John Forslund named Seattle Kraken TV voice

[gstommylee]

Man. It may sound selfish but I give more of a crap about how many local fans get to follow the team than the fans in Alaska. Call me selfish or whatever but the truth is that if it came to pick one fanbase I would always pick the one that gives local viewers the best options.

No offense but the situation like you suggest is how we get the tv issue with the sounders. They went with a OTA TV network that is so obscure that only Seattle region has for a while regional games were replay only on FSN but at some point the sounders just ended that so for years until just recently no one outside of Seattle market couldn't even watch the sounders. Sure there was joetv on youtube for a while but that was short lived. Also not a lot of people even watch JoeTV since again its so obscure. I could argue more people watch the sounders on amazon prime then they do joetv. That team really screwed that up big time.

We can complain about the mariners and AT&T and the Kraken going with Root sports all we like but the hockey team isn't like the sounders as it relates to TV household coverage (and i am only specifically noting TV not streaming).

If sounders didn't go with Prime video for streaming there would be no way anyone would be able to stream sounder games with the exception of comcast. (comcast provides their on tv streaming service for tv/internet subscribers (requires both internet and tv).

We could be a whole worse situation to where no one outside of Seattle market can watch Seattle NHL games.

Again I am all for an solution that everyone ass access within the region but that solution i want (separate TV and streaming deals) is just not going to happen for a long long time.

 

[doublejman]

It's far more important to have as close as 100% tv coverage in Seattle and Washington than anything else. From a PR standpoint its good to have Alaska and the one county in Montana but those people aren't buying up season tickets, they aren't buying cars from the Seattle dealership hat they see on TV. Every 50 miles you get away from Seattle you're becoming much less valuable to them, Its much more important to have 5,000 streamers in the Seattle market watching vs having 5000 watching on cable in Alaska.

The league and the Kraken make the TV territories not the networks, that's why the team isn't going to carried on the whole Root/Mariners footprint, basically most of Idaho and Montana is out. The cost per sub for any RSN decreases significantly the farther away the teams play, its more likely cable systems in Alaska would pickup any RSN that is carrying the Kraken because cost isn't much of a factor compared to places much closer to Seattle.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

It's far more important to have as close as 100% tv coverage in Seattle and Washington than anything else. From a PR standpoint its good to have Alaska and the one county in Montana but those people aren't buying up season tickets, they aren't buying cars from the Seattle dealership hat they see on TV. Every 50 miles you get away from Seattle you're becoming much less valuable to them, Its much more important to have 5,000 streamers in the Seattle market watching vs having 5000 watching on cable in Alaska.

The league and the Kraken make the TV territories not the networks, that's why the team isn't going to carried on the whole Root/Mariners footprint, basically most of Idaho and Montana is out. The cost per sub for any RSN decreases significantly the farther away the teams play, its more likely cable systems in Alaska would pickup any RSN that is carrying the Kraken because cost isn't much of a factor compared to places much closer to Seattle.

That is exactly how I feel. I live on Whidbey Island and Seattle is within a 50 mile drive. However, there is a ferry in the middle so makes it about 1-1.5 hours because of traffic. That is the main reason I am NOT a season ticket holder. Its nothing to do with the $$ but more to do with the uncomfortable commute. I still do plan on going to a few games a year. Maybe get a 5-10 game pack. But why would I want to spend money on a team who is not making it easy for me to follow them and watch the games. I have already spent close to $500 bucks on Kraken merchandise. I have been a Sharks fan for over 10 years and never felt the need to do that because they were not local.

Like I have said a few times, if push comes to shove, I will go to ATT TV NOW to watch the games. But I totally agree with you that putting local fans above covering areas in Montana and/or Alaska should be what should be the priority.

 

[gstommylee]

It's far more important to have as close as 100% tv coverage in Seattle and Washington than anything else. From a PR standpoint its good to have Alaska and the one county in Montana but those people aren't buying up season tickets, they aren't buying cars from the Seattle dealership hat they see on TV. Every 50 miles you get away from Seattle you're becoming much less valuable to them, Its much more important to have 5,000 streamers in the Seattle market watching vs having 5000 watching on cable in Alaska.

The league and the Kraken make the TV territories not the networks, that's why the team isn't going to carried on the whole Root/Mariners footprint, basically most of Idaho and Montana is out. The cost per sub for any RSN decreases significantly the farther away the teams play, its more likely cable systems in Alaska would pickup any RSN that is carrying the Kraken because cost isn't much of a factor compared to places much closer to Seattle.

But to get better streaming coverage you basically have to cut off those that don't get tv from a cable tv provider. NBCSNW is again ONLY on tv packages provided by a cable TV provider not satellite tv or directtv service. I just find it disrespect that streamers (no offense) should be give higher priority those that are limited to what kind of tv service do not. This is not how you maximize your coverage.

Would you prefer seattle hockey do like what the sounders did where NO ONE outside of seattle can watch it on tv with OUT paying even more money just to watch soccer instead?

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

But to get better streaming coverage you basically have to cut off those that don't get tv from a cable tv provider. NBCSNW is again ONLY on tv packages provided by a cable TV provider not satellite tv or directtv service. I just find it disrespect that streamers (no offense) should be give higher priority those that are limited to what kind of tv service do not. This is not how you maximize your coverage.

Would you prefer seattle hockey do like what the sounders did where NO ONE outside of seattle can watch it on tv with OUT paying even more money just to watch soccer instead?

You keep talking about maximizing coverage in relation to covering markets out of state. I can guarantee you that there are going to be more fans locally than the out of state areas in Alaska/Montana, etc. that Root covers. What is happening right now is taking Kraken coverage away from more local fans than it would be providing to out of state fans.

 

[gstommylee]

That is exactly how I feel. I live on Whidbey Island and Seattle is within a 50 mile drive. However, there is a ferry in the middle so makes it about 1-1.5 hours because of traffic. That is the main reason I am NOT a season ticket holder. Its nothing to do with the $$ but more to do with the uncomfortable commute. I still do plan on going to a few games a year. Maybe get a 5-10 game pack. But why would I want to spend money on a team who is not making it easy for me to follow them and watch the games. I have already spent close to $500 bucks on Kraken merchandise. I have been a Sharks fan for over 10 years and never felt the need to do that because they were not local.

Like I have said a few times, if push comes to shove, I will go to ATT TV NOW to watch the games. But I totally agree with you that putting local fans above covering areas in Montana and/or Alaska should be what should be the priority.

So you want sounders solution where the tv deal is a network where only Seattle market gets it and everyone else outside of Seattle tv market has to pay even more just to watch games... 120 year for amazon prime + what ever they already paying on top for tv service they get, either streaming or via cable tv/dritectv/satellite. And what if that household doesn't want amazon prime then no games at all for that household. That's exactly how the sounders are doing it.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

So you want sounders solution where the tv deal is a network where only Seattle market gets it and everyone else outside of Seattle tv market has to pay even more just to watch games... 120 year for amazon prime + what ever they already paying on top for tv service they get, either streaming or via cable tv/dritectv/satellite. And what if that household doesn't want amazon prime then no games at all for that household. That's exactly how the sounders are doing it.

Dude 120 a year for amazon prime? We are talking about paying 80+ bucks a month so that local fans can watch the games. I have paid 10 years in a row for NHL center Ice (which is around 175 bucks a year) because I follow an out-of-state team in San Jose Sharks. I have also paid $300 plus bucks a year when I had DirecTV to follow the Packers. That is the cost of being an out of state fan, we can argue all about whether it is fair or not but the bulk of the money that the franchise will make will be from local fans. But now I am being told that I have to pay 80 bucks more a month for the simple reason of following a local team. LOL.

It is not ideal but if it comes between forcing out of state fans to pay more vs local fans, the smart business decision would be to give the local fan better option(s).

I would love to see how the Seahawks fan would react if they were put in a similar position. Watch the games on a specific network or GTFO? Guarantee you that it would not go over well.

 

[gstommylee]

Dude 120 a year for amazon prime? We are talking about paying 80+ bucks a month so that local fans can watch the games. I have paid 10 years in a row for NHL center Ice (which is around 175 bucks a year) because I follow an out-of-state team in San Jose Sharks. I have also paid $300 plus bucks a year when I had DirecTV to follow the Packers. That is the cost of being an out of state fan, we can argue all about whether it is fair or not but the bulk of the money that the franchise will make will be from local fans. But now I am being told that I have to pay 80 bucks more a month for the simple reason of following a local team. LOL.

It is not ideal but if it comes between forcing out of state fans to pay more vs local fans, the smart business decision would be to give the local fan better option(s).

I would love to see how the Seahawks fan would react if they were put in a similar position. Watch the games on a specific network or GTFO? Guarantee you that it would not go over well.

Btw NFL doesn't work like that. NFL is the only league that does OTA networks cause they only do 1 game a week. The other 3 leagues does not do OTAs.

Until those 3 leagues and the team's RSN gets the whole picture the TV deals will remain exactly as they are.

I am bowing out of this conversation.

 

[doublejman]

I think if we focus on just the state of Washington and Oregon and if Root and NBCSNW is in the same % of cable home which looks like it does, NBCSNW also has Youtubetv, Hulutv and fubotv and Root has ATT, Directv and dish. Dish and Directv are losing subs at a very high #. There are tv markets where those streaming services combine will out pace both DirecTV and Dish very soon if they haven't done soon already. Its looking very likely Dish will drop Root when its contract is up and even if it doesn't, we are getting to the point very shortly, if it isn't there already where NBCSNW will be in more households than Root and the gap will continue to grow, there is no debate about it, but contracts can be done and maybe Root gets on all the streaming services and you be able to stream Kraken games without of a tv sub. I guess we will see...

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

They are slowly turning into the Hartford Whalers/Carolina Hurricanes.

 

[gstommylee]

Sound Of Hockey Podcast Ep. 123 - with Tim Ohashi - Sound Of Hockey

they talk about the tv deal and they say its a very very complicated thing and also mentions its the team is not locked in long term with root sports. (5 years)

 

[featherhawk]

you folks got one of the best. Forslund does a great job. The only time I listened to the hawks feed instead of the visitors feed was when Forslund was calling the game instead of Pat Foley...

 

[Panteras]

It's far more important to have as close as 100% tv coverage in Seattle and Washington than anything else. From a PR standpoint its good to have Alaska and the one county in Montana but those people aren't buying up season tickets, they aren't buying cars from the Seattle dealership hat they see on TV. Every 50 miles you get away from Seattle you're becoming much less valuable to them, Its much more important to have 5,000 streamers in the Seattle market watching vs having 5000 watching on cable in Alaska.

The league and the Kraken make the TV territories not the networks, that's why the team isn't going to carried on the whole Root/Mariners footprint, basically most of Idaho and Montana is out. The cost per sub for any RSN decreases significantly the farther away the teams play, its more likely cable systems in Alaska would pickup any RSN that is carrying the Kraken because cost isn't much of a factor compared to places much closer to Seattle.

are the Kraken territories already confirmed? If so, is it AK, WA, OR, and ID panhandle+ part of MT?

 

[gstommylee]

are the Kraken territories already confirmed? If so, is it AK, WA, OR, and ID panhandle+ part of MT?

Looks like at least for now its AK, WA OR and ID panhandle

 

[doublejman]

are the Kraken territories already confirmed? If so, is it AK, WA, OR, and ID panhandle+ part of MT?

Yes, basically if you don't get Utah
Jazz and Golden Knight games on Root NW, Kraken games will be in the clear for you (the Cour d'alene area and far northern Idaho will be getting Kraken games too).

Something to note for Comcast subscribers in Washington and Oregon, Root NW carriage agreement with Comcast expires in March. Root will want to increase the carriage fees now that they have the Kraken. At times these fights can get very nasty but there is a whole lot of time to get agreement done before the team starts play. Hopefully with a new agreement Comcast customers would be able to stream the channel.

 

[The Marquis]

Out of curiosity, is NBCSNW not affiliated with the soon to be cancelled NBCSN? Purely a question, not an assertion, I have no idea, but if it is, it may very well change the argument.

I do think focusing on regional coverage over local coverage is the smart choice right now. The NHL isn't in Portland, but there sure are a lot of people there and none of them have local Seattle TV. Spokane? Same thing, Yakima? Maybe not that many people, but they don't get Seattle TV. Vancouver gets Portland TV. The Tri-Cities, etc. Pretty much south of Chehalis and east of the Cascades (except Wenatchee, and then not all of them) wouldn't get it with a local Seattle TV deal. That's a difference of around 8 million potential households. Yeah. A no brainer.

Root needs to get on more of those streaming platforms for sure. I like the M's, so I haven't cut the cord for that reason alone. The Kraken being on there is an even bigger deterrent from me cutting the cord. I just can't find a platform with Root that has channels my wife enjoys as well. A real bummer. AT&T Now is actually more expensive than my cable package to, so why would I do that? My point in this paragraph is that cable TV channels are being aggressive in getting content for the reason I mention above. They are at war with streaming.

Regardless of all of this, the landscape is changing. Who knows what ROOTNW will even look like in a years time.

 

[doublejman]

Out of curiosity, is NBCSNW not affiliated with the soon to be cancelled NBCSN? Purely a question, not an assertion, I have no idea, but if it is, it may very well change the argument.

I do think focusing on regional coverage over local coverage is the smart choice right now. The NHL isn't in Portland, but there sure are a lot of people there and none of them have local Seattle TV. Spokane? Same thing, Yakima? Maybe not that many people, but they don't get Seattle TV. Vancouver gets Portland TV. The Tri-Cities, etc. Pretty much south of Chehalis and east of the Cascades (except Wenatchee, and then not all of them) wouldn't get it with a local Seattle TV deal. That's a difference of around 8 million potential households. Yeah. A no brainer.

Root needs to get on more of those streaming platforms for sure. I like the M's, so I haven't cut the cord for that reason alone. The Kraken being on there is an even bigger deterrent from me cutting the cord. I just can't find a platform with Root that has channels my wife enjoys as well. A real bummer. AT&T Now is actually more expensive than my cable package to, so why would I do that? My point in this paragraph is that cable TV channels are being aggressive in getting content for the reason I mention above. They are at war with streaming.

Regardless of all of this, the landscape is changing. Who knows what ROOTNW will even look like in a years time.

Comcast owns both NBCSNW and NBCSN, NBCSNW is not going away they own several RSNs with long term contracts with many teams.

I don't think going to a local OTA broadcast channel was ever in the cards, many are affiliated with networks that don't allow for many preemptions and local broadcast channel earn far less than RSN's in sub fees, it all about the $$. there is only a handful of teams in the NBA, MLB and NHL that broadcast on a OTA channel and even then its only a few games a year. Watching a non NFL local game on OTA channel is long gone.

It was likely the Kraken games were either going to air on Root NW or NBCSNW. Even the Kraken creating its own network/OTT streaming or going with Sinclair (former Fox Sports net) and having them create a new channel for the region was more likely than going OTA.

Interesting thing about the Sinclair RSNs is that they will have a DTC streaming option later this year.

 

[The Marquis]

I'm substantially intoxicated... so... grain of salt and all... but that sounds like the doublejam. You've got one too many letters friend (don't call me friend, buddy, don't call me buddy, pal)!

Srsly tho. The only reason I brought up OTA was because of a growing discussion about "local" Seattle broadcast TV in this thread. I absolutely agree. They'd be nuts to do it, but in typical WA fashion, Seattle doesn't realize just how backwoods all of us outside of the Seattle metro actually are. Streaming? Yeah. Would be great, if my internet stayed connected longer that an hour straight. There are 8 million of us backwoods PNW folk (I'm a proud Cascadian!)... and only 4 million of those "city folk" hahahaha. I had greatly underestimated the power of my homemade dandelion wine (Did I say backwoods?)

Also, thanks for the clarification on the NBCSNW shenanigans.

 

[doublejman]

I'm substantially intoxicated... so... grain of salt and all... but that sounds like the doublejam. You've got one too many letters friend (don't call me friend, buddy, don't call me buddy, pal)!

Srsly tho. The only reason I brought up OTA was because of a growing discussion about "local" Seattle broadcast TV in this thread. I absolutely agree. They'd be nuts to do it, but in typical WA fashion, Seattle doesn't realize just how backwoods all of us outside of the Seattle metro actually are. Streaming? Yeah. Would be great, if my internet stayed connected longer that an hour straight. There are 8 million of us backwoods PNW folk (I'm a proud Cascadian!)... and only 4 million of those "city folk" hahahaha. I had greatly underestimated the power of my homemade dandelion wine (Did I say backwoods?)

Also, thanks for the clarification on the NBCSNW shenanigans.

HA! Sounds like you had a fun night sorry about all the acronyms and abbreviations

OTA= Local ABC, FOX, NBC etc. channels
RSN= regional sports network
OTT= over-the-top service (Netflix, NHL.tv, Youtubetv etc.)
DTC= direct-to-consumer

In the 18-49 year old range which executives are most focused on, less than half pay for cable/satellite. In 2012 cable and satellite penetration was at 88%. Streaming isn't just a issue for the Kraken its a problem for all NBA NHL and MLB teams with local deals.

Sinclair- is the only RSN group that has announce going Direct-to consumer streaming but has been drop by all the streamers but ATT. Can stream if you have a cable or sat sub

Root-ATT only

Comcast-YoutubeTv, FuboTv , and Hulu live, also can stream if you have a cable or sat sub.

At this point it cant be either/or, you have to be focused on both streaming and cable/sat. Cant fault the Kraken for going with the most $$ but its a little disappointing because they are going in this with a fresh start most while other teams in the NHL are in the middle of local tv deals that are 10-15 years long and were sign when the TV world was much different.

 

[Panteras]

Yes, basically if you don't get Utah
Jazz and Golden Knight games on Root NW, Kraken games will be in the clear for you (the Cour d'alene area and far northern Idaho will be getting Kraken games too).

Something to note for Comcast subscribers in Washington and Oregon, Root NW carriage agreement with Comcast expires in March. Root will want to increase the carriage fees now that they have the Kraken. At times these fights can get very nasty but there is a whole lot of time to get agreement done before the team starts play. Hopefully with a new agreement Comcast customers would be able to stream the channel.

I mean I don't care as I haven't had cable in years, already have a way to catch all games, and I'll be moving out of Seattle this year plus the Kraken will be my 2nd team. But was just curious as to how the regions were divided amongst teams. I feel like all of ID and at least half of MT should be Kraken territory.

 

[tank44]

At this point it cant be either/or, you have to be focused on both streaming and cable/sat. Cant fault the Kraken for going with the most $$ but its a little disappointing because they are going in this with a fresh start most while other teams in the NHL are in the middle of local tv deals that are 10-15 years long and were sign when the TV world was much different.

Most cable deals are like 25 years deals... The kraken one with Root is like 5 years. Get in now and change as the landscape changes. And just because there's a cable deal doesn't mean there wont be an alternative streaming deal.

I am guessing the RSN would have all/most games. I would love to see them simulcast a weekly game or just whenever they play on Satuday onto one of the OTA stations in the local area.
Then on top of this have like the Sounders do, have the games streamable & simulcast from Root within their permitted market

 

[doublejman]

I mean I don't care as I haven't had cable in years, already have a way to catch all games, and I'll be moving out of Seattle this year plus the Kraken will be my 2nd team. But was just curious as to how the regions were divided amongst teams. I feel like all of ID and at least half of MT should be Kraken territory.

Living in the Boise area I was always 50/50 if we were going to be in the Kraken TV territory. Montana and Idaho are both in the Avalanche and Golden Knights TV territory. Almost no cable systems in the area carry the AVAs network. The cable feed for Root NW is very strange for both states, we only get one feed and the Utah Jazz takes priority most of the time so when the Jazz and Golden Knights play at the same time the Golden Knights are blacked out, including with CI and NHL.TV. Back in the day the same thing happen with the Jazz and Sonics with the Jazz taking priority and having the Sonics blacked out for a most of its games.

Personally, I would rather pay the extra for either CI or NHL.TV for Kraken games than being blackout for a huge chunk of the season and not even having the option to watch the blacked out games on CI or NHL.TV.

Yes the Kraken signed a much shorter contract than what most other teams have, but its most likely Root is going to be in charge with any streaming deals, you don't pay the kind of money Root did to be a non exclusive broadcaster for the team. Roots/ATT whole model is getting subscriber money.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Living in the Boise area I was always 50/50 if we were going to be in the Kraken TV territory. Montana and Idaho are both in the Avalanche and Golden Knights TV territory. Almost no cable systems in the area carry the AVAs network. The cable feed for Root NW is very strange for both states, we only get one feed and the Utah Jazz takes priority most of the time so when the Jazz and Golden Knights play at the same time the Golden Knights are blacked out, including with CI and NHL.TV. Back in the day the same thing happen with the Jazz and Sonics with the Jazz taking priority and having the Sonics blacked out for a most of its games.

Personally, I would rather pay the extra for either CI or NHL.TV for Kraken games than being blackout for a huge chunk of the season and not even having the option to watch the blacked out games on CI or NHL.TV.

Yes the Kraken signed a much shorter contract than what most other teams have, but its most likely Root is going to be in charge with any streaming deals, you don't pay the kind of money Root did to be a non exclusive broadcaster for the team. Roots/ATT whole model is getting subscriber money.

Its cheaper and gets you more as a hockey fan. I am hoping that ROOT offers a streaming subscription for Kraken games. But I am not going to put money on that.

 

[Mestaruus]

Good hire, Forslund does a really good job.

Isn't he one of the more expensive TV-voices? Probably worth it though. I've been watching enough of Carolina games to know that.

 

[RainyCityHockey]

I'm currently watching the Devils @ Caps game and no matter how our team will actually look/perform, having Forslund calling the games will be really good.