https://www.boomerang.com/
https://www.boomerang.com/beta/faq (this is a better description)

Boomerang will start offering a standalone on-demand channel. It be $4.99/month or $40/yr (3.33/month). It be available first on web, iOS and Android with other platforms coming soon (Roku, Apple TV...etc). (my family will subscribe when it is available on Roku).

Even though HBO was always a standalone item, I have a feeling we'll see more and more channels that will offer a standalone subscription on various platforms. I know channels like History, TLC and such have there own channels on Roku but you need to be a cable customer to get access to those channels. Have to wonder if they'll start going in the direction of HBO and Boomerang.

We may be getting to a point where a la carte will be available to consumers on the digital end with the Roku and Apple TV type platforms and probably with some sports channels.

(03-08-2017 11:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Have to wonder if they'll start going in the direction of HBO and Boomerang.

Nope.

The current trend are services like DirecTV Now, YouTube TV, etc. Basically the same thing as cable, but with skinnier bundles, and delivered over the internet to a Roku-like device, rather than delivered over a proprietary network to a proprietary box.

I think eventually you'll see traditional cable/sat buckle and start offering skinny bundles around $25, $35, $45 price points.


Given the choice of buying a Roku and subscribing to YouTube TV for $35/month + a no-restrictions software DVR, or paying $35/month to Comcast for the same channel line-up and perhaps paying an extra $10/month to rent an HD cable box that comes with a built-in hardware DVR .... zero doubt in my mind which I'd choose.

ESPN can't do it. To offer their channels as a separate purchase they would need to get 20-25% of the households to pay $35/month, 12 months a year to receive the same revenue they do now from subscriber fees.

They have to hang onto the old model as long as they can , which is why I think it is a mistake that they have allowed themselves to be added to some of the slimmed down options. They should have fought inclusion in things like Sling and Vue, because now that people think they can get a smaller package that includes ESPN for $30-35 a month, ESPN has no chance getting people to pay what they need as a standalone.

But they don't need to ever think about that, so long as you have people paying cable/sat/streaming at $35/month which includes ESPN/2/U at a $10/month slice of that.


One of the huge things for the "cord cutter" movement, was the hope/prayer of one day being able to get cable TV without having to pay for ESPN channels.

Well as we're seeing, that will never happen.

Boomerang is in around 42 million homes, essentially they have been unable to convince operators to make it a primary tier channel. The number of people noticing if it disappears isn't very high.
In short their earnings outlook isn't great but they have a niche some people probably would pay for with the on-demand component making it attractive.

(03-08-2017 01:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Boomerang is in around 42 million homes, essentially they have been unable to convince operators to make it a primary tier channel. The number of people noticing if it disappears isn't very high.
In short their earnings outlook isn't great but they have a niche some people probably would pay for with the on-demand component making it attractive.

Well Boomerang is owned by Cartoon Interactive Group (who also operates Cartoon Network). This could be a good test for them to see the demand to offer a channel without needing a cable package. We'll see but I suspect this will begin a trend.

You wish it would. But you'll be wrong.

(03-08-2017 01:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Boomerang is in around 42 million homes, essentially they have been unable to convince operators to make it a primary tier channel. The number of people noticing if it disappears isn't very high.
In short their earnings outlook isn't great but they have a niche some people probably would pay for with the on-demand component making it attractive.

It's basically Cartoon Network's B channel. I can't imagine too many people wanting to pay specifically for it, especially now that they've drifted away from their original programming plan of old-school cartoons in favor of newer reruns and first-run programming that didn't make the cut at CN (and seriously, isn't the 15 daily hours of Teen Titans Go! on CN enough so that we don't need it on Boomerang too?)

If they offered a CN-themed bundle (CN, Boomerang, maybe a 24-hour [adult swim]) for $5 a month, it'd get some buys. But Boomerang on its own barely rises above the secondary digital channels of local stations.

(03-08-2017 11:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.boomerang.com/
https://www.boomerang.com/beta/faq (this is a better description)

Boomerang will start offering a standalone on-demand channel. It be $4.99/month or $40/yr (3.33/month). It be available first on web, iOS and Android with other platforms coming soon (Roku, Apple TV...etc). (my family will subscribe when it is available on Roku).

Even though HBO was always a standalone item, I have a feeling we'll see more and more channels that will offer a standalone subscription on various platforms. I know channels like History, TLC and such have there own channels on Roku but you need to be a cable customer to get access to those channels. Have to wonder if they'll start going in the direction of HBO and Boomerang.

We may be getting to a point where a la carte will be available to consumers on the digital end with the Roku and Apple TV type platforms and probably with some sports channels.

This is an interesting play. As I recall, Boomerang has mostly older cartoons, Hanna Barbera, MGM, etc. These are owned by Time Warner, so they pay themselves any rights fees, so it's basically zero cost to them and any revenues are all profit.

They may actually get some folks to pony up $5/month for this, particularly if they have an on demand option. A family with young kids on a small budget (or who choose not to have cable for other reasons) may opt to add this to offer the kids something to watch without incurring high monthly fees.

(03-08-2017 03:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 11:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.boomerang.com/
https://www.boomerang.com/beta/faq (this is a better description)

Boomerang will start offering a standalone on-demand channel. It be $4.99/month or $40/yr (3.33/month). It be available first on web, iOS and Android with other platforms coming soon (Roku, Apple TV...etc). (my family will subscribe when it is available on Roku).

Even though HBO was always a standalone item, I have a feeling we'll see more and more channels that will offer a standalone subscription on various platforms. I know channels like History, TLC and such have there own channels on Roku but you need to be a cable customer to get access to those channels. Have to wonder if they'll start going in the direction of HBO and Boomerang.

We may be getting to a point where a la carte will be available to consumers on the digital end with the Roku and Apple TV type platforms and probably with some sports channels.

This is an interesting play. As I recall, Boomerang has mostly older cartoons, Hanna Barbera, MGM, etc. These are owned by Time Warner, so they pay themselves any rights fees, so it's basically zero cost to them so any revenues are all profit.

They may actually get some folks to pony up $5/month for this, particularly if they have an on demand option. A family with young kids on a small budget (or who choose not to have cable for other reasons) may opt to add this to offer the kids something to watch without incurring high monthly fees.

If you read on the web site, they are also going to have new cartoons, exclusive cartoons and not just the old ones. It'll be interesting to see what kind of demand they get. My daughter like the old cartoons and as I stated before, we'll be paying for the service when it is available on Roku.

(03-08-2017 03:32 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 11:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.boomerang.com/
https://www.boomerang.com/beta/faq (this is a better description)

Boomerang will start offering a standalone on-demand channel. It be $4.99/month or $40/yr (3.33/month). It be available first on web, iOS and Android with other platforms coming soon (Roku, Apple TV...etc). (my family will subscribe when it is available on Roku).

Even though HBO was always a standalone item, I have a feeling we'll see more and more channels that will offer a standalone subscription on various platforms. I know channels like History, TLC and such have there own channels on Roku but you need to be a cable customer to get access to those channels. Have to wonder if they'll start going in the direction of HBO and Boomerang.

We may be getting to a point where a la carte will be available to consumers on the digital end with the Roku and Apple TV type platforms and probably with some sports channels.

This is an interesting play. As I recall, Boomerang has mostly older cartoons, Hanna Barbera, MGM, etc. These are owned by Time Warner, so they pay themselves any rights fees, so it's basically zero cost to them so any revenues are all profit.

They may actually get some folks to pony up $5/month for this, particularly if they have an on demand option. A family with young kids on a small budget (or who choose not to have cable for other reasons) may opt to add this to offer the kids something to watch without incurring high monthly fees.

Speaking of pony, I bet Hasbro could make money with a streaming MLP: FIM channel.

(03-08-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But they don't need to ever think about that, so long as you have people paying cable/sat/streaming at $35/month which includes ESPN/2/U at a $10/month slice of that.

$20/month with Sling Orange gets you ESPN and ESPN2, plus TBS and TNT with their NBA, MLB and NCAA Tournament coverage.

With respect to Sling, I notice that they will now only allow access to ESPNU, ESPNews and SEC Network as an adder to the combined Orange + Blue package. So minimum price to get the full ESPN suite is $50/month, which to be fair would get you ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNU, ESPNews, SEC Network, TBS, TNT, FS1, FS2, NBCSN, NFLN, BTN, NBATV, Golf Channel, NHL Network, Pac 12 Network, and some more.

(03-08-2017 03:42 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But they don't need to ever think about that, so long as you have people paying cable/sat/streaming at $35/month which includes ESPN/2/U at a $10/month slice of that.

$20/month with Sling Orange gets you ESPN and ESPN2, plus TBS and TNT with their NBA, MLB and NCAA Tournament coverage.

With respect to Sling, I notice that they will now only allow access to ESPNU, ESPNews and SEC Network as an adder to the combined Orange + Blue package. So minimum price to get the full ESPN suite is $50/month, which to be fair would get you ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNU, ESPNews, SEC Network, TBS, TNT, FS1, FS2, NBCSN, NFLN, BTN, NBATV, Golf Channel, NHL Network, Pac 12 Network, and some more.

I have the $40 dollar Sling plan, but will not buy the extra sports package for $10 more to get ESPNU because I do not want to pay for the SEC Network and the Pac 12 Network, two things that I would never have any interest in viewing.

Stick to your guns, Terry.

Once your ideology points build up high enough, you can even forgo things that you genuinely desire for the sake of spiting people that will never know you did that.

(03-08-2017 05:16 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Stick to your guns, Terry.

Once your ideology points build up high enough, you can even forgo things that you genuinely desire for the sake of spiting people that will never know you did that.

I will do as I ******* please. It is disinterest more than"ideology".

I only want to watch ND, the Pittsburgh Pirates, Steelers and Penguins.

That is all that I care about or care to view.

Everything else in the sports world? Irrelevant and of no interest to me to tune in or pay for.

I don't watch any other sports teams or conferences so why would I want to subsidize them or give them any of my money?

So, I will spend or not spend my money without worrying about what you think.

Knowing the very little about you that I do, I would say you fall somewhere in the range of "quite comfortable" to "well off".

Even $200/mo for full-blown cable + internet ... $2400/year ....... goodness, is it really affecting your life that much?

(03-08-2017 05:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Knowing the very little about you that I do, I would say you fall somewhere in the range of "quite comfortable" to "well off".

Even $200/mo for full-blown cable + internet ... $2400/year ....... goodness, is it really affecting your life that much?

Why don't you spend $500/year to watch Zimbabwean sitcoms on the internet?

I think that you should, jeez, you probably can afford it.

Can't please everyone.
Just a week ago I was given grief on this board because to watch my favorite teams I subscribe to the MLS, MLB, and NHL online packages.

(03-09-2017 12:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Can't please everyone.
Just a week ago I was given grief on this board because to watch my favorite teams I subscribe to the MLS, MLB, and NHL online packages.

Not by me.

I used to subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket just to watch Steelers games.

All of those other games I had access to? I didn't ever tune in. No interest.

I currently subscribe to MLB TV Premium, but I only watch the Pirates and whomever they are playing that day.

The other 30 teams that I have access to? I never watch them.

To each his own.

Nickelodeon has done something similar with their Noggin Channel. I dont see a big growth opportunity but its probably cheap to do since you own all that content already and its just sitting there.