Bally Sports Network

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by Andrew Sullivan, Mar 24, 2021.

  1. Mar 26, 2021 #21 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    Bottom line is that the local teams lose. Maybe not all of them lose money but consider the smaller market teams like Oakland, Phoenix, Cinncinatt, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Tampa, Kansas City etc. They count on fan participation which is little difficult if they are restricted to maybe 30% capacity in their ball parks. And what about the RSN channel advertisers? They have to be thrilled that their audience is restricted to one single provider and its ATT. Advertising dollars will surely shrink.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  2. Mar 26, 2021 #22 of 109
    cmasia

    cmasia Icon

    1,294
    227
    Sep 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    Hi, TRP.
    Per season...
    RSN's charge MVPD's anywhere from $3 to $6 per month.
    Getting $50 would mostly offset that, and they'd even be better off if OTT subs paid the same extra $50 for NHL and NBA games.

    This probably won't happen, but as long as RSN's are locked into long term deals with MVPD's, I can't think of another option to to satisfy cord-cutters.

    To HGuardian: You are right about almost everything you say, but being theoretical does nothing to advance discussion of the reality of the situation.

    RSN's made their bed with MVPD's and apparently think destroying those relationships is too risky to pursue over the next few years.

    Unless you have any suggestions on how to satisfy both customer bases ( cable/sat subs and OTT'ers) , the conversation here will continue to go round and round.

    Here's another potential:
    For everyone who has an RSN subscription through an MVPD, allow them 3 separate logins for an extra fee, on their "in-market" streaming apps.
    It keeps the main sub tethered to the RSN, while allowing cord-cutters to enjoy the action.
    How much would that be worth per month?
     
  3. Mar 26, 2021 #23 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,324
    2,669
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I'd say most people want team positive play by play. If they wanted to hear people badmouth their team they would listen to the opposing team coverage (if available). While sunshine and roses while the team is in a slump could get tiring. the broadcasters are trying to get people to watch the games. Going full bore into "we hate the team we announce for" would not improve ratings. After the game there is plenty of time to rake the local team over the coals.

    The RSNs don't pay huge sums of money to teams for the rights to the games to give away viewership. Those tier based contracts with MVPDs and vMVPDs are the most lucrative way of selling their content. A couple of dollars from all of the MVPD's subscribers adds up to more income than selling coverage only to "real fans".

    In other words, if you want the games without subscribing to "expensive platforms" be prepared to pay a lot more to be able to view those games.
     
  4. Mar 26, 2021 #24 of 109
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    8,598
    713
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Yes, this is what I was going to suggest. If I have a cable internet only subscription why couldn’t I subscribe to my local RSN to be able to watch my local teams without having to get a full cable TV subscription?

    We can stream TV shows, movies, local news etc. but not our local sports teams.

    Yeah I know it’s all about money, but something needs to change in the future for local sports.
     
  5. Mar 26, 2021 #25 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,324
    2,669
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The business models are different. I'd like to see what the marketplace would look like if RSNs did go a la carte and sell their feeds direct to customers (without a full MVPD subscription). But I generally don't watch the RSNs so if they all become $20-$50 each every month and out of my price range it doesn't affect me.
     
  6. Mar 26, 2021 #26 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    One big aspect we are ignoring here. Advertising, commercials. When Ford or Farmers Insurance or Budwiser or any of a dozen local companies spend millions of dollars on these commercials they would probably like potential customers to actually see them. If I am a company wanting to boost business in the Arizona market how much am I going to invest when 90% of my target audience has zero chance of seeing my commercial?
     
  7. Mar 26, 2021 #27 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,324
    2,669
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The pandemic did not help ... but Sinclair managed to have $2.474 billion in distribution revenue in 2020. Their advertising revenue was $196 million. Including other media revenue advertising revenue reflected about 9% of revenues in 2019 dropping to 7% in 2020. Less games in 2020 led to lower advertising revenue, losing DISH in mid 2019 led to an estimated $236 million loss in distribution revenue for Sinclair.

    Sinclair did save money by not producing the games that they did not carry, and they have/will be receiving rebates from the professional sports leagues for games not played (or not made available to their RSNs). Rebates will be passed along to distributors for games not provided. Overall it was a high loss year for Sinclair ... but most of that loss is due to the pandemic. Not the subscriber loss. They have proven the value of an Regional SPORTS Network (RSN) without sports. Years with sports will be better.

    With over 90% of their revenue coming from long term commitments with MVPDs I would not expect that business model to end soon. Advertisers are only a part of their revenues.
     
  8. Mar 27, 2021 #28 of 109
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,607
    Nov 13, 2006
    Saw an article today that pointed out if you subscribe to the most common streamers you’d pay $2 less than if you bought a cable package with all those channels and a few more. (ESPN Disney Netflix Hulu discovery etc but not HBO )

    The catch right now is most people don’t subscribe to all the streamers at once, but it’s doing just what many of us thought it would. Going up in price fast and catching up cable pricing.

    The question to me is what happens when Sinclair and all the regions jump into the streaming waters as well. I’m guessing it won’t have much of an impact overall to subscribers on any service because the balance of cost may have already been reached that everyone is coming and going from all services at nearly a flat rate.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  9. Mar 27, 2021 #29 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    Anyone who isn't into sports at all is crazy to have cable or satellite. HBO Max ($15), Disney+ ($8), Netflix ($14, HD package), Discovery+($7 ad free), Hulu ($12 ad free), Paramount+($10 ad free), Peacock ($10 ad free), + locals for free with indoor antenna. $76 a month for pretty much everything you'd ever want to watch, whether it's HBO, Netflix, any of the new popular shows on TLC or Discovery or HGTV or Travel, tons of ad free content on Hulu, plus everything in the CBS and NBC world new and ad free, and don't forget Prime which a ton of people already have for the free shipping, it's a steal for premium on-demand content. Not to mention you can simply get that under $50 by easily dropping and adding these packages if you aren't using them. I'd cancel DIRECTV today if sports stopped existing.
     
  10. Mar 27, 2021 #30 of 109
    b4pjoe

    b4pjoe New Member DBSTalk Club

    1,999
    595
    Nov 19, 2010
    First locals isn't an option for many. I can't get locals with either an indoor or outdoor antenna. Also not all NBC shows are on Peacock. For example you can't watch Good Girls there at all. Streaming rights belong to Netflix which doesn't air the current season as it is airing. And some shows (The Blacklist) that are on Peacock do not air the current episode until a week after it airs on cabel/sat network channel.
     
  11. Mar 27, 2021 #31 of 109
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    22,934
    458
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    You may be marginalizing quite a number of viewers that favor content that isn't readily available in small (or even larger) streaming packages. Foreign language speakers in particular (other than perhaps Spanish) aren't well-served by US streaming services. Other than Fubo, I'm not convinced that sports that aren't US football, hoops or baseball get a lot of streaming coverage.

    Streaming is cherry picking with their offerings and it isn't just avoiding sports.
     
    boukengreen likes this.
  12. Mar 27, 2021 #32 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    I think we are grossly under estimating the power of sports on TV. Most vocal opinions on sites like this revolve around those that are being forced to pay for sports channels (ESPN etc) that don't like to watch sports. There is a reason why ESPN has become so big. There is a reason why sports bars are so prevalent. There is a reason why the NFL is the most watched of any TV show. You dont have to like sports to recognize that it is the life blood of TV.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  13. Mar 27, 2021 #33 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,324
    2,669
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Not all sports are created the same. The better games tend to end up on the bigger networks. RSNs like Bally Sports end up carrying the games no one else wants to carry. Games that do not get picked up by broadcast and national networks. Sports so "popular" that they would not be televised if the local RSN didn't have plenty of space to fill.

    There is a place for RSNs in the marketplace. But they are certainly NOT a required part of every MVPD.
     
  14. Mar 27, 2021 #34 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    If owners were looking long term fans it seems they would almost return to the hybrid free tv/RSN model. Put all the games on the RSN (except for national exclusive games) and then simulcast 25% of those for free on a CW affiliate as well as available for free on YouTube (in-market only, I know the leagues wouldn't allow local feeds for free nationally). I think a partial reason MLB interest in general has declined for decades is the lack of free in-market games.
     
  15. Mar 27, 2021 #35 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    ESPN which like ABC is owned by Disney. ESPN just last week signed a exclusive contract to televise Monday Night Football which used to be on ABC. There is still Thursday Night Football and the MLB Nertork and NBA Network and NHL Network, which all black out home games in the home network. All of these blackouts are because of the RSN contracts. Now, between the blackouts and the lack of RSN availability, the majority of the home team fans are eliminated. If you consider the necessity of trying to grow a young fanbase and cultivate the existing fan base, this is a disaster. Regardless of the reasons, financial and otherwise, the bottom line is a dwindling local fan base.
     
  16. Mar 27, 2021 #36 of 109
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    52,324
    2,669
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Perhaps you are missing the point that the teams are not looking for fans as much as they are looking for money. Their favorite fans are dead presidents. (Ok, they like Franklin and Hamilton too. Franklin ten times more than Hamilton.) Sports teams produce content that is sold for billions of dollars in multi-year contracts.
     
  17. Mar 27, 2021 #37 of 109
    Andrew Sullivan

    Andrew Sullivan Active Member

    469
    107
    Dec 7, 2017
    I don't think I am missing your point. It's a very valid point. I just don't think it's the most important point. Those dead fans are the ones that pay to get into your ball park, buy your extremely profitable concessions, especially beer, not to mention clothing etc.These fans provide your life blood because they buy the products that companies pay you millions of dollars to advertise during the broadcast of your product. This fan base is not or cannot become stagnant. It must be replenished by a constant youth market. A huge market that relies on TV broadcast. It's like the eco system of a coral reef.
     
    HGuardian likes this.
  18. Mar 28, 2021 #38 of 109
    HGuardian

    HGuardian Godfather

    513
    20
    Aug 9, 2010
    Yup. If the NHL could've sacrificed 10% of the total profits of the last TV deal and instead had playoff games on ABC and ESPN2 instead of Golf Channel and CNBC it would've been better for the league long term. I think they've realized that now with their ESPN deal.
     
  19. Mar 28, 2021 #39 of 109
    cmasia

    cmasia Icon

    1,294
    227
    Sep 18, 2007
    Las Vegas
    Sorry, HGuardian.
    Your revisionist history does not fly..... at all.

    In '04, Comcast/NBC signed a deal with the NHL..... for ZERO dollars.
    It was an agreement based on a split of advertising money.
    After the lockout, ESPN quit and Comcast made an agreement for $70,000,000 per year.
    ESPN was not interested.

    And in 2011, a 10 year deal at $200,000,000 was forged with Comcast/NBC.
    At the time, it was considered a massive win for the NHL.
    ESPN was not interested.

    And the deal ESPN just signed?
    $400,000,000 per year for 57% of the total national package.

    Try to use facts when you try to spin your really bad hindsight.
     
    boukengreen and compnurd like this.
  20. Mar 28, 2021 #40 of 109
    harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    22,934
    458
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    As James noted in post #27, Sinclair lives off of carriage money. The ad money is relatively insignificant ($2.474 billion .vs. $196 million).
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements