MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Not A Serious Person on May 19, 2023, 02:48:17 PM
-
How do networks make money? If you answer advertising, you need to update your understanding.
The majority of their revenues are cable fees. Your $100 or so bill includes the payment to every cable station in your bundle. They supplement it with advertising, but advertising alone is not enough to make them viable.
At the top of the heap is ESPN and Disney stations (including ABC). ESPN gets about $9/month per subscriber. They are considered the most important cable station.
This is why Disney has not offered it as a separate streaming service. Ditto ABC. (they offer ESPN+ but that is tons of stuff NOT offered on the networks of ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc).
Now that Disney is really struggling, it is desperate enough to abandon its defense of the cable model and go it alone by offering its content in streaming only.
May 19, 2023
Disney is reportedly laying the groundwork for its standalone ESPN streaming service
Unlike ESPN+, this service would include access to TV networks.
https://www.engadget.com/disney-is-reportedly-laying-the-groundwork-for-its-standalone-espn-streaming-service-172721356.html
If Disney does this, expect dozens of stories like this ....
May 9, 2023
MTV News to shut down as Paramount Media Networks slashes US workforce
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/media/mtv-news/index.html
A major Paramount division announced Tuesday it will shutter MTV News and slash its US workforce by 25%, bringing to an end the iconic music video network’s news division that once covered a range of issues from pop culture to politics and became a household name for Generation X and Millennial adolescents.
And two days later, we got this.
May 11, 2023
Did Tucker Carlson Just Kill Cable News?
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/11/tucker-carlson-kill-cable-news/
Cable television has long been on the decline, but Carlson’s announcement may be the beginning of the end for cable news as viewers ditch expensive cable packages for streaming services and social media-hosted content.
On today’s edition of the “Problematic Women” podcast, we discuss what Carlson’s announcement means for cable news and whether Carlson’s older fan base will follow him to Twitter.
Some here have argued that the older crowd will not follow him on Twitter. Maybe so. But if they do, Cable news is going to the way of MTV News. Everyone in the industry will be holding their breath.
-
Let Chicos know.
-
Haven't you started this topic a couple times already? Maybe just starting this every couple years? You'll be right eventually!
-
New news on this front. See the date of the links in my post.
Also, you should mute me
-
ESPN was always going to offer standalone service eventually. The holdups were their contracts with the cable companies.
-
From what I've read today, Disney has absolutely no date in mind to pull the plug on cable and go exclusively with streaming for ESPN. Cable/satellite is still a cash cow for the network, and about half of U.S. households still get their TV that way.
The switch will happen eventually, but it looks like it will be many, many years away -- Disney (and other major corporations with a piece of the action) will need to be convinced that will be the best way to make the most money.
-
Oh great. Another “Heisy-predicts-the-future” thread that will probably be laughably wrong.
-
From what I've read today, Disney has absolutely no date in mind to pull the plug on cable and go exclusively with streaming for ESPN. Cable/satellite is still a cash cow for the network, and about half of U.S. households still get their TV that way.
The switch will happen eventually, but it looks like it will be many, many years away -- Disney (and other major corporations with a piece of the action) will need to be convinced that will be the best way to make the most money.
I have never read that Disney wants to pull the plug on cable. I think they would prefer to have cable and standalone. I think cable is demise-ing about as much as cities are.
Disney and ESPN have begun laying the groundwork to begin selling the premium sports network as a standalone, direct-to-consumer option. ESPN would continue to offer its channel through cable providers, but they have been negotiating contacts with carriers to allow for the streaming spin-off. Right now, those contracts prevent ESPN from a full streaming service. This could really help decrease cable's share as consumers are tired of paying for TV bundles. But an awful lot of people would still like to get cable w/out ESPN and its almost $10 a month cost. For people where sports is the main attraction, though, this would be game over, as the price of ESPN as a standalone service (or bundles with Disney # HULU) would be way cheaper than cable.
-
As long as I can watch MUMBB from home by some method I will be happy.
-
I have never read that Disney wants to pull the plug on cable. I think they would prefer to have cable and standalone. I think cable is demise-ing about as much as cities are.
Disney and ESPN have begun laying the groundwork to begin selling the premium sports network as a standalone, direct-to-consumer option. ESPN would continue to offer its channel through cable providers, but they have been negotiating contacts with carriers to allow for the streaming spin-off. Right now, those contracts prevent ESPN from a full streaming service. This could really help decrease cable's share as consumers are tired of paying for TV bundles. But an awful lot of people would still like to get cable w/out ESPN and its almost $10 a month cost. For people where sports is the main attraction, though, this would be game over, as the price of ESPN as a standalone service (or bundles with Disney # HULU) would be way cheaper than cable.
Good post.
-
As long as I can watch MUMBB from home by some method I will be happy.
Over the last couple months, I’ve finally admitted to myself that the main thing keeping me paying a ridiculous amount of money for cable is being able to watch every MU basketball game. What “legal” non-cable ways do people use to watch MU games?
-
Over the last couple months, I’ve finally admitted to myself that the main thing keeping me paying a ridiculous amount of money for cable is being able to watch every MU basketball game. What “legal” non-cable ways do people use to watch MU games?
YouTube TV (or any other live TV streaming service). No contract, drop in April, start back up again in Nov. Of course, their pricing is now pretty much like cable, but since I don't pay for it 6 months of the year, it is a better value (for me).
I guess you also need a smart TV, or streaming stick. But if you don't already, you should really get one of those :)
-
YouTube TV (or any other live TV streaming service). No contract, drop in April, start back up again in Nov. Of course, their pricing is now pretty much like cable, but since I don't pay for it 6 months of the year, it is a better value (for me).
I guess you also need a smart TV, or streaming stick. But if you don't already, you should really get one of those :)
This is the way
-
As long as I can watch MUMBB from home by some method I will be happy.
How much a month are you willing to pay for MUMBB?
-
How much a month are you willing to pay for MUMBB?
*mubb
-
*mubb
*mubb - *muwbb = broads where they belong
-
*mubb - *muwbb = broads where they belong
Only racists would call a woman a broad
-
Only racists would call a woman a broad
I hate white people
-
I hate white people
Classic lib
-
Classic lib
Pure commie
-
SVOD revenue is on pace to equal pay TV by 2027. It's not possible for ESPN to survive in its current form with a DTC model. The numbers don't add up. They'd have to charge each subscriber at least $50 a month to even think about the possibility of profitability, and there aren't enough advertising $$ out there to make up the difference. Even in a great year for advertising, it's at most, 40% of most cable network's revenue. The majority of the $$ comes from subscriber fees. Typically it's about a 65/35 ratio.
The bundle was one of the greatest business models ever created in the history of business. It was great while it lasted, but it's dying a slow death and by 2030 at the latest it will be history.
Some speculate that the bundle will live on in streaming much like You Tube TV. Depending on the degree of subscriber fatigue, that's a possibility, but Porky doesn't think it's all that likely. The domino effect that this will have on sports rights will be significant.
Even with tech players like Apple and Amazon vying for rights, they can't make any money on them either. What they can do (at least for now) is absorb the losses much more easily than traditional media companies can, since TV for the AMZ's and Apple's of the world is not their primary business......just a hobby subsidized by their other much more lucrative businesses.
Porky works in the cable TV business and has provided some trade articles about this for scoopers that are interested.
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/385778/svod-revenue-will-nearly-match-pay-tv-by-2027-but.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=130418&hashid=Oj7wpu1qSguBYxQSF9-O4w
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/385566/wbds-zaslav-rival-streamers-must-bundle-or-be-tr.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=130418&hashid=Oj7wpu1qSguBYxQSF9-O4w
-
The bundle will be diminished, but it will continue for a long time yet.
I also dispute your numbers. While $$$ will go down significantly in the 5-10 years on bundles, it will be made up on the standalone streaming for the most part.
-
The bundle will be diminished, but it will continue for a long time yet.
I also dispute your numbers. While $$$ will go down significantly in the 5-10 years on bundles, it will be made up on the standalone streaming for the most part.
Retired underwear guy tells guy in the cable TV industry that he's wrong based on the undies guy's feelings.
-
Retired underwear guy tells guy in the cable TV industry that he's wrong based on the undies guy's feelings.
Well, when ESPN redoes all their expiring contracts in the next few years, we’ll see who is right.
-
Ditched cable in November and have mixed reviews.
Positive: No wiring for TVs. As long as I have an outlet, I have a fully functioning TV. No rental cable boxes. High-speed internet and streaming (YouTubeTV), about 2/3rds of my Comcast bill. Oh, and I'll get the entire NFL package this fall. Also get the Palm Beach television stations. Still get almost every Marquette game (most important of all!). Also get the Milwaukee and Chicago TV station news, which I didn't get before.
Negatives: No regional sports channels. Channels are not numbered for easy access. No MeTV. Fear this rate I pay now is the bottom of a very large valley soon to climb a mountain. By the time I add all the apps I want, I may end up paying more than I did for cable. Sticking to what I need for now.
There is a convenience factor to cable that streaming can't match. My suspicion is that Comact will drop prices at some point and stream their service. In effect, cable-free cable. I would expect this would take the local regulatory requirement out of my television (YEAHHHH!) but will alow me to build the television package I want for what I would pay for cable -- or less!
-
Ditched cable in November and have mixed reviews.
Positive: No wiring for TVs. As long as I have an outlet, I have a fully functioning TV. No rental cable boxes. High-speed internet and streaming (YouTubeTV), about 2/3rds of my Comcast bill. Oh, and I'll get the entire NFL package this fall. Also get the Palm Beach television stations. Still get almost every Marquette game (most important of all!). Also get the Milwaukee and Chicago TV station news, which I didn't get before.
Negatives: No regional sports channels. Channels are not numbered for easy access. No MeTV. Fear this rate I pay now is the bottom of a very large valley soon to climb a mountain. By the time I add all the apps I want, I may end up paying more than I did for cable. Sticking to what I need for now.
There is a convenience factor to cable that streaming can't match. My suspicion is that Comact will drop prices at some point and stream their service. In effect, cable-free cable. I would expect this would take the local regulatory requirement out of my television (YEAHHHH!) but will alow me to build the television package I want for what I would pay for cable -- or less!
I also have YouTubeTV and I would never count myself among the cord cutters or describe myself as someon who ditched cable. I moved cable companies, so did you. YouTube TV is paying subs rates to ESPN, etc. Whether its Xfinity, Spectrum, DISH, Directv, Hulu or YouTubeTV ---- those are all cable. They all pay sub rates to ESPN etc.
-
You went from cable to streaming.
-
Ditched cable in November and have mixed reviews.
Positive: No wiring for TVs. As long as I have an outlet, I have a fully functioning TV. No rental cable boxes. High-speed internet and streaming (YouTubeTV), about 2/3rds of my Comcast bill. Oh, and I'll get the entire NFL package this fall. Also get the Palm Beach television stations. Still get almost every Marquette game (most important of all!). Also get the Milwaukee and Chicago TV station news, which I didn't get before.
Negatives: No regional sports channels. Channels are not numbered for easy access. No MeTV. Fear this rate I pay now is the bottom of a very large valley soon to climb a mountain. By the time I add all the apps I want, I may end up paying more than I did for cable. Sticking to what I need for now.
There is a convenience factor to cable that streaming can't match. My suspicion is that Comact will drop prices at some point and stream their service. In effect, cable-free cable. I would expect this would take the local regulatory requirement out of my television (YEAHHHH!) but will alow me to build the television package I want for what I would pay for cable -- or less!
You can probably get MeTV through an antenna. Old fart.
-
Ditched cable in November and have mixed reviews.
Positive: No wiring for TVs. As long as I have an outlet, I have a fully functioning TV. No rental cable boxes. High-speed internet and streaming (YouTubeTV), about 2/3rds of my Comcast bill. Oh, and I'll get the entire NFL package this fall. Also get the Palm Beach television stations. Still get almost every Marquette game (most important of all!). Also get the Milwaukee and Chicago TV station news, which I didn't get before.
Negatives: No regional sports channels. Channels are not numbered for easy access. No MeTV. Fear this rate I pay now is the bottom of a very large valley soon to climb a mountain. By the time I add all the apps I want, I may end up paying more than I did for cable. Sticking to what I need for now.
There is a convenience factor to cable that streaming can't match. My suspicion is that Comact will drop prices at some point and stream their service. In effect, cable-free cable. I would expect this would take the local regulatory requirement out of my television (YEAHHHH!) but will alow me to build the television package I want for what I would pay for cable -- or less!
dgies9156:
I get my MeTv using a digital antenna.
If you are in Vero you should be able to get Orlando station WESH (channel 2.2) for MeTV over the air this way.
-
dgies9156:
I get my MeTv using a digital antenna.
If you are in Vero you should be able to get Orlando station WESH (channel 2.2) for MeTV over the air this way.
I'll give it a try but we are 90+ miles from Orlando's television towers.
-
You went from cable to streaming.
YouTubeTV is cable. It’s delivered differently but it’s cable in the sense that it offers users every 100+ networks plus your OTAs.
The only reason select RSN’s aren’t offered is because they haven’t agreed to terms.
Streaming is receiving networks on a one to one delivery: buying Peacock to get NBC Universal content, buying Paramount to get CBS content, etc.
-
Ditched cable in November and have mixed reviews.
Positive: No wiring for TVs. As long as I have an outlet, I have a fully functioning TV. No rental cable boxes. High-speed internet and streaming (YouTubeTV), about 2/3rds of my Comcast bill. Oh, and I'll get the entire NFL package this fall. Also get the Palm Beach television stations. Still get almost every Marquette game (most important of all!). Also get the Milwaukee and Chicago TV station news, which I didn't get before.
Negatives: No regional sports channels. Channels are not numbered for easy access. No MeTV. Fear this rate I pay now is the bottom of a very large valley soon to climb a mountain. By the time I add all the apps I want, I may end up paying more than I did for cable. Sticking to what I need for now.
There is a convenience factor to cable that streaming can't match. My suspicion is that Comact will drop prices at some point and stream their service. In effect, cable-free cable. I would expect this would take the local regulatory requirement out of my television (YEAHHHH!) but will alow me to build the television package I want for what I would pay for cable -- or less!
The advantage of streaming is sharing costs of one account with multiple people in multiple locations.One YTTV can have 3 locations streaming at the same time and 5 people on the account. The other advantage is add/drop any time without a big hassle or service interruption.
Costs have gone up a lot in a short amount of time. 4 short years ago YTTV was $35 a month vs $82 a month now. And in that time it dropped RSN very quickly many years ago never to return. And more recently it dropped MLB Network. Similar to cable and satellite, the majority of viewers are not the sports people wanting these channels.
Ways to overcome some of these thngs are getting some of those sports elsewhere. Example: T-Mobile customers will have free access to all out of market MLB games for the next half dozen years. You must sign up at the the time of the annual offer. Blackouts apply for the local market team. Efforts have been made to eliminate them in the future. We'll see. Not yet. T-Mobile also provides free access to all MLS games as well on Apple.
ESPN's app is $10 a month divided over multiple locations and includes massive amounts of college sports and pro. This is where Marquette's (Big East).FloSports deal is not helpful by comparison.
YTTV is pushing their recent rights to NFL Sunday Ticket.
While YTTV has a better layout, unlimited recording, ease of use than most. local market channels etc....it's still something for some to add/drop when needed, especially for those seeking certain sports channels at certain times of the year.
They had great customer service years ago prior to the pandemic. Not since.
-
YouTubeTV is cable. It’s delivered differently but it’s cable in the sense that it offers users every 100+ networks plus your OTAs.
The only reason select RSN’s aren’t offered is because they haven’t agreed to terms.
Streaming is receiving networks on a one to one delivery: buying Peacock to get NBC Universal content, buying Paramount to get CBS content, etc.
Nonsense.
-
Nonsense.
It's OK Wedgie, just admit you are old and don't understand this new fangled stuff.
-
It's OK Wedgie, just admit you are old and don't understand this new fangled stuff.
Brother Fryboy:
I'm "old", or so many in here would say, and I understand the technology well.
We Boomers invented it!!!!!!
Sometimes we get a little flustered but when we figure out what it does, we embrace it.
Except for Ms. Dgies, but that's another story!
-
YouTubeTV is cable. It’s delivered differently but it’s cable in the sense that it offers users every 100+ networks plus your OTAs.
The only reason select RSN’s aren’t offered is because they haven’t agreed to terms.
Streaming is receiving networks on a one to one delivery: buying Peacock to get NBC Universal content, buying Paramount to get CBS content, etc.
You define "cable" not by the means of delivery after which it was named, i.e. cable, but by the content providers?'
So, if I'm using my phone to watch a game ESPN, I'm watching cable TV? But if I'm watching another game on ABC, I'm watching over-the-air? And if I'm watching another show on the Roku Channel, I'm streaming?
-
YouTubeTV has 6 million subscribers. Which means they are paying ESPN approximately $60,000,000 a month --- and over $700,000,000 a year.
This is revenue that ESPN is getting from one source. This model is the exact opposite of streaming.
-
You define "cable" not by the means of delivery after which it was named, i.e. cable, but by the content providers?'
So, if I'm using my phone to watch a game ESPN, I'm watching cable TV? But if I'm watching another game on ABC, I'm watching over-the-air? And if I'm watching another show on the Roku Channel, I'm streaming?
I define cable as any service that offers a consumer essentially every channel and pays those netorks a carriage fee. That is the cable model. ESPN doesn't care how it's delivered. They care that some group is buying 6 million households / month. YouTubeTV is no different to ESN than Dish, DirecTV or Spectrum.
-
Brother Fryboy:
I'm "old", or so many in here would say, and I understand the technology well.
We Boomers invented it!!!!!!
Sometimes we get a little flustered but when we figure out what it does, we embrace it.
Except for Ms. Dgies, but that's another story!
No you, dgie. Rather our resident know-nothing tightie whitie curmudgeon.
-
YouTubeTV has 6 million subscribers. Which means they are paying ESPN approximately $60,000,000 a month --- and over $700,000,000 a year.
This is revenue that ESPN is getting from one source. This model is the exact opposite of streaming.
I can go on vacation and YTTV GOES WITH ME. Try that with cable!
That is the difference between cable and streaming. One is hard wired. The other is portable over the web. The package or carriage fees have nothing to do with anything other than cost.
Maybe Ziggy can give us his rocket surgeon take on this.
-
I can go on vacation and YTTV GOES WITH ME. Try that with cable!
That is the difference between cable and streaming. One is hard wired. The other is portable over the web. The package or carriage fees have nothing to do with anything other than cost.
Maybe Ziggy can give us his rocket surgeon take on this.
Don’t virtually all the cable networks offer streaming option now?
-
Jockey is correct in that YTTV is streaming by definition and thus is not cable.
Lens is correct in that YTTV does everything cable does just with a different delivery method.
The things yall get bent out of shape over is something
-
Don’t virtually all the cable networks offer streaming option now?
Yes. You just have to authenticate through your provider, meaning you already have a subscription. Not everyone does but most do. For example, you can live stream MSNBC, CNN or Fox News Channel through their home pages or apps, even if you're not a direct to consumer subscriber. Just select your provider and use the same password to pay your cable bill and you're good to go.
-
Jockey is correct in that YTTV is streaming by definition and thus is not cable.
Lens is correct in that YTTV does everything cable does just with a different delivery method.
The things yall get bent out of shape over is something
Don't think of it as Cable vs Streaming. Think of it as Linear vs. Digital. There is traditional linear TV (aka cable and broadcast), and streaming (aka SVOD or Subscription Video On-Demand) with on-demand being a key difference between YTTV and services like Max, Hulu, Paramount +, etc.
At the end of the day, YTTV is traditional linear television in that you're watching TV in the traditional way with set schedules and commercial breaks that are exactly the same as what the viewer sees on cable. Yes it has the advantage of portability that traditional cable doesn't, so you can port all channels instead of having to authenticate individual channels through your traditional provider, but from a financial standpoint, the YTTV model is the same as cable and they compensate content companies the exact same way cable companies do, as LENS correctly points out.
-
Don't think of it as Cable vs Streaming. Think of it as Linear vs. Digital. There is traditional linear TV (aka cable and broadcast), and streaming (aka SVOD or Subscription Video On-Demand) with on-demand being a key difference between YTTV and services like Max, Hulu, Paramount +, etc.
At the end of the day, YTTV is traditional linear television in that you're watching TV in the traditional way with set schedules and commercial breaks that are exactly the same as what the viewer sees on cable. Yes it has the advantage of portability that traditional cable doesn't, so you can port all channels instead of having to authenticate individual channels through your traditional provider, but from a financial standpoint, the YTTV model is the same as cable and they compensate content companies the exact same way cable companies do, as LENS correctly points out.
Yes, I think everyone knows what Lens meant and I think everyone knows what Jockey met. Yet we still needed to have a fight over vocabulary.
-
Yes, I think everyone knows what Lens meant and I think everyone knows what Jockey met. Yet we still needed to have a fight over vocabulary.
The only reason I continued to fight is when we talk about the end of Cable TV, YTTV is actually helping save the cable model that has propped up so many cable stations rather than put a nail in their coffin. Cord cutters are "killing cable" and to be a cord cutter you need to be buying your content on a one to one basis, not via bulk like you do with YTTV.
-
For now, content aggregators will continue to offer cable options. The key is the ability to offer local television stations as part of your aggregation. YouTube TV works for us because they have Palm Beach stations or, when in Chicago, Chicago stations. I admit it's amusing when I can get WTMJ and WMAQ in South Florida.
Eventually, probably at least 10 years out, the aggregators will give way to apps and customized programming experiences. The costs of such apps will be per app and people will pick and choose what they want. The good news for me is such things as Telemundo, the Concrete Channel or LaCrosse Network or local programming TV no longer will be a part of my required mix. In short I get rid of junk that's required by local ordinance or some package deal an aggregator offers.
The bad news is the cost on an all-in basis will be higher. I would hope future televisions would have a program that organizes your apps for you more easily than what we see today (yes, I know, Roku does that!). For programming, the interesting question will be how many of these apps survive. Yeah, if Zombie Sports had all my Marquette games, I'd buy for six or eight months and then ditch it when they start carrying the West Allis Tidily Winks League. The majors -- yeah, I get it -- Fox Sports, ESPN, Home & Garden, Food, History, Disney etc., will be around. But, can some smaller networks survive?
And the big question is, "What happens to local televisions stations?" Down here, they'd be dead now were it not for sleazy lawyers, car dealers, furniture shops, funeral homes, hospitals and Medicare supplement insurance.
-
I'll give it a try but we are 90+ miles from Orlando's television towers.
My HD antenna that I use for camping is rated to 250mi.
Just spend properly!
-
The things yall get bent out of shape over is something
You're new here, aren't you?
Yes, I think everyone knows what Lens meant and I think everyone knows what Jockey met. Yet we still needed to have a fight over vocabulary.
You're really new here, aren't you?
-
Alright what do you call it when I'm watching YTTV at home on wifi that's connected to a cable modem?
-
Alright what do you call it when I'm watching YTTV at home on wifi that's connected to a cable modem?
Stoned.