(09-24-2023 09:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 06:02 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  ESPN is a dying brand. Big 10 was smart to not hitch their wagon to it. Hopefully MAC does the same and looks to one of the streamers (Amazon, Apple TV, Netflix, Peacock, etc.).

Yeah, that worked out so well for the Pac. Wait, no it didn't.

I think one huge mistake that a lot of people are making is looking at streaming growth overall and then extrapolating that *every* streamer is a great growth platform. It would be like the late-1990s where the growth of Internet usage led people to believe that *every* website would be successful and led to crazy stock valuations for companies like Pets.com. It ended up that there were 1000 failures like Pets.com for every success like Amazon.

It’s not streaming in and of itself that matters, but rather what platform (whether streaming or linear TV) provides the broadest platform at any given time. You can’t have a top property just disappear from a broad platform for a few years - you lose the casual fans and those casual fans are what make each successive contract get better and better. There isn’t any “first mover” advantage for being a pioneer (especially as it’s becoming clear that owning a streaming service that shows your own content doesn’t really pay dividends, unlike owning a conference cable network). The properties that are the most valuable on linear TV will also end up being the most valuable on streaming.

The only streaming platforms that really have the truly broad reach of linear TV as of today are Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix (who isn’t interested in live sports). The other streamers are much more niche with smaller viewer numbers. I love Apple products and Ted Lasso, but as far as a sports streamer, their business model is essentially wanting to have sports leagues become like UFC or boxing as subscription or PPV packages for hard core fans at the expense of casual fans.

So, it’s actually *short-sighted* for any league to move off of linear TV today despite streaming being the future. No one can make a wholesale move to streaming until it’s actually a mature market for *casual* sports fans (not the hard core fans) and it’s simply not there yet.

I love streaming services, I subscribe to several, but I also love my cable bundle as well, so I hope cable isn't past the "point of no return".

From the git, I never saw cable/streaming as either/or. I stream to augment what I get on cable.

IMO, if cable truly does disappear, the consumer will be worse off. I suspect that the cost of approximately duplicating what I currently get on cable by paying $8 or $18 a month to various streaming services will be greater than what I pay for cable.

We'll see, I guess.

(09-25-2023 05:28 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Ad rates? Price of advertising?

Add rates? People adding the service?

Or, ADD rates… myriad choices and logistics fracturing attention spans!

(09-26-2023 07:24 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 06:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Gotta disagree - it’s the opposite. The major entertainment companies were pushing *too* much non-sports content from cable to streaming services too quickly in an effort to achieve a Netflix-level stock valuation and thereby accelerated the killing of their own golden goose of cable TV revenue. This wasn’t about the technology or where consumers were going, but straight up that they were bothered that Netflix was getting such a high stock valuation compared to the legacy media companies. It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen. The proverbial cat’s out of the bag now, so the entertainment companies no longer have any choice other than to salvage what they can on the streaming front.

Yes. Non-sports cable is pretty much unwatchable now. Disney/Paramount/Comcast/WBD collectively took a blowtorch to their business model. And it definitely didn't help their stock prices.

These providers turned all their channels into FAST just without the Free part. For example, MTV has maybe 7 shows and 120 of 164 hours shows Ridiculousness reruns. No hyperbole here.

To go with the 25 hours of Catfish to break things up.

(09-24-2023 06:02 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  ESPN is a dying brand. Big 10 was smart to not hitch their wagon to it. Hopefully MAC does the same and looks to one of the streamers (Amazon, Apple TV, Netflix, Peacock, etc.).

I'm not sure I buy this. If ESPN is in trouble, then every sports broadcasting entity is likely in the same boat.

A day of reckoning is coming for these crazy big media contracts, and ESPN is not the only one holding those contracts - though they definitely have the most.

(09-24-2023 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Real World was not even real.

(09-24-2023 09:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 06:02 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  ESPN is a dying brand. Big 10 was smart to not hitch their wagon to it. Hopefully MAC does the same and looks to one of the streamers (Amazon, Apple TV, Netflix, Peacock, etc.).

Yeah, that worked out so well for the Pac. Wait, no it didn't.

Probably why ESPN has been pushing ESPN + so hard. At least they are adapting.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(09-24-2023 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Gotta disagree - it’s the opposite. The major entertainment companies were pushing *too* much non-sports content from cable to streaming services too quickly in an effort to achieve a Netflix-level stock valuation and thereby accelerated the killing of their own golden goose of cable TV revenue. This wasn’t about the technology or where consumers were going, but straight up that they were bothered that Netflix was getting such a high stock valuation compared to the legacy media companies. It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen. The proverbial cat’s out of the bag now, so the entertainment companies no longer have any choice other than to salvage what they can on the streaming front.

The viewership started to fall off when they start showing fake reality programs. Big Brother, The Amazing Race, Survivor and the likes are not real. The shows on Discovery are scripted. The Real World was not even real. Only thing that was real was COPS.

When The Walking Dead came on the air? It got 10 million viewers. Season 3 of Picard picked up a lot of viewers because it was changed to the old style of Star Trek, but at the end, they lost the viewers because the same enemy of the Borg Queen came back from the dead.

100% false. Those 3 shows are 100% real.

(09-24-2023 08:39 PM)rtist Wrote:  Having just moved to Minneapolis, I find that TV antenna signals where I live are VERY strong. Because of this, I'm ditching Hulu with live TV in favor of free antenna TV and will add a Sling TV package. That'll be far cheaper than Hulu with live TV.

Even if my antenna and sling TV is less complete as a package, it's also cheaper to use free TV.

I may add a streaming platform (peacock, paramount+, amazon prime, etc) if the price is discounted, but otherwise those are things I don't need. They're nice to have, but I just don't care enough to pay full price for those.

I should note that my graduate alma mater (UAA) plays their sports almost entirely on YouTube, so covering my Seawolves is pretty easy. I imagine most lesser schools have some free equivalent (the MIAC games and events can be streamed for free for some good local entertainment).

I just switched to antenna after a recent move as well. My bill dropped by $40/mo instantly and I'm locked in an internet package rate for 2 years.

So yeah, much better this way without cable.

(09-26-2023 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I love streaming services, I subscribe to several, but I also love my cable bundle as well, so I hope cable isn't past the "point of no return".

From the git, I never saw cable/streaming as either/or. I stream to augment what I get on cable.

IMO, if cable truly does disappear, the consumer will be worse off. I suspect that the cost of approximately duplicating what I currently get on cable by paying $8 or $18 a month to various streaming services will be greater than what I pay for cable.

We'll see, I guess.

Some of y'all sound like television addicts.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

(09-27-2023 10:24 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 08:39 PM)rtist Wrote:  Having just moved to Minneapolis, I find that TV antenna signals where I live are VERY strong. Because of this, I'm ditching Hulu with live TV in favor of free antenna TV and will add a Sling TV package. That'll be far cheaper than Hulu with live TV.

Even if my antenna and sling TV is less complete as a package, it's also cheaper to use free TV.

I may add a streaming platform (peacock, paramount+, amazon prime, etc) if the price is discounted, but otherwise those are things I don't need. They're nice to have, but I just don't care enough to pay full price for those.

I should note that my graduate alma mater (UAA) plays their sports almost entirely on YouTube, so covering my Seawolves is pretty easy. I imagine most lesser schools have some free equivalent (the MIAC games and events can be streamed for free for some good local entertainment).

I just switched to antenna after a recent move as well. My bill dropped by $40/mo instantly and I'm locked in an internet package rate for 2 years.

So yeah, much better this way without cable.

“YMMV”. What works for you, might not work for others. I’m sure there’s people out there that have to have Fox News and other channels not available without cable.

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Gotta disagree - it’s the opposite. The major entertainment companies were pushing *too* much non-sports content from cable to streaming services too quickly in an effort to achieve a Netflix-level stock valuation and thereby accelerated the killing of their own golden goose of cable TV revenue. This wasn’t about the technology or where consumers were going, but straight up that they were bothered that Netflix was getting such a high stock valuation compared to the legacy media companies. It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen. The proverbial cat’s out of the bag now, so the entertainment companies no longer have any choice other than to salvage what they can on the streaming front.

Yup. The movie studios got caught up in that as well. The studios used to have a great multi-stream model for their theatrical releases. They released them in theaters. If they were lucky---the movie made money on that level or at least recouped much of its costs. Then there was overseas theatrical release---which often ended up making unprofitable movies profitable. A few months later, the DVD/Blue ray would come out---providing physical media sales that often would push unprofitable movies into the black. Disney was the king of managing thier physical media portfolio---often embargoing certain traditional films and releasing them only at certain intervals. For more popular movies---movie themed merchandise and toys are yet another stream of revenue. Then there were cable broadcast and streaming releases that would allow another final revenue stream that was relatively low, but essentially endless. Then at special time milestones (10yrs, 20yrs, 25yrs, 30yrs etc), the physical media would offer another revenue stream as a special directors cut with additional interviews and behind the scenes short features would be released on Blue-Ray or DVD.

Between Covid and the near instant on demand availability of movies on streaming platforms, the theatrical release revenue stream has been dramatically reduced. The availability of movies on demand via streaming resulted physical media sales of DVD/BlueRay falling almost 90% from their peak. These were major very substantial revenue streams that were traded for the hope that studio based streaming models would be as profitable as Netflix. The movie studios are struggling due to these decisions and its one of the reasons I dont see there being a pot of gold for the writers/actors at the end of their strike. The studios simply dont have any money to give them.

(09-27-2023 12:20 PM)UIWElite Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 10:24 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 08:39 PM)rtist Wrote:  Having just moved to Minneapolis, I find that TV antenna signals where I live are VERY strong. Because of this, I'm ditching Hulu with live TV in favor of free antenna TV and will add a Sling TV package. That'll be far cheaper than Hulu with live TV.

Even if my antenna and sling TV is less complete as a package, it's also cheaper to use free TV.

I may add a streaming platform (peacock, paramount+, amazon prime, etc) if the price is discounted, but otherwise those are things I don't need. They're nice to have, but I just don't care enough to pay full price for those.

I should note that my graduate alma mater (UAA) plays their sports almost entirely on YouTube, so covering my Seawolves is pretty easy. I imagine most lesser schools have some free equivalent (the MIAC games and events can be streamed for free for some good local entertainment).

I just switched to antenna after a recent move as well. My bill dropped by $40/mo instantly and I'm locked in an internet package rate for 2 years.

So yeah, much better this way without cable.

“YMMV”. What works for you, might not work for others. I’m sure there’s people out there that have to have Fox News and other channels not available without cable.

Nothing about what I said meant you couldn't have a different service to get other live channels like Youtube TV and such.

Around here: the absolute basic Verizon package, for instance (no special channels, just local stuff plus internet) is already ~$120/mo. Internet only for me starts off at $35/mo. Fill in the rest of your channels with your preferred other method, still save money.

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen....

Yep.

At Home Visual Entertainment will never be as good as what we had for the last 40 years, and we've wrecked collegiate athletics. Nice work, everybody.

At least we cut the cord, huh?

(09-27-2023 01:25 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen....

Yep.

At Home Visual Entertainment will never be as good as what we had for the last 40 years, and we've wrecked collegiate athletics. Nice work, everybody.

At least we cut the cord, huh?

Gloom and doom.

There'll never be another Beatles either. Anyone see the numbers Taylor Swift it putting up?

There is always the next big thing. Be patient.

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Gotta disagree - it’s the opposite. The major entertainment companies were pushing *too* much non-sports content from cable to streaming services too quickly in an effort to achieve a Netflix-level stock valuation and thereby accelerated the killing of their own golden goose of cable TV revenue. This wasn’t about the technology or where consumers were going, but straight up that they were bothered that Netflix was getting such a high stock valuation compared to the legacy media companies. It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen. The proverbial cat’s out of the bag now, so the entertainment companies no longer have any choice other than to salvage what they can on the streaming front.

yes some of the companies went full and made asinine decisions. I think many companies will end up signing agreements to bundle their streaming service through a mainstream supplier like YTTV or Hulu because people don't want 30 streaming subs.
But the cable bundle isn't really going anywhere. Its just changed delivery methods. YTTV, Hulu Live, Fubo and Sling have great products amongst others. Hopefully we have a few more players jump in the game for competitions sake. Also more tiers would be nice.

I cut cable about 5 years ago. Outside of live sports, TV is really bad. I swear the crap they have on network TV during prime time will make you lose brain cells watching it.

(09-27-2023 01:46 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Gotta disagree - it’s the opposite. The major entertainment companies were pushing *too* much non-sports content from cable to streaming services too quickly in an effort to achieve a Netflix-level stock valuation and thereby accelerated the killing of their own golden goose of cable TV revenue. This wasn’t about the technology or where consumers were going, but straight up that they were bothered that Netflix was getting such a high stock valuation compared to the legacy media companies. It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen. The proverbial cat’s out of the bag now, so the entertainment companies no longer have any choice other than to salvage what they can on the streaming front.

yes some of the companies went full and made asinine decisions. I think many companies will end up signing agreements to bundle their streaming service through a mainstream supplier like YTTV or Hulu because people don't want 30 streaming subs.
But the cable bundle isn't really going anywhere. Its just changed delivery methods. YTTV, Hulu Live, Fubo and Sling have great products amongst others. Hopefully we have a few more players jump in the game for competitions sake. Also more tiers would be nice.

Most people aren't cutting the cord and jumping on those services, though. If it wasn't for sports, I'm not sure they'd even exist.

(09-27-2023 02:09 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 01:46 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 04:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2023 02:34 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  Cable only has itself to blame for not pushing consumers more quickly to DTC delivery.

DTC add rates are up though which says advertisers still view steaming as a growth segment.

Gotta disagree - it’s the opposite. The major entertainment companies were pushing *too* much non-sports content from cable to streaming services too quickly in an effort to achieve a Netflix-level stock valuation and thereby accelerated the killing of their own golden goose of cable TV revenue. This wasn’t about the technology or where consumers were going, but straight up that they were bothered that Netflix was getting such a high stock valuation compared to the legacy media companies. It’s not often that we see an industry collectively lose its minds and actively kill a great business model (the cable bundle) and go into one that may *never* be profitable (streaming), but that’s what we saw happen. The proverbial cat’s out of the bag now, so the entertainment companies no longer have any choice other than to salvage what they can on the streaming front.

yes some of the companies went full and made asinine decisions. I think many companies will end up signing agreements to bundle their streaming service through a mainstream supplier like YTTV or Hulu because people don't want 30 streaming subs.
But the cable bundle isn't really going anywhere. Its just changed delivery methods. YTTV, Hulu Live, Fubo and Sling have great products amongst others. Hopefully we have a few more players jump in the game for competitions sake. Also more tiers would be nice.

Most people aren't cutting the cord and jumping on those services, though. If it wasn't for sports, I'm not sure they'd even exist.

I only use SlingTV through football season and then I cancel. The rest of the year I stream Neftlix, ESPN+, and TubiTV (free) and HBOMAX (free with ATT). Network TV is free via an antenna.

(09-26-2023 08:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, if cable truly does disappear, the consumer will be worse off.

You think so? On average?

I don't know. I think we're racing back towards a less-convenient version of a cable bundle as many end up with multiple streaming services that end up adding up to what they'd be spending on cable back in the day anyway. But not everyone, and I wonder how those numbers will shake out.

If you're not a sports fan, and grew up comsuming most visual media on youtube/tiktok/snapchat/instagram anyway, will that generation just shrug and let it go? While the oldest part of the population used to cable just settles for something like a tubi (for reruns of the tv of their youth) plus maybe an a la carte service for their favorite news channel? And maybe just the group in the middle who have multiple generations to account for bother getting 3-4-5 services so that everyone can see all the hottest shows and live sports and family programming?


I legit don't know. I very much don't think my viewing habits mirror the population at large, and I'm sure your view is more common than mine, but I wonder about the numbers.