http://finance.yahoo.com/news/verizon-ad...UAEavBGOd_


From the link:

Quote:By Malathi Nayak

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Verizon Communications Inc will offer college sports programing in its upcoming online video service targeted at families and younger viewers who increasingly watch content on mobile devices, the company said on Thursday.

Verizon is expected to release its video service this summer and content from CBS Sports, ESPN, ACC Digital Network, Campus Insiders, and 120 Sports will be available later this year, the company said.

In March, Verizon announced a deal to add original online programing to its service from DreamWorks Animation and its AwesomenessTV unit that is known for creating popular content aimed at teens and younger adults known as millennials on Google Inc's YouTube.

Verizon executives have said the company's "mobile-first" service will offer 20 to 30 channels and that they also see a market for streaming original content.

More content deals are in the works and Verizon may rely largely on advertising for revenue from its upcoming online video service, company executives have said.

(Reporting by Malathi Nayak; editing by Gunna Dickson)

What is it about the ACC and alternative forms of distribution? Seems like it is always coupled with ESPN?

Almost like a plan.

From Verizon....


http://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizo...ffer-later

Quote:“Sports fans are some of the most passionate around, and they never want to miss a single play,” said Terry Denson, vice president, content acquisition and strategy at Verizon. “With consumers – especially younger consumers – demanding access to entertainment and information that matters to them, whenever and wherever they are, college sports with all of its live programming and networks targeted to millennials are a natural fit for any mobile-first video platform. These brands are at the top of the league, and we’re excited to work with them as new content models for our customers develop and evolve.”

A recent study done by CTM/University of Southern California found that nearly two-thirds of millennials surveyed consider smartphones or tablets, not televisions, as their primary device, and they are more likely than others to engage in entertainment activities – including social sharing – on their mobile devices. The study also found a 12 percent increase in overall video consumption between 2013 and 2014, with 18- to 24-year-olds having the largest increase, nearly doubling the national average.

So how much is it paying us?


Oh wait....we already sold those rights for peanuts. My bad!

Maybe in June when we are hiring a new baseball coach and a prime candidate asks about salary DRad can say "Money scmoney.....come coach of us and you'll be on Verizon Video!" I wonder how well that will go?

(04-16-2015 06:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So how much is it paying us?


Oh wait....we already sold those rights for peanuts. My bad!

Maybe in June when we are hiring a new baseball coach and a prime candidate asks about salary DRad can say "Money scmoney.....come coach of us and you'll be on Verizon Video!" I wonder how well that will go?

If he is 18-24 he will probably say " That is the reason I want to play here!"

When are all these "alternative forms of distribution" supposed to start having a financial impact? Serious question.

How much are these things actually bringing in? I'm not saying to stop doing it. But I'm questioning how much profit they're actually making.

I really don't know.

But there is no denying that the ACC is going about things differently. Verizon, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Chrome have ALL sought out the ACC. I'm guessing they think we can bring in the viewers and users. Gotta believe there is money there somewhere.

The ACC has shown itself to be good at hiding money. Even so, I have to think this is more about publicity (specifically reaching young people) than money (though there is undoubtedly some of that, too).

1. How many people are actually viewing the ACC on these devices?

2. I don't think these devices are actively seeking out the ACC. If it's not generating much revenue for the ACC, it's also not generating much revenue for these platforms.

(04-16-2015 09:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  1. How many people are actually viewing the ACC on these devices?

2. I don't think these devices are actively seeking out the ACC. If it's not generating much revenue for the ACC, it's also not generating much revenue for these platforms.

Again, I don't know, but it just seems to me that ALL these devices and avenues of distribution are lining up and waiting for the ACC/ESPN negotiations to complete.

At that point, Swofford is going to flip a big $ switch to the "ON".

Not impressed with the ACC Network right now...just a glorified highlights channel.

(04-16-2015 10:26 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Not impressed with the ACC Network right now...just a glorified highlights channel.

Agree 1000,000,000,000,000,000%


The *Live button mocks me.

(04-16-2015 10:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  1. How many people are actually viewing the ACC on these devices?

2. I don't think these devices are actively seeking out the ACC. If it's not generating much revenue for the ACC, it's also not generating much revenue for these platforms.

Again, I don't know, but it just seems to me that ALL these devices and avenues of distribution are lining up and waiting for the ACC/ESPN negotiations to complete.

At that point, Swofford is going to flip a big $ switch to the "ON".

It just seems like that's what you're hoping is happening, and isn't necessarily what is actually happening.

(04-16-2015 10:44 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 10:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 09:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  1. How many people are actually viewing the ACC on these devices?

2. I don't think these devices are actively seeking out the ACC. If it's not generating much revenue for the ACC, it's also not generating much revenue for these platforms.

Again, I don't know, but it just seems to me that ALL these devices and avenues of distribution are lining up and waiting for the ACC/ESPN negotiations to complete.

At that point, Swofford is going to flip a big $ switch to the "ON".

It just seems like that's what you're hoping is happening, and isn't necessarily what is actually happening.

You may be right. And that would be a damn shame.

Let's just say the ACC Network actually does get started in 2-3 years. (We all agree that there is NO guarantee a network is actually started in the next 2-3 years though, right?) Are these digital platforms actually going to reel in large sums of money at that point, when an ACCN is being distributed with, presumably(/hopefully), ESPN and SECN in the same package?

(04-16-2015 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  When are all these "alternative forms of distribution" supposed to start having a financial impact? Serious question.

How much are these things actually bringing in? I'm not saying to stop doing it. But I'm questioning how much profit they're actually making.

I think that they're bringing in a decent amount - or at least I imagine that they are. However, I don't think that money is going to us. We sold the rights. My guess is that we won't really benefit until we renegotiate in about 10 years.

(04-17-2015 01:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  When are all these "alternative forms of distribution" supposed to start having a financial impact? Serious question.

How much are these things actually bringing in? I'm not saying to stop doing it. But I'm questioning how much profit they're actually making.

I think that they're bringing in a decent amount - or at least I imagine that they are. However, I don't think that money is going to us. We sold the rights. My guess is that we won't really benefit until we renegotiate in about 10 years.

Not necessarily. Although I agree that the current iteration of the digital ACCN on yahoo kinda sucks, every time I want to watch a video, an Applebee's commercial pops up. It seems to me, IMHO, that the ACC must get some of that advertisement revenue.

A welcome to JAE VT...glad to have you join this crazy, dysfunctional bunch.

Pick your side: The Polly Anna's, the confused middle, the South Bend Indies, the I can't wait to leave the ACC'ers or the ACC wannabee's.

(04-17-2015 03:14 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  When are all these "alternative forms of distribution" supposed to start having a financial impact? Serious question.

How much are these things actually bringing in? I'm not saying to stop doing it. But I'm questioning how much profit they're actually making.

I think that they're bringing in a decent amount - or at least I imagine that they are. However, I don't think that money is going to us. We sold the rights. My guess is that we won't really benefit until we renegotiate in about 10 years.

Not necessarily. Although I agree that the current iteration of the digital ACCN on yahoo kinda sucks, every time I want to watch a video, an Applebee's commercial pops up. It seems to me, IMHO, that the ACC must get some of that advertisement revenue.

Why? That's not usually how it works, unless you think that our contract with ____ has some kind of profit-sharing arrangement.

(04-17-2015 08:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:14 AM)JAE_VT Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 01:06 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 07:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  When are all these "alternative forms of distribution" supposed to start having a financial impact? Serious question.

How much are these things actually bringing in? I'm not saying to stop doing it. But I'm questioning how much profit they're actually making.

I think that they're bringing in a decent amount - or at least I imagine that they are. However, I don't think that money is going to us. We sold the rights. My guess is that we won't really benefit until we renegotiate in about 10 years.

Not necessarily. Although I agree that the current iteration of the digital ACCN on yahoo kinda sucks, every time I want to watch a video, an Applebee's commercial pops up. It seems to me, IMHO, that the ACC must get some of that advertisement revenue.

Why? That's not usually how it works, unless you think that our contract with ____ has some kind of profit-sharing arrangement.

IIRC, the ACC actually owns the ACCDN and just contracts Raycom and a company named Silver Chalice to produce it. Any profits from advertising should go back to the ACC (small though they may be).

(04-17-2015 09:15 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IIRC, the ACC actually owns the ACCDN and just contracts Raycom and a company named Silver Chalice to produce it. Any profits from advertising should go back to the ACC (small though they may be).

Interesting. I figured that this content would have been included in the stuff that we sold to ESPN, who then resold it to Raycom.