The Cubs are looking at a disastrous launch for their new channel in 2020

[Fenway]

​

The Cubs are looking for $4 a month for their new channel that launches in February.

https://www.cubsinsider.com/2019/09...ll-climb-as-marketing-push-begins-in-earnest/

Chicago (along with New York) has always offered numerous baseball games OTA for both teams but that ends in 2020. Cable providers such as Comcast pass long the cost of local sports as an additional line item in their bill. In Chicago, the cost is currently $8.25

In Boston I pay the same

Not sure why Boston and Chicago are paying the same 'regional sports fee' as Boston has NESN and NBC Sports Boston and Chicago until now only has NBC Sports Chicago.

I think the Cubs made a fatal mistake in partnering with Sinclair instead of a provider in the market like AT&T or even stay with NBC/Comcast as Sinclair can't provide any carriage on its own. Even the Dodgers channel has an audience with Spectrum ( former Time Warner ) in about 35% of the market.

Chicago is Xfinity's biggest market and has minor competition from RCN, AT&T and WOW. Most bars have DirecTV because of football. DirecTV still refuses to carry the Dodgers channel Spectrum SportsNet LA after 6 full seasons. That does not bode well for the Cubs channel especially with the Cubs leaving Xfinity owned NBC Sports Chicago.

Throw into the equation that the Cubs have had a very bad week with their playoff chances in the balance and now seem certain not to make the postseason.

The Cubs needed the Blackhawks as a winter partner but they elected to stay with NBC Sports Chicago along with the White Sox and Bulls.

We did hear from Marc Ganis, whose Sportscorp Ltd. consulting firm is based in Chicago.

“The fundamental reality is: The fans in this market, by and large, prefer the Cubs,” Ganis said.

Of the four pro teams that currently share one cable channel in Chicago, the Cubs generally draw better ratings than the other three teams combined, Ganis said. The Cubs are leaving those other teams -– the White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks –- on NBC Sports Chicago. So long as Michael Jordan is not coming back, none of those teams can rival the Cubs for local prominence in the way the Lakers rival the Dodgers.

When the Dodgers and Time Warner Cable initially asked for a monthly fee of close to $5 per subscriber for the SportsNet LA channel, cable and satellite companies in the Southland balked.

In Chicago, the monthly fee for NBC Sports Chicago is $4.23, as estimated by SNL Kagan, a media research group. That could leave room for a comparably priced Cubs channel, Ganis said.

In Los Angeles, Kagan estimates the combined monthly fee for Fox Sports West, Prime Ticket and Spectrum’s Lakers channel is $10.23 –- without the Dodgers channel.

“The price per subscriber was getting to be out of control,” Ganis said. “It’s nowhere near out of control in Chicago.”

https://www.latimes.com/.../cubs-dodgers-tv-marquee...

This is going to be a tough sell for Sinclair.
​

​

Click to read more...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The depth of the fanbase all but ensures that they'll make their money's worth, but can't help but think that the end result would be a shrinkage of the fanbase with loads just dropping baseball from their viewing habits or defaulting to the more easily available Sox broadcasts. For a team that historically gained their large fanbase by having a massive broadcast reach, I can't help but think this is an extraordinary miscue.

And no freaking clue what the channel's going to be beyond the Cubs. There are no other available viable options between BTN already dominating most local college sports that has a draw, NBC and Norte Dame already in bed for the other one that matters, and the other major pro sports locked into CSN. That leaves smaller colleges that could enjoy piggybacking on the channel, like Northern Illinois, UIC, Loyola, and DePaul, minor league affiliates of the Cubs, and maybe the AHL Wolves, but I wouldn't describe any of them as big gets. At least a university or two would add loads of air time outside the baseball season, but can't think that those would draw many eyeballs. There are only so many Cubs games and replays of recents and classics that they could meaningfully fill the air with.

And I still have no clue what package it'll be available on given providers.

 

[Fenway]

The depth of the fanbase all but ensures that they'll make their money's worth, but can't help but think that the end result would be a shrinkage of the fanbase with loads just dropping baseball from their viewing habits or defaulting to the more easily available Sox broadcasts. For a team that historically gained their large fanbase by having a massive broadcast reach, I can't help but think this is an extraordinary miscue.

And no freaking clue what the channel's going to be beyond the Cubs. There are no other available viable options between BTN already dominating most local college sports that has a draw, NBC and Norte Dame already in bed for the other one that matters, and the other major pro sports locked into CSN. That leaves smaller colleges that could enjoy piggybacking on the channel, like Northern Illinois, UIC, Loyola, and DePaul, minor league affiliates of the Cubs, and maybe the AHL Wolves, but I wouldn't describe any of them as big gets. At least a university or two would add loads of air time outside the baseball season, but can't think that those would draw many eyeballs. There are only so many Cubs games and replays of recents and classics that they could meaningfully fill the air with.

And I still have no clue what package it'll be available on given providers.

Sinclair has leverage downstate and in parts of Iowa and Indiana where they own broadcast stations but failed in their attempt to buy WGN-TV which would have then given them a footprint in Chicago.

My understanding is MLB will not allow a RSN to offer a stand alone streaming product because otherwise after 6 years the Dodgers channel would have done so.

DirecTV and AT&T have not budged in Los Angeles and won't in Chicago unless the Cubs make a deal with the major cable provider Comcast who the Cubs walked away from. Jerry Reinsdorf carries a lot of clout with Comcast and he would relish a Cubs blackout.

Obviously the Cubs epic collapse in the past 10 days makes this even a harder sell.

 

[Elvis P]

These are good posts by my friends. Cable and satellite companies are history though. Most people are or soon will be cord cutters who have streaming services. These services offer tons of sports networks at lower prices and are the future.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I think the Cubs made a fatal mistake in partnering with Sinclair instead of a provider in the market like AT&T or even stay with NBC/Comcast as Sinclair can't provide any carriage on its own. Even the Dodgers channel has an audience with Spectrum ( former Time Warner ) in about 35% of the market.

I disagree. Sinclair has the advantage of now owning all of the Fox RSN's, allowing them to add Marquee into their national negotiations.

 

[Fenway]

I disagree. Sinclair has the advantage of now owning all of the Fox RSN's, allowing them to add Marquee into their national negotiations.

That is a slippery slope - Can you really see Sinclair yanking Fox Midwest in St. Louis and Fox North in Milwaukee from DirecTV because of a Cubs channel issue in Chicago?

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Sure, why not. Networks package channels all the time.

 

[Fenway]

Sure, why not. Networks package channels all the time.

We should find out on Monday how the FOX RSN's will be rebranded by Sinclair and the most pundits believe they will be called Stadium (insert region)

RSN launches have had mixed results since they began in the early 80's.

NESN (Red Sox, Bruins) started in 1984 and almost failed because Cablevision ( Dolan Family ) owned the competing Sportschannel and refused to carry NESN even as an a-la-carte option in the City of Boston. That was only resolved when the Mayor threatened to revoke Cablevison's license in the city 2 years later.

The Red Sox and Bruins held on to NESN and still own it today. The income from NESN allowed Jacobs to be a hardliner with the NHL CBA in 2004-5 and 2012-13.

The Cubs decided they did not want the Blackhawks as a partner or didn't offer more than what NBC/Comcast/Reinsdorf offered the Wirtz family.

Much to the chagrin of my White Sox friends Chicago today is a Cubs town by a huge margin and a huge part of that goes back to 1982 when SportsVision started and Harry Caray bolted 9 miles north and at the same time WGN was seen on cable everywhere but the Northeast where Chicago Tribune-owned WPIX fed the Yankees.

The White Sox gambled that the Cubs would NEVER hire Harry to replace Jack Brickhouse as WGN had already hired Milo Hamilton to do that.





oops

Boston has had 2 competing RSN's since 1984 as the Celtics have been with what is now NBC Sports Boston since 1981. The Whalers had ownership in that channel but Karmanos walked away in 1997 when he moved the team to Carolina. He has admitted he should have stayed in Hartford as back in the 80's the Whalers allowed NESN into Connecticut and the Bruins, in turn, allowed the Whalers into Massachusetts. The only time the Whalers feed was blacked out in Boston was when they played the Bruins and the same applied in Connecticut on the Bruins feed.



Today NBC Sports Boston survives with the Celtics and Revolution and strong studio shows.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

We should find out on Monday how the FOX RSN's will be rebranded by Sinclair and the most pundits believe they will be called Stadium (insert region)

Do they even have the right to use the name? Stadium half owned by Silver Chalice Ventures (IE: the White Sox).

The Cubs decided they did not want the Blackhawks as a partner or didn't offer more than what NBC/Comcast/Reinsdorf offered the Wirtz family.

The Hawks were never going to leave. Wirtz and Reinsdorf's working relationship is way too strong (and I wouldn't be surprised if Wirtz is a lead investor when JR dies and the family sells, he's a huge SOX fan), and I'm sure they wanted the security NBCS gave, rather than the potential carriage disaster we're discussing.

Much to the chagrin of my White Sox friends Chicago today is a Cubs town by a huge margin and a huge part of that goes back to 1982 when SportsVision started and Harry Caray bolted 9 miles north and at the same time WGN was seen on cable everywhere but the Northeast where Chicago Tribune-owned WPIX fed the Yankees.

It goes back even further than that. The SOX lost a lot of fans when they left WGN for UHF (first WFLD-32 and then WSNS-44) in the 70s, and most people's TVs didn't have access to those stations.

 

[Fenway]

It goes back even further than that. The SOX lost a lot of fans when they left WGN for UHF (first WFLD-32 and then WSNS-44) in the 70s, and most people's TVs didn't have access to those stations.

White Sox had no choice back in 1968 as WGN-TV decided they would carry most Cubs road games and WFLD looked promising. But WFLD soon had a technical nightmare as the rising Hancock Center was causing signal distortion on the SW side as 32's signal from Marina City would bounce off the Hancock and cause ghosting - that was solved when the Hancock was finished but the damage had been done. It didn't help that the Sox were looking at a possible move to Milwaukee and played home games there in 1967-69

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I disagree. Sinclair has the advantage of now owning all of the Fox RSN's, allowing them to add Marquee into their national negotiations.

That is a slippery slope - Can you really see Sinclair yanking Fox Midwest in St. Louis and Fox North in Milwaukee from DirecTV because of a Cubs channel issue in Chicago?

Sure, why not. Networks package channels all the time.

And just like that.
'We're ahead of the curve': Inside the Marquee launch and...

But Marquee’s inclusion in Sinclair’s recent multiyear carriage agreement across DirecTV, AT&T TV and U-verse is an encouraging sign that the Cubs could avoid the kind of long-running feud that has slowed SportsNet LA and left Dodger games blacked out across wide stretches of southern California.