johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,449
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 1014
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: LIV Golf signs deal with the CW Network
(01-24-2023 01:44 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: (01-23-2023 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (01-22-2023 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: (01-22-2023 11:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: LIV Golf is effectively giving away its product right now because anyone with a relationship with the PGA (which primarily consists of CBS and NBC/Golf Channel along with ESPN for the PGA Championship) wasn’t going to touch them.
I don’t see the CW/Nexstar going after anything other than minor or very inexpensive sports rights. As other posters have mentioned, they are in heavy cost cutting mode (even more compared to the rest of the industry) and just trying to wring out whatever cash is available from these legacy linear TV channels.
Cheap sports, yes, but LIV is relatively high profile given the controversy. It could draw some decent viewership on a network that doesn't have to fight for carriage. It's a pretty smart play especially given the price tag.
I'm not suggesting they'll go after anything major anytime soon, but it's an interesting option for any college conference looking for OTA opportunities. Unlike the other broadcast networks, The CW will have plenty of slots.
Also, I think you're underestimating the power of OTA a little bit. It will never be what it was in the old days when you basically had 3 TV stations, but streaming options are a mixed bag...especially when it comes to sports. People thought cable would effectively kill off traditional OTA television. Here we are a few decades later and cable is dying while traditional OTA is still strong. I don't really see anything that suggests they won't be viable in the marketplace going forward even if linear cable is on the way out.
As long as Nexstar finds a way to monetize online content then they'll be in a pretty good spot. Actually, I've wondered for a long time why CBS(I've recently realized it was co-owned by Warner Bros) or some other company hadn't taken advantage of what The CW could be.
To your point about cost-cutting, you are correct, but remember that a lot of that scripted content simply wasn't profitable. They're not just trying to trim fat like an ESPN or someone else...they just want to get the property back to where it's making money.
Also, The CW didn't really own the rights to any of that DC content. All of it really belongs to AT&T/Warner Bros or whatever it's called this week. In fact, with the formation of the new DC Studios, it seems they're pretty much rebooting the whole universe in an effort to more closely mirror what Marvel has done with the MCU. I think it's unclear whether the Arrowverse would have even received a great deal of backing from DC Studios for much longer. It wasn't a great investment for The CW even if the shows were popular.
Just some background:
Hollywood Reporter - CW used to spend twice that of other networks
Deadline - CW to be profitable by 2025, going for broader appeal
Deadline - CW seeking various types of scripted content
To be sure, I'm a large believer of sports on the 4 main OTA networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX). So, I don't underrate OTA as a general platform. My skepticism is with Nexstar's ownership of the CW and their outlined plan for that particular network. For instance, Nexstar has spent a ton of capital on changing WGN America into NewsNation only to see their ratings go below the old cheap syndicated reruns that WGN America used to have. There were legitimately more people watching WGN News at Nine (the local Chicago newscasts) *nationally* when WGN was a superstation than there have been with NewsNation.
Now, I understand that Paramount and Warner were essentially using CW as a loss leader where they'd produce shows that would lose money as a pure network TV show but then be very profitable with streaming, syndication and international rights. However, the CW did have one core value that made it valuable: it was *young*. That's the one thing that every single network and streaming service has been chasing and the CW *had* it.
So, to see Nexstar turn around and literally state, "Our goal is for the CW audience to get OLDER" (which is what those articles you've posted are saying when Nexstar says they want to "broaden the audience") is pretty mind-boggling outside of what I've stated before: they just want to wring out cash from this asset until it eventually dies (if only because it's openly chasing an audience that is going to literally die off within the next 10-15 years).
Once again, I get that Nexstar can't use the CW as a loss leader for new scripted shows in the way that Paramount and Warner did before. However, that just points to them only looking for cheap programming that will be a low rent version of CBS. In that sense, LIV Golf fits the bill since Nexstar isn't even paying any rights fees for it and that will certainly get an old audience.
To be clear, I'm not a hater on that front - I actually like watching golf. However, it would be naive to think that this means that the CW is going to be anything more than a place to park niche sports. Truly getting into US sports means being a player for the 4 major pro sports leagues and P5 college conferences.
Is it really so naive to wait and see what they can produce?
Well, we're going by their actual results (NewsNation, which I'm not so worried about) AND by their announced plans.
Quote:What major sports league wants to rely on broadcast rights from a network that doesn't make money? It's not a relevant critique.
Nexstar doesn't have the bank to compete with Disney, WBD, Comcast or even Paramount or Fox. They're not bidding for any major sports packages, they're scavenging in the discount bins. Which is fine.
Quote:As I said, you are underrating the value of OTA. It's fine to view ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX in more positive terms. After all, they're profitable and have a serious head start, but they are not the only OTA networks, that's the point. The CW has an advantage that can't simply be duplicated by sheer effort. It requires vision to take advantage of that, however.
They're on everyone's OTA TV. but there is near-zero habit of watching those channels. Big boy OTA has universal market penetration, and a built in audience of millions who will give pretty much anything they put on a shot.
Quote:CBS obviously had no need to invest in another OTA network to compete with the one they have. Warner's model is more diverse. They might have been in a better position to take advantage of The CW, but they likely have too many irons in the fire as it is. Their incessant restructuring hardly leaves time for anyone to get on the same page much less keep up with what entity is under which umbrella. Nonetheless, both entities retain a minority ownership. They didn't fully sell out which in itself demonstrates they believe in the potential of the product.
The lack of success with NewsNation doesn't really mean anything. As if all media entities don't have missteps and miscalculations...
Pretending that Nexstar got into this project in order to fleece a few retirees before the whole business model goes belly up? I mean, if you're telling me that ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX will have significantly diminished profitability in the next 15 years then I guess that would be a consistent outlook, but I don't think that's your view.
That's pretty much a locked in reality actually. The networks are looking good right now by comparison, because the cable bundle apocalypse is upon us. But the OTA networks get a good chunk of their money (30% I think) from cable retransmission fees.
Quote:The reality is that markets change and people adapt. Despite any human inclination towards pessimism, markets keep changing and people keep adapting and that's a one sentence summation of the history of economics.
Why don't we revisit the progress in 2025?
|
|