New Thursday night NFL demands - the nets need to say "no"

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by phrelin, Jan 22, 2016.

  1. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    101
    Aug 31, 2002
    I think the nets need to say yes.

    I don't think they really have much of a choice. The golden rule is that he who has the gold makes the rules. Broadcast has less and less clout in the marketplace every week, because they are not the gatekeepers anymore. The NFL doesn't really even actually need them anymore, and can tell them how things are going to be. Content is what rules. And even with the concussion controversy, FB makes more dough and has more viewers all the time.

    I do not find it surprising that the NFL is feeling their oats and is confident they can make this happen. Les Moonves is probably a little pissed, but I am not shedding any tears for him.
     
  2. Billzebub

    Billzebub Godfather

    832
    58
    Jan 1, 2007
    Pittsburgh, PA
    As an aside, does this mean I may not have to listen to Jim Nance and Phil Sims on Thursday nights?
     
  3. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,070
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    Don't confuse them having issues and maybe losing some volume of money with it meaning it will cost us less. It won't.

    I agree change is afoot but it's not going to be the same kind of change. They have head off all the issues that caused the collapse of the music industry and its total change overnight.
     
  4. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    101
    Aug 31, 2002
    Having respect for history can't change the new history, and is even unlikely to help one avoid it. Everything gets disrupted eventually. It's the universal law of entropy; everything returns to dust, to its original state of chaos.

    Napoleon had Waterloo, the record industry had napster and iTunes, and the movie theaters and broadcast industry has Netflix and Hulu.

    Netflix and Hulu even have their disrupter, but they don't like me to talk about that here, as if 'not speaking its name' is a way to pretend it doesn't really exist.
     
  5. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,070
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    Disrupted maybe but rarely do things change the same way over and over. They simply change a different way because of lessons learned from history. Why do you think all the channels are locking down everything they can...
     
  6. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    101
    Aug 31, 2002
    I think we know why. To circle the wagons, and to fend off the disruption. Not to stop it, that is not going to happen. But to slow it, at least until their individual retirement ages. I would do that too.

    Learning from history, from one's mistakes is a process separate from all of that. We all learn, some more than others. Many of us learn too late, repeat mistakes too much.

    But it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure this out. I don't think what they have learned would influence their path much anyway. They can't stop the change.

    Things change in a different way, each next time around, because the nature of change is that it is different, by definition. That is the part that is simple about it.

    "Locking down". They can't lock down the content, they can only lock down what they own, which is the threatened delivery infrastructure. CBS streaming Star Trek exclusively on their streaming package is not "locking down", it is capitulating to the inevitable. And they are trying, smartly, to morph away from being the delivery guys into being the content creation guys. That's who holds the cards now, finally.
     
  7. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,650
    401
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Disruption happens, to be sure... but don't kid yourself into thinking it will lead to cheaper entertainment. Every TV viewer has a job (or wants one) and likes to get paid. You don't want a pay cut for "loyalty" and you expect raises over time, whether or not you get one... so expecting TV or movies or whatever to be free is fallacy. Expecting them to be cheap is almost the same fallacy.

    Either you want to watch TV or you don't... and if you watch, you have to recognize that there is value to it AND the people who make it deserve to get paid... and if they get paid, you have to pay to watch it... somehow... so if you like streaming over traditional broadcast that's okay... just don't expect it to continue to be a cheap or free thing IF it supplants traditional broadcast as the primary source for new content.

    Right now the streaming options are 2nd or 3rd tier (with a few exceptions) and that's why they cost so much less to the consumer... they get most content after it has been played on multiple other broadcast-for-profit scenarios (theaters, original broadcast, sometimes even home video sales) and so it is like shopping the used book store instead of Barnes & Noble... BUT... the used book store only exists as long as people keep buying new books from Barnes & Noble and selling them after first use. IF all the Barnes & Noble stores (and competitors) go away, your used store becomes the first source, and the price goes up OR the content disappears.

    I don't know why people have a hard time grasping that.

    As for sports... it's another type of show that people like. Not everyone likes it. There's a lot of TV that I don't like... and the thing is, sports gets singled out... but there's a lot that I pay for that I never watch. IF we each had the choice to pay only for what we wanted, that price would not be as cheap as people seem to want it to be. Less subscribers means higher cost OR less content. We are all getting more options because all of us are throwing our money into the same pool. Companies are not going to give money back if stuff goes away... so either we end up paying more for less OR we end up saving all our money because all the content is gone entirely. That's the real choices on the table here... so I kind of like the status quo with a lot of choices for just a couple of dollars a day.
     
  8. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    101
    Aug 31, 2002
    I honestly never thought about the cost angle. Until streaming hits all buttons for me, regardless what it costs, I am stuck with DTV, who hits 95 out of a hundred of those buttons. So it's still mostly a non-starter for me, no cord cutting here. I just grumble and pay the bills. It also seems that even if streaming actually could hit all the buttons, that I would have to have so many arrangements with so many different services that I would be nickeled and dimed to death anyway.

    But once all of those disparate services have an organized consortium, instead of a fiefdom, it will be Katy bar the door. I think that is probably what Tim Cook is dreaming of over at One Infinite Loop in Cupertino. Currently, a pipe dream.

    My career being in linear TV, the only facet of this that was of financial interest was 'will my job be gone before I am done with having that job?'. Disruption can obsolete me all it wants once the pension and the SSA kick in. I am comfortable in my legacy, even after a Starbuck's and a bowling alley are sitting in the spot where I toiled for so long.

    The golden age of television, or television content, may be upon us. But The Golden Age of Television, linear TV, has been over for a long time. There are a lot of folks in that industry still walking around like Bruce Willis in 'The Sixth Sense', not really understanding that it is all over. Sorry for the spoiler.

    I have no problem grasping that any financial arrangement must have a cost/benefit balance. I don't really think anyone has a problem grasping that. But everyone also wants the best deal, and so often we focus on that. Sue me. I just don't see that as a compelling topic in a forum about TV shows. As you well know, I already have plenty to talk about.

    You have to pay to play. Of course you do.

    But the surfeit of options for content coupled with a finite viewing audience also does have an effect on what can be charged, both by streaming services as well as DBS/cable. Even though they are raising the price once again, the law of supply and demand makes this a buyer's market currently, and until Peak TV peaks, that will be the way of the world.
     
  9. Herdfan

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    6,532
    104
    Mar 18, 2006
    Teays...
    Same here. Even stayed up to watch a bad TNF (Bengals/Browns) contest because at halftime I was way in the money (about $5,000 on a $50 league. Ended the game completely out of the money. :( But I watched it anyway including the commercials.

    And that's the reason. The NFL is almost DVR proof. Sure some people record games, but most watch live including commercials.
     
  10. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    101
    Aug 31, 2002
    Exactly why gambling on sports in any form seems idiotic to me. No offense.

    Now, instead of the motivation of enjoying a game, that is replaced with trying to one-up other people, and greed, trying to get something for nothing based on the fate of other people's mistakes rather than your own hard work. A couple of the baser instincts. Don't even get me started on Wall Street.
     
  11. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,070
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    You will never see a consortium. In fact I'd almost expect to see more fragmentation on how you get different programs not less in the streaming world.

    The key will be the device. TiVo does a good thing tying all the services together under one search. The new appletv is headed that way as well. That's the key. That and being willing to pay 20 different people for 40 "stations"...

    But you also have to be willing to search out the shows a lot more than you do today.
     
  12. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Finding them is hard, partly because I don't even know what I'm looking for. I had no idea I was looking for a New Zealand show "The Brokenwood Mysteries" or an Australian soap set in the 1950's "A Place to Call Home" until I discovered Acorn TV and tried them.

    But that's not the worst of the problems. To me the hardest part is to "schedule" watching shows on streaming. There are way too many decisions. Right now on my "lists" of shows with episodes I want to watch I have:
    • Acorn TV - 8 shows
    • Amazon - 9 shows
    • Hulu - 9 shows
    • Netflix - 17 shows
    • Crackle - 2 shows
    • Feeln - 2 shows
    In addition to those 47 shows to fit into a weekly schedule with at best 28 hours of viewing time available, on average I have about 2.5 hours a night of shows recording that we watch during week they are recorded. And then I have recorded episodes of 28 shows I'd like to see on an external hard drive.

    Maybe I should agree with FX Networks CEO John Landgraf that there is too much TV................. Eh, I don't think so. I'm glad I have this much choice. Choice is good. It's much better than the way things were in 1966...sort of, if you don't count the further muddling of my brain....
     
  13. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    248
    Nov 15, 2005
    I'm very familiar with this problem.

    Between LDs, DVDs, BDs, (and before those, tapes), I have a large library of content. How to chuse? What to watch tonight? I know, check the guide... :) (And then watch my copy.)

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  14. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,070
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    I choose based on what I'm in the mood for and then I'll usually binge watch several episodes before moving to another series. Maybe I'll watch two episodes of one series and three of any other a night instead of 5 different shows and one episode each. Thank goodness for watch lists to track it though.
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,498
    452
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Well, one can see I have a lot of influence on broadcast TV nets as we learn CBS & NBC To Share ‘Thursday Night Football’ With NFL Network; League Eyes “Tri-Cast” With Digital Partner:

    A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there....

    The Hollywood Reporter story included:

     
  16. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz New Texan

    11,131
    201
    Mar 23, 2002
    Richardson,...
    Isn't Sunday and Thursday the coveted nights of the week for advertisers? For Thursdays, the studios like to advertise/hype up the movies opening that weekend, not to mention other weekend activities such as going out to a chain restaurant.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    101
    Aug 31, 2002
    You have never been more correct here. Absolutely right on all three points.
     
  18. Mark Holtz

    Mark Holtz New Texan

    11,131
    201
    Mar 23, 2002
    Richardson,...
    As far as I can see, the methods of content consumption and distribution has evolved and changed, and will continue to evolve and change. Those who insist on sticking with the old ways will start to perish, while those who adopt new methods in addition to serving the traditional methods will survive. It's no longer a question of what time a show is on, no longer if you taped last night's episode, but can I watch it on my phone, on my tablet, on my computer, or my television at your convenience. And, can I binge watch it?
     
  19. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator

    50,989
    2,294
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The top rated programming is still by appointment ... with online replays available. The marketplace seems to be expanding to serve the late and binge watchers. But the appointment of watching at the moment when something is released (or within hours) is still strong.

    For scripted shows ratings for many shows take a jump between "same day" (watched before 3am) and "7 day". I wish the following chart had a three day breakdown.
    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2016/02/01/broadcast-live-7-ratings-jan-11-17-2016-week-17/

    There are obviously some shows people don't mind watching later. But the further down the popularity list one goes one finds shows people don't mind not watching. The percentage increases are impressive, but the most popular shows have a lot of people keeping that appointment and watching before 3am.

    Sports is even more appointment oriented. Does anyone binge watching an entire season of sports? Don't tell me how the Colts are doing ... I'm still on week five.
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,070
    1,578
    Nov 13, 2006
    Funny. I don't hear anyone thinking free over the air radio, the original method of radio, is going away anytime soon and music has had by far the biggest upheaval and most of those stations are now available online as well....

    More options don't necessarily mean the old will go away.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements