Apple is working to get the distribution rights for out of market games, as broadcasted by CBS and Fox. They wouldn't be producing and broadcasting the stuff themselves.
DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4K
- Views 376K
- Status
One or two generations that don't like sports? No, it is 'people that don't like cable/sat and grew up on streaming'.
That is how Directv used it. And the math isn't necessarily as simple as $/subs. Ad revenue can be added as well with some creativity. ST has been a premium for a long time, and the winner would need to monetize it differently to break even, but this isn't light speed engine difficult.
Yes, there is a dichotomy of sorts between streamed and linear broadcast. Streamers want everything via the glass fiber strand (I heard that enough with NBC and EPL rights) and linear people want to stop seeing things that were available linearly going behind a paywall... while still paying the same linear price.
The trouble with your argument is that while it is unlikely I'd get ST, with it currently behind the Directv paywall, I'm definitely not getting ST. People like me exist. They don't want to pay $150 a month via Directv, when they can pay $80 (including premiums) with Dish. That means I don't get ESPN, fine. It means I can't get ST, fine. These are cost saving 'sacrifices' where I prioritize.
If Apple or Amazon provided a stream to Patriots games for a price... I would consider it. I'm certainly not not going to get ST with Apple or Amazon (or Dish... just wait, the partnership with Amazon between Dish will make Dish's 5G service receiving the NFL ST for free 😀) because I didn't with Directv. That is just silly.
The math isn't that clear. Monetization via the web and replays and what not, there is an opportunity to regain some of the cost back. You make it seem like this is cold fusion.
This has been consistently ignored because it's fatal to most of their arguments it seems.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,969
- 20,525
I have never had NFLST, even when I had DirecTV, always worked on Sundays.
Now, does ST just rebroadcast the Ads that are shown on the Broadcast feeds, do they insert their own for all or partially.
If it was partially, there is lot to be made then, specially in today’s world with Targeted Ads.
Maybe now, instead of partially, the new deal allows Apple/Amazon/Google to sell all the ad space, then we are talking billions with Targeted Beer Ads and others geared towards Men, like more E.D. ads.
Yes millennials will suddenly flock to sunday ticket because its no longer on directv..the skys will open..a loud thunder crack..and a loud voice will announce let there be football for $300.. and 8 million people will run to their computers and subscribe ...apple will be rolling in the cash...laughing at those 250k fools who want the ticket but have no broadband stuck with directv...let them watch free ota broadcasts...and those poor sports bars..screwem..we have 8 million subs...best idea ever
Which is what is confusing... why is there even an argument to begin with (I mean other than arguments are the sole purpose... err... the second most used purpose for the Internet)? The company who gets it will have their reasons for getting and will have a plan on monetization and what they are willing to risk or expect to gain from it. Whether that works out, would be to be determined.
I'm lost as to how discussing the end of the status quo is considered taboo-ish and are almost taking the whole thing personally.
I have a feeling that if Apple/Amazon get it, and managed to get 15 million subs... you'd still be arguing over it. But they aren't charging them $350 for the package, so the whole thing is just smoke and mirrors and they must still be losing money and...
I would congratulate you on your foresight..that would be impressive since the NFL averages 20 million viewers on a regular sunday..
The whole point of the NFL selling a third party exclusive rights to NFLST is so that they can get paid a lump sum amount that is greater than what NFLST can actually bring in itself through subscription (plus perhaps ad) revenue. If the NFL can't find anyone willing to pay more for it than what it could bring in (i.e. buy NFLST as a loss-leader for their larger business, as DTV has always done), then the NFL will just sell it themselves via their own NFL app, as they're already doing with their own NFL+ standalone direct-to-consumer streaming service.
In fact, I'd say that launch of NFL+ right now is, to some extent, because the NFL's negotiations with the rich tech titans Apple and Amazon aren't going so great. The NFL was hoping that the winning bidder would also splurge to buy a large stake in NFL Media and thereby win the rights to the content in NFL+ (to perhaps become part of Prime Video or Apple TV+ or its own separate add-on to those services). But that obviously didn't happen, so the NFL decided to monetize that content directly themselves via their new NFL+ service. And by launching it, it's also the NFL's way of demonstrating to Apple and Amazon (and reportedly now Google too, who may be interested in NFLST at the right price) that they're ready, willing and able to sell and deliver NFLST the same way, as their own direct-to-consumer streaming offering. I'm sure they'd do it through that same NFL app that's home to the new NFL+. They can work out the kinks in their live streaming platform this season with the lower-stakes NFL+ and then be ready to host NFLST next season if it comes to that.
Now, that said, that's just the NFL's back-up plan. They're still hoping that one of these big boys will pony up and pay them more for NFLST than they could ever earn from it. And I suspect one of them will do so, I just don't think they're going to pay *that* much more for it than what it's worth, i.e. they're not going to lose *too* much money on NFLST as a loss-leader to promote Prime or Apple TV+ or YouTube.
In fact, I'd say that launch of NFL+ right now is, to some extent, because the NFL's negotiations with the rich tech titans Apple and Amazon aren't going so great. The NFL was hoping that the winning bidder would also splurge to buy a large stake in NFL Media and thereby win the rights to the content in NFL+ (to perhaps become part of Prime Video or Apple TV+ or its own separate add-on to those services). But that obviously didn't happen, so the NFL decided to monetize that content directly themselves via their new NFL+ service. And by launching it, it's also the NFL's way of demonstrating to Apple and Amazon (and reportedly now Google too, who may be interested in NFLST at the right price) that they're ready, willing and able to sell and deliver NFLST the same way, as their own direct-to-consumer streaming offering. I'm sure they'd do it through that same NFL app that's home to the new NFL+. They can work out the kinks in their live streaming platform this season with the lower-stakes NFL+ and then be ready to host NFLST next season if it comes to that.
Now, that said, that's just the NFL's back-up plan. They're still hoping that one of these big boys will pony up and pay them more for NFLST than they could ever earn from it. And I suspect one of them will do so, I just don't think they're going to pay *that* much more for it than what it's worth, i.e. they're not going to lose *too* much money on NFLST as a loss-leader to promote Prime or Apple TV+ or YouTube.
NFL+ already existed in prior years, it was called Game Pass and still carries that branding in other markets.
In 3 to 5 years, 5% of the people currently alive will not be. Life is too short to sit about and miss things waiting and wishing oh wishing for a channel you can get RIGHT NOW.
That is a nice prediction. However, it simply does not take into account the reality of how the TV business works. Most major mainline sports will remain on linear TV (to which you currently subscribe, see below) for decades to come.
So they are going to sell it to people that don't like sports. Great business plan.
I get everything.
Your linear TV provider. Cord switching.
The number of people who have DirecTV access is 99.999999% of Americans. Once again this is not taking a food product that is only available in California and selling it in Texas, on the idea that you are reaching more customers. ST is ALREADY available to everyone who wants it.
It will never make money. The idea that 50% or 60% of the people who currently watch the highest rated "free" game each week are all sitting around, wishing oh wishing their phone could carry ST, is just voodoo economics. It is a niche product and we know how many want it. About 2M.
What need does a local bar need with more internet speed than to run ONE CREDIT CARD MACHINE?
Yes I supplement linear TV with streaming. Like most streamers. Like you (YTTV).
No, it is sound business logic.
You know what is on the TV in a sports bar? In a casino?
Sports. 99% of the time. My favorite place, the only non-sports is like a plane crash or the election returns or such. Sports. It is all they want to have on. It is all the customers want to have on. It is in the name of the type of business. Sports bar.
There are lots of nice things on streamers. 98% of it is of no value to a sports bar or casino.
Not in a sports bar.
And, in the past, it still lost money on ST. And will whoever gets it next. It will never be profitable.
Same business plan Apple or Amazon will use. 100% certain it will be predicated on buying other things first.
Only the biggest one?
Zero new potential customers. Actually less potential customers than the 100% of Americans who can now get ST, if they want it.
The two minute per hour. Big $$
Yes, actually it is. And you need 8 to 9 M subscribers, or put better, 50 to 60% of those currently watching the "free" game, to break even.
Two minutes per hour.
Yep. And the CBS and Fox contracts say it must be.
Actually, the price will go up. Apple or Amazon won't have customer retention tossing it out for cheap to keep customers.
Light speed might just be possible.
However, ST profitable. Not possible.
Yes. AKA people that don't like sports.
Again cold fusion actually IS possible. Unlike a profitable ST.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,969
- 20,525
One year away and I will, why get stuck in a two year contract where I would have to pay around $4000 just to get one year of NFLST.
Ok, time for more math, Traditional Providers lost 2 million subs last quarter ( and 30 million the last 8 years), the pace of people leaving is picking up, so if that continues and does not increase ( it will as older customers die off), that is 8 million a year leaving, then times 5 years is 40 million gone, that leaves only 28 million households subbing to Traditional TV, out of 130 million households, hence why I said unprofitable.
And DirecTV is in worse trouble then Dish, at least they are trying to get their broadband thing going so they can stay in business, what does DirecTV do since they kinda split from AT&T, oh I know, hoping for a merger, that is their plan.
Yet only 10 million Households subscribe to it, that means 120 million do not want it, should tell you something.
No one knows, it just has a chance to pick up a lot more going streaming then staying with DirecTV, the company who decided they no longer want ST.
They might need it in a year, times change, sooner or later they will have to upgrade.
Yes streaming is great, glad you agree.
I did not know you had a Business Degree also.
Never been to a sports bar or any bar, waste of money, all my disposable income went into a investment account, hence why I was able to retire at 52.
Same as DirecTV, but a lot less expensive.
Bill Gates doesn't have a business degree and he did just fine
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,969
- 20,525
Directv never said they didn't want ST ....
They said the no longer thought it was a wise investment, and they were right.
IF they had not wanted ST, why would they be talking to the winner about handling the Commercial side of it ?
So basically what you are saying is the ROI is too low for directv at the current price the NFL is asking after directv completed an indepth risk analysis and did market research on what the consumer was willing to pay...in other words they could mo longer derive sufficient revenue from an over priced product.The ratio of the number of new subscribers gained vs the cost of gaining those customers did not make financial sence to directv management at the pricepoint the NFL was asking
So they want someone else to take the risk and directv will simply act as a reseller if they can get the right pricepoint from the new rights owner
Wich would allow an additional revenue stream to the new rights owner by serving customers that are hard to reach by broadband...a win for all stakeholders involved
- Status
