DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[robjlevin]

But years before that all games were in the clear. CBS had on sat and was that NBC had them on another? Was a long time ago. I put up the BUD for endless hockey games

The CBS games were C-band and the NBC games were on Ku-band. When I installed my BUD I did c-band only and quickly purchased a Ku-band LNB to add to it. Everything came from Skyvision.

I know we're going off-topic here but as far as hockey goes, I remember watching Flyer backhauls and during commercial breaks, Mike Emrick would fill satellite viewers in on the upcoming C-band transponders for road games.

As I said....good times!

 

[Yespage]

The RSNs were due for a collapse, overpaying for rights and a loss of per sub fees since so many have left Paid Live TV.

I wouldn't say that as much as Sinclair really messed up in their highly leveraged takeover of the RSNs with the idea of making a lot of cash off of gambling... not realizing that they didn't have rights to that. That imploded their business plan, so all that is left is the inevitable bankruptcy. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving despotic corporation.

The addition of Live TV Services like YTTV and Hulu does not help since they do not carry the RSNs, Dish dropped them awhile ago.

Based on that, it looks like only 50 Million Households pay the per sub fee, just 8 years ago, 100 Million paid it.

This is a problem ESPN will be having in a couple of years, which is why they will change ESPN+ to ESPN and raise the price, so they can make back some of the per sub fees back from those who left.

They have been already adding more ESPN Content to plus, for example, tonight’s MNF game is on plus also.

ESPN is problematic because they keep overpaying for sport programming. And then footing us the bill.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

ESPN is problematic because they keep overpaying for sport programming. And then footing us the bill.

The high cost of trying to maintain relevance.

 

[AZ.]

I wouldn't say that as much as Sinclair really messed up in their highly leveraged takeover of the RSNs with the idea of making a lot of cash off of gambling... not realizing that they didn't have rights to that. That imploded their business plan, so all that is left is the inevitable bankruptcy. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving despotic corporation.

Sinclair paid to much and were just going to do like they do with their local channels. Having so much leverage, they could cash in across the country! The Covid really messed their plan up. Less and less channels are held by a single company now the more you own the better the hostage situation which equals more money!

 

[SamCdbs]

RSNs - Sinclair (which is a horrid company, glad to see them fail) just failed. DISH came up for renewal, and they actually let them carry the Sinclair local stations (second largest chain in the country) and not the local RSNs. Once that happened, it was all over. Now there are ways to get the linear TV people want, without the RSN. Should never have allowed that to happen.

The RSNs are interesting. They are VERY important, often getting the highest rating of any channel in a particular market, but that is still like 3 or 4% of people. In the old system, “everybody” had them and “everybody” paid, and paid a lot for the RSN. Now it is possible to avoid this charge.

The issue, of course, is that all of these out of market packages are just gravy for the leagues. The content is from the RSNs. They are produced for local consumption. Eliminate the RSN and there is no content to sell in the first place. And it just cannot in any sane system be easier, and cheaper, to watch somebody else’s team than your own. They have to fix this. A single package, with every team included including your own at an appropriate price (much higher) seems to be the only way. RSNs are just no viable outside the bundle.

ESPN - The point of a business is to MAKE money. Not to “replace revenue”. MAKE money. That is the flaw in the silly idea that someday ESPN will be sold a la carte. If only the people that wanted ESPN had to pay for it, as Sinclair foolishly let the RSN chain become, it’s $50/month. It is not a viable channel outside a bundle either. And sports fans are not going to pay for all that Hallmark and Discovery and other garbage if they could actually get the linear goodness of ESPN, et al, a la carte.

NBA - I don’t care about it. But then again, look at the ratings. No one much does. But it is ESPN’s identity. All they talk about during those long hours of filler time every day. So, with its bundle model in decline, Disney is going to have to dig deep to keep a product that, if it ever get to the point it is going to try to sell a la carte, only pushes up the price, for programming most people, and most sports fans, just don’t care about.

 

[Yespage]

Sinclair paid to much and were just going to do like they do with their local channels. Having so much leverage, they could cash in across the country! The Covid really messed their plan up. Less and less channels are held by a single company now the more you own the better the hostage situation which equals more money!

But their purchase of the RSNs was heavily leveraged. They weren't getting that back in subscription fees. What they want $20 a month for their service?! So their plan was to work with Ballys and create a gambling side gig, and cash in there. Then the MLB et al said, "hold the phone" and Sinclair gulped deeply.

 

[AZ.]

But their purchase of the RSNs was heavily leveraged. They weren't getting that back in subscription fees. What they want $20 a month for their service?! So their plan was to work with Ballys and create a gambling side gig, and cash in there. Then the MLB et al said, "hold the phone" and Sinclair gulped deeply.

Yep thats what happened exactly.....Like their owned local channels the more they had the better the leverage, it didnt work this time. Covid had a lot to do with it...But we see this play out all the time with locals. They Bet that sports fans would scream, and they would get their way.

 

[Bilbo1]

NFL Sunday Ticket is not a hot item no matter what the NFL claims. They're going to be lucky to get anyone to pay them

CBS and Fox might be willing to check the sofa cushions for pocket change to add out-of-market streaming rights to their current in-market rights. CBS could definitely use them for Paramount Plus. Fox??? It depends on their plans for streaming.

The NWSL is truly sad news. Bundling in a soccer league that almost no one watches? Gross.

Don’t underestimate the power of women’s soccer. I could see the NWSL outperforming MLS. Lots of girls play soccer and grow up to follow the US Women’s National Team. The USWNT sells out NFL stadiums. The female equivalents of Messi and Ronaldo play in the NWSL.

Women are underestimated as sports fans. My mom followed the Heat religiously when LeBron played for them. My mother-in-law follows the Tampa Lightning (my wife can’t call her during games). My wife and daughter both watch a lot of sports. I would add that a growing percentage of women show up at the bar for Arsenal games and my university’s alumni association meetups for football games.

We have season tickets for the local MLS team and would get NWSL tickets in a heartbeat when the league expands here. The biggest thing holding me back from the NWSL is the lack of a local team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce]

ESPN - The point of a business is to MAKE money. Not to “replace revenue”. MAKE money. That is the flaw in the silly idea that someday ESPN will be sold a la carte. If only the people that wanted ESPN had to pay for it, as Sinclair foolishly let the RSN chain become, it’s $50/month. It is not a viable channel outside a bundle either. And sports fans are not going to pay for all that Hallmark and Discovery and other garbage if they could actually get the linear goodness of ESPN, et al, a la carte.

You are correct, they want to make money, except last year they lost 8 Million subscribers paying per sub fees, if the rumors are correct, they get $11 per sub per month in fees for Both ESPN 1 ($9) and 2 ($2), that is over a Billion Dollars gone for the year, then include the other 24 Million that have left Paid Live TV, that is another over $3 Billion gone per year.

And they need that money for the ever increasing Rights Fees.

So how do they grow (get back that money lost) their Business, increase per sub fees, but like the RSNs. if you increase them too much, you start losing providers or increase the monthly bill so much, you have more cord cutters.

Ad rates, for a channel that is getting less ratings then before, good luck.

So, the best option is switch ESPN+ to ESPN, at first make the price $15 ( more then the per sub fee), if they can get 20 Million that left Pay TV, that is $3.6 Billion for the year.

ESPN Lost 8 Million Subscribers in 2021, 10% of its overall subscriber base

Last year ESPN lost eight million cable and satellite subscribers, finishing 2021 with around 75 million total subscribers. That eight million subscriber loss, an average of nearly

www.outkick.com

 

[SamCdbs]

Except $15 won’t cover the costs, unbundled, the price will have to be upwards of $50/month, just to break even. And, who exactly would keep paying for cable/DBS/streaming alternate if you could actually get real ESPN, et al, a la carte? Since they are still making about $3.5B a year (or put another way, enough to cover the streaming Disney bundle’s losses for the year) in traditional method, they aren’t selling it a la carte, and certainly not for a laughable $15.

 

[SamCdbs]

BTW, Sports Business Journal reports that a ST announcement is anticipated within a few days.

 

[Bruce]

Except $15 won’t cover the costs,

Why?

it is more then the per sub free by $4 which goes to other costs.

unbundled

Not being bundled effects the Provider, not the broadcaster, who would get the per sub fees in a monthly charge instead.

the price will have to be upwards of $50/month, just to break even.

Again why, just because you say so does not make it true.

By not providing it to cord cutters, they get $0.

And, who exactly would keep paying for cable/DBS/streaming alternate if you could actually get real ESPN, et al, a la carte?

No evidence of that, ESPN is not that uber popular that would cause people to leave, there are plenty of other channels that subscribers do not wish to lose, even for sports fans, like Fox Sports 1 and 2, Big Ten, etc, there is no way to get those unless you have a Pay TV Provider.

Since they are still making about $3.5B a year (or put another way, enough to cover the streaming Disney bundle’s losses for the year) in traditional method, they aren’t selling it a la carte, and certainly not for a laughable $15.

Again, this is something for Cord Cutters, it is better getting something from that 34 Million that have left Paid Live TV, how many would subscribe I have no idea, but since ESPN+ has over 24 million subs paying roughly $7-9.99 a month ( some get a discount because of bundles), it is not hard to believe they could get over 20 million paying $15.

Also, Cord Cutting is not stoping, Paid Live TV has already lost over 5 million in 2022, that number will continue to grow, I expect DirecTV, for example, to have a major loss in the next year because of NFLST leaving and the price increase, other providers because of their price increases going into a recession year.

 

[SamCdbs]

Why?

Because that is what the experts in this industry say it will cost.

it is more then the per sub free by $4 which goes to other costs.

It is $8, not $4, but anyway, it is $8 from “everyone”. Just look at the ratings and tell me how many are going to pay. The experts have, which was part of the calculation of $50.

Not being bundled effects the Provider, not the broadcaster, who would get the per sub fees in a monthly charge instead.

I really don’t know what the means. Bundling protects the consumer and allows for consumer choice. Other people pay a little for a channel they don’t watch, I pay a little for a channel I don’t and before you know it there are 200 channels. Unbundled, there would not be enough money for any of them to exist in the first place. No one channel genre has enough potential subscribers a la carte to be affordable.

By not providing it to cord cutters, they get $0.

Which is better than selling it at a loss, AND losing the $3.5B they make from bundled subscribers.

No evidence of that, ESPN is not that uber popular that would cause people to leave, there are plenty of other channels that subscribers do not wish to lose, even for sports fans, like Fox Sports 1 and 2, Big Ten, etc, there is no way to get those unless you have a Pay TV Provider.

Yeah, so Disney is going to unbundle ESPN, but Fox isn’t going to unbundle FS1. Right. If sports fans, and more importantly commercial establishments, could get sports a la carte, the bundle is dead.

Again, this is something for Cord Cutters, it is better getting something from that 34 Million that have left Paid Live TV, how many would subscribe I have no idea, but since ESPN+ has over 24 million subs paying roughly $7-9.99 a month ( some get a discount because of bundles), it is not hard to believe they could get over 20 million paying $15.

Selling material AT A LOSS and targeting people who opted out of traditional TV because of some combination of cheapness and a dislike of sports (the largest driver of traditional TV costs) is no business plan.

Want ESPN, the real ESPN. Get a provider. Don’t want that? Do without. That simple.

Also, Cord Cutting is not stoping, Paid Live TV has already lost over 5 million in 2022, that number will continue to grow,

Why? This is not a product rollout. People were offered this new option and everybody who wants it, got it. Nobody is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town.

What actually we are waiting for is a way to make streaming profitable. What was it again that is the magic thing that is inevitably is going to happen someday to make that so?

 

[Bruce]

Because that is what the experts in this industry say it will cost.

It is $8, not $4, but anyway, it is $8 from “everyone”. Just look at the ratings and tell me how many are going to pay. The experts have, which was part of the calculation of $50.

That $50 price point was if paid TV was no longer available and if only sports fans subscribe to it.

Not what I am writing, just provide it for those who have left or will be leaving.

I really don’t know what the means. Bundling protects the consumer and allows for consumer choice. Other people pay a little for a channel they don’t watch, I pay a little for a channel I don’t and before you know it there are 200 channels. Unbundled, there would not be enough money for any of them to exist in the first place. No one channel genre has enough potential subscribers a la carte to be affordable.

I do wonder how you would feel about the high price of DirecTV and bundling everything together if you paid full price, instead of paying $65 a month because you share an account with your Landlord .

Bundling forces people to pay for a bunch of channels they will never watch or do not want.

Extremely anti consumer.

If a channel does not provide content I wish to watch, I am glad I do not pay for it, if they do not have enough watching/paying for it, let it die.

I pay and support the content I do want, do not pay for things I do not want, do not want Discovery, do not have plus for example.

Do not want the RSN, especially with that extra fee, do not subscribe to Bally, do want to watch the Tigers, so MLB gets money from me by providing it instead of nothing.

And the MLB out of town package has millions of subscribers, 3.5 million just for the streaming version.

Which is better than selling it at a loss, AND losing the $3.5B they make from bundled subscribers.

Again, no one has said they will lose anything, but they are getting nothing now from Cord Cutters.

Want ESPN, the real ESPN. Get a provider. Don’t want that? Do without. That simple.

Actually ESPN has been moving more programming to plus, MNF was on it yesterday and will be next week.

What actually we are waiting for is a way to make streaming profitable. What was it again that is the magic thing that is inevitably is going to happen someday to make that so?

And it will be, everything started at a loss, DirecTV was losing money for years, Amazon, Netflix, now they make a profit.

Disney is predicting a profit by 2024, we are in a change over time frame as far as TV programming goes.

If certain services do not make it on their own, we will see more mergers, or they will shut down.

 

[Juan]

Because that is what the experts in this industry say it will cost.

It is $8, not $4, but anyway, it is $8 from “everyone”. Just look at the ratings and tell me how many are going to pay. The experts have, which was part of the calculation of $50.

I really don’t know what the means. Bundling protects the consumer and allows for consumer choice. Other people pay a little for a channel they don’t watch, I pay a little for a channel I don’t and before you know it there are 200 channels. Unbundled, there would not be enough money for any of them to exist in the first place. No one channel genre has enough potential subscribers a la carte to be affordable.

Which is better than selling it at a loss, AND losing the $3.5B they make from bundled subscribers.

Yeah, so Disney is going to unbundle ESPN, but Fox isn’t going to unbundle FS1. Right. If sports fans, and more importantly commercial establishments, could get sports a la carte, the bundle is dead.

Selling material AT A LOSS and targeting people who opted out of traditional TV because of some combination of cheapness and a dislike of sports (the largest driver of traditional TV costs) is no business plan.

Want ESPN, the real ESPN. Get a provider. Don’t want that? Do without. That simple.

Why? This is not a product rollout. People were offered this new option and everybody who wants it, got it. Nobody is sitting around waiting for streaming to come to their town.

What actually we are waiting for is a way to make streaming profitable. What was it again that is the magic thing that is inevitably is going to happen someday to make that so?

OTA tv and radio broadcasting were very very profitable without subscriber fees for decades...before cable...too many channels nobody wants..perhaps a FTA satellite system augmented with streaming similar to what europe has will work

 

[Bruce]

Want ESPN, the real ESPN. Get a provider. Don’t want that? Do without. That simple.

Juan posted this in another thread, so thanks for that.

Looks like others are thinking the way I do-

“First, we think ESPN would go a la carte in streaming as that band-aid is long overdue to be ripped off in a world of accelerating cord-cutting.

Disney Analyst: Spinning Off ESPN, ABC Is “Best Path Forward”

"We see it as a reasonably probable late-'23 event," writes Wells Fargo's Steven Cahall.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Bruce]

BTW, Sports Business Journal reports that a ST announcement is anticipated within a few days.

They might be right, but not good news-

WSJ News Exclusive | Google’s YouTube in Talks for Rights to NFL Sunday Ticket

The subscription-only package allows football fans to watch all out-of-market Sunday afternoon games, meaning games that don’t involve their local teams.

www.wsj.com

If this is true, this proves everything I have said, the NFL does not care about pushing it out to the most fans, that is what Amazon could of provided with 70 Million Households that subscribe to Prime, not a service like YTTV with only 5 Million Households.

The NFL only cares about the check they get.

edit-
better link if you do not subscribe to WSJ-

NFL nears deal with YouTube for exclusive rights to 'Sunday Ticket'

The National Football League is in advanced talks to give Google’s YouTube, part of Alphabet Inc., exclusive rights to “Sunday Ticket,” a subscription-only...

www.marketwatch.com

 

[meStevo]

Good stuff, as a YTTV sub I look forward to this, though I'm already invested in pretty much all of their viable paths.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Another source:

Google’s YouTube TV the frontrunner for NFL’s Sunday Ticket package

The Sunday Ticket saga is finally near its conclusion.

nypost.com

 

[Bruce]

Good stuff, as a YTTV sub I look forward to this, though I'm already invested in pretty much all of their viable paths.

Yeah, the good news for me is they might sell it also via their You Tube Primetime Channels, their version of how Amazon Prime does it, so I do not have to go back to YTTV if I do not wish.

The other plus is I can get Google Play cards via my Credit Cards points, so no cost for me either way.

YouTube’s new Primetime Channels puts 34 streaming services in one place

You can subscribe to and watch streaming services, like Showtime, on YouTube.

arstechnica.com