Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Sunday & Monday Night Football Changes


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   SamC

SamC

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,976 posts
Joined: Jan 20, 2003

Posted 28 May 2005 - 05:18 AM

Once again, the NFL is NOT about viewers. Everybody in America could watch and the broadcasters still would lose money. Each pays the NFL FAR FAR FAR more than it can ever hope to recoup from ad revenues.

ESPN will lose less money because you and I pay for ESPN, and do not really pay for ABC in the same manner.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,553 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 28 May 2005 - 05:51 AM

Once again, the NFL is NOT about viewers. Everybody in America could watch and the broadcasters still would lose money. Each pays the NFL FAR FAR FAR more than it can ever hope to recoup from ad revenues.

ESPN will lose less money because you and I pay for ESPN, and do not really pay for ABC in the same manner.


But Disney owns both ABC and ESPN... so at the end of the day one channel's profits can make up for the other one's losses... so again, it makes sense to put the games on the channel which potentially has the most viewers, because the more viewers watch MNF the more they can charge for the advertisements.

It simply doesn't make sense for Disney to put the game on a channel with lower viewership. You can't ignore the fact that the same company owns both ESPN and ABC for these scenarios.

#28 OFFLINE   SamC

SamC

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,976 posts
Joined: Jan 20, 2003

Posted 28 May 2005 - 07:24 AM

One, I very much doubt that there is anybody that is the least bit interested in sports who does not have cable/DBS. While ESPN has a slightly lower potential audience than ABC, the "extra" viewers are basicly irrelevant, because they wouldn't watch the NFL anyway.

Two, you are quite correct that both networks' profits go into the same pot. That is why it makes sense to have all of the compelling content on ESPN, which people pay for. The more good programs on ESPN, the more you and I pay for it. The more good programs on ABC, the more good programs on ABC.

#29 OFFLINE   Laverne

Laverne

    Guest

  • Registered
  • 2,498 posts
Joined: Feb 17, 2005

Posted 28 May 2005 - 07:44 AM

One, I very much doubt that there is anybody that is the least bit interested in sports who does not have cable/DBS. While ESPN has a slightly lower potential audience than ABC, the "extra" viewers are basicly irrelevant, because they wouldn't watch the NFL anyway....

Boy, are you way off. There are plenty of people whose only joy in sports-watching life is getting to watch MNF. I know; I used to be one of those people. It's called "poor", "low-income", "strapped", "hard-up". I'm sure ALL those "extra" viewers would very much resent you calling them "irrelevent". Whether you believe it or not, cable/DBS is a luxury.
Laverne

#30 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,553 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 28 May 2005 - 10:17 PM

One, I very much doubt that there is anybody that is the least bit interested in sports who does not have cable/DBS. While ESPN has a slightly lower potential audience than ABC, the "extra" viewers are basicly irrelevant, because they wouldn't watch the NFL anyway.


There are lots of folks who can't get cable even if they want to... and some folks who still have difficulty getting a good satellite signal... then, as another person just mentioned, lots of folks for whom cable/satellite is simply a luxury they can't afford so they watch the free OTA channels only.

Intentionally cutting off access for a large potential audience never makes much sense to me, but I know businesses do it all the time.

Two, you are quite correct that both networks' profits go into the same pot. That is why it makes sense to have all of the compelling content on ESPN, which people pay for. The more good programs on ESPN, the more you and I pay for it. The more good programs on ABC, the more good programs on ABC.


You'd think, though, IF Disney was thinking as you suggest here... that they would have bid to keep the Sunday night broadcasts too... and had both Sunday & Monday night games on ESPN, instead of letting NBC have the Sunday night games.

I find it ironic, in this discussion... how big the drive from satellite is to have all the local markets covered, and how many people post in these forums saying that having local channels on satellite is a BIG factor in determining their choice of provider, and similarly people are watching both Dish & DirectTv to see how HD locals get carried and many people threaten to jump ship to the first company who puts their locals on satellite in HD.

BUT, if that were true... and since the satellite and cable companies do have to pay networks/local channels rebroadcast rights... then ABC, for instance, would need a more attractive lineup to keep their retransmission prices high too.

IF it were all about the money they can charge to the satellite/cable carrier... having MNF makes ABC a more attractive network to have doesn't it? Now what would be the compelling must-have TV that ABC would use to get its next price increase?




Protected By... spam firewall...And...