MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: PaintTouchesSays on June 26, 2015, 08:00:06 PM
-
How do FOX Sports’ cutbacks affect MU, Big East?
Every time I post or Tweet negative news about FOX Sports 1, I get a decent amount of pushback from Marquette fans and Big East fans in general. The gist of most complaints is that it’s still early and I’m just scaring the kids. No need to rock the boat. While FS1 is still in its […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=13469&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />
Source: How do FOX Sports’ cutbacks affect MU, Big East? (http://painttouches.com/2015/06/26/how-do-fox-sports-cutbacks-affect-mu-big-east/)
-
Fox Sports One was never a threat to ESPN nor will it be.
But it is no surprise that they are shifting to a digital/mobile-first strategy. It is the future not only in sports, but television in general.
-
Fox hit high ratings with the US Open and USA soccer in the past few weeks. MLB baseball also given it more of an audience. The problem with Fox/FS1 wasn't that the Big East couldn't/can't garner an audience, it's that there was no reason for the casual viewer to turn in to see the programming. With MLB/Golf/Soccer/College Football now in tow (and the Big East), they are now building up inventory for people to keep the channel on.
As usual, winning fixes everything. Unless Marquette (and the rest of the Big East schools) starts losing numbers in actual attendance, I wouldn't worry. We have 10 more years in the Fox deal, and are getting millions from Fox in the process.
-
How do FOX Sports’ cutbacks affect MU, Big East?
Every time I post or Tweet negative news about FOX Sports 1, I get a decent amount of pushback from Marquette fans and Big East fans in general. The gist of most complaints is that it’s still early and I’m just scaring the kids. No need to rock the boat. While FS1 is still in its […]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=13469&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />
Source: How do FOX Sports’ cutbacks affect MU, Big East? (http://painttouches.com/2015/06/26/how-do-fox-sports-cutbacks-affect-mu-big-east/)
A lot going on over there. David Hill, who was the President of DTV years ago and the father of so much at Fox Sports for years, stepped down just a few days ago. That was huge, even though he hasn't been nearly involved in sports the last few years since Eric Shanks (former boss) took over. Shanks is under a lot of pressure, but none of this should be a surprise.
We should go back a few years ago here when many of us were opining about Fox Sports channels and whether they would challenge ESPN. As some of us stated, that is a pipe dream then and will be for a long time. The rights to deals are in the bag for others for a decade or longer on many of these properties. Without the properties, tough to get ratings. Without ratings, tough to get $$$. Its going to be a slog.
I think David Hill said they would be profitable within 2 years or so. I didn't believe it then and I certainly don't believe it now, unless they are cutting their way to prosperity, which may be what they plan on doing.
-
Fox Sports One was never a threat to ESPN nor will it be.
I'm sure CNN said the same thing about FoxNews.
I'm sure NBC, CBS and ABC said the same thing about CNN.
Times change. Broadcast rights move and people change. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.
-
I'm sure CNN said the same thing about FoxNews.
I'm sure NBC, CBS and ABC said the same thing about CNN.
Times change. Broadcast rights move and people change. So don't count your chickens before they hatch.
It will be a long time if ever. Fox News is popular because you have 20 liberal news outlets and zero conservative ones. It filled a void.
CNN filled a void by becoming the first 24/7 news channel.
Fox Sports isn't filling a void, really. It's just another sports network that will bid on sports rights like anyone else, but they are behind the eight ball considerably due to rights of importance locked up for many years.
-
Can FS1 use Fox's NFL contract in some way to attract people to FS1?
-
It will be a long time if ever. Fox News is popular because you have 20 liberal news outlets and zero conservative ones. It filled a void.
CNN filled a void by becoming the first 24/7 news channel.
Fox Sports isn't filling a void, really. It's just another sports network that will bid on sports rights like anyone else, but they are behind the eight ball considerably due to rights of importance locked up for many years.
CNBC filled a void in offering business. Fox Business started in 2007 and still has not taken anything away from CNBC. Fox Business' problem is it has no identity. What is it it? An extension of CNBC? Why bother?
Ditto FS1, NBCsp, CBSSports and so on. Might as well rename them ESPN 4,5,6 and so on. What do they offer other than more of the same (ESPN has ACC, FS1 has BE and PAC-12 ... No difference).
FS1 has to get rid of everyone with sports programming experience and completely "re-imagine" what they are doing. Have to find a void and fill it. Either that or pay Zillions for unique and popular programming like the NFL, Olympics, World Cup and so on. That will get you attention, and initially lose tons of money.
-
Can FS1 use Fox's NFL contract in some way to attract people to FS1?
Their affiliate contracts do not allow it without Fox having to pay more money then it is worth.
-
CNBC filled a void in offering business. Fox Business started in 2007 and still has not taken anything away from CNBC. Fox Business' problem is it has no identity. What is it it? An extension of CNBC? Why bother?
Ditto FS1, NBCsp, CBSSports and so on. Might as well rename them ESPN 4,5,6 and so on. What do they offer other than more of the same (ESPN has ACC, FS1 has BE and PAC-12 ... No difference).
FS1 has to get rid of everyone with sports programming experience and completely "re-imagine" what they are doing. Have to find a void and fill it. Either that or pay Zillions for unique and popular programming like the NFL, Olympics, World Cup and so on. That will get you attention, and initially lose tons of money.
CNBC is struggling mightily.
As for your last paragraph, sports is about live sports watching. DVR proof. Advertising bonanza. Getting rid of sports programmers is going to solve what when you need live sports to make it viable?
-
CNBC is struggling mightily.
As for your last paragraph, sports is about live sports watching. DVR proof. Advertising bonanza. Getting rid of sports programmers is going to solve what when you need live sports to make it viable?
I meant re-imagine how Live sports is broadcast.
How about following the model of soccer and/or auto racing and ditch the traditional commercial for product placements?
How about doing something with digital and new technologies like Periscope where the user can pick the camera angles and or players (think of some of the Duke/UNC game a few years ago when ESPN broadcast it on several channels from different angles).
No before you cite a host of tech and business model challenges, all I'm arguing is Try something different. I can see why these channels are struggling for eyeballs, they are more of the same in a saturated market. Need to do something different.
Finally, regarding CNBC, you are correct that their ratings are a total disaster, Cramer's show has registered less than 5,000 viewers on Friday nights. But they are considered a "must-have" on basic cable so they get paid their monthly fee on something like 90 million subscribers. This is where the current business model suffers, CNBC clearly has a broken programming format as no one watches it (unless their is a financial crisis ... The are the weather channel for business ... Only watch when a hurricane is going to hit) but with the massive revenues they generate the failed and entrenched executives stay continuing to pump out stuff nobody wants to watch everyday.
-
Fox has been the most innovative sports company in terms of broadcasting the last 20 years. Cameras, on screen stuff (yellow line for first downs, glowing hockey puck, streaming scoreboard, constant scoreboard bug, etc). They do this already and continue to innovate. If anyone will do that, it is Eric Shanks. I remember all the improvements we made to NFL Sunday Ticket, and we created this thing called the Red Zone Channel. We created NASCAR HotPass , pick your driver, multiple camera angles, etc. For YES Network we had a fan camera that was not part of the broadcast.
Rec etc
That will continue to happen, but yes it is terribly expensive. The broadcast commercials for soccer are a sham to the advertisers. Recognition by consumers not even measurable, so that makes the network have to provide many more make goods or other inventory packaged to make it worth their while. I've seen the numbers...they can all talk about how wonderful it is, but the vale they get from sponsoring an ad free half is paltry.
Don't forget the leagues and players in this stuff. As an example, when we did HotPass the craziness of trying to get the drivers to participate was insane. The fans wanted Earnhardt jr. Each week as one of the selectable drivers, his crew chief thought it gave other drivers an advantage by being in his car for the entire race and watching his every move. Gordon would only do 3 races the entire year. Others flat out wouldn't do it at all because of sponsorships. Just one example, but any idea you have on this stuff they have tried plus 500 others. It's like a skunk works of cool things over the years which they will continue to improve on, but is it enough to change the paradigm of who is watching? Highly unlikely. Anything they do cone up with that is worthwhile, will be adopted and mimicked by the competition within a week.
-
So how does FS1 break-through?
Do they need an event like Hugh Grant on the Tonight Show?
(In 1995 Hugh Grantwas busted for soliciting a prostitute. At the time he was dating/doing Liz Hurley. A few weeks later He went on the Tonight Show with Lenno to explain himself. In the years leading up to that show, Letterman had better ratings. That show had monster ratings for Lenno and in the years after Lenno had better ratings. A paradigm shift occurred around that show)
Problem is you can't predict or create these events. And they can also just as easily be a "jump the shark" event too (google it if you don't know what that is).
-
I can only speak for myself, but I get about 99% of my news online, including sports news. Haven't watched SportsCenter in years and have no interest in going back to it. By getting my news online I can pick and chose when I want opinion and when I just want the facts. On ESPN for example, everything is analyzed to death. I can somewhat tolerate the over-analyzing during an event, but not an hour of it non-stop on a sports highlight show.
-
This certainly isn't encouraging news. I was part of a similar purge when I worked for Channel 18/Sinclair Broadcast Group. I can't remember exact numbers now, but Sinclair had something like 22-25 news programs in various markets across the country, including Milwaukee. When they started cutting whole departments in smaller markets, we all got nervous. We were assured that our market was okay and they would be maintaining news coverage, but everyone was already looking at other alternatives.
No surprise, they cut small markets, then medium markets, then ultimately fired everyone in their top-8 markets and simply discontinued their local news programs all together. I'd love to see them find a way to rebound and adding significant live programming would be a monster step (NHL, EPL, Big Ten head the list for me) but usually once the cuts start, they aren't doing it as a temporary measure before expanding.
-
This certainly isn't encouraging news. I was part of a similar purge when I worked for Channel 18/Sinclair Broadcast Group. I can't remember exact numbers now, but Sinclair had something like 22-25 news programs in various markets across the country, including Milwaukee. When they started cutting whole departments in smaller markets, we all got nervous. We were assured that our market was okay and they would be maintaining news coverage, but everyone was already looking at other alternatives.
No surprise, they cut small markets, then medium markets, then ultimately fired everyone in their top-8 markets and simply discontinued their local news programs all together. I'd love to see them find a way to rebound and adding significant live programming would be a monster step (NHL, EPL, Big Ten head the list for me) but usually once the cuts start, they aren't doing it as a temporary measure before expanding.
Exactly. You aren't cutting because you are anticipating growth.
-
So how does FS1 break-through?
Do they need an event like Hugh Grant on the Tonight Show?
(In 1995 Hugh Grantwas busted for soliciting a prostitute. At the time he was dating/doing Liz Hurley. A few weeks later He went on the Tonight Show with Lenno to explain himself. In the years leading up to that show, Letterman had better ratings. That show had monster ratings for Lenno and in the years after Lenno had better ratings. A paradigm shift occurred around that show)
Problem is you can't predict or create these events. And they can also just as easily be a "jump the shark" event too (google it if you don't know what that is).
There is only one way to break-through, programming. Without it the channel dies a slow death. It is all about the contracts and most good sports properties are tied up for a long time.
-
There in only one way to break-through, programming. Without it the channel dies a slow death. It is all about the contracts and most good sports properties are tied up for a long time.
The next property Fox should pursue is the EPL, which runs out after 2015-16. The Big 10 is next, ending in 2016-17, and Fox should at least get a share of that as they own 51% of the BTN, making them a natural partner.
Beyond that, there's really nothing until the next decade. MLB & NHL in 2021, then another goliath NFL deal to be hashed out after 2022.
-
Since MU went to FS1, I have been less connected as a viewer and fan.
-
Since MU went to FS1, I have been less connected as a viewer and fan.
But that coincides with a less appealing and less successful team, so might part of your lesser connection be a result of the product and not the delivery mechanism?
-
Since MU went to FS1, I have been less connected as a viewer and fan.
Do you have FS1 and FS2? If so, all of their games have been on national television.
-
Do you have FS1 and FS2? If so, all of their games have been on national television.
+1
I have FS1 and FS2 and because EVERY game is televised, I'm more connected.
-
Since MU went to FS1, I have been less connected as a viewer and fan.
I haven't been less connected at all. MU also had no choice. The Big East made the right decision, they're going to get their money and that is what was needed. A broadcasting partner and the $$.
-
No surprise, they cut small markets, then medium markets, then ultimately fired everyone in their top-8 markets and simply discontinued their local news programs all together. I'd love to see them find a way to rebound and adding significant live programming would be a monster step (NHL, EPL, Big Ten head the list for me) but usually once the cuts start, they aren't doing it as a temporary measure before expanding.
Eric is a massive soccer fan and I have no doubt they will play hard for the EPL. They have the World Cup rights for 2026. That said, NBC owns the rights now and I'm not sure they will be willing to give them up. If you overpay, you are in just as much hurt because you can't monetize them properly. The rights are being bid on as we speak. Started last month. The UK EPL rights went for crazy money earlier this year...$5 billion pounds. NBC paid about $250M for the US rights back in the day. ESPN will want back in as well.
-
This is the first time I've seen Paint Touches drive their own agenda.
I get that this hit very close to home for them, but this still reads like a jsonline editorial piece.
-
Eric is a massive soccer fan and I have no doubt they will play hard for the EPL. They have the World Cup rights for 2026. That said, NBC owns the rights now and I'm not sure they will be willing to give them up. If you overpay, you are in just as much hurt because you can't monetize them properly. The rights are being bid on as we speak. Started last month. The UK EPL rights went for crazy money earlier this year...$5 billion pounds. NBC paid about $250M for the US rights back in the day. ESPN will want back in as well.
It will be very interesting to see the final price tag on those rights. Fox paid about $80M for 3 years back in 2009, then NBC tripled that to $250M/3 years in 2012. While the sport won't get anything close to major US sports viewers over here, you have a targeted demographic and a captive audience that has no real competition for the 6 am-noon live sports viewing window on most weekends, as well as live afternoon matches on Mondays that again have no measurable live competition.
I have to think $500-600M will be the winning bid. Can't see it tripling again, but it will definitely go up. Another question when it comes to Fox is how an EPL bid would work with their upcoming Bundesliga rights. Fox starts broadcasting the German league next year, and there's only so many minutes in a morning. Would they try for EPL exclusivity or would they try a shared package that gave them 3-4 EPL matches per week and still allowed for more full DFB coverage?
Have you heard anything on how those negotiations are going as far as the major players (have to assume NBC, Fox, ESPN) and price tag?