This logic is akin to Kodak not investing in digital cameras, you dont double down on old tech because it's more profitable in the short term.
ESPN has lost tons of money over the past few years due to cord cutting and their high fees are a big part of the reason that cable packages were/are uncompetitive with streaming sites. They are never going to be the juggernaut they were 10-20 years ago, but a Disney+ subscriber is better than nothing and will keep them in a lot of homes.
That's a pretty deadly bundle though, we will see if Netflix can respond with some sort of sports content deal. I have Netflix and Hulu and Amazon currently, I might cancel Netflix when this becomes available.
Subs are going to be going down as people cut the cord generally. There's no turning back on that. At some point, there's going to be a major sport that does one of their big "tv" deals online. Ideally ESPN would be able to secure a package that would allow them broadcast via the network as well as streaming, but I'm not sure how the leagues will want to handle that.
Google is testing waters by broadcasting MLB games. One game per week via youtube, today at 3pm ET Cards @ Dodgers is one of them. YT actually has its own broadcasting crew so they are not simply streaming one of major sport networks. Great potential way to capture a younger audience.
Right, it's happening in small increments but eventually a major package is going to go to a streaming service. Like anything else it will take some time. It was the same way the transition from broadcast to cable. "You can't put X event on cable because not everyone has it." Now look at how much is on cable. MNF, NBA playoffs, NCAA tournament, etc. It's not an issue at all. The same thing will happen. I'm just not sure when. It feels like under 30s would be ready for it now, but the older crowd would probably complain and struggle with it. But it when the broadcasting rights start coming up again, I wouldn't be surprised to see a streaming services make a big play. By putting a big sports package on a streaming service would be a way to accelerate that change in terms of society, which would obviously benefit the streaming services.
Internet has the potential to offer a more personalized and engaging experience for fans. For advertisers better targeting.
Amazon, FB, Twitter and Google have all started experimenting with sports broadcasting. Amazon in particular is an interesting case since they can use it as a loss leader to draw fans to many of its other services. Then you have a service like DAZN already making a splash. Will be harder and harder for traditional cable to compete although in the short term both could coexist. Looking forward to upcoming broadcasting bidding wars.
Cable, satellite and whatnot are outdated mediums anyway. I've not watched any TV on my own in years. NHL should focus on online streaming, and should also remove blackouts - if you need such heavy-handed methods to try and force people to buy cable, cable probably isn't a very good idea anyway.
So many folks are counting their chickens before the eggs are even laid, must less hatched.
Of course, the NHL feels that they should get "more" for broadcast deals, but the TV and streaming deals could be totally different.
(I just got email from cable company as I'm coming up on my service anniversary. Current "bundled" package is $185; future unbundled combination $322; proposed new bundle $229. Other than about 25% of the channels they carry and the internet, I really don't "need" all the extras. May walk if I can't get a decent a la cart plan.)
So many folks are counting their chickens before the eggs are even laid, must less hatched.
Of course, the NHL feels that they should get "more" for broadcast deals, but the TV and streaming deals could be totally different.
(I just got email from cable company as I'm coming up on my service anniversary. Current "bundled" package is $185; future unbundled combination $322; proposed new bundle $229. Other than about 25% of the channels they carry and the internet, I really don't "need" all the extras. May walk if I can't get a decent a la cart plan.)
I was not happy that the Blue Jays game was on Youtube only. It turned out to be way better than the network idea of a baseball game. I enjoyed it and will watch more of the games of the week. No ads, so it was wonderful.Google is testing waters by broadcasting MLB games. One game per week via youtube, today at 3pm ET Cards @ Dodgers is one of them. YT actually has its own broadcasting crew so they are not simply streaming one of major sport networks. Great potential way to capture a younger audience.
I was not happy that the Blue Jays game was on Youtube only. It turned out to be way better than the network idea of a baseball game. I enjoyed it and will watch more of the games of the week. No ads, so it was wonderful.
I think that's the inflection point people are forgetting.DAZN worked great for opening weekend of the Premiership.
I like it right now, but I still worry about what happens when "traditional" cable is killed off and all we have left are dozens of "premium subscription services". Do prices skyrocket once all competition is wiped out? Is it a good thing that local TV will be completely wiped out? I don't know the answers, but I think they're worth thinking about beyond just the initial "Yeah! **** Bell/Rogers! DAZN is the best thing ever!!!"
Yes and no. I agree that there will be further contraction and that rarely benefits the consumer. But I mean, cable was about as bad you can get from a consumer perspective, that you have to buy 100 channels when you might watch only a handful of them. And there is always the downward pressure on pricing because of free/cheap substitutes that are available or piracy.DAZN worked great for opening weekend of the Premiership.
I like it right now, but I still worry about what happens when "traditional" cable is killed off and all we have left are dozens of "premium subscription services". Do prices skyrocket once all competition is wiped out? Is it a good thing that local TV will be completely wiped out? I don't know the answers, but I think they're worth thinking about beyond just the initial "Yeah! **** Bell/Rogers! DAZN is the best thing ever!!!"
It would be interesting if cable sort of faded away and television went back to OTA network broadcasting. Then everyone has their subscription services for only the content they really want to see, and they're supplemented by some "local", free, over the air, broadcast television.
I actually know quite a few people who do that right now actually. They have Netflix, DAZN and whatever else, and then use a digital antenna to pull in CTV, CBC, Global and sometimes a few others.
Sharing subscriptions is a nice perk (for now) as well. I get all the premium content because my parents still pay for the Cadillac cable package and almost everything has a very user friendly app now. The only holdout is useless TSN holding out on chromecast support. I would watch a lot more CFL if I could stream it to my TV just as easily as I stream the Blue Jays using Sportsnet's app.
DAZN is pretty sweet for right now though. Anybody interested in the Premiership or Champions League I recommend it 100%. It even does a great job of holding your spot in the match. I paused the United game to do a couple hours of yard work and when I started it back up again it was right where I left it.
What I worry about is how are the next generation going to find the content and fall in love with it like we did as kids?
My fear is the un-bundling of cable leads to more services with higher costs. I pay around $140/month for internet (500 down/100 up), cable (minus HBO basically) and home phone (not needed) but my math keeps telling me that even with a cheaper $60 internet package I'll end up around that $100+ marker just with Netflix and a Sportsnet OR TSN online sub. And that doesn't count whatever reality crap my wife is interested in that week.
That's a very static view of things, no? Hypothetical you today is just on YouTube, watching endless highlights of wicked plays and condensed games. I think sports fandom usually goes a little deeper than catching some games on cable. And maybe it's a little different in Canada with TSN/Sportsnet, but ESPN has probably hampered the growth of soccer in the US as much as helped it.I very much wonder the same thing. Frankly I don't see how being on DAZN helps the Premiership or Champs League grow their fanbase. It will help them consolidate the audience they do have and get money directly from them much easier, but they do that at the cost of attracting new and casual audiences who will never 'stumble' upon a soccer game on TV.
I would have never become a fan of European soccer (and by extension MLS) had it not been for the massive uptick in games being broadcast on TSN and Sportsnet over the last 10-15 years. Which means DAZN will never make any money off of the hypothetical me who is a teenager right now.
Like I am getting at, there is more content than ever before at a kid's fingertips. If a kid really likes soccer, they can find endless free soccer content online. I mean, I see what you are getting at in that soccer now must compete with shit like Fortnite and Instagram for kids' attention, but that was gonna happen regardless of cable going the way of the Dodo.What I worry about is how are the next generation going to find the content and fall in love with it like we did as kids?
I was fortunate to grow up with cable as a sports fan which essentially gave me my pick of what sports to watch and learn to love. But the 8yr old who has NetFlix and no TV beyond OTA is going to have pretty low percentages to grow up as a sports fan unless he/she is really thrown into it by their parents.
...