https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/warner-fox-espn-streaming-spots-joint-venture-1235900161/
Hope y'all ready to pay up
Hey, I'm fine with paying up for one service if it is all bundled like this.
This may be bearish long term for College Sports Media Rights . Depends on the fine print of the deal.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on February 06, 2024, 04:21:11 PM
Hey, I'm fine with paying up for one service if it is all bundled like this.
Cable TV is back!
No CBSSN? I need my Lappas fix!
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2024, 04:45:03 PM
Cable TV is back!
Time is a flat circle. Will be fascinated to see the price tag
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2024, 04:45:03 PM
Cable TV is back!
Just wait till they split up the three channels you want and instead say "we have three basic subscriptions in each you get one sports channel, one news, 300 pastors streaming church, and 100 music channels"
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on February 06, 2024, 04:21:11 PM
Hey, I'm fine with paying up for one service if it is all bundled like this.
The interesting thing will be to see how much they gatekeep this.
Will they pull fs1, ESPN, etc from DirecTV? Cable? YouTube TV?
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2024, 07:07:03 PM
The interesting thing will be to see how much they gatekeep this.
Will they pull fs1, ESPN, etc from DirecTV? Cable? YouTube TV?
Not if they are under contract.
Of course CBSSN isn't part of it...so we will need to get that separately somehow.
It would be nice to just be able to pick the channels you want and not pay for all of the excess stuff you never watch.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2024, 07:07:03 PM
The interesting thing will be to see how much they gatekeep this.
Will they pull fs1, ESPN, etc from DirecTV? Cable? YouTube TV?
I doubt they'll pull channels, but you can bet that big events will be only shown on that new service.
Quote from: BLWarrior91 on February 06, 2024, 07:45:05 PM
Of course CBSSN isn't part of it...so we will need to get that separately somehow.
It would be nice to just be able to pick the channels you want and not pay for all of the excess stuff you never watch.
CBS, NBC and Peacock not mentioned nor is Prime. Would you be locked in for your local FOX/ABC station. I know for most folks that would not be a problem, but here in New Jersey it is. I live one mile over the county line which puts me the Philly local market. If I lived just a mile north in the next county I would be in the New York market. It would be nice to choose which local market you prefer. It gets even weirder for the regional networks. Even though I am in the Philly market for broadcast channels I am in the NY market for Hockey and Basketball MSG, but not baseball YES or SNY.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 06, 2024, 04:15:32 PM
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/warner-fox-espn-streaming-spots-joint-venture-1235900161/
Hope y'all ready to pay up
If the NCAA expanded the number of teams in the Basketball tournament and this joint venture got the rights that would increase the number of channels that could carry the games.
As is always the case, prime will be of prime importance.
YouTube TV is $73/month and includes all the sports networks the new service does except ESPN+. It also includes a few sports networks the new service doesn't, such as CBS SportsNet, NBA Network, Golf Channel, etc. As well as numerous basic cable channels - AMC, FX, and so on.
If they charge $50 for the new service, would one rather pay $23 more and get all the other stuff? How about if they charge only $40?
Quote from: BLWarrior91 on February 06, 2024, 07:45:05 PM
Of course CBSSN isn't part of it...so we will need to get that separately somehow.
It would be nice to just be able to pick the channels you want and not pay for all of the excess stuff you never watch.
Yep. I don't see that happening, but that's what I would like also.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 06, 2024, 08:49:22 PM
CBS, NBC and Peacock not mentioned nor is Prime. Would you be locked in for your local FOX/ABC station. I know for most folks that would not be a problem, but here in New Jersey it is. I live one mile over the county line which puts me the Philly local market. If I lived just a mile north in the next county I would be in the New York market. It would be nice to choose which local market you prefer. It gets even weirder for the regional networks. Even though I am in the Philly market for broadcast channels I am in the NY market for Hockey and Basketball MSG, but not baseball YES or SNY.
I have the same issue. I live in Indian River County, FL, which is the extreme north end of the Palm Beach television market. Micco, in Brevard County, is about 10 miles away and is the extreme south end of the Orlando television market. Not sure there's a heck of a lot of difference (we're about the same distance to both) but the decision was made long ago by some marketing entity.
My advice would be to find an extremely good high definition antenna and see if you can get New York from your home with the antenna.
For the NFL, Orlando is Tampa Bay's primary market. Palm Beach is the Dolphins. So I splurge for the NFL Sunday package to get the Packers and, at times, the Bears, or I go to a bar.
I think this is good news for the next BE media rights deal - at least dollar value wise. I think we will be seeing more streaming regardless of who our main provider is, but I think Fox or ESPN will still be interested in the most impactful games from the BE.
Quote from: dgies9156 on February 07, 2024, 08:14:37 AM
I have the same issue. I live in Indian River County, FL, which is the extreme north end of the Palm Beach television market. Micco, in Brevard County, is about 10 miles away and is the extreme south end of the Orlando television market. Not sure there's a heck of a lot of difference (we're about the same distance to both) but the decision was made long ago by some marketing entity.
My advice would be to find an extremely good high definition antenna and see if you can get New York from your home with the antenna.
For the NFL, Orlando is Tampa Bay's primary market. Palm Beach is the Dolphins. So I splurge for the NFL Sunday package to get the Packers and, at times, the Bears, or I go to a bar.
My Chicago area BIL would easily understand why you watch the Bears in a bar.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on February 07, 2024, 08:32:29 AM
My Chicago area BIL would easily understand why you watch the Bears in a bar.
Residences generally can't hold enough liquor! I was a Bears season ticket holder for 28 years.
Lots of bad football sandwiched around molecules of good play.
Quote from: GB Warrior on February 06, 2024, 06:40:09 PM
Time is a flat circle. Will be fascinated to see the price tag
The talking heads on CNBC had it at $45/month.
Quote from: dgies9156 on February 07, 2024, 10:33:40 AM
Residences generally can't hold enough liquor! I was a Bears season ticket holder for 28 years.
Lots of bad football sandwiched around molecules of good play.
I've been working hard trying to turn him into a Marquette fan. I told him we actually win sometimes. ;D
Quote from: dgies9156 on February 07, 2024, 08:14:37 AM
I have the same issue. I live in Indian River County, FL, which is the extreme north end of the Palm Beach television market. Micco, in Brevard County, is about 10 miles away and is the extreme south end of the Orlando television market. Not sure there's a heck of a lot of difference (we're about the same distance to both) but the decision was made long ago by some marketing entity.
My advice would be to find an extremely good high definition antenna and see if you can get New York from your home with the antenna.
For the NFL, Orlando is Tampa Bay's primary market. Palm Beach is the Dolphins. So I splurge for the NFL Sunday package to get the Packers and, at times, the Bears, or I go to a bar.
The way the New York teams, especially football, are playing right not it is not worth the effort.
Quote from: dgies9156 on February 07, 2024, 10:33:40 AM
Residences generally can't hold enough liquor! I was a Bears season ticket holder for 28 years.
Lots of bad football sandwiched around molecules of good play.
Brutal.
You couldn't pay me to go to a bears game in the last 5 years
Quote from: MU82 on February 07, 2024, 08:02:23 AM
As is always the case, prime will be of prime importance.
YouTube TV is $73/month and includes all the sports networks the new service does except ESPN+. It also includes a few sports networks the new service doesn't, such as CBS SportsNet, NBA Network, Golf Channel, etc. As well as numerous basic cable channels - AMC, FX, and so on.
If they charge $50 for the new service, would one rather pay $23 more and get all the other stuff? How about if they charge only $40?
I think this new sports app will start at $35. I have You Tube TV and love it now with multiview.
Quote from: Mr. Nielsen on February 08, 2024, 08:44:50 AM
I think this new sports app will start at $35. I have You Tube TV and love it now with multiview.
Multiview was a thing of beauty with the 4 games last night. I love Youtube TV...but as soon as the NBA wraps up I suspend it until NCAA BBall starts. Sports are all we use it for...Netflix, Prime, etc... for everything else.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 06, 2024, 08:20:21 PM
I doubt they'll pull channels, but you can bet that big events will be only shown on that new service.
Why wouldn't they? They will not get that many subscribers if the if the other carriers continue to carry the same services. No one is going to pay for duplication.
Quote from: avid1010 on February 08, 2024, 09:14:45 AM
Multiview was a thing of beauty with the 4 games last night. I love Youtube TV...but as soon as the NBA wraps up I suspend it until NCAA BBall starts. Sports are all we use it for...Netflix, Prime, etc... for everything else.
We do the exact same. Works out great.
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 08, 2024, 09:33:11 AM
Why wouldn't they? They will not get that many subscribers if the if the other carriers continue to carry the same services. No one is going to pay for duplication.
ESPN gets $12 for every cable subscriber. They ain't pullin' nothing.
Quote from: avid1010 on February 08, 2024, 09:14:45 AM
Multiview was a thing of beauty with the 4 games last night. I love Youtube TV...but as soon as the NBA wraps up I suspend it until NCAA BBall starts. Sports are all we use it for...Netflix, Prime, etc... for everything else.
I'm a fairly recent YTTV subscriber. How does one suspend the service? And when one wants to return to it, is it as simple as a few clicks and it's back?
Quote from: MU82 on February 08, 2024, 10:32:34 AM
I'm a fairly recent YTTV subscriber. How does one suspend the service? And when one wants to return to it, is it as simple as a few clicks and it's back?
Easy to do. Just logon to YTTV on your device and cancel. To get it back, use logon and add.
Quote from: MU82 on February 08, 2024, 10:32:34 AM
I'm a fairly recent YTTV subscriber. How does one suspend the service? And when one wants to return to it, is it as simple as a few clicks and it's back?
I'm about to take the leap, enjoying it so far?
Quote from: Jockey on February 08, 2024, 10:43:19 AM
Easy to do. Just logon to YTTV on your device and cancel. To get it back, use logon and add.
Well that is easy. Looks like it's handled just like when I only want a month to catch up to shows on an app like Apple+, Peacock or Disney. Add it, watch stuff, cancel. Thanks for the answer.
Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on February 08, 2024, 12:40:55 PM
I'm about to take the leap, enjoying it so far?
We've had it for about a month now. So far, no problems. I've found the DVR to be a little funky, but then again I haven't had one for awhile so I'm still getting used to it.
Right now they're offering $10 off each of the first 3 months, so that's a little beer money.
Quote from: Jockey on February 08, 2024, 10:43:19 AM
Easy to do. Just logon to YTTV on your device and cancel. To get it back, use logon and add.
You will have no problem figuring out how to resubscribe because you will get constantly asked to almost every time you go to YouTube.
Quote from: Herman Cain on February 06, 2024, 04:24:51 PM
This may be bearish long term for College Sports Media Rights . Depends on the fine print of the deal.
I agree with this, it will change the face of sports as we know it. Something has to give.
----
Is everyone here ready to spend $500+/year to watch sports?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/espn-fox-and-warner-bros-discovery-to-launch-joint-sports-streaming-platform-this-year.html
While no price has been determined, a logical starting point could be $45 or $50 per month with introductory pricing lower to entice signups, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the discussions around the service have been private. A second person added that even with promotional pricing, the service will cost more than $30 per month.They will have to cut sports off of cable/free TV to make this work, forcing you to buy this product to get sports and not "giving it away" anymore. Otherwise, what is the point of this effort?
And once you are done paying this for sports, you have to pay more for other streaming services. So take your YT price and add $500+/year.
Because sports have a business model where 80% of their revenue comes from people who do not watch their product. Now those who watch sports will have to pay a lot to get the same thing.
---
In December 2023, ESPN had 70.34 million cable subscribers, each paying $~9/month, or $620 million/month,
https://www.sportstvratings.com/p/nielsens-december-cable-coverage
This is down from over 110 million a decade ago. Currently, that is 125 million TV households. So, 55 million no longer have cable, and cord-cutting is accelerating. We are not going back.
This past season, ESPN averaged 17.36 million viewers for Monday Night Football (ESPN's NFL offering). Restated, 70 million people pay for ESPN, but only 17.36 million (~24%) watched the NFL on ESPN. Why? Again, they pay for cable and get ESPN even though they are not interested. And the cable company sends ESPN $9/month.
ESPN pays the NFL $2.7 billion/year for the MNF broadcast rights.
This works when the cable business model allows them to extract $9/month for 52 million households that do not watch MNF to pay these rights fees. But this business model is ending. So, $2.7 billion has to be paid by 17.26 million, or every football fan has to pay $155 to watch MNF. Is MNF that important to you?
Are they going to pay for it? See the post above on how they are trying to arbitrage YT by constantly subscribing and unsubscribing to save money. Doesn't sound like they are ready to spend hundreds of dollars a year to watch sports.
If sports fans are not going to pay these rights fees, the business model will change (over the next few years).
This means sports are at a crossroads. Sports fans have to pay up to get what they get now for "free," or leagues and colleges are about to get much less. Which will it be?
This story from yesterday answers this question.
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/streaming-venture-from-espn-fox-and-warner-blindsides-sports-leagues-e6c1fbcc
Streaming Venture From ESPN, Fox and Warner Blindsides Sports Leagues
NFL, NBA digest details of new platform looming over their businesses
Professional sports leagues including the National Football League and National Basketball Association were kept in the dark about the new sports-centric streaming service being launched by Walt Disney Co., Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, people familiar with the matter said.--
Why were they not told? Becuase they are not going to like it!
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 08, 2024, 06:32:26 PM
I agree with this, it will change the face of sports as we know it. Something has to give.
----
Is everyone here ready to spend $500+/year to watch sports?
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/espn-fox-and-warner-bros-discovery-to-launch-joint-sports-streaming-platform-this-year.html
While no price has been determined, a logical starting point could be $45 or $50 per month with introductory pricing lower to entice signups, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the discussions around the service have been private. A second person added that even with promotional pricing, the service will cost more than $30 per month.
They will have to cut sports off of cable/free TV to make this work, forcing you to buy this product to get sports and not "giving it away" anymore. Otherwise, what is the point of this effort?
And once you are done paying this for sports, do you have to pay more for other streaming services? So take your YT price and add $500+/year.
Because sports have a business model where 80% of their revenue comes from people who do not watch their product. Now those who watch sports will have to pay a lot to get the same thing.
---
In December 2023, ESPN had 70.34 million cable subscribers, each paying $~9/month, or $620 million/month,
https://www.sportstvratings.com/p/nielsens-december-cable-coverage
This is down from over 110 million a decade ago. Currently, that is 125 million TV households. So, 55 million no longer have cable, and cord-cutting is accelerating. We are not going back.
This past season, ESPN averaged 17.36 million viewers for Monday Night Football (ESPN's NFL offering). Restated, 70 million people pay for ESPN, but only 17.36 million (~24%) watched the NFL on ESPN. Why? Again, they pay for cable and get ESPN even though they are not interested. And the cable company sends ESPN $9/month.
ESPN pays the NFL $2.7 billion/year for the MNF broadcast rights.
This works when the cable business model allows them to extract $9/month for 52 million households that do not watch for MNF to pay these rights fees. But this business model is ending. So, $2.7 billion has to be paid by 17.26 million, or every football fan has to pay $155 to watch MNF. Is MNF that important to you?
Are they going to pay for it? See the post above on how they are trying to arbitrage YT by constantly subscribing and unsubscribing to save money. Doesn't sound like they are ready to spend hundreds of dollars a year to watch sports.
If sports fans are not going to pay these rights fees, the business model is going to change (over the next few years).
This means sports are at a crossroads. Either that has to get you to pay up, or leagues and colleges are about to get much less. Which will it be?
I think this from yesterday answers the story.
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/streaming-venture-from-espn-fox-and-warner-blindsides-sports-leagues-e6c1fbcc
Streaming Venture From ESPN, Fox and Warner Blindsides Sports Leagues
NFL, NBA digest details of new platform looming over their businesses
Professional sports leagues including the National Football League and National Basketball Association were kept in the dark about the new sports-centric streaming service being launched by Walt Disney Co., Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, people familiar with the matter said.
--
Why were they not told? Becuase they are not going to like it!
NFL next rights deal might be $20 billion now
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 08, 2024, 06:35:52 PM
NFL next rights deal might be $20 billion now
And who is paying for it? Will you spend $1,500/year to watch the NFL?
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 08, 2024, 06:37:51 PM
And who is paying for it? Will you spend $1,500/year to watch the NFL?
The networks
Doomed!
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 08, 2024, 06:35:52 PM
NFL next rights deal might be $20 billion now
The face of sports is changing, and if Rico is correct (he usually is not), and the NFL will get $20 billion in broadcast rights fees, we (sports fans) will have to pay as much as ticket prices to watch it on TV. See the highlight part below, and Rico, get your credit card out!
(To be clear, sports popularity is not going away, but their business model was to get everyone in the country to pay for their broadcast rights, even though the vast majority did not watch it. This is changing with streaming. Now, only those who watch it pay for it. That means sports fans have to start paying and paying for things they got "for free.")
----
Super Bowl Broadcast Is a Crossroads for CBS Sportshttps://dnyuz.com/2024/02/09/super-bowl-broadcast-is-a-crossroads-for-cbs-sports/
Still, nearly every media company is confronting soaring sports rights fees while trying to juggle challenges. Those include cord cutting, diminishing advertising revenue and streaming businesses that are bleeding cash. Three companies — Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox — announced on Tuesday that they would jointly begin a new sports streaming service this year, to better control their fate in a changing world. Paramount, however, will not be part of that service.
Like other media companies, Paramount, which also owns cable networks like Nickelodeon and MTV, has been hurt by cable television's decline. According to financial filings,
Paramount has committed to more than $30 billion in future payments, the vast majority for sports rights. That is more than what the stock market says Paramount is worth. The company's streaming service, Paramount+, lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year, and several analysts are skeptical whether it will even exist in its present form in a few years.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 09, 2024, 09:16:53 AM
The face of sports is changing, and if Rico is correct (he usually is not), and the NFL will get $20 billion in broadcast rights fees, we (sports fans) will have to pay as much as ticket prices to watch it on TV. See the highlight part above, and Rico, get your credit card out!
(To be clear, sports popularity is not going away, but their business model was to get everyone in the country to pay for their broadcast rights, even though the vast majority did not watch it. This is changing with streaming. Now, only those who watch it pay for it. That means sports fans have to start paying and paying for things they got "for free.")
----
Super Bowl Broadcast Is a Crossroads for CBS Sports
https://dnyuz.com/2024/02/09/super-bowl-broadcast-is-a-crossroads-for-cbs-sports/
Still, nearly every media company is confronting soaring sports rights fees while trying to juggle challenges. Those include cord cutting, diminishing advertising revenue and streaming businesses that are bleeding cash. Three companies — Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox — announced on Tuesday that they would jointly begin a new sports streaming service this year, to better control their fate in a changing world. Paramount, however, will not be part of that service.
Like other media companies, Paramount, which also owns cable networks like Nickelodeon and MTV, has been hurt by cable television's decline. According to financial filings, Paramount has committed to more than $30 billion in future payments, the vast majority for sports rights. That is more than what the stock market says Paramount is worth. The company's streaming service, Paramount+, lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year, and several analysts are skeptical whether it will even exist in its present form in a few years.
Every post you make the price a sports fan will pay per year is going up.
Quote from: wadesworld on February 09, 2024, 09:20:05 AM
Every post you make the price a sports fan will pay per year is going up.
Or the price to watch sports is not going up and up, and the leagues and conferences will have to deal with declining revenues. They are not built for this.
What happens if MU is a mainstay in the top 10 and the school cannot make money off it (because the BE TV rights deal crashes, along with all other TV rights deals)?
If I have to subscribe to a service for $10-$20 per month to see my games, I'll just abandon and find other stuff to do with my time, and I won't be alone.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 09, 2024, 09:16:53 AM
The face of sports is changing, and if Rico is correct (he usually is not), and the NFL will get $20 billion in broadcast rights fees, we (sports fans) will have to pay as much as ticket prices to watch it on TV. See the highlight part below, and Rico, get your credit card out!
(To be clear, sports popularity is not going away, but their business model was to get everyone in the country to pay for their broadcast rights, even though the vast majority did not watch it. This is changing with streaming. Now, only those who watch it pay for it. That means sports fans have to start paying and paying for things they got "for free.")
----
Super Bowl Broadcast Is a Crossroads for CBS Sports
https://dnyuz.com/2024/02/09/super-bowl-broadcast-is-a-crossroads-for-cbs-sports/
Still, nearly every media company is confronting soaring sports rights fees while trying to juggle challenges. Those include cord cutting, diminishing advertising revenue and streaming businesses that are bleeding cash. Three companies — Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox — announced on Tuesday that they would jointly begin a new sports streaming service this year, to better control their fate in a changing world. Paramount, however, will not be part of that service.
Like other media companies, Paramount, which also owns cable networks like Nickelodeon and MTV, has been hurt by cable television's decline. According to financial filings, Paramount has committed to more than $30 billion in future payments, the vast majority for sports rights. That is more than what the stock market says Paramount is worth. The company's streaming service, Paramount+, lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year, and several analysts are skeptical whether it will even exist in its present form in a few years.
Imagine, in the year 2024, thinking the NFL won't get what they want. They could have 32 Colin Kaepernick's making you cry and they'd still get what they want but sure, go ahead and tell us they won't. Your track record on these things is impeccable
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 09, 2024, 09:28:26 AM
They could have 32 Colin Kaepernick's making you cry and they'd still get what they want but sure, go ahead and tell us they won't.
I'd like to see a Venn diagram of the people who were never going to watch the NFL again after the kneeling and people who complain about Taylor being shown on TV for 24 seconds.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 09, 2024, 09:34:24 AM
I'd like to see a Venn diagram of the people who were never going to watch the NFL again after the kneeling and people who complain about Taylor being shown on TV for 24 seconds.
One of them is here telling us sports viewership is doomed.
The Super Bowl halftime show could have a billion drag queens reading to kids and it'll still be the most viewed event of the year
Quote from: Jockey on February 08, 2024, 10:22:23 AM
ESPN gets $12 for every cable subscriber. They ain't pullin' nothing.
Cable is done. It is a money losing business. The future is streaming.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 09, 2024, 09:26:46 AM
Or the price to watch sports is not going up and up, and the leagues and conferences will have to deal with declining revenues. They are not built for this.
What happens if MU is a mainstay in the top 10 and the school cannot make money off it (because the BE TV rights deal crashes, along with all other TV rights deals)?
TV prices/streaming services are the only things going up in price in this world. Everything else has stayed steady for decades. I paid $300/semester from 2007-2011 at MU. We just bought our house for $75K last year. Think I'll buy a $5 foot long from Subway for dinner and then get 3 items off the dollar menu at McDonald's for dinner. Everything is great, but I'll have to stop watching sports because that's going up.
Quote from: MU82 on February 07, 2024, 08:02:23 AM
As is always the case, prime will be of prime importance.
YouTube TV is $73/month and includes all the sports networks the new service does except ESPN+. It also includes a few sports networks the new service doesn't, such as CBS SportsNet, NBA Network, Golf Channel, etc. As well as numerous basic cable channels - AMC, FX, and so on.
If they charge $50 for the new service, would one rather pay $23 more and get all the other stuff? How about if they charge only $40?
YTTV is $82 a month.
The rexent critcism of YTTV is their price went from $35 in 2019, to $82 in 2023, while dropping several sports channels during that time.
They haven't had Sinclair/Ballys Sports Regionals in many years. They dropped MLB Network Tennis Channel etc...
There are several good things about YTTV but the above is not among them.
Quote from: Sandstone on February 09, 2024, 10:46:44 AM
YTTV is $82 a month.
The rexent critcism of YTTV is their price went from $35 in 2019, to $82 in 2023, while dropping several sports channels during that time.
They haven't had Sinclair/Ballys Sports Regionals in many years. They dropped MLB Network Tennis Channel etc...
There are several good things about YTTV but the above is not among them.
I'm looking right at the add that says $72.99/month - discounted to $62.99 for the first 3 months for new customers.
https://tv.youtube.com/welcome/
The rest of the stuff doesn't apply to me because I wasn't a subscriber when it was dirt cheap and had those channels.
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 09, 2024, 09:47:13 AM
Cable is done. It is a money losing business. The future is streaming.
Yes the future is streaming. No, cable is not done. The business is not losing money. Comcast gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $45.751B. Same story with Spectrum.
That will change in the future - but the future is still quite a ways off. As long as there is little difference in price, cable companies will be OK.
Quote from: Jockey on February 09, 2024, 12:53:30 PM
Yes the future is streaming. No, cable is not done. The business is not losing money. Comcast gross profit for the twelve months ending September 30, 2023 was $45.751B. Same story with Spectrum.
That will change in the future - but the future is still quite a ways off. As long as there is little difference in price, cable companies will be OK.
Effectively, cable exists for one reason: to deliver live sports. If that is changing starting this fall with sports streaming apps, then cable usefulness will quickly go the way of broadcast TV.
And, yes, there is no real point in building a $40 to $50/month sports streaming app if you leave live sports on cable to compete with it. So expect it, over time, sports to disappear from cable. (Maybe cable gets delayed replays)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/10/10/with-cord-cutting-cable-tv-industry-is-facing-financial-challenges/?sh=36e0484a756c
According to Nielsen, cable penetration reached its high-water mark in May 2011 when 90.7% of all TV households (105.1 million) had subscribed to cable television. Fast forward to September 2023, Nielsen counts 75.3 million multi-channel households accounting for 60.8% of all TV homes.
With the loss of subscribers, in
third quarter 2023, there were only three cable networks averaging over one million primetime viewers, Fox News, MSNBC and ESPN. Back in 2011, there had been 19 cable networks that surpassed an average audience of over one million primetime viewers.---
One of the few bright spots for cable television will continue to be live sports. S&P reports in 2022 ad revenue from live sports grew by 2.8% reaching $4.3 billion. For the 2023-24 upfront, with a writer's strike and a sluggish ad economy, live sports continued to be a popular genre with advertisers with reports of CPM increases in the +5% range. A number of live sports such as NFL Thursday Night Football, several MLB games each week and MLS among others are now exclusive to streaming platforms.
You're just as wrong on this as you are on everything else.
Less than 20% of pay-TV households watch ESPN for 3+ hours each month. I think it's in the 1-2% range that watch 12hours a month. The huge majority of people are not big sports fans.
So feel free to copy/paste a 2000 word essay in response - but you will still be wrong
Quote from: Jockey on February 09, 2024, 05:45:52 PM
You're just as wrong on this as you are on everything else.
Less than 20% of pay-TV households watch ESPN for 3+ hours each month. I think it's in the 1-2% range that watch 12hours a month. The huge majority of people are not big sports fans.
So feel free to copy/paste a 2000 word essay in response - but you will still be wrong
You just repeated what I said and called me wrong.
And why are you always do angry about everything?
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 10, 2024, 07:27:12 AM
You just repeated what I said and called me wrong.
And why are you always do angry about everything?
Then I guess we learned how much shorter your posts could be!
Quote from: Jockey on February 09, 2024, 05:45:52 PM
You're just as wrong on this as you are on everything else.
Less than 20% of pay-TV households watch ESPN for 3+ hours each month. I think it's in the 1-2% range that watch 12hours a month. The huge majority of people are not big sports fans.
So feel free to copy/paste a 2000 word essay in response - but you will still be wrong
Interesting. Then why do sports rights fees generate so much revenue for the leagues and conferences? If the huge majority are not sports fans, why do networks pay so much to air the games?
What advertiser wants to advertise on a program where a huge majority of viewers don't watch?
Interesting graphic on this topic from Yahoo Finance:
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emailimagecdnuyi.com%2Fehrlcg3uxs%2Fen_us%2Fimages%2F65c66b1adc4f8-1707502362.9024.jpg&t=1707580444&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1cee-820424010100&sig=TzNUFCpx8CGK98PimBH77w--~D)
Quote from: MU82 on February 10, 2024, 10:08:58 AM
Interesting graphic on this topic from Yahoo Finance:
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emailimagecdnuyi.com%2Fehrlcg3uxs%2Fen_us%2Fimages%2F65c66b1adc4f8-1707502362.9024.jpg&t=1707580444&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1cee-820424010100&sig=TzNUFCpx8CGK98PimBH77w--~D)
Finally, the woke NFL will go broke
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 10, 2024, 09:47:36 AM
Interesting. Then why do sports rights fees generate so much revenue for the leagues and conferences? If the huge majority are not sports fans, why do networks pay so much to air the games?
What advertiser wants to advertise on a program where a huge majority of viewers don't watch?
basically all of them
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 10, 2024, 09:47:36 AM
Interesting. Then why do sports rights fees generate so much revenue for the leagues and conferences? If the huge majority are not sports fans, why do networks pay so much to air the games?
What advertiser wants to advertise on a program where a huge majority of viewers don't watch?
Even if an NFL game does a 20 rating that means 80% of the people who were watching TV during that time were watching something else. AKA huge majority.
Quote from: 79Warrior on February 10, 2024, 09:47:36 AM
What advertiser wants to advertise on a program where a huge majority of viewers don't watch?
Well, lots. Why? Because live sports is the one thing that millions upon million of people watch without fast-forwarding through commercials. It's also an audience that can be targeted in specific ways. It's also an audience that has passion for the things it likes.
Which is why the bidding for rights just keeps going up.
Will it keep going up forever? I doubt it; nothing lasts forever. But for the foreseeable future, advertisers will keep going where they have a captive audience they want to reach.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 10, 2024, 11:25:19 AM
Even if an NFL game does a 20 rating that means 80% of the people who were watching TV during that time were watching something else. AKA huge majority.
Plus a lot of the population isn't even watching TV which brings that 20% much lower.
Quote from: Jockey on February 10, 2024, 01:10:57 PM
Plus a lot of the population isn't even watching TV which brings that 20% much lower.
Correct
A good breakdown of the new sports streaming service in this weekend's WSJ
Some passages are below. Here is the bottom line from an economic point of view.
--
The new streaming service will cover Disney (All ESPNs, ABC, ACC, SEC), Fox (Fox Networks, FS1, BTN) and Warner (TBS, TNT, TruTV)
It will cover about 55% of all sports streaming rights. It is expected to cost $40/$50 per month (after initial promotions to get sign-ups).
It will NOT include Peacock, Paramount, and Amazon (at least not yet). They also have NFL games. So, signing up for all these (new streaming services, Paramount, Peacock, and Amazon) will push $75 to $100 a month to get all the NFL and most other sports offerings. And, if you're into other sports (tennis, golf, European sports, local MLB, etc), this will be extra, up to $25 to $50/month, depending on how much you want.
To break even, the new streaming service will need 6 million people to sign up at $40/month. And if they get 6 million, this is the toll everyone else will have to pay to watch.
The price of tickets/parking/concessions to go to live sports events on a regular basis is priced for the top 10% in income or others that have to make serious sacrifices in other areas to budget for it.
Watching sports seems to be heading down this same road.
------
The Frantic Blitz to Figure Out Sports Streaming
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/disney-fox-warner-blitz-to-figure-out-sports-streaming-b5b8d8a9
Disney, Fox and Warner's venture to bundle live sports content—the latest hit to traditional cable packages—needs to cover high costs and keep leagues on board
The as-yet-unnamed service, expected to launch this fall, will carry 14 networks, including Disney's ESPN channels and its ABC network, Warner's TNT and TBS, and Fox's broadcast network and sports cable channel. The service will feature sports including the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, college football and basketball, golf and Nascar.
Now, the cable industry is reaching a tipping point: Only 73 million households subscribe to pay-TV, either through traditional distributors such as Comcast or internet versions of cable like YouTube TV, down from about 100 million a decade ago, according to MoffettNathanson. The rate of decline has picked up pace since streaming really started to take off in 2019, when multiple services beyond Netflix became popular.
Even with all the sports games the planned service will offer, it still won't be a complete, all-in-one sports platform, partly because Comcast's NBC and Paramount's CBS aren't part of the partnership. NFL fans would still need CBS to watch Sunday afternoon football, NBC's Peacock for Sunday night football and Amazon Prime Video to watch Thursday games.
The biggest losers in cable's collapse will likely be the owners of local TV stations and smaller entertainment networks, from A&E to AMC to Comedy Central and Syfy, that are the most dependent on cable TV. Shares of Scripps, owner of 61 local stations, are down 24% since the sports venture was announced.
By packaging together all the content, the companies are hoping they can bring in enough sports-first customers to make the economics work. Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall projected, based on various assumptions, that the service could break even if around six million subscribers paid at least $40 a month.
The companies are discussing a price that could approach $50 a month, people familiar with the situation said.
The collaboration by three giants to pool a huge amount of sports programming—Citi analysts peg it at 55% of U.S. sports rights—could draw antitrust scrutiny. Smaller rivals have already raised alarms.
I ain't reading all that. Very happy for you or very sad for you.
A little bit of a tangent for trailer trash like myself who don't have streaming or cable and it's on a FOX thing like FS1,etc..
Use foxsports.com , scroll to live stream options, view for their 60min trial....when out ( or at a convenient break), close window, clear all cache, and repeat.
Careful you don't end up in fox sports app rather than browser...no cache to easily clear.
Not sure if it works in duckduckgo or incognito browsers...haven't tried.
Anyway as I said, a trailer trash way of streaming most MU (FS1) games.
This should be good news for Big East contract negotiations, right? Now the football money is set, and Fox needs to go after other sports and hopefully differentiate with college basketball. Or is there another angle to these TV wheelings and dealings?
https://theathletic.com/5272749/2024/02/13/college-football-playoff-espn-media-rights-deal/?redirected=1&source=googlesearch&access_token=12973123
The only sport I watch entirely are MU basketball games. If the score is close I might watch the closing innings of a Yankee or Met game or the closing minutes of a Giant or Jets game. I don't follow pro Basketball or the NHL. I do watch March Madness and I just happened to catch the last play of the Super Bowl. So not much of a sports guy in my old age.
With this new streaming service are they pulling ESPN and FS off the cable and satellite providers? If not, I'll just keep watching DirecTV and since MSG is our local market my son-in-law can watch all his Ranger games.
OK, let's look very hard at cable and ask, are they really gone?
Cable was started for cities, like Dubuque, Iowa, that needed better television reception. It was originally CATV, or Community Antenna Television. Ted Turner and Time Warner morphed it into the monster it became in the 1980s through the 2010s.
For those of you who remember, cable was like what telephone was before 1982. There was one provider for much of the nation -- AT&T through its regional affiliates. Phone service lacked innovation and long-distance calls were ungodly expensive because they effectively subsidized universal service. Telephone service as we know it today would not have existed if a consent decree with the Justice Department had not occurred in 1982. That broke AT&T into pieces and effectively spurred innovation. Services were unbundled and then rebundled.
Technology did the same for cable. We now can have YouTube TV, which is an internet cable. We have an internet provider (mine, ironically, is AT&T) and we decide on our own what bundle of services we bring through the internet portal. What I expect to see from cable providers is that they become their own version of YouTube TV and offer their service over the internet the same way any other app would. For the sports consortium, this means either generating enough subscriptions to earn a market based rate of return after marketing and rights fees or the idea will fail.
For those of you who say, "I only watch this... or that..." the sports app is not for you. But I'm guessing they think there is enough demand nationally to warrant such a consortium.
One side note to all of the new apps: What does it mean for local television? Like what the internet did to local newspapers, I'm wondering how long it will be before local television starts dying. My children's generation hardly ever watches local television -- indeed, the apps to which they subscribe don't even carry it. How long will it be before Morgan and Morgan or Gruber Law pulls its ads from over-the-air stations and instead targets app programming? In Florida, if I see another "Legal in Florida" ad for Hard Rock Casino sports betting on Hulu or Amazon, I'm going to be sick!
Quote from: El Guerrero 2 on February 13, 2024, 02:08:54 PM
This should be good news for Big East contract negotiations, right? Now the football money is set, and Fox needs to go after other sports and hopefully differentiate with college basketball. Or is there another angle to these TV wheelings and dealings?
https://theathletic.com/5272749/2024/02/13/college-football-playoff-espn-media-rights-deal/?redirected=1&source=googlesearch&access_token=12973123
ESPN paid $600 million for the 2024 College Football playoffs this year. That was three games (two semifinals and the Championship). $200 million/game
Next year, the College Football playoffs will expand to 12 teams. That is 11 games. (4 first-round games with four byes, four quarterfinal games, two semifinal games, and the Championship). ESPN is paying $1.3 billion/year for all these games. $118 million/game.
Honest question: is this progress? Or is there a warning signal that broadcast rights are peaking?
And ... get your credit card out if you want to watch these names, probably in 2026. They will likely be on the new sports streaming service at $50/month.
Of course, Fox is already part of this new sports streaming service. So, in 2026, everyone here will happily pay $50/month from November to March ($250) to watch Big East/MU basketball ... right?
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 13, 2024, 05:39:05 PM
ESPN paid $600 million for the 2024 College Football playoffs this year. That was three games (two semifinals and the Championship). $200 million/game
Next year, the College Football playoffs will expand to 12 teams. That is 11 games. (4 first-round games with four byes, four quarterfinal games, two semifinal games, and the Championship). ESPN is paying $1.3 billion/year for all these games. $118 million/game.
Honest question: is this progress? Or is there a warning signal that broadcast rights are peaking?
And ... get your credit card out if you want to watch these names, probably in 2026. They will likely be on the new sports streaming service at $50/month.
Of course, Fox is already part of this new sports streaming service. So, in 2026, everyone here will happily pay $50/month from November to March ($250) to watch Big East/MU basketball ... right?
ESPN? I thought they went out of business
Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 13, 2024, 02:41:15 PM
With this new streaming service are they pulling ESPN and FS1 off the cable and satellite providers? If not, I'll just keep watching DirecTV and since MSG is our local market my son-in-law can watch all his Ranger games.
Not at all.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 13, 2024, 05:39:05 PM
ESPN paid $600 million for the 2024 College Football playoffs this year. That was three games (two semifinals and the Championship). $200 million/game
Next year, the College Football playoffs will expand to 12 teams. That is 11 games. (4 first-round games with four byes, four quarterfinal games, two semifinal games, and the Championship). ESPN is paying $1.3 billion/year for all these games. $118 million/game.
Honest question: is this progress? Or is there a warning signal that broadcast rights are peaking?
The first round and quarterfinals are less valuable properties. I also haven't seen when these games will be played, if there's any overlap, etc.
Quote from: Mr. Nielsen on February 13, 2024, 06:24:36 PM
Not at all.
Not initially, but the medium to longer-term plan is to exit cable and make sports fans pay the full freight via streaming subscriptions.
Quote from: Not A Serious Person on February 13, 2024, 06:57:52 PM
Not initially, but the medium to longer-term plan is to exit cable and make sports fans pay the full freight via streaming subscriptions.
I hope you and Scoop are still around to gloat in all your glory when you are finally, years from now, correct.
As peacock did with an NFL playoff game, I'm guessing more and more high profile events will be moved to exclusive streaming
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on February 13, 2024, 06:27:28 PM
The first round and quarterfinals are less valuable properties. I also haven't seen when these games will be played, if there's any overlap, etc.
First round Dec. 20-21 (NFL games also played on Dec. 21)
Fiesta Bowl | Quarterfinals Dec. 31
Peach, Rose, Sugar Bowl | Quarterfinals Jan. 1
Orange Bowl | Semifinals Jan. 9 (Thursday)
Cotton Bowl | Semifinals Jan. 10 (Friday)
Atlanta, GA | National Championship Jan. 20
Quote from: wadesworld on February 13, 2024, 07:02:54 PM
I hope you and Scoop are still around to gloat in all your glory when you are finally, years from now, correct.
Why do you think ESPN, Fox, and Time Warner are banding together to create a sports streaming service expected to cost $40/$50 per month? Because they are bored and have nothing better to do? Throwing something against the wall?
And you think they are going to create this streaming service with this subscription price tag and then leave all these sports properties on cable for a fraction of the price? They will during a transition period, but then we are all going to need hundreds of dollars a year to watch sports when they ditch cable and go full streaming behind a paywall. This is the point of this effort!
It is because cord-cutting is accelerating, and the "writing is on the wall" about cable? 11 years ago cable, effectively 100% of TV households had cable TV. It is less than 60% today, and cord-cutting is accelerating that percentage lower at the fastest rate ever.
Yes, the cable is never going away, but it is about to become as relevant (or should I have"irrelevant") as broadcast TV.
---
See the local TV operators Scripps (SSP) and Sinclair (SBGI) since the streaming service was announced last week. Their stocks have taken a big hit. Immediately, Sinclair, who owns the Tennis Channel, put it up for sale.
Change is coming, and someone has to pay the $1.3 billion/year for ESPN to broadcast the college playoffs. And if it is not going to be tens of millions that subscribe to cable and do not watch ESPN.
80% of cable subscribers do not watch sports regularly, but they all pay for it on their monthly bill. This business model has allowed sports broadcasting rights to swell into the stratosphere ... everyone pays for it.
Now, with streaming, the 20% that watch sports will have to pay 100% of the sports broadcast rights (once we cross the Rubicon and go full streaming).
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 13, 2024, 07:28:30 PM
As peacock did with an NFL playoff game, I'm guessing more and more high profile events will be moved to exclusive streaming
Yep
Right now, most streaming services are losing money. They see the NFL exclusives as a way to drive signs up for their service. It worked for Peacock.
Peacock's Streaming-Only NFL Wild Card Game Drove Record 2.8 Million Sign-Ups, Research Firm Estimates
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/peacock-signups-nfl-wild-card-game-chiefs-dolphins-1235885957/
Quote from: El Guerrero 2 on February 13, 2024, 02:08:54 PM
This should be good news for Big East contract negotiations, right? Now the football money is set, and Fox needs to go after other sports and hopefully differentiate with college basketball. Or is there another angle to these TV wheelings and dealings?
https://theathletic.com/5272749/2024/02/13/college-football-playoff-espn-media-rights-deal/?redirected=1&source=googlesearch&access_token=12973123
Why is the NFL and college football so popular, and every other sport more or less struggles?
Maybe the answer is as simple as gambling. The design of the NFL makes it perfect for endless gambling on prop bets down to the next play.
Basketball, baseball, and Hockey are not designed as well as the NFL for prop bets.
So, why does the NFL still think they can get huge sports rights? Gambling junkies will pay any price to get real-time access to the games to gamble on them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobgrubman/2022/02/11/nfl-ratings-rise-with-expansion-of-legal-sports-betting/?sh=7f8a3b6d5bc5
https://awfulannouncing.com/gambling/sports-betting-increase-nfl-ratings.html
----
Side note, another sport well designed for prop bets is tennis. While betting on tennis is not popular in the US, it is massively popular in Europe and Asia.
And Tennis has this problem (this is not a problem in the majors, but it is in the second and third-tier tournaments)...
Over 180 professional tennis players participated in a global match-fixing ring
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/1198675541/over-180-professional-tennis-players-participated-in-a-global-match-fixing-ring
Grigor started wondering whether there was a way to gamble on tennis that would guarantee the outcome of the wager. And what he learned as he did a little bit of research is that tennis players at the lowest tier of the sport make almost nothing. And once he figured out that these players were corruptible, that they were vulnerable to this sort of bribery, he grew the network from one player to more than 180 over the course of two or three years.
gambling on tennis has become. It's now a $50-billion-a-year industry. And it's not just people betting on the outcomes of matches. It's people betting on parts of very obscure matches, as you said, a point or a set or a game. And so Sargsyan was able to convince players that they didn't even need to lose an entire match. They could lose a game or a set, potentially still win the tournament if they guarantee the outcome of a part of that match. So that's what people refer to as spot fixing.
Quote from: Mr. Nielsen on February 13, 2024, 09:14:15 PM
First round Dec. 20-21 (NFL games also played on Dec. 21)
Fiesta Bowl | Quarterfinals Dec. 31
Peach, Rose, Sugar Bowl | Quarterfinals Jan. 1
Orange Bowl | Semifinals Jan. 9 (Thursday)
Cotton Bowl | Semifinals Jan. 10 (Friday)
Atlanta, GA | National Championship Jan. 20
Yeah. I can see right there why there's less per game value. Either conflicts, or avoiding conflicts with the NFL. Thanks.
Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on February 14, 2024, 04:22:59 AM
Yeah. I can see right there why there's less per game value. Either conflicts, or avoiding conflicts with the NFL. Thanks.
I can see a couple of Q-Finals outrate a semi as well, just for the fact that Q-Finals will be played on college football's day, NYD.