DBSTalk Forum banner
61 - 80 of 93 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #61 ·
Of course the current model is failing. But, why are they going bankrupt? Stupid contracts with the sports teams where they overpaid? Decrease in ad revenue? Poor management? A need to restructure debt? We don't know. There are lots of reasons companies declare bankruptcy and often has little to do with them actually going out of business. That's why I think a streaming service could be their saving grace. Yeah, I know that, we hear that at lot of the streaming services are not making money. Sports is different. People who watch sports usually watch games live, meaning they don't skip ads (sure not everyone watches that way, but with the proliferation of gambling, people want to watch live or as close to it as possible). Fans of teams will generally pay what it takes to watch those games if they are fans. So it's possible it become a great monthly revenue stream. The problem is that they are currently tied in with cable and sat providers who might not want that competition. So that's going to be sticky how they get out of that.
But we do know. It is because people got tired of paying for something they don't watch.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,190 Posts
But we do know. It is because people got tired of paying for something they don't watch.
Yeppers. The RSNs relied on subscribers (not viewers) delivered by MVPDs. The RSNs had leverage and contracts that forced each MVPD to deliver the RSN to most of each MVPD's subscribers - whether the subscriber wanted the content or not. The threat was "if you don't require your subscribers to subscribe to the RSNs none of your subscribers will get the RSN". And that scheme worked for decades.

And now it doesn't work so well. People are choosing MVPDs without RSNs and the MVPDs that once felt forced to carry each RSN have done the math. The MVPD will survive without RSNs.

The question remains whether or not the RSNs can survive without MVPDs. Those forced subscriptions are the majority of the RSN's income. The RSNs cannot pay for their broadcast rights without such subscriptions.
 

· Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
26,462 Posts
There are baseball fans that just love watching baseball no matter who is playing.
I don't dispute what you say but in a game built hugely on statistics, I wonder if it is really all that engaging just to watch a random game.
 

· Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
That's why I wonder if they will actually go under? And that's also why I think most of them will transition to the type of model I described where they will sell you a streaming only package for $XX a month, just like all the other streaming services out there.
The devil, as they say, is in the details. In this case the detail that is important is "$XX a month". Most people that know this stuff, like SBJ and SMW, think that the break even number for baseball is past the level of middle-class affordability.

And remember, general streaming is bleeding money like a stuck pig.
 

· Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
26,462 Posts
And remember, general streaming is bleeding money like a stuck pig.
Just because a couple of the major players (Disney and Apple) are bleeding upwards of $1.5B annually doesn't mean that the whole industry is hemorrhaging.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
There are baseball fans that just love watching baseball no matter who is playing. I may watch at least parts of many games throughout the day. Since I retired it is a lot of baseball watching. If you only want to watch one team play than a DTC RSN might be the way to go. The problem with that is since they are only being paid by people that live in the area that actually watch. They are quickly losing that free money they got for years from people that didn't watch. Which is why they are about to go bankrupt.
So if you like to watch baseball (I do too) then MLB.TV, even with the blackouts in place, will allow you to watch most random baseball games. Not to mention you can watch games on ESPN, Fox (FS1, FS2 and OTA Fox), TBS and so forth. There's plenty to satisfy your baseball jones. That's not the issue. The issue is that if you want to the games blacked out, you have to have a cable/sat sub to watch your local team (and it gets stupid there, with some arcane blackout rules). That's different than just watching random games, because you are in the mood to watch a game. They need to fix the over-regionalization of baseball, but I don't see a problem with RSNs being the source of local broadcasts. They are only following the rules. If you want to watch your team, get the right subscription. For years the ONLY way you could watch ST was to get DirecTV. Now it's going to be exclusive to YT. Is that any different? You find what you want to watch, get the service that gives you that, understand that service is not available on any provider and move on. That's how life works.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 ·
So if you like to watch baseball (I do too) then MLB.TV, even with the blackouts in place, will allow you to watch most random baseball games. Not to mention you can watch games on ESPN, Fox (FS1, FS2 and OTA Fox), TBS and so forth. There's plenty to satisfy your baseball jones. That's not the issue. The issue is that if you want to the games blacked out, you have to have a cable/sat sub to watch your local team (and it gets stupid there, with some arcane blackout rules). That's different than just watching random games, because you are in the mood to watch a game. They need to fix the over-regionalization of baseball, but I don't see a problem with RSNs being the source of local broadcasts. They are only following the rules. If you want to watch your team, get the right subscription. For years the ONLY way you could watch ST was to get DirecTV. Now it's going to be exclusive to YT. Is that any different? You find what you want to watch, get the service that gives you that, understand that service is not available on any provider and move on. That's how life works.
Pretty sure I know how life works. RSN's are on a slow death march. Why can't you see the obvious?
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
But we do know. It is because people got tired of paying for something they don't watch.
But what does that have to do with blackout rules and wanting to watch any game you want? Perhaps the Sinclair RSNs are going bankrupt because of what you said. Could it be they also made a poor deal for the Fox RSNs and shouldn't have made that stupid deal in the first place? It's not like they didn't see what was happening? It's been going on for 10 years. There's nothing in the post article that says A) they are definitely going bankrupt, that's speculation by that most reputable of newspapers, the NY Post (he says gagging). B) that the reason they are going bankrupt is because they aren't making the money they thought they would (and again, that's their own stupidity, for spending what they did on the channels), and C) not being pro-active and coming up with a plan to combat that (which, could be a streaming model). They might be in bad debt because of their bad projections and just want to restructure, so they force a bankruptcy or to get an infuse of cash from the leagues. There's a lot of business reasons why this could work for them. And they might get wealthy allies like DeWitt to come out and say they are concerned.

Bottom line, even if MLB took over the RSNs, I highly doubt they change the blackout rules. In fact, changing them at the expense of the RSNs losing local advertising revenue could hasten the decline of the RSNs and teams stand to lose a lot of rights fees. Everyone wants to be able to watch every game, pay as little as possible for that right. I'm a fan and I'd love that too. You know who doesn't love it? The people who make a living or a profit from that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
For years the ONLY way you could watch ST was to get DirecTV. Now it's going to be exclusive to YT. Is that any different? You find what you want to watch, get the service that gives you that, understand that service is not available on any provider and move on. That's how life works.
Of course it's different. NFLST no longer requires an expensive DirecTV subscription, or any live TV service at all. That's a huge difference. As to the situation with MLB blackouts, Bally already has the rights to 5 MLB teams for its Bally Plus streaming service and is working on the rest of its RSNs, while MLB is working on a solution for MLB.TV. It's happening because the market is changing and MLB has to change with it to avoid losing a large portion of the audience.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Of course it's different now with NFLST. It no longer requires an expensive DirecTV subscription, or any live TV service at all. That's a huge difference. As to the situation with MLB blackouts, Bally already has the rights to 5 MLB teams for its Bally Plus streaming service and is working on the rest of its RSNs, while MLB is working on a solution for MLB.TV. It's happening because the market is changing and MLB has to change with it to avoid losing a large portion of the audience.
Why in the right minds would RSNs like Bally give up their games to MLB.TV? Unless MLB.TV pays for those rights. Is that likely? I don't know. I think as I've been saying the RSNs move to a streaming structure themselves and offer it to anyone who wants to pay for the service. Yeah, I know there are costs involved in setting something like that up. They will need to price it to make a profit. It's tricky, but I'd be surprised if MLB.TV opens up all games to anyone. No other league has done this (the NFL being a completely different model), why should MLB do it?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Why in the right minds would RSNs like Bally give up their games to MLB.TV? Unless MLB.TV pays for those rights. Is that likely? I don't know. I think as I've been saying the RSNs move to a streaming structure themselves and offer it to anyone who wants to pay for the service. Yeah, I know there are costs involved in setting something like that up. They will need to price it to make a profit. It's tricky, but I'd be surprised if MLB.TV opens up all games to anyone. No other league has done this (the NFL being a completely different model), why should MLB do it?
The RSNs have to negotiate the rights, which is why Bally only has 5 MLB teams at this time for its direct streaming service. Same applies to MLB and MLB.TV. Nobody said anything about giving away the rights.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #72 ·
I think as I've been saying the RSNs move to a streaming structure themselves and offer it to anyone who wants to pay for the service.
MLB is not going to let RSN's stream to "anyone who wants to pay for the service". Currently it is "anyone in that area who wants to pay for the service" for the RSN's that do offer it now. And why would anyone out of market pay the big bucks the RSN's are charging for one team (Red Sox currently at $29.99 per month = $179.94 for 6 months of the baseball season) when if they are out of market they can buy MLB-TV for $139.00 for EVERY out of market team? The market for "anyone in that area who wants to pay for the service" is not enough to keep the RSN's afloat.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
For years on every sports package they say “get every out of market game” what the league could change is this. You pay for a package “MLB Extra Innings” you get each and every single MLB game. Take the “out of market” out of the advertising and give everybody all of the games. The insanity has got to end with these blackouts once and for all. The league puts out a price for their product whether it’s $139 a season or whether it’s $199 a season. The consumer can decide whether or not they want the package or not. But give us folks who are willing to pay all the games. It’s the only way to resolve this. It should be if you want to buy the games, you’ll get all the games no matter where you live. Rob Manfred has said “Blackouts are frustrating” this is the only way to resolve the issue of “Blackouts”.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
MLB is not going to let RSN's stream to "anyone who wants to pay for the service". Currently it is "anyone in that area who wants to pay for the service" for the RSN's that do offer it now. And why would anyone out of market pay the big bucks the RSN's are charging for one team (Red Sox currently at $29.99 per month = $179.94 for 6 months of the baseball season) when if they are out of market they can buy MLB-TV for $139.00 for EVERY out of market team? The market for "anyone in that area who wants to pay for the service" is not enough to keep the RSN's afloat.
Sorry, I should have said "anyone who wants to pay for the service in the region." But of course this will keep blackouts in place. And I think you are wrong. I think the ONLY way RSNs stay afloat is if they offer something like what the Red Sox are doing. The question is how they do it. Would it be for just the games? Would it be for the whole network? RSNs of course carry more than MLB team games.

So what's your solution? Everyone is complaining here, nobody has come up with anything. I'd bet MLB wants nothing to do with running their own RSNs. And they still need the RSNs in play to keep MLB.TV afloat. So what else do you got? At least I had an idea. And if they DID open MLB.TV to anyone, it would have to cost a WHOLE Lot more to make up to the teams what they would lose from the RSNs no longer in the picture.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
For years on every sports package they say “get every out of market game” what the league could change is this. You pay for a package “MLB Extra Innings” you get each and every single MLB game. Take the “out of market” out of the advertising and give everybody all of the games. The insanity has got to end with these blackouts once and for all. The league puts out a price for their product whether it’s $139 a season or whether it’s $199 a season. The consumer can decide whether or not they want the package or not. But give us folks who are willing to pay all the games. It’s the only way to resolve this. It should be if you want to buy the games, you’ll get all the games no matter where you live. Rob Manfred has said “Blackouts are frustrating” this is the only way to resolve the issue of “Blackouts”.
Yeah, and we should also get free hot dogs and beer with that too. While your at it, how about we all get free season tickets too? Explain to me how they make money with this? EVERY FAN including myself would love that, especially those who cut the cord, who would benefit the most. But there has to be a way to make money. RSNs need to make money (and you will still need them involved to broadcast the games.) They want local revenue as their advertisers pay for local ads. Remember, the LEAGUE doesn't own broadcast rights.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
Yeah, and we should also get free hot dogs and beer with that too. While your at it, how about we all get free season tickets too? Explain to me how they make money with this? EVERY FAN including myself would love that, especially those who cut the cord, who would benefit the most. But there has to be a way to make money. RSNs need to make money (and you will still need them involved to broadcast the games.) They want local revenue as their advertisers pay for local ads. Remember, the LEAGUE doesn't own broadcast rights.
Well it’s either that or continue shutting fans out from seeing the teams they want to and losing even more eyeballs on their product. I guarantee you the NFL is about to find out they made a mistake putting all of their out of market games on youtube. There’s no way that package is going to be profitable at the price youtube paid. Even if every subscriber buys that package, they are gonna lose money. MLB is atleast trying to work their deal out so more fans can watch the team they want. But hey if they keep it the way it is many fans will never be able to see their favorite team because in some parts of the U.S. there are up to 6 teams blacked out. Iowa & Las Vegas are two places that I know of. Oh & by the way I don’t need the Hot Dogs & Beer. I can buy my own snacks. I just want them to do what’s right and give the fans what they’re paying for & that’s baseball. More rightly the teams they want to see without the hassle of a blackout. Even Manfred has said their #1 complaint from the fans is the BLACKOUTS. Those WILL end one way or another!
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #77 ·
For years on every sports package they say “get every out of market game” what the league could change is this. You pay for a package “MLB Extra Innings” you get each and every single MLB game. Take the “out of market” out of the advertising and give everybody all of the games. The insanity has got to end with these blackouts once and for all. The league puts out a price for their product whether it’s $139 a season or whether it’s $199 a season. The consumer can decide whether or not they want the package or not. But give us folks who are willing to pay all the games. It’s the only way to resolve this. It should be if you want to buy the games, you’ll get all the games no matter where you live. Rob Manfred has said “Blackouts are frustrating” this is the only way to resolve the issue of “Blackouts”.
So you think Amazon, Apple, Peacock, ESPN, and FOX and whatever other networks that carry baseball are just going to be OK with that and keep paying a premium price and lose their exclusivity?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,079 Posts
Discussion Starter · #78 ·
Sorry, I should have said "anyone who wants to pay for the service in the region." But of course this will keep blackouts in place. And I think you are wrong. I think the ONLY way RSNs stay afloat is if they offer something like what the Red Sox are doing. The question is how they do it. Would it be for just the games? Would it be for the whole network? RSNs of course carry more than MLB team games.

So what's your solution? Everyone is complaining here, nobody has come up with anything. I'd bet MLB wants nothing to do with running their own RSNs. And they still need the RSNs in play to keep MLB.TV afloat. So what else do you got? At least I had an idea. And if they DID open MLB.TV to anyone, it would have to cost a WHOLE Lot more to make up to the teams what they would lose from the RSNs no longer in the picture.
Ya know if I had all of the answers I would be the MLB Commissioner. Right now I am fine with the way it is. But I'm not in those markets that are getting royally screwed by being considered local to 6 different teams. Plus the way it is now isn't going to work if the RSN's fold up. My biggest issues is the territories the teams claim. Something needs to be done about this:



And this map isn't entirely accurate as it is not showing the overlapping areas.
 

· Icon
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
There is a way to add local broadcasts to MLB.tv for cordcutters.
And it protects, somewhat, the RSN.

If O-O-M MLB.tv is $139, make "zero blackout" MLB.tv $199, with all of the $60 difference going to the local RSN.
More than one RSN in the area? Let the user pick one, and if they want more, add an upcharge.
This would be "game only" with pre and post game shows, not 24 hours.
MLB already has access to every game, every day.

Here in Vegas,we have 6 in-market teams, none anywhere local. Those 6 RSN's cost me $14 per month. $168 per year. You could do the same $60 upcharge for NHL and NBA. $60 per league X 3 is $180.

Edit: I am not talking about including the ESPN, TBS, FOX, Apple, Peacock, Amazon, et al games in this package.

Second Edit: If I switch to YTTV, an offer of MLB.TV + a local team for $200 might be worth it with the money saved by quitting DirecTV.
And the technology exists for all local ads to be shown.
I watched the NFL on Paramount+ and the Fox Sports app and they were filled with local spots.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
So you think Amazon, Apple, Peacock, ESPN, and FOX and whatever other networks that carry baseball are just going to be OK with that and keep paying a premium price and lose their exclusivity?
The people are not okay with paying for packages whether it be via MLB.TV, MLB Extra Innings etc etc and getting blackouts from multiple teams some places 6 as stated earlier. How about worrying about the consumers like you & I who are paying for a service and having something go our way instead of the rich sports leagues who are guaranteed their money. Without people buying these packages and supporting the leagues there wouldn’t be no sports. How about that for once? After all we are paying for the content that should be delivered to us. We all pay for it through our subscriptions. We’re paying monthly fees for RSN’s. Then some on top of that buy MLB Extra Innings, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, etc etc. It’s just a common sense issue man. Come on!
 
61 - 80 of 93 Posts
Top