Jersey Ads to MLB Speculation

[Sec19Row53]

49 minutes ago, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

Sports on TV might be doing good for now but who knows in 10-20 years if fans will begin to tune out of watching sports on TV too.  If that happens the leagues are in a lot of trouble.  The RSNs that MLB, NBA and NHL depend on would be the hardest hit especially since people are cutting the cord like no other.  

But they DON'T depend on RSNs. The bulk of the money comes from national TV contracts. Cord cutting, yes. But still THE BIGGEST source of income.

[BC985]

2 hours ago, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

I could see a scenario where the RSN's will have to let people buy a streaming service for that particular RSN or they might have to rely more heavily on the streaming services that each league has; for example end blackouts on those streaming platforms for the home team.  For example; someone that lives in Yuma,AZ that has mlb.tv wont get blacked out of seeing Dback games live on the service.  

 

As a cord cutter myself, I wish they would. I would buy a subscription to Fox Sports Midwest instantly. I imagine they aren’t allowed to do this per their contracts with cable companies. 

[BC985]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

But they DON'T depend on RSNs. The bulk of the money comes from national TV contracts. Cord cutting, yes. But still THE BIGGEST source of income.

 

Have you read up on ESPN? They have these huge contract obligations to pro and college sports and are suffering with their dwindling subscriber base. The big networks will be negotiating smaller contracts in the future because they won’t be able to afford the current big deals anymore. Disney+ might help with that, but we have to see their subscriber count first. 

[Sec19Row53]

25 minutes ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

Have you read up on ESPN? They have these huge contract obligations to pro and college sports and are suffering with their dwindling subscriber base. The big networks will be negotiating smaller contracts in the future because they won’t be able to afford the current big deals anymore. Disney+ might help with that, but we have to see their subscriber count first. 

"TV contracts are going to shrink" has the same validity in my mind as "soccer is going to be the next big sport in the US (circa 1980)"

 

In other words -- I'm not buying it.

[BC985]

10 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

"TV contracts are going to shrink" has the same validity in my mind as "soccer is going to be the next big sport in the US (circa 1980)"

 

In other words -- I'm not buying it.

 

Can easily do this. Reduce the number of games they are willing to show, and they don’t have to pay as much. 

 

https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/espn-disney-channel-subscriber-losses-2018-1203035003/

 

Their streaming platform is a smart idea IMO, I subscribe for MLS myself, but it is still coming along. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/disney-says-espn-has-2-million-paid-subscribers-but-is-losing-money.html

 

 

[BadSeed84]

They could go back to showing games on broadcast channels. Like the Phillies used to have sunday games on PHL-17.

[dfwabel]

1500 Higgins Rd Park Ridge, Illinois 60068

1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

Have you read up on ESPN? They have these huge contract obligations to pro and college sports and are suffering with their dwindling subscriber base. The big networks will be negotiating smaller contracts in the future because they won’t be able to afford the current big deals anymore. Disney+ might help with that, but we have to see their subscriber count first. 

Tell that to Fox Corporation aka "New FOX". They no longer have a TV production side in-house and are betting on live sports and reality shows. Live sports is DVR-proof.

[The_Admiral]

27 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

1500 Higgins Rd Park Ridge, Illinois 60068

 

Is that the old Big Ten headquarters?

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

Can easily do this. Reduce the number of games they are willing to show, and they don’t have to pay as much. 

Hmmm - let's willingly broadcast fewer games so we make less money.

 

Said no one other than Bill Wertz.

[BC985]

3 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Hmmm - let's willingly broadcast fewer games so we make less money.

 

Said no one other than Bill Wertz.

 

To spend less money. That’s the issue they are grappling with. Fewer cable subscribers means lower revenues and fewer eyes on your product. Advertisers watch this too. I’m not an expert, but I would be interested to know if they have pushed back on advertising rates. If you’re ESPN, and you’ve paid a huge sum to broadcast a league, but aren’t able to turn a profit, you have to consider your relationship with that league. The leagues have demanded billions of dollars. In-house produced programming is much cheaper. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/sports/football/monday-night-football-tv-ratings-espn.html

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/just-admit-the-nba-deal-is-screwing-you-espn_b_58d98250e4b0e6062d92300f

[BC985]

52 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

1500 Higgins Rd Park Ridge, Illinois 60068

Tell that to Fox Corporation aka "New FOX". They no longer have a TV production side in-house and are betting on live sports and reality shows. Live sports is DVR-proof.

 

Sports being DVR proof is a popular opinion, but TV ratings have been a concern for most sports. The NFL had a 5% increase in 2018 after two years of decline.

 

I can’t speak for everyone, but as a cord cutter, I’ll find somewhere to go for a marquee game. Outside that, you can find game highlights for free the next day. That doesn’t even mention the illegal streaming sites that exist. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/media/nfl-ratings-2018-season/index.html

 

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/04/nba-regular-season-viewership-mixed/

 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2019/07/mlb-all-star-game-was-a-big-tv-hit-in-cleveland-but-national-ratings-were-down.html

 

 

 

 

[Gothamite]

5 minutes ago, Brandon9485 said:

Sports being DVR proof is a popular opinion, but TV ratings have been a concern for most sports. The NFL had a 5% increase in 2018 after two years of decline.

 

Which kinda disproves your point.  Ratings go down, ratings go up.  It’s not like they’re on an inevitable spiral downward.  Even your own New York Times article ends with the story of unexpectedly high ratings for a game everyone wrote off in advance.

 

5 minutes ago, Brandon9485 said:

I can’t speak for everyone, but as a cord cutter, I’ll find somewhere to go for a marquee game.

 

I cut my cord nearly a decade ago.  But your experience and mine aren’t universal, and we should be wary of thinking we can extrapolate any evidence from our own anecdotes. 

[BC985]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

 

Which kinda disproves your point.  Ratings go down, ratings go up.  It’s not like they’re on an inevitable spiral downward.  Even your own New York Times article ends with the story of unexpectedly high ratings for a game everyone wrote off in advance.

 

 

I cut my cord nearly a decade ago.  But your experience and mine aren’t universal, and we should be wary of thinking we can extrapolate any evidence from our own anecdotes. 

 

I also gave the NFL credit for having a ratings increase. That doesn’t disprove the point that was spelled out by the New York Times and Huffington Post. ESPN is struggling to get the return they wanted on the product they paid for.  What should ESPN do when those contracts expire? I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that they will be looking to pay less for broadcasting rights. That has an affect on leagues, teams, and players as well.

 

I used myself as just an example in regards to options outside live television. I did preface with saying that I am not trying to speak for everyone. 

[Gothamite]

7 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

ESPN is struggling to get the return they wanted on the product they paid for.

 

NBC and CBS, however, are not.  Your articles are all about ESPN overpaying for one contract, not the NFL struggling. 

[BC985]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

NBC and CBS, however, are not.  Your articles are all about ESPN overpaying for one contract, not the NFL struggling. 

 

Overpaying for 2 contracts. The NBA is in there too. My thesis is that due to societal changes in media consumption, cord cutting, major sport leagues could eventually see a drop in revenues because their broadcasting rights might not be seen as valuable as they have been in the past. 

[Gothamite]

If that’s really your thesis, the articles you post aren’t exactly supporting it.

 

One network, desperate to stay relevant, overpays for rights.  Trying to extrapolate that out to the entire industry, or using it to speculate about rights payments in the future, is a fool’s errand. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Live sports is DVR-proof.

 

People say this, but I cannot remember the last sporting event that I did not watch on DVR (or on YouTube as a completed, rather than live-streamed, event). As long as I have avoided spoilers, it's "live" for me. 

 

Still, I am glad that enough people value watching it live to keep rights fees up.

 

Also, let me admit right here that I do not get cord cutters. Having to have a separate app for every channel you want is not an advancement or an Improvement. It might cost you less, but you will miss out on plenty. I discovered shows on the channels Pop and truTV simply by scanning the grid or flipping channels. If I did not have a cable package, and had to have each channel's app in order to see it, I would never have known about such great shows as Schitt's Creek and Impractical Jokers.

 

Regarding sports, the channel Stadium recently appeared on my system. Only by happening upon that channel did I discover how much I enjoy watching the sport of ultimate, as Stadium carries the AUDL (in which the New York Empire are having a brilliant season). The games of that league, as well as those of the MLL, which is also shown on Stadium, are examples of games that I have watched lately on DVR, as are the games of the NAL's New York Streets on the MSG Network and CFL games on ESPN. They're all "live" for me.

[beachperroAZ]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

People say this, but I cannot remember the last sporting event that I did not watch on DVR (or on YouTube as a completed, rather than live-streamed, event). As long as I have avoided spoilers, it's "live" for me. 

 

Still, I am glad that enough people value watching it live to keep rights fees up.

 

Also, let me admit right here that I do not get cord cutters. Having to have a separate app for every channel you want is not an advancement or an Improvement. It might cost you less, but you will miss out on plenty. I discovered shows on the channels Pop and truTV simply by scanning the grid or flipping channels. If I did not have a cable package, and had to have each channel's app in order to see it, I would never have known about such great shows as Schitt's Creek and Impractical Jokers.

 

Regarding sports, the channel Stadium recently appeared on my system. Only by happening upon that channel did I discover how much I enjoy watching the sport of ultimate, as Stadium carries the AUDL (in which the New York Empire are having a brilliant season). The games of that league, as well as those of the MLL, which is also shown on Stadium, are examples of games that I have watched lately on DVR, as are the games of the NAL's New York Streets on the MSG Network and CFL games on ESPN. They're all "live" for me.

Over the past decade since I cut the cord I have been able to subscribe to MLB.tv first paying out of pocket and then eventually my carrier t-mobile started offering it for free.  I used to be a huge NHL & world soccer fan.  Because of my cord cutting my habits changed and I eventually pruned my sports tree to just the sports I could access through apps, pirated or OTA TV.  If there is a game I cannot access I just watch something else or if it is that important go to a restaurant or sports bar where it is on.  So in essence I have watched a lot less NHL & world soccer leagues and have not missed it one bit.  If the Seahawks are not on locally here in Arizona I simply go out on hikes and spend time with family since fall is when we can finally spend time outdoors without suffering repressive heat.  

[beachperroAZ]

18 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

But they DON'T depend on RSNs. The bulk of the money comes from national TV contracts. Cord cutting, yes. But still THE BIGGEST source of income.

The NFL does not depend on RSNs but the vast majority of the NBA, NHL,MLS and MLB do depend on that.  The NFL mostly being on OTA will be solid for a very long time despite the ratings fall in 2016-2017.  The Fox's of the world only put Dodgers, Yankees,Cubs & Red Sox on their games of the week while the rest of the league is mostly on RSN's.  ESPN puts a little more variety on MLB teams on.  

[Sec19Row53]

40 minutes ago, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

The NFL does not depend on RSNs but the vast majority of the NBA, NHL,MLS and MLB do depend on that.  The NFL mostly being on OTA will be solid for a very long time despite the ratings fall in 2016-2017.  The Fox's of the world only put Dodgers, Yankees,Cubs & Red Sox on their games of the week while the rest of the league is mostly on RSN's.  ESPN puts a little more variety on MLB teams on.  

Nope. Fees from national contracts outweigh fees from RSNs.

 

By the way, MLS doesn't belong in this discussion. It isn't a big 4 sport. If you want to include it, you need to include NCAA football and NCAA basketball, at a minimum, for equivalency.