The impending death of Bally Sports

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

No team would want to go to 100% streaming for their regional broadcasts.

That's getting to be a smaller step all the time though. If your TV does WebOS the difference between running programming from a 'cable' provider vs a stream is nearly non-existent. Well I suppose the catch would be if you are buying your IP and your television from different providers so your television set doesn't have direct access to your IP. But then again, if the set is wireless capable, which most are now.....

Edited March 7, 2023 by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Why not?  Currently they are 100% on cable, but every year more and more people are cutting the cord and are going to streaming.  Pretty soon there will be more people without cable than with cable.  

At the same time in many areas your only internet option comes from the cable company. Despite what TMobile and Verizon tell you about 5G. Especially if you have multiple devices or need reliable service to work from home.

[bobrob2004]

5 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

I suspect MLB's audience is still skewed away from the streaming trend.

Maybe not in the immediate future, but check back in about 10-15 years.  I think streaming will be a viable option for local broadcasts.  

[CMRivdogs]

But I want m MLB

 

NOW

[chasfh]

9 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Why not?  Currently they are 100% on cable, but every year more and more people are cutting the cord and are going to streaming.  Pretty soon there will be more people without cable than with cable.  

Because there is a significant segment of the audience for whom streaming is still not their main source of television, and without those viewers having easy access to the games, the ratings would crater. It's true that every year more and more people are cutting the cord, but they are nowhere near the level of critical mass at which point they can simply ignore cable/satellite. We may get there someday, but that's still some years into the future, at least.

[chasfh]

6 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Maybe not in the immediate future, but check back in about 10-15 years.  I think streaming will be a viable option for local broadcasts.  

Ten to fifteen years, maybe it will happen. It definitely won't happen in 2023, which is the issue at hand for MLB.

[CMRivdogs]

And if you actually take a look at what decent internet cost and combine it what you are paying for the streaming apps you realize you're spending a heck of a lot money. Especially once the introductory offers run out.

[Toddwert]

12 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Maybe not in the immediate future, but check back in about 10-15 years.  I think streaming will be a viable option for local broadcasts.  

I think its going to back to a network model who wants to have 20 streaming services when you can get all them bundled together ?

[bobrob2004]

3 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

And if you actually take a look at what decent internet cost and combine it what you are paying for the streaming apps you realize you're spending a heck of a lot money. Especially once the introductory offers run out.

Most people don't pay for all of them at the same time, but rather rotate them every few months.  There's also password sharing, which reduces the cost.  

[Toddwert]

1 minute ago, bobrob2004 said:

Most people don't pay for all of them at the same time, but rather rotate them every few months.  There's also password sharing, which reduces the cost.  

password sharing is on borrowed time

[CMRivdogs]

Just now, bobrob2004 said:

Most people don't pay for all of them at the same time, but rather rotate them every few months.  There's also password sharing, which reduces the cost.  

True, but they're starting to crack down big time on password sharing.

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, Toddwert said:

I think its going to back to a network model who wants to have 20 streaming services when you can get all them bundled together ?

I tend to think it all converges to a single system, but I tend to think it will be at the other end - every thing IP and on demand. The current edifice was all driven by the needs of over the air broadcast. As over the air goes away, they whole idea of programming on a schedule becomes superfluous. Ironically the only thing left where 'broadcast to a schedule' makes any sense to contnue is sporting events.

[bobrob2004]

Just now, CMRivdogs said:

True, but they're starting to crack down big time on password sharing.

Only Netflix and they've been getting so much harsh criticism that I don't see other streaming services try it any time soon.  And Netflix hasn't even rolled it out in the U.S. Market yet.  

[RedRamage]

3 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

Maybe not in the immediate future, but check back in about 10-15 years.  I think streaming will be a viable option for local broadcasts.  

I was actually think 5-10 years in my head when I was writing my reply.

[RedRamage]

2 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

Only Netflix and they've been getting so much harsh criticism that I don't see other streaming services try it any time soon.  And Netflix hasn't even rolled it out in the U.S. Market yet.  

Remember when everyone was talking about how horrible it was that Apple stopped including a charger with iPhones? Now (mostly) everyone is doing it.  Once Netflix does it in the US and people don't start unsubscribing in droves the rest will follow.

Here's the biggest thing: There will ALWAYS be ways to share/pirate/get around the official method of paying for service. No matter how secure you trying to make anything, there will always be some way around it. The way to reduce this is to make a product that is attractive enough that people really really want it and affordable enough that the hassle of finding the "external" methods of getting it is more of a hassle than just paying for it.

From what I understand Bally failed in both areas.  I didn't use it last year because the price was just way to high for me to justify it (especially with how horrible the team was).  My brother, who's also a huge RedWings fan, used it and hated it because the service was very temperamental and buggy. 

[Shinzaki]

15 years ago when I could bundle my home phone, basic cable and "high speed" internet for $100-150 per month...I had no incentive to stream.  Once the costs associated with the bundle went north of $200, I cut the phone and cable and started streaming.  Streaming costs creep as you add networks...but I find that even as the costs of my internet ($100 soon to go to 125 when I upgrade) along with a Disney bundle, Peacock, Bally sports and Prime video (part of my Prime membership) I'm less likely to bail even as the costs begin to level out because I like the flexibility of streaming.

I may add Netflix...I used to have them when they were a DVD rental service...I would rent movies...rip them and send them back.  Had to be careful about over renting because they would threaten to down throttle your membership

[bobrob2004]

17 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Remember when everyone was talking about how horrible it was that Apple stopped including a charger with iPhones? Now (mostly) everyone is doing it.  Once Netflix does it in the US and people don't start unsubscribing in droves the rest will follow.

Every single streaming service loses money.  The difference between Netflix and everyone else is that everyone else has a parent company that can absorb those losses.  Netflix is all on it's own.  Therefore, they need to try things like stop password sharing in order to try to maximize profits.  The other streaming services already knew they were going to lose money before they started, so it's not worth it to restrict passwords because of the PR nightmare.  

You'll see more bundles like Showtime with Paramount Plus and HBO Max with Discovery Plus.  Hulu will likely get absorbed into Disney Plus once the Comcast contract is expired.  It's like a diversified portfolio, when you can bundle there's less risk involved and better for everyone involved.  

[Toddwert]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2023/03/06/netflix-password-sharing-ending-when-why/11411367002/

seems like "bad PR" isnt stopping Netflix

[RedRamage]

1 hour ago, bobrob2004 said:

Every single streaming service loses money.  The difference between Netflix and everyone else is that everyone else has a parent company that can absorb those losses.  Netflix is all on it's own.  Therefore, they need to try things like stop password sharing in order to try to maximize profits.  The other streaming services already knew they were going to lose money before they started, so it's not worth it to restrict passwords because of the PR nightmare.  

You'll see more bundles like Showtime with Paramount Plus and HBO Max with Discovery Plus.  Hulu will likely get absorbed into Disney Plus once the Comcast contract is expired.  It's like a diversified portfolio, when you can bundle there's less risk involved and better for everyone involved.  

Okay, first... if every single streaming service loses money... why are there streaming services? That makes no sense that they would keeping making more and more services if everyone of them loses money... I mean I can see that a service will lose money initially but I can't understand why a service would start up with the idea that they will always lose money.  What's the point?

Second, if company A start doing X and it saves them money and consumers eventually just accept it, then company B is gonna start doing X too.  I don't believe for a moment that every other service is watching netflex very closely to see what happens.  If it bombs, they'll avoid it.  If it doesn't, some of them will adopt it as well.  Others might purposely NOT adopt it specifically to stand out.

[bobrob2004]

16 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

Okay, first... if every single streaming service loses money... why are there streaming services? That makes no sense that they would keeping making more and more services if everyone of them loses money... I mean I can see that a service will lose money initially but I can't understand why a service would start up with the idea that they will always lose money.  What's the point?

Because why let a company like Netflix stream your IP when you can do it yourself?  Start with a low rate and hope that you are one of the last ones standing and then jack up the price once they have you hooked.  https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/streaming-trouble-hbo-max-netflix.htm

 

Quote

 

And guess what? Streaming is not a profitable business. It is a hard business for almost every single company. If you look at Disney, they’ve got $1.1 billion in operating income loss. If you look at Warner Bros. Discovery, they’ve got I believe $3 billion in operating income loss. They’re spending heavily on streaming, but streaming is not a profitable business for them. It’s not going to be profitable for another two, three years.

Wall Street went from not caring about that because they understood that you have to invest in content, you have to invest in product to get to that point, to all of a sudden saying, “Ooh, we should maybe care about that revenue. That caused a huge shift in how these companies performed on the public stock market.

 

 

 

Most streaming services, including Netflix, now offer an ad tier.  The advertising revenue helps.

HBO Max is selling off it's original content to make more money.  Netflix, not only with the password restrictions, now offers an ad tier, something that was unfathomable a few years ago.  Peacock is ending it's partnership with Comcast later on this year.  Everyone is scrambling to try to increase their revenue.  

It's just a personal belief, but I don't think most streaming services will try to restrict password sharing.  The cons far out-weight the pros.  

 

 

[oblong]

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I tend to think it all converges to a single system, but I tend to think it will be at the other end - every thing IP and on demand. The current edifice was all driven by the needs of over the air broadcast. As over the air goes away, they whole idea of programming on a schedule becomes superfluous. Ironically the only thing left where 'broadcast to a schedule' makes any sense to contnue is sporting events.

Notice how commercials will now say things like “airing on CBS and paramount plus”.  

[RedRamage]

Nothing really new here, but there's a bit more details on how some stuff might maybe shake out: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/mlb-broadcasting-2023-bally-sports-bankruptcy/vk3nf9igd7ph49m9tfckj0o5

[Motor City Sonics]

You know how we have talked about the sports bubble bursting?    Well, maybe not in one big explosion, but a lot of little leaks.   It's too top-heavy to sustain itself if you measure it in any way that has existed before.    Same thing is happening to college sports, except for the Big Ten and SEC, but that will get too big to manage too.   It's happening in entertainment, it is starting to happen in music.   It has all gotten way too expensive, way too fast and when you have to start weighing whether you can afford to see your favorite team or favorite band instead of just saying here's a few bucks without thinking about it, you run into problems.    Baseball's curse is that there are so many games that, unless your team is in a pennant race, there's nothing all that special about going to a game.  How many actual good teams, I mean really serious contendars are there.....7?  8?   The rest of the league is nothing special and other than the buzz of starting the season, once you get to May and you know your team is not that good, it's easy to turn away.   

Football doesn't have this problem since its once a week, on a weekend usually and there are only 8 or 9 games, plus, when you break down the parity in football.........20-24 teams have a real shot of making the playoffs into December.   

[RedRamage]

17 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Football doesn't have this problem since its once a week, on a weekend usually and there are only 8 or 9 games, plus, when you break down the parity in football.........20-24 teams have a real shot of making the playoffs into December.   

A lot of good points here, and I think that might part of the reason that baseball keeps trying to expand the playoffs.  And it's also why Uniform ads are coming as well (I honestly didn't know about this until stumbling upon it just this morning.  The DBacks, RedSox, Reds, Astros, Angels, and Padres will be sporting uniform ads).

One advantage baseball has is the number of games.  As you mentioned there's some disadvantage to it, but there's also advantages to it.  Even if attendance is only, say, 1/5 of for an NFL game, they still have more than 9 times more games.  If you're selling streaming service, you can realistically charge more because it's spread over more games.  If you charge $162 annually, for example, a consumer can mentally justify that as only $1 per game (even if he or she only ends up watching 90 or so games).

I think it would be really interesting to see what the total net profit from each game is when comparing the NFL And MLB.  I know that getting that number would be pretty much impossible to do, but it would be really interesting.

[RedRamage]

17 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said:

It has all gotten way too expensive, way too fast and when you have to start weighing whether you can afford to see your favorite team or favorite band instead of just saying here's a few bucks without thinking about it, you run into problems. 

After posting previous I forgot I wanted to touch on this too. I'm starting to wonder what percentage ticket sales are even factoring into revenue.  I don't live in Detroit so it's hard to say how much I would or wouldn't make an effort to go to the games if I did, but honestly...

I could pay for a ticket, pay for some over priced food, have to deal with the risk of bad weather (rain, heat, cold, etc), pay for parking probably, stand in a bunch of lines for concessions or bathrooms. 

or

I could sit in my comfy chair at home, watch on a big screen TV, get better views than sitting in the stands, have cheap, easy to get good and drinks, my own bathroom, instant reply. No money out of my pocket (unless you count cable or streaming costs).

And now, from the team's perspective: How much of that ticket money ends up in their hands? How much of it is used up for overhead to pay for upkeep of the stadium and the employees needed to run the event?