(01-17-2014 12:23 PM)Bull Wrote:  I don't know the exact cost, but if you buy all 12 WWE pay per view events in a year, it's something like 350-400 dollars, right? IT's about 30-40 per...? I don't understand how they can charge 9.99 per month for the network, which gives you all 12 events, and even MORE content, PLUS the pre/post shows, etc. The network will cost about 120 per year.

1. It's probably a situation where most WWE PPV fans are buying 3-4 PPV per year, Wrestlemania at $70 and a few others at $40. I've read somewhere that the PPV companies take around 50%, so to rack up $120 in revenue, WWE Fan would have to buy Mania ($35) and 4-5 others ($20 each).

2. WWE has seen PPV revenue erode over time, whether because of online streaming pirate sites, or because people aren't as willing to pay $40/month.

The rest of the content is either archive footage, or cheap studio shows, or pretty cheap to produce. They're already spending that money and putting that stuff on WWE.com or Hulu or WWE Classics On Demand (until lately).

Quote:Assuming most WWE fans are pretty hard core, and will buy all (or most) of the PPV events... then the WWE will initially lose money. Yeah, they may get more subscribers, those who can't afford the PPV events... but will it balance the loss? For someone who buys all 12, this is an incredible deal. They must really believe they can expand their market.

Yes. Even for someone who buys Wrestlemania and a couple of others, the WWE fan is spending less money for WWE Network than for WWE PPV. But WWE keeps all of that money instead of splitting it with the PPV companies.

Quote:That said, digital networks are going to be incredible going forward... I already see a ton of CFB games I would miss, thanks to the content on ESPN3. Get a Roku player and it couldn't possibly be easier to see this on your TV screen. (Not ESPN3, but for that you just have to plug an HDMI cable into your TV...)

A certain number of WWE fans are going to finally buy a Blu-Ray player or game system just to get the WWE network instead of buying the PPVs.

(01-16-2014 04:30 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 04:04 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:55 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 03:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  Frank,

You are forgetting over the air TV. I'm assuming the current administration philosophy doesn't eliminate it.

The administration won't eliminate over the air. The networks themselves might just kill it. Check out the Aereo lawsuit that's been going on for a while.

Supreme Court hears the case later this year. Networks have threatened to kill over the air if Aereo wins.

I wonder how that would look. I don't think it would be politically feasible to just move ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX to pay cable channels not to mention sports contracts these OTA networks have require them to hit a certain amount of subscribers (NFL). The NFL is not just going to let these OTA networks make their games cable only without being properly compensated. It will be interesting to see this response to the Aereo lawsuit, because at this time I just don't think its feasible for the Big 4 to take their ball and go cable.

The Aereo case could make them do just that.

I don't understand how any judge could have ruled for Aereo in the first place. Seems like we have judges with no understanding of technology.

I think I have to disagree with you on Aereo. Would it be illegal for me to pay my friend $10.00 a month to put an antenna on his roof so I could get a good OTA signal and a DVR to record the content? The way I see it that is pretty much all Aereo is doing, they help you capture the signal, record the signal, and pick up your recordings through the internet via connected devices. If done on the individual level it is completely legal, albeit expensive and cost prohibitive. They are basically the SlingBox expect instead of taking an individuals cable/satellite subscription they are taking individual OTA signals. If they used a mass antenna I think you would have a case, but since they are using individual antennas that are owned by the consumer I don't see how it is illegal.

I can see why the providers of the signals would be upset, but the OTA signals are up there for individual use. Aereo is helping individuals place an antenna to maximize reception (not illegal), recording content from the OTA signals (not illegal), and clouding them like a SlingBox (Not illegal)

(01-16-2014 04:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-16-2014 04:04 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  All of this will result in JRSec's dream... more people saying "Screw it, I'm going fishing."

Just wanted to chime in as a borderline Gen X/ Millennial with an understanding that entertainment choices will change once we have kids/marriage/kids move out/retire. Regardless, I'm not sure we will be entertained in the same manner as the Boomers or older Gen X'ers. Many of you have likely noticed, but there is a resurgence of districts/block living in the cities, and much of it is because my generation wants to live, work, and play in the same area. We want to walk to places as much as possible and do fun, different things that are cheap but that sponsors want to pay for because of increased advertising opportunities to their target audience. Free concerts, festivals, tastings, etc. are popping up in abundance in more and more cities. There are very few people in my life that have appointment programming other than a live event that is a cultural talking point (typically sports for guys and award shows for gals). Many, including me, wait as much as a few years before watching a TV show because it is more fun to binge watch episodes over a short span, kind of like how most people prefer to read an engaging book.

I say all of that to say that I'm not sure it is a bad idea to reduce from 200 to 30 channels, because those 30 channels will likely be filled with only programming that people want to watch live. For example, everybody I know watches Mad Men, but I can't tell you one person that watches it each Sunday night on AMC. Heck, I was 3 seasons in from Netflix before I even know it was carried on AMC. Almost everyone queues them and watches a few at a time when they have a free night or waits months or a year for them to be available in full season form on Netflix or a similar service. Good shows will find an audience now, and some are even being brought back from the dead, like Arrested Development, to finish the story. The niche channels we have now typically have one or two shows that are must see, and the rest of the day is re-runs or even infomercials. These excellent or important shows on niche channels are finding online audiences.

Perhaps that is the one thing that will be critical for TV moving forward... technology now allows us to view programming in the same manner as we have always read books. Pick one up and read it in one sitting, over the course of a few days, or the course of a year... doesn't matter. TV/media has to think of itself as a massive library that is for profit. How do you monetize a library? Figure that out, and we have an answer.

Mad Men is a perfect example. We have the *option* to watch it at a different time other than Sunday evening, so many of us (myself included take it). The problem, just like online newspapers, is that it's not going to be sustainable for very long if people truly believe that cable will die. Mad Men would have never existed in the first place without cable subscription dollars. The fact that you can watch it on Netflix at all is because cable subscription dollars were able to produce that show and AMC was able to sell it to Netflix for ancillary revenue.

Now, Netflix can create more content like House of Cards and Arrested Development, but as they increase on that front, that's not going to come for free. They'll eventually have to start raising prices to cover that (and it would be even more if they get into the sports business) and we'll get to a point where either (a) end up having to pay the same amount of money to get the same content that we expect today, only those checks go to Netflix, Amazon and your Internet service provider or (b) there will be a lot less content, meaning that the next Mad Men never gets made. What won't be happening is getting access to the same amount of content that we have now for a lower price (which is what I think a LOT of people are misguided in thinking will happen in an a la carte world).

And if you can figure out the answer to your question about how to monetize a library, you should keep it to yourself, sell it in the marketplace and make yourself a multibillionaire because that's something that media companies *still* haven't figured out in the past 20 years. To this day, an online viewer is worth only a *tiny* fraction of a regular TV viewer on all metrics, just as the millions of more people that read the New York Times online today can't yield the revenue that a fraction of those people created 20 years ago while reading traditional newspapers. If you can figure that out, you'd seriously be the next Mark Zuckerberg. Until then, though, it's understandable why media companies will fight a la carte to the death.

A surprising thing about these types of shows: the bulk of their earnings comes from DVD sales.

I read a book last year (called Everything Bad is Good For You) that stated that this is the whole reason why these shows have gotten ungodly complicated. They're produced for the purpose of becoming a cult series. The idea is to get people so intrigued in the plot lines and so involved in guessing what's *really* going on that people will rush to buy the DVD as soon as it comes on.

(01-18-2014 12:02 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  A surprising thing about these types of shows: the bulk of their earnings comes from DVD sales.

I read a book last year (called Everything Bad is Good For You) that stated that this is the whole reason why these shows have gotten ungodly complicated. They're produced for the purpose of becoming a cult series. The idea is to get people so intrigued in the plot lines and so involved in guessing what's *really* going on that people will rush to buy the DVD as soon as it comes on.

Not surprising. But still, from the point of view of a consumer searching for entertainment that requires some thought and attention on the part of the viewer, it's far better to have that than "Diagnosis: Murder" or "L.A. Law"

Didn't the WWE want their network on cable and satellite like a "real" network? It seems the tone of this thread is that WWE is pioneering this great business model... when in reality it's a desperation move as no one else wants them. I still think it's a good deal, but not what the WWE wanted.

(01-21-2014 06:08 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  Didn't the WWE want their network on cable and satellite like a "real" network? It seems the tone of this thread is that WWE is pioneering this great business model... when in reality it's a desperation move as no one else wants them. I still think it's a good deal, but not what the WWE wanted.

Yeah, that's a good point. They're trying to spin this as innovative, but the reality is that their original plans for a TV network (which would have been much more lucrative never gained traction).

If I remember correctly they just wanted an on-demand channel like everyone else has. The issue was that the TV providers wanted them to pay to be on instead of paying them, and there isn't enough advertising money contained within the on-demand areas to make it worthwhile.

I think that Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc., have shown that online subscriptions can work. I think that WWE will make a go of this and it will in the long run save their fans money by not forcing them to buy cable TV.

(01-21-2014 06:08 AM)MercerFan Wrote:  Didn't the WWE want their network on cable and satellite like a "real" network? It seems the tone of this thread is that WWE is pioneering this great business model... when in reality it's a desperation move as no one else wants them. I still think it's a good deal, but not what the WWE wanted.

Originally yes. WWE started talking seriously about this around the time Oprah Winfrey started her own network.

They have been working on this for years, so long in fact that the ground sort of shifted under everyone. For one thing, the Oprah Winfrey Network was a huge flop.

For another thing, WWE is sitting on huge tape libraries of every major American promotion and territory, and wrestling fans want to see that stuff. That's probably not as easy as you think to fit into a cable-channel framework. (Not to mention their own footage, which is wildly popular on Youtube--at least until the network goes online and WWE starts sending copyright takedown notices.) Let's say 100,000 people were watching WWE clips on Youtube right now--that sounds promising, until you realize they're watching 1000 different clips of 200 different wrestlers. Bad news for a cable channel. Good news for a video-on-demand service.

For a third thing, their PPV sales have been going down. Some because of piracy, some just because the cost is very high. And half of that cost doesn't go to WWE, it goes to the cable company.

So the WWE Network is sort of a perfect storm.

(01-21-2014 11:03 AM)mlb Wrote:  If I remember correctly they just wanted an on-demand channel like everyone else has.

No, they have that---WWE Classics On Demand. They wanted a real-live premium-tier channel, like the Golf Network or CBS Sports Network.

Quote:I think that WWE will make a go of this and it will in the long run save their fans money by not forcing them to buy cable TV.

The flagship shows, RAW and Smackdown, are going up for bid soon, and will almost certainly stay on basic cable. (There are some secondary TV shows that may move from syndicated TV to basic cable, or move to the WWE Network, depending on the negotiations. There's also an outside chance that Smackdown ends up back on sort-of network TV.)

bullet posted this on my blog and I think it's very relevant here. We actually have a test of what a la carte streaming will cost since Sky, one of the major British cable companies, is offering this model right now called Now TV with various entertainment, movie and sports packages. They are the primary broadcaster for the Premier League in Britain, so that would be the equivalent of being the primary broadcaster of the NFL in the US (meaning that they are very much on par with the mothership ESPN here). Here's the website:

http://www.nowtv.com/

Movies are 8.99 GBP (about $15) per month, which is pretty much in line with Netflix streaming.

TV shows are going to cost the same after the introductory trial (8.99 GBP/$15 per month), which is pretty much in line with Hulu.

So far so good, right? The UK is mirroring US pricing for the same types of movie and TV packages, so that would indicate that sports programming costs ought to track similarly.

Now we get to sports: to access the 6 Sky sports channels (the equivalent of accessing just ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes in the US), it costs 9.99 GBP ($16.50)... per DAY. That translates into nearly $500 per month to access those sports channels via streaming, which is obviously several times more than what it would cost if you had a basic cable package and received hundreds of other channels on top of those very same sports channels.

See what I mean when I keep saying that you should be careful for what you wish for regarding a la carte if you're a sports fan? I don't think sports fans quite realize just how much more even just ESPN would cost a la carte in comparison to all other types of channels out there. Now, I'm not saying that it's necessarily fair that the 70-year old woman that only watches Lifetime everyday is subsidizing our sports watching habits, but just realize that if you watch even *one* cable sports channel with any regularity, you're getting a great deal with a basic cable package compared to a la carte.

(01-24-2014 02:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  bullet posted this on my blog and I think it's very relevant here. We actually have a test of what a la carte streaming will cost since Sky, one of the major British cable companies, is offering this model right now called Now TV with various entertainment, movie and sports packages. They are the primary broadcaster for the Premier League in Britain, so that would be the equivalent of being the primary broadcaster of the NFL in the US (meaning that they are very much on par with the mothership ESPN here). Here's the website:

http://www.nowtv.com/

Movies are 8.99 GBP (about $15) per month, which is pretty much in line with Netflix streaming.

TV shows are going to cost the same after the introductory trial (8.99 GBP/$15 per month), which is pretty much in line with Hulu.

So far so good, right? The UK is mirroring US pricing for the same types of movie and TV packages, so that would indicate that sports programming costs ought to track similarly.

Now we get to sports: to access the 6 Sky sports channels (the equivalent of accessing just ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes in the US), it costs 9.99 GBP ($16.50)... per DAY. That translates into nearly $500 per month to access those sports channels via streaming, which is obviously several times more than what it would cost if you had a basic cable package and received hundreds of other channels on top of those very same sports channels.

See what I mean when I keep saying that you should be careful for what you wish for regarding a la carte if you're a sports fan? I don't think sports fans quite realize just how much more even just ESPN would cost a la carte in comparison to all other types of channels out there. Now, I'm not saying that it's necessarily fair that the 70-year old woman that only watches Lifetime everyday is subsidizing our sports watching habits, but just realize that if you watch even *one* cable sports channel with any regularity, you're getting a great deal with a basic cable package compared to a la carte.

I wonder how long that will last. $16.50/day is what they want, but will the public pay it?

(01-24-2014 02:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  bullet posted this on my blog and I think it's very relevant here. We actually have a test of what a la carte streaming will cost since Sky, one of the major British cable companies, is offering this model right now called Now TV with various entertainment, movie and sports packages. They are the primary broadcaster for the Premier League in Britain, so that would be the equivalent of being the primary broadcaster of the NFL in the US (meaning that they are very much on par with the mothership ESPN here). Here's the website:

http://www.nowtv.com/

Movies are 8.99 GBP (about $15) per month, which is pretty much in line with Netflix streaming.

TV shows are going to cost the same after the introductory trial (8.99 GBP/$15 per month), which is pretty much in line with Hulu.

So far so good, right? The UK is mirroring US pricing for the same types of movie and TV packages, so that would indicate that sports programming costs ought to track similarly.

Now we get to sports: to access the 6 Sky sports channels (the equivalent of accessing just ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes in the US), it costs 9.99 GBP ($16.50)... per DAY. That translates into nearly $500 per month to access those sports channels via streaming, which is obviously several times more than what it would cost if you had a basic cable package and received hundreds of other channels on top of those very same sports channels.

See what I mean when I keep saying that you should be careful for what you wish for regarding a la carte if you're a sports fan? I don't think sports fans quite realize just how much more even just ESPN would cost a la carte in comparison to all other types of channels out there. Now, I'm not saying that it's necessarily fair that the 70-year old woman that only watches Lifetime everyday is subsidizing our sports watching habits, but just realize that if you watch even *one* cable sports channel with any regularity, you're getting a great deal with a basic cable package compared to a la carte.

ESPN GamePlan for a single weekend is $24.

If you are a Sky subscriber and your favorite team is playing on Saturday then each Saturday you plunk down $16.50 which works out to about $66 a month. Now if your favorite team is in a battle to make the Champions League or in a relegation battle and you want to see what the other guys are doing you probably end up buying Saturday and Sunday and double your cost.

Not an awful deal for a college football fan, especially one who is spending half their Saturdays in the stadium. They would buy 7 Saturdays. Where it gets icky is bowl season if you want to see anyone other than your team.

College basketball not so much fun with nearly 3X as many games.

Where it gets truly ugly is when you are a fan of a team that plays 82 or 162 games and post-season is a best of however many games.