problem with keeping something exclusive, as long as they don't corner the market or intimate the competition. It would be like Telus having this amazing PVR technology, but having the right to bar any Canadian from owing any other form of PVR technology in Canada, because they invested in this one amazing PVR technology and you have to buy from them.

    Bell will own 40% that broadcasts the most watched and exclusive content in Canada. Having that exclusive content for your Mobile or VOD will not only wipe out your competition, but will allow them to charge what ever they want because you have no where else to go to watch it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Buying a broadcaster is no different than any other investment, if they donít want to share their investment with their competitors they shouldn't have to.
    Broadcasting is a very very different investment than any other business investment because your controlling a medium of information that shape peoples ideas, decisions and actions. 40% of a market you could cause serious damage a society.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    [quote=Mayhem;57312]

    Its was widely talk about various articles during and after the NHL/NFL Bell vs Telus dispute.

    You have to assume in this case, because facts are nothing more than end result. I'm saying what is there next move before they cause damage, your saying lets wait until the damage is done and go from there.


    Ut sit magna, tamen certe lenta ira deorum est - "The wrath of the gods may be great, but it certainly is slow."

    How fast do you expect the legal system to run? And just because hasn't been reported in awhile doesn't mean they've stopped.
    Bell has not stated that they want to keep all their content exclusive to Bell customers. (They have actually publicly stated the exact opposite) They have not stated that they will somehow fight the CRTCís decision prohibiting them from keeping content exclusive (NFL is the exception because they arenít allowed). You are stating that they are. Thatís not true. If you want to ASSUME Bell wants this then fine, but thatís pure speculation, and you are only basing this speculation on the fact that Bell didnít think a total ban on all exclusive content was necessary before the CRTC made its decision.


    Its not the investment, but the control of content. They'll soon own 40% of all speciality channels in Canada, and in theory they can own 100%.

    But there isn't a problem with keeping something exclusive, as long as they don't corner the market or intimate the competition. It would be like Telus having this amazing PVR technology, but having the right to bar any Canadian from owing any other form of PVR technology in Canada, because they invested in this one amazing PVR technology and you have to buy from them.

    Bell will own 40% that broadcasts the most watched and exclusive content in Canada. Having that exclusive content for your Mobile or VOD will not only wipe out your competition, but will allow them to charge what ever they want because you have no where else to go to watch it.

    Broadcasting is a very very different investment than any other business investment because your controlling a medium of information that shape peoples ideas, decisions and actions. 40% of a market you could cause serious damage a society.
    Totally disagree. Letís say Bell somehow found a way to keep all their content exclusive, itís highly unlikely they would then get any content from Rogers Media, Shaw Media, or Corus. They arenít going to be able to destroy their competition with only Bell Media content. Not everyone will switch from Rogers and lose Shaw and Rogers VOD/mobile programming just so they can watch Bell VOD/mobile content with Bell. Itís actually in the best interest for Bell to share most of their content since they expose it to more viewers. They are severely limiting their audience if they only make it available to Bell customers. Itís highly unlikely that the number of subscribers they would gain from keeping content exclusive will offset the revenue they would lose from not selling rights to other BDUís and mobile providers, they will also earn way less advertising revenue keeping the content only on Bell. There may be a few exceptions where it makes sense to keep something exclusive, but keeping everything or even most of what they own exclusive will actually put their broadcasters at a disadvantage, especially as viewing on these services continues to grow. Their main competitor (Shaw) is willing to share their content, is it really a good idea to sit back and allow your competitor to make millions exposing their content to as many viewers as possible while you sit back and severely limit your content to your own subscribers?
    Last edited by TVViewer; 07-26-2012 at 04:50 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Totally disagree. Letís say Bell somehow found a way to keep all their content exclusive, itís highly unlikely they would then get any content from Rogers Media, Shaw Media, or Corus. They arenít going to be able to destroy their competition with only Bell Media content. Not everyone will switch from Rogers and lose Shaw and Rogers VOD/mobile programming just so they can watch Bell VOD/mobile content with Bell. Itís actually in the best interest for Bell to share most of their content since they expose it to more viewers. They are severely limiting their audience if they only make it available to Bell customers. Itís highly unlikely that the number of subscribers they would gain from keeping content exclusive will offset the revenue they would lose from not selling rights to other BDUís and mobile providers, they will also earn way less advertising revenue keeping the content only on Bell. There may be a few exceptions where it makes sense to keep something exclusive, but keeping everything or even most of what they own exclusive will actually put their broadcasters at a disadvantage, especially as viewing on these services continues to grow. Their main competitor (Shaw) is willing to share their content, is it really a good idea to sit back and allow your competitor to make millions exposing their content to as many viewers as possible while you sit back and severely limit your content to your own subscribers?
    So how do they make money from licencing content to other providers? Paying for the app may make money in the beginnings, but will level off over time. Stingray can get convince customers to pay $4.99 a/month or $39.99 a/year for commercial free music, I doubt they'll get mobile viewers to agree to those terms for video.

    So how do the make money from keeping content exclusive to Bell Mobile? Simple, because those apps require data, and videos streams eat a lot of data. Even if you switch your iPhone/iPad or Android to WiFi, your still paying Bell a monthly charge for that data.

    Shaw has given up on their mobile ambitions, even if they decided to make their content exclusive to a handful of mobile providers because of Bell making all their content exclusive to their Mobile customers, Bell will still be ahead. They don't need Shaw or Rogers programming content, they have the number one news program in the country, they own the number one sports channel in the country, with the most top rated, in demand programming than Rogers or Shaw owns, and they'll soon own the Astral with access to TMN/HBO content. They have nothing to lose, you want to watch The Big Bang Theory on your phone, buy Bell, otherwise your out of luck.

    Why do you think they want the CRTC ban on exclusive content removed? You gave me reasons from Bell point-of-view, don't you think their buying all this content because they believe in network television? No, because they want to crush Rogers, Telus, Wind and Public Mobile in one swoop.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So how do they make money from licencing content to other providers? Paying for the app may make money in the beginnings, but will level off over time. Stingray can get convince customers to pay $4.99 a/month or $39.99 a/year for commercial free music, I doubt they'll get mobile viewers to agree to those terms for video.

    So how do the make money from keeping content exclusive to Bell Mobile? Simple, because those apps require data, and videos streams eat a lot of data. Even if you switch your iPhone/iPad or Android to WiFi, your still paying Bell a monthly charge for that data.

    Shaw has given up on their mobile ambitions, even if they decided to make their content exclusive to a handful of mobile providers because of Bell making all their content exclusive to their Mobile customers, Bell will still be ahead. They don't need Shaw or Rogers programming content, they have the number one news program in the country, they own the number one sports channel in the country, with the most top rated, in demand programming than Rogers or Shaw owns, and they'll soon own the Astral with access to TMN/HBO content. They have nothing to lose, you want to watch The Big Bang Theory on your phone, buy Bell, otherwise your out of luck.

    Why do you think they want the CRTC ban on exclusive content removed? You gave me reasons from Bell point-of-view, don't you think their buying all this content because they believe in network television? No, because they want to crush Rogers, Telus, Wind and Public Mobile in one swoop.
    Again, you are assuming Bell wants to keep all their content exclusive, you are assuming Bell will find a way to reverse the CRTC's decision, you are assuming it makes economic sense to keep content exclusive. None of this is a fact, it's all speculation.

    I only responded to this because you stated "Bell hasn't hid the fact that it wants everything it owns to remain exclusive to Bell Mobile/TV customers and will fight to obtain such right with every dollar they have." That's not true. They have actually publicly stated the exact opposite (Direct quote from Bell: In terms of exclusives, we want to sell our content because we want to make money... We want to monetize it, Bell Mediaís offering of its content on all platforms is good for consumers. We donít need a regulator to tell us that) I'm pointing out the statement you made is not true (and you have made this Bell wants everything exclusive statement several times in other threads) Speculate with your own theories all you want, but you shouldn't state them as facts.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •