DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Jimbo]

Not just the NFL, all sports will be getting close to any streaming service that will offer up the big money.

Remember, Traditional Providers have lost over 30 million subscribers ( and continues to lose, another 2.1 million left Live TV in first quarter 2022), that is a lot of per sub fees that are gone, they have to make up the money sooner or not that much later.

So, if rights fees go up for someone like ESPN, but they have lost $3.24 billion in a year ( 30,000,000 subs lost times $9 in per sub fees a month times 12 months), and the other sports leagues do not get the increase in fees that ESPN might not be able to afford, you will see more deals with streaming providers instead.

Or, all the sports channels will have to offer the content on their own streaming service to hopefully make up the lost revenue from Traditional Services, ESPN, for example, can’t keep paying a increase in right’s fees but taking in less revenue.

The next 3-5 years will be interesting.

The Pricing for Streaming the NFL will NOT drop due to it being on the Streaming platform ...
They already came out and said a few weeks ago that it would be $ 300 or there abouts.
I said that YEARS ago, D* has already established what people will pay for the NFL, it Won't go down.

Now, that said, they Could discount it as part of the Amazon or Apple subscription ...
For example, I am a Amazon Prime sub, they could discount the ST /With an AP sub.

Not sure how that might work with Apple, unless they offer it with buying other things from them, maybe.

 

[Jimbo]

People here have said that Apple and Amazon already have enough subs, they are well established companies ....
Thats just Not true, you Never have Too Many subs.

 

[Bruce]

The Pricing for Streaming the NFL will NOT drop due to it being on the Streaming platform ...
They already came out and said a few weeks ago that it would be $ 300 or there abouts.
I said that YEARS ago, D* has already established what people will pay for the NFL, it Won't go down.

Now, that said, they Could discount it as part of the Amazon or Apple subscription ...
For example, I am a Amazon Prime sub, they could discount the ST /With an AP sub.

Not sure how that might work with Apple, unless they offer it with buying other things from them, maybe.

That is not what my post says.

 

[Bruce]

People here have said that Apple and Amazon already have enough subs, they are well established companies ....
Thats just Not true, you Never have Too Many subs.

Apple-they only have about 50 million members/households that get Apple TV, so plenty to get.

Amazon has 150 million members/Households, no one left since there are only 130 million households, they are getting a extra 20 million from somewhere.

College students maybe?

 

[Juan]

Both services have always sold sports packages thru Amazon Prime and itunes and still do.

How many actually buy them?

 

[Bilbo1]

How many actually buy them?

How many people ‘buy’ CBS, Fox, or NBC over-the-air networks, but still these networks shell out bigger bucks for NFL rights than Sunday Ticket is expected to cost.

At $300 a season, whoever ends up with Sunday Ticket will need 10 million subscribers. It’s hard to imagine a 5-fold increase in subscriptions from a move to a streaming service (or making it available via cable). Heck, most Sundays, that is about the total number of people watch home team, national, and regional NFL games.

And, x00k sports bars paying $y,000 a year doesn’t do enough to cover the cost.

As I said above, subscriber revenues won’t cover the cost. They are going to need to to find other ways to monetize this.

 

[SamCdbs]

The sports TV paradigm is changing.

The old system was really simple. “Everybody” had cable/DBS and thus “everybody” paid, and paid big, for all the various all-sports channels, and, for the sports on the general rerun channels like TNT or USA, as well as (thanks Congress) for the sports on OTA TV.

But guess what? Millions and millions of people don’t like sports. The ratings show this. In fact, millions and millions of homes contain no one, or at least no one with the buying decision power, that likes sports. Think of your own friends and family. They are out there.

Then came streaming. Which is to say, steaming only, not the streaming as a supplement the way most use it. Estrogen soaked melodramas for the most part. And people that don’t like sports signed right up. It saves money, and they don’t have to pay for things they don’t want. Which is to say, sports.

They were not some sort of “early adopters” or the harbinger of some soon to be universal trend. They were customers who were always there, finally given the sports free system that they always wanted.

The simple fact is, because there are so many streaming services, and because all are about the same, and none really (look at the minutes watched, which are available) nothing on it is close to “must see tv” any one that tries to hit up customers in a big way for sports will just lose to others that do not. This customer base wants to be sports free. That is why they did what they did.

And, before someone mentions it, the two exceptions. ESPN+ and soccer.

The latter is easy. Most non-Hispanic soccer fans in the USA don’t follow any other sport. They are happy to get out from under paying for mainstream American sports and pay specifically for the sport they want.

Then ESPN+. The way contracts work, ESPN has way more inventory than it can ever show. So it tosses up niche things like MAC or Sun Belt college games, cricket, rugby, early day golf going to the network when the leaders come out, NBA summer exhibitions, and whoever pays for it is gravy to ESPN.

Thus, really the idea that sports is coming to streaming in a mainstream way, is like thinking a boat dealership in the desert is a good idea. The streaming only community is there for the main reason of avoiding paying for sports.

Which brings us back to ST. DirecTV is wisely getting out of this loss leader, and is there, for whoever “wins” as the only way to serve the commercial community. Which ever streaming service “wins” will lose millions on it, and, will predicate buying ST on first buying the basic service, which, especially for Apple, many sports fans have no use for.

The only real question that is left is does DirecTV get only a commercial sub-contract, or one for homes as well?

 

[cosmo_kramer]

I said that YEARS ago, D* has already established what people will pay for the NFL, it Won't go down.

It's been reiterated here many times that FOX and CBS have contractual language in their deals that require a "premium" amount be charged for ST. D* had nothing to do with it, other than charging that amount.....

 

[Bruce]

Then ESPN+. The way contracts work, ESPN has way more inventory than it can ever show. So it tosses up niche things like MAC or Sun Belt college games, cricket, rugby, early day golf going to the network when the leaders come out, NBA summer exhibitions, and whoever pays for it is gravy to ESPN.

And it has almost all NHL ( Center Ice), MLB ( at least one game daily) and this season Broncos at Jaguars from Wembley Stadium in London, also only on ESPN+.

Like I have said, we are in a transition period for sports going to streaming, 3-5 years before it is done.

 

[Bilbo1]

The sports TV paradigm is changing.

But guess what? Millions and millions of people don’t like sports. The ratings show this.

Not quite. The ratings show people watch their home team. The number of viewers for each home team are range from 20,000 to 500,000. When you add up home teams, millions watch sports, and it beats most nationwide cable networks on any given night.

Estrogen soaked melodramas

Which is to say, sports.

This is rather dismissive of women. Many women watch sports. Many women participate in sports.

And, before someone mentions it, the two exceptions. ESPN+ and soccer.

The latter is easy. Most non-Hispanic soccer fans in the USA don’t follow any other sport.

Again, no. Most of the soccer people I know (hardcore fans) follow other sports, too. Personally, I follow teams in other sports I have a tie to, such as my university’s teams and hometown NHL team.

Other hardcore soccer fans follow multiple leagues, national (FA Cup), and international competitions such as UEFA club championships and confederation national team cups (Copa America, CONCACAF Gold Cup, Euro Championship).

I’m interested in watching some of the T-20 cricket competitions. It sounds intriguing.

Then ESPN+. The way contracts work, ESPN has way more inventory than it can ever show. So it tosses up niche things like MAC or Sun Belt college games, cricket, rugby, early day golf going to the network when the leaders come out, NBA summer exhibitions, and whoever pays for it is gravy to ESPN.

Others are adding these sports. Soccer is an easy add because there are so many different competitions. Paramount+, Peacock, Apple have all added some of these soccer competitions. Peacock also has cycling and horse racing.

The broader point is that broadcast rights for these competitions can be acquired relatively cheaply, and they can get enough viewers to compete with lesser watched cable channels.

Most streamers have multi-$billion content budgets. For the cost of a scripted series (maybe 10 hours of content), the streamer can acquire many times that in sporting events.

Thus, really the idea that sports is coming to streaming in a mainstream way, is like thinking a boat dealership in the desert is a good idea. The streaming only community is there for the main reason of avoiding paying for sports.

Australian rules football was a mainstay of early ESPN. We know where ESPN is today.

This idea that by purchasing a streaming package, you aren’t paying for sports is misguided. These streamers are going to be buying sports because they need content and they are fairly low cost, unscripted content.

Which brings us back to ST. DirecTV is wisely getting out of this loss leader, and is there, for whoever “wins” as the only way to serve the commercial community. Which ever streaming service “wins” will lose millions on it, and, will predicate buying ST on first buying the basic service, which, especially for Apple, many sports fans have no use for.

The only real question that is left is does DirecTV get only a commercial sub-contract, or one for homes as well?

DirecTV is undergoing a paradigm shift as well. Who knows if multi-tier MVPD model will translate well to streaming. Single package vMVPDs like YouTube TV seem to be doing well enough. DirecTV may do well to partner with teleco/ISPs for bundling.

Apple is getting into sports with Major League Soccer and MLB. Give them time. Sports are too important to ignore.

DirecTV may get commercial distribution if ESPN gets Sunday Ticket since ESPN+ for business is offered through DirecTV. Peacock has a business account, back to soccer as they stream the English Premier League. Many a sport bar opens early between August to May for EPL games.

Sunday Ticket will be a loss leader for whoever gets it.

 

[Juan]

How many people ‘buy’ CBS, Fox, or NBC over-the-air networks, but still these networks shell out bigger bucks for NFL rights than Sunday Ticket is expected to cost.

At $300 a season, whoever ends up with Sunday Ticket will need 10 million subscribers. It’s hard to imagine a 5-fold increase in subscriptions from a move to a streaming service (or making it available via cable). Heck, most Sundays, that is about the total number of people watch home team, national, and regional NFL games.

And, x00k sports bars paying $y,000 a year doesn’t do enough to cover the cost.

As I said above, subscriber revenues won’t cover the cost. They are going to need to to find other ways to monetize this.

I dunno..maybe bacause 20 million people tune in( millions more for playoffs and superbowl)...much better than 2 million buying an out of market sports package .. kinda silly to compare the 2

 

[Bilbo1]

I dunno..maybe bacause 20 million people tune in( millions more for playoffs and superbowl)...much better than 2 million buying an out of market sports package .. kinda silly to compare the 2

My guess is that the subscriber base is a subset of those that currently tune in on any given Sunday. It puts a cap on your potential market. Sunday Ticket is out-of-market regular season package. It’s hard to imagine more people will pay for that package than currently watch for free.

 

[Jimbo]

It's been reiterated here many times that FOX and CBS have contractual language in their deals that require a "premium" amount be charged for ST. D* had nothing to do with it, other than charging that amount.....

D* clearly established the price people would pay ... Now if someone else was telling D* what they needed to charge, that I don't know ...
I never really thought the Networks would have anything in thier contract that said what D* had to charge, but who knows, that info has never been announced that I know of.

 

[slice1900]

But 2 billion requires maximum return...maybe they will offer a family package..just speculating..I dont see apple taking a loss like directv

Apple will use it to drive more subscriptions to Apple TV+ which will be required to get NFLST, and use the local ad slots to sell Apple products which is probably where they'll make most of the money.

They have the benefit of knowing exactly what (if any) Apple products every NFLST viewer has, since you need an Apple ID to subscribe to Apple TV+. That will allow them to tailor ads very well. The conversion rate of those ads is probably how they'll measure whether it pays off for them, not subscription income alone.

 

[Juan]

Apple will use it to drive more subscriptions to Apple TV+ which will be required to get NFLST, and use the local ad slots to sell Apple products which is probably where they'll make most of the money.

They have the benefit of knowing exactly what (if any) Apple products every NFLST viewer has, since you need an Apple ID to subscribe to Apple TV+. That will allow them to tailor ads very well. The conversion rate of those ads is probably how they'll measure whether it pays off for them, not subscription income alone.

Its hard to taylor ads on product that allows customer to jump from game to game during commercials

 

[meStevo]

Its hard to taylor ads on product that allows customer to jump from game to game during commercials

Not really. Just getting them in the ecosystem is the biggest win for many services, and commercial breaks aren't the only way to expose people to products and services.

 

[Juan]

Not really. Just getting them in the ecosystem is the biggest win for many services, and commercial breaks aren't the only way to expose people to products and services.

But during 1 game for most

 

[meStevo]

But during 1 game for most

If you're citing a metric I'd like to see your source, thanks. Looks like another cyclical goalpost shuffle train of thoughts from Juan again.

 

[Bilbo1]

I never really thought the Networks would have anything in thier contract that said what D* had to charge, but who knows, that info has never been announced that I know of.

I thought network carriage agreements prescribed the packages that the channel was included in. Disney wanted Disney Channel and ESPN/2 included in the base package. Viacom wanted Nickelodeon and MTV, etc.

Sure, not literally what was charged, but essentially forced DirecTV into what to include for what was charged.

 

[Juan]

If you're citing a metric I'd like to see your source, thanks. Looks like another cyclical goalpost shuffle train of thoughts from Juan again.

Do you think a lion's fan watches the vikings? Or browns fan watches the cardinals?.. not usually but gamblers jump from game to game..so for most its only about their team