YouTube TV

As long as we recognize Lucas is washed up and most TV sucks, we'll all get along fine.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

YouTube TV

Post by Cakedaddy »

Your graph only looks at 5 of the 100's of channels that are watched. And just because I record it/on demand, I don't count? I'm still not watching sports, but I'm watching shows.

I don't know what your graph proves. That's not a graph of non-sports watchers vs sports watchers. That's a graph of 6 channels that had viewership changes based on their content. I see "Their shows suck and people are switching from ABC and CBS to FOX and NBC for their sports". I really don't see how that graph shows more sports views exist.

You said: "I think sports fans are subsidizing non-sports fans."

Gordon and I disagree.

Then you said: "Of course you're paying for it."
". . .sports drive TV costs unjustly. . . I'm arguing they indeed do"

So, Gordon and I suck.

What we need, is a graph of channel costs. What WOULD cable cost if you didn't take any sports. What would it cost if you took ONLY sports channels. I bet the sports channels would cost a whole fuck ton more than non-sports.
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by Leisher »

(This was not done in one sitting or even one day, so if it reads a bit out of sorts, I apologize. I tried my best to maintain focus so it would flow well.)

Read this, don't read it. I don't give a shit. It's something I need to get out of my head and can turn/link to as a reference in the future.

I want to break down the industry and get rid of the confusion. Because you're not seeing where I'm coming from and how I can say those two statements without them being conflicting.

I'm going to switch terminology a bit to help get rid of some of the confusion. So...
"Broadcasters" are the parent companies of stations.
"Networks" are the national channels you watch from NBC to USA to Spike to Golf Channel to SyFy.
"Production Companies" are the people who make and sell the content.
"Affiliate" is a local channel you watch that has the rights to air the content of a broadcaster.
"Middle men" is the derogatory term I'm going to use for the companies that make their money by owning affiliates.
"Content providers" are the cable companies and satellite companies.

Focus on the current model ONLY for now. I'll throw the monkey wrenches in later.

To really sum up quickly:
Broadcasters buy content from Production Companies, which they then air. Middle Men purchase Affiliates in various markets and pay the Broadcaster to air their content. Advertisers pay both the Broadcaster and the Affiliate (national vs local) to show commercials during popular shows. The Middle Men sell the rights to air the Affiliate's signal to Content Providers. You, the consumer, pay the Content Provider directly.

Now let me break down what's actually happening:
Broadcasters (NBC Universal, Paramount, Turner Systems, etc.) make money from their channels via various methods:
1. Advertising revenue - This is the largest source of revenue, and thus, the most important.
1a. Product placement - When you see a person holding a can of pop and the label is turned towards you.
1b. Direct sponsorship - Like when Subway saved Chuck.
2. Broadcast rights - They get paid by other entities to air their content.
2a. Middle Men - Companies that pay a fee to rebroadcast the live feed from the network.
2b. I believe they can also get a piece of redistributed properties like when they hit Netflix, Hulu, reruns, etc. However, that's on a show by show basis. For example, when you watch Archer on Netflix, it is NOT branded with FX/FXX, but South Park is branded Comedy Central on Hulu. I think it has to do with who produces the content.
3. There are a lot of other minor ways, but they're extremely small compared to the ones above.

Broadcasters and networks, typically, don't create their own content. They do for some things, but usually it's a third party production company that creates a pilot/concept and then try to sell it to a network/broadcaster. If the network/broadcaster buys it, then more episodes are ordered. The network/broadcaster usually buys the rights to air the show from the production company. Sometimes they will also help pay for the production. Point being, this is why Scrubs could switch from NBC to ABC, American Idol could switch from Fox to ABC, etc.

Now that we've established that advertising is HUGE and drives the (current) business model, let me break down what advertisers want.

They want eyes and they want them now. Not later. Now.

You get the eyes part, obviously. But why "now"? Because advertisers think their messages expire, and they're mostly right. If they're advertising a holiday sale, they don't want you to see if after the sale. Who here hasn't binged a show you DVRed all year and noticed Christmas ads in a show you're watching in the summer?

Advertisers, quite recently, only cared about live viewers despite the proliferation of DVR. However, that has finally changed. Last I had heard, advertisers were ok with people watching a show up to 7 days after it aired. After that, your viewing doesn't count. So what's that mean?

Advertisers pay a rate based upon the number of viewers a show has, and this applies to national and local sales. This is all based on Nielsen ratings. So if you're being tracked (and that's a whole other discussion) and you don't watch your favorite show within this time limit set by advertisers, then you're actually hurting your show. Granted, you are a very small piece of the puzzle, but you are a piece.

This applies online as well.

Want to take a guess what content can demand the most from advertisers, not just because of ratings, but also because people are watching live and can't FF through the commercials?

Ok, we all clear so far?

Now, did anyone notice I didn't mention cable/satellite companies as a way broadcasters make money? That's because that is not a revenue source for them. (The key to why I can say both things and not contradict myself.) It IS a revenue source for Middle Men. American Media, Sinclair, and Raycom Media are examples of these middle men. They own affiliates in markets and per the law and contracts have the right to air a broadcaster's content in the market. They sell their affiliate's content, which is mostly the broadcaster's content, to content providers.

So using Gordon's current(?) situation...
20th Century Fox and Fuzzy Door are jointly producing The Orville. FOX has purchased the right to air this show. American Media owns the an affiliate in Toledo and pays FOX for the right to air their content. They then charge Buckeye Broadband (formerly Buckeye Cablesystem) and Direct TV for access to that content in this market.

So if Buckeye and Direct TV refuse to pay American Media for the FOX content, nobody in Toledo can see it through traditional means. You might be thinking, but Buckeye airs FOX to its Michigan customers and Direct TV airs FOX to the rest of the nation... All true. That's because they have deals in place with the affiliate in those markets. (Yes, Buckeye's Michigan customers are considered to be in a different market...kinda. It's a loophole. We watch NBC and FOX from Detroit, but CBS and ABC from both Detroit and Toledo.) However, those deals for those markets don't supersede American Media's ownership of the rights to FOX content in the Toledo market.

This is where I've been thumping my bible, but people (not necessarily here, but everyone I know who bitches about cable/satellite bills) are too busy blaming the wrong people to listen, these middle men are the ones fucking us over. They are charging WAY too much money, which means you, the consumer, have to pay more to offset those costs. If the content providers balk and try to fight rising costs, the middle men pull the content, run banners telling you how evil your content provider is, and you start bitching about them ("I pay this much and can't get FOX!") never realizing the middle man is the one with his dick in your ass.

So going back to what I said earlier about advertising being the key to all revenue in this industry and online counting as well, that's why I kept telling Gordon to go watch The Orville on the Fox site instead of Plex. Every single viewer on those websites count, unlike TV ratings where most households aren't counted. Also, it should be noted that online viewing counts all the time because the ads you're forced to watch there are not dated.

If we don't consume their media via the methods they can track and within a time frame they decide, then our viewings (votes) do not count.

I'll pause again to ask if everyone is still following?

I honestly don't know the whole history of how the industry got so convoluted, but it is what it is...

Ok, so where do sports fit into this? Pretty obvious by now, yes?

Sports are "right now" content that a majority of viewers want. They want to watch games live or almost live. It's heaven for advertisers. Their audience isn't DVRing the game, they're watching it live and for once technology is working in favor of the TV industry and its advertisers. The internet and cell phones mean "Watch the game live or have it spoiled". It also provides a way to draw in viewers. Twitter blows up during games. Ditto for FB. That gets people's attention. Even D&D players get told about something historic happening in sports ball and will tune in...

Sports are ingrained in our society and a bond among fathers-sons, friends, family, neighbors, strangers, cities, etc. That sounds dumb to non-sports fans I'm sure, but it's absolutely the truth. This is not an American thing either. Love of sport (and this is important...sports are competition) is a human condition. The NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB aren't only loved here, but overseas as well. Soccer is the world's sport. People race everything under the sun. The Olympics are where humanity sets aside their differences to have friendly competition. And so on.

"I hate sports!" But you probably enjoy competition, so you should be able to relate.

"Sports show off our worst qualities. I'm going to get online and play LoL now."
"Sports are dumb. Oh good, Chopped is on next!"
"Sports are for savages. Honey, come quick The Bachelor is starting!"

And so on...you probably participate or watch some competition, which is essentially sports. Some competitions require physical endurance, some mental, most both.

The point is that there's something ingrained in us all to enjoy competition. Now think about how much a competition would suck to watch if you knew the results.

Now monetize that and Voila! Sports = Money.

Gordon made the point that TV existed without sports previously, but it really didn't. Sports were being televised almost immediately when TV was coming into homes. TV was invented in 1927 and the first sports broadcast was 1939. Prior to that and even today, sports were being aired over the radio.

But TV didn't survive off sports back then, right? Right. Here's why: There was nothing else to do. People used to huddle around their fucking radio to listen to shows, and then got to watch them. This model lasted a loooooong time (in the grand scheme of things), but started to change in the late 80s/early 90s.

Hello VCRs, computers, internet, video games, etc.! TV wasn't the focal point of society anymore.

The top rated non-sports show in 1980-1981 was Dallas with a 34.5 rating. The top rated non-sports show in 2016-2017 was The Big Bang Theory with an 11.5.

Let's just stop for a second and say "Holy Fuck!" That is one hell of a drop off in viewers.

The fact is that we, as a society, just don't consume TV the same way as we used to. We're too busy. We have too many other options. We can catch up on Hulu or binge on Netflix. We can watch episodes we missed On Demand or on the web.

That's why sports are coveted. People "have" to watch them live. They "have" to watch the commercials.

So now you get my position, right? Sports cost the most because they draw the most coveted audience. The money made trickles down throughout the companies involved allowing them to make new shows and spend more on the quality of said shows.

We, the consumers, pay more to Content Providers because of sports, but the money made off sports is what's keeping the Broadcasters going. It's a giant circle. (THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN DEBATING.)

That's all the old and current model of TV.

Now let's monkey wrench it...

Subscriptions are that monkey wrench. Netflix doesn't have advertising because they have subscriptions.

Now this model was always around in the form of HBO, Starz, Showtime, etc. (HBO and Showtime survived for a long time thanks to sports, mainly boxing.) However, they were short sighted. They didn't see the business in commercial free, binge-able reruns that Netflix did. Once Netflix got their foot in the door, they didn't rest, they started making original content.

Hell, I really only use Netflix for that original content anymore. I'm typically logged into YouTube TV watching live sports or Hulu watching more recent TV offerings than Netflix has these days.

Now that's working for Netflix, but for how long? I've heard other people say things like I just did, so what happens if that original content starts slacking? What happens when people start cancelling?

Netflix uses a ratings system as well, but they don't make their numbers public. First day, week, month viewing is very important to them, but again, I have no idea what they're looking for or what is deemed a success or failure.

Hulu, YouTube TV, Philo (an experimental low cost, no sports channels service which should show me if Gordon is paying attention...), DirectTV Now, Sling TV, and some off shore ones that seem very illegal, are all working off of subscription models.

If you really examine it though, it's just the old model re-imagined. It's mainly cutting out the middle man and replacing the content providers.

Seriously, the model is changing, but is it? Isn't what you pay to your current content provider just a subscription? Combine that with the cost of your internet access and there's your content provider bill. Hopefully, minus fees to the middle man.

Anyway, I'm seriously losing focus at this point. I think I've gotten to the core point of why sports costs us more, but makes the companies involved more in profits, and how that leads to more and better non-sports content for us. Right? Hopefully?

I mean, if they cancelled ALL sports forever, the business model would just change to reflect that, but that's never going to happen. Thus, sports will continue to be the driver of this boat so long as it attracts the largest audiences live.

It's why FOX, who is struggling for viewers outside of sports, are currently in talks to steal the WWE from NBC Universal. They want it to replace the low rated UFC (lack of stars is killing that sport).

It's also why Facebook, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Twitter, etc. are looking to enter the bidding war with networks for the rights to sports. They want the live eyes that sports grab. Sports are the "gateway drug".

Three days later and I've forgotten where I was and where I was going. Too much typed to abandon though.

I'll say this:
Sports is a profit maker for Broadcasters, and thus, helps to produce TV shows you want to watch. However, those same sports at the Middle Man level means they are going to raise their rates, and that's where you pay more. Take away the sports and you lose ALL the live viewers advertisers covet. Under the current model, which is where my stance is taken, everything falls apart and nobody has the money to produce new shows (certainly not at their current quality level).

Until Broadcasters can figure out how to get you to watch TV, and really the ads, live again, sports will be the key to profits.
Cakedaddy wrote: Your graph only looks at 5 of the 100's of channels that are watched.
It focused on the networks.

Most channels are statistically insignificant. Without the cable model, they wouldn't exist because they wouldn't be profitable. There are a lot of channels like that who get carried by their sister channels (same parent company). That goes for sport and non-sports channels.

That's why you see channels re-branding all the time like Spike/Paramount/and whatever it was prior to Spike. It's also why you see channels dedicated to something throw that out the window when they realize their business model is failing. The best example of that is The History Channel, unless you think the Ice Road Truckers were an important part of human history. TLC, A&E, AMC, etc. are more examples.

A lot of channels are going to fail if we go to a "pay per channel" model.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

I got an email from Spectrum.... the peeps who provide my internet... about a new thing they have where I can truly choose what channels I want, and pay for only those. I actually clicked on it to see if it was true, but it wanted me to create an account and I didn't feel like doing that at the time.

But it's something I'm going to be looking at, when it comes time to make decisions.

Hey, this is it. It googled fast. 10 channels, $22. That might work for me.

https://www.spectrum.com/choice.html
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

Leisher wrote: "I hate sports!" But you probably enjoy competition, so you should be able to relate.

"Sports show off our worst qualities. I'm going to get online and play LoL now."
"Sports are dumb. Oh good, Chopped is on next!"
"Sports are for savages. Honey, come quick The Bachelor is starting!"
None of those represent my opinion.

I just don't care, and I don't want to pay for a product I don't consume. It's as easy as that.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53729
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

YouTube TV

Post by TheCatt »

GORDON wrote: I got an email from Spectrum.... the peeps who provide my internet... about a new thing they have where I can truly choose what channels I want, and pay for only those. I actually clicked on it to see if it was true, but it wanted me to create an account and I didn't feel like doing that at the time.

But it's something I'm going to be looking at, when it comes time to make decisions.

Hey, this is it. It googled fast. 10 channels, $22. That might work for me.

https://www.spectrum.com/choice.html
The two years of premium channels isn't bad either at $15 for all of them.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

I agree.

I don't see mention of a DVR on there, though.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53729
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

YouTube TV

Post by TheCatt »

GORDON wrote: I agree.

I don't see mention of a DVR on there, though.
Ah, so you'd be subject to whatever they provide On Demand.
It's not me, it's someone else.
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

YouTube TV

Post by Cakedaddy »

Holy geez Liesher. . .

Everything was fine until you said:
"Sports are "right now" content that a majority of viewers want."

I disagree with that statement. Unless you consider all competition shows sports. Including Chopped.

You compare ratings from the 80's to today. I chalk that up to, we only had 5 channels back then. So of course the numbers were higher because they weren't so diluted. I would argue that there are just as many (if not more) viewers today, they just have WWWAAAYYYY more to choose from. Such as, Ice Road Truckers, Chopped, etc. Those channels didn't exist in the 80's.

You've also mentioned the Super Bowl's ratings. So what? That's a one off example. It's just as significant as the last MASH episode. People are tuning in for the history of the event (or the commercials).

I don't care if Sports make the most money, because they cost the consumer the most, because advertisers pay the most, etc the most. I'm not sure how that fits in here. Until you talk about sports profits subsidizing other shows. Which I don't believe. I don't believe that sports subsidize The Big Bang, or Friends, or Community, etc. Those shows have to survive on their own merit. Period. And THAT'S why channels get re-branded. They weren't surviving, so they revamp, or sell and the new buyer revamps them looking for something that sells. SiFi doesn't have sports (does it?) and they survive. They survive by keeping production costs low (shark movies) or create something kick ass (BSG) and get lucky. Or, is there some other channel that does show sports giving them money for some reason?

Agreed. Many channels will fail. Many are riding the coat tails of their sister channels. "If you want AMC and Bravo, you have to pay for TLC and A&E as well". That's not AMC subsidizing TLC. That's the "whoever" forcing us to buy something we don't want, to get what they have that we DO want. Kind of like. . . . . . what kids? SPORTS!!
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53729
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

YouTube TV

Post by TheCatt »

Cakedaddy wrote: Everything was fine until you said:
"Sports are "right now" content that a majority of viewers want."

I disagree with that statement. Unless you consider all competition shows sports. Including Chopped.
Well, you are objectively wrong.
Leave it to an ESPN site to provide these statistics. The fine people at FiveThirtyEight and ESPN research have crunched the numbers and found that 7 percent of all men between the third quarter of 2013 through the third quarter of [2014] didn’t care to watch sports.
...
In fact, that number is the same for women, 7 percent of all females during that same time period didn’t watch sports either.
It's not me, it's someone else.
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

I question that study.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

YouTube TV

Post by Cakedaddy »

Imagine that. ESPN polled their viewers and 93% of them watch sports!

Also, there are those that watch sports, because it's there by default. How many, if given the option, would give up that ability if it saved them money. Also, how many wanted to watch some sports, but not all? I want to watch Michigan football. That's it. I'd pay to see that. And I do. I have upgraded my subscription to make sure I have BigTen. Then I drop it back down after the season is over. But I can't drop all sports. I don't watch any other sports other than stuff because it's there. I watched my first MI basketball game in probably 10 years the other day. But had I not been able to, I wouldn't have minded. I'm paying for it, and someone pointed out they are doing well and also mentioned the game time. So I might as well watch it. But I missed the better game on Saturday because I don't care and don't watch sports.

So, sure, I'm part of the 93% who watch sports, but mainly because, I pay for it anyway. But would rather not.

But I feel it's worth mentioning. . . there are a SHIT ton of channels that I pay for, that I don't want. So this isn't just an anti-sports channel thing. BUT, I do believe that sports are the most expensive channels in the lineup (of channels I pay for and don't want).
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

Here's DirecTV's offering. We should prolly rename the thread at this point.

$35 for 60 channels, all of which on my list of the ones I want.

https://www.directvnow.com/tv-packages

I'm not seeing DVR on here, either.....
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by Leisher »

GORDON wrote: I got an email from Spectrum.... the peeps who provide my internet... about a new thing they have where I can truly choose what channels I want, and pay for only those. I actually clicked on it to see if it was true, but it wanted me to create an account and I didn't feel like doing that at the time.

But it's something I'm going to be looking at, when it comes time to make decisions.

Hey, this is it. It googled fast. 10 channels, $22. That might work for me.

https://www.spectrum.com/choice.html
Ha! I placed something in my wall of text to see if you actually read it. You didn't. I don't blame you. But I do actually talk about this "experiment".
Cakedaddy wrote: I disagree with that statement.
You can, but you'd be wrong. Go back and look at that graph I posted. Notice how NBC and FOX actually lost viewers until you added in sports? The FOX one is more telling because they lost more viewers than any other network, yet actually gained when you added sports.
Cakedaddy wrote: Unless you consider all competition shows sports. Including Chopped.
I do and don't, but I covered that earlier.
Cakedaddy wrote: Until you talk about sports profits subsidizing other shows. Which I don't believe. I don't believe that sports subsidize The Big Bang, or Friends, or Community, etc.
Dude, I already wrote a wall of text explaining it. If you didn't read it, that's on you.
Cakedaddy wrote: SiFi doesn't have sports (does it?) and they survive. Or, is there some other channel that does show sports giving them money for some reason?
Yes, they have had sports in the past. People forget when they ran WWE for years. They're also owned by NBC Universal. Yes, SyFy and USA are NBC stations. And the reason they make shitty movies with shitty effects is because it makes them money ONLY because they do it as cheaply as possible. That's one of my points...the money from sports advertising boosts the budget for other shows.

It's just like how a college football program pays for other sports at the college.
Cakedaddy wrote: there are a SHIT ton of channels that I pay for, that I don't want.
Here's the part that might blow your mind...me too and that INCLUDES a lot of sports channels. I don't need or want the Golf channel and I play golf. I don't need an NHL, NBA, MLS, or MLB channel. The SEC channel can go fuck itself. I don't need FS1 or FS2 or CBS Sports Channel or NBC Sports Channel or ESPN Classic. Hell, I maybe tune into FOX Sports once a year at most. And I'm a big sports fan!

But seriously, you can argue all day that sports don't drive your TV options, but you'd continue to be wrong. There's a reason there are a thousand fucking sports channels and more being added constantly. There's a reason why the narrative is "the NFL ratings are plummeting!" (from record highs...) yet TWO new professional football leagues are starting in the next two years.
GORDON wrote: Here's DirecTV's offering. We should prolly rename the thread at this point.

$35 for 60 channels, all of which on my list of the ones I want.

https://www.directvnow.com/tv-packages

I'm not seeing DVR on here, either.....
Head to FB and look through my posts from a month or two ago. I did two big posts on this stuff where I researched each option and broke them all down.

If you're interested there are some shady ones that "use loopholes", but are probably very illegal that you can find online out of China.They're cheap as hell, but they make you download everything you watch (because you're probably watching torrents...). I wouldn't recommend them though.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

YouTube TV

Post by Cakedaddy »

the money from sports advertising boosts the budget for other shows.

It's just like how a college football program pays for other sports at the college.
No. It's very much not. College football funds other scholastic activities as a part of an over all academic experience. They subsidize other sports that otherwise could not be played. They don't subsidize them so that they generate some sort of profit. A business, will NOT subsidize another part of its business, if it's losing money. UNLESS they think it might be profitable later. NBC isn't going to dump money into SiFi if it's losing money just because they know there are a few people that like shitty shark movies. SiFi and USA aren't NBC's charity cases. If those networks don't make money, they will be shut down/sold/revamped. I will never believe they are just funneling sports money into it because they are nice people. Comparing college sports funding to NBC funding USA and SiFi was a horrible analogy.

Did Fox and NBC go up because they got the rights to games the other lost? Might that explain the down shift of one, and the uptick of another? That graph doesn't show an over all increase of viewership. In fact, you've already said the NFL is losing viewers. I submit those changes are based on contracts being moved around. And if you google "Why is my cable bill getting higher" Pretty much every article says "Because of sports". They are paying BILLIONS to show sports. That money has to come from advertising and viewers. Or rather, people who want to watch other channels, but have to subsidize the HUGE amount they are paying for sports.

You have said that I'm wrong. I think you are. Any googling I do says Sports are driving costs up.

Check this out. It's about the LA Doger's channel:
Proposed distribution fees

In 2014, Time Warner Cable reportedly asked other distributors for an estimated $4.90 monthly fee per household, with carriage fees increasing over the length of the contract.[38][39] In March 2016, TWC attempted to break the stalemate by reducing the fee for the upcoming season by about 30 percent: about $3.50 per household, according to an estimate by the analyst firm SNL Kagan. A follow-up offer extended the period to six years, with fees comparable to DirecTV's own Seattle-based regional sports channel, Root Sports Northwest, estimated at $3.84 per household. Both pre-season offers were rejected before opening day.[26][40][41]

In September 2016, after acquiring TWC, Charter indicated it would price the 2017 season above $4.50. “[The previous] deal is no longer on the table—it didn’t work,” said Charter Chief Executive Thomas Rutledge to the Los Angeles Times. “We would love to sell the channel to others, but no one has bought it—and we are not giving it away. So if consumers want the Dodger channel, they’ll need to subscribe to us to get it.”[42]
Consequences

At the end of the inaugural 2014 season, some observers saw TWC's inability to resell the channel as having industry-wide consequences. Los Angeles Times business reporter Joe Flint called the standoff a potentially "definitive moment for the world of sports programming, as the industry realizes that exorbitantly priced television deals can backfire."[3] Some business consultants to sports franchises reported a drop of interest in forming regional sports networks dedicated to a single team.[43]

In its first two baseball seasons, Time Warner Cable lost more than $100 million a year on SportsNet LA due to the channel's limited distribution. TWC Sports President David B. Rone, who was instrumental in the company's foray into regional sports programming, departed TWC in October 2015.[33]

By June 2017, the SportsNet LA viewership for Dodger games had dropped 49% from 2013, shifting from 154,000 households to 79,000. Television viewership for the Dodgers' regional rivals, the Los Angeles Angels, initially soared to 107,000 households per game in 2014. But that number dropped over the 2015 and 2016 seasons, averaging just 47,000 households in the first few months of the 2017 season, even though the games are broadcast on all major carriers.[44]

In bids to increase viewership, SportsNet LA content has occasionally been broadcast on over-the-air channels carried by all cable and satellite companies in the Los Angeles region. In 2014 and 2016, the Dodgers' final six regular season games were shown on KDOC-TV and KTLA. The latter season included Vin Scully's final games before his retirement.[45][46] In 2017, 10 early-season games aired on KTLA, which, together with SportsNet LA, drew an average 378,000 viewers per game, about five times the size of the usual audience.[44]

For the 2018 season, five early-season games are scheduled for airing on KTLA. Spectrum said that no distribution deal is expected.[47]


That speaks volumes to me. Sports channels, when left to just sports watchers to support, fail.

Here's another:
ESPN makes roughly $8 a month from each of the 88 million cable and satellite subscribers it has in the country. That adds up to over $8 billion a year in revenue. The problem with the math here is that ESPN is losing millions of cable and satellite subscribers a year. This is why I continue to say that cable sports rights fees are a bubble. The Fox, NBC, and CBS payments to the NFL require some semblance of connection to economic reality — the networks have to make their payments connect somewhat to what they can make off advertising. ESPN, meanwhile, is simply handing over your cable subscriber fees to the NFL. The airing of the games themselves on ESPN costs the network nearly two billion a year.

In fact, how much does Monday Night Football and the resulting NFL programming on ESPN cost each of ESPN’s 88 million cable and satellite subscribers a year?[/b]

$19.50!

Think about that for a minute, every single cable and satellite subscriber in the country is paying $19.50 a year, whether they watch or not, for Monday Night Football and ESPN’s NFL content. Given that average viewership for a [b]Monday Night Football game is around 12 million, that means that the vast, vast majority of cable and satellite subscribers in this country are paying nearly $20 a year for content they never watch.
It's very easy to find articles showing that sports channels do not support themselves from actual sports viewers alone.
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by Leisher »

Cakedaddy wrote: A business, will NOT subsidize another part of its business, if it's losing money. UNLESS they think it might be profitable later.
Wow, you are crazy wrong here. First, "thinking" something might be profitable later is gigantically different from something being actually profitable. The X-Box might, and I stress MIGHT, be pulling in some profit now, but for years it didn't make a dime in profit. Many companies intentionally make no profit with the hopes of hurting their competitor or just to be in the market. Going back to MS, they are known for that tactic.

And you do understand that this point of yours contradicts the rest of your argument, right?
Cakedaddy wrote: SiFi and USA aren't NBC's charity cases. If those networks don't make money, they will be shut down/sold/revamped.
It's SyFy. Also, don't be so sure about that. See my note above.
Cakedaddy wrote: Comparing college sports funding to NBC funding USA and SiFi was a horrible analogy.
No, it really wasn't. Basing your argument on a belief that businesses never run on a loss "unless they think they might make a profit" was a horrible idea.
Cakedaddy wrote: And if you google "Why is my cable bill getting higher" Pretty much every article says "Because of sports".
Let me throw your logic back at you. People who don't know shit about sports generally and who certainly could not write the wall of text I wrote to explain the TV industry all think sports are driving up their costs? Shocking!

Also, you completely and utterly have no clue what the hell my position is because you're trying to assign one to me that is incorrect.

I never denied that people are paying more for sports. However, I have said that sports fund everything else. That's where you're lost. I don't know what else to do to get you up to speed. I'm not writing another wall you'll ignore.

Listen, you didn't read my wall of text. I get it. It was long. And if you did, you clearly didn't understand it. My bad. I should have written in one sitting and not over three days of going back and forth to it.
Cakedaddy wrote: That graph doesn't show an over all increase of viewership. In fact, you've already said the NFL is losing viewers.
I mean, dear sweet baby Jesus, you are not reading at all.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

YouTube TV

Post by Cakedaddy »

I quoted two (of many) articles showing sports unable to sustain themselves when only sports fans are supporting them, and where non-sports watchers are subsidizing sports channels. You type an essay on how the television industry works and your beliefs on how the money changes hands. But, apparently, the articles I'm quoting are written by people who aren't as smart as you are and don't know what they are talking about. So, everyone else is dumb and only you know the truth.

I don't care about MS and the Xbox. Show me where sports are subsidizing non-sports shows/channels. Don't just tell me they are.

I don't care if the college sports analogy is a good one or not. Same thing. Don't just tell me I'm wrong, prove sports are subsidizing other things.

I've quoted 2 (and I could have linked a dozen) sources supporting my argument. You just keep telling me to take your word for it because you worked at a TV station once.

I'm not going to argue what a business may or may not be doing with their money. You can say they are doing it all you want. But until you site a source, it's just your opinion. You could argue it's just the writer's opinion in reference to the articles I'm quoting. So show me conflicting opinions. There were NO articles supporting the notion that sports subsidize anything. Or are even self sustaining. Some articles even refer to sports being a bubble.
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by Leisher »

Cakedaddy wrote: I quoted two (of many) articles showing sports unable to sustain themselves when only sports fans are supporting them, and where non-sports watchers are subsidizing sports channels. You type an essay on how the television industry works and your beliefs on how the money changes hands. But, apparently, the articles I'm quoting are written by people who aren't as smart as you are and don't know what they are talking about. So, everyone else is dumb and only you know the truth.
No, no, no, only you're dumb. You're trying to be insulting with that last sentence, yes?

You can find a hundred articles to support you. No shit. Why do you think that is? It's not why you think...

You continue to argue from the perspective of a viewer, and that is NOT what I'm fucking saying. I haven't denied your rates go up because of sports. Let me quote something from my wall that you didn't read and/or understand:
Leisher wrote: Now, did anyone notice I didn't mention cable/satellite companies as a way broadcasters make money? That's because that is not a revenue source for them.
Read that a few times. I'll wait.

Now one of two things just happened. You either said, "Oh!" when you realized how we're talking about two different things or you said, "How does this apply to what we're talking about?"

If it's the second one, please read the wall of text or stop discussing this topic.

But hey, here's some links for you to support what I've been saying:
FOX locks up Thursday Night NFL games for 5 years for $5 billion.

Amazon, Twitter, and YouTube exploring NFL bids.

Fox and NBCUniversal might have a bidding war over WWE.

The money behind the last Super Bowl.

XFL returning.

AAF starting next year.

I could go on with those links all day, but I'm really hopeful you see the point now.

I've been discussing the money up at the broadcasters.
You're discussing the money at the viewer.
These monies are not connected.

If you don't get that statement, please go back up and read what I quoted from my wall again. So when you're making half a billion dollars on the Super Bowl alone, that helps pay for other stuff.

You should now get why posting some words from an unlinked article about an LA Dodgers channel don't apply. The ESPN stuff is also wrong to bring into this because they're just a channel, not a broadcaster. Plus, their issue is they've made insanely bad deals and are now paying for them. (Also, Disney discussing selling ESPN, yet buying FOX Sports should further my point about how the broadcaster vs channel debate are two different debates.)

Now let's go to where we do agree. Is there a "sports bubble"? I think so and it's because of shifting viewer habits (and stupid deals like ESPN did with the NBA and the SEC).

The TV industry doesn't yet understand how to handle the new way folks view content. Mainly, they don't yet understand how to measure and sell it. They certainly don't know how traditional commercials factor into it.

Channels for every team? No thanks. Channels for every conference? No thanks. The only time I watch the Big Ten Network is when they air their 1-2 contractually obligated OSU games. Channels for local sports? No thanks. I only watch that if my kid is on it. Channels for every sport? Again, no thank you. I LOVE the NFL and have the NFL network in my home. Do I watch it? Nope.

That's where there is definitely a bubble, but that bubble exists for all entertainment properties. Every broadcaster is launching their own channels and streaming services. I fear we're eventually going to have to sign up with Disney's streaming service to watch NFL games or something like that. However, before we get there, there's going to be a LOT of "bodies". (Failed channels/streaming services/etc.)

Anyway, can we stop typing walls of text? We actually talk every fucking week. Either jump into chat earlier on Friday or stick around after and I'd be happy to discuss this further.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

So before I whined about not being able to watch TV on my second computer screen.

Then I remembered DirecTV supposedly let's me do that, so I started looking into it.

They advertise it as a feature, but it doesn't work, and apparently ATT/DirecTV doesn't care.

https://forums.att.com/t5/Watching-DIRE ... -p/5228832

I think DirecTV Now isn't going to be on the table, when I make my decision.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by Leisher »

Unless they have made upgrades they also didn't have a DVR feature.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

YouTube TV

Post by GORDON »

Yeah, not looking good for DTV, in my future.

Gonna hate losing my DVR of Jaws. Been on there about four years.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Post Reply