Scratch pad notes:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/10/p...-just-yet/
Quote:Kagan’s research listed the average national subscriber fee in five-year increments:
* In 2012, the Big Ten commanded $0.37 per sub, while the Pac-12 National network received $0.30.
* By 2017, the Big Ten’s average sub fee had jumped to $0.48, an increase of 30 percent, while the Pac-12 fee had dropped to $0.11.
Poster, I think you're asking a very valid question.
We're constantly looking at future Big Ten expansion, Virginia is one of the schools "on the table," and one of the reasons is expanding the in-market BTN footprint.
So it's a relevant question to ask: Are the 2M or so people in Northern Viriginia, the ones in the Washington DC media market, already counted as "in-market" for BTN.
It's a declining factor, as cord-cutting continues. For a "whale" like southern California with 5M tv households, it's still a big deal. Anywhere else, I'm not sure it matters as much. (Except maybe northern California).
I *believe* that NYC is counted as home-market BTN footprint because of Rutgers, I *suspect* that Westchester and Nassau counties (adjacent to NYC) are home-market. I wouldn't be surprised if Suffolk county (rest of Long Island) and some upstate counties (for me, upstate starts at the city line) were in-market.
But I don't have soruces to back those up, sorry.
Quote:If the Big Ten was actually getting in market rates for the whole DC and NYC markets, wouldn’t they publicly disclose that?
Not really. Delaney and now Warren don't get a dog biscuit for us knowing that. Big Ten gets the money, and they are perfectly free to show the actual data to any network or corporate partners or advertisers who have reason to care. Telling Matt Brown or Kristi Dosh or Steve Marchand or John Ourand doesn't butter their bread or fry their parsnips.