Warner, Fox, Disney to Launch Streaming Sports Joint Venture

[prushing]

Fox cannot afford the 6 years of losses ( compared to other services) with a new streaming service, one they will not have enough content anyways.

FOX isn't starting a streaming service from scratch. They already have a streaming service, they just don't charge for it, it's included with every TV/satellite/streaming contract. All they need to do is create a front-end and billing to handle the subscriptions. They can pay someone they already work with or build it themselves. They also don't need content, they have the FOX shows and the NFL and College football.

If Peacock and Paramount can exist, FOX can have the same model. Yes FOX has overpaid for MLB but the contract is signed, they will only continue to lose more money if they don't offer something in the $5-10 a month range that gets you FOX, FS1, FS2, BigTen, and their News channels. That would be a better offering than NBC has and probably better than CBS for football season.

i'd love to see this happen if only so Fubo can explain to its customers why their bills went up so quickly. There's no way Fubo is paying more than $43 for the Venu content, so if they want to pay the higher price for the sake of competitive parity, have at it.

Bundling is good for customers that want everything. For customers that don't want ESPN, their bill would drop $10-15 (whatever they charge) immediately. For customers who want it, here's a $30/m increase. At that point, just bundle yourself for cheaper with Disney/ESPN/Hulu, NBC, CBS, FOX. You could probably even add Netflix in for cheaper.

 

[Bruce]

FOX isn't starting a streaming service from scratch. They already have a streaming service, they just don't charge for it, it's included with every TV/satellite/streaming contract. All they need to do is create a front-end and billing to handle the subscriptions. They can pay someone they already work with or build it themselves. They also don't need content, they have the FOX shows and the NFL and College football.

Most of Fox shows are not owned by them, except for the reality shows like the Masked Singer.
Hulu already has first run streaming rights, after the season, depends on who owns the show, Simpsons on Hulu during the Season, after on D+, or-
The Cleaning Lady-owned by Warner, past seasons on MAX
911 Lone-star-Owned by Disney, past seasons on Hulu
Bob’s Burgers and Family Guy-Owned by Disney, past seasons on Hulu
New Show-Rescue: HI-Surf-owned by Warner
Accused-owned by Sony
new show-Murder in a Small Town-owned by Sepia Films in Canada

If Peacock and Paramount can exist, FOX can have the same model.

Peacock and Paramount still own their catalogs, both older/newer TV Shows and Films, along with the exclusive content, Fox does not have that.

Yes FOX has overpaid for MLB but the contract is signed, they will only continue to lose more money if they don't offer something in the $5-10 a month range that gets you FOX, FS1, FS2, BigTen, and their News channels.

They would need a lot more then that if they would go on their own, plus they would lose money for awhile until possibly profitable ( doubtful), money they do not have.

If their news channels become available streaming, then Cable/Satellite Providers would complain, like they did when Warner tried to put a simulcast of CNN on MAX, now it is a separate news service that costs even more to produce.

That would be a better offering than NBC has and probably better than CBS for football season.

NBC has the Big Ten also, other College Football, soon the NBA and the NFL, along with NBC shows, Universal Cable Shows, Exclusive shows, Universal Movies.

Paramount has Big Ten, other College Football, March Madness, Golf and the NFL, particularly the AFC, games at 1 and 4pm, along with all the CBS shows, exclusive shows, Viacom Cable Content, Showtime and Paramount Movies.

All Fox has is the NFC games at 1/4pm, Big Ten, MLB.

Bundling is good for customers that want everything. For customers that don't want ESPN, their bill would drop $10-15 (whatever they charge) immediately. For customers who want it, here's a $30/m increase. At that point, just bundle yourself for cheaper with Disney/ESPN/Hulu, NBC, CBS, FOX. You could probably even add Netflix in for cheaper.

I know bundling can work to your benefit if the content is to your liking, I subscribe to the Hulu bundle, Hulu, Disney, ESPN+ Commercial Free for now $26.99.

My problem with Live Pay TV Bundles is paying for all the content/Channels I never watch, specially the RSNs and rerun channels.

 

[prushing]

Most of Fox shows are not owned by them, except for the reality shows like the Masked Singer.
Hulu already has first run streaming rights, after the season, depends on who owns the show, Simpsons on Hulu during the Season, after on D+, or-
The Cleaning Lady-owned by Warner, past seasons on MAX
911 Lone-star-Owned by Disney, past seasons on Hulu
Bob’s Burgers and Family Guy-Owned by Disney, past seasons on Hulu
New Show-Rescue: HI-Surf-owned by Warner
Accused-owned by Sony
new show-Murder in a Small Town-owned by Sepia Films in Canada


Peacock and Paramount still own their catalogs, both older/newer TV Shows and Films, along with the exclusive content, Fox does not have that.

Bruce, I don't know where you work but you obviously are close to one of these services and are stuck in that thinking.

FOX owns 3 things, Broadcast channels, Sports, and News. You seem to think that they need to own old stuff, this isn't about old stuff. People don't subscribe to Peacock or Paramount for old crap. FOX has live tv that people want to watch. A FOX streaming service is immediately viable if it includes live and current season replays of their 3 groups. All the other services that FOX has deals with will still be the same, FOX having a DTC service doesn't impact that. Yes it will be different than other streaming services in that they don't have a large catalog but who cares. This is about live sports and news (if they include that to increase long-term subscriptions).

 

[Bruce]

Bruce, I don't know where you work but you obviously are close to one of these services and are stuck in that thinking.

FOX owns 3 things, Broadcast channels, Sports, and News. You seem to think that they need to own old stuff, this isn't about old stuff. People don't subscribe to Peacock or Paramount for old crap.

No, they subscribe for new stuff, but Fox does not own the streaming rights to the shows that are on their Network.

Hulu has the first run rights ( day after) for 4 more years, then whomever owns the show after the season, as I explained it in my previous post.

People also subscribe to streaming services for exclusive first run streaming shows, which Fox might have to license from others, more money.

People also subscribe for first run movies, which Fox also does not have.

FOX has live tv that people want to watch. A FOX streaming service is immediately viable if it includes live and current season replays of their 3 groups.

Except, as explained above, they do not hold all those rights.

All the other services that FOX has deals with will still be the same, FOX having a DTC service doesn't impact that.

Yes it does, unless Hulu wishes to share those rights.

As far as the News Service goes, depends on the deal they signed with TV Providers, already explained, CNN could not put on some of the same content, as they hoped to do, so producing exclusive of MAX, which is costing them more then a straight simulcast.

Yes it will be different than other streaming services in that they don't have a large catalog but who cares. This is about live sports and news (if they include that to increase long-term subscriptions).

I would care, as would others, depending on the price.

For example, if I did not receive the $20 year special on Peacock, I would not have the service, none of the other content I am interested in, Sunday Night Football, which I could get via a Antenna and the 2 Michigan Football Games they will be exclusive on Peacock.

The best option for Fox, is either wholesale the Fox Sports Content to Disney or as $5-10 add on, that way, it lets ESPN absorb all the millions of dollars in losses, which is something all new services have to deal with.

 

[prushing]

Bruce Fox has rights to stream their current live programing, plus rights for sports and news that could be streamed later. That's all they need. They also already stream that content in their apps. There is $0 investment needed other than billing and collecting payment.

You seem to think FOX needs something similar to Disney, Hulu, YoutubeTV, etc. They just need a DTC channel to get money from people who have cut the cord and also don't want to pay Youtube, Fubo, Hulu Live, etc for streaming live content that they don't want.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

It could be interesting to see if other join in with Fubo, I know DIRECTV was looking to. (Don't know if that is still the case.)

It may be a long time (if ever) that we see Venu launch.

 

[savarese04]

I'm starting to wonder if Venu was just a secret play by Disney to force Fox's hand on doing the ESPN add-on

 

[Bruce]

Bruce Fox has rights to stream their current live programing, plus rights for sports and news that could be streamed later. That's all they need. They also already stream that content in their apps. There is $0 investment needed other than billing and collecting payment.

Here is the deal with out of season programming

Hulu And Fox Set Streaming Output Deal, Extending Co-Exclusive With Tubi For ‘The Masked Singer’ And Many Other Titles

Fox Entertainment and Hulu have set a comprehensive output deal for out-of-season streaming of shows like "The Masked Singer."

deadline.com

Here is the deal for in season (day after, signed in 2023)-

Fox Renews Hulu Streaming Deal for In-Season Episodes

Fox Entertainment and Hulu announced a multiyear content deal renewal, encompassing in-season streaming rights for Fox's primetime shows.

variety.com

Fox Corp.’s Fox Entertainment and Disney’s Huluannounced a multiyear content deal renewal, encompassing in-season streaming rights for Fox’s primetime shows.

Now I have proven what I have posted, please do the same with your claims

That Fox can have a streaming service with their primetime line-up (as I proven above, they cannot)and their Sports/News content, without angering Paid Live TV Providers, that pay the per sub fee for those channels.

 

[Bruce]

It could be interesting to see if other join in with Fubo, I know DIRECTV was looking to. (Don't know if that is still the case.)

It may be a long time (if ever) that we see Venu launch.

From what I hear, they (Disney, Fox, Warner) are extremely nervous about starting the service now, even if they get the injunction lifted, worried about the lawsuit and if they rule in Fubo’s favor.

Might be better to drop the service ( then the lawsuit goes away) and focus (and reconfigure the upcoming ESPN streaming service), maybe add a Livestream of ABC to it, like how Paramount+ has CBS Live and Peacock has NBC.

 

[Yespage]

For those who doubt my insider news, from the Court Hearing-

Venu Sports, which seeks to bundle 15 of its parent companies' linear sports channels, gestated when Disney approached Fox about licensing its sports programming for its upcoming direct-to-consumer launch of ESPN, codename "Flagship." Fox counter-proposed the idea of a JV.

ESPN Price Per Subscriber Still $9.42

Fubo's antitrust suit against Venu Sports also details how the JV came together

www.nexttv.com

I do wonder what will happen next with Fox Sports rights, hmmmm.

If the appeal ruling is for Fubo, it will be over, but by the time the trial would happen, as I wrote before, Fubo will be out of $$$ and ESPN streaming service will be up and running.

How can Fubo win, but ESPN is allowed to go direct to consumer? The whole point of Venu was to pool enough channels together to give the appearance this was just another streaming service. If courts agree that Venu violates certain privileges, ESPN isn't going to be able to go direct to consumer without restructuring their deals with Cable/Sat/IPTV because it'd be violating the exact same privileges.

 

[Bruce]

How can Fubo win, but ESPN is allowed to go direct to consumer? The whole point of Venu was to pool enough channels together to give the appearance this was just another streaming service. If courts agree that Venu violates certain privileges, ESPN isn't going to be able to go direct to consumer without restructuring their deals with Cable/Sat/IPTV because it'd be violating the exact same privileges.

ESPN service will be like Netflix, Paramount+, etc, where you select the live event you wish to watch.

If you ever tried ESPN+, it will worked like that.

Fubo was arguing about the Live Channels and not being offered the same deal, along with competition.

Also, all the new provider deals that have been signing ( like with Charter last year), has a provision in the contract that allows the new service.

DirecTVs deal with ESPN is up in a few weeks, I assume that same provision will be there also.

 

[prushing]

How can Fubo win, but ESPN is allowed to go direct to consumer? The whole point of Venu was to pool enough channels together to give the appearance this was just another streaming service. If courts agree that Venu violates certain privileges, ESPN isn't going to be able to go direct to consumer without restructuring their deals with Cable/Sat/IPTV because it'd be violating the exact same privileges.

Venu was done to help ESPN, FOX, Warner keep people signed up the whole year and not just subscribe when needed. If FOX and Warner try it by themselves, they will have most people starting and stopping unless the yearly price is deeply discounted.

This brings up a catch-22 for the providers.

If ESPN goes DTC, they then just offer it to everyone. There is 1 price and ESPN controls it with no contracts, unless they want to offer payments for subscribing and/or accessing through a 3rd party.

If you are a provider, do you want to pay ESPN a per subscriber price and have a higher total base cost that includes ESPN? Do you want to have a cheaper base cost without ESPN but charge people who want ESPN +$40 per month?

If I want ESPN, that cheaper base price better be the same price I can get all the other services individually directly from them. Then why is there even a need for the streaming provider? This is why I say the entire market will be changed by this. Streaming will have zero reason to pay a provider when you get $0 savings versus DTC.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

From what I hear, they (Disney, Fox, Warner) are extremely nervous about starting the service now, even if they get the injunction lifted, worried about the lawsuit and if they rule in Fubo’s favor.

Might be better to drop the service ( then the lawsuit goes away) and focus (and reconfigure the upcoming ESPN streaming service), maybe add a Livestream of ABC to it, like how Paramount+ has CBS Live and Peacock has NBC.

Not to mention that Disney is about to (or are in) discussions with DIRECTV now on their ESPN and other Disney owned channels.

If that gets messy it could hinder things for them further.

 

[savarese04]

How can Fubo win, but ESPN is allowed to go direct to consumer? The whole point of Venu was to pool enough channels together to give the appearance this was just another streaming service. If courts agree that Venu violates certain privileges, ESPN isn't going to be able to go direct to consumer without restructuring their deals with Cable/Sat/IPTV because it'd be violating the exact same privileges.

Fubo won because it was multiple networks ganging up and "price fixing" against other competitive options (aka Cable). I don't know if i exactly agree with the courts logic, but whatever.

That has no bearing on ESPN going DTC. ESPN can do what they want because there's no world in which a company cannot offer its product directly to a consumer, provided that it has not negotiated an exclusivity agreement with someone else. Given that ESPN is offered on Fubo and Comcast and Dish and Directv etc etc, there clearly is no exclusivity agreement that precludes them selling directly to another party aka a direct consumer.

This is no different from how Nike sells shoes at Foot Locker but also on its website. However, if Nike went to Reebok and Asics and said "yo, let's create shoes.com, a place where we can join forces to sell all our shoes directly to customers," I'm sure that would run into the same issues as Venu did

 

[ncted]

I think the recent spate of successful antitrust litigation coupled with a less certain political outcome in November probably has the Venu folks unsure about whether they can beat the lawsuit in the long run.

 

[Bruce]

I think the recent spate of successful antitrust litigation coupled with a less certain political outcome in November probably has the Venu folks unsure about whether they can beat the lawsuit in the long run.

They are a lot more then unsure at this point.

 

[Bruce]

Well, Fubo with their recent court win, has decided to raise prices

The Elite plan, which was $89.99 a month, is now called Elite With Sports Plus and costs $99.99 a month. The new Elite packages includes 4K programming (Pro does not) and Fubo’ Sports Plus package of channels which includes the NFL RedZone channel.

The Fubo Premier Plan, which was $99.99 a month, has been replaced by the Deluxe package which is $109.99 a month. Deluxe also includes 4K and Sports Plus with NFL RedZone, but it also has MGM+.

But what is hidden, is this, an addition of the Regional Sports Fee, is based on your area, and will be up to $15.99/month.

https://support.fubo.tv/hc/en-us/articles/360046050051-What-is-the-Regional-Sports-Fee

Fubo Raises Prices Of Some Packages For New Subs - The TV Answer Man!

By Phillip Swann The TV Answer Man –Follow me on X. Fubo, fresh from winning a preliminary injunction against the sports streaming bundle, Venu, has raised the price of its second and third most expensive packages for new subscribers. However, the base plan, Pro, remains at $79.99 a month. The...

tvanswerman.com

 

[b4pjoe]

Well, Fubo with their recent court win, has decided to raise prices

Gotta pay those lawyers!

 

[NashGuy]

I disagree with this. Sports fans care about local news coverage of local teams, especially including local college and prep sports. Additionally, people who care about sports also care about other local issues. Yeah, they could just download the app for the local station and watch that, but I suspect most people living in this cable-esque context are going to prefer to stay in that context for linear TV as much as possible. (Especially if they are using a dog-slow streaming stick or Smart TV, like so many do)

I see your point but I tend to think that those folks who care enough about local news (in addition to live sports) that they need to have it all in the same app/UI rather than switching to a free source (apps like Zeam, NewsOn, etc. or OTA antenna) aren't the kind of folks who would likely to ditch YTTV or traditional cable/sat for Venu anyhow. People who are aware of and willing to use Venu are tech-comfortable sports lovers looking to save a few bucks.

 

[NashGuy]

Hulu has the first run rights ( day after) for 4 more years, then whomever owns the show after the season, as I explained it in my previous post.

The licensing deal that Fox has in place with Hulu is non-exclusive. Fox also has in-season streaming rights for its own shows (allowing them to stream on the authenticated Fox app). If they wanted to, Fox could make additional deals to license that content next-day to other services, e.g. Peacock, Max, etc.