$5.00 for the new Dodgers channel.

Attempting to figure out the cost per game is a foolish attempt to look at things.

The channel has programming on 24/7 besides the games and it sells commercials in that programming. As thus simply dividing the fee payment by number of games is a fools game.

Using that logic, NFL Network costs per game would be 9 figures.

 

Yeah but most channels have other core content. The Dodgers channel doesn't. They do see infomercial time I believe.

 

Exactly. I actually thought of the non-game programming. The most popular non-game programming would simply be the pre/post game shows and the replays, which are basically game programming.

I guess I could go through and calculate cost per hour watched. It would still be astronomical.

 

They have plenty of content 24/7 - not infomercials

http://www.sportsnetla.com/tv-schedule.html

So again, dividing annual payment by games is a fools game.

 

I didn't say it was all infomercial. But that is the only programming they have that isn't Dodgers driven. Everything else on that channel is Dodgers and only Dodgers. Nothing else. That's my point. And many of the shows are done at most once a day then repeated multiple times.. And the other shows, they add up to mostly news which you can get pre and post game, and then it's really just advertising or documentary style stuff about the Dodgers. Same thing they where able to get from their old stations anyway! Just not repeated nearly as often. So yeah, it's a one trick pony station.

maybe the best way to break it down is by per day... Cause it's all Dodgers all day, so one pay per day sounds like a fine way to cut it up...

So now you are still talking about $931,506 per day is the cost of the channel to time warner.

Now let's dream for a moment...

At its peak the Dodgers averaged 228,000 viewers per game.. Let's pretend they can get that many every single day of the year.. (Zero chance, in fact they averaged 56,000 viewers last year and obviously there is no way they get anywhere even near that during the off season) that would equate to a charge of $4 per day, per person who actually wants to watch the channel. That's around $122 a month. Explains why they don't want to go a la cart. Although some of it could be made up via ad revenue of course. But not year round as this would require. Who'd pay that during the off season for news and documents repeates?

Now, let's spread it out over all the customers in their market.. 5.8 million. But we know there's a lot of people wouldn't ever get the Channel so let's say 3/4 of that.. (Technically though the Dodgers market is quite a bit bigger than that, but let's just go with this right now. )

Suddenly the price drops to $.21 per day or $ 6.42 a month. Add to that the revenue they should be able to pull in from ads...

They are hoping to start at 5 now with the idea they will get to 8 for a good portion of the end of the contract to make it all work out right numbers wise...

For a one trick pony? Really? People would rather buy tickets to a couple games a year than pay those kinds of prices I think....

 

Well, as I told you last year....this one isn't going away.

In fact, there are serious negotiations going on to create ANOTHER 24/7/365 RSN channel for another Southern California Sports franchise.

 

Same reason NFL Network, MLB, NHL et al do not want to go ala carte.

Also the reason that eventually they will all be PPV - as I also stated last year - and everyone dismissed it - and yet, look at the first test coming up this Fall from London.

 

For who? The Clippers and ducks? Cause that's about all that's left that's not in a long term channel right now...

And I just don't see it. Steve is going to want subscribers. They will stay with FOX...and probably even look for a shorter term deal, maybe ten years... I would if I was him, because he has far more chance of making his product worth a lot more in ten years than the Dodgers or Lakers could increase their value...

The Dodgers should have joined the Lakers channels with a alt channel for game conflicts. Then they could have had a lot less repeats and a lot more value in one channel. I think part of the reason they didn't do that is because of how much they bid and they need more money than what they got for the Lakers channel to make it worth it.

Which is why Time Warner Cable would want to start a third network, and I think Steve will balk at that seeing how they can't get anyone on board with the Dodgers channel.

Plus as one article I saw said, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't look for some sort of major streaming deal too...

 

The teams don't care about viewers, they care about dollars. If it continues for years, lack of carriage reducing the number of viewers is a problem down the road as the team has fewer fans, but that's a problem for the next owner.

 

Not true. It depends on the team and how full the market is Lakers will get their viewers. And everyone knew Time Warner Cable would get away with the new channel for then eventually on everyone that matter. (Only dish doesn't carry them). However, the dodgers are arrogant and owned by an investment firm so it's all about the bottom dollar.

Enter in kings and ducks. They have to fight for following and can never afford to be difficult to watch. Kings just resigned a nice reasonable by comparison contract to stay where they are at.

Ducks are owned by a family and can't afford to lose eyes either so they won't jump somewhere they can't stay competitive.

The Clippers are owned by an owner who's eccentric like mark Cuban. He loves the game and the team. He is going to make sure his team can be seen on TV by everyone and get a good deal even if it means taking say 7 billion instead of 8.5 (that was the Dodgers difference I believe). He makes it hard to find his team they will disappear even in a good year to the Lakers. He can't afford that now. He's not a front runner so he can't demand what the lakers get. Id guess they will still get offered a lot from
FOX and I expect him to take it. Id guess 7 times what they get now.

 

For what it's worth, I watched the Astros on opening day and the announcers made a point to welcome Directv viewers and that they were very glad to be available to so many more people in Houston and Texas on Root Sports. TWC will have to do something about this eventually. TWCSN and SNLA TOGETHER are a much higher value - The Lakers and Dodgers are both popular teams and promoting them together would have to be more economical in the long run. Heck, they are both teams from other areas that make zero sense for names of LA teams... They can't be just on one or two providers forever. We all thought that they'd never get the NFL Network, and they eventually got it. How ironic that they (TWC) are the ones doing that same thing now. Together Dodgers and Lakers, on both TWCSN and TWC Deportes, would be a strong channel (in each language) with year-round interest. Add the MLS and college content they already have and that's not too bad at all.

 

And I am sure that had nothing to do with Root Sports being owned by DirecTV.

 

Of course the announcers care about viewership, that impacts how much they get paid or whether they even have a job

 

The Dodgers put serious money from LA Sportsnet deal into players and now have a winning team.

If they are not on TV, it will just draw more people to the stands - especially with the team now winning compared to pre-sale.

Lakers get $200M from Fox for RSN. Clippers get $20M from RSN.

And you think Balmer will just look the other way?

He's rich, not stupid.

And the fact that TWC is even talking about this should tell everyone something about the Dodgers on TV.

 

Complete myth. Baseball on TV is a huge commercial for the product. Not on TV hurts the gate long term.

 

Right on!

 

It's possible that the Dodgers could alter the contract to allow the two TWC channels to become one if they believed that would be more likely to get coverage of Dodgers games -- so long as the money still flows. The question would be on TWC's end as to whether or not that would be a smart move.

 

You can believe that all you want. All research based on actual numbers (not opinions) does not show a correlation to blacked out games hurting the gate long term.

What does hurt the game is not putting a winning team on the field, which is exactly what I said in the post you responded to. The Dodgers put the money into their lineup - and now are winning, as opposed to when the McCords owned them.

 

It's also possible the Dodgers could move to Beijing, China.

The odds for both are about the same - perhaps favoring a Beijing move.

 

Didn't happen last year with the highest payroll in the division.