DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
DIRECTV isn't losing too much on Sunday Ticket and this year all of any losses are being covered by AT&T ... so there is no benefit in DIRECTV ending the exclusive early. The penalty for ending the contract early would be losing any subscribers who are holding on to DIRECTV purely for NFLST.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
And ATT is going to turn down someone else taking next year to not have to cover those losses?
It is not AT&T's decision. They accepted the potential loss (up to $2.5 billion over the remainder of the contract) when they sold control of DIRECTV to TPG.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Right.. and if Apple steps in and says we want it this season.. We will cover the losses for ATT/Directv you think they are going to say no?
Forget AT&T. As long as you are including them in the decision you are expressing a complete misunderstanding of how the company is being operated.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Knowing this, I can’t imagine next season’s holder also doesn’t know this and is not willing to making an offer to take it over this year. I would. However, I wouldn’t take a big loss to get it a year early, knowing that AT&T is just screwing themselves if they don’t say yes. I guess TPG wouldn’t care if AT&T got screwed by them not taking a deal to give up Sunday Ticket.
Any deal that would pull Sunday Ticket off of DIRECTV would be in the hands of TPG (the company that bought control of DIRECTV). At last report DIRECTV was losing "tens of millions of dollars" offering Sunday Ticket. Not bad on a $1.5 billion per year investment that is helping them retain customers. DIRECTV can only lose by giving up Sunday Ticket early.

That being said, look at what DIRECTV owns the rights to. They have exclusive delivery of out of market games and the related channels (including the Sunday Ticket version of Red Zone and Fan Zone) but streaming is limited. DIRECTV has been allowed to offer streaming on an extremely limited basis. They are not able to add Sunday Ticket to DIRECTV Stream and AT&T was not able to add Sunday Ticket to their UVerse service (which I believe they thought they could do when they purchased DIRECTV).

Where does Apple fit in to the current picture? Could Apple launch an NFL streaming service without infringing on the DIRECTV exclusive MVPD contract? Apple isn't an MVPD / vMVPD but I suspect live streaming out of market Sunday games is still protected (cell phone providers are blocked from infringing on Sunday Ticket).

I suspect that if there is a deal we will see NFL content this year on Apple TV+ ... everything except the live games. NFL Network, the NFL's Red Zone, NFL Films content. Anything that the NFL hasn't otherwise sold.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Losing $10s of millions on a $1.5 billion investment is not good.
It is bookkeeping. DIRECTV as a service is still profitable (although how profitable is a hidden number). I would not consider the "losing 10s of millions of dollars" comment as an accurate portrayal of the full value of NFL ST to DIRECTV. Perhaps a way of expressing that DIRECTV collected slightly less in carriage fees than the $1.5 billion paid but not in any way stating that DIRECTV was not profitable in part due to having NFL ST available as an exclusive.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
The NFL and then AT&T|DIRECTV went through the math a couple of years ago. Either side could have walked away from the contract at that time but the NFL chose to keep the bird in the hand ($1.5 billion per year) instead of looking for a new partner at that time and while AT&T|DIRECTV wanted to expand the service to streaming they did not want to pay more. The contract remains in force for one more season.

I believe any "losses" on NFL ST are simply on paper and DIRECTV would suffer much greater financial losses if they gave up the service completely. The only way I see the exclusive ending prior to the end of next season is if something better is offered at a reasonable price. A wad of cash to make DIRECTV go away isn't "something better". A semi-exclusive or non-exclusive deal that would allow DIRECTV satellite to continue delivering the service while Apple or another streamer offers a streaming version could be put in place for 22-23. Something that would allow DIRECTV to continue beyond 22-23 with ST if they don't mind giving up their last exclusive year.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
If the venue is going to provide the streams, then they will have to work it out with Apple, whether it's to purchase more than 6 streams or, perhaps Apple will have a business tier that provided more. Either way I can't imagine it being more expensive than DIrecTV.
The experience most of the people in this thread are expecting IS the venue providing the streams ... via large screen TVs mounted where multiple patrons can view the content. Are you suggesting that individual patrons would use their personal accounts to watch games on their own devices and potentially cast them to a shared monitor?

I don't believe MOST people would want to go to a bar to watch on a personal device. The shared experience is watching on large screen monitors ... Like this:
Clothing Billiard table Billiard room Photograph Baize


The fire code occupancy based rate that DIRECTV charges ($1600 for up to 50 patrons, $2900 for up to 100 patrons and $6000 for up to 200 patrons plus additional levels) works out to $32 per patron (closer to $60 if the fire code occupancy is "51" or "101") Obviously the per person rate is more if the venue has a much larger fire code occupancy than attendance. (DIRECTV's private home viewing rate is around $300 per household. Pack in 5-10 people and one be close to the commercial rates.)

To replicate the current experience the venue would need to receive multiple signals and display them on multiple screens simultaneously. This would best be done with one receiver per stream (not a stream from Apple to each individual TV) run through a matrix switcher. Apple will not want to provide multiple identical streams from their servers to the same location just so the venue can display the same content on more than one TV.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Realize that the NEW generation, the under 30 somethings spend half their time in social situations, like bars and restaurants on their phones NOW.
Are you claiming that they are going to the bar for the purpose of watching subscription content on their phones? I suggest that they are going to the bar to mingle with friends and any content they watch is minimal. Perhaps get caught in a rabbit hole of funny videos ... But not watch one thing for hours.

"What everyone here is thinking"
"everyone here ASSUMED"


Please don't speak for everyone.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
As I said in the previous posts, do bars even need to show all those games if they are available on people's devices right at their tables?
Yes, they do. As I have stated in subsequent posts, the streaming you are seeing the young folks (too young to remember Mercury or Apollo other than school and movies) do isn't full length games. If the bar doesn't have Sunday Ticket they will likely have whatever is available on local TV (CBS and Fox) playing on their big screens. With volume up and noisy patrons watching those games. Watching streaming of an entire game in that environment would not be pleasant.

If they didn't have a local game on the bar would likely have other content on their screens. Golf or auto racing anything that draws a crowd. That's why they invested in the big screen TVs and hardware to drive it.

I don't believe Apple needs commercial establishments to make money on Sunday Ticket. But I don't see it being part of their plan to have individual subscribers taking the content into public venues where it would be seen by groups of people.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
HOW APPLE CAN MAKE SUNDAY TICKET WORK

by Gavin Bridge (04.25.2022)

“If reports are to be believed, Apple is the successful bidder for the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, paying at least $500M more a year for the rights for a total worth over $2 billion annually.”
Noting that the "reports" is the same rumor that started this thread. :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Raising it to $10 a month would cause them to lose a lot of non football fan subscribers.
We have a winner. Double the price needs to increase the DESIRED content for all subscribers - not just one niche.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
There is no subscription model that would support a $2 billion a year cost. None. We’re talking 100 million subscribers at $20 each, or 20 million subscribers at $100 each. 40 million at $50 or 50 million at $40. Nope. Give it up, it ain’t happening.
Perhaps you gave up a little early ... try 5 million at $400. That would match the current DIRECTV rate. DIRECTV needs 3.75 million subscribers to cover their $1.5 billion cost. A small bar (50 or less occupancy) is effectively four subscribers. The $2 billion (or higher) rate would take more subscribers to cover, but set a good price and the math might work.

The question to start with is how many people WOULD pay for a subscription to Sunday Ticket. Then work on setting a price that would attract as many of those people as possible without going broke.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
The streaming model removes one layer of middle man from the value chain. That alone can cut the cost of a product substantially.

It separates the content from the content delivery, allowing the end user greater choice for content selection. Individual pieces may cost more, but you have greater choice and more flexibility, and a lower total cost.
Nice theory, but the fragmentation of content is leading to a higher total cost. Where one once paid a MVPD (cable or satellite) for a large selection of content (including undesired content) streaming is dividing each person's desired content into multiple subscriptions.

There seems to be more "exclusive" content that is only available on one service - and those exclusives are "forever". Want to watch Thursday Night Football? If one of the teams isn't in your market there is only one provider for those games this coming season. No more out of market broadcast or cable available via multiple MVPDs.

Non sports content once followed a cycle where someone had an exclusive but if it wasn't a broadcast station that exclusive would end within a year or less and the content would be available later via other distribution. Movies were "only in theaters" then released to PPV then to a premium distributor such as Showtime or HBO (or both) then released to general cable channels then released to broadcast TV. If one did not want to pay the "only in theaters" price one could pay the PPV price. Too much? Wait for the HBO/Showtime price. Still too high a price? Wait for the cable or broadcast release. Theatrical movies still follow a similar path but other content goes direct to streaming and often gets locked away as an exclusive to one service.

The only way one gets a "total lower cost" is to have much less content available to them. Less content available is fine as long as all of the desirable content is available on services one subscribes to - but less content available is not a good thing when something is locked away on yet another subscription.

Long story short, I think a stand-alone ESPN product is viable, but the marketplace is structure prevents it, for now. But how much longer?
The marketplace structure is keeping ESPN and other mid-price channels alive. For the last few decades ESPN has been in a "must carry" position ... a decade ago a MVPD without ESPN would be set up for failure. The same could be said about an MVPD without the regional sports networks. But over the past decade MVPDs have tested that theory and found that they can still attract customers without RSNs ... they lose some customers but remain viable systems. Losing ESPN is more difficult due to the non-sports channels. An MVPD that doesn't want to carry ESPN must be willing to give up other Disney controlled channels.

Breaking ESPN away from the MVPD structure is a risk for Disney/ESPN. ESPN survives because of tens of millions of subscribers who never watch - and by never watch I mean not even one program a month on any of the ESPNs. Possibly not even knowing what channel number ESPN is on. Younger subscribers may not even know ESPN is on their system (just another one of the hundreds of channels of undesired content). Give people a chance to dump ESPN and they will ... the ESPN cable channels have dropped below 80 million subscribers. And while ESPN+ has grown above 20 million subscribers the content does not overlap.

So look at simple math ... 80 million subscribers paying ESPN $10 per month. This $10 is all ESPNs - not including any markup the MVPD can add. Money passed through the subscriber's MVPD. ESPN gets $800 million. ESPN goes a la carte. Assuming they can get 20 million people to OPT IN to paying for their current MVPD subscription exclusive content how much would ESPN need to charge to collect $800 million? Can ESPN get 20 million people to OPT IN to paying $40 per month plus any markup?

For the consumer willing to pay ESPN $40 per month what channels do they need to drop to keep their total spend at or below what they are currently spending for a MVPD. The cost of their MVPD may drop $10. It isn't going to drop $40. That consumer is going to need to dump a lot of other content to keep their spend at the same level.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
I am interested in hearing from people who actually go to a bar to watch an out of market football game. I am sure that such people exist otherwise no bar would be paying for the games. The occupancy based rates are fairly low if one assumes that everyone in the bar is watching an out of market game. The bar can sell enough booze and wings to cover the cost of Sunday Ticket. But I believe most bars would do fine with three football feeds on Sunday afternoons: The local Fox affiliate, the local CBS affiliate and NFL Network Red Zone. Unless the bar is big enough to provide a viewing area for each game or serve a niche (such as Bears fans in Florida) I don't see the value of the out of market feeds.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
I go to watch the Bears from time to time...Before game time starts each TV has who will be on the early games for seating. The place is always packed, we dont have many bars that have season ticket...The early games are far busier as most people are from east of here....I cant see just 3 games staring at 11am? If they could pick and choose ?I think they will lose lots of customers or they will get lots of phone calls who will be on....I wont spend 35 minutes driving to get there and my game isnt on.
Are you talking about current state with the bar picking some of the available out of market games or are you pondering a future state where instead of showing every Sunday Ticket game in some corner of the room they will choose less games?

I’ve tried a couple of times, but haven’t found a local bar that gets fans of my preferred team. It’s not fun to sit alone at a bar watching a TV.
I agree and that is what I would expect at a bar that shows every game including the ones with a limited number of devoted out of market fans.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
I get the feeling that most people who go to bars go for a couple of reasons. One, ST is too expensive to justify spending that much at home and TWO, they want to drink.
I understand that your claim to fame in this thread is being in tune with the younger generation that lives staring at their phones, but if you read a couple of posts back you will have an answer ...
I’ve tried a couple of times, but haven’t found a local bar that gets fans of my preferred team. It’s not fun to sit alone at a bar watching a TV.

That said, I know of bars for other teams.
In the stone age (any year prior to 2020 apparently) people "socialized" by "getting together" in one physical space. In Chicago I could find a thousand "Bears bars" which makes sense since the stadium is right there on the lakefront and the games are on free TV. Cleveland is overrun with "Browns bars". Same concept, different lake. People go to the bar to have a shared experience. It is less fun yelling "did you see that" when you're watching alone. Sure, you could Tweet, TikTok or Instragram your reaction or even post on MySpace if you are a dinosaur, but it isn't the same as being in a crowd of like minded fans.

Available food and drinks is a bonus, although "hey sweetheart, get me another beer" would probably get different negative reactions at the bar vs at home.

So what happens when someone who learned to love the Bears or Browns or any other team gets uprooted and finds themselves in some desert? They look for an oasis. Some place where hopefully enough of their home team fans show up to recreate the good old days of watching the game in a bar at home.

I get the whole "out of town team" bar, but if ST is cheap enough that you can get it at home, then it's not necessary to go to a bar. How much business to those bars do for the weeks that the out of town team is on locally? If you are in Arizona and the Bears are the late national game, to fans still show up at the bar?
Market it right and I believe they will show up. The bars still have food and booze when the game is on "free TV". And if one tips well one might get away with an occasional "sweetheart" while asking for a beer.

ST is cheap enough to have at home now with carriage on DIRECTV. I am not going to say it is too expensive for someone else who is willing to pay for it.

One change that Apple may support is a "one team" subscription. A Bears fan could receive every out of market Bears game every week for a lower price than buying "every game, every Sunday". I don't know if that subscription offer would be given to commercial accounts but no one can guarantee that Apple will offer any of Sunday Ticket to commercial establishments. Except the NFL and they have yet to make that call.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
BTW, a "Browns" bar in Cleveland or "Bears" bar in Chicago has no need for ST, do they? Heck they can throw an antenna on the roof and show the games for free!
Apparently you stopped reading:
So what happens when someone who learned to love the Bears or Browns or any other team gets uprooted and finds themselves in some desert? They look for an oasis. Some place where hopefully enough of their home team fans show up to recreate the good old days of watching the game in a bar at home.
The concept of supporting teams more popular than the one(s) "in market" is also a valid reason to have out of market bars devoted to a team.

And I don't believe $300 per year is too much to spend for something one wants (home viewing of games). Joining "the gang" at the local bar just may be more convenient (the aforementioned availability of beer and food and companionship without having to clean up your home before and after).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
... the cost of bringing that to enterprises might just make it not worth it, at least the way it's done now.
The way it is done now is probably the cheapest way to deliver the content to businesses. If Apple gets an exclusive they could (as ESPN+ is done) be delivered to businesses via DIRECTV.

Converting those businesses over to live streaming over various internet providers would be more expensive.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Does NBC distribute the EPL games provided only Peacock through DirecTV? Where I go to watch Arsenal, I believe they are streamed.
EPL from Peacock is streamed via the Amazon Fire TV Stick: Quick Start Guide
5 mbps per stream.

The reason I ask is the bar has an iPad they use to control what games are on which TV.
The iPad could easily be controlling the bar's video distribution system.

No calling manager to fumble with enumerable DirecTV remotes.
Top end systems don't need remotes at each TV ... the tuners and TVs are all controlled by the video distribution system.

And, if Apple doesn’t need DirecTV for distribution, why would ESPN+?
ESPN+ is available via DIRECTV. Apparently they saw the need to get into bars and businesses served by DIRECTV.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
If the price with NFL ST is the same (or lower) than the price without NFL ST "comped" works fine.
Mike is more familiar with what he is paying than non-subscribers.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top