TBH, I’ve only been able to find one source on the entire internet claiming that Rutgers and Maryland are actually providing in market carriage fees for the entire NYC and DC markets. It’s this awfulannouncing article right here, written in 2014.
http://amp.awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-...llars.html
The author of the awfulannouncing article doesn’t seem to even claim to have any sources inside the Big Ten or the TV networks. The awfulannouncing author seems to have just read an nj.com article saying that the Big Ten was close to forming a deal with cable companies in NY and NJ. But the NJ.com article never actually says that the Big Ten was getting in market rates for NY-they just say that the Big Ten was close to forming a deal with cable providers in NJ and NY. In fact, the nj.com article explicitly says “terms of the deal were not disclosed.” The awfulannouncing author seems to have just read an nj.com article, and taken the article way out of context.
https://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/201...ution.html
The NJ.com doesn’t mention anything about the Big Ten forming deals with cable providers in DC or Northern Virginia, let alone actually getting home market rates for those areas.
I also recall when Comcast at least briefly dropped the BTN in out of market areas a few years ago (I forget if that ultimately got resolved.) Comcast defined the in market areas as just the home states. Maryland apparently wasn’t given credit for DC or Northern Virginia, and Rutgers wasn’t given credit for places in NY like Westchester County. (Although Comcast doesn’t operate in NYC itself.)
If the Big Ten was actually getting in market rates for the whole DC and NYC markets, wouldn’t they publicly disclose that?
Bro, please stop right here. Both UMd and Rutgers provide MILLIONS more households to the BTN than Auburn will ever provide to the SEC network. UMD gives the BTN 100% of Baltimore and 1/3 of the DC market. Rutgers provides 1/3 of Philly and 1/3 of NYC. That means Rutgers provides more carriage fees than Auburn and Alabama COMBINED. Total for Alabama is 1.7m divided by 2 for UA and AU compared to 2.3m for UMD and 3m for NJ all Rutgers. That means both of those schools provide millions more $$ in carriage fees to the BTN than Auburn, Miss St, Vanderbilt and UT combined bring to the SECN, because you all overlap the state flagships.
Now, if you want to talk pay-per-view subscriptions, you may have an argument. But you didn't. You went after cable fees, which is completely different.
Poster is not a good poster
Ohhhhh FFS… This is a ridiculous as DavidSt’s lists.
Scratch pad notes:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/p...-just-yet/
Quote:Kagan’s research listed the average national subscriber fee in five-year increments:
* In 2012, the Big Ten commanded $0.37 per sub, while the Pac-12 National network received $0.30.
* By 2017, the Big Ten’s average sub fee had jumped to $0.48, an increase of 30 percent, while the Pac-12 fee had dropped to $0.11.
Poster, I think you're asking a very valid question.
We're constantly looking at future Big Ten expansion, Virginia is one of the schools "on the table," and one of the reasons is expanding the in-market BTN footprint.
So it's a relevant question to ask: Are the 2M or so people in Northern Viriginia, the ones in the Washington DC media market, already counted as "in-market" for BTN.
It's a declining factor, as cord-cutting continues. For a "whale" like southern California with 5M tv households, it's still a big deal. Anywhere else, I'm not sure it matters as much. (Except maybe northern California).
I *believe* that NYC is counted as home-market BTN footprint because of Rutgers, I *suspect* that Westchester and Nassau counties (adjacent to NYC) are home-market. I wouldn't be surprised if Suffolk county (rest of Long Island) and some upstate counties (for me, upstate starts at the city line) were in-market.
But I don't have soruces to back those up, sorry.
Quote:If the Big Ten was actually getting in market rates for the whole DC and NYC markets, wouldn’t they publicly disclose that?
Not really. Delaney and now Warren don't get a dog biscuit for us knowing that. Big Ten gets the money, and they are perfectly free to show the actual data to any network or corporate partners or advertisers who have reason to care. Telling Matt Brown or Kristi Dosh or Steve Marchand or John Ourand doesn't butter their bread or fry their parsnips.
(01-03-2023 09:26 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]Scratch pad notes:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/p...-just-yet/
Quote:Kagan’s research listed the average national subscriber fee in five-year increments:
* In 2012, the Big Ten commanded $0.37 per sub, while the Pac-12 National network received $0.30.
* By 2017, the Big Ten’s average sub fee had jumped to $0.48, an increase of 30 percent, while the Pac-12 fee had dropped to $0.11.
Poster, I think you're asking a very valid question.
We're constantly looking at future Big Ten expansion, Virginia is one of the schools "on the table," and one of the reasons is expanding the in-market BTN footprint.
So it's a relevant question to ask: Are the 2M or so people in Northern Viriginia, the ones in the Washington DC media market, already counted as "in-market" for BTN.
It's a declining factor, as cord-cutting continues. For a "whale" like southern California with 5M tv households, it's still a big deal. Anywhere else, I'm not sure it matters as much. (Except maybe northern California).
I *believe* that NYC is counted as home-market BTN footprint because of Rutgers, I *suspect* that Westchester and Nassau counties (adjacent to NYC) are home-market. I wouldn't be surprised if Suffolk county (rest of Long Island) and some upstate counties (for me, upstate starts at the city line) were in-market.
But I don't have soruces to back those up, sorry.
Quote:If the Big Ten was actually getting in market rates for the whole DC and NYC markets, wouldn’t they publicly disclose that?
Not really. Delaney and now Warren don't get a dog biscuit for us knowing that. Big Ten gets the money, and they are perfectly free to show the actual data to any network or corporate partners or advertisers who have reason to care. Telling Matt Brown or Kristi Dosh or Steve Marchand or John Ourand doesn't butter their bread or fry their parsnips.
The cord cutting hit the Big 10 and ESPN hard about 5 years ago when Kagan announced a loss of 25% of the Big Ten Networks value year over year. It's been crickets since from Kagan (meaning no public reports), but what has been public is the transference of 20% of the 50% of the BTN held by the conference to FOX.
I haven't said much about this because quite frankly it's a sound business move that as the broadcast model as utilized on network TV slowly succumbs to streaming. But to Poster's point, in today's milieu Rutgers and Maryland aren't making the Big 10 a pile of money off of cable subscriptions because they have divested themselves of 20% of their holdings in the BTN.
Does this mean that Maryland and Rutgers no longer pay their way? Not really. But it does mean their former subscribers and present subscribers of the BTN need to stream as well. With football popularity waning among non-Boomers and Xers I do believe the debate over the addition of Maryland and Rutgers will continue to simmer. But so too will other conferences additions made under the footprint cable subscription model. Today it is brand vs brand which sells, but it sells better in the Deep South and Southwest than anywhere else outsides of some of the old Big 10's footprint. Why? Because it is still popular in high school and the NFL influence isn't as great.
The SEC and ACC haven't had to sell shares in their networks because they don't have any. But that doesn't mean they have felt the impact of cord cutting, they have. Their models were a 50/50 split after overhead. The Big 10 and FOX essentially split the profits and the overhead as partners in a business venture.
The Big 10 will benefit from selling even more of its stake in the BTN because the "buy in" had a large part to do with equal shares in that equity position and was not a punitive measure for joining schools. No buy in makes the Big 10 more appealing to prospects.