Warner, Fox, Disney to Launch Streaming Sports Joint Venture
- Thread starter Bruce
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 270
- Views 22K
$43 is kinda ridiculous when you consider that for $70 you can have literally everything. I don't get why Fox is being so greedy when ESPN is the most expensive cable channel out there, charging cable companies like $15 for carriage. If Fox and WBD channel bundles are charging cable companies $10 each (I don't think they are), this thing should be no more than $30/mo.
Better $1 in your pocket than $0
Better $1 in your pocket than $0
On the other hand, if you dont need or want the rest, its a relative bargain in comparison.
Personally I have no need or desire for linear live tv except for sports.
oh same here. I just don't think the price is that much of a bargain when you consider that the "total OTT sports package" is now $43 + $8 for peacock + $7 for Paramount = $58.
$30+$8+$7 =$45 is a quite a bit more palatable for the "total OTT sports package"
You forgot about amazon prime.TNF and now NBA.
That is why I think this Venu venture is doomed to fail.You may get half of the major sports.$43 for half of the sports isn't a deal to me.
Outstanding point, but I also wasn't counting that because I was thinking about a 1:1 replacement of cable tv with Venu+streaming. You gotta buy Amazon prime either way
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
No matter if you have Cable, Satellite or Venu, you would have to pay extra for what you have listed.
Venu for $43, then about $25 for both Paramount + with Showtime ( which includes a Live CBS, plus all the CBS Sports content) and Peacock ( Live NBC and all the NBC Sports Content).
So a total of $68, which is $5 less then YTTV, a lot less then Cable and Satellite TV.
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
You do not get sports only.
With the above, you also get livestreams of your local ABC, FOX, cable channels like TNT, TBS.
Along with all the content from Paramount+ w/Showtime, which includes livestream of CBS and the majority of content from the Paramount/Viacom Cable Channels, then all the streaming shows and movies.
Peacock, which has the livestream of NBC, Hallmark, the majority of content from Universal Cable Channels and then all the streaming shows and movies.
All for under $70.
$43 isn't a bad deal if that includes ESPN+ like the article implies it does. That gives a sports fan almost everything in the college realm. I assume TruTV would be included (for March Madness at least?). If I pair it with an OTA antenna I can get pretty much everything I need.
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
The math doesn't work quite like that. You're using the carriage rates that channels charge "full-bundle" pay TV services (e.g. Comcast, DirecTV, YouTube TV, etc.) to include them in their line-ups. But those rates are premised on those services having a large minimum number of subscribers. The way the cable bundle has always worked is that it attracts lots of subs who pay for all the constituent channels regardless of whether they watch them or not.
The new system we are evolving toward is one with multiple competing smaller content bundles (regardless of whether or not that content is organized into linear channels). Probably none of those smaller bundles will ever reach the household penetration rates that the cable bundle used to enjoy. Google's AI search results report that cable TV (i.e. "live pay TV service") had a US penetration rate of 91% in 2010 but that has fallen all the way down to 58.6% by 2023. Netflix, the most successful "small content bundle" replacing traditional pay TV, currently has a US penetration rate of just 53%.
So the bottom line is that as the content owners who have paid big bucks for live sports manage the transition from the big cable TV bundle to these smaller bundles (including Venu Sports), they have to assume that their content will be paid for by a smaller number of subscribers. And so if they're going to bring in anywhere near as much money in this new system, then they'll have to charge more money per subscriber.
I really don't get why Venu Sports is going to include the full 24/7 feeds of local ABC and Fox stations. (Has that been officially confirmed by Venu themselves recently?) The price could be lower if they didn't have to pay retrans fees to all those ABC and Fox locals that aren't owned and operated by the networks themselves.
From Disney's perspective, they'd like you to subscribe to Hulu to watch the non-sports primetime content from ABC and Fox. No need to include that stuff in Venu, and certainly no need to pay third-party station groups like Nexstar and Sinclair for their local news.
My guess is that it was Fox who wanted to bring along the locals; they own several of their affiliate stations (as does ABC), and so that would mean additional revenue for them. Plus, if Venu chose not to include those non-network-owned Fox and ABC locals, then it would have caused an outcry from Nexstar, Sinclair, etc. There's already enough public/government scrutiny of Venu (i.e. Is it anti-competitive?), so maybe they figured it was better to "pay off" the affiliates and not create more enemies.
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
The service was created for one reason, to recoup those per sub fees lost due to cord cutting, not just Broadcast Channels, but cable channels as well, hence why the full 24/7 feeds.
For more of a pure sports service, that will be when ESPN Streaming starts up, maybe with add-ons like Fox Sports.
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
Yes I did, you asked why there are 24/7 fees, I answered why.
It is the only way a service like this can work, if it was just sports content, how do you determine what Warner gets for their sports content, Fox, ABC?
This way, Warner will get what they charge Television Providers, say a $2 per sub fee for TNT, Disney will get the $9 per sub fee for ESPN, Fox gets their $1.50 for Fox Sports 1, etc, etc.
Last edited:
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
Nothing to do with Venu in particular, but FOX ( one of the 3 providing the service) posted lower earnings due to the loss of per sub fees and less ad revenue-
Net income fell to $319 million, from $375 million, a year ago.
Advertising revenues were flat with revenue from soccer and growth at Tubi offsetting lower ratings and ad prices at the Fox broadcast network, the company said.
Which shows that they are losing even more money on their sports content, which is MLB mostly during the quarter reported.
It costs Fox between $7-8 Million per MLB game that is on TV, because of that outrageous contract, the advertising does not even come close to covering that.
That is why Venu was created, to get back some of those per sub fees lost due to Cord Cutting, but that will not be enough.
As Cord Cutting continues, they will keep losing more of those per sub fees, so hence why they are looking at other options for their content, maybe as an add on to an upcoming streaming service.
Net income fell to $319 million, from $375 million, a year ago.
Advertising revenues were flat with revenue from soccer and growth at Tubi offsetting lower ratings and ad prices at the Fox broadcast network, the company said.
Which shows that they are losing even more money on their sports content, which is MLB mostly during the quarter reported.
It costs Fox between $7-8 Million per MLB game that is on TV, because of that outrageous contract, the advertising does not even come close to covering that.
That is why Venu was created, to get back some of those per sub fees lost due to Cord Cutting, but that will not be enough.
As Cord Cutting continues, they will keep losing more of those per sub fees, so hence why they are looking at other options for their content, maybe as an add on to an upcoming streaming service.
$43 is not going to be the price for long. You could sign up for a few months and cancel depending on which sports you watch.
What this does is give them power to now strong arm every other streaming platform into paying whatever they want. ESPN, FOX, WB now have DTC channel to offer you their products. Without this, they had to work with the providers to make money. Now they have 0 reasons to even allow other streaming providers to include their channels other than getting per subscriber $.
Will they get enough subscribers to remove their products from other streaming providers? Can they make enough money to do it? TNT, TBS, etc don't have much new content right now, so it won't bring much value. If Disney adds a Hulu and Disney+ bundle, you can basically end all the other streaming providers.
What this does is give them power to now strong arm every other streaming platform into paying whatever they want. ESPN, FOX, WB now have DTC channel to offer you their products. Without this, they had to work with the providers to make money. Now they have 0 reasons to even allow other streaming providers to include their channels other than getting per subscriber $.
Will they get enough subscribers to remove their products from other streaming providers? Can they make enough money to do it? TNT, TBS, etc don't have much new content right now, so it won't bring much value. If Disney adds a Hulu and Disney+ bundle, you can basically end all the other streaming providers.
Bruce
Bender and Chloe, the real Members of the Year
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,942
- 20,468
Name one TV Service that does not have a price increase every year.
But I rather pay for this then the roughly average price of $120-130 a month that Cable/Satellite is.
That is what I love about YTTV, along with no fees like Bo
s) and DVR, I cancel after College Football Championship, start back up when Football starts up.Hopefully this service lets you do the same, which you cannot do with Cable/Satellite without paying something
TBS/TNT are no longer producing new scripted content, along with other Cable Channels, because of lost per sub fees due to Cord Cutting and Advertising Revenue being so down.
That has been available for the last two years, I have the Disney Bundle Trio Premium (Disney+ without ads, Hulu without ads, ESPN+), price is $26.99, with ads is $16.99.
We also subscribe to YTTV every fall and drop it at the end of the bowl games. This would be a cheaper alternative to cable / satellite / linear channel net based choices. Everyone I know who has cut the cord follows very similar pattern if they want sports coverage, but not all year round.
