On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Jim Ellwanger <[email protected]> wrote: > Not to put words in Joe's mouth, but I think his point is that he'd rather > subscribe to MLB.tv than subscribe to cable, but he has to subscribe to cable > in order to see all the Cubs games because they're not available on MLB.tv in > Chicago.
Jim's exactly right. According to the original 2011 TV broadcast schedule for the Cubs (and assuming ESPN took the three games they originally had the option for), only 78 of the 162 games were available OTA (either WGN, WCIU, or Fox). CSN took 80 and ESPN took 4. And at least the Cubs have an OTA partner: that's my reference to the Red Wings, for whom *every* game not on NBC is on cable (not counting getting lucky and drawing a Canadian team on a Saturday night to get picked up on CBC). *This* is the core issue: that I would love to drop cable, but that means I lose half the Cubs games, all the F1, and all non-OTA postseason games for both the Wings and the Cubs (stop laughing, dammit: it could happen eventually). > I am not convinced that the reluctance of sports leagues to move to online > licensing payments instead of TV rights fees is all that irrational. I think > you (Joe) are overestimating just how many people are both able and willing > to pay the kinds of online fees that would be necessary to make such a > system work. The key element in the current model, which motivated this > thread in the first place, is that millions of people that under (or never) > utilize the project are already paying a hundred dollars a year to subsidize > sports on cable television. If you were the MLB or NBA (and I agree the NFL > is sui generis) I think you would need a hell of a lot more than back of the > envelope figuring to be convinced that you can make more money by charging a > fraction of the population more money to watch your games than you can by > getting the total universe of cable homes, including the majority who don't > give a damn about your games, to pay less money not to watch your games. The > current model seems both more likely to generate higher revenue, but is also > more stable and resistant to cycles (recession, or a downturn in the appeal > of a particular team or sport, might crater niche-based online licensing > payments in particular years). You're exactly right that it is clearly not as simple as diving the rights fee by the number of viewers. That being said, if you're a sports organization whose initials are not NFL or IOC, you have painted yourselves into a corner. You're addicted to the sweet smack of cable TV rights fees. You have pushed a majority of your broadcasts onto cable on both the team and league levels (I would *love* to have an intern right now to be able to go back and pull the percentage of games in those three leagues on cable). And you've been able to use cable sports networks as your bullies to effectively push this into the home of every cable customer, to a level that goes beyond anything seemingly rational. > Part of what makes the TV rights fees so lucrative in the modern era is that > first broadcasters and then cable outlets (illustrated by I think CBS in the > early 90s, and Fox throughout their experience with MLB; NBC with the > Olympics and SNF; ESPN with most obviously the NFL, but also other sports) > are motivated to significantly overpay for sports rights, hoping that it > will leverage other interests for them (advertising prime time programing, > intangible prestige, extorting cable providers). As long as TV is willing to > overpay, I am not sure the kind of online payments you envision will be able > to generate as much, or as consistent, revenue. This is a bubble. It can't go on forever. Sports teams/leagues can either try to shift to a model that has some level of feasibility, or you can do your best impersonation of the music and movie industries. Some cable company is going to finally push back to ESPN/Disney and tell them no (it won't be with a local sports channel). They're going to figure out how to tell a compelling story about it. And that's when things will become very interesting. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
