Video services

SlideshowThe Greening of the US Sports Ecosystem

We could put a caption here but we think you get the drift.
We could put a caption here but we think you get the drift.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
albreznick 9/6/2013 | 5:45:13 PM
Re: Global reach Perhaps, John. Such an evolution could make a lot of sense. But who would do the subsidizing? Broadcasters? Pay TV providers? Other viewers? The feds? It's hard to imagine paying folks to take pay TV.  
jman3136 9/3/2013 | 3:41:52 PM
Re: Global reach I think a variety of options will be available at different price points for different levels of service enhancements.  There have been no riots as more and more top-flight post-season sports events have migrated to cable.

The day may come when there is little or no broadcasting, since the spectrum is more valuable for wireless.  Anyway, only about 10-15% of the public still relies exclusively on over-the-air.  As economist Tom Hazlett has noted, it would be cheaper and more efficient to subsidize those households to take some sort of multi-channel service.  The system doesn't collapse.  It evolves.
albreznick 9/3/2013 | 2:36:29 PM
Re: Global reach Thanks, John. Do you ever see the really big sports events, like the Super Bowl or World Series, going totally OTT or exclusively on pay TV tiers? Or would that cause too big a riot? What sporting events will be left on (free) broadcast TV? At what point does the entire system finally collapse under its own weight?   
jman3136 8/30/2013 | 2:41:04 PM
Re: Global reach Alan, wouldn't be surprised to see some collaboration between OTT and MVPDs, but remember MVPDs are also doing their own form of OTT with TV Everywhere.  Smaller schools, leagues and even high schools have their own websites.  More and more games are widely available.  I think it was Universal Sports that migrated from the Internet to RSN syndication to NBC Sports.
albreznick 8/30/2013 | 1:51:46 PM
Re: Global reach John, do you think the MVPDs and OTT players will eventually team up to do a la carte offerings or at least smaller bundles of sports or other programming? Coulfd the smaller schools, conferences and lagues put together their own OTT offerings to go around the big TV networks?  
jman3136 8/30/2013 | 1:39:01 PM
Re: Global reach I agree. OTT will be the driver for a la carte and MVPDs will likely offer customers more individualized options--perhaps tiers where customers can choose from a basket of channels.  As video margins erode, there's always broadband, small-medium business and no doubt other offerings down the road.  As my boss Paul Kagan once said, "Cable is a forever business."
mendyk 8/30/2013 | 1:27:38 PM
Re: Global reach Despite John McCain, a la carte is far more likely to emerge in OTT rather than in conventional video services. There's still a lot of mileage left in the standard model -- although value will continue to erode slowly over time. Do you think that's something video service providers can live with?
jman3136 8/30/2013 | 1:12:53 PM
Re: Global reach I agree, Fox, Viacom, CBS, Comcast/NBC Universal and ABC/Disney would be losers in an a la carte world, but smaller programmers without retransmission consent options would be bigger losers.  A MVPD CEO once told me that a la carte is inevitable, but "it won't happen until we're ready for it to happen." 
mendyk 8/30/2013 | 12:25:09 PM
Re: Global reach The biggest push for maintaining status quo may in fact come from content distributors like Disney/ESPN. The noise they are making with their various OTT experiments is just that -- noise. Dis/E and others like it have the most to lose if a la carte (or OTT, or some Babel-like combination) becomes the norm.
jman3136 8/30/2013 | 12:15:32 PM
Re: Global reach There are no easy solutions.  Multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs) should have the ability to tier as they wish and offer expensive programming a la carte without programmers dictating the tier.  Of course, sports programmers can adjust by raising their wholesale fees, but their ad revenue would be be negatively impacted and with less revenue sports nets might be less willing to pay higher rights fees to teams and leagues.  In addition, fewer sports teams, leagues and colleges would find it attractive to establish their own networks.

Consolidation of MVPDs would translate into less leverage for the sports nets, since it would be more difficult for subscribers to switch MVPDs in the event of a pricing dispute.  That, too, is an imperfect solution, because there might be less consumer choice.  Also, vertical integration comes into play.  Comcast, Time Warner Cable and other MVPDs have significant interests in RSNs and some national sports programmers.

An FCC report, Congressional oversight, and the threat of rate regulation--a raised eyebrow--might lead to a bit of downward pressure, too, but any type of rate regulation would be ill-advised and lead to other unintended consequences.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In