Is the Live Sports Rights Bubble Finally Bursting?

[NUinID]

Will MTV ever go back to actually playing music/videos?

No. YouTube today is what MTV was in the 80s and 90s, in more ways than just this one.

Dammit. I had one shot to be on Remote Control, and I blew it.

Oh man...great game!Who was the host? Ken something? Kevin something?

Ken Ober ("the quizmaster of 72 whooping cough lane"), marisol/kari("KAR-i!!"), pre-snl Colin Quinn, and occasionally pre-snl Adam Sandler as the bishop in "beat the bishop"

Ok that is way too much detail to remember about a show that went off the air 25 years ago and was only on MTV for like 2 years. I remember watching that show a lot in college. It was a stupidly funny show. I remember Collin Quinn sat and smoked during the whole show. You wouldn't see that happen now.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Question:

with a standalone BTN plus account, is there an easy way to stream the games to a TV? (yes I realize that the only content available is non-football, and non-televised games, those bastards)

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Will MTV ever go back to actually playing music/videos?

No. YouTube today is what MTV was in the 80s and 90s, in more ways than just this one.

Dammit. I had one shot to be on Remote Control, and I blew it.

Oh man...great game!Who was the host? Ken something? Kevin something?

Ken Ober ("the quizmaster of 72 whooping cough lane"), marisol/kari("KAR-i!!"), pre-snl Colin Quinn, and occasionally pre-snl Adam Sandler as the bishop in "beat the bishop"

Ok that is way too much detail to remember about a show that went off the air 25 years ago and was only on MTV for like 2 years. I remember watching that show a lot in college. It was a stupidly funny show. I remember Collin Quinn sat and smoked during the whole show. You wouldn't see that happen now.

But what a great 2 years it was...

My favorite episode was when Ken was so disgusted with the incompetent performance of all three contestants, he blew them all away and when they came back from commercial break, it was 3 completely new contestants. LOL.

I did actually audition for them (along with 100+ other wannabes) when they came to UNL recruiting contestants. After I didn't make the cut, I started losing interest in the show. Yes, I was bitter.

 

[Saunders]

Question:

with a standalone BTN plus account, is there an easy way to stream the games to a TV? (yes I realize that the only content available is non-football, and non-televised games, those bastards)

You should be able to do it with an app via Roku, Fire TV, or Apple TV.

 

[Red Five]

A la carte might not be as good of a deal as it seems on the surface, especially for sports fans.

Stand alone ESPN seeking to produce the same revenue would cost at least $30 a month, or twice what HBO costs and three times what Netflix costs a month. Some sports fans would still consider ESPN to be a bargain at that price, but keep in mind you'd also have to pay for ESPN2 and ESPNU and the SEC Network and FS1 and NBC Sports Network and whatever additional regional cable channels carry your favorite local team's games. The net result would be most sports fans would pay over $100 a month just for sports channels. If you're a dad, like I am, you'd have to pay additionally for kid's channels. Your wife probably watches different channels than you do too, add on those costs too. Pretty soon you're paying more for less. That's why a la carte isn't a great deal for sports fans. In fact, it's a worse deal.

And how many sports fans can afford those kind of monthly costs for standalone ESPN and additional sports programming? As if that wasn't enough, keep in mind that fewer ESPN subscribers means less viewers, which means less advertising dollars as well. Now, the likely result for the entertainment channels would probably be scaled back offerings. More reruns, less risky original programming. Is AMC going to green light a show about a chemist who becomes a drug lord? Maybe, maybe not. With less risk taking, there's a lower chance of hit shows like "Breaking Bad" ever being made. Does a show I love, like "The Americans," make sense for FX without over 90 million people who aren't watching helping to defray the cost of original programming? Maybe, maybe not. But that's all for original programming, cutbacks, while painful for those of us who love this era of television, are relatively easy there.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

The premise is that this is what these services HAVE TO cost, and that's not the case. That's what ESPN wants people to pay, but they're not going to get that if people can't/won't pay that much.

ESPN is full of bloat and crap, most of which is unnecessary. Too many personalities that require branding and high salaries, too much money spent on production and huge sets. They want to charge so much because they don't want to tighten their belt, and because they want to keep spending money like water and passing the bill off to us.

I have no sympathy for these guys. They'll learn, as soon as TV goes a la carte, that their business model will have to change or they'll die. It's business Darwinism, and I'm fine with that.

I mostly agree with what you are saying.

But if people think that a la carte means that they will get ESPN for $6/month as they currently do, then they are seriously mistaken.

 

[knapplc]

But if people think that a la carte means that they will get ESPN for $6/month as they currently do, then they are seriously mistaken.

This is definitely true. It will cost much more, at least until viable, cheaper competitors come along.

 

[RedDenver]

A la carte might not be as good of a deal as it seems on the surface, especially for sports fans.

Stand alone ESPN seeking to produce the same revenue would cost at least $30 a month, or twice what HBO costs and three times what Netflix costs a month. Some sports fans would still consider ESPN to be a bargain at that price, but keep in mind you'd also have to pay for ESPN2 and ESPNU and the SEC Network and FS1 and NBC Sports Network and whatever additional regional cable channels carry your favorite local team's games. The net result would be most sports fans would pay over $100 a month just for sports channels. If you're a dad, like I am, you'd have to pay additionally for kid's channels. Your wife probably watches different channels than you do too, add on those costs too. Pretty soon you're paying more for less. That's why a la carte isn't a great deal for sports fans. In fact, it's a worse deal.

And how many sports fans can afford those kind of monthly costs for standalone ESPN and additional sports programming? As if that wasn't enough, keep in mind that fewer ESPN subscribers means less viewers, which means less advertising dollars as well. Now, the likely result for the entertainment channels would probably be scaled back offerings. More reruns, less risky original programming. Is AMC going to green light a show about a chemist who becomes a drug lord? Maybe, maybe not. With less risk taking, there's a lower chance of hit shows like "Breaking Bad" ever being made. Does a show I love, like "The Americans," make sense for FX without over 90 million people who aren't watching helping to defray the cost of original programming? Maybe, maybe not. But that's all for original programming, cutbacks, while painful for those of us who love this era of television, are relatively easy there.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

The premise is that this is what these services HAVE TO cost, and that's not the case. That's what ESPN wants people to pay, but they're not going to get that if people can't/won't pay that much.

ESPN is full of bloat and crap, most of which is unnecessary. Too many personalities that require branding and high salaries, too much money spent on production and huge sets. They want to charge so much because they don't want to tighten their belt, and because they want to keep spending money like water and passing the bill off to us.

I have no sympathy for these guys. They'll learn, as soon as TV goes a la carte, that their business model will have to change or they'll die. It's business Darwinism, and I'm fine with that.

Yes and no. Remember when the Huskers' games against less popular teams were on pay-per-view? Those sold for $20-30 a pop, and people were willing to pay. I can imagine a future where you can subscribe to all of ESPN's content for $50/month, just the main ESPN channel for $30/month, or pay-per-view $20/game to see your team (insert your own made-up prices). A lot of sports fans are going to pay.

 

[knapplc]

Yes and no. Remember when the Huskers' games against less popular teams were on pay-per-view? Those sold for $20-30 a pop, and people were willing to pay. I can imagine a future where you can subscribe to all of ESPN's content for $50/month, just the main ESPN channel for $30/month, or pay-per-view $20/game to see your team (insert your own made-up prices). A lot of sports fans are going to pay.

I'm not saying they won't pay, I'm saying they're not going to pay the equivalent of current cable bills simply for sports. There's a tipping point, and many people (myself included) have reached it. I will not subscribe to ESPN if they're charging anywhere near $20/month. $10/month, maybe.

 

[VectorVictor]

BTW, here's an article back from 2013 that discusses how the talk around the Sports Media Rights bubble bursting then was a load of hogwash:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/07/22/Media/Sports-Media.aspx

For as long as I’ve covered the media business, people have been sounding an alarm about a sports rights bubble. Every five years or so, it gets louder. I don’t get the sense that there’s any more validity to it today than there was 20 years ago...

...It was loud in 1998, when distributors signed contracts that allowed ESPN to increase its affiliate fee by 20 percent a year. Such increases would surely price cable and satellite services too high for consumers. They didn’t.

There was outcry around 2002, when the New York Yankees launched YES Network. Distributors would be priced out of the market if every team decided to launch its own network. That didn’t happen, either.

The bubble talk got louder again around 2007, when the Big Ten Network launched. What if every conference — what if every school? — launched its own network? How could distributors afford that? In ensuing years, distributors figured out ways to post record profits.

Sports rights...sports rights bubble talk never changes.

 

[wanderful]

Will MTV ever go back to actually playing music/videos?

Actually, yes, but not in the way we remember music videos being played in the 80s:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/mtv-wants-to-bring-the-music-back-to-music-television-20160421

Good to see they're getting back to their roots, slowly. And MTV News and Unplugged would be good for the channel to invest in again.

---

As for the topic of the thread, the only bubble that burst is that of the author's own premise for the article. Yes, there's a downturn, but the top teams, conferences, and sports will still get top dollar--the only difference is that the industry is being more discretionary about their spending, both in the length of contracts *AND* what they pay for.

Frankly, the B1G's deal for $250m/year/six years for HALF of the ESPN inventory currently shows that there is no bubble, per se. Just ESPN overestimating their ROI on named talent and some of their questionable acquisitions (e.g. Longwhorn Network) and paying the price for it. Hell, if the rate holds up for the other half of ESPN's B1G Tier 1 inventory, the B1G will make in six years that the SEC will garner in 15 (~$3b/15year deal from 2013). That's a hell of a disparity in our favor compared to the SEC schools, and everyone else in college football for that matter.

And thanks to the FCC wisely choosing to regulate ISPs as utility providers, we're going to see traditional television providers (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, Frontier) be marginalized in favor of multiple ISP-delivered television subscription choices, like DirecTV's offering, Sling TV, or Sony's Vue. All of those TV-over-IP subscription offerings have competitive rates and as close to a la carte programming as we can get currently.

I'll bet you $50 that in a year, the executive spearheading this is fired and they abandon this idea.

 

[wanderful]

A la carte might not be as good of a deal as it seems on the surface, especially for sports fans.

Stand alone ESPN seeking to produce the same revenue would cost at least $30 a month, or twice what HBO costs and three times what Netflix costs a month. Some sports fans would still consider ESPN to be a bargain at that price, but keep in mind you'd also have to pay for ESPN2 and ESPNU and the SEC Network and FS1 and NBC Sports Network and whatever additional regional cable channels carry your favorite local team's games. The net result would be most sports fans would pay over $100 a month just for sports channels. If you're a dad, like I am, you'd have to pay additionally for kid's channels. Your wife probably watches different channels than you do too, add on those costs too. Pretty soon you're paying more for less. That's why a la carte isn't a great deal for sports fans. In fact, it's a worse deal.

And how many sports fans can afford those kind of monthly costs for standalone ESPN and additional sports programming? As if that wasn't enough, keep in mind that fewer ESPN subscribers means less viewers, which means less advertising dollars as well. Now, the likely result for the entertainment channels would probably be scaled back offerings. More reruns, less risky original programming. Is AMC going to green light a show about a chemist who becomes a drug lord? Maybe, maybe not. With less risk taking, there's a lower chance of hit shows like "Breaking Bad" ever being made. Does a show I love, like "The Americans," make sense for FX without over 90 million people who aren't watching helping to defray the cost of original programming? Maybe, maybe not. But that's all for original programming, cutbacks, while painful for those of us who love this era of television, are relatively easy there.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

The premise is that this is what these services HAVE TO cost, and that's not the case. That's what ESPN wants people to pay, but they're not going to get that if people can't/won't pay that much.

ESPN is full of bloat and crap, most of which is unnecessary. Too many personalities that require branding and high salaries, too much money spent on production and huge sets. They want to charge so much because they don't want to tighten their belt, and because they want to keep spending money like water and passing the bill off to us.

I have no sympathy for these guys. They'll learn, as soon as TV goes a la carte, that their business model will have to change or they'll die. It's business Darwinism, and I'm fine with that.

I mostly agree with what you are saying.

But if people think that a la carte means that they will get ESPN for $6/month as they currently do, then they are seriously mistaken.

I agree with this. ESPN will be the most expensive of these a la carte streaming apps, but it won't be exorbitant. My guess is somewhere in the $18-$22 a month range.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Haven't been back for awhile, but the first time my live internet streaming froze up and blacked out during a game was the last time I tried it.

ESPN will have to adjust to the internet streaming world where everyone expects things cheap if not free.

But I guarantee you, the NFL and the Power 5 Conferences will absolutely sh#t bricks if asked to lower their licensing fees.

At which point I'd expect them to try and own the entire distribution system.

 

[VectorVictor]

Will MTV ever go back to actually playing music/videos?

Actually, yes, but not in the way we remember music videos being played in the 80s:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/mtv-wants-to-bring-the-music-back-to-music-television-20160421

Good to see they're getting back to their roots, slowly. And MTV News and Unplugged would be good for the channel to invest in again.

---

As for the topic of the thread, the only bubble that burst is that of the author's own premise for the article. Yes, there's a downturn, but the top teams, conferences, and sports will still get top dollar--the only difference is that the industry is being more discretionary about their spending, both in the length of contracts *AND* what they pay for.

Frankly, the B1G's deal for $250m/year/six years for HALF of the ESPN inventory currently shows that there is no bubble, per se. Just ESPN overestimating their ROI on named talent and some of their questionable acquisitions (e.g. Longwhorn Network) and paying the price for it. Hell, if the rate holds up for the other half of ESPN's B1G Tier 1 inventory, the B1G will make in six years that the SEC will garner in 15 (~$3b/15year deal from 2013). That's a hell of a disparity in our favor compared to the SEC schools, and everyone else in college football for that matter.

And thanks to the FCC wisely choosing to regulate ISPs as utility providers, we're going to see traditional television providers (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, Frontier) be marginalized in favor of multiple ISP-delivered television subscription choices, like DirecTV's offering, Sling TV, or Sony's Vue. All of those TV-over-IP subscription offerings have competitive rates and as close to a la carte programming as we can get currently.

I'll bet you $50 that in a year, the executive spearheading this is fired and they abandon this idea.

If you're talking about the MTV formatting change...they already did fire someone IIRC for the currently low ratings.

So I'd wager two years, unless things tank in a hurry (which they probably won't if they're bringing back music).

 

[wanderful]

Will MTV ever go back to actually playing music/videos?

Actually, yes, but not in the way we remember music videos being played in the 80s:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/mtv-wants-to-bring-the-music-back-to-music-television-20160421

Good to see they're getting back to their roots, slowly. And MTV News and Unplugged would be good for the channel to invest in again.

---

As for the topic of the thread, the only bubble that burst is that of the author's own premise for the article. Yes, there's a downturn, but the top teams, conferences, and sports will still get top dollar--the only difference is that the industry is being more discretionary about their spending, both in the length of contracts *AND* what they pay for.

Frankly, the B1G's deal for $250m/year/six years for HALF of the ESPN inventory currently shows that there is no bubble, per se. Just ESPN overestimating their ROI on named talent and some of their questionable acquisitions (e.g. Longwhorn Network) and paying the price for it. Hell, if the rate holds up for the other half of ESPN's B1G Tier 1 inventory, the B1G will make in six years that the SEC will garner in 15 (~$3b/15year deal from 2013). That's a hell of a disparity in our favor compared to the SEC schools, and everyone else in college football for that matter.

And thanks to the FCC wisely choosing to regulate ISPs as utility providers, we're going to see traditional television providers (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, Frontier) be marginalized in favor of multiple ISP-delivered television subscription choices, like DirecTV's offering, Sling TV, or Sony's Vue. All of those TV-over-IP subscription offerings have competitive rates and as close to a la carte programming as we can get currently.

I'll bet you $50 that in a year, the executive spearheading this is fired and they abandon this idea.

If you're talking about the MTV formatting change...they already did fire someone IIRC for the currently low ratings.

So I'd wager two years, unless things tank in a hurry (which they probably won't if they're bringing back music).

Definitely. TV and film execs get fired like crazy -- the average life span of an exec in that position is something like 18 months. Then they get fired and jump to a similar position at a different company. The TV/Film industry is insane.

I don't think adding more music programming is going to make a difference for MTV. The people who remember that MTV used to schedule music programming are now in their 30s (i.e. not MTVs target demographic). The age group MTV is going after have no association with MTV and music programming, other than the VMAs. They associate MTV with trashy reality tv. Plus the demographic they're going after barely watch traditional TV and tend to get their music video fix from YouTube, Facebook Videos, Snapchat, etc.

Anyway, I'll refrain from any further MTV discussion, as this is a football forum

 

[wanderful]

Haven't been back for awhile, but the first time my live internet streaming froze up and blacked out during a game was the last time I tried it.

ESPN will have to adjust to the internet streaming world where everyone expects things cheap if not free.

But I guarantee you, the NFL and the Power 5 Conferences will absolutely sh#t bricks if asked to lower their licensing fees.

At which point I'd expect them to try and own the entire distribution system.

You know what, this is super-interesting point I hadn't thought of before. I think you're probably right, though depending on how they structure it, they might run up against anti-trust lawsuits similar to the ones the movie studios ran into in the late 40's that caused them to break up their monopoly on distribution, etc. (Or it might not, I don't claim to know anything about the legal side of the industry. Here's the Supreme Court decision I'm talking about, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc. )