(10-30-2019 07:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 07:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 04:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I would get cable if I didn't have gigabit internet.

That is the reason for some people to stick with cable. Streaming TV services are not the way to go for people who have slow and/or unreliable home internet.

There's another reason as well: In many small places, the local cable company may also have a virtual monopoly on internet service. Nobody else is offering it. And if you decide to cut the cord and just get the internet without their cable TV, then they jack the price way up on that, which basically eliminates the savings you would get from streaming.

Municipalities have contracts with one provider typically whether urban or rural so it can still be a problem in the larger cities.

Prices and taxes also can be higher in the larger cities. Comcast mid range internet is $65 but with taxes and device is $85. Non promotional price is $95-$115 a month.

For cable+internet mid range is $115 (with devices & taxes $155) at the promotional rate and expect to pay around $195 when the promotion is over. That is for a cable package that is missing quite a few important sports and movie channels.

I agree with those who have said Disney/ESPN have no motivation to offer ESPN programming in an a la carte world. They will rely on the cable bundle as long as they can.

The only way ESPN could function in that world would be to start by offering all ESPN channels together for something like $14.99 a month. THEN they'd have to do regular PPV events for games that fans are most likely to want to watch.

I'm not entirely certain even that would work, but it would be more profitable than simply offering ESPN for $10 a month.

And think about this...

A company needs an incentive to change their business model. Not only does ESPN have to make as much money in an a la carte world, they actually would need to make more. If they can't make a good bit more profit by changing their business model then why in the world would they even attempt it?

(10-30-2019 06:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 05:30 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 05:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 04:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 08:54 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Sad day. I love PS Vue. Not sure which service I will turn to once it goes away.

Anyone have any recommendations? YouTube TV is one I have been recommended most.

YouTube TV is slowly becoming the standard of streaming options. And it's to be expected, no one can really compete with Google aside Disney.

However, I must say this......YouTube TV began as a low cost option but I can see where this is trending. You are better off just paying for cable unless you are just very modern.

I like it because I am modern and it's convenient as a techy. But at $50.00 a month.....I would get cable if I didn't have gigabit internet.

YouTube and ATT low balled their plans initially to get market share and presumably to drive out competitors in the space, now the prices are rising and looking fairly similar to cable and satellite. The only difference is whether the price of the delivery infrastructure is included in the price of the programming or paid independently of the programming.

Exactly, one all the small fish like Vue, Apple, Sling, and others are run out of business the prices for streaming are going to skyrocket. Everyone wants a piece of the pie right now because it's the evolution of TV.

But really if you do the math....

YouTube TV - $50
Netflix - $13
Disney/ESPN + - $10
Internet only package - $60

You can get Comcast + Internet for $59.99

The only way people actually save money by cable cutting is by sharing passwords and splitting things. And that's going to be soon cracked down on with coming algorithms.

How much extra for all the additional boxes that are an additional charge?

That is what really causes a issue for me. Suddenlink has a decent rate but to get 3 boxes I get charged $12/month for each box to “rent”.
With OTT, at least I pay a one time charge for a Roku device.

Nothing really. Cable companies all pretty much have a digital platform now.

You pay for one box and can use an app on other devices.

(10-30-2019 09:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think ESPN’s $7 per month subscriber fee is a pretty good indicator of where its price point would be: it’s going to have to be several multiples of that number to be financially viable. Once again, the types of shows that are on Netflix or Amazon Prime were generally the fodder that would have otherwise been on $1 per month or less basic cable channels. We’re talking about many times more that for any sports channel, particularly ESPN and any regional sports network with a critical mass of pro sports. Plus, you’re taking collecting those fees *automatically* from 80 to 100 million people under the cable bundle, whereas you’re going to have a lot fewer subscribers in an a la carte world with a whole lot more *active* costs to obtain and retain subscribers. Anyone that thinks that true premium sports (top NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 games) that ESPN has a large hold over is going to get the $5 per month ESPN+ treatment or even the $15 per month HBO Now treatment are going to be sorely mistaken.

If anyone here actually worked at Disney and saw both how much ESPN makes off of the cable bundle combined with the costs of obtaining live rights, I believe that we’d quickly realize, “Oh crap - we could *never* sell ESPN a la carte.” ESPN is paying over $100 million PER GAME for Monday Night Football - that’s simply not getting covered by a low priced a la carte service. I don’t disagree that most people wouldn’t want to pay more than $10 per month a la carte for ESPN, which means that ESPN simply won’t ever be offered a la carte. Disney won’t provide that choice in the first place no matter how much people ask for it.

Call it the sports fee bubble. It's going to burst like everything else.
You can't really think the Big 10 sports package is really worth what they get paid (well you probably can). It's not going to keep going up.
I'd rather pay more for what I want than give money to people I don't want to get it (cough, Big 10). That's what will happen once the bubble bursts. Reverse realignment.

(10-30-2019 05:30 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The only way people actually save money by cable cutting is by sharing passwords and splitting things. And that's going to be soon cracked down on with coming algorithms.

To the contrary. I split Netflix but not Vue. If things get so bad I'm forced back into a cable bundle I'll roll my own family shared DVR over the net through Linux and MythTV and then split. And since my hardware capture device for MythTV uses the analog loophole, I get full bitrate 1080i DTS 5.1 at over 2000 kbit/s as my native capture. It's indistinguishable from broadcast quality. Even encoded down to 720p to stream over the net it's still quite good. Here's an example of a 720p encode from my MythTV setup:





This is what the full 1080i looks like even after YouTube has eaten it

(10-30-2019 09:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 07:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 07:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 04:59 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I would get cable if I didn't have gigabit internet.

That is the reason for some people to stick with cable. Streaming TV services are not the way to go for people who have slow and/or unreliable home internet.

There's another reason as well: In many small places, the local cable company may also have a virtual monopoly on internet service. Nobody else is offering it. And if you decide to cut the cord and just get the internet without their cable TV, then they jack the price way up on that, which basically eliminates the savings you would get from streaming.

Municipalities have contracts with one provider typically whether urban or rural so it can still be a problem in the larger cities.

Prices and taxes also can be higher in the larger cities. Comcast mid range internet is $65 but with taxes and device is $85. Non promotional price is $95-$115 a month.

For cable+internet mid range is $115 (with devices & taxes $155) at the promotional rate and expect to pay around $195 when the promotion is over. That is for a cable package that is missing quite a few important sports and movie channels.

I pay $190 a month for internet and cable. That's for fast internet and an expansive package that meets my family needs, and includes HBO. That's on a deal I struck last November, so it is coming up for renewal this month.

No doubt, in two days or so when I get my November bill, it will say something like $220. And I will get on the phone ask why and they will tell me about how I had all these wonderful discounts that just expired and all their costs have gone up.

So I will threaten to cut the cord or go to ATT or Direct TV or something, and by doing that, they will tell me they double-checked and seeing that I've been a "valued customer" for 19 years and somesuch they will magically find some savings and bring the bill back down to $200. Still up, but not as much as it would have been if I didn't *****.

Neither of us will like it, I won't like paying $10 more, they won't like that I'm not paying $30 more, but for both of us it's better than going our separate ways - and on my end, I've priced out all the streaming options that meet my needs.

I have been doing this for years, it's an annual ritual.

(10-30-2019 07:47 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I actually think it will be a hybrid because as much people *think* they want true a la carte, they generally still want the all-you-can-eat buffet at a lower price. Eventually, there will be so many different streaming services that it will eventually come back to people wanting to bundle all of those together (as I'll note below).

Let's get this out of the way: ESPN financially *can't* be a $10 per month service a la carte. It won't even be close to that amount. Remember, they're getting $7 per month from *everyone* that is a cable subscriber right now. So, who's willing to pay $30 or more per month for ESPN plus $20 plus per month for your regional sports network? Those are the types of prices that we'd be seeing for sports networks. The shows that you see on Netflix and Disney+ would have been shown on general purpose networks that generally receive less than $1 per subscriber per month, so charging $5 to $15 per month for a streaming service for those shows has some financial viability. That simply isn't the case for sports.

I'm not arguing that the cable bundle may be deconstructed because of how the world is turning. I totally understand that. However, I really don't understand why sports fans would want that to happen. We're the ones that will be paying significantly more in an a la carte environment.

Plus, the highest likelihood is that all you'll see is a bundle in a different form. To the extent that the bundle is deconstructed, it will likely be having to buy *all* of the Disney channels (not just ESPN), *all* of the AT&T/Turner channels (not just TNT), *all* of the Comcast/NBC channels, etc. via multiple streaming services. That's exactly why all of those companies are starting their own streaming services to provide a baseline for that future. We are already very close to coming out of the period of price arbitrage where streaming is clearly cheaper than the cable bundle, as evidenced by the prior posts here showing DirecTV Now kicking up their prices further along with all of the content creators pulling back their content from Netflix (which IS a massive bundle of shows from many different content creators).

My guess is that there's going to be a shakeout of these streaming services and/or the cost of procuring each of those services will be so high that people will eventually want to bundle all of those together. Maybe people here have a high tolerance for juggling multiple subscriptions, but that's generally not the case for most households. Once you get past paying for Netflix, a Disney+/ Hulu bundle and having an Amazon Prime account, there's a huge question as to whether the market can really bear many more streaming services.

Up until very recently, Netflix essentially served as that bundle since it had a large Disney library plus key shows from multiple owners (The Office, Friends, Breaking Bad, etc.). I always wince whenever people refer to Netflix as "a la carte" since it is actually the largest *bundle* of all-you-can-eat content of all-time that goes far beyond anything that cable provides. What you're seeing is that old "Netflix bundle" from multiple content providers unraveling where each of those providers is creating their own services... and I'm not sure how much the market can bear beyond that. Probably sooner rather than later, we'll be seeing the "streaming bundle" where you get one price for all of the Disney, Comcast, Fox and Warner streaming services since people really don't want to deal with a dozen different a la carte subscriptions, which is essentially the same as today's cable bundle.

We don't really know what ESPN would charge outside of the cable bundling model. Certainly they might want to charge $30 a month - and their outstanding commitments for long-term rights fees might dictate that they at least try - but in the end they'll price where the demand curve tells them they're maximizing revenue.

The reality is that as much as ESPN is the name band in sports, what they have is so narrowly focused that $30 a month isn't going to be attractive for a large number of sports fans, even die hards. Having ESPN, by itself, means you get no (event) coverage of the Olympics, the NHL, English Premier League, or your local MLB team. You get no golf besides the early rounds of the Masters and you get one NFL game per week. And so on.

Thing is we've seen in other areas that the most profitable price can often be higher.

If you buy ESPN you get NFL Monday Night football, a raft of college sports, NBA, and MLB plus the ACC, SEC, and LHN networks.

Assuming only 20% are interested then ESPN has to price at about $35 but in reality would probably price at $50 because not everyone is going to follow them behind the pay wall.

(10-31-2019 12:13 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 09:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think ESPN’s $7 per month subscriber fee is a pretty good indicator of where its price point would be: it’s going to have to be several multiples of that number to be financially viable. Once again, the types of shows that are on Netflix or Amazon Prime were generally the fodder that would have otherwise been on $1 per month or less basic cable channels. We’re talking about many times more that for any sports channel, particularly ESPN and any regional sports network with a critical mass of pro sports. Plus, you’re taking collecting those fees *automatically* from 80 to 100 million people under the cable bundle, whereas you’re going to have a lot fewer subscribers in an a la carte world with a whole lot more *active* costs to obtain and retain subscribers. Anyone that thinks that true premium sports (top NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 games) that ESPN has a large hold over is going to get the $5 per month ESPN+ treatment or even the $15 per month HBO Now treatment are going to be sorely mistaken.

If anyone here actually worked at Disney and saw both how much ESPN makes off of the cable bundle combined with the costs of obtaining live rights, I believe that we’d quickly realize, “Oh crap - we could *never* sell ESPN a la carte.” ESPN is paying over $100 million PER GAME for Monday Night Football - that’s simply not getting covered by a low priced a la carte service. I don’t disagree that most people wouldn’t want to pay more than $10 per month a la carte for ESPN, which means that ESPN simply won’t ever be offered a la carte. Disney won’t provide that choice in the first place no matter how much people ask for it.

Call it the sports fee bubble. It's going to burst like everything else.
You can't really think the Big 10 sports package is really worth what they get paid (well you probably can). It's not going to keep going up.
I'd rather pay more for what I want than give money to people I don't want to get it (cough, Big 10). That's what will happen once the bubble bursts. Reverse realignment.

This is a common statement... but people have been talking about the "sports fee bubble" since the 1980s and they have gone nowhere but up. The fact is that sports are actually more valuable than ever in today's streaming era.

So, yes, I absolutely believe the Big Ten sports package is worth what they get paid. As much as you'd like to think that these things are irrational, both ESPN and Fox (with a sprinkle of CBS for basketball) aren't giving away nearly half a billion dollars away per year to the Big Ten as an act of charity... and remember that they signed this latest contract with the Big Ten with cable subscribers dropping already in full swing as a known problem.

When you look at the ratings and demographics that the Big Ten continues to receive on weekly basis, they're actually underpaid when you compare their rights fees to the NBA and MLB. This isn't just the Big Ten - I clearly believe that your SEC sports package is worth *more* than what they get paid and is totally undervalued due to when they signed their contracts. Power Five college football games are still actually a great value in terms of ROI for the networks compared to their pro sports counterparts.

The NFL has the highest rated programs on all of television (both over-the-air and cable) every single week. The NBA playoffs win the age 18-49 ratings demo (and typically the overall ratings) virtually every single night from April through June. College football has become the second most watched sport after the NFL.

Just look at this past week: the top 11 highest-rated shows on all of network TV were ALL sporting events and programs (including NFL, MLB and college football games):

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly...1-27-2019/

Note that this is only for prime time. The college football Saturday afternoon and NFL Sunday afternoon time slots often rate even higher than their prime time counterparts.

On cable this past week, the top 5 highest-rated shows and 13 out of the top 25 were all sporting events and programs (including the NFL, NBA and college football):

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly...1-27-2019/

3 of the other top 25 cable shows were WWE events, which you may or may not loop into the sports category.

Sporting events have three inherent advantages over any other type of programming on television that provide them long-term value: they are (1) exclusive, (2) inelastic and specific in terms of demand and, most importantly, (3) LIVE.

Point #1 regarding exclusivity is critical in this streaming era. You can watch most shows on TV on multiple platforms owned by different parties (whether on linear TV, streaming or downloads) at any given time. That's simply not the case for sports. If you want this week's LSU game, then you *have* to go to ESPN or CBS (or whichever specific network has rights to that game) and even if you technically watch it on a different platform (e.g. streaming on your mobile device instead of watching on your linear TV), that platform is still controlled by the applicable rights holder.

Point #2 regarding inelastic and specific demand means that the LSU fan is NOT going to be placated with some other random SEC or other college football game as a substitute. The fact that there's an over-the-air SEC game of the week on CBS or a Big Ten game on ABC or Fox for free is irrelevant to that fan if LSU isn't playing in that game. This means that the fan is going to pay for whatever channels that will provide those LSU games, whether they personally like ESPN's commentators or politics or not.

Meanwhile, even the most popular shows on TV eventually come to an end. Seinfeld, Friends, The Office, Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory... they all eventually end. In contrast, LSU football is the TV program that NEVER gets cancelled and its fan base will keep coming back year-after-year. No one would sign a 10-year contract for even the most popular shows on TV because interest always inevitably wanes. Yet, 10-year contracts get signed by sports leagues all of the time because it's a fairly good bet that those fans will still be there 10 years from now.

Finally, on point #3, it goes without saying that sporting events are LIVE. As noted earlier, other types of shows are watched on many different types of platforms and/or time-shifted on DVRs. This means that viewers increasingly never watch commercials for those shows, which is still the bread-and-butter revenue generator for TV networks. Sports don't have that issue - they are watched live by the vast majority of viewers, which means that they are generally the only real group of people that still actually watch commercials. This increases the value of sports programming since TV networks can continue charging higher ad rates in a way that they can't for other TV programs anymore.

The upshot is that networks will pay a premium for (1) exclusivity, (2) long-term predictability and stability in terms of viewers and (3) live events where viewers will actually watch commercials. When you put all of those three things together, networks will pay a super-premium for them. What's the only type of program on television that consistently combines all three components above? Sports.

Now, does it mean that the delivery method of sports will always be the same? Certainly not. Maybe ESPN will have to shift its model more drastically than what I believe will be necessary. However, anyone that thinks that there's some type of sports rights bubble isn't looking at the context of the entire TV industry and the unique advantages of sports programs compared to everything else. Sports are the most valuable types of programs on TV... and it's not even close. The gap between the value of sports versus other types of programming is actually widening more and more every single year. There is no sports rights bubble and that's great for all sports leagues (both pro and college).

(10-31-2019 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 07:47 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 08:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I actually think it will be a hybrid because as much people *think* they want true a la carte, they generally still want the all-you-can-eat buffet at a lower price. Eventually, there will be so many different streaming services that it will eventually come back to people wanting to bundle all of those together (as I'll note below).

Let's get this out of the way: ESPN financially *can't* be a $10 per month service a la carte. It won't even be close to that amount. Remember, they're getting $7 per month from *everyone* that is a cable subscriber right now. So, who's willing to pay $30 or more per month for ESPN plus $20 plus per month for your regional sports network? Those are the types of prices that we'd be seeing for sports networks. The shows that you see on Netflix and Disney+ would have been shown on general purpose networks that generally receive less than $1 per subscriber per month, so charging $5 to $15 per month for a streaming service for those shows has some financial viability. That simply isn't the case for sports.

I'm not arguing that the cable bundle may be deconstructed because of how the world is turning. I totally understand that. However, I really don't understand why sports fans would want that to happen. We're the ones that will be paying significantly more in an a la carte environment.

Plus, the highest likelihood is that all you'll see is a bundle in a different form. To the extent that the bundle is deconstructed, it will likely be having to buy *all* of the Disney channels (not just ESPN), *all* of the AT&T/Turner channels (not just TNT), *all* of the Comcast/NBC channels, etc. via multiple streaming services. That's exactly why all of those companies are starting their own streaming services to provide a baseline for that future. We are already very close to coming out of the period of price arbitrage where streaming is clearly cheaper than the cable bundle, as evidenced by the prior posts here showing DirecTV Now kicking up their prices further along with all of the content creators pulling back their content from Netflix (which IS a massive bundle of shows from many different content creators).

My guess is that there's going to be a shakeout of these streaming services and/or the cost of procuring each of those services will be so high that people will eventually want to bundle all of those together. Maybe people here have a high tolerance for juggling multiple subscriptions, but that's generally not the case for most households. Once you get past paying for Netflix, a Disney+/ Hulu bundle and having an Amazon Prime account, there's a huge question as to whether the market can really bear many more streaming services.

Up until very recently, Netflix essentially served as that bundle since it had a large Disney library plus key shows from multiple owners (The Office, Friends, Breaking Bad, etc.). I always wince whenever people refer to Netflix as "a la carte" since it is actually the largest *bundle* of all-you-can-eat content of all-time that goes far beyond anything that cable provides. What you're seeing is that old "Netflix bundle" from multiple content providers unraveling where each of those providers is creating their own services... and I'm not sure how much the market can bear beyond that. Probably sooner rather than later, we'll be seeing the "streaming bundle" where you get one price for all of the Disney, Comcast, Fox and Warner streaming services since people really don't want to deal with a dozen different a la carte subscriptions, which is essentially the same as today's cable bundle.

We don't really know what ESPN would charge outside of the cable bundling model. Certainly they might want to charge $30 a month - and their outstanding commitments for long-term rights fees might dictate that they at least try - but in the end they'll price where the demand curve tells them they're maximizing revenue.

The reality is that as much as ESPN is the name band in sports, what they have is so narrowly focused that $30 a month isn't going to be attractive for a large number of sports fans, even die hards. Having ESPN, by itself, means you get no (event) coverage of the Olympics, the NHL, English Premier League, or your local MLB team. You get no golf besides the early rounds of the Masters and you get one NFL game per week. And so on.

Thing is we've seen in other areas that the most profitable price can often be higher.

If you buy ESPN you get NFL Monday Night football, a raft of college sports, NBA, and MLB plus the ACC, SEC, and LHN networks.

Assuming only 20% are interested then ESPN has to price at about $35 but in reality would probably price at $50 because not everyone is going to follow them behind the pay wall.

ESPN (and every other outlet televising major sports) can't be exclusively available via ESPN+ or some other premium subscription service and still retain all the broadcast rights they now have, because the leagues that are selling those rights want exposure as well as money.

If you put every NFL playoff game behind a subscription paywall, most of the people who were watching when the game was on CBS or Fox are not going to be watching. Fans who don't want to pay extra to watch the NFL playoffs are going to stop being NFL fans.

Hulu, Fubu or YouTube TV?

Fubo is out for me. They don't carry my local ABC station.

YouTube has some extra pro sports channels + BBC America, IFC and Sundance. Hulu has A&E, the History Channel and all whole Hulu catalog of movies and shows.

I don't watch regular season pro sports, so I'll probably go Hulu.

(10-31-2019 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:13 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 09:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think ESPN’s $7 per month subscriber fee is a pretty good indicator of where its price point would be: it’s going to have to be several multiples of that number to be financially viable. Once again, the types of shows that are on Netflix or Amazon Prime were generally the fodder that would have otherwise been on $1 per month or less basic cable channels. We’re talking about many times more that for any sports channel, particularly ESPN and any regional sports network with a critical mass of pro sports. Plus, you’re taking collecting those fees *automatically* from 80 to 100 million people under the cable bundle, whereas you’re going to have a lot fewer subscribers in an a la carte world with a whole lot more *active* costs to obtain and retain subscribers. Anyone that thinks that true premium sports (top NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 games) that ESPN has a large hold over is going to get the $5 per month ESPN+ treatment or even the $15 per month HBO Now treatment are going to be sorely mistaken.

If anyone here actually worked at Disney and saw both how much ESPN makes off of the cable bundle combined with the costs of obtaining live rights, I believe that we’d quickly realize, “Oh crap - we could *never* sell ESPN a la carte.” ESPN is paying over $100 million PER GAME for Monday Night Football - that’s simply not getting covered by a low priced a la carte service. I don’t disagree that most people wouldn’t want to pay more than $10 per month a la carte for ESPN, which means that ESPN simply won’t ever be offered a la carte. Disney won’t provide that choice in the first place no matter how much people ask for it.

Call it the sports fee bubble. It's going to burst like everything else.
You can't really think the Big 10 sports package is really worth what they get paid (well you probably can). It's not going to keep going up.
I'd rather pay more for what I want than give money to people I don't want to get it (cough, Big 10). That's what will happen once the bubble bursts. Reverse realignment.

This is a common statement... but people have been talking about the "sports fee bubble" since the 1980s and they have gone nowhere but up. The fact is that sports are actually more valuable than ever in today's streaming era.

So, yes, I absolutely believe the Big Ten sports package is worth what they get paid. As much as you'd like to think that these things are irrational, both ESPN and Fox (with a sprinkle of CBS for basketball) aren't giving away nearly half a billion dollars away per year to the Big Ten as an act of charity... and remember that they signed this latest contract with the Big Ten with cable subscribers dropping already in full swing as a known problem.

When you look at the ratings and demographics that the Big Ten continues to receive on weekly basis, they're actually underpaid when you compare their rights fees to the NBA and MLB. This isn't just the Big Ten - I clearly believe that your SEC sports package is worth *more* than what they get paid and is totally undervalued due to when they signed their contracts. Power Five college football games are still actually a great value in terms of ROI for the networks compared to their pro sports counterparts.

The NFL has the highest rated programs on all of television (both over-the-air and cable) every single week. The NBA playoffs win the age 18-49 ratings demo (and typically the overall ratings) virtually every single night from April through June. College football has become the second most watched sport after the NFL.

Just look at this past week: the top 11 highest-rated shows on all of network TV were ALL sporting events and programs (including NFL, MLB and college football games):

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly...1-27-2019/

Note that this is only for prime time. The college football Saturday afternoon and NFL Sunday afternoon time slots often rate even higher than their prime time counterparts.

On cable this past week, the top 5 highest-rated shows and 13 out of the top 25 were all sporting events and programs (including the NFL, NBA and college football):

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly...1-27-2019/

3 of the other top 25 cable shows were WWE events, which you may or may not loop into the sports category.

Sporting events have three inherent advantages over any other type of programming on television that provide them long-term value: they are (1) exclusive, (2) inelastic and specific in terms of demand and, most importantly, (3) LIVE.

Point #1 regarding exclusivity is critical in this streaming era. You can watch most shows on TV on multiple platforms owned by different parties (whether on linear TV, streaming or downloads) at any given time. That's simply not the case for sports. If you want this week's LSU game, then you *have* to go to ESPN or CBS (or whichever specific network has rights to that game) and even if you technically watch it on a different platform (e.g. streaming on your mobile device instead of watching on your linear TV), that platform is still controlled by the applicable rights holder.

Point #2 regarding inelastic and specific demand means that the LSU fan is NOT going to be placated with some other random SEC or other college football game as a substitute. The fact that there's an over-the-air SEC game of the week on CBS or a Big Ten game on ABC or Fox for free is irrelevant to that fan if LSU isn't playing in that game. This means that the fan is going to pay for whatever channels that will provide those LSU games, whether they personally like ESPN's commentators or politics or not.

Meanwhile, even the most popular shows on TV eventually come to an end. Seinfeld, Friends, The Office, Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory... they all eventually end. In contrast, LSU football is the TV program that NEVER gets cancelled and its fan base will keep coming back year-after-year. No one would sign a 10-year contract for even the most popular shows on TV because interest always inevitably wanes. Yet, 10-year contracts get signed by sports leagues all of the time because it's a fairly good bet that those fans will still be there 10 years from now.

Finally, on point #3, it goes without saying that sporting events are LIVE. As noted earlier, other types of shows are watched on many different types of platforms and/or time-shifted on DVRs. This means that viewers increasingly never watch commercials for those shows, which is still the bread-and-butter revenue generator for TV networks. Sports don't have that issue - they are watched live by the vast majority of viewers, which means that they are generally the only real group of people that still actually watch commercials. This increases the value of sports programming since TV networks can continue charging higher ad rates in a way that they can't for other TV programs anymore.

The upshot is that networks will pay a premium for (1) exclusivity, (2) long-term predictability and stability in terms of viewers and (3) live events where viewers will actually watch commercials. When you put all of those three things together, networks will pay a super-premium for them. What's the only type of program on television that consistently combines all three components above? Sports.

Now, does it mean that the delivery method of sports will always be the same? Certainly not. Maybe ESPN will have to shift its model more drastically than what I believe will be necessary. However, anyone that thinks that there's some type of sports rights bubble isn't looking at the context of the entire TV industry and the unique advantages of sports programs compared to everything else. Sports are the most valuable types of programs on TV... and it's not even close. The gap between the value of sports versus other types of programming is actually widening more and more every single year. There is no sports rights bubble and that's great for all sports leagues (both pro and college).

People care less and less relative to the population than ever before. It's not only sports but movies.

When people really care for something like Avengers End game it's a 1 billion dollar box office.

One day I switch to YoutubeTV and Philo to get all the channels. What's holding me back is YoutubeTV limits to 3 live streams, I would pay a little more for an extra stream or 2. Haven't tried it out enough to see how it will be to switch between channels, see TV guide, or try out the DVR.

(10-31-2019 02:26 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Hulu, Fubu or YouTube TV?

Fubo is out for me. They don't carry my local ABC station.

YouTube has some extra pro sports channels + BBC America, IFC and Sundance. Hulu has A&E, the History Channel and all whole Hulu catalog of movies and shows.

I don't watch regular season pro sports, so I'll probably go Hulu.

Then wait for the Disney+ bundle

(10-31-2019 04:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-31-2019 12:13 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(10-30-2019 09:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think ESPN’s $7 per month subscriber fee is a pretty good indicator of where its price point would be: it’s going to have to be several multiples of that number to be financially viable. Once again, the types of shows that are on Netflix or Amazon Prime were generally the fodder that would have otherwise been on $1 per month or less basic cable channels. We’re talking about many times more that for any sports channel, particularly ESPN and any regional sports network with a critical mass of pro sports. Plus, you’re taking collecting those fees *automatically* from 80 to 100 million people under the cable bundle, whereas you’re going to have a lot fewer subscribers in an a la carte world with a whole lot more *active* costs to obtain and retain subscribers. Anyone that thinks that true premium sports (top NFL, NBA, MLB and P5 games) that ESPN has a large hold over is going to get the $5 per month ESPN+ treatment or even the $15 per month HBO Now treatment are going to be sorely mistaken.

If anyone here actually worked at Disney and saw both how much ESPN makes off of the cable bundle combined with the costs of obtaining live rights, I believe that we’d quickly realize, “Oh crap - we could *never* sell ESPN a la carte.” ESPN is paying over $100 million PER GAME for Monday Night Football - that’s simply not getting covered by a low priced a la carte service. I don’t disagree that most people wouldn’t want to pay more than $10 per month a la carte for ESPN, which means that ESPN simply won’t ever be offered a la carte. Disney won’t provide that choice in the first place no matter how much people ask for it.

Call it the sports fee bubble. It's going to burst like everything else.
You can't really think the Big 10 sports package is really worth what they get paid (well you probably can). It's not going to keep going up.
I'd rather pay more for what I want than give money to people I don't want to get it (cough, Big 10). That's what will happen once the bubble bursts. Reverse realignment.

This is a common statement... but people have been talking about the "sports fee bubble" since the 1980s and they have gone nowhere but up. The fact is that sports are actually more valuable than ever in today's streaming era.

So, yes, I absolutely believe the Big Ten sports package is worth what they get paid. As much as you'd like to think that these things are irrational, both ESPN and Fox (with a sprinkle of CBS for basketball) aren't giving away nearly half a billion dollars away per year to the Big Ten as an act of charity... and remember that they signed this latest contract with the Big Ten with cable subscribers dropping already in full swing as a known problem.

When you look at the ratings and demographics that the Big Ten continues to receive on weekly basis, they're actually underpaid when you compare their rights fees to the NBA and MLB. This isn't just the Big Ten - I clearly believe that your SEC sports package is worth *more* than what they get paid and is totally undervalued due to when they signed their contracts. Power Five college football games are still actually a great value in terms of ROI for the networks compared to their pro sports counterparts.

The NFL has the highest rated programs on all of television (both over-the-air and cable) every single week. The NBA playoffs win the age 18-49 ratings demo (and typically the overall ratings) virtually every single night from April through June. College football has become the second most watched sport after the NFL.

Just look at this past week: the top 11 highest-rated shows on all of network TV were ALL sporting events and programs (including NFL, MLB and college football games):

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly...1-27-2019/

Note that this is only for prime time. The college football Saturday afternoon and NFL Sunday afternoon time slots often rate even higher than their prime time counterparts.

On cable this past week, the top 5 highest-rated shows and 13 out of the top 25 were all sporting events and programs (including the NFL, NBA and college football):

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/weekly...1-27-2019/

3 of the other top 25 cable shows were WWE events, which you may or may not loop into the sports category.

Sporting events have three inherent advantages over any other type of programming on television that provide them long-term value: they are (1) exclusive, (2) inelastic and specific in terms of demand and, most importantly, (3) LIVE.

Point #1 regarding exclusivity is critical in this streaming era. You can watch most shows on TV on multiple platforms owned by different parties (whether on linear TV, streaming or downloads) at any given time. That's simply not the case for sports. If you want this week's LSU game, then you *have* to go to ESPN or CBS (or whichever specific network has rights to that game) and even if you technically watch it on a different platform (e.g. streaming on your mobile device instead of watching on your linear TV), that platform is still controlled by the applicable rights holder.

Point #2 regarding inelastic and specific demand means that the LSU fan is NOT going to be placated with some other random SEC or other college football game as a substitute. The fact that there's an over-the-air SEC game of the week on CBS or a Big Ten game on ABC or Fox for free is irrelevant to that fan if LSU isn't playing in that game. This means that the fan is going to pay for whatever channels that will provide those LSU games, whether they personally like ESPN's commentators or politics or not.

Meanwhile, even the most popular shows on TV eventually come to an end. Seinfeld, Friends, The Office, Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory... they all eventually end. In contrast, LSU football is the TV program that NEVER gets cancelled and its fan base will keep coming back year-after-year. No one would sign a 10-year contract for even the most popular shows on TV because interest always inevitably wanes. Yet, 10-year contracts get signed by sports leagues all of the time because it's a fairly good bet that those fans will still be there 10 years from now.

Finally, on point #3, it goes without saying that sporting events are LIVE. As noted earlier, other types of shows are watched on many different types of platforms and/or time-shifted on DVRs. This means that viewers increasingly never watch commercials for those shows, which is still the bread-and-butter revenue generator for TV networks. Sports don't have that issue - they are watched live by the vast majority of viewers, which means that they are generally the only real group of people that still actually watch commercials. This increases the value of sports programming since TV networks can continue charging higher ad rates in a way that they can't for other TV programs anymore.

The upshot is that networks will pay a premium for (1) exclusivity, (2) long-term predictability and stability in terms of viewers and (3) live events where viewers will actually watch commercials. When you put all of those three things together, networks will pay a super-premium for them. What's the only type of program on television that consistently combines all three components above? Sports.

Now, does it mean that the delivery method of sports will always be the same? Certainly not. Maybe ESPN will have to shift its model more drastically than what I believe will be necessary. However, anyone that thinks that there's some type of sports rights bubble isn't looking at the context of the entire TV industry and the unique advantages of sports programs compared to everything else. Sports are the most valuable types of programs on TV... and it's not even close. The gap between the value of sports versus other types of programming is actually widening more and more every single year. There is no sports rights bubble and that's great for all sports leagues (both pro and college).

People care less and less relative to the population than ever before. It's not only sports but movies.

When people really care for something like Avengers End game it's a 1 billion dollar box office.

Yes, people care less and less about the "monoculture" TV shows, movies and music than ever before, but the data over the past several years has shown very consistently that all sports are holding their audiences *significantly* better than any other type of programming on television. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, the old ABC Monday Night Football had better total ratings than today's NBC Sunday Night Football, but the old MNF generally came in around #20 in the ratings every week, while the current SNF is the #1-rated show on TV every week. The NFL, NBA and college football are actually getting rising ratings over the past few years, which is absolutely incredible considering that ALL other TV viewership numbers are going down. Any TV network executive would say that just keeping your viewership the same from year-to-year is actually a rise in today's environment and it's mega-valuable to have any type of program that can actually experience a true rise.

I think a lot people here are somehow not giving enough credit to how broad-based sports fandom is across America in terms of sheer numbers over any other form of category on TV. They seem to be arguing that sports are "niche" interests for TV purposes, which is akin to arguing that comic book movies are "niche" for movie purposes. To your point about The Avengers, comic book movies have ceased to be a niche category and are now the dominant category for movie entertainment in today's world. Sports serve the same role for television - sports are to TV as comic books are to movies today. This means that sports are pretty much the only reliable category that TV networks can count on for viewership and, as a result, the relative power of sports is continuing to increase (and that's reflected in continually rising rights fees).