https://www.yahoo.com/sports/fourth-quar...05065.html

Suggests that the pandemic may be the dividing line between the cable era (i.e., the third quarter) and the streaming era (the fourth quarter).

This article addresses the road that got us here, including a brief history of sports broadcasting and discussion of the emergence of streaming media. A second article will address the more interesting question of what a streaming media world is likely to look like for sports rights.

Quote:The Fourth Quarter of Sports Media: Falling Bundles, Rising Streams

The advent of electronic sports media’s “first quarter” started a century ago, first as radio game recreations from press reports in 1920, and then as live on-site play-by-play (boxing and Pirates-Phillies baseball) in 1921 on KDKA in Pittsburgh. In the second quarter, broadcast TV ascended, with live sports becoming national weekend daytime and local primetime TV staples in the 1960s and ’70s. The third quarter came via cable TV, adding huge programming volume and bringing to fruition in 1979 the previously unthinkable notion of a 24/7 sports network: ESPN.

Today, as platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon lead entertainment, and now have higher penetration of broadband than pay TV, we are entering the sports media’s “fourth quarter” and its impending inclusion into the new mainstream—emphasis on stream.

Going forward, these "gate keepers" to the viewers eyes are becoming more irrelevant. If, say, a conference digital network streams games themselves, and attracts viewers, advertising dollars will follow.

Considering how supposedly big and powerful ESPN is, they aren't especially profitable. They pay huge money to get the exclusive rights to broadcast games, but they have an increasingly tough time even recouping their costs.

(01-08-2021 09:38 AM)Todor Wrote:  Going forward, these "gate keepers" to the viewers eyes are becoming more irrelevant. If, say, a conference digital network streams games themselves, and attracts viewers, advertising dollars will follow.

Considering how supposedly big and powerful ESPN is, they aren't especially profitable. They pay huge money to get the exclusive rights to broadcast games, but they have an increasingly tough time even recouping their costs.

As much as I personally loathe ESPiN, I will be the first to say that they are not allowing themselves to be rendered obsolete. ESPiN has jumped into the streaming market themselves, so if conferences think if it's too much of a pain to stream, they can allow ESPiN to do it for them, through ESPN+. ESPN+ has been in existence for awhile now; they are just looking to add more content. Rather, the networks that should be worried about streaming would be CBS, FOX, and NBC. To me, they are the ones behind on the curve, unfortunately.

(01-08-2021 11:05 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 09:38 AM)Todor Wrote:  Going forward, these "gate keepers" to the viewers eyes are becoming more irrelevant. If, say, a conference digital network streams games themselves, and attracts viewers, advertising dollars will follow.

Considering how supposedly big and powerful ESPN is, they aren't especially profitable. They pay huge money to get the exclusive rights to broadcast games, but they have an increasingly tough time even recouping their costs.

As much as I personally loathe ESPiN, I will be the first to say that they are not allowing themselves to be rendered obsolete. ESPiN has jumped into the streaming market themselves, so if conferences think if it's too much of a pain to stream, they can allow ESPiN to do it for them, through ESPN+. ESPN+ has been in existence for awhile now; they are just looking to add more content. Rather, the networks that should be worried about streaming would be CBS, FOX, and NBC. To me, they are the ones behind on the curve, unfortunately.

ESPN+ also has a technology edge. MLB hired developers to build really good streaming technology a few years ago for MLB.tv, and ESPN paid a ton of money to buy the technology from MLB. At least some competitors have not caught up yet, as evidenced by the glitches on Amazon Prime last week when Amazon Prime had an exclusive NFL game telecast. The big boys like Amazon and Google, and Fox, Comcast/NBC, etc., will catch up soon, and the technology will probably be even better in a few years. That's a good thing, because strong competition is better for the fans. But it takes a big investment of money that smaller outfits won't be able to make on their own.

A college streaming its own softball or baseball games to a few dozen or a few hundred people watching through a website is not even close to the same thing as mass-market streaming -- that would be like comparing two kids talking through walkie-talkies to a nationwide mobile phone network. A college conference or sports league that wants to offer a top-notch viewing experience to its fans, instead of a small internet stream for a few diehards, will want the best streaming technology.

That's why I agree with you that college conferences will choose ESPN or another major partner for large-scale streaming. Conferences are already doing that, with the Big 12 putting a lot of stuff on ESPN+ and several non-P5 conferences making almost every event available to ESPN+, and that will expand further in the next round of TV contracts.

The problem facing leagues and networks is how to migrate programming from traditional cable to streaming in a manner that maximizes revenues during the transition and after it has been completed.

Today, cable and over the air networks receive payments from cable, satellite and virtual multichannel carriers for all of their customers, not just those who are sports fans. This allows leagues and networks to collect large revenues from rights fees without charging avid sports fans more than other customers.

It seems almost certain that the move to streaming will require sports fans to bear a larger portion of the cost of sports rights OR will result in leagues receiving lower revenues.

One possibility is that streaming rights and telecast rights for events and packages may be sold separately. We already see this with entertainment programming. For instance, The Office is available on cable on Comedy Central but is also available for streaming on Peacock. Undoubtedly this would reduce the value of the cable rights and the carriage fees for the channel with those rights, but it may allow a transition where the carriage fees decline slowly over time rather than falling off a cliff.

(01-08-2021 01:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  One possibility is that streaming rights and telecast rights for events and packages may be sold separately. We already see this with entertainment programming. For instance, The Office is available on cable on Comedy Central but is also available for streaming on Peacock. Undoubtedly this would reduce the value of the cable rights and the carriage fees for the channel with those rights, but it may allow a transition where the carriage fees decline slowly over time rather than falling off a cliff.

NCHC hockey conference is a good example. They just wrapped up their covid "pod" in Omaha. Midco SN had the TV rights and aired all of the games on TV, and the streaming rights were held by the NCHC's own streaming network. NCHC.TV has it's own app on all of the major streaming services (roku/fire/etc), and it has been working well since they launched it 5-6 years ago. 85% of the streaming revenue gets sent back to the schools. NCHC.TV only had like 50k revenue the first year, then 250k the second year, and this year they had enough viewership during the pod that the Sidearm Sports servers crashed, and viewing subscriptions for only pod games weren't cheap, costing about $50 bucks. Midco did not and could not stream the games on their own sports streaming app.

The revenue from the first two years that I mentioned isn't great, but streaming has come along way since those numbers were released. The point is that the NCHC is a pretty good example of a small conference doing this successfully, despite being a hockey only conference,

The incumbents will always retain some advantage, but any option that opens up new avenues takes away a little of their leverage. I watch a lot of games on BYU TV and ESPN has nothing on them. But the worst part of ESPN is sticking horrible announcers to cover teams they know literally nothing about. Can't pronounce the players names etc.

The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.

Quote:For rights holders to embrace streaming as a primary distribution platform, the magic “critical mass” number might be 50 million active subscribers. Here, growing direct-to-consumer services and mini-bundled subscriber bases begin to approach the shrinking pay TV universe size.

The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

(01-08-2021 01:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The problem facing leagues and networks is how to migrate programming from traditional cable to streaming in a manner that maximizes revenues during the transition and after it has been completed.

Today, cable and over the air networks receive payments from cable, satellite and virtual multichannel carriers for all of their customers, not just those who are sports fans. This allows leagues and networks to collect large revenues from rights fees without charging avid sports fans more than other customers.

It seems almost certain that the move to streaming will require sports fans to bear a larger portion of the cost of sports rights OR will result in leagues receiving lower revenues.

One possibility is that streaming rights and telecast rights for events and packages may be sold separately. We already see this with entertainment programming. For instance, The Office is available on cable on Comedy Central but is also available for streaming on Peacock. Undoubtedly this would reduce the value of the cable rights and the carriage fees for the channel with those rights, but it may allow a transition where the carriage fees decline slowly over time rather than falling off a cliff.

I don't see a problem. ESPN will simply offer on Hulu (or Disney) there current cable network programming with some modifications and make the transition. ESPN+ tripled the number of subscribers in part due to COVID 19 fatigue and the fact that Network television sucks buckets. Intro into streaming permitted you to pick up Hulu / Disney / ESPN+ for a song at 12.99 a month. When the time comes I can see the whole Disney package including ESPN's standard offerings for twice that.

I have over 500 channels with UVerse. 400 of them are unwatchable. I thought that streaming's quality would be poor compared to fiberoptic and boy was I wrong. We've had no freezes and no resets with streaming. A typical streaming problem for us is taking 10 seconds longer than usual to load. The quality is great, including picture. Right now the sports streaming package that includes ESPN and FOX is too expensive. Get it in the 25 to 35 dollar range per month and bye bye cable.

All streaming really needs anywhere is local news and weather and the sports channels to kill cable completely.

(01-15-2021 11:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The problem facing leagues and networks is how to migrate programming from traditional cable to streaming in a manner that maximizes revenues during the transition and after it has been completed.

Today, cable and over the air networks receive payments from cable, satellite and virtual multichannel carriers for all of their customers, not just those who are sports fans. This allows leagues and networks to collect large revenues from rights fees without charging avid sports fans more than other customers.

It seems almost certain that the move to streaming will require sports fans to bear a larger portion of the cost of sports rights OR will result in leagues receiving lower revenues.

One possibility is that streaming rights and telecast rights for events and packages may be sold separately. We already see this with entertainment programming. For instance, The Office is available on cable on Comedy Central but is also available for streaming on Peacock. Undoubtedly this would reduce the value of the cable rights and the carriage fees for the channel with those rights, but it may allow a transition where the carriage fees decline slowly over time rather than falling off a cliff.

I don't see a problem. ESPN will simply offer on Hulu (or Disney) there current cable network programming with some modifications and make the transition. ESPN+ tripled the number of subscribers in part due to COVID 19 fatigue and the fact that Network television sucks buckets. Intro into streaming permitted you to pick up Hulu / Disney / ESPN+ for a song at 12.99 a month. When the time comes I can see the whole Disney package including ESPN's standard offerings for twice that.

I have over 500 channels with UVerse. 400 of them are unwatchable. I thought that streaming's quality would be poor compared to fiberoptic and boy was I wrong. We've had no freezes and no resets with streaming. A typical streaming problem for us is taking 10 seconds longer than usual to load. The quality is great, including picture. Right now the sports streaming package that includes ESPN and FOX is too expensive. Get it in the 25 to 35 dollar range per month and bye bye cable.

All streaming really needs anywhere is local news and weather and the sports channels to kill cable completely.

If you have an Amazon Fire TV Stick, just use their News app and it'll get you local news and the other streaming news outlets. Cable will hold on for at least another decade but it's going to get rocky. I fully expect a ESPN OTT offering eventually. If Amazon Prime can get $119/yr and Sunday Ticket $300/yr. Then ESPN OTT can easily get the same but right now Cable is still profitable.

Though if I'm Amazon and I want to get my feet wet like I have with the NFL, a way to keep the Big 12 together will one be ESPN/FOX re-upping their deals and Amazon should offer Oklahoma $15 mil/yr like Texas gets with LHN and do a 6-year deal so it lines-up when LHN expires and have an Oklahoma channel on Amazon, you could also do an All or Nothing each season for the team, etc.

(01-15-2021 12:00 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 11:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:54 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The problem facing leagues and networks is how to migrate programming from traditional cable to streaming in a manner that maximizes revenues during the transition and after it has been completed.

Today, cable and over the air networks receive payments from cable, satellite and virtual multichannel carriers for all of their customers, not just those who are sports fans. This allows leagues and networks to collect large revenues from rights fees without charging avid sports fans more than other customers.

It seems almost certain that the move to streaming will require sports fans to bear a larger portion of the cost of sports rights OR will result in leagues receiving lower revenues.

One possibility is that streaming rights and telecast rights for events and packages may be sold separately. We already see this with entertainment programming. For instance, The Office is available on cable on Comedy Central but is also available for streaming on Peacock. Undoubtedly this would reduce the value of the cable rights and the carriage fees for the channel with those rights, but it may allow a transition where the carriage fees decline slowly over time rather than falling off a cliff.

I don't see a problem. ESPN will simply offer on Hulu (or Disney) there current cable network programming with some modifications and make the transition. ESPN+ tripled the number of subscribers in part due to COVID 19 fatigue and the fact that Network television sucks buckets. Intro into streaming permitted you to pick up Hulu / Disney / ESPN+ for a song at 12.99 a month. When the time comes I can see the whole Disney package including ESPN's standard offerings for twice that.

I have over 500 channels with UVerse. 400 of them are unwatchable. I thought that streaming's quality would be poor compared to fiberoptic and boy was I wrong. We've had no freezes and no resets with streaming. A typical streaming problem for us is taking 10 seconds longer than usual to load. The quality is great, including picture. Right now the sports streaming package that includes ESPN and FOX is too expensive. Get it in the 25 to 35 dollar range per month and bye bye cable.

All streaming really needs anywhere is local news and weather and the sports channels to kill cable completely.

If you have an Amazon Fire TV Stick, just use their News app and it'll get you local news and the other streaming news outlets. Cable will hold on for at least another decade but it's going to get rocky. I fully expect a ESPN OTT offering eventually. If Amazon Prime can get $119/yr and Sunday Ticket $300/yr. Then ESPN OTT can easily get the same but right now Cable is still profitable.

Though if I'm Amazon and I want to get my feet wet like I have with the NFL, a way to keep the Big 12 together will one be ESPN/FOX re-upping their deals and Amazon should offer Oklahoma $15 mil/yr like Texas gets with LHN and do a 6-year deal so it lines-up when LHN expires and have an Oklahoma channel on Amazon, you could also do an All or Nothing each season for the team, etc.

I could see Disney merging ESPN+ with Hulu. It's already pricing it for bundling, why not just make the bundle the default. I recently moved to the Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ bundle through Verizon by going to a 5G plan. For only $10/mo over what I was paying, I get this bundle, plus 5G when it becomes available in my area, plus tethering, plus a higher data limit before throttling. And now they've added a free year of Discovery+

I'm guessing ESPN will migrate more and more programming over to ESPN+ over time. They've done it with some Big 12 tier 3 rights previously held by FSN, and will now be doing with some SEC games.

The new NFL negotiations could result in the Thursday Night package coming off of OTA tv and shared between NFLN on cable and Amazon (or a competitor) on streaming. Prior rights holders didn't like sharing with NFLN.

NFL Sunday Ticket rights also likely to be in play. Could definitely see ESPN+ or another streamer grabbing these rights.

I agree on video quality. I have an Apple TV fourth generation. The picture quality is spectacular. Can't tell the difference from cable or OTA digital.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/01/2...your-tele/


Another article looking at the transition of sports rights in a disrupted television future. Speculates alternatives where leagues and teams go D2C through season ticket type services or, consistent with the hypothesis of the prior article, major SVOD services, like Prime, enter the competition for telecasting rights. My guess is that the answer will be more like "all of the above," with such new options taking a share of rights packages, while traditional OTA and cable channels focus on more targeted assets that they can monetize most efficiently (e.g., the NFL, playoff and championship events).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pay-tvs-bleak...58854.html

This one looks at the trend in multichannel service subscriptions. Predictions:

- "With many major sports contracts set to expire in the next few years, analysts predict that the ultimate collapse of the cable TV model will happen when a tech or streaming company finally is granted rights to stream a major sports franchise."
- "[E]xpect a flood of cable programming to start migrating over to streaming in anticipation for the day when cable is no longer a viable platform for networks to reach audiences."

(01-15-2021 11:21 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.

Quote:For rights holders to embrace streaming as a primary distribution platform, the magic “critical mass” number might be 50 million active subscribers. Here, growing direct-to-consumer services and mini-bundled subscriber bases begin to approach the shrinking pay TV universe size.

The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

(01-26-2021 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 11:21 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.

Quote:For rights holders to embrace streaming as a primary distribution platform, the magic “critical mass” number might be 50 million active subscribers. Here, growing direct-to-consumer services and mini-bundled subscriber bases begin to approach the shrinking pay TV universe size.

The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

The type of channels you're talking about are designed for independent creators or entities that wish to increase their exposure on already popular platforms. They're insufficient to carry real time broadcasts to tens of millions of people.

Even if they were capable then it would be a terrible investment on the part of the sports leagues. They need to own the technology, but they also need to own the platform otherwise a Google or Facebook or whatnot has sole discretion in the type of content that could be distributed at any given moment. That sort of power is the impetus behind tightly structured contracts that are worth literally billions of dollars. You don't give that away for free just to have sole discretion to consume ad revenue.

Now, you're correct in that these networks might just take control of the broadcasts, but if they did then it would be through independent platforms.

(01-26-2021 02:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 11:21 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.

Quote:For rights holders to embrace streaming as a primary distribution platform, the magic “critical mass” number might be 50 million active subscribers. Here, growing direct-to-consumer services and mini-bundled subscriber bases begin to approach the shrinking pay TV universe size.

The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

The type of channels you're talking about are designed for independent creators or entities that wish to increase their exposure on already popular platforms. They're insufficient to carry real time broadcasts to tens of millions of people.

Even if they were capable then it would be a terrible investment on the part of the sports leagues. They need to own the technology, but they also need to own the platform otherwise a Google or Facebook or whatnot has sole discretion in the type of content that could be distributed at any given moment. That sort of power is the impetus behind tightly structured contracts that are worth literally billions of dollars. You don't give that away for free just to have sole discretion to consume ad revenue.

Now, you're correct in that these networks might just take control of the broadcasts, but if they did then it would be through independent platforms.

The platforms Ive mentioned have done NFL, NBA games, and political/news events which draw far more than the average college sporting event. Yes, utilizing someone else's platform gives up some level of control---but then---signing your rights away to a broadcaster is the ultimate loss of control. The difference is you can always go to another platform rather than being at the mercy of your rights holder for the contract duration. The method I suggested, the leagues have the ability to make changes to IMMEDIATELY increase their earnings. No need to wait for the next tv deal to realize a financial benefit from a move made today. That said---there is more risk---so, we will see whether profit maximization wins out over security.

(01-26-2021 03:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 02:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 11:21 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.

Quote:For rights holders to embrace streaming as a primary distribution platform, the magic “critical mass” number might be 50 million active subscribers. Here, growing direct-to-consumer services and mini-bundled subscriber bases begin to approach the shrinking pay TV universe size.

The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

The type of channels you're talking about are designed for independent creators or entities that wish to increase their exposure on already popular platforms. They're insufficient to carry real time broadcasts to tens of millions of people.

Even if they were capable then it would be a terrible investment on the part of the sports leagues. They need to own the technology, but they also need to own the platform otherwise a Google or Facebook or whatnot has sole discretion in the type of content that could be distributed at any given moment. That sort of power is the impetus behind tightly structured contracts that are worth literally billions of dollars. You don't give that away for free just to have sole discretion to consume ad revenue.

Now, you're correct in that these networks might just take control of the broadcasts, but if they did then it would be through independent platforms.

The platforms Ive mentioned have done NFL, NBA games, and political/news events which draw far more than the average college sporting event. Yes, utilizing someone else's platform gives up some level of control---but then---signing your rights away to a broadcaster is the ultimate loss of control. The difference is you can always go to another platform rather than being at the mercy of your rights holder for the contract duration. The method I suggested, the leagues have the ability to make changes to IMMEDIATELY increase their earnings. No need to wait for the next tv deal to realize a financial benefit from a move made today. That said---there is more risk---so, we will see whether profit maximization wins out over security.

No, they wouldn't increase their earnings.

The ad revenue from YouTube and the like is based on subscriptions and views, and the formula is predetermined by the owning company. It's not an open-ended system and it's not revenue sharing. You agree to the platform's user agreement and the company has the right to change that user agreement at any time they choose. It's not a contract and if it was a money-maker then sports leagues would already be doing it.

The sports leagues bid out their contracts to TV networks because the rights are worth billions of dollars and there's very little risk. That's what the contract is for...to create a framework for how the product will be distributed and presented. The TV networks can't just do whatever they want. They have to abide by the contract that they are paying good money to own. In truth, no media company owns any league's rights in the general sense of ownership. They are renting them and then when the contract comes up for renewal, ownership reverts back. The media company can't simply sell those rights like a piece of property unless their contract allows them to and only then for a specified period of time.

The only reason a YouTube or a Facebook has broadcast games before is because they've signed a contract to do so...likely to increase exposure on a platform that generates its own traffic and is popular with consumers. Twitter has done the same. We're not talking about the same thing here, not even close.

The type of change you're describing would be akin to a free agent in baseball deciding he's not going to sign with another team. Rather, he's going to travel the country with a ball and a bat and sell tickets for people to watch him play. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's the gist of it.

Now, TV networks(media companies) are middle men. I agree with that, but to some degree they will be with us for a long time. You can cut the middle man out, but it's not as simple as creating a YouTube account. The leagues will have to create or lease their own platforms. That's the only way they could own the mechanism of distribution.

(01-26-2021 03:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 03:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 02:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 11:21 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The follow up article with the real substance has now been posted!
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...234620276/

Their prediction: major streaming platforms like Amazon Prime have the size to compete directly with linear networks for major rights packages and are likely to do so.


The author notes that Amazon Prime already has 112 million US subscribers, which is more subscribers than the entire multichannel (cable/satellite/virtual) industry. Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ collectively have over 100 million. Smaller SVOD services, like Peacock and CBS All Access, could combine to make competing bids. Individuals are likely to have multiple services, so distributing rights over several services would resemble the split of rights over different networks today.

Cellphone giants AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile also have over 100 million subscribers each and could be players.

My observation: one benefit to leagues and teams from the entry of such bidders is that, like cable today, the bundling with other programming will allow the cost to be spread over subscribers who may not have a high degree of interest in the sports programming, i.e. it would resemble the traditional cable bundle. Critically, this would relieve sports fans from bearing the full cost of sports programming.

We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

The type of channels you're talking about are designed for independent creators or entities that wish to increase their exposure on already popular platforms. They're insufficient to carry real time broadcasts to tens of millions of people.

Even if they were capable then it would be a terrible investment on the part of the sports leagues. They need to own the technology, but they also need to own the platform otherwise a Google or Facebook or whatnot has sole discretion in the type of content that could be distributed at any given moment. That sort of power is the impetus behind tightly structured contracts that are worth literally billions of dollars. You don't give that away for free just to have sole discretion to consume ad revenue.

Now, you're correct in that these networks might just take control of the broadcasts, but if they did then it would be through independent platforms.

The platforms Ive mentioned have done NFL, NBA games, and political/news events which draw far more than the average college sporting event. Yes, utilizing someone else's platform gives up some level of control---but then---signing your rights away to a broadcaster is the ultimate loss of control. The difference is you can always go to another platform rather than being at the mercy of your rights holder for the contract duration. The method I suggested, the leagues have the ability to make changes to IMMEDIATELY increase their earnings. No need to wait for the next tv deal to realize a financial benefit from a move made today. That said---there is more risk---so, we will see whether profit maximization wins out over security.

No, they wouldn't increase their earnings.

The ad revenue from YouTube and the like is based on subscriptions and views, and the formula is predetermined by the owning company. It's not an open-ended system and it's not revenue sharing. You agree to the platform's user agreement and the company has the right to change that user agreement at any time they choose. It's not a contract and if it was a money-maker then sports leagues would already be doing it.

The sports leagues bid out their contracts to TV networks because the rights are worth billions of dollars and there's very little risk. That's what the contract is for...to create a framework for how the product will be distributed and presented. The TV networks can't just do whatever they want. They have to abide by the contract that they are paying good money to own. In truth, no media company owns any league's rights in the general sense of ownership. They are renting them and then when the contract comes up for renewal, ownership reverts back. The media company can't simply sell those rights like a piece of property unless their contract allows them to and only then for a specified period of time.

The only reason a YouTube or a Facebook has broadcast games before is because they've signed a contract to do so...likely to increase exposure on a platform that generates its own traffic and is popular with consumers. Twitter has done the same. We're not talking about the same thing here, not even close.

The type of change you're describing would be akin to a free agent in baseball deciding he's not going to sign with another team. Rather, he's going to travel the country with a ball and a bat and sell tickets for people to watch him play. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's the gist of it.

Now, TV networks(media companies) are middle men. I agree with that, but to some degree they will be with us for a long time. You can cut the middle man out, but it's not as simple as creating a YouTube account. The leagues will have to create or lease their own platforms. That's the only way they could own the mechanism of distribution.

Incorrect. What Im suggesting is that a conference might hold on to its rights, where it pays to do so, and create their own outlet--on an existing platform or via some other contract hosting set up. Basically---all Im suggesting is a conference network---something most conferences already have. I mean---if its all going to be streaming and streamers are looking to push more and more production costs to the leagues/schools---why do you really need ESPN or ABC? The fact is, in a future world where almost all athletic content has gone to a streaming format---I dont see where the leagues really need ESPN/ABC/CBS. In a broadcast world like broadcast TV or cable---the platform was as valuable as the content because there were only a few places for the content to be shown. But in a streaming world, it seems to me there are an unlimited number of broadcast outlets----thus ESPN/ABC/CBS/etc need the leagues much more than the leagues need them.

So the Big12 is doing something right by having it's schools outside UT and ou sell it's 3rd tier rights to ESPN plus?

(01-26-2021 07:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 03:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 03:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 02:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-26-2021 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  We will see where this is going, but if the networks are going to push more and more of the production costs to the leagues, my guess is leagues will look at doing it themselves and keeping the revenue. YouTube, Facebook, and other platforms have “channels” that allow for someone to monetize content with zero costs to build out a streaming broadcast distribution network. All that MLB technology isn’t really needed for the vast majority of leagues or events. Other than men’s football or basketball games—the numbers requiring huge MLB streaming infrastructure technology arent there.

Besides, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (as well as others) already have technology capable of streaming live content to millions of viewers at a time. At this point, ESPN really doesn’t have any dramatically special technology as far as I can tell that’s going to make any real difference for most leagues or their viewers.

The type of channels you're talking about are designed for independent creators or entities that wish to increase their exposure on already popular platforms. They're insufficient to carry real time broadcasts to tens of millions of people.

Even if they were capable then it would be a terrible investment on the part of the sports leagues. They need to own the technology, but they also need to own the platform otherwise a Google or Facebook or whatnot has sole discretion in the type of content that could be distributed at any given moment. That sort of power is the impetus behind tightly structured contracts that are worth literally billions of dollars. You don't give that away for free just to have sole discretion to consume ad revenue.

Now, you're correct in that these networks might just take control of the broadcasts, but if they did then it would be through independent platforms.

The platforms Ive mentioned have done NFL, NBA games, and political/news events which draw far more than the average college sporting event. Yes, utilizing someone else's platform gives up some level of control---but then---signing your rights away to a broadcaster is the ultimate loss of control. The difference is you can always go to another platform rather than being at the mercy of your rights holder for the contract duration. The method I suggested, the leagues have the ability to make changes to IMMEDIATELY increase their earnings. No need to wait for the next tv deal to realize a financial benefit from a move made today. That said---there is more risk---so, we will see whether profit maximization wins out over security.

No, they wouldn't increase their earnings.

The ad revenue from YouTube and the like is based on subscriptions and views, and the formula is predetermined by the owning company. It's not an open-ended system and it's not revenue sharing. You agree to the platform's user agreement and the company has the right to change that user agreement at any time they choose. It's not a contract and if it was a money-maker then sports leagues would already be doing it.

The sports leagues bid out their contracts to TV networks because the rights are worth billions of dollars and there's very little risk. That's what the contract is for...to create a framework for how the product will be distributed and presented. The TV networks can't just do whatever they want. They have to abide by the contract that they are paying good money to own. In truth, no media company owns any league's rights in the general sense of ownership. They are renting them and then when the contract comes up for renewal, ownership reverts back. The media company can't simply sell those rights like a piece of property unless their contract allows them to and only then for a specified period of time.

The only reason a YouTube or a Facebook has broadcast games before is because they've signed a contract to do so...likely to increase exposure on a platform that generates its own traffic and is popular with consumers. Twitter has done the same. We're not talking about the same thing here, not even close.

The type of change you're describing would be akin to a free agent in baseball deciding he's not going to sign with another team. Rather, he's going to travel the country with a ball and a bat and sell tickets for people to watch him play. It's not a perfect analogy, but that's the gist of it.

Now, TV networks(media companies) are middle men. I agree with that, but to some degree they will be with us for a long time. You can cut the middle man out, but it's not as simple as creating a YouTube account. The leagues will have to create or lease their own platforms. That's the only way they could own the mechanism of distribution.

Incorrect. What Im suggesting is that a conference might hold on to its rights, where it pays to do so, and create their own outlet--on an existing platform or via some other contract hosting set up. Basically---all Im suggesting is a conference network---something most conferences already have. I mean---if its all going to be streaming and streamers are looking to push more and more production costs to the leagues/schools---why do you really need ESPN or ABC? The fact is, in a future world where almost all athletic content has gone to a streaming format---I dont see where the leagues really need ESPN/ABC/CBS. It seems to me in a streaming world, ESPN/ABC/CBS/etc needs the leagues.

Technically they don't need the media companies, but they do need the technology. Not just anyone can develop that. Disney purchased BamTech because they were so good at streaming. Even then, it's taken a little time to get everything up to speed. YouTube, for example, has billions of views and I understand that, but hardly any of their product is live streams. An even smaller percentage is made up of high quality broadcasts of sports that a consumer would demand. Furthermore, hardly anything on YouTube is paid content. In other words, it's just random people uploading their own content and getting a cut of the ad revenue. More recently, you've got YouTube Red or YouTube Music or perhaps you can buy shows and movies. But the consumer directly pays for that...it's not a question of ad revenue.

All in all, it's a technology question. It is, however, more difficult than simply streaming video on the internet. Primarily the leagues need guaranteed access to the clientele. They also need to partner with the platform if not outright own it.

I'm not saying you can't cut out the middle man. What I'm saying is there's no reason a league or conference would work exclusively with an online entity like Facebook or YouTube without guaranteed revenue. It makes no sense.

TV networks have revenue streams based on certain models. It's a mixture of subscriptions, ad revenue, and likely other accounting maneuvers that I'm unfamiliar with. You switch over to internet based platforms and it's a little different, but similar in approach. Streaming services requires paid subs and many take advantage of ads. Nonetheless, they are not as popular with the consumer. It will change eventually, but simply live streaming content on an existing platform like YouTube can't be executed as a shot in the dark. If Google doesn't drop serious bucks to whatever league we're talking about then it simply wouldn't happen.

If these leagues created their own platforms, and that's more plausible, then you still need to account for how the market works. They need infrastructure to pull it all off. They need distribution and they need willing partners. It's not that the technology is a mystery. It's simply that it requires investment on the front end and maintenance on a continual basis. This is the value of a media company because it's their job to handle all that.

Case in point...

The WWE will be getting their own "channel" on Peacock, an existing platform.

However, NBC paid them a billion dollars to do it...guaranteed revenue.