Might cut the cord

[Bayside44]

Good read. Nothing surprising here. As a nation we are saturated in entertainment options. I was just telling my wife the other day there are like 20 shows we want to catch up on which will take years and be a perennial list until we retire... that's not even getting into sports. If you look globally, we have so many more sporting events televised with a following than most nations focused on just a few. Then you add the collegiate aspect and that balloons further. It's honestly too much and with all the streaming never understood how it could be sustainable in terms of the high revnue figures it was generating as this article points to in "peak cable".

The great overall point is that if people want to watch live sports in the future - it's going to cost them. So all the moving around trying to beat a TV watching bill (streaming, cable, whatever) seems like a waste of time.

 

[TexanMark]

Zoo...I know. I watch only 2-3 shows a week on OTA TV (all CBS). I usually don't even watch live. I catch them on Paramount+ and hour shows become 41 mins. BTW 50 years ago those hour shows were 51 to 52 mins.

I only follow college sports (mostly SU) so that saves even more time. DVR on YouTube TV really helps too. If I know SU lost and I can watch live...I might only watch a little of it.

 

[TexanMark]

The great overall point is that if people want to watch live sports in the future - it's going to cost them. So all the moving around trying to beat a TV watching bill (streaming, cable, whatever) seems like a waste of time.

The chase is half the fun ;-)

BTW with a VPN I could watch SU lacrosse live over in Europe 10 days ago

 

[Bayside44]

The chase is half the fun ;-)

BTW with a VPN I could watch SU lacrosse live over in Europe 10 days ago

Ha! I followed the UNC game on Twitter overseas because ESPN Plus or whatever isn't a thing there.

I am going to take inventory of all the crap we compiled and cancel anything duplicitous. But will keep my blessed FiOS.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The great overall point is that if people want to watch live sports in the future - it's going to cost them. So all the moving around trying to beat a TV watching bill (streaming, cable, whatever) seems like a waste of time.

They can't make it too expensive or people will stop watching. The NFL is easy to watch without cable or streaming. Non US soccer is cheap and easy to watch. College football you could probably get away without cable or streaming. The other sports I watch casually. if there is a premium for access, I will give those sports up. People will still pay for their favorite teams, but they won't pay to watch other teams. So they will watch less live sports. IMO there is a breaking point where high prices will drive fans away.

 

[Bayside44]

They can't make it too expensive or people will stop watching. The NFL is easy to watch without cable or streaming. Non US soccer is cheap and easy to watch. College football you could probably get away without cable or streaming. The other sports I watch casually. if there is a premium for access, I will give those sports up. People will still pay for their favorite teams, but they won't pay to watch other teams. So they will watch less live sports. IMO there is a breaking point where high prices will drive fans away.

A person can pay for sports, they just don't get the other programming.

Baseball is at an interesting point, the inability for the Angels and Nats to sell goes straight to this TV cable issue (Nats have an added layer of mess). All these Bally / midmarket teams might end up pooling resources.

 

[Orangezoo]

Zoo...I know. I watch only 2-3 shows a week on OTA TV (all CBS). I usually don't even watch live. I catch them on Paramount+ and hour shows become 41 mins. BTW 50 years ago those hour shows were 51 to 52 mins.

I only follow college sports (mostly SU) so that saves even more time. DVR on YouTube TV really helps too. If I know SU lost and I can watch live...I might only watch a little of it.

Yeah man- plus being of the gaming generation too... ha I've got stuff in the queue for years there too. Plus when the very rare occurrence of free time comes about- I'm wanting to be outside etc. I would be just fine with how much content and viewing options there were 20-25 years ago.

 

[MSOrange]

Yeah man- plus being of the gaming generation too... ha I've got stuff in the queue for years there too. Plus when the very rare occurrence of free time comes about- I'm wanting to be outside etc. I would be just fine with how much content and viewing options there were 20-25 years ago.

I actually almost feel the same way. I do still have cable. I lived in Georgia for 11 years and it wasn't easy to catch very many Syracuse games. So the idea of being able to watch every single game as long as I am willing to pay for it is still pretty cool to me and worth it.

But I do reduce my cable package when college football and basketball season is over. As far as the streaming services, I do get ESPN+ during college football and basketball season. But I don't get any other streaming services unless it's some sort of promotional package where I get it free for a certain period or a really good deal. Like I have 3 free months of Apple TV right now, so I am watching Ted Lasso.

But yes, at a certain point, it becomes too much and I have to have a life outside of watching tv.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Good read. Nothing surprising here. As a nation we are saturated in entertainment options. I was just telling my wife the other day there are like 20 shows we want to catch up on which will take years and be a perennial list until we retire... that's not even getting into sports. If you look globally, we have so many more sporting events televised with a following than most nations focused on just a few. Then you add the collegiate aspect and that balloons further. It's honestly too much and with all the streaming never understood how it could be sustainable in terms of the high revnue figures it was generating as this article points to in "peak cable".

It's not sustainable. This next round of college TV contracts is going to be very interesting.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I actually almost feel the same way. I do still have cable. I lived in Georgia for 11 years and it wasn't easy to catch very many Syracuse games. So the idea of being able to watch every single game as long as I am willing to pay for it is still pretty cool to me and worth it.

But I do reduce my cable package when college football and basketball season is over. As far as the streaming services, I do get ESPN+ during college football and basketball season. But I don't get any other streaming services unless it's some sort of promotional package where I get it free for a certain period or a really good deal. Like I have 3 free months of Apple TV right now, so I am watching Ted Lasso.

But yes, at a certain point, it becomes too much and I have to have a life outside of watching tv.

We have Gigabit Internet from Verizon, but still have the cable, pay for HBO & Showtime, and on top of that subscribe to Disney Plus, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Paramount, Hulu, AppleTV+, Peacock, and ESPN+. We get another half dozen streaming services through the cable subscription or streaming bundles (HBO Max, Smithsonian, National Geographic, Marvel, Star Wars, etc.). We clearly pay too much. It's more than we'd ever need, but I know if I want to watch pretty much anything, I'm able to find it.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

A person can pay for sports, they just don't get the other programming.

Baseball is at an interesting point, the inability for the Angels and Nats to sell goes straight to this TV cable issue (Nats have an added layer of mess). All these Bally / midmarket teams might end up pooling resources.

I will sometimes stop and watch MSG, SNY, YES but if any of them starting charging $5/m I would drop them. Heck even if the three were bundled I would x them out. I would say the same about Bein, BTN, CBSSN, FS1, GOLF, MLBN, NBAN, NFLN, SECN, Speed, Tennis, etc. I don't even watch ESPN as much as I used to. I would keep it for $5 but likely drop it at $10. Same for ACCN.

I am probably in the minority when it comes to sports. Although there are people who watch nothing. As long as I have access to the NFL (all OTA), CFB, and Soccer I am perfectly fine being limited to OTA for the other sports and paying for just March (NCAAT). I don't want that to happen and I like have many options on the cheap. But once they are no longer cheap, they lose me.

 

[Bayside44]

I will sometimes stop and watch MSG, SNY, YES but if any of them starting charging $5/m I would drop them. Heck even if the three were bundled I would x them out. I would say the same about Bein, BTN, CBSSN, FS1, GOLF, MLBN, NBAN, NFLN, SECN, Speed, Tennis, etc. I don't even watch ESPN as much as I used to. I would keep it for $5 but likely drop it at $10. Same for ACCN.

I am probably in the minority when it comes to sports. Although there are people who watch nothing. As long as I have access to the NFL (all OTA), CFB, and Soccer I am perfectly fine being limited to OTA for the other sports and paying for just March (NCAAT). I don't want that to happen and I like have many options on the cheap. But once they are no longer cheap, they lose me.

A beer at a stadium costs that $15 for all three and you get games. A lot of those other channels yeah they'll have their issues. Paying whatever for ESPN Plus and getting Cuse on the go is a steal IMO.

I'm mostly interested on what baseball does, even those big markets cannot pay out at scale with cord cutting (it would seem) but the Yankees would never want to get into a collective with the Reds.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

A beer at a stadium costs that $15 for all three and you get games. A lot of those other channels yeah they'll have their issues. Paying whatever for ESPN Plus and getting Cuse on the go is a steal IMO.

I'm mostly interested on what baseball does, even those big markets cannot pay out at scale with cord cutting (it would seem) but the Yankees would never want to get into a collective with the Reds.

Certainly it is cheaper to watch on TV vs going to the game. My point is for casual fans (who aren't going to games), they will cut out those sports that they don't follow closely if you charge too much for TV.

The last 15 years I have probably been to more football games at Yankee Stadium than baseball games (slight exaggeration). I might be able to count using just my fingers how many MLB, MLS, NBA, NHL games combined that I have attended the last 15 years (well probably need a toe or three). I watch those 4 leagues casually because I have free access. I will not pay extra to watch any of those four.

If you have a favorite team then it makes sense to pay. No debate there. IMO those four leagues would become niche sports, where casual fans will only see games when they are OTA or when they happen to be at a bar.

It makes sense to try to maximize revenue from your fans. But at some point you lose casual fans and decrease the reach of your league. Which in turn brings less revenue from advertising, sponsorships, etc.

 

[andyw715]

Well I evaluated Philo, and while cheap it is still missing a few channels to gain the WAF.
So I'm looking at Sling Orange/Blue... It's $15 more/month but should get us what we want.
Also there are a slew of add-ons...so come bball season I can add-on ACCN

I also setup Channels DVR on Apple TV for OTA and any channels that support TVe. So hopefully it will be a one-stop shop for our viewing needs (at least cable-ish programming as there still are the stand alone streaming apps.

Also I see that YTTV has $100 off Sunday Ticket even for standalone ST subs (until 6/6/2023).

Still not sure if its worth it for the Bills. Last year many of the games were on local TV, I think only 4 or 5 I needed ST to watch.

 

[orange79]

But yes, at a certain point, it becomes too much and I have to have a life outside of watching tv.

 

[swish7]

I subscribe to

• SlingTV
• Amazon Prime
• HBO Max
• ESPN Plus
• Disney +
• Netflix
• NFHS network

I could drop half of these, maybe 80% and not notice. ESPN Plus I use like once or twice a year.

I could see myself paying ala carte for a game. But, I am sure they would overcharge for it.

It is hard to keep up with shows. My wife is the queen of starting, but never finishing a series. She prefers to read. So, I end up binging the 8-ep streaming shows of the month by myself.

My kids want to watch 25 year old nerds in Iowa playing Minecraft on YouTube. My 15 year old rarely even watches SU with me.

Its so hard to figure out what channel SU is on. Sucks to pay for Sling, and then have 40% of the games on ACCNX sold off to YES or Bally or whatever, and you have not recourse.

My habits are changing as well. Just scrolling through instagram reels there is tons of entertaining material, especially the comedians. I'll fall asleep to some podcaster, or one of the Cuse related podcast on YT.

NFHS is interesting because I can watch my old HS team play, even modified and JV sports. And, if I want, I could watch some random team in Oregon or wherever.

Would be nice to live locally and just go to games.

 

[OrangeDW]

They can't make it too expensive or people will stop watching. The NFL is easy to watch without cable or streaming. Non US soccer is cheap and easy to watch. College football you could probably get away without cable or streaming. The other sports I watch casually. if there is a premium for access, I will give those sports up. People will still pay for their favorite teams, but they won't pay to watch other teams. So they will watch less live sports. IMO there is a breaking point where high prices will drive fans away.

Especially when a lot of the kids now don’t even watch games. They’ll watch highlights of players on YouTube or IG or something.

They should be making sure they hang onto the 30 and up crowd.

 

[Cuse#1]

Yeah I just go with the Wi-Fi signal. I have YouTube so if I wanna watch? The. Game? Minutes after the game's over as many times as I want. I can watch the game recaper whatever it's like 12 minutes long where it just. Shows pretty much just about every play no commercials

 

[atlanticuse]

Fubo recently added regional sports but threw in a $13 fee you can’t avoid.

 

[TexanMark]

Fubo recently added regional sports but threw in a $13 fee you can’t avoid.

Might be worth it though. Just add in season and cancel if you want to save some shekels.

RSNs are hideously bad off season lol. Infomercials and obscure sporting events galore.

 

[pfister1]

Well if you can't afford the TV subscription, you can get a week of home delivery of the newspaper now for what a month of cable used to cost. But, you'd better check because that cost may not include the Sunday paper.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Interesting case study for sports. The biggest EPL game of the year is today. NBC decided to put the game on their streaming platform. A sports fans flipping around channels will not stumble across it. A non EPL soccer fan won't stumble on it. If they are aware that it is on Peacock, most aren't going to pay the $5 to watch it. EPL fans who already have Peacock for EPL will watch it. For those who do not, are they paying the $5? Man City and Arsenal fans who don't have a game watching bar to go to will pay for it.

NBC will certainly have less eyeballs watching. So the question is what makes more money? The fewer fans paying $5/m? Or having it on traditional TV with more people watching? Last week CBS chose to put their games on network TV.

 

[upperdeck]

Where would NBC put it? It wouldnt go on NBC.. They dont have a sports channel any more.. Putting it on MSNBC isnt going to help people find it?

by now I think most anyone looking for EPL is looking to NBC or Peacock? Who else is looking for EPL games on a wed afternoon?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Where would NBC put it? It wouldnt go on NBC.. They dont have a sports channel any more.. Putting it on MSNBC isnt going to help people find it?

by now I think most anyone looking for EPL is looking to NBC or Peacock? Who else is looking for EPL games on a wed afternoon?

Why not put it on NBC? CBS did last week.

 

[OttoMets]

Interesting case study for sports. The biggest EPL game of the year is today. NBC decided to put the game on their streaming platform. A sports fans flipping around channels will not stumble across it. A non EPL soccer fan won't stumble on it. If they are aware that it is on Peacock, most aren't going to pay the $5 to watch it. EPL fans who already have Peacock for EPL will watch it. For those who do not, are they paying the $5? Man City and Arsenal fans who don't have a game watching bar to go to will pay for it.
...

One guy's experience. Arsenal fan, was excited to watch the game today, had shifted my schedule to be able to duck out of work and watch at a bar near the office.

Had a childcare lapse and with kid in tow couldn't go to the bar. If it was OTA on NBC he and I would've watched in the house. Because it was streaming instead, didn't bother to watch and instead he got to ride a bike outside. Win-win for us.

If the networks make it more difficult for me to watch, the easier it is for me to let life get in the way and the easier it becomes for sports to take a back seat.

Interesting strategy for them.