Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by Andrew Sullivan, Mar 24, 2021.
I guess the word "If" getting ignored meant nothing to warrant this long winded response.
It seems that the deal they made 10 years ago turned out fairly well for the NHL.
All I know is that the Diamonbacks game televised this afternoon on FSNAZ was also on the MLB Network but blacked out here because of the local RSN contract with Sinclair. The Suns game today was not available to anyone not subscribing to ATT. The upcoming Diamondback season, the remaining Suns season, the remaining Coyotes season, will be available to only ATT subscribers for just $84.99 plus tax. No matter how you look at it, the advertisers cannot be happy at all. Local car dealers, located roofers, local window installers etc etc etc. These companies all have sales reps that call on these local teams.
Perhaps you should ask an advertiser.
No need. I've spoken to hundreds of them over the years.
They (collectively) seem to be throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at Sinclair ... with the biggest issue last year was less games to sponsor. Abbreviated seasons and games cancelled or shifted to national networks do not help. But their checkbooks say they are happy enough to pay for what they can get.
Very true but unfortunately it's the small market teams that by mis season are drawing less than 15,000 to a weekday game. Teams like the Dodgers and giants and Yankees and red Sox and Cubs have no problem. The teams like the Padres, Orioles, Diamondbacks, Royals, Reds, Pirates, Marlins die on the vine. They still get the TV revenue from Sinclair but their fan base dwindles and that's a bad long term consequence.
The number you presented in post #27 was less than $200 million. The number doesn't really qualify as "hundreds of millions of dollars" since it is less than two and not yet into plural territory.
Ok ... now you are just arguing for the sake of argument. In 2020, a year with less games to sponsor, they were close enough to $200 million. In previous years they (collectively) easily topped hundreds of millions of dollars.
You are all kind of missing the point even though I admit that it is a almost unprovable point. Losing your uncommitted and virgin youth fan base is very bad. Pissing off your current loyal fan (fanatic) base is very bad. Showing us that profits and money is more important than to you than we are. We don't like that.
Uh, bingo. My experience over 30+ years, living literally coast to coast (with some foreign interludes) means that I like to follow several teams from many cities, and was an enthusiastic DirecTV subscriber (since 1994, customer number very low 5 digits, used to comment to folks I would be buried with my dish) with Sunday Ticket and ExInn.
But $300+/month and multiple retirements (with a return to where I grew up) later, and I'm down to Mlb, which luckily packages their content straight to streaming (for many years), but have a delay on the local team which is no problem as they haven't been in the playoffs but once 20 years ago. I do miss some pro football, but of course get all the local team. $300+. I take less than half that and get an almost bloated array of streaming subscriptions, including my internet fee. And Mlb has increased 10%/year for the past three years, not to mention the (to me) massive screwup in last years world series where one team got to play all the games in their 'home' stadium where they had played most if not all their 'regular' season games. Don't get me started. This year may be the last on that.
The NFL had the option to kick DirecTV a bit to the curb and sell game streaming direct to consumers next season but nope. Okay.
Guess I'm lucky that I lost interest in basketball in the 80's, never got hooked on hockey, so that's that. I'm in the same camp as Sullivan, I don't see where these leagues think their next generation of fans are going to come from.
It's almost like the equivalent of saying lockouts and strikes are good for sports leagues because a decade later they just got a profitable TV deal. MLB continues to be a prime example of this problem.
"The average Major League Baseball fan is 53 years old; only 29 percent of MLB fans are between the ages of 18 and 34" per MarketWatch in 2019. This is not sustainable for obvious reasons, and MLB and baseball in general is not getting more popular for people under age 18.
Attendance continues to dwindle, playoff and world series ratings continue to shrink, and most Major League teams have 98% of their games airing on an RSN that's only available to people willing to spend $80 or more a month to obtain. Most owners don't want to make any short term sacrifice for the long term health of the league, which is fine I guess, but it's also why they make these deals that shut off a large portion of their current fanbase, ignore potential future young hardcore fans/profits, and this gets reflected every time the numbers I mentioned above continue to decline.
And before anyone mentions how owners are better at business than us dumb fans, just take a look at how many owners are simply the lucky DNA sample born to someone who accomplished and built something.
Not sure how old you are, but welcome to the real world. Like it or not, money is THE motivator. I won't say "greed is good" ... but if you can show a way where the teams make more money than they do with the current distribution schemes and have the credentials to back up your claims perhaps it is time to move from making statements on the Internet to getting the teams to change their contracts.
Is your point that Major League Baseball has made the correct and most profitable decisions in every single way the past 40 years? And despite all these 100% best business decisions being made MLB popularity continues to decline in every relevant measure (media coverage, attendance, ratings, general sports narrative/interest, increasing average age demo) due to no result of league decisions?
Anyone who thinks that Major League Baseball, just because it's profitable, is in the best place it's been and will only grow hasn't followed the basics of MLB business the past decade.
If some eccentric billionaire gifted the owners $50 billion to play 3 seasons of games with no fans allowed, no television/radio broadcasts, no social media, and no media coverage access at all, just for their own weird entertainment, the owners would get more money but that's not good for the league. That's an extreme version of the actual point some are making: limiting fan access and raising the price point of entry is chasing short term profits at the sacrifice of long term sustainability. The numbers continue to reflect that's what MLB has been doing for decades.
Absurd hypotheticals do nothing to further the discussion. You might as well propose that all viewers be given free access to every game regardless of platform and without a subscription fee of any kind. Throw in ad free to complete the absurdity?
I suppose teams could stop paying their players obscene amounts of money. Then they could charge the RSN and other distributors less and be on more systems (including low price streamers). Oops ... I slipped into the absurd again.
I'm not going to rubber stamp every decision made as good and I hope you are not claiming every decision was bad. It sounds like you have issues with the leagues that are greater than the scope of this thread.
Well James, I am 73 years old and quite familiar with the real world thank you. Regardless of what my member statue shows, I have been a member here for almost as long as you have. As far as showing credentials to back up my financial claims, as a every day fanatic, my emotions rule my thought process and I try to inject some common sense (my credentials) based on watching many teams ( Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, Milwaukee Braves, St. Louis Cardinals football team, Chiccago Cardinals football team, Baltimore Colts, Cincinnati Royals, Montreal Expos, Houston Oilers, Oakland RIders, LA Raiders, Fort Wayne Pistons, all abandon their fan base for the almighty dollar. I vividly remember all of these teams and the effect their departure left in the community. I understand their right to do whatever they want with their property. Maybe you don't like me coming here to complain about something I can't change. As you suggest, perhaps it is time for me to move on from making statements on the internet and do something to get teams to change their contracts. Unfortunately I do not have the means to do that nor the connections. But I can perhaps do a little something to make the average fan aware of what's going on and why they won't be seeing any televised games. You see, all I can really do is try and start the squeeky wheel. With a Valley area population of over 4.5 million and with Phoenix itself being the 5th largest city in the country and being home to 4 professional sports team, maybe enough squeeks will make a difference. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
The game on the field probably has more effect on declining popularity than TV contracts. The game has become boring due to every pitcher not on the Chicago Cubs throwing 100+ mph and practically every AB resulting in either a K or a home run. Rarely is there a stolen base or a hit and run anymore and don't get me started on the defensive shifts.
Personally, I couldn't care less if MLB continues to dwindle to eventual relevancy less than MLS since I hold no stock in the league. Is MLS in a worse spot financially and long term because they made the decision to put all their out of market games in the basic ESPN+ universe instead demanding $99/year as the only way to watch those games? If the MLB sold the MLB.TV rights to ESPN ($$$ to MLB), something I'm sure ESPN would be interested in (more subscribers, more money), and included all those games in the standard ESPN+ package, the games would reach significantly more eyeballs (long term more fans, more money for MLB), I'm sure initially at the sacrifice of short term profits.
If ticket prices continue to drop and it's easier to get tickets that's great for me. It's great for hardcore fans MLB cut the price of Extra Innings this year, yet if they raised it to $300 there would be defenders of Major League Baseball spouting off about how great it is for baseball and they are just following money (even if in reality their profits on the package declined 90%, numbers we never actually see). Why people who already paying these leagues hundreds of dollars a year rush to defend every decision they make at every turn I'll never fully understand.
Defending Sears, K-Mart, Toys R Us, Etc. in their initial downfalls as being profitable and knowing better than us idiots when it was clear they had major internal business problems, is the same mindset as defending the business of Major League Baseball.
Maybe we can get some of MLB PR people defending how great the steroid era was for baseball long term because it increased TV ratings and contracts?
Then, unfortunately, you have seen the decline of many things over the years and probably understand nothing lasts forever.
BTW: The best way to get the younger generation involved is via sentiment. Give your kids and grandkids a good memory of going to a sporting event with you. That is more likely to get them interested than trying to get the sport to offer cheaper access.
How is that working for you? It is your windmill, you can tilt all you want but I would not expect real change unless there is real financial benefit in making the change.