Sinclair(Bally's Sport) nearing a deal for NBA streaming rights for direct to consumer offering

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
I guess goes to the idea of how profitable is it to even have a streaming service that doesn't have commercials? Is it possible to do? Will people actually pay the monthly price that it really would take to do that?
 

mnsportsgeek

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
13,218
Reaction score
1,525
Points
113
I guess goes to the idea of how profitable is it to even have a streaming service that doesn't have commercials? Is it possible to do? Will people actually pay the monthly price that it really would take to do that?
Outside of the streaming giants, I would guess most are struggling to be profitable. There’s a reason YTTV raises their prices every 6 months. They might finally be making money at $65/month but the margins are probably slim.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
15,362
Reaction score
7,940
Points
113
FWIW - Disney+ is joining other streaming services in adjusting its rates. they are rolling out a new lower rate that will include Ads, while the no-ads version is moving to a higher rate. that way, they get revenue from ads, and theoretically add more subscribers who are willing to watch ads if it means they save a few bucks a month.

same thing with the Hulu streaming service (not Hulu Live) - which already has two prices based on whether you want ads or not.

the Disney+ bundle, which includes Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu, is still a pretty good deal in my book.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
69,558
Reaction score
24,936
Points
113
Just some interesting overall stuff, didn't think this deserved its own thread. This is from The Athletic on the Disney (ESPN) dispute with Dish (satellite and Sling TV).


Dish Network and its streaming service, Sling TV, pulled all Walt Disney channels early this morning, which include the ESPN array of outlets, the latest carriage dispute to affect sports fans.

Dish and Sling have more than 10 million combined subscribers who will not have access now to college football games and “Monday Night Football” on ESPN, among other programming, at the very least over the next few days. What makes this particular dustup between a content provider and distributor noteworthy is it may be the first time the trend of moving material off of cable and onto a streaming service, like ESPN + and Disney +, has been cited as one of the reasons.

“A recent quote from their CEO (Bob Chapek) sums it all up,” Brian Neylon, Group President of Dish, said in a recorded message on the satellite service’s website. “Their linear networks such as ESPN, ABC and Freeform are ‘huge cash generators for Disney’ — but Disney+, their streaming service, is not. Look, we know many people subscribe to and enjoy Disney+. We just don’t think it’s fair that Disney is asking us and you to pay significantly higher rates in order to help subsidize their unprofitable streaming service.”

Disney reported over $1 billion in losses from streaming services ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu in its most recent quarter.

On its website, Dish maintained that Disney’s proposals would add nearly $1 billion extra in costs, and force customers who buy packages on Dish without sports to buy into sports.

“We don’t think this is fair and that is why we are fighting hard for a fair rate to ensure you get the best possible value from Dish,” the website statement said.

Disney Media and Entertainment said in a statement, “After months of negotiating in good faith, Dish has declined to reach a fair, market-based agreement with us for continued distribution of our networks…The rates and terms we are seeking reflect the marketplace and have been the foundation for numerous successful deals with pay TV providers of all types and sizes across the country.”
Dish Network can whine and cry, but they now don't have the Twins, Wild, Wolves or any ESPN networks. They also frequently don't have one or more of the broadcast networks because they get into a pissing match with them every year or two. Anyone with any interest in sports would a fool to subscribe to them.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,455
Reaction score
963
Points
113
Dish Network can whine and cry, but they now don't have the Twins, Wild, Wolves or any ESPN networks. They also frequently don't have one or more of the broadcast networks because they get into a pissing match with them every year or two. Anyone with any interest in sports would a fool to subscribe to them.

Sorry to say this because you were on a roll, but Disney and Dish settled last night.

 


Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,455
Reaction score
963
Points
113
It's not the cable companies, Dish, DirecTV etc. It's the content providers. It's always the content providers. Now that AT&T sold their share of DirectV, they won't be able to skate through either.

"Disney and the Dish Network have reached a “handshake agreement” for a new distributions deal, ending a two-day blackout of Disney-owned networks on both Dish and Sling TV platforms (obvious channels like ESPN and Disney Channel were affected, but so were eight local ABC affiliates in various cities, all of which are now available again). This comes from Variety, which says that terms of the deal were not disclosed, but that Disney initially wanted to jack up licensing fees by $1 billion, to force Dish to offer ESPN and ESPN2 on channel packages that don’t include sports, and to force Dish to give subscribers in those aforementioned various cities their local ABC channels—basically, Disney wanted to get more money, to put more of its channels in front of Dish subscribers, and for the Disney company to bleed just a tiny bit. .

We won’t say it owns too many, because we wouldn’t dream of editorializing in a news story at The A.V. Club (not counting the one or two times we’ve done it in the past), but here’s the list of channels that were blacked out on Dish and Sling: ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews (ESPN ooze?), ESPN Deportes, Disney Channel, Disney Jr, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo Mundo, ACC Network, SEC Network, Longhorn Network, Baby TV, and the ABC affiliates in Chicago, Fresno, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Raleigh, and San Francisco.

Losing the ESPN family of networks is bad, losing the FX family of networks is also bad, but losing all of them because one mouse controls a massive chunk of the entertainment industry like those marching brooms he once brought to life is… something, certainly. A hypothetical person might even hypothetically argue that it’s bad! We just think it’s whatever. Who cares.
"

 
Last edited:

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
6,981
Reaction score
3,499
Points
113
Maybe if this country updated and enforced anti-trust laws companies wouldn't be able to dominate so many of our markets.

More industry players provides higher wages for workers, more choice for consumers, lower prices for consumers, and less shock to the system when a business fails or services/goods aren't provided for whatever reason.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
It's not the cable companies, Dish, DirecTV etc. It's the content providers. It's always the content providers. Now that AT&T sold their share of DirectV, they won't be able to skate through either.

"Disney and the Dish Network have reached a “handshake agreement” for a new distributions deal, ending a two-day blackout of Disney-owned networks on both Dish and Sling TV platforms (obvious channels like ESPN and Disney Channel were affected, but so were eight local ABC affiliates in various cities, all of which are now available again). This comes from Variety, which says that terms of the deal were not disclosed, but that Disney initially wanted to jack up licensing fees by $1 billion, to force Dish to offer ESPN and ESPN2 on channel packages that don’t include sports, and to force Dish to give subscribers in those aforementioned various cities their local ABC channels—basically, Disney wanted to get more money, to put more of its channels in front of Dish subscribers, and for the Disney company to bleed just a tiny bit. .

We won’t say it owns too many, because we wouldn’t dream of editorializing in a news story at The A.V. Club (not counting the one or two times we’ve done it in the past), but here’s the list of channels that were blacked out on Dish and Sling: ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews (ESPN ooze?), ESPN Deportes, Disney Channel, Disney Jr, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo Mundo, ACC Network, SEC Network, Longhorn Network, Baby TV, and the ABC affiliates in Chicago, Fresno, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Raleigh, and San Francisco.

Losing the ESPN family of networks is bad, losing the FX family of networks is also bad, but losing all of them because one mouse controls a massive chunk of the entertainment industry like those marching brooms he once brought to life is… something, certainly. A hypothetical person might even hypothetically argue that it’s bad! We just think it’s whatever. Who cares.
"

I mean yeah ... if you've lost all that, what is the point of paying $65/month for a channel package?

It's the consumer who pays the jacked up costs, not Dish. But at the end of the day, if enough people say "F it, I'll just get Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max and call it a day on watching TV ..." that kills Live TV altogether and kills ESPN (et al) getting out to people.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
Literally the only thing keeping Live TV "alive" is sports. So long as they won't let you get the main/most popular sports content without having to subscribe to a channel package, that keeps the golden goose aloft.
 



forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,455
Reaction score
1,858
Points
113
Literally the only thing keeping Live TV "alive" is sports. So long as they won't let you get the main/most popular sports content without having to subscribe to a channel package, that keeps the golden goose aloft.
Like many, I'm sure, this is the only reason I have live TV. I get Hulu Live for the college football and basketball/hockey seasons. Then I cancel it. I've done the math, and it's about the same price as Comcast (when factoring I get a bundling discount by being forced to have Comcast internet as the only viable option in my area). However, that's with a yearly contract. But I don't want live TV year round, as I watch very little (if any) live TV in the spring and summer. So the streaming thing is great for me, as I don't want it 12 months a year. But if I couldn't get sports, I wouldn't have a need for any live TV. If they had a streaming option that literally had only sports and was at a lower cost, I'd be all over it. I'm sorry, but if you're spending your time watching "The Housewives of Atlanta" or "My 600 Pound Life" live, you need more hobbies.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
Like many, I'm sure, this is the only reason I have live TV. I get Hulu Live for the college football and basketball/hockey seasons. Then I cancel it. I've done the math, and it's about the same price as Comcast (when factoring I get a bundling discount by being forced to have Comcast internet as the only viable option in my area). However, that's with a yearly contract. But I don't want live TV year round, as I watch very little (if any) live TV in the spring and summer. So the streaming thing is great for me, as I don't want it 12 months a year. But if I couldn't get sports, I wouldn't have a need for any live TV. If they had a streaming option that literally had only sports and was at a lower cost, I'd be all over it. I'm sorry, but if you're spending your time watching "The Housewives of Atlanta" or "My 600 Pound Life" live, you need more hobbies.
Right. Why would you want to watch those on Live TV anyway?? You can watch that stuff without commercials, whole seasons at a time, on services like Hulu and Netflix.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,455
Reaction score
963
Points
113
I mean yeah ... if you've lost all that, what is the point of paying $65/month for a channel package?

It's the consumer who pays the jacked up costs, not Dish. But at the end of the day, if enough people say "F it, I'll just get Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Max and call it a day on watching TV ..." that kills Live TV altogether and kills ESPN (et al) getting out to people.

True. Though as for the bolded part? Dish, has tried to keep price increases down by saying no to the content providers, but all you need to do is look at the questions and responses on the board to see that it's done them zero good.

There has been zero complaints about Disney wanted that $1+billion increase and special channels for ESPN(more money). The only complaints have been either "Why won't Dish give me my channels" or "Why is Dish involved in all of these!"

Never "How can Disney ask for all that money!"

Though it is a sports board. The subscribers who don't give a damn about sport are out there and have been praising Dish for trying to hold the line on prices. Many of them want sports dumped altogether.

Give cable and satellite companies the ala carte ability they've been screaming for for years now and let's see what happens then.
 

Gophers_4life

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
10,951
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
Cable and sat have never been legally restricted from doing ala carte, as far as I'm aware.

"Skinny bundles" were the jam a few years ago.



Content providers won't let them do it. It's like 4 or 5 major media companies that own most of the channels, and to have the few good ones they force you to take them all.
 



Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,455
Reaction score
963
Points
113
Cable and sat have never been legally restricted from doing ala carte, as far as I'm aware.

"Skinny bundles" were the jam a few years ago.

Content providers won't let them do it. It's like 4 or 5 major media companies that own most of the channels, and to have the few good ones they force you to take them all.

You're absolutely right about the content providers. They're all about bundling.

Though Dish and even DirecTV have been asking for an ala carte system for years. Congress even introduced a bill to force it in '15 or '18. It failed. Not sure about the status now.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,455
Reaction score
963
Points
113
"I wanted access to the Wolves and Wild. Those leagues are in-season, so focusing on them makes sense. But there's still the looming question: Will baseball fans enjoy similar coverage? When the app launched, only five MLB markets were included — and ours isn't one of them.

The season is months away, so there's time for a resolution. But April will be here before we know it, so I asked Twins President Dave St. Peter recently where we stand. (You can hear our full conversation covering multiple topics on Tuesday's Daily Delivery podcast).

"There isn't an issue that we're dealing with that's more important than that issue," St. Peter said. "It's complicated — more complicated than it probably needs to be. ... Here in Minnesota we're in an active conversation with Diamond Sports, which the parent company of Bally Sports North, we're in an active conversation with Major League Baseball, and it's certainly my hope that we're going to have as widespread accessibility to our games starting in 2023 as is possible. But it remains to be seen what form that's going to take."


 




Top Bottom