Collapse of Regional Sports Networks (Diamond Sports Group files bankruptcy, Warner-Discovery looking to leave business, Xfinity drops Bally)

[Fenway]

The NHL has always followed the MLB blueprint on blackouts

Where it gets messy is when local cable providers pass on an RSN available to them but DirecTV offers the channel.

The Sinclair RSN in the biggest trouble is Detroit as all 3 teams they carry are not doing well.

MSG and NESN are the oldest RSNs that have had the same ownership for nearly 40 years so there is no debt service involved.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I don't really see why they can't be just as profitable with a digital streaming service.

$10/mo to watch any nationally televised game (entry level for new fans)

$30/mo to watch all of your home teams games, no exceptions. And follow the local teams ancillary content like documentaries, replays, etc

$10/mo to have no ads whatsoever.

Make this an a la carte structure where you can buy what you want.

Finally $100/mo to watch all of the NHL, all teams, all ancillary content, no ads.

$100/mo to watch all of the NHL would be a serious flop. Can't see too many people paying that outside of those who think they are hockey influencers on youtube. I also do not see anyone paying $30/mo to watch 1 team's games. Yes, maybe if these games are all they are paying for it is a possibility. However, you start adding other services and before you know it you are spending a lot more for this ala carte model than just having a cable subscription.

I care about ads. I think it would be cool to have an option to have the digital board ads turned off. Also, isn't the AHL's streaming service like stupidly expensive for what is essentially the same thing I'm talking about?

Yes, which is why I never got it and do not know anyone who did. When I receive the email each year I can't help but thinkthat the only people paying for that are the player's parents.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The NHL has always followed the MLB blueprint on blackouts

Where it gets messy is when local cable providers pass on an RSN available to them but DirecTV offers the channel.

The Sinclair RSN in the biggest trouble is Detroit as all 3 teams they carry are not doing well.

MSG and NESN are the oldest RSNs that have had the same ownership for nearly 40 years so there is no debt service involved.

This is the one that irks me the most. RSN contract ends with a provider and they both decide to play hardball on the negotiation. Providers know most people will not switch from cable to Directv. RSN's know they are pretty much keeping the providers in business. Secondly, companies like Spectrum do have a monopoly (sort of) in this area. Not as if I can switch to Comcast and switching to Fios or Directv is a hassle.

 

[LadyStanley]

From podcast description:

What’s going on with Bally Sports? Jeff and Elliotte discuss the Sinclair Broadcast Group-owned Bally Sports Network (America’s largest owner of local sports channels) as they appear to be going towards an $8.6 billion debt restructuring in bankruptcy court, how this might impact the NHL (12 teams currently broadcast with Bally Sports) and if this could affect the salary cap.

 

[sh724]

Streaming costs could come down alot if they actually sold ads. When you watch a game on tv on Bally all the commercial breaks are sold ads. When you watch on the Bally app you see some ads but its mostly just filler. The same is true of ESPN+. These streaming services need to sell actual ads to increase revenues and keep costs to consumers down.

Look at apps like Pluto. Yes its all older shows and movies but its free and there are built in commercial breaks just like when the show originally aired.

Dont charge me $30 a month just to watch my local team, charge me similar to what the channel costs per month on cable and give me all the same commercials as those watching on tv see.

Its crazy to me that the streaming apps have not been monetized in the same way tv channels have been. Sure you dont have ratings which is what ad rates have historically been based on but with streaming you know exactly how many people are watching. And yes there will be some people watching who dont live in that market but the vasy majority of those watching do live in the local market.

 

[rsteen]

Dont charge me $30 a month just to watch my local team, charge me similar to what the channel costs per month on cable and give me all the same commercials as those watching on tv see.

The problem is, the RSN is charging your cable company $3 a month for their sports channel. It's also charging the cable company of your 9 neighbors who don't watch hockey $3 a month because it's in their cable bundle along with things they do want to watch. So in order for cable to go away, they're going to charge you your costs plus the subsidy of your 9 neighbors.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The problem is, the RSN is charging your cable company $3 a month for their sports channel. It's also charging the cable company of your 9 neighbors who don't watch hockey $3 a month because it's in their cable bundle along with things they do want to watch. So in order for cable to go away, they're going to charge you your costs plus the subsidy of your 9 neighbors.

you're forgetting not all RSN's are Bally Sports

 

[rsteen]

you're forgetting not all RSN's are Bally Sports

It's not just Bally, it's all the RSNs and even all channels. Are you expecting an RSN management to say, "Well, we'll have fewer subscribers on streaming, but we'll keep charging each one the same price as we charged when we were in every cable package in the city"?
Streaming was cheap when not many people were doing it. The more it replaces cable, the more different services you'll end up paying for and the more they'll cost. They'll get you one way or the other.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

It's not just Bally, it's all the RSNs and even all channels. Are you expecting an RSN management to say, "Well, we'll have fewer subscribers on streaming, but we'll keep charging each one the same price as we charged when we were in every cable package in the city"?
Streaming was cheap when not many people were doing it. The more it replaces cable, the more different services you'll end up paying for and the more they'll cost. They'll get you one way or the other.

uh, NESN NOR MSG are involved nor facing BK.....

 

[rsteen]

Dont charge me $30 a month just to watch my local team, charge me similar to what the channel costs per month on cable and give me all the same commercials as those watching on tv see.

uh, NESN NOR MSG are involved nor facing BK.....

NESN's streaming package is $30 a month.

 

[joelef]

The problem is, the RSN is charging your cable company $3 a month for their sports channel. It's also charging the cable company of your 9 neighbors who don't watch hockey $3 a month because it's in their cable bundle along with things they do want to watch. So in order for cable to go away, they're going to charge you your costs plus the subsidy of your 9 neighbors.

Be careful what you wish for

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

NESN's streaming package is $30 a month.

and not everybody subscribes or streams NESN 360..... WHEN it's already in market and region.... never mind NESN + is already offered in Spectrum cable subscription since the demise of After Hours.... B's telecasts IN A 2 HOUR condensed version are replayed immediately after the live postgame ends if not the next day, never mind the classic Bruins telecasts the network runs in addition to Inside the B/Krejci at 1000, etc.....

 

[rsteen]

and not everybody subscribes or streams NESN 360..... WHEN it's already in market and region.... never mind NESN + is already offered in Spectrum cable subscription since the demise of After Hours.... B's telecasts IN A 2 HOUR condensed version are replayed immediately after the live postgame ends if not the next day, never mind the classic Bruins telecasts the network runs in addition to Inside the B/Krejci at 1000, etc.....

I mean, nobody is making anyone pay to watch hockey? You can pay for cable, you can pay for NESN 360 at $30/month, or you can do without hockey. There just isn't a way to watch in-market hockey for $3/month or whatever.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I mean, nobody is making anyone pay to watch hockey? You can pay for cable, you can pay for NESN 360 at $30/month, or you can do without hockey. There just isn't a way to watch in-market hockey for $3/month or whatever.

excuse me:

since when does New England watch NESN 360, when Charter Spectrum and Comcast in MA already offer NESN/NESN + on their system.... all NESN 360 IS is a a streaming option.... Bruins already are on cable and already are a minority stakeholder in NESN AT 20%

 

[rsteen]

excuse me:

since when does New England watch NESN 360, when Charter Spectrum and Comcast in MA already offer NESN/NESN + on their system.... all NESN 360 IS is a a streaming option.... Bruins already are on cable and already are a minority stakeholder in NESN AT 20%

Right....if you have cable. But we were talking about why streaming is $30/month. Let's say in 2012 that 90% of New England households had a cable bundle with NESN in it. Are 90% of cord cutters going to subscribe to NESN 360? No, so they put the price up.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Right....if you have cable. But we were talking about why streaming is $30/month. Let's say in 2012 that 90% of New England households had a cable bundle with NESN in it. Are 90% of cord cutters going to subscribe to NESN 360? No, so they put the price up.

have no streaming options so not interested in NESN 360, that's what we're telling you.... where is there a Bally Sports RSN in New England.... there's not..... it has nothing to do w/ NESN 360..... one is owned by FSG.... the other is Comcast that briefly had been a Fox Sports regional affiliate before morphing into NBC Sports Boston....

 

[rsteen]

have no streaming options so not interested in NESN 360, that's what we're telling you.... where is there a Bally Sports RSN in New England.... there's not..... it has nothing to do w/ NESN 360..... one is owned by FSG.... the other is Comcast that briefly had been a Fox Sports regional affiliate before morphing into NBC Sports Boston....

You're the one who brought up NESN in the first place.

you're forgetting not all RSN's are Bally Sports

uh, NESN NOR MSG are involved nor facing BK.....

If Bally had managed to get their streaming package going, what were you expecting the price to be?

 

[KevFu]

Good reading in this thread.

The TV blackout situation was something that made total sense back before streaming. I shouldn't be able to watch my team's feed when they have a road game in my TV market, because then I'm not a viewer for the local feed, which lowers the price they can sell ads for.

The impasse in making streaming totally blackout-free is totally about ad sales. So the TV rules being applied to streaming made sense for everyone... until the RSNs started their own in-market streaming subscriptions (to offset cord cutters).

The real solution is that streaming is blackout free, available everywhere, but the ads the viewer sees is based on where the viewer is. In market, you see the exact ads that are airing on the RSN. Out of market, you see league-sold ads. However, the RSNs are probably making more from the streaming subs than the ads now because of years of inaction by the leagues.

 

[KevFu]

Streaming costs could come down alot if they actually sold ads. When you watch a game on tv on Bally all the commercial breaks are sold ads. When you watch on the Bally app you see some ads but its mostly just filler. The same is true of ESPN+. These streaming services need to sell actual ads to increase revenues and keep costs to consumers down.

Look at apps like Pluto. Yes its all older shows and movies but its free and there are built in commercial breaks just like when the show originally aired.

Dont charge me $30 a month just to watch my local team, charge me similar to what the channel costs per month on cable and give me all the same commercials as those watching on tv see.

Its crazy to me that the streaming apps have not been monetized in the same way tv channels have been. Sure you dont have ratings which is what ad rates have historically been based on but with streaming you know exactly how many people are watching. And yes there will be some people watching who dont live in that market but the vasy majority of those watching do live in the local market.

100% agree with all of this.

ESPN is going to be a BIG factor in how the NHL goes with a future streaming plan. The reason ESPN came back to the NHL and wanted their TV rights after a decade of ignoring the league is that they were trying to grow ESPN+. The price they paid to the NHL was higher than most expected, but that's because NHLTV was GIVEN to ESPN+

ESPN wanted NHLTV far more than they wanted to air NHL games on ESPN, ESPN2 or ABC, because that boosts their ESPN+ subs significantly (Except for those of us who had both and saved $150 a year!).

Of course, it's staggering to me how ESPN+ hasn't monetized streaming ads. I think it's because the people in power making these decisions for both ESPN, the leagues, and the companies that buy ads... are kinda run by dinosaurs.

One of the most "young" companies that makes an effort to follow the actual trends of young people is Nike, who's one of the most prolific ad buyers on MLBTV. Other than that, it's insurance companies and beer (which are everywhere), and MLB sponsors.

 

[jkrdevil]

Streaming costs could come down alot if they actually sold ads. When you watch a game on tv on Bally all the commercial breaks are sold ads. When you watch on the Bally app you see some ads but its mostly just filler. The same is true of ESPN+. These streaming services need to sell actual ads to increase revenues and keep costs to consumers down.

Look at apps like Pluto. Yes its all older shows and movies but its free and there are built in commercial breaks just like when the show originally aired.

Dont charge me $30 a month just to watch my local team, charge me similar to what the channel costs per month on cable and give me all the same commercials as those watching on tv see.

It’s crazy to me that the streaming apps have not been monetized in the same way tv channels have been. Sure you dont have ratings which is what ad rates have historically been based on but with streaming you know exactly how many people are watching. And yes there will be some people watching who dont live in that market but the vasy majority of those watching do live in the local market.

They don’t have ads because there aren’t enough people watching to advertisers to buy what an ad would cost.

Ad sales are a drop in the bucket in terms of revenues. The money is fees they get from providers. RSN selling subscriptions directly will not be able to make up the difference.

 

[PCSPounder]

100% agree with all of this.

ESPN is going to be a BIG factor in how the NHL goes with a future streaming plan. The reason ESPN came back to the NHL and wanted their TV rights after a decade of ignoring the league is that they were trying to grow ESPN+. The price they paid to the NHL was higher than most expected, but that's because NHLTV was GIVEN to ESPN+

ESPN wanted NHLTV far more than they wanted to air NHL games on ESPN, ESPN2 or ABC, because that boosts their ESPN+ subs significantly (Except for those of us who had both and saved $150 a year!).

Of course, it's staggering to me how ESPN+ hasn't monetized streaming ads. I think it's because the people in power making these decisions for both ESPN, the leagues, and the companies that buy ads... are kinda run by dinosaurs.

One of the most "young" companies that makes an effort to follow the actual trends of young people is Nike, who's one of the most prolific ad buyers on MLBTV. Other than that, it's insurance companies and beer (which are everywhere), and MLB sponsors.

I wonder if the biggest problem with advertising on streaming services is the accurate viewership counts? It’s probably lower than what over-air networks claim (and we’d be right to have suspicions about those numbers).

Think of non-sports streamers. There is significant attraction to no advertising. The disconnect between that way of operating and what leagues want to do is probably a bit daunting for the latter.

Mind you, some people above noting that the networks have taken hold of most of the streamers and, therefore, will bundle in much the way cable did… they’re probably not wrong. And you can count on a backlash to THAT as well. Have fun. I’ll be getting out of the cable biz regardless.

 

[jkrdevil]

Good reading in this thread.

The TV blackout situation was something that made total sense back before streaming. I shouldn't be able to watch my team's feed when they have a road game in my TV market, because then I'm not a viewer for the local feed, which lowers the price they can sell ads for.

The impasse in making streaming totally blackout-free is totally about ad sales. So the TV rules being applied to streaming made sense for everyone... until the RSNs started their own in-market streaming subscriptions (to offset cord cutters).

The real solution is that streaming is blackout free, available everywhere, but the ads the viewer sees is based on where the viewer is. In market, you see the exact ads that are airing on the RSN. Out of market, you see league-sold ads. However, the RSNs are probably making more from the streaming subs than the ads now because of years of inaction by the leagues.

It is not about ad sales. None of this has anything to do with ad sales. It is about the subscriber fees. If in market viewers were able to watch the broadcast (or another broadcast of the same game) another way the cable/video provider would drop the RSN’s in a heart beat to get out of paying the high subscriber fees they carry. A lot of the cable alternative providers that don’t cater to sports fans have already done this. This is why even’t broadcast on ESPN or ESPN2 aren’t available on ESPN+ (without a cable login)

 

[PCSPounder]

It is not about ad sales. None of this has anything to do with ad sales. It is about the subscriber fees. If in market viewers were able to watch the broadcast (or another broadcast of the same game) another way the cable/video provider would drop the RSN’s in a heart beat to get out of paying the high subscriber fees they carry. A lot of the cable alternative providers that don’t cater to sports fans have already done this. This is why even’t broadcast on ESPN or ESPN2 aren’t available on ESPN+ (without a cable login)

But how much will it be about subscriber fees going forward? Without the need for massive infrastructure that cable required, it becomes easier to bypass the main providers and provide streaming without sports to those who want it. Perhaps not “easy,” just easier.

If sports fans are paying for more of the costs themselves instead of that being more socialized, how many won’t continue to pay?

 

[jkrdevil]

But how much will it be about subscriber fees going forward? Without the need for massive infrastructure that cable required, it becomes easier to bypass the main providers and provide streaming without sports to those who want it. Perhaps not “easy,” just easier.

If sports fans are paying for more of the costs themselves instead of that being more socialized, how many won’t continue to pay?

The infrastructure costs to put a broadcast together are still going to be there. You still need all the production costs and associated infrastructure That comes with producing a live broadcast.

It is going to be about subscriber fees for a long while. Ballys is in this mess because they bought the Fox channels with debt with the assumption of what they were getting in fees would remain or even go up. With cord cutting they dropped and can’t pay the debt. However for the non-Bally channels that don’t have that debt it just means less profitability at this point (but still very profitable). The profitability is still a lot more than a direct to consumer world looks like and those networks and teams with the big deals will keep that model until every last drop is out.

And with cable we are probably reaching a level off point. To get all the various platforms out there you are close to exceeding the cost of a cable package. So consumers who want a wide variety will keep cable, where consumers who only want a small entertainment package will pick and choose and cut.

 

[joelef]

The infrastructure costs to put a broadcast together are still going to be there. You still need all the production costs and associated infrastructure That comes with producing a live broadcast.

It is going to be about subscriber fees for a long while. Ballys is in this mess because they bought the Fox channels with debt with the assumption of what they were getting in fees would remain or even go up. With cord cutting they dropped and can’t pay the debt. However for the non-Bally channels that don’t have that debt it just means less profitability at this point (but still very profitable). The profitability is still a lot more than a direct to consumer world looks like and those networks and teams with the big deals will keep that model until every last drop is out.

And with cable we are probably reaching a level off point. To get all the various platforms out there you are close to exceeding the cost of a cable package. So consumers who want a wide variety will keep cable, where consumers who only want a small entertainment package will pick and choose and cut.

Fox had leverage because of properties Sinclair doesn’t have that reach