Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Pac 12 network / direct tv (PACN now on fuboTV streaming)

Pac 12 continues to cling to its ‘all or nothing’ strategy, insisting that every one of our customers foot the bill for the network when only a fraction of them have expressed any interest in the network at all. The fact is, we want fans of the Pac 12 to see every game on DIRECTV, which is why we’ve asked the conference to let us offer the network to those who want to pay for it. Where pricey sports networks are concerned, we believe our customers should have the opportunity to choose and get the best value for their money. We can reach an agreement quickly if Pac 12 is willing to give customers that choice at a reasonable price."
Click to expand...

The New SEC Network is now available on DIRECTV

The SEC Network is on channel 611 and available to customers who have CHOICE and above programming. To check on what programming package you have to log-in to your online account.
Click to expand...

DTV execs are what one of my old cousins (by marriage) would call 2-faced chicken****s, since they offer the SEC Network to subscribers of packages, not as a one-off channel. Their argument holds no water anyway, because in any package there are people paying for something they don't watch.

But most people on here seem to want selective programming for everything but the Pac-12 network. I understand the homerism, but it's misplaced. I quit cable tv 3 years ago. While I miss some of it, I'm really happy with the decision because I wasn't spending enough time to justify the cost. If I could pay for only what I watch, and it was reasonably priced, I'd probably get some kind of programming again instead of just waiting for those 2% of the games I want to watch coming up on broadcast tv, along with the rare stream or visit to a sports bar. With ESPN now covering some NFL games, I'm watching even less, e.g. no MNF, and I don't miss it much.
 
Jon Wertheim wrote a 12/22/14 piece in SI on linear TV sports programming and the economics of a la carte.

Estimated amount cable providers pay networks each month per subscriber:
Espn $6.04
TNT $1.48
NFL network $ 1.22
Disney channel $1.21
Fox News $0.99
ESPN2 $0.74
TBS $0.72
FS1 $0.68

Beyond showing the programming dominance held by ESPN's flagship, the article outlined the problem of a la carte on Root Sports Rocky Mountain and regional sports networks, of which P12N may apply.

"Regional sports networks...charge between $2 and $3 a month. Ratings suggest that only a very small percentage of viewers would pay that voluntarily. Take Denver, a market of 1.57 million cable households. During Rockies games, Root Sports Rocky Mountain draws 37,000 viewers...Consider that the Rockies are Root Sports Rocky Mountain's biggest ticket item, even if they draw only 2.3% of potential viewers during games; that there is very little other live programming to fill the thousands of hours when the Rockies are idle; and that, in an unbundled world, fans will have the option to start their subscriptions before baseball season, then cancel them right after. Is such an enterprise viable? Do the back of the envelope math, and the Denver RSN would have to charge more than $1,000 per subscriber annually to offset the drop in reach.
 
I'd pay ala carte. But what would they have to charge? $10? $20? I don't think enough subscribers would pay it to make it viable. Add to that the fact that I don't have to pay tht for the SEC and Big 10, and I have to view the villain as DirecTV. What would make sense to me would be to have, say, a "college" package for $12 or $15 a month with all the conference and university networks included.
 
Skidmark said:
Jon Wertheim wrote a 12/22/14 piece in SI on linear TV sports programming and the economics of a la carte.

Estimated amount cable providers pay networks each month per subscriber:
Espn $6.04
TNT $1.48
NFL network $ 1.22
Disney channel $1.21
Fox News $0.99
ESPN2 $0.74
TBS $0.72
FS1 $0.68

Beyond showing the programming dominance held by ESPN's flagship, the article outlined the problem of a la carte on Root Sports Rocky Mountain and regional sports networks, of which P12N may apply.

"Regional sports networks...charge between $2 and $3 a month. Ratings suggest that only a very small percentage of viewers would pay that voluntarily. Take Denver, a market of 1.57 million cable households. During Rockies games, Root Sports Rocky Mountain draws 37,000 viewers...Consider that the Rockies are Root Sports Rocky Mountain's biggest ticket item, even if they draw only 2.3% of potential viewers during games; that there is very little other live programming to fill the thousands of hours when the Rockies are idle; and that, in an unbundled world, fans will have the option to start their subscriptions before baseball season, then cancel them right after. Is such an enterprise viable? Do the back of the envelope math, and the Denver RSN would have to charge more than $1,000 per subscriber annually to offset the drop in reach.
Click to expand...

Yes. Here's the thing. If Root struggles to have programming that's remotely of interest for most of the day even in-season and more than half the year it's a black hole... does it really need to be a "network"? Wouldn't the new a la carte model also allow networks like Root to become PPV for single games and season packages? They'd save a fortune on costs, so the issue of "$1,000 per viewer" wouldn't be accurate. The math has to adjust from both sides. The whole market paradigm shift toward a consumer preference of a la carte is that we don't want a bunch of filler & crap we aren't interested in. That's not just an issue of what networks we're interested in. It's on another level of what programming from within a network we are interested in.
 
Buffnik said:
Yes. Here's the thing. If Root struggles to have programming that's remotely of interest for most of the day even in-season and more than half the year it's a black hole... does it really need to be a "network"? Wouldn't the new a la carte model also allow networks like Root to become PPV for single games and season packages? They'd save a fortune on costs, so the issue of "$1,000 per viewer" wouldn't be accurate. The math has to adjust from both sides. The whole market paradigm shift toward a consumer preference of a la carte is ythat we don't want a bunch of filler & crap we aren't interested in. That's not just an issue of what networks we're interested in. It's on another level of what programming from within a network we are interested in.
Click to expand...
You have to pay for overhead. How could they do that only showing Rockies and minor sports events on pay per view?
 
That filler crap costs us nothing. As sports watchers, we come out way ahead. And that current model is what allows root sports to pay what they do to the rockies.

From phone
 
DBT said:
I'd pay ala carte. But what would they have to charge? $10? $20? I don't think enough subscribers would pay it to make it viable. Add to that the fact that I don't have to pay tht for the SEC and Big 10, and I have to view the villain as DirecTV. What would make sense to me would be to have, say, a "college" package for $12 or $15 a month with all the conference and university networks included.
Click to expand...

Your colorado Rockies viewing habits are being subsidized by non viewers. It's safe to assume you are one of the 37,000 viewers of the Rox.

Using the SI model math, the prorated annual amount of your cable bill for the Rox is between $24 and $36 per year. The per game amount is pennies on the dollar over the course of the season, and that's because 97% of non-viewers are paying your freight. (And you are subsidizing telemundo, QVC, Logo, MSNBC and your other no-watch stations.)

For only the 37,000 viewers to buy Rockies a la carte, you'd be on the hook for $80-$90 per month! That's 6x higher than your willingness to spend.
For your college bundle to work at the price you are willing to pay, the subscription rate at $15 mo or $180 per year requires a take rate of nearly 20% of households to be in the same boat as yourself.

Getting 20% of Alabama to watch SEC is a lot more realistic than getting 20% of Colorado subscribers to share your values and spending tolerance for the Buffs and the rest of the P12.
 
Skidmark said:
Jon Wertheim wrote a 12/22/14 piece in SI on linear TV sports programming and the economics of a la carte.

Estimated amount cable providers pay networks each month per subscriber:
Espn $6.04
TNT $1.48
NFL network $ 1.22
Disney channel $1.21
Fox News $0.99
ESPN2 $0.74
TBS $0.72
FS1 $0.68

Beyond showing the programming dominance held by ESPN's flagship, the article outlined the problem of a la carte on Root Sports Rocky Mountain and regional sports networks, of which P12N may apply.

"Regional sports networks...charge between $2 and $3 a month. Ratings suggest that only a very small percentage of viewers would pay that voluntarily. Take Denver, a market of 1.57 million cable households. During Rockies games, Root Sports Rocky Mountain draws 37,000 viewers...Consider that the Rockies are Root Sports Rocky Mountain's biggest ticket item, even if they draw only 2.3% of potential viewers during games; that there is very little other live programming to fill the thousands of hours when the Rockies are idle; and that, in an unbundled world, fans will have the option to start their subscriptions before baseball season, then cancel them right after. Is such an enterprise viable? Do the back of the envelope math, and the Denver RSN would have to charge more than $1,000 per subscriber annually to offset the drop in reach.
Click to expand...

And Root would cease to exist. Replaced, perhaps, by the Rockies streaming games directly. Or local TV producing and carrying games to fill in their own schedules.
 
Buffnik said:
Yes. Here's the thing. If Root struggles to have programming that's remotely of interest for most of the day even in-season and more than half the year it's a black hole... does it really need to be a "network"? Wouldn't the new a la carte model also allow networks like Root to become PPV for single games and season packages? They'd save a fortune on costs, so the issue of "$1,000 per viewer" wouldn't be accurate. The math has to adjust from both sides. The whole market paradigm shift toward a consumer preference of a la carte is that we don't want a bunch of filler & crap we aren't interested in. That's not just an issue of what networks we're interested in. It's on another level of what programming from within a network we are interested in.
Click to expand...

Root and other regional sports networks exist exactly because of niche demand for live sports programming not picked up by ESPN and other national feeds. The programming director scrambles to maximize programming that appeals to their target demographic. Getting a fly fishing series and behind the scenes spring training expo pieces will draw eyeballs, but just not as many as a Rockies game when the blake street bombers are in the hunt for a playoff. Root could bid to broadcast Pac12 content, but that pretty much goes against Larry Scott's strategy to maximize control and per school revenue to P12 member schools.

Larry Scott is on the hook to deliver $20M or more per school every year. At DBT's sweet spot of $15 per month, 7% of Denver subscribers (110K) need to be on board. Anything short of those numbers means school president's can expect less revenue.

The pay-per-view model for MMA and Boxing gives a pretty good idea of where a per game cost to broadcast would fall. If you only want to watch a single game, be prepared for a $60-$90 fee for the privilege.
 
DBT said:
You have to pay for overhead. How could they do that only showing Rockies and minor sports events on pay per view?
Click to expand...

They'd no longer be "Root".

I envision an entire re-imagining of the entire medium.

Similar to how cable changed things from 3 networks, 1 PBS station, 1 or 2 locals networks and maybe a few things on UHF.

It's not about "networks", it's about "content". The consumer is going to be in charge, just as we're in charge of the Internet.

And keeping this on a very basic level regarding the economics: the pie of what we consumers are willing to pay does not reduce so the market size remains the same. What changes is that overheads and the number of mouths being fed must reduce. Much of that happens if I pay Pac-12 directly (or ESPN or whomever) or, from a programming standpoint, pay the Rockies or Avs directly instead of paying a cable or satellite company that then pays a network that must have programming no one watches to fill 24/7/365.

This is much like what has happened with making travel arrangements. The cable & satellite companies are going the way of travel agencies.
 
That's fine. But there is no way the PAC, Dodgers, Lakers, Rockies, or any team is going to sniff the revenue they currently get from cable channels. Direct to consumers or not.

From phone
 
Skidmark said:
Your colorado Rockies viewing habits are being subsidized by non viewers. It's safe to assume you are one of the 37,000 viewers of the Rox.

Using the SI model math, the prorated annual amount of your cable bill for the Rox is between $24 and $36 per year. The per game amount is pennies on the dollar over the course of the season, and that's because 97% of non-viewers are paying your freight. (And you are subsidizing telemundo, QVC, Logo, MSNBC and your other no-watch stations.)

For only the 37,000 viewers to buy Rockies a la carte, you'd be on the hook for $80-$90 per month! That's 6x higher than your willingness to spend.
For your college bundle to work at the price you are willing to pay, the subscription rate at $15 mo or $180 per year requires a take rate of nearly 20% of households to be in the same boat as yourself.

Getting 20% of Alabama to watch SEC is a lot more realistic than getting 20% of Colorado subscribers to share your values and spending tolerance for the Buffs and the rest of the P12.
Click to expand...
I find the "37,000" number really hard to believe, BTW.
 
SD Buff said:
That's fine. But there is no way the PAC, Dodgers, Lakers, Rockies, or any team is going to sniff the revenue they currently get from cable channels. Direct to consumers or not.

From phone
Click to expand...

buffaholic said:
Why not SD? No middle man. Same # viewers. Efficient market.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's like saying that Proactiv will never make as much money as Clearasil because it's not available among the great selection of items in Wal-Mart bricks & mortar stores. Well, Proactiv makes a ton more money and does it at a much better margin. Cable and Satellite companies are nothing more than media content retailers. Once consumers start paying content producers directly we'll pay somewhere between current wholesale & retail prices while the content producers will get more than their current wholesale (but less than current retail).

A la carte does not work through the existing cable & satellite companies. It won't work through them. But it works very well when you cut the cable & satellite companies' profits out of the equation.
 
buffaholic said:
Why not SD? No middle man. Same # viewers. Efficient market.
Click to expand...
Same number of subscribers? I thought we were talking about going one off a la carte vs. being in every single cable home

idk Whay the rockies get from root, but the Dodgers get 150 million a year from time Warner. The PAC is their own network already. They make much more money with the current system than they would direct to consumer.

From phone
 
Last edited:
SD Buff said:
That's fine. But there is no way the PAC, Dodgers, Lakers, Rockies, or any team is going to sniff the revenue they currently get from cable channels. Direct to consumers or not.

From phone
Click to expand...

The advent of GoPros, Google Glass, and LTE wireless upload speeds provides another pressure on the current model.

The cost for an individual (or coordinated group of individuals) to broadcast a live event is less of a technology issue with each passing year. It's a legal/intellectual property issue.

I see a day when a a half dozen fans can walk into their stadium wearing Google glasses and a good data plan and then broadcast a sporting event to a web server, completely bypassing the network's transmission equipment. Some guy in his mom's basement could pick which camera feed to broadcast the best view of the play, and even attempt replays, from various angles. It's Wayne's World meets espn, with wannabes having a heyday practicing their broadcasting and announcing craft on youth leagues, and non-revenue sports that don't ordinarily have network coverage. Grandma and Grandpa can watch little timmy's little leage baseball game from mom's network enabled go-pro on a tripod.

Then pirate operations can hack big ticket sports by broadcasting and uploading from any seat or concourse. The Allbuffs chat room could be more of a hoot if a dozen posters turn their text into live feed commentary based on a video feed coming from InTheBuff's section 118 seats.
 
If you go to an ala carte model you reduce overall viewership and revenues. In the current model I pay for some channels I don,t watch much (if at all) and others pay to watch those and for my channels that they don,t watch much if at all.

The added cost of distributing the programming to the wider audience is virtually nothing. What it does do is provide a perception of value, an idea that the customer is getting more for their money, even if they use the extra programming very little.

Our package includes a channel that shows old cowboy movies. I don't watch it and neither does my wife but but before he passed away my FIL liked it so o my wife paying for the extra tier was worth it.

By distributing the cost of programming over a wider base of people paying for programming is more pallatable for more people resulting in higher overall subscription bases.
 
If the ESPN $6 and change number is correct and I assume it is, I can buy a lot of the exact programming I want to watch for the $228 I now pay plus the $240 a year for Sunday Ticket. Nik is right this whole thing is about to get turned on its ear, with MLB and the NHL already selling their packages via the net, no cable or sat required its closer then we think.
 
EddieCrowder said:
If the ESPN $6 and change number is correct and I assume it is, I can buy a lot of the exact programming I want to watch for the $228 I now pay plus the $240 a year for Sunday Ticket. Nik is right this whole thing is about to get turned on its ear, with MLB and the NHL already selling their packages via the net, no cable or sat required its closer then we think.
Click to expand...

The problem is that that $6 fee for ESPN is based on the fact that virtually everybody is paying for it, even those who don't watch it. Take away those who don't watch it and it becomes, just for argument $9. At the same time right now you are paying $1.50 a month for one of those "men are evil, let's watch women celebrities" channels that we never watch. To us that is a useless channel but drop the subsidy and the individual subscription rate becomes $5 a month. Great, except that for many male viewers they aren't getting their ESPN and 4 or 5 other primary channels unless the wife gets her 4 or 5 preferred channels as well.

Add up the cost of these and suddenly you are very close to what is paid now for the full channel range but you don't get that full channel range. Even if you don't watch those other channels much there is perceived value in them. Every once in a while we watch something on some of them, that goes away.

To the consumer they see that they are now paying fairly close to the same amount of money and getting way less choice, even if it is choice not used much. The response from many is to simply say that they are going to cut all of it. As you do that the available revenues go down and you either lose the channels that can't make it or increase the individual price per channel even more or both.
 
EddieCrowder said:
If the ESPN $6 and change number is correct and I assume it is, I can buy a lot of the exact programming I want to watch for the $228 I now pay plus the $240 a year for Sunday Ticket. Nik is right this whole thing is about to get turned on its ear, with MLB and the NHL already selling their packages via the net, no cable or sat required its closer then we think.
Click to expand...

The tipping point is which way will these sports leagues make more money? With a TV contract from a network? Or going it on their own?

The MLB and NHL for a variety of reasons are not premier sports so I can understand why they are exploring these options. Their contracts for TV revenue are probably falling.

The sports that do get a lot of money, the football leagues, might be hard pressed to get as much money going direct as they would with ESPN et al. BUT, there are people cutting cord. Lots of people that dont watch sports but were paying that $6 to ESPN. If that trend continues and it becomes a problem for ESPN et al then it will become a problem for the leagues.

In the end you could end up paying more for less. $20 for ESPN, $15 for pac 12 net, $20 for CNN/Turner, $20 for NBC networks. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
tante said:
skid has never tried using a cell phone in a stadium before.
Click to expand...

And he works in the business.

The problem I have is when I take my "broadcasting" google glass into the mens room. Or when I stare at my wife's friends hot ass & tities. Thats some quality right there. :lol:
 
tante said:
skid has never tried using a cell phone in a stadium before.
Click to expand...

:sigh: yet another area in which some stadiums are more equal than others.

I was able to stream the TCU game on my galaxy while sitting in Amon Carter stadium while watching TCU play. Came in handy on replays.
 
Skidmark said:
:sigh: yet another area in which some stadiums are more equal than others.

I was able to stream the TCU game on my galaxy while sitting in Amon Carter stadium while watching TCU play. Came in handy on replays.
Click to expand...

Well sure it is easier with only 50 fans in the stadium. I bet there is great reception in fort fun with nobody fighting for service.
 
Our in-game app is pretty much worthless. No audio stream, no connectivity in the stadium. Great idea, very poor delivery.
 
tante said:
Well sure it is easier with only 50 fans in the stadium. I bet there is great reception in fort fun with nobody fighting for service.
Click to expand...

TCU. Not CSU. It's more like 25,000 gray hairs who would be challenged to use flip phone and 2000 students. Way too much purple attire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top