(01-16-2014 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, at some point it isn't going to matter what games ESPN will play to try and protect its revenue stream. People aren't going to pay it. Eventually someone is going to start an internet broadcast news service, entertainment network, weather channel, etc. Watch that USSC case with Aereo as well (Aereo will likely win).

I'd rather not pay for Major League Baseball, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. And at some point, I won't have to continue to pay for sports programming I don't want to.

This is coming. Within 5 years. And it will turn college sports on its head.

This could cause chaos in college football. Especially in top heavy conferences. For example, The UT Longhorn Network could be a problem for the Big XII, as there will likely be massive differentials between what UT, OU and OSU can receive for their product and what the others can demand. Florida State, VT, and Clemson have a LOT more support than Wake, Pitt, or Uva over in the ACC. This could even cause issues with the (gasp) SEC. This could cause conference shifts or possibly more schools to go independent (see UT). For the Big Ten, this will expose their decision to take Rutgers and Maryland (teams in huge markets that largely won't deliver them, especially when people are in a pay for view scenario).

For the G5 conferences, its a mixed bag. Most of these games will continue to be broadcast, either on cable or on broadcast internet. There will be more game choices for TV though. The Belt will end up with more exposure and probably a little more money. Everyone else will end up the same.

The coming changes to pay per view for NCAA football really could come down hard on low intensity teams in the P5, such as Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas, Texas Tech, Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky, Purdue, Indiana, Washington State, and Oregon State if they get shut out of equal revenue by the greater producing conference members or in a worse case, get left behind when high earning conference mates just leave them.

The SEC - 10 high intensity/large fan bases, 4 lower intensity groups. Lowest chance of a split. There are too many good teams here that pull their own weight.
B1G - The B1G doesn't admit that they make mistakes. But I would imagine that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin and Michigan State might get a bit peeved about a greater and more obvious revenue distribution model.
BigXII - In serious danger of breaking up due to the extreme asymmetry of fan intensity/support. UT and OU are in a league by themselves. OSU carries their own weight. Tech, Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas....not so much. If this model develops, watch for UT and possibly OU to go indy. Which would be catastrophic for some of the Big XII smalls. Baylor and Tech should be thankful for the GOR. But at some point, the differential in income might make that irrelevant.
ACC - A problem as well. Huge asymmetry in fan support. Clemson and Florida State are already not happy with the basketball focus. God help the lower teams if Florida State and Clemson start talking to UT and OU.
Pac12 - Pretty much evenly split. Everyone will be carrying Washington State, but that, plus geography, isn't going to be enough to knock that conference apart.

Certainly there are GOR's and exit fees to consider. But in a pay per view (or pay per channel) scenario, there are going to be some teams leaving a LOT more money on the table with their current conference affiliations.

Meh. You're assuming that we, as consumers, always want to parse through and pick and choose and, more importantly, pay for entertainment programming individually. We don't *really* want to do that. What we really want is to (1) pay less and (2) STILL have an all-you-can-eat buffet. Netflix, which is what many people mistakenly refer to as an example of "a la carte", is an all-you-can-eat buffet. In fact, the way that it killed Blockbuster in the "old" DVD rental world was to specifically NOT have a PPV model. In its streaming world, it's also very much NOT a PPV service - it's an aggregator of a lot of different types of content from a lot of different third parties (with a handful of self produced shows) and you have access to all of it for ONE price. Essentially, Netflix (and Amazon and Hulu) are close to mirroring the entire breadth of what you have in your cable lineup (besides sports) as opposed to being individual channels. That's the value proposition that Netflix is selling (as opposed to a la carte).

Now, a platform like ESPN3 may eventually become that for sports. However, I don't see that upending the entire system because, ultimately, the entities that are getting paid the most now are the ones that have always been getting paid the most in the past and have adapted as such in every media environment. The New York Yankees and Big Ten were the richest entities when cable didn't exist, and were then the richest entities when cable started paying rights fees, and then were the richest entities again when they figured out that they could start their own networks. They certainly don't want YES and BTN to die, but they also have a HUGE leg up on adjusting to the new streaming world as a result of those properties (i.e. mobile apps, authentication streaming, etc.).

Also, you focus on the upside potential of individual schools going their separate ways, but you don't consider the downside risk. Pooling your rights together with others that bring value mitigates the up and down years that happen to even the very best athletic programs. Now, Texas can do what it does with the LHN because the rest of the Big 12 doesn't really provide much value to them. There is virtually nothing that the other Big 12 members can provide to them off-the-field that Texas can't procure on its own (i.e. fan bases, TV markets, recruiting areas). However, Ohio State and Michigan have a HUGE interest in ensuring that they have exposure in the Chicago, Indianapolis and Minneapolis areas (which are the areas of the Midwest that are growing much better than Ohio and Michigan), which means that supposed dregs like Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota actually provide quite a bit of value to the kings of the Big Ten.

The SEC also isn't stupid. They just HAD an "eat what you kill" structure for third tier rights, yet all of the schools just signed those over to the conference so that the SEC Network would be created. It isn't as if though this was even 2007 when the BTN was formed and Netflix and the like weren't streaming giants - they did this LAST YEAR! They know that, in the long term, grouping those rights together are what will provide an even keel to all of its members year-to-year. That elimination of downside risk is every bit as important (or even more important) than trying to maximize your own individual revenue.

(01-15-2014 08:32 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Question: Satellite is the only option where we live. We pay for HBO, Cinemax... and are considering canceling due to lack of content. Is it worth it to pay for the WWE channel or summer slam and wrestle mania twice a year. Yes, I'm embarrassed asking this in the first place.

For both those PPV you are looking at close to $120 to watch them. Which is the same price that you would pay for a 12 month subscription. So I would go with the monthly rate which is easier to swallow then to pay for just 2 ppv's and take that big $60 hit at once.

Something to remember with the WWE network is that it will not include its two TV bell cows, Raw and Smackdown. They expect to get a significant rights fees bump this year because a) still-strong ratings relative to the rest of cable TV, b) a more advertiser-friendly product since they excised most of the adult content associated with it in the past few years, and most importantly c) along with traditional sports, it's one of the few programming options that aren't susceptible to time-shifting. Fans will DVR it and perhaps keep an episode that had a match or angle they really liked, but by and large, they want to watch it when it happens, and with rare exceptions, that's it -- you might see a "Best of Raw 2013" DVD set, but you won't see a full set of episodes.

The main risk they're taking is with the PPV market, which has been slowly dying for them (whether that's a product of the economy, demographics, competition from UFC, internal creative issues or anything else is subject to interpretation). They're taking the chance that enough people will pay the $10 per month to make up for the shrinking audience willing to part with $50-70 to buy a show on PPV. It's not a bad risk, since between the quality of the programming and the ease of pirating, PPV numbers aren't likely to reverse their slide. Conversely, pick up more casual fans and also those who've been pirating that are willing to pay a little for a quality, non-virus experience (Napster --> iTunes migration), and you might find yourself in pretty good shape.

The rest of the network is content they already have in the can, cheaply-produced add-on programming (pre and post-game shows for Raw and Smackdown), probably some YouTube shows of theirs that'll move over, and NXT, which is their minor league organization that's already televised on Florida cable and on Hulu. By not going the cable route, they probably save a good bit in overhead, plus they won't have the problems with accessability, since it would have almost certainly been a digital-tier channel.

The upshot of all this is that sports channels (and UFC, which has its own $10/month over-the-top deal) will watch to see how this shakes out, and they'll learn lessons based on its successes and failures. But WWE is in a situation that isn't analogous to ESPN or the college networks. The WWE Network is more a cross between ESPN3, ESPN Classic and perhaps a little old school ESPN2. But as WWE isn't moving Raw and Smackdown to the network unless a) they can make more money off it that way or b) the shows' ratings crater and nobody wants it anymore, which probably means there wouldn't be much of a network by then anyway), don't expect anyone else to go completely over-the-top either. Cable will still have a significant impact on sports programming until such time as high-speed internet is universal in its quality and availability.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I keep waiting for "the" announcement.

Youtube purchases the rights to ________ sports content. Streaming in Ultra HD blowing away the picture quality of that out of date 1080p HD content (or 720p) that you are watching now.

Right now, Youtube/Google, Yahoo!, and Amazon are the only companies out there with server capacity to reliable offer Ultra HD

Nobody has the equipment to record sports in that resolution right now. It took forever to get production equipment HD ready (720p/1080i), it will take even longer to get into any higher resolutions.

Frank,

You are forgetting over the air TV. I'm assuming the current administration philosophy doesn't eliminate it. I get over 60 channels over the air with an indoor antenna. Most people only watch about 10-12 channels. There's plenty to watch. More people are cutting the cord because the price is getting prohibitive. Younger people are going to do more over the internet and, in broadcasters worst nightmare, do things other than TV. People will subscribe to what they want.

The issue to the internet alterative is bandwith capacity. That will get solved at some point in time.

Right now the non-sports fans are subsidizing the type of people who read this board. That's not going to continue forever. Those women over 50 who are non-sports fans probably have the highest voter participation %.

(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.

(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.

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.

(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. I get over 60 channels over the air with an indoor antenna. Most people only watch about 10-12 channels. There's plenty to watch. More people are cutting the cord because the price is getting prohibitive. Younger people are going to do more over the internet and, in broadcasters worst nightmare, do things other than TV. People will subscribe to what they want.

The issue to the internet alterative is bandwith capacity. That will get solved at some point in time.

Right now the non-sports fans are subsidizing the type of people who read this board. That's not going to continue forever. Those women over 50 who are non-sports fans probably have the highest voter participation %.

Well, I don't think it's just pure cost when it comes to cord cutting. It's really a combo of people being able to access the same programming elsewhere for lower costs (once again, outside of sports), so they're taking that option. That will work temporarily because we're at a crossroads where cable is still near its subscriber peak and streaming hasn't completely taken over, so we have a critical mass of shows still being produced. However, what younger people are watching online - Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, etc. - were all produced by cable dollars. Those shows simply wouldn't exist without cable. Once those cable dollars dry up, they'll stop producing content, which then reduces the amount of content that will end up being streamed. Netflix and Amazon can step in and start producing original content like they're starting to do, but it's simply not going to be on the scale of 200-plus cable channels producing their own content and competing with each other. And even if they do start producing original content on a much more massive scale or start buying up sports, they're going to have to raise prices to pay for that... and we're just going to end up paying the same amount only it goes into different pockets.

A lot of people try to compare this to the changes in the music business caused by the Internet, but to me, the primary analogy is newspapers. In, say, 1999, we were at a crossroads where newspapers across America still had full reporting staffs while the Internet became ubiquitous. For a handful of years, there was a peak amount of quality newspaper content available and it was widely distributed cheaply or free over the web. Pretty soon, though, newspapers starting cutting themselves to the bone, and now access to news that isn't partisan-based opinion is actually worse than it was 10 years ago. It took literally dozens of online readers to replicate the revenue of a single dead tree newspaper reader. Similarly, it takes dozens of online viewers to replicate the revenue of single traditional TV viewer.

Ultimately, we're not going to get something for nothing (as enticing as that might be for consumers). The downfall of basic cable might be inevitable. However, eventually, (a) prices will rise for Internet service and individual cable channels to the point where any cost savings from a la carte will be eradicated and/or (b) the availability of content that you want to watch in the first place will be reduced dramatically.

(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.

(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.

(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.

I think this is precisely the problem, Frank... the existing metrics. I forgot where I read it, but some smart folks are trying to solve this problem by employing the only surefire way to let a company know if their advertising is working... direct purchase/action. As Smart TV's and other devices become the norm, it will be possible (and, I think, common) for Papa John's to show a commercial during a football game, have a box near the bottom that says "Press "OK" to order a large 2 topping for $7.99 with free delivery!", and it knows your address and charges your card or account. Similarly, a new whiskey can have a sleek add during Mad Men, regardless of the programming provider, that loads a coupon to your phone for a free mini at any retailer. Heck, I'm a Tennessee boy that is loyal to Jack, but I'm clicking "OK" every time.

This is how niche programming can survive against better ratings. 500,000 people watching Wimbledon while 5,000,000 are watching the Titans vs. the Colts? Rolex doesn't care. They get 50,000 interactions from Wimbledon and 750,000 from football, but 5,000 Wimbledon viewers ended up buying while 1,000 MNF purchased.

Google and other online advertising has become so precise in how they generate ad revenue that surely TV, once online, will follow suit.

(01-15-2014 05:02 PM)brista21 Wrote:  All I'm going to say about ala carte pay television is be careful what you wish for.

How so?

WWE's network will more than likely be successful on the value if it vs. PPV costs & it's vast library holdings. It also helps that they own most of the rights to their characters &don't have to deal with it's workers collectively .

(01-17-2014 01:01 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 05:02 PM)brista21 Wrote:  All I'm going to say about ala carte pay television is be careful what you wish for.

How so?

Sports fans would almost certainly end up paying more to get what they get now.

(01-17-2014 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 01:01 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 05:02 PM)brista21 Wrote:  All I'm going to say about ala carte pay television is be careful what you wish for.

How so?

Sports fans would almost certainly end up paying more to get what they get now.

Perhaps. But they would also -- unlike the status quo -- not have to pay for a lot of crap that they don't want, either. (It was nice knowing you, Lifetime, BET, FoodChannel, etc.)

(01-17-2014 09:46 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2014 01:01 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-15-2014 05:02 PM)brista21 Wrote:  All I'm going to say about ala carte pay television is be careful what you wish for.

How so?

Sports fans would almost certainly end up paying more to get what they get now.

Perhaps. But they would also -- unlike the status quo -- not have to pay for a lot of crap that they don't want, either. (It was nice knowing you, Lifetime, BET, FoodChannel, etc.)

The amount you pay for the bundled channels (that I had in programmed guide) is nominal in comparison.

(01-16-2014 05:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I think this is precisely the problem, Frank... the existing metrics. I forgot where I read it, but some smart folks are trying to solve this problem by employing the only surefire way to let a company know if their advertising is working... direct purchase/action. As Smart TV's and other devices become the norm, it will be possible (and, I think, common) for Papa John's to show a commercial during a football game, have a box near the bottom that says "Press "OK" to order a large 2 topping for $7.99 with free delivery!", and it knows your address and charges your card or account. Similarly, a new whiskey can have a sleek add during Mad Men, regardless of the programming provider, that loads a coupon to your phone for a free mini at any retailer. Heck, I'm a Tennessee boy that is loyal to Jack, but I'm clicking "OK" every time.

This is how niche programming can survive against better ratings. 500,000 people watching Wimbledon while 5,000,000 are watching the Titans vs. the Colts? Rolex doesn't care. They get 50,000 interactions from Wimbledon and 750,000 from football, but 5,000 Wimbledon viewers ended up buying while 1,000 MNF purchased.

Google and other online advertising has become so precise in how they generate ad revenue that surely TV, once online, will follow suit.

Sure, and that's the billion or even trillion dollar question. That being said, how will these click-through rates on web streaming be substantially different from what we already have with websites today? I've been surfing the web for 20 years, and I'm pretty sure that the only times that I've ever clicked on any online ads was by mistake. Google makes excellent money off of advertising, but that's largely based off of its search engine platform and placing ads at the top of search results when you're actually looking for a specific product.

Now, the market may simply going that direction and both content producers and advertisers are going to have to adjust their approaches. I'm just saying that this isn't a rapid change - it's not an accident that all of these sports rights contracts are being signed for 15 or 20 years in length. ESPN and Fox aren't just going to throw in the towel in a couple of years - they're going to ride that exclusivity to specifically keep the current system in place as long as possible. That continues to be what makes sports inherently different from movies, scripted TV shows, news and anything else online or on TV. It's (a) exclusive (i.e. if I want to watch the Rose Bowl or Monday Night Football, I *have* to watch ESPN regardless of what I think of their commentators, unlike CNN/Fox News/MSNBC) and (b) live (meaning that the on-demand advantage that Netflix and other web streamers have for scripted programs doesn't apply to sports - they will always be events where lots of people want to watch the exact same thing at the exact same time, which is what TV is specifically optimized to do).

We're also not getting into the net neutrality issues. We've had a good deal as consumers so far where we've had relatively low costs for services like Netflix (both for the content itself and the Internet connections to use it), but much like mobile phone data plans, prices will eventually rise and/or you're not going to have the unfettered all-you-can-eat usage of data that we have now. Cable might very well die, but I think a lot of people are extremely naive that we're going to be saving money in the long-run. The money is just going to shift to another pocket (and it might still be the cable providers themselves since they're the ones that provide most of our high-speed Internet connections in the first place).

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.

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.

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...)