(31-12-2017 17:16 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Do we know if Rampant currently offer comparable rates to all the babe channel operators? Are they pro rata-d for the number of channels each has? Is it the same rates for those who's channels are on TV as those not? That would be a little unfair if so. How is the difference judged if not?
Would the other operators get to know if an certain operator has cut a deal? Cellcast were only recently crowing that they had cut a better deal for some sort of telecoms. Have the other operators had to lump being stuck with their old deals on theirs?
from what i know of it rampant look to charge the same weather a channel is on tv with lots of well known girls or a new web only channel trying to get started, they are one of the main reasons that there have been very few new channels launched of late, there are some differences in what each pay, and yes if rampant cut a deal everyone finds out, rampant offered one channel a far better deal back at the start of the summer and there competition was not happy,
(31-12-2017 17:46 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]as usual you total miss the point i was making, rampant now make no money from rlc if they had offered rlc a lower rate then they rampant would be making more money then they are now, so it would have been in rampants best interests as you say they are not making much to through rlc a bone and in doing so boost there own income,
Perhaps I should explain it for you again.
If Rampant offered a minor player like Red Light a better rate they would end up having to offer their major partners a better rate too. So in the end they wouldn't boost their income as you claim, they would lose out very badly.
Rather than being in Rampant's best interests as you claim, it would actually have been potentially ruinous for them.
^ You don't comment on winsaw's statement about the major player being offered a better deal by Rampant in the summer I notice. Do you not believe this?
(01-01-2018 02:22 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps I should explain it for you again.
If Rampant offered a minor player like Red Light a better rate they would end up having to offer their major partners a better rate too. So in the end they wouldn't boost their income as you claim, they would lose out very badly.
Rather than being in Rampant's best interests as you claim, it would actually have been potentially ruinous for them.
your lack of knowledge about the working of the shows is funny, if you had any idea about what was going on you would already know RLC got a new rate at the start of the year, the best deal in town lol
funnily enough didn't give everyone else the some deal as thats not now business works, bless you for thinking things work like that lol,
(01-01-2018 17:05 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^ You don't comment on winsaw's statement about the major player being offered a better deal by Rampant in the summer I notice. Do you not believe this?
I believe things when I see evidence of them. Seeing is believing.
(01-01-2018 17:14 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]if you had any idea about what was going on you would already know RLC got a new rate at the start of the year, the best deal in town
Ha ha, a likely story.
So first of all you paint Rampant as the bad boys who are 'killing' Red Light, who 'keep half the money for them selfs', 'dont pass the other half straight away', don't give Red Light 'the money they should' and 'should have cut there rate'. You also say that Rampant 'tell the channel what they will pay (and its a lot) and thats it take it or leave it'.
Now in complete contradiction you claim that Rampant were actually the good guys who were willing to negotiate after all. Leaving the 'take it or leave it' story behind, your new story says that Rampant went out of their way to help Red Light and ended up giving them the 'best deal in town'.
Truly amazing!
I'm not saying Winsaw is totally wrong as I don't know the validity of his source BUT as a businessman I can tell you that the conditions that would apply in order to give a small player like RLC a "cheaper" deal than larger players are significant. One for example could be that rather than pay over revenue shares on day 30 they would not get paid until day day 60. Another could be that they would be restricted on concurrent users and other service levels such as fault resolution. One thing no credible supplier like rampant would do is risk damaging relationships with larger clients where earnings would be much larger from the whole deal. Pricing is a complex issue and Winsaw has already previously said that payment terms were an issue.
One thing I will say is that in all my experience a smaller player never had a better deal in overall terms than my biggest customers. That is how business works.
(01-01-2018 18:32 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2018 17:14 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]if you had any idea about what was going on you would already know RLC got a new rate at the start of the year, the best deal in town
Ha ha, a likely story.
So first of all you paint Rampant as the bad boys who are 'killing' Red Light, who 'keep half the money for them selfs', 'dont pass the other half straight away', don't give Red Light 'the money they should' and 'should have cut there rate'. You also say that Rampant 'tell the channel what they will pay (and its a lot) and thats it take it or leave it'.
Now in complete contradiction you claim that Rampant were actually the good guys who were willing to negotiate after all. Leaving the 'take it or leave it' story behind, your new story says that Rampant went out of their way to help Red Light and ended up giving them the 'best deal in town'.
Truly amazing!
everything i have said is the truth and accurate, the fact you didnt know that rlc had cut a deal proves you really do no nothing about the shows going on's even though you like to sound like you know everything
if you re reed what a typed you will see i am talking about another channel in the bit you quote thats why i say from someone at a different channel,so sorry that went over your head
all i say about how rampant operate is true thats why the RLC deal was a surprise to all, but having do it why not do it again, thats good business even if you cant understand that
(01-01-2018 18:49 )SecretAgent Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying Winsaw is totally wrong as I don't know the validity of his source BUT as a businessman I can tell you that the conditions that would apply in order to give a small player like RLC a "cheaper" deal than larger players are significant. One for example could be that rather than pay over revenue shares on day 30 they would not get paid until day day 60. Another could be that they would be restricted on concurrent users and other service levels such as fault resolution. One thing no credible supplier like rampant would do is risk damaging relationships with larger clients where earnings would be much larger from the whole deal. Pricing is a complex issue and Winsaw has already previously said that payment terms were an issue.
One thing I will say is that in all my experience a smaller player never had a better deal in overall terms than my biggest customers. That is how business works.
A very good post SecretAgent. As you say, that is how business works.
I wouldn't say winsaw was totally wrong either, but he's certainly stetching credibility to its limits. Some of his claims appear to be highly dubious to put it mildly and his statements are inconsistent too.
(01-01-2018 18:49 )SecretAgent Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying Winsaw is totally wrong as I don't know the validity of his source BUT as a businessman I can tell you that the conditions that would apply in order to give a small player like RLC a "cheaper" deal than larger players are significant. One for example could be that rather than pay over revenue shares on day 30 they would not get paid until day day 60. Another could be that they would be restricted on concurrent users and other service levels such as fault resolution. One thing no credible supplier like rampant would do is risk damaging relationships with larger clients where earnings would be much larger from the whole deal. Pricing is a complex issue and Winsaw has already previously said that payment terms were an issue.
One thing I will say is that in all my experience a smaller player never had a better deal in overall terms than my biggest customers. That is how business works.
That's a good post, and makes a lot of sense, all I know is rampant did them a deal on the % paid per call, what you say about the delaying of payment could make a lot sense as its getting there hands on the money that seams to have been the problem last month