Why is Disney International HD kept out of broadcasters packs?

[The Lonelier Island]

I was trying to buy Disney International HD. I couldn't find it anywhere on Disney Star's broadcaster's bouquets. Ironically, there are several Disney specific HD bouquets from Star. Disney International HD is missing which is quite strange as it's one of the best performing HD channels as it's one of the rare true family friendly channel on TV.

 

[somnath chakraborty]

It might replace with a new regional star sports channel

 

[dino29]

I was trying to buy Disney International HD. I couldn't find it anywhere on Disney Star's broadcaster's bouquets. Ironically, there are several Disney specific HD bouquets from Star. Disney International HD is missing which is quite strange as it's one of the best performing HD channels as it's one of the rare true family friendly channel on TV.

Buddy , we have discussed over this in detail a number of times in the past. There is no point highlighting it again and again. Here is the latest post about this topic wherein i had explained to u the most logical reason why this channel has been made available just on A-La-Carte basis

There is still no vested interest but making it available just on a-la-carte basis is a strategy to focus more on generating revenue of this channel largely thru subscription route. It is sort of a niche offering hence ad revenue is hardly there for this channel.

Atleast they r continuing with this channel despite the difficulty and it not being profitable. Shouldn't u and all others be happy about this?

@iDJ bro request u to please send a tweet to @starindia regarding this matter. I am sure they will respond and address thid concern asap


Also request other members to please search for answers to ur questions by typing keywords in the search bar which has been provided on top right corner of the Forum Header. There is no use of asking same questions when they have been answered quite elaborately at earlier occasions

 

[The Lonelier Island]

Buddy , we have discussed over this in detail a number of times in the past. There is no point highlighting it again and again. Here is the latest post about this topic wherein i had explained to u the most logical reason why this channel has been made available just on A-La-Carte basis

But buddy wouldn't it makes sense to sell those Star Plus and Star Sports channels on A-La-Carte basis making sure these channels doesn't makes it to most DPO bouquets. Daily soap and highlights viewers will still buy. Why let a channel with small viewership be allowed to die? It's vested interests. They don't want the channel to succeed to replace it with some Star Sports channel.

 

[Shiv Verma]

I think it might Shut down completely or replace with any new channel in future.

 

[dino29]

But buddy wouldn't it makes sense to sell those Star Plus and Star Sports channels on A-La-Carte basis making sure these channels doesn't makes it to most DPO bouquets. Daily soap and highlights viewers will still buy. Why let a channel with small viewership be allowed to die? It's vested interests. They don't want the channel to succeed to replace it with some Star Sports channel.

Buddy just put on ur thinking cap and u will get the answer. Star Plus, Star Sports channels (except Star Sports Select) have
mass viewership and hence attracts huge ad revenue so there is no need to keep it out of bouquet which would inturn definitely cause some decline in ratings/subscription/viewership. Keeping such mass oriented channels in bouquet helps expand viewership base as well as earn more from subscription + ad revenues

Coming to niche channels like Disney International HD, we all know that it has extremely minute audience base when compared to entire TV universe/ viewership of popular chnanels. Even if one keeps it in bouquet still these channels do not manage to attract sizeable viewer base & above all these days niche channels are finding it extremely tough to get advertisers onboard since last 5 or 6 years hence to sustain they largely r dependent on subscription revenue & even profits/revenue generated from other popular channels of the concerned broadcaster helps absorb losses incurred for such niche channels. Keeping it as a standalone channel helps scale up subscription revenue and somewhat compensate the loss incurred.

This is also a main reason why broadcasters tend to always support a system where operators / customers opt for long term deals/bouquets and they are able to generate good subscription revenue + channels reach to wider audience base which helps maintain a financially viable business model for all their TV Channels be it popular or niche. However as i have stated earlier that had broadcasters evolved / redesigned the content strategy of their niche channels then it would have surely helped garner more viewership (emerging + regular audience of such content) & adapted properly to NTO regulations which would have been beneficial for general audience as well as broadcasters/operators but they r still thinking on basis of 5 year old system when whole media/entertainment landscape and consumption pattern was entirely different to what is now. Broadcasters have not kept up with changing times & transformed accordingly thus there have been issues faced by the TV/Media industry which have even caused viewers to not get access to their favorite content on channels operating in niche genre

 

[The Lonelier Island]

Buddy just put on ur thinking cap and u will get the answer. Star Plus, Star Sports channels (except Star Sports Select) have
mass viewership and hence attracts huge ad revenue so there is no need to keep it out of bouquet which would inturn definitely cause some decline in ratings/subscription/viewership. Keeping such mass oriented channels in bouquet helps expand viewership base as well as earn more from subscription + ad revenues

Coming to niche channels like Disney International HD, we all know that it has extremely minute audience base when compared to entire TV universe/ viewership of popular chnanels. Even if one keeps it in bouquet still these channels do not manage to attract sizeable viewer base & above all these days niche channels are finding it extremely tough to get advertisers onboard since last 5 or 6 years hence to sustain they largely r dependent on subscription revenue & even profits/revenue generated from other popular channels of the concerned broadcaster helps absorb losses incurred for such niche channels. Keeping it as a standalone channel helps scale up subscription revenue and somewhat compensate the loss incurred.

This is also a main reason why broadcasters tend to always support a system where operators / customers opt for long term deals/bouquets and they are able to generate good subscription revenue + channels reach to wider audience base which helps maintain a financially viable business model for all their TV Channels be it popular or niche. However as i have stated earlier that had broadcasters evolved / redesigned the content strategy of their niche channels then it would have surely helped garner more viewership (emerging + regular audience of such content) & adapted properly to NTO regulations which would have been beneficial for general audience as well as broadcasters/operators but they r still thinking on basis of 5 year old system when whole media/entertainment landscape and consumption pattern was entirely different to what is now. Broadcasters have not kept up with changing times & transformed accordingly thus there have been issues faced by the TV/Media industry which have even caused viewers to not get access to their favorite content on channels operating in niche genre

So in a way today you accepted today that NTO is a disaster.

 

[dino29]

So in a way today you accepted today that NTO is a disaster.

No. Broadcasters unwilling to transform / reevaluate/ make changes in their content / pricing strategy and not adopting NTO regulations in right spirit is the reason why their niche channel offerings have not been able to sustain or finding it difficult to remain on air in new age media landscape

Buddy please don't be so anti disney-star or pessimistic about all things. If there r actual reasons where something needs improvement then constructive criticism is surely correct thing to do but just criticising without analysing why a broadcaster has taken a decision creates unnecessary debates or confusions /wrong impressions

 

[The Lonelier Island]

No. Broadcasters unwilling to transform / reevaluate/ make changes in their content / pricing strategy and not adopting NTO regulations in right spirit is the reason why their niche channel offerings have not been able to sustain or finding it difficult to remain on air in new age media landscape

Buddy please don't be so anti disney-star or pessimistic about all things. If there r actual reasons where something needs improvement then constructive criticism is surely correct thing to do but just criticising without analysing why a broadcaster has taken a decision creates unnecessary debates or confusions /wrong impressions

Okay, buddy. But you do agree that Star is a broadcasters unwilling to transform, re-evaluate and make changes in their content and pricing strategy. By not adopting to NTO regulations ethically to favour their sports channels is the reason why their niche channel offerings have not been able to sustain in the new landscape. Right?

 

[dino29]

Okay, buddy. But you do agree that Star is a broadcasters unwilling to transform, re-evaluate and make changes in their content and pricing strategy. By not adopting to NTO regulations ethically to favour their sports channels is the reason why their niche channel offerings have not been able to sustain in the new landscape. Right?

As far as my opinion is concerned all major broadcasters barring a few have not implemented NTO regulations in right spirit. If in a bouquet broadcasters ready to provide channels at much lower price (average cost) then they should not inflate price of same channels multiple times when made available in a-la-carte mode. I have stated it earlier too that broadcasters should be confident about their content and give option to viewers to opt for their channels at affordable prices be it thru bouquet or standalone mode.

Sports Channels can be priced somewhat higher when available on a-la-carte mode as compared to their price when available in bouquet as this is an extremely high investment seeking genre particularly if broadcasters holds rights of key cricket properties like BCCI, IPL, ICC etc.

For niche channels operating under English GEC, English Movies , Lifestyle, and other such genres again i feel that they still have potential to succeed if broadcasters come up with appropriate content and pricing strategy to cater to emerging + regular / loyal audience

It is not correct to say that Disney-Star kept standalone pricing of channels high and bouquet price lower to favour its Sports Channels . It is a decision taken so that all their channels get maximum reach when people opt for bouquets, it helps all the channels including English GEC reach far wider audience base. I do not think it is right approach, customers should be given option to choose channels of their choice as it will help popular as well as niche channels get more ratings if priced affordably , for examples currently i am paying Rs. 57 for their bouquet but if i get to choose my favorite channels at total cost of Rs. 40 then i will even opt for their English GEC / Movie Channels keeping overall spending still quite low

Disney-Star has infact done great job in still keeping Disney International HD on air despite it not having any ad revenue. Even Bindass, Disney Junior shutdown has been canceled


Star Gold Thrills licence cannot be seen / found on broadcastseva portal so maybe UTV Action, UTV Movies will continue. Star Gold Romance might launch as a new hindi movie channel showcasing romantic old/new bollywood movies