Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
Author Message
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,338
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 702
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #221
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 02:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I have to agree with the facebook/twitter/espn+ part.

To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.
02-17-2019 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 27,377
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1172
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #222
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 02:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I have to agree with the facebook/twitter/espn+ part.

To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

I dont know. Facebook basically owns a website. Its a popular website--but its already largely abandoned by its early adopters (young kids) for Twitter and Instagram. Yahoo and MySpace are lessons in how quickly a website based giant can fall apart. Disney and networks like NBC or CBS have a crap load of owned content thats valuable regardless of the platform its transmitted from. I'd suggest that those older content driven companies are bit more solid right now....though I guess that can change as well.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2019 05:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-17-2019 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,338
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 702
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #223
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(02-17-2019 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 02:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I have to agree with the facebook/twitter/espn+ part.

To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

I dont know. Facebook basically owns a website. Its a popular website--but its already largely abandoned by its early adopters (young kids) for Twitter and Instagram. Yahoo and MySpace are lessons in how quickly a website based giant can fall apart. Disney and networks like NBC or CBS have a crap load of owned content thats valuable regardless of the platform its transmitted from. I'd suggest that those older content driven companies are bit more solid right now....though I guess that can change as well.

FWIW, Facebook bought Instagram for $1 Billion in 2012. It is estimated to be worth $100 Billion today.
02-17-2019 10:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 27,377
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1172
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #224
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(02-17-2019 10:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

I dont know. Facebook basically owns a website. Its a popular website--but its already largely abandoned by its early adopters (young kids) for Twitter and Instagram. Yahoo and MySpace are lessons in how quickly a website based giant can fall apart. Disney and networks like NBC or CBS have a crap load of owned content thats valuable regardless of the platform its transmitted from. I'd suggest that those older content driven companies are bit more solid right now....though I guess that can change as well.

FWIW, Facebook bought Instagram for $1 Billion in 2012. It is estimated to be worth $100 Billion today.

I did not know that. Instagram---and twitter---is where my young adult kids spend all their phone screen time. Id think thats a property with some room to grow. Still---your talking about a flightly clientele thats always looking for the next trendy thing....so who knows.
02-17-2019 11:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,338
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 702
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #225
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(02-17-2019 11:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 10:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 05:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

I dont know. Facebook basically owns a website. Its a popular website--but its already largely abandoned by its early adopters (young kids) for Twitter and Instagram. Yahoo and MySpace are lessons in how quickly a website based giant can fall apart. Disney and networks like NBC or CBS have a crap load of owned content thats valuable regardless of the platform its transmitted from. I'd suggest that those older content driven companies are bit more solid right now....though I guess that can change as well.

FWIW, Facebook bought Instagram for $1 Billion in 2012. It is estimated to be worth $100 Billion today.

I did not know that. Instagram---and twitter---is where my young adult kids spend all their phone screen time. Id think thats a property with some room to grow. Still---your talking about a flightly clientele thats always looking for the next trendy thing....so who knows.

That's true, but the concept is likely to endure. E.g., Myspace was knocked out - by Facebook, but the concept - social media - endured and got bigger.

IMO, ignoring firms like Facebook, that have among the largest market caps in the world - is short term thinking.

Part of the attachment to traditional media among G5 can probably be explained by striver status psychology. E.g., in academia, some professors insist on being called "doctor" or "professor" by their students and even colleagues (or are silently irked when they aren't), while others don't care what they are called. Usually, the former are either (a) brand-new PhDs who just earned their degree and are trying to build their reputation, or (b) those who got their degree from a non-prestigious school. The ones who don't are usually senior types with a long-established research record and status in their fields.

IOW's, those who are secure in their status don't require the formal acknowledgment of it, while those who are insecure about it do. Bowing to such insecurities might cause G5 to miss important opportunities.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 09:36 AM by quo vadis.)
Yesterday 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,692
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 423
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #226
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 02:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I have to agree with the facebook/twitter/espn+ part.

To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

If Facebook's website is to be believed, I would hardly describe the procedure for watching Facebook video as "easy".

"To download and log into the Facebook Watch app for TV:

1. Go to the app store for Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google Play, Samsung Smart TV, Xbox One, or Oculus TV and download the Facebook Watch app.

2. Open the Facebook Watch app, then click Log In with Facebook.

3. Go to Facebook on your computer or your mobile device and open the notification from Facebook, or go to facebook.com/device.

4. On your computer or mobile device, enter the code that appears on your TV."

No way am I going to all that trouble just to watch a football game or basketball game even if I were willing to set up a Facebook account in the first place. And, I'm guessing I wouldn't be able to easily switch back and forth with one of several other games on cable or OTA.

Unless Facebook has its own cable channel, I'm not watching it, even if there are no other alternatives. I'd just have to give up watching sports if it came to that.
Today 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,338
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 702
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #227
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(Today 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 02:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I have to agree with the facebook/twitter/espn+ part.

To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

If Facebook's website is to be believed, I would hardly describe the procedure for watching Facebook video as "easy".

"To download and log into the Facebook Watch app for TV:

1. Go to the app store for Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google Play, Samsung Smart TV, Xbox One, or Oculus TV and download the Facebook Watch app.

2. Open the Facebook Watch app, then click Log In with Facebook.

3. Go to Facebook on your computer or your mobile device and open the notification from Facebook, or go to facebook.com/device.

4. On your computer or mobile device, enter the code that appears on your TV."

No way am I going to all that trouble just to watch a football game or basketball game even if I were willing to set up a Facebook account in the first place.

Those four steps literally take about two minutes. They are easy as pie and I'm by no means a tech-nerd.

Really, it's super-simple. And it's just a one-time thing. 07-coffee3
Today 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
No Bull Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,398
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 340
I Root For: UCF
Location: Deadwood
Post: #228
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(Today 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(Today 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

If Facebook's website is to be believed, I would hardly describe the procedure for watching Facebook video as "easy".

"To download and log into the Facebook Watch app for TV:

1. Go to the app store for Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google Play, Samsung Smart TV, Xbox One, or Oculus TV and download the Facebook Watch app.

2. Open the Facebook Watch app, then click Log In with Facebook.

3. Go to Facebook on your computer or your mobile device and open the notification from Facebook, or go to facebook.com/device.

4. On your computer or mobile device, enter the code that appears on your TV."

No way am I going to all that trouble just to watch a football game or basketball game even if I were willing to set up a Facebook account in the first place.

Those four steps literally take about two minutes. They are easy as pie and I'm by no means a tech-nerd.

Really, it's super-simple. And it's just a one-time thing. 07-coffee3
would a person have to have a facebook account? fakebook is the devil... fvck that shiite
Today 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 27,377
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1172
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #229
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(Today 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(Today 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-14-2019 03:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, the conferences that have begun to put some games on Facebook or Twitter are ahead of the curve. Sure, my 79 year old dad still likes college football and doesn't know anything about Twitter, so you lose him.

But the bottom line is that Facebook and Twitter are dominant online presences with reach that is global and in the hundreds of millions, in Facebook's case almost two billion. That doesn't mean that now is the time to sell the whole package to them, but I would definitely want to dip my toe in the water. IMO, it is foolish to ignore that kind of potential.

The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

If Facebook's website is to be believed, I would hardly describe the procedure for watching Facebook video as "easy".

"To download and log into the Facebook Watch app for TV:

1. Go to the app store for Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google Play, Samsung Smart TV, Xbox One, or Oculus TV and download the Facebook Watch app.

2. Open the Facebook Watch app, then click Log In with Facebook.

3. Go to Facebook on your computer or your mobile device and open the notification from Facebook, or go to facebook.com/device.

4. On your computer or mobile device, enter the code that appears on your TV."

No way am I going to all that trouble just to watch a football game or basketball game even if I were willing to set up a Facebook account in the first place.

Those four steps literally take about two minutes. They are easy as pie and I'm by no means a tech-nerd.

Really, it's super-simple. And it's just a one-time thing. 07-coffee3

Its pretty similar to other streaming services like HBO-Go or Showtime streaming. That said---Im not doing that unless Im looking for a specific game and I really really want to watch it. If Im just a casual fan surfing though channels looking for a game to watch---Im not going to bother with all that crap---which is the point Ive been trying to make regarding exposure.
(This post was last modified: Today 01:25 PM by Attackcoog.)
Today 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 793
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Umass
Location: Van by the River
Post: #230
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
Ha - this thread is too funny.

So how much is the AAC going to get? We have this window of exclusivity going on and there isn't a breath of news or numbers of any kind.


IMO Nobody (here) has a actual clue what this conference value is from a media perspective.

Anywhere from 2 - 4 teams are constantly rumored to be up for poaching by the P5.
Annually a team (or maybe two) is decent enough to be in the conversation to get an NY6 bowl
Annually a team (or maybe two) is decent enough to get a top 4 seed in the NCAA Tourney
The conference is a mishmash of geography and limited "true" rivalries

Do you think ESPN wants to shell out $6M-$8M per team when the only teams that bring them any eyes on the TV could be gone well before the deal runs it's course, and one (or maybe two) team are in the national conversation (at most) in the two major media sports that matter? They are already overpaying for the P5 while the eyes on the screen are diminishing....

If I were Houston or Cincy (or maybe UConn) I would be worried if you get north of $6.0M per school in this new contract - ESPN is not going to be OK with any of those properties leaving this conference in the near future. If you get paid, you can probably plan to stay in your "best of the G5" conference for the majority of your new contract.
Today 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 27,377
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1172
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #231
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(Today 01:28 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Ha - this thread is too funny.

So how much is the AAC going to get? We have this window of exclusivity going on and there isn't a breath of news or numbers of any kind.


IMO Nobody (here) has a actual clue what this conference value is from a media perspective.

Anywhere from 2 - 4 teams are constantly rumored to be up for poaching by the P5.
Annually a team (or maybe two) is decent enough to be in the conversation to get an NY6 bowl
Annually a team (or maybe two) is decent enough to get a top 4 seed in the NCAA Tourney
The conference is a mishmash of geography and limited "true" rivalries

Do you think ESPN wants to shell out $6M-$8M per team when the only teams that bring them any eyes on the TV could be gone well before the deal runs it's course, and one (or maybe two) team are in the national conversation (at most) in the two major media sports that matter? They are already overpaying for the P5 while the eyes on the screen are diminishing....

If I were Houston or Cincy (or maybe UConn) I would be worried if you get north of $6.0M per school in this new contract - ESPN is not going to be OK with any of those properties leaving this conference in the near future. If you get paid, you can probably plan to stay in your "best of the G5" conference for the majority of your new contract.

Do tell. Where are these teams going? ESPN just paid the Big12 millions NOT to take any of those teams and bought back the "pro rata" clause in the Big12 contract. The reality is all the P5 schools are walking away with a conference payout of about 35-45 million each.

Best I can tell, unless you bring about 35-45 million each in JUST media value---it would actually COST current members money to add anyone to any P5 conference....and that 35-45 million is just enough that adding each team wouldnt COST the conference anything. In order for adding a team to actually result in a 1 million dollar HIGHER payout for each existing member----each newly added team team would have to be worth not only the current payout (35-45 milllion)---but would need to provide another 12 million in media value over and above that number. There are no G5 teams that have 47-57 million in media value---much less two of them.
(This post was last modified: Today 01:51 PM by Attackcoog.)
Today 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 29,338
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 702
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #232
RE: AAC and ESPN Exclusive Negotiating Window?
(Today 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(Today 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(Today 11:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 03:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-17-2019 02:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem for Facebook and Twitter is delivering content to a bigger screen.

My youngest is now 14 months post-college and she watches more on a TV than laptop or tablet compared to a year ago. My son a few months back bought a Amazon Fire TV box.

Now they may be bucking the trend but a real screen seems to be the step once you reach the point you watch video with someone else on a regular basis and right now neither Twitter nor Facebook has decent tools for that. You can cast from a second device but that's a kludge.

If they are serious about video they have to cross that bridge.

Sprinkle some skepticism about the long-term health of each. Twitter finally has had some profitable quarters but Facebook is under siege in Europe, with more than twice the population of the US and who knows what happens after an election in the US because neither party has sustained control of Congress the way they used to be able to do. Without their privacy invading practices and what I consider very shady paid reach practices Facebook isn't the cash cow they are now. One of the many reasons I gave up my website was that I had thousands who had signed up to receive my content in their feed and Facebook would hide it from all but a couple hundred unless I paid.

I guess we could question the long-term health of any media outlets, but I'd say Facebook and Twitter are at least as stable as Comcast, Disney, and CBS and whatever other media companies are out there. Bottom line is that everyone faces competition in a volatile global business environment.

As for watching on TV, you can watch Facebook video easily if you have Apple TV, Android TV, Fire TV, a Samsung Smart TV, and a number of other devices (e.g., Sling, XBox One). None of those require 'casting' to the TV from a phone or other device.

If Facebook's website is to be believed, I would hardly describe the procedure for watching Facebook video as "easy".

"To download and log into the Facebook Watch app for TV:

1. Go to the app store for Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV, Google Play, Samsung Smart TV, Xbox One, or Oculus TV and download the Facebook Watch app.

2. Open the Facebook Watch app, then click Log In with Facebook.

3. Go to Facebook on your computer or your mobile device and open the notification from Facebook, or go to facebook.com/device.

4. On your computer or mobile device, enter the code that appears on your TV."

No way am I going to all that trouble just to watch a football game or basketball game even if I were willing to set up a Facebook account in the first place.

Those four steps literally take about two minutes. They are easy as pie and I'm by no means a tech-nerd.

Really, it's super-simple. And it's just a one-time thing. 07-coffee3

Its pretty similar to other streaming services like HBO-Go or Showtime streaming. That said---Im not doing that unless Im looking for a specific game and I really really want to watch it. If Im just a casual fan surfing though channels looking for a game to watch---Im not going to bother with all that crap---which is the point Ive been trying to make regarding exposure.

I wonder, how many people ever tune in to a Tulane vs Tulsa football game 'casually'? IMO, probably the exposure from that is pretty miniscule.
Today 02:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: YNot, 3 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.