Two weeks to go until the ACC Network launches.

The only recent development is the addition of YouTubeTV, but their reach is small much like other online services.

A lot of the big boys are still not signed on.

(08-08-2019 01:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 09:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 09:43 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Nah, you guys can keep PAWL. And Phillis from Mulga.

None of us would touch Phyllis from Mulga with your thing, let alone ours! And Paul gets more boring by the day. We could do much better.

Phyllis screeches. Are Jim, Dave, and the whole mess of those callers still around? I stopped watching about two years ago. Sadly, Auburn fan, Tammy, and her granddaughter deceased from a vehicular accident last November.

And Stingray? Does Mississippi State really want that showcased? I don't.

Feinbaum and his technical/commentary studio duet are actually being condescending, and making fun of ignorant and/or inappropriately emotional callers, supposedly to generate humor. Taking calls from anyone intoxicated is sending the wrong message.

Anyone of culture in the Deep South knows that Finebaum is a June Bug, an insect frequently found making its living off of a pile of pooh. Yellow Journalism is a tag that gives him too much credit. Our network needs to be used to showcase not only our sports but also the finer features of each school and any SEC show needs to take calls from our alumni and not from the most pathetic who claim to be our fans. Finebaum is Jerry Springer and for the life of me I can't grasp why our school presidents put up with it.

Quietly, there is resignation among some that the ACC Network is not going to launch as successfully as hoped.

From ABC 10 in Miami: Still no deal with largest cable provider

A paid article for any Sports Business Daily subscribers:

But here's a tidbit from their piece:

Quote:ACC Network Likely to Launch Without Several Major Distributors

Swofford has said that the conference plans for the ACC Network to be fully distributed by its third year, The launch of the ACC Network is two weeks away, and five of the country’s biggest distributors -- Comcast, Dish Network, AT&T U-verse, Charter/Spectrum ...

Large providers who have not signed on:

Comcast
AT&T Uverse...AT&T Now(streaming service) is not on board either even though DirecTV is.
Charter/Spectrum
Dish Network
Cox

Here's the thing you really have to look out for. If the largest providers in the country are not carrying your product then it's not simply a matter of losing out on subscriptions. The value of the subscriptions you do have takes a dive. We don't know what Disney is pricing the ACC Network at, but I wouldn't be shocked if they have to lower the sub rate to get on the most important providers. That means they'll have to lower their sub rate with everyone.

(08-09-2019 10:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Quietly, there is resignation among some that the ACC Network is not going to launch as successfully as hoped.

From ABC 10 in Miami: Still no deal with largest cable provider

A paid article for any Sports Business Daily subscribers:

But here's a tidbit from their piece:

Quote:ACC Network Likely to Launch Without Several Major Distributors

Swofford has said that the conference plans for the ACC Network to be fully distributed by its third year, The launch of the ACC Network is two weeks away, and five of the country’s biggest distributors -- Comcast, Dish Network, AT&T U-verse, Charter/Spectrum ...

Large providers who have not signed on:

Comcast
AT&T Uverse...AT&T Now(streaming service) is not on board either even though DirecTV is.
Charter/Spectrum
Dish Network
Cox

Here's the thing you really have to look out for. If the largest providers in the country are not carrying your product then it's not simply a matter of losing out on subscriptions. The value of the subscriptions you do have takes a dive. We don't know what Disney is pricing the ACC Network at, but I wouldn't be shocked if they have to lower the sub rate to get on the most important providers. That means they'll have to lower their sub rate with everyone.

I have always felt that the sub rate would be the weak link in this deal.

The average of the in footprint and out of footprint rate for the SEC is .74 cents. The average for the Big 10 is .49 cents. The average for the PAC is .11 cents. What that has always told me is that the ACC will average less than .49 cents and more than .11 cents. I have long thought that with ESPN's push they might get .35 cents or more. And then they have to see those subscriptions.

Tallahassee Democrat reports on FSU AD's message to fans

Quote:This has FSU taking major action as Athletic Director David Coburn released a letter to FSU fans, advising them to take action as launch nears.

"If you are a customer of either Comcast Cable, DISH Network, Century Link or Frontier Communications, you will NOT have the ACC Network or ACC Network Extra and you will not be able to see the games at this time," Coburn said in his statement.

"With the launch of the ACC Network just over two weeks away, we are now recommending that FSU fans who have Comcast, DISH Network, Century Link or Frontier Communications switch providers to ensure they do not miss any of the action."

These are not the words of a confident man.

While his statement goes on to say that Florida State fans must show the providers how hungry they are by threatening to take their business elsewhere, the problem on a macro level is that he's talking to the wind.

Now there are plenty of Florida State fans, that's not the problem. The problem is that a small sliver of the ACC population actually cares about this network. If there were millions of people ready to switch providers then the larger companies would be very interested in carrying the ACC Network. In other words, the whole discussion would be a moot point.

The problem is not that the ACCN is not getting full distribution. The problem is that the vast majority of large providers are not on board. That says that the demand is very small.

The vast majority of the providers that have signed up are niche. That means the pressure on large providers to add the network is very little.

Swofford saying that it might take until year 3 for the network to get full penetration is just unacceptable. Folks, the ACC has a problem.

It is OK for AD Coburn to mention the network carriers. His urging of fans who are not customers of broadcast providers that won't carry the ACCN, to contact their providers to urge them to add the access, is still OK.

Coburn urging fans to "switch" companies over this is going too far. Universities should not be endorsing certain corporations over others, and telling fans where to buy. Public institutions directing constituents as to which private businesses to shop, at the expense of other private businesses, is a step too far. Should Coburn be telling people, in behalf of FSU, what stocks to sell and which ones to purchase?

Coburn needs to walk back that statement or be reprimanded by higher-ups. I don't know him, but such clumsiness suggests his AD PR skills are underdeveloped.

Commentary from the AJC on the ACC Network debut.

"comes at a bad time for ACC football"

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mike-check/acc-...Yq80sn5dP/

More commentary:

https://amp.thestate.com/sports/college/...73717.html

(08-11-2019 09:04 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  More commentary:

https://amp.thestate.com/sports/college/...73717.html

I think they'll land Charter. There's too much business for Charter in the Southeast to lose the SECN and Disney channels and ESPN will use that to their advantage.

But to put the AJC's article into perspective if the ACCN did only make 1 million its first year that would be a 2 million cut in pay for the ACC schools. ESPN had been paying them a bump of 3 million a year not to have a network. Let that sink in. That means ESPN never thought this would be an easy and profitable venture.

With Charter I think they'll come close to covering their 3 million, which is what I've figured all along they would make. But if Clemson were to drop 2 games this year the demand and numbers might not be enough to compel Dish and Uverse and Comcast to get on board next year. There will be a lot riding on the fortunes of the Clemson Tigers to keep the ACCN viable with numbers.

(08-10-2019 11:34 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is OK for AD Coburn to mention the network carriers. His urging of fans who are not customers of broadcast providers that won't carry the ACCN, to contact their providers to urge them to add the access, is still OK.

Coburn urging fans to "switch" companies over this is going too far. Universities should not be endorsing certain corporations over others, and telling fans where to buy. Public institutions directing constituents as to which private businesses to shop, at the expense of other private businesses, is a step too far. Should Coburn be telling people, in behalf of FSU, what stocks to sell and which ones to purchase?

Coburn needs to walk back that statement or be reprimanded by higher-ups. I don't know him, but such clumsiness suggests his AD PR skills are underdeveloped.

If I’m an A.D. I would also ask the fanbase to demand or find ways to subscribe to their sports network. That’s a huge revenue stream and connection between the University and fans. This is the new streaming age, find ways to succeed or get left behind.

https://www.couponingtodisney.com/disney...lu-disney/

I don't know if this information will be pertinent, but it seems like it should be. Bundling streaming services is getting closer to ala carte type systems we've been talking about on boards like this for years. In addition, I think the cost serves as a decent barometer of streaming value.

(08-12-2019 04:54 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 11:34 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is OK for AD Coburn to mention the network carriers. His urging of fans who are not customers of broadcast providers that won't carry the ACCN, to contact their providers to urge them to add the access, is still OK.

Coburn urging fans to "switch" companies over this is going too far. Universities should not be endorsing certain corporations over others, and telling fans where to buy. Public institutions directing constituents as to which private businesses to shop, at the expense of other private businesses, is a step too far. Should Coburn be telling people, in behalf of FSU, what stocks to sell and which ones to purchase?

Coburn needs to walk back that statement or be reprimanded by higher-ups. I don't know him, but such clumsiness suggests his AD PR skills are underdeveloped.

If I’m an A.D. I would also ask the fanbase to demand or find ways to subscribe to their sports network. That’s a huge revenue stream and connection between the University and fans. This is the new streaming age, find ways to succeed or get left behind.

I can be sympathetic to that to some degree, but I think it's risky business.

For an AD or school official to make that sort of overture, it's outside of his purview. You set yourself up as an adversary to a company you'd prefer to be doing business with and you run the risk of alienating them.

I haven't seen any of the other ADs or Presidents say anything like this. Feels like Coburn is out on a limb.

(08-12-2019 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 04:54 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 11:34 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is OK for AD Coburn to mention the network carriers. His urging of fans who are not customers of broadcast providers that won't carry the ACCN, to contact their providers to urge them to add the access, is still OK.

Coburn urging fans to "switch" companies over this is going too far. Universities should not be endorsing certain corporations over others, and telling fans where to buy. Public institutions directing constituents as to which private businesses to shop, at the expense of other private businesses, is a step too far. Should Coburn be telling people, in behalf of FSU, what stocks to sell and which ones to purchase?

Coburn needs to walk back that statement or be reprimanded by higher-ups. I don't know him, but such clumsiness suggests his AD PR skills are underdeveloped.

If I’m an A.D. I would also ask the fanbase to demand or find ways to subscribe to their sports network. That’s a huge revenue stream and connection between the University and fans. This is the new streaming age, find ways to succeed or get left behind.

I can be sympathetic to that to some degree, but I think it's risky business.

For an AD or school official to make that sort of overture, it's outside of his purview. You set yourself up as an adversary to a company you'd prefer to be doing business with and you run the risk of alienating them.

I haven't seen any of the other ADs or Presidents say anything like this. Feels like Coburn is out on a limb.

Damage control. It was the F.S.U. A.D. that was putting the 15 million per school B.S. out about the ACCN. Not even the SECN or BTN make 15 million, not even 12 million. We might make 11. So now that Georgia Tech has budgeted 1 million in revenue from the ACCN for 2019-20 and the Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported the same projection he's having to cover his ridiculous claims. He should just shut up an admit he was way off base.

(08-12-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 04:54 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 11:34 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is OK for AD Coburn to mention the network carriers. His urging of fans who are not customers of broadcast providers that won't carry the ACCN, to contact their providers to urge them to add the access, is still OK.

Coburn urging fans to "switch" companies over this is going too far. Universities should not be endorsing certain corporations over others, and telling fans where to buy. Public institutions directing constituents as to which private businesses to shop, at the expense of other private businesses, is a step too far. Should Coburn be telling people, in behalf of FSU, what stocks to sell and which ones to purchase?

Coburn needs to walk back that statement or be reprimanded by higher-ups. I don't know him, but such clumsiness suggests his AD PR skills are underdeveloped.

If I’m an A.D. I would also ask the fanbase to demand or find ways to subscribe to their sports network. That’s a huge revenue stream and connection between the University and fans. This is the new streaming age, find ways to succeed or get left behind.

I can be sympathetic to that to some degree, but I think it's risky business.

For an AD or school official to make that sort of overture, it's outside of his purview. You set yourself up as an adversary to a company you'd prefer to be doing business with and you run the risk of alienating them.

I haven't seen any of the other ADs or Presidents say anything like this. Feels like Coburn is out on a limb.

Damage control. It was the F.S.U. A.D. that was putting the 15 million per school B.S. out about the ACCN. Not even the SECN or BTN make 15 million, not even 12 million. We might make 11. So now that Georgia Tech has budgeted 1 million in revenue from the ACCN for 2019-20 and the Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported the same projection he's having to cover his ridiculous claims. He should just shut up an admit he was way off base.

The lack of distribution is also going to kill the ad rates. Demand drives everything and it's a snowball effect.

It's one thing if fans aren't paying subscriber fees for your network, but it's a double whammy. If your network is not on their cable package then they're not watching and the advertisers know that all too well.

If the largest providers aren't signing on then the ratings have a very low ceiling. The ceiling is fairly low anyway considering the content of a T3 network, but that just compounds the issue.

Basically, what Coburn did was pump a bunch of sunshine. If everything worked out as well as it possibly could then maybe $15 million was within reach, but that was fantasy. If it wasn't working that well for products that had higher demand then there was literally no chance of touching a reasonable figure.

For the ACC Network, there is no middle ground. Either the demand for the product will result in a strong return or it will be fairly pitiful. I understand Disney will go to the negotiating table with some of these providers within the next 3 years. Perhaps then the ACCN will have better penetration simply as a function of being bundled with channels more people want, but I don't see the sub fees being particularly impressive. ESPN knew well and good that the leverage would be a little weaker in 2019 as opposed to 2021-2022, but they went ahead with this launch plan anyway. I'm sure they knew that rolling out the product now might actually hurt their profit margins later because an ACCN that didn't necessarily light the world on fire for 2-3 years isn't going to all of a sudden appear more attractive to carriers in the future.

So why did they roll it out now?

Well, I'm sure you can provide some insight JR, but my pet theory has 2 facets. For one, ESPN had made promises they needed to keep. Being as they had to pay the ACC anyway for their T3 product, it was cheaper to launch an ACCN on the current schedule. At least then, ESPN would generate a little more money from the product they were already paying for.

Secondly, Disney knows cable and satellite are fading. If they waited an additional 2-3 years to launch this network then their potential windfall was smaller. The projected number of cable and satellite subscribers keeps falling. So the longer Disney/ESPN waits to launch an ACCN, the less they can expect in return.

I do think the cable subs will stabilize within the next few years as people figure out what they want to pay for it, but streaming services are getting more expensive as well. So it's not like traditional cord cutting will have as big of an impact on the market in the near future as it has in recent years.

Either way, the ACCN doesn't feel like an investment in the future as much as a budgeting strategy.

Additionally, ESPN knows that FAANG companies could come in and shake up the sports world in a few short years.

Why worry about investing in the long term future of any conference if it's a very real possibility that the pay model alters even more radically than it already has?

(08-13-2019 12:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 02:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 04:54 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 11:34 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  It is OK for AD Coburn to mention the network carriers. His urging of fans who are not customers of broadcast providers that won't carry the ACCN, to contact their providers to urge them to add the access, is still OK.

Coburn urging fans to "switch" companies over this is going too far. Universities should not be endorsing certain corporations over others, and telling fans where to buy. Public institutions directing constituents as to which private businesses to shop, at the expense of other private businesses, is a step too far. Should Coburn be telling people, in behalf of FSU, what stocks to sell and which ones to purchase?

Coburn needs to walk back that statement or be reprimanded by higher-ups. I don't know him, but such clumsiness suggests his AD PR skills are underdeveloped.

If I’m an A.D. I would also ask the fanbase to demand or find ways to subscribe to their sports network. That’s a huge revenue stream and connection between the University and fans. This is the new streaming age, find ways to succeed or get left behind.

I can be sympathetic to that to some degree, but I think it's risky business.

For an AD or school official to make that sort of overture, it's outside of his purview. You set yourself up as an adversary to a company you'd prefer to be doing business with and you run the risk of alienating them.

I haven't seen any of the other ADs or Presidents say anything like this. Feels like Coburn is out on a limb.

Damage control. It was the F.S.U. A.D. that was putting the 15 million per school B.S. out about the ACCN. Not even the SECN or BTN make 15 million, not even 12 million. We might make 11. So now that Georgia Tech has budgeted 1 million in revenue from the ACCN for 2019-20 and the Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported the same projection he's having to cover his ridiculous claims. He should just shut up an admit he was way off base.

The lack of distribution is also going to kill the ad rates. Demand drives everything and it's a snowball effect.

It's one thing if fans aren't paying subscriber fees for your network, but it's a double whammy. If your network is not on their cable package then they're not watching and the advertisers know that all too well.

If the largest providers aren't signing on then the ratings have a very low ceiling. The ceiling is fairly low anyway considering the content of a T3 network, but that just compounds the issue.

Basically, what Coburn did was pump a bunch of sunshine. If everything worked out as well as it possibly could then maybe $15 million was within reach, but that was fantasy. If it wasn't working that well for products that had higher demand then there was literally no chance of touching a reasonable figure.

For the ACC Network, there is no middle ground. Either the demand for the product will result in a strong return or it will be fairly pitiful. I understand Disney will go to the negotiating table with some of these providers within the next 3 years. Perhaps then the ACCN will have better penetration simply as a function of being bundled with channels more people want, but I don't see the sub fees being particularly impressive. ESPN knew well and good that the leverage would be a little weaker in 2019 as opposed to 2021-2022, but they went ahead with this launch plan anyway. I'm sure they knew that rolling out the product now might actually hurt their profit margins later because an ACCN that didn't necessarily light the world on fire for 2-3 years isn't going to all of a sudden appear more attractive to carriers in the future.

So why did they roll it out now?

Well, I'm sure you can provide some insight JR, but my pet theory has 2 facets. For one, ESPN had made promises they needed to keep. Being as they had to pay the ACC anyway for their T3 product, it was cheaper to launch an ACCN on the current schedule. At least then, ESPN would generate a little more money from the product they were already paying for.

Secondly, Disney knows cable and satellite are fading. If they waited an additional 2-3 years to launch this network then their potential windfall was smaller. The projected number of cable and satellite subscribers keeps falling. So the longer Disney/ESPN waits to launch an ACCN, the less they can expect in return.

I do think the cable subs will stabilize within the next few years as people figure out what they want to pay for it, but streaming services are getting more expensive as well. So it's not like traditional cord cutting will have as big of an impact on the market in the near future as it has in recent years.

Either way, the ACCN doesn't feel like an investment in the future as much as a budgeting strategy.

I think that's a sound assessment. I agree that they were tired of paying them 3 million per team not to have one. The Conference Network model isn't going to survive. It's pretty clear to me as we move to all P games there will be more T1 and T2 but no T3.

Whether the Big 10 and SEC divide the Big 12 and we move to a P4, or Amazon swoops in with a colossal offering that alters everything things are going to change. Content is going to rule and those conferences with only a few brands are going to be rearranged and likely from schools wanting to cash in more than from a raid.

Who knows maybe the ACCN is something that finally proves that the ACC has too many disparate parts of too many value levels. Or maybe it makes them change their organizing principle and they get adventurous with Texas privates.

We'll see.

Just announced. Spectrum is the second biggest cable company in the country with 16.6 million subscribers. (Comcast has 21 million).

Rumor is that Dish is right behind them.

(08-14-2019 01:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Rumor is that Dish is right behind them.

Mark, it's like I told you months ago, it's all about the rate. It's good for the ACC that you are getting carriage with Spectrum and Dish if you land it. The question is during the negotiation phase whether or not ESPN adjusted the rate from what was initially asked.

We won't know that until your earnings are announced next year. Rates are based on hard viewer numbers and is quite different from gaining carriage. The PAC carriage has been shrinking. But they were on most of these services initially, but at 10 cents per subscription. That's why their average of in footprint and out of footprint was 11 cents. When the companies saw that there was more money coming in from carrying them on subscription than there was from their footprint at higher rates they dropped them except at the most expensive tiers.

I still advise cautious optimism as opposed to over the top claims and chest thumping.

The other factor you cannot control is the fact that the BTN and SECN are flat or declining and that Conference Networks (any of them) may not be long for this world. In other words it's a very tough time to be opening one. It will earn you some money for a few more years, but the golden days of conference networks is at least 1 year hence if not 2.

Who made any "over the top" claims or did any chest thumping?