LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

(08-24-2017 02:50 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 10:19 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 11:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The worst thing about this for those conferences is these are exclusives. They are not going to be available anywhere else. This isn't like being on a smaller network with a streaming mirror. These games are going to be on Facebook and thats the only place they are going to be. Do many men over 30 years old spend much time on Facebook?

I think Twitter is going to be a better Social media platform for sports.

Actually, I think it's ONLY people over 30 who spend time on FB...

I'm a 41 year old male who's on Facebook multiple times a day. My 81 Granfather from Arizona is on there as well as my 80 year old Grandmother from Oklahoma. My teenage nieces in Greenville, NC and my 20 something cousins in Iowa, Oregon and Colorado send me pages to like all the time. I don't have a twitter account. Haven't had AOL in 17 years or My Space in over a decade. Suddenly Facebook is considered old and outdated....ok.
To the other point: But the MWC & CUSA didn't get paid by FB! Did the AAC get paid by CBS-SN? No. Not 1 cent. ESPN kept all the profits of those games sold by ESPN to CBS-SN.

Did ESPN not pay for the games originally? I see it hard to sell something you didn't have the rights to originally. Say ESPN buys rights to 100 games. Unless the contract obligates them to be played on a certain broadcast platform or station, ESPN has the right to sell them to another company, or not air them at all. I have a feeling they were games that not many companies wanted to buy ads for, so maybe CBS bought them and had advertisement that could be aired anytime, with any programming?

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Again...we were talking about average age of the consumer. Millennials are a dying Facebook commodity. Try to keep up next time...

(08-24-2017 02:24 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  The g4 should just get a dude with a camcorder and broadcast it on groupon.

lol

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Instagram and What's App are fueling the growth. Actual FB users are declining.

(08-24-2017 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Instagram and What's App are fueling the growth. Actual FB users are declining.

Wonder who owns Instagram

(08-24-2017 06:32 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Instagram and What's App are fueling the growth. Actual FB users are declining.

Wonder who owns Instagram

Well played.

(08-24-2017 06:32 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Instagram and What's App are fueling the growth. Actual FB users are declining.

Wonder who owns Instagram

FB also owns Oculus in addition to Whats App and Instagram

(08-24-2017 06:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Instagram and What's App are fueling the growth. Actual FB users are declining.

USA Facebook users for the last three years:

2015: 192.1 million
2016: 197.7 million
2017: 202.8 million

And even if was dipping, we're talking such enormous numbers it wouldn't matter, not for a long while. Globally, Facebook numbers grew 17% last year.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/4089...ook-users/

It really is boggling to see people in this thread talk about FB as 5 years ago news. That's like talking about the Iphone or the Golden State Warriors as 5 years ago news.

(08-24-2017 04:59 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 04:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 03:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  LOL....Proving that Quo is one of those out-of-touch old folks.

Yeah, I'm out of touch. Here's Facebook stock prices in August of the last 5 years, when some dummies around here think it's become "passe'":

8/12: $18
8/13: $37
8/14: $73
8/15: $91
8/16: $125

Today .... $167

Yeah, Facebook is so 2010.

Again...we were talking about average age of the consumer. Millennials are a dying Facebook commodity. Try to keep up next time...

You need to invest in some clues. Facebook is the #1 social media platform among millenials, who aren't even the most important college football demographic anyway:

"Millennials are also more likely to share on Facebook than Gen Xers and baby boomers — knocking down a common argument that Facebook is for “old people.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-...ing-2017-5

(08-24-2017 12:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Amazon

OK...?

Sears doesn't look like it will survive thanks to Amazon

To those who care - I'd check my laughter at Facebook. They may become part of our new platform. One player in the aggregate to the new AAC 3m a year media contract.

It's 2017. Streaming is a good growth area. Various social media streaming sports content is coming. I've watched MLB on Twitter. I've watched an AAC football game on Twitter.
Facebook probably is good exposure in terms of getting casual fans to watch your game after their alumni page tells them in their news feed that it is available.
I would submit that Twitter or Netflix or Amazon are "sexier" than Facebook in the current environment but that is debatable and hard to quantify.

The bigger point though is that mwc and CUSA didn't get paid anymore for this Facebook streaming. ASN / Stadium got paid but other than debatable exposure gains, no additional gains for those conferences. It's like ESPN selling our games to CBSSN with nothing more going into AAC coffers. I can see the games because I know where CBSSN is on my provider, but I'm unhappy that we didn't get anything for it. We can be in favor of Aresco looking at money from streamers for the next contract and still laugh at this deal as being minimum gain for the G4s.

A deal with ESPN for our current exposure PLUS CBSSN paying US for second tier PLUS Twitter/Netflix paying US for second/third tier PLUS additional third tier reverting so UConn can get paid for WBB etc... if that gets us to $8million per school, we're sitting pretty. That's the difference between us liking Aresco and us mocking this G4 deal.

(08-24-2017 08:55 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  To those who care - I'd check my laughter at Facebook. They may become part of our new platform. One player in the aggregate to the new AAC 3m a year media contract.

This sounds about right.

Does UCornHusky get owned in every thread he participates in?

(08-24-2017 09:48 PM)ShockerFever Wrote:  Does UCornHusky get owned in every thread he participates in?

hahahahahaha...I tried not to, but I laughed my arse off over this one.

(08-24-2017 08:55 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  To those who care - I'd check my laughter at Facebook. They may become part of our new platform. One player in the aggregate to the new AAC 3m a year media contract.

lol. Not for 3 million a year they aint.

Let me throw one thing out there that nobody talks about----if streaming ever becomes the primary content portal to the consumer---two things are going to change and one rule is going to be paramount.

The one rule is that content will always get paid and it will seek to maximize that payout.

That means 2 things will happen----

1) Much like Disney, content providers will be pulling the content off 3rd party sites and developing thier own streaming networks. That gives them full control of thier product and allows them to maximize value.

2) The cost will rise quickly because its going to require purchasing various networks a la carte in order to reconstruct the basket of networks you need to see everything you want.


Essentially, content rules. Nobody goes to Netflix because Netflix has a great interface. They go there for the content. The streamers are trying to pay as little for the content as possible---but they add very little to the overall value. The third party site is just a middle man. The content providers have the lynch pin for the whole streaming world---the rest is just off the shelf tech.

(08-24-2017 10:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 08:55 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  To those who care - I'd check my laughter at Facebook. They may become part of our new platform. One player in the aggregate to the new AAC 3m a year media contract.

lol. Not for 3 million a year they aint.

Let me throw one thing out there that nobody talks about----if streaming ever becomes the primary content portal to the consumer---two things are going to change and one rule is going to be paramount.

The one rule is that content will always get paid and it will seek to maximize that payout.

That means 2 things will happen----

1) Much like Disney, content providers will be pulling the content off 3rd party sites and developing thier own streaming networks. That gives them full control of thier product and allows them to maximize value.

2) The cost will rise quickly because its going to require purchasing various networks a la carte in order to reconstruct the basket of networks you need to see everything you want.


Essentially, content rules. Nobody goes to Netflix because Netflix has a great interface. They go there for the content. The streamers are trying to pay as little for the content as possible---but they add very little to the overall value. The third party site is just a middle man. The content providers have the lynch pin for the whole streaming world---the rest is just off the shelf tech.

Well maybe, but ... not every content provider is Disney, a company that knows, or at least thinks it knows, how to do everything related to delivering content. There's a reason the NFL, NBA, and MLB have contracts with "middlemen", the TV networks, rather than just streaming everything over their own channels - they believe the TV networks have production and delivery skills that they lack. I mean, they all have contracts with ... Disney!

As for the issue at hand, i think it's fair to laugh at the MWC and C-USA for their Facebook deal in the sense that they aren't getting extra pay for it, but that's no different than us not getting paid extra for our CBSSN games that ESPN subcontracts. And really, even that is a dodgy laugh, as there's no reason that we/they should get paid extra, because we already got paid for those games in our original deals with the TV networks. They are just exercising their subcontracting rights.

The platform itself is absolute aces, the number of Facebook users from the CF demographic is immense.

(08-24-2017 07:41 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-24-2017 12:14 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Amazon

OK...?

Sears doesn't look like it will survive thanks to Amazon

OK... wtf does that have to do with this thread?