Just curious. The LA Times ran an article the other day saying after two years that the PAC12 Network only had 11 million subscribers?

Can it last with that tiny number? The Mountain West Network only had like 7-10 million subscribers and actually was on DirecTV and had to fold. How many subscribers does the Longhorn Network have?, and LHN is in dubious shape.

In light of the Big Ten and SEC Network, this looks terrible for the PAC 12. The ACC's OTA deal blows it away too.

In the end with the LHN and PAC12 Network both struggling, I think Texas and the PAC have to merge just to keep the Networks together. LHN folds into the PAC Net and doubles exposure and keeps both from sinking??

You know, that is still $132 million a year in revenue from subscriber fees before a single ad is sold. Plus they had their start up costs mostly funded. and put all of the profits from the first two years back into the network. . So even with that, they are still doing okay.

Merging wouldn't help in a network perspective. The Longhorn Network has caught on some and if they wanted to tie it to anything it wouldn't be the PAC-12 Network (where the schools mean little in Texas) it would be a Big 12 Network, where Texans know the other schools (not that that has any chance either though).

(08-07-2014 09:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  You know, that is still $132 million a year in revenue from subscriber fees before a single ad is sold. Plus they had their start up costs mostly funded. and put all of the profits from the first two years back into the network. . So even with that, they are still doing okay.

What kind of costs have to come out of that $132 million? Do they have to foot the bill for the cost of producing all the telecasts?

I remember there was talk of the PAC & ACC going together in on a network but that fell apart. I actually though that was a great idea. With the three hour time zone difference you could have split the viewing times and get enough content. Probably fell through over the money split since the ACC in theory may have gotten more money if each school was paid the same. I still think it makes great sense to explore but doubt it will ever happen.

(08-07-2014 09:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  You know, that is still $132 million a year in revenue from subscriber fees before a single ad is sold. Plus they had their start up costs mostly funded. and put all of the profits from the first two years back into the network. . So even with that, they are still doing okay.

It cost the PAC 12 $106 million in costs for their network on $132 million revenue.

They only made $26 million profit. Not a lot of margin for error as 85% cost of to run it.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/d...to-schools


.

(08-07-2014 09:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  What kind of costs have to come out of that $132 million? Do they have to foot the bill for the cost of producing all the telecasts?

Don't know the costs. But it's one of the reasons they made a point to reinvest all revenue the first couple of years. They, like the Big Ten and unlike some of the others, understand that they are getting much more revenue now than they had before, and are getting even more with the new playoffs and Rose Bowl agreements. Instead so passing out every dollar, they are happy with the increase and reinvesting the rest. The Big Ten more or less did the same thing by expansion with Maryland and Rutgers. Instead of using the new playoff money to up everyone's payout by $2-$3 million, they are able to pay for expansion without reducing anyone's payout (they won't have a new TV contract for a couple of years to compensate for more mouths to feed). The PAC is more or less doing the same thing here. They are already making more money from the Fox/ESPN TV contract than every before. So it is easy to just reinvest profits from the PAC 12 Network for a couple of years, and let it grow. Because as they say, they don't have a network backer, so they need to build it up.

(08-07-2014 10:56 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  It cost the PAC 12 $106 million in costs for their network on $132 million revenue.

They only made $26 million profit. Not a lot of margin for error as 85% cost of to run it.

That is not what that link says. It says the league kept $106 million of the revenue. That is from all sources. And as I said, they kept back ALL of the revenue from the network and reinvested it.

They actually had $89 million in revenue from the network last fiscal year. That was from 10 months of existence, and incremental distribution (meaning they were not collecting the same revenue evenly throughout the year: it grew). Certainly not a bad start. It's not as though they made no money from the network. They just put it back into the business so to speak.

If subscriber counts remain low, either the Pac-12 will move to a lower carriage fee or eventually look to expand. Of course, they have all the time in the world to do so. The Pac-12 owns the west coast college market, so they're somewhat insulated from the Big XII/ACC/SEC/B1G expansion threats. Only if the Big XII were to make a strong push westward would the Pac-12 seriously reconsider their positions.

I don't think expansion has halted until the mid-2020's. I think we could still see some movement by 2017 when some of the big contracts have their look-in windows and other conferences know their standing in terms of revenue flow. That isn't to say the Big XII or ACC will implode, but I do wonder if the PAC revisits the topic of expansion, or decides to come back to the table with the Big Ten and revisit B1G-PAC.

(08-07-2014 11:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't think expansion has halted until the mid-2020's. I think we could still see some movement by 2017 when some of the big contracts have their look-in windows and other conferences know their standing in terms of revenue flow. That isn't to say the Big XII or ACC will implode, but I do wonder if the PAC revisits the topic of expansion, or decides to come back to the table with the Big Ten and revisit B1G-PAC.

If they do, they could promote themselves as the B1G PAC-age in an attempt to corner the market with female fans.

(08-07-2014 11:42 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  If subscriber counts remain low, either the Pac-12 will move to a lower carriage fee or eventually look to expand. Of course, they have all the time in the world to do so. The Pac-12 owns the west coast college market, so they're somewhat insulated from the Big XII/ACC/SEC/B1G expansion threats. Only if the Big XII were to make a strong push westward would the Pac-12 seriously reconsider their positions.

I doubt they would lower it. They would probably just do what the SEC did and accept less than basic cable distribution. That is likely their biggest obstacle now, insisting on basic cable distribution, in cities that already have several RSN's currently on basic or trying the same thing. It's less a PAC 12 issue and more a California issue. Time Warner is going in front of the FCC right now for this because of their Dodgers network.

(08-07-2014 11:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't think expansion has halted until the mid-2020's. I think we could still see some movement by 2017 when some of the big contracts have their look-in windows and other conferences know their standing in terms of revenue flow. That isn't to say the Big XII or ACC will implode, but I do wonder if the PAC revisits the topic of expansion, or decides to come back to the table with the Big Ten and revisit B1G-PAC.

If they do, they could promote themselves as the B1G PAC-age in an attempt to corner the market with female fans.

Ladies, call your cable provider today and ask about our B1G-PAC-age! We're huge...coast to coast!

(08-07-2014 12:17 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 11:45 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I don't think expansion has halted until the mid-2020's. I think we could still see some movement by 2017 when some of the big contracts have their look-in windows and other conferences know their standing in terms of revenue flow. That isn't to say the Big XII or ACC will implode, but I do wonder if the PAC revisits the topic of expansion, or decides to come back to the table with the Big Ten and revisit B1G-PAC.

If they do, they could promote themselves as the B1G PAC-age in an attempt to corner the market with female fans.

Ladies, call your cable provider today and ask about our B1G-PAC-age! We're huge...coast to coast!

My posts aren't always on the mark, but sometimes they rise to the occasion.

The time difference and laid back attitude of Westerners toward CFB, at least in comparison to the SE, SW and MW, were hurdles too high for the P12 Network.

(08-07-2014 12:42 PM)westwolf Wrote:  The time difference and laid back attitude of Westerners toward CFB, at least in comparison to the SE, SW and MW, were hurdles too high for the P12 Network.

Just the way we do things

If any league could stand to drag along networks... it's the PAC 12. so long as they are not losing money the the PAC is making plenty of dough regardless. in the long run it may weaken their negotiating position. but in the short run its only lost opportunity cost.

(08-07-2014 09:31 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Just curious. The LA Times ran an article the other day saying after two years that the PAC12 Network only had 11 million subscribers?

Can it last with that tiny number? The Mountain West Network only had like 7-10 million subscribers and actually was on DirecTV and had to fold. How many subscribers does the Longhorn Network have?, and LHN is in dubious shape.

In light of the Big Ten and SEC Network, this looks terrible for the PAC 12. The ACC's OTA deal blows it away too.

In the end with the LHN and PAC12 Network both struggling, I think Texas and the PAC have to merge just to keep the Networks together. LHN folds into the PAC Net and doubles exposure and keeps both from sinking??

If you look at the Pac-12 Network as a regional sports network charging a very high price in its home market (as opposed to a national network), then 11 million subscribers can certainly be sustainable and profitable. The BTN and SEC Network may have wider distribution, but the dollars that matter the most are the ones within their respective home footprints.

The problem is that the PAC got into a bidding war with Direct TV, and folks out west are not giving up the NFL ticket. Also, the quality of their studio personalities and overall programming is not very impressive. It's a shame, because I think the PAC is putting together a very compelling product.

(08-07-2014 02:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-07-2014 09:31 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Just curious. The LA Times ran an article the other day saying after two years that the PAC12 Network only had 11 million subscribers?

Can it last with that tiny number? The Mountain West Network only had like 7-10 million subscribers and actually was on DirecTV and had to fold. How many subscribers does the Longhorn Network have?, and LHN is in dubious shape.

In light of the Big Ten and SEC Network, this looks terrible for the PAC 12. The ACC's OTA deal blows it away too.

In the end with the LHN and PAC12 Network both struggling, I think Texas and the PAC have to merge just to keep the Networks together. LHN folds into the PAC Net and doubles exposure and keeps both from sinking??

If you look at the Pac-12 Network as a regional sports network charging a very high price in its home market (as opposed to a national network), then 11 million subscribers can certainly be sustainable and profitable. The BTN and SEC Network may have wider distribution, but the dollars that matter the most are the ones within their respective home footprints.

The Pac-12 states have 64 million people - at an average of 3 people per household, that is about 22 million households.

How many subscribers do you expect them to have, especially without Directv?