Radio broadcasts

[TheGiantTeapot]

Hey everyone, I need to vent. 54 years old, spent a large part of my working life in radio and broadcasting. I'm supremely frustrated that I can't listen to a Twins radio broadcast online! MLB seems to think their arrangement with live away games but delayed home games is a good idea. Um, yeah... no. 

 

Radio broadcasts are free, with the caveat that we have to listen to commercials.. With the advent of PPM (Personal People Meters, or something like that), stations have a better shot at tracking how many listeners they actually have. Not super accurate numbers by any means, but a better idea. "Better" is a relative concept compared to years past.

 

Online listeners can be counted much more easily. Why the **** wouldn't Manfred and MLB make radio broadcasts available online and sell those numbers to advertisers? I can't believe MLB.TV is doing well enough to offset what they could make from advertisers who would pay for a larger base of listeners. Make the radio broadcast available online, with commercials, and sell the numbers to advertisers.

 

Anyone?

[TheLeviathan]

Oh, believe me, I hate this too.

[Mike Sixel]

Yup. Really sucks out of state

[drjim]

MLB needs the $20.

[TheLeviathan]

 

MLB needs the $20.

 

Right, just put a price tag on it that doesn't immediately make me say "good lord!  You want that?"

 

You're pricing yourself out of entire cross sections of fans by being complete **cks about it.

[USAFChief]

I think the radio pkg is a great deal. I'm happy to pay the 20 bucks.

[Otto von Ballpark]

The Twins radio advertising is pretty local. I don't know that those advertisers are going to pay for online broadcasts which will primarily be going to scattered users and places out of state.

 

I don't think $20 is that much for the package. And of course there are ways to make a full MLB.TV sub more useful in-market too... and it is usually half-price by mid-May.

[Brock Beauchamp]

While I hate MLB video content rules and blackouts, their radio policy seems pretty reasonable.

 

The problem with advertising is twofold: you need to hire people to pursue and implement the ads and the return on revenue needs to exceed that infrastructure cost.

 

In this case, I doubt that's possible so they charge a flat $20. I'd be surprised if there's more than a few thousand people streaming Twins audio from the app. And a few thousand people aren't going to bring in advertisers or make it possible to charge enough to break even on the deal, much less profit.

[TheLeviathan]

While I hate MLB video content rules and blackouts, their radio policy seems pretty reasonable.

The problem with advertising is twofold: you need to hire people to pursue and implement the ads and the return on revenue needs to exceed that infrastructure cost.

In this case, I doubt that's possible so they charge a flat $20. I'd be surprised if there's more than a few thousand people streaming Twins audio from the app. And a few thousand people aren't going to bring in advertisers or make it possible to charge enough to break even on the deal, much less profit.

All the more reason to just offer it for free as an olive branch to fans.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

All the more reason to just offer it for free as an olive branch to fans.

That undermines their regional broadcasters, though.

 

For example, the Bemidji station that broadcasts Twins games would be deterred from renewing their broadcast rights because free streaming of the Minneapolis flagship station would be online for all to use.

[TheGiantTeapot]

^{All fair points. I just don't get how it's a detriment to the flagship radio station if we hear the exact same broadcast online, ads and all. It's a messed up industry, that much I know.}

[TheLeviathan]

That undermines their regional broadcasters, though.

 

For example, the Bemidji station that broadcasts Twins games would be deterred from renewing their broadcast rights because free streaming of the Minneapolis flagship station would be online for all to use.

Would it though? Hockey does it already and WCCO was basically accessible statewide for years and there was still local stations. Those stations are so highly localized I really don't think offering free radio moves the needle for then at all. The live stream folks aren't their listeners anyway

[Brock Beauchamp]

Would it though? Hockey does it already and WCCO was basically accessible statewide for years and there was still local stations. Those stations are so highly localized I really don't think offering free radio moves the needle for then at all. The live stream folks aren't their listeners anyway

Ultimately, I think that's where we end up but I can see why MLB doesn't want to rip off that band-aid right now.

 

I consider the issue of paying $130 and still not being able to watch a live game online within a region (without circumvention) a far more concerning and industry-damaging situation than radio.

 

I'm willing to pay for things I enjoy, what I don't like is having to stick to a draconian and outdated system that forces me down a single, predetermined tunnel.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ultimately, I think that's where we end up but I can see why MLB doesn't want to rip off that band-aid right now.

 

I consider the issue of paying $130 and still not being able to watch a live game online within a region (without circumvention) a far more concerning and industry-damaging situation than radio.

 

I'm willing to pay for things I enjoy, what I don't like is having to stick to a draconian and outdated system that forces me down a single, predetermined tunnel.

 

Being out of market, I just want an option that allows me to stay tuned in with my favorite team without gasping at the bill every month.  Or jumping through hoops to access what they do allow.  

 

If I want to listen to a Wild game?  An app I already have, that works well (iheart), allows me to do that with no inconvenience or cost.

 

Baseball seems to make it actively inconvenient for me to watch my favorite team.  They are literally getting zero dollars out of me and all my clicks to follow the team go to websites other than MLB.com.  A meager effort to give me options that don't cost an arm and a leg and a pain in the ass would be appreciated.

[Otto von Ballpark]

$20 for the season is $3 per month. That causes you to gasp? That is costing an arm and a leg? Maybe that is the value of Ben Revere's arm and Jim Thome's leg.

 

Plus the $20 gets you all the radio broadcasts around the league. Was better with Vin Scully around but there are still some other announcers worth checking out, and Spanish broadcasts are always fun. Opposing team broadcasts are a nice change of pace too.

 

I think the NHL and NBA need to offer their radio broadcasts free because their sports kind of suck on the radio, and their schedules are so unpredictable. Those broadcasts are worth much less to stations and advertisers.

 

Meanwhile, baseball is awesome on radio, and played on a consistent schedule, almost daily for 6 months.

[TheLeviathan]

 

$20 for the season is $3 per month. That causes you to gasp? That is costing an arm and a leg? Maybe that is the value of Ben Revere's arm and Jim Thome's leg.

Plus the $20 gets you all the radio broadcasts around the league. Was better with Vin Scully around but there are still some other announcers worth checking out, and Spanish broadcasts are always fun. Opposing team broadcasts are a nice change of pace too.

I think the NHL and NBA need to offer their radio broadcasts free because their sports kind of suck on the radio, and their schedules are so unpredictable. Those broadcasts are worth much less to stations and advertisers.

Meanwhile, baseball is awesome on radio, and played on a consistent schedule, almost daily for 6 months.

 

The NBA doesn't offer theirs free as far as I can tell, only the NHL.  The NHL does it, I think, because it's smart not to block people from your product.

 

Baseball should wise up on that themselves.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

The NBA doesn't offer theirs free as far as I can tell, only the NHL. The NHL does it, I think, because it's smart not to block people from your product.

 

Baseball should wise up on that themselves.

Back when the Wolves were relevant. I remember listening free online, but that was awhile ago!

 

I think it is relevant that baseball is a far better radio sport than hockey. That is why we are interested in the topic, and the same reason MLB and broadcasters want to protect their radio broadcast rights.

 

$20 for the season is basically the bare minimum they can charge and tell affiliates they are still the exclusive home of free broadcasts. I'm not sure why it is being portrayed as some great expensive barrier.

[TheLeviathan]

For me, the only reason I'm interested in the radio is because buying the TV subscription is stupid expensive.

 

$20 for something inconvenient and limited is still a pain.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

I actually think the television rights are fairly priced... if you remove blackout rules.

 

Getting every baseball game in MLB - nearly 2500 games - for $130 is reasonable.

 

But the blackout restrictions are terrible.

 

Also, switch to T-Mobile. Their prices are cheaper, they're not a terrible company, and they've offered free MLB.tv for three seasons now.

[USAFChief]

Yup, even if you just watch Twins games and no other team, at $130 that's less than $1 per game.

 

As someone who had to do without Twins games for a long time (my mother in law used to record a couple games off radio onto cassette tapes and mail to me in Okinawa) I am more than happy just to have options.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

For me, the only reason I'm interested in the radio is because buying the TV subscription is stupid expensive.

 

If you are a baseball fan, the TV subscription is a fine deal at $113.  (Watch for it on sale at half-price in May too.)  And if you are not subject to many blackouts, or you find a way around them (*cough* Ad-Free Time *cough*), it is almost certainly the best deal in all of sports.

 

Students/military can get 35% off too (might also extend to teachers, at least they use id.me for verification which also has a teacher group).

[Mike Sixel]

 

If you are a baseball fan, the TV subscription is a fine deal at $113.  (Watch for it on sale at half-price in May too.)  And if you are not subject to many blackouts, or you find a way around them (*cough* Ad-Free Time *cough*), it is almost certainly the best deal in all of sports.

 

Students/military can get 35% off too (might also extend to teachers, at least they use id.me for verification which also has a teacher group).

 

Unless you only want to watch about 10 games a year.....I could never sit around and watch sports like I used to.

 

As for the radio, who the F has a radio sitting around anymore? It always bugged me when I lived in MN that I could listen for free on 1950s tech, but I couldn't listen to the same thing for free on my phone or computer. 

[Vanimal46]

 

If you are a baseball fan, the TV subscription is a fine deal at $113.  (Watch for it on sale at half-price in May too.)  And if you are not subject to many blackouts, or you find a way around them (*cough* Ad-Free Time *cough*), it is almost certainly the best deal in all of sports.

 

Students/military can get 35% off too (might also extend to teachers, at least they use id.me for verification which also has a teacher group).

 

It's even less expensive when you buy in with a group of people and share a login..... 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Unless you only want to watch about 10 games a year.....I could never sit around and watch sports like I used to.

 

As for the radio, who the F has a radio sitting around anymore? It always bugged me when I lived in MN that I could listen for free on 1950s tech, but I couldn't listen to the same thing for free on my phone or computer. 

 

This.  I have kids and live on the west coast, the opportunities to sit and watch a game aren't plentiful since they come on at 5pm.  If they offered me a way to buy it for a buck a game or something I'd consider that, but they don't.

 

And whole-heartedly agree with you on the last paragraph.  It's in baseball's best interest to waive that $20 and let people listen for free on their phones.  They aren't boosting their profit margins with that, it won't hurt them to waive it, and they'll be providing a free, nation wide way to keep their fans engaged in their product.

 

Instead, like many things with digital content, it seems the principle of "We can't give it to them for free!" overrides basic common sense. Instead they scrape the bottom for pennies and alienate people instead.  And worst of all? People will still find ways to skirt the system for free anyway.

[Mike Sixel]

Actually, I'd argue that people gave away too much on the internet. It's one way news has become devalued, imo. 

 

OTOH, I agree in this instance, it should be free in market. Just as I think book publishers are idiots for charging full price for 40 year old ebooks, I think MLB is foolish to charge for listening on your phone, when they let you listen on the radio.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Actually, I'd argue that people gave away too much on the internet. It's one way news has become devalued, imo. 

 

OTOH, I agree in this instance, it should be free in market. Just as I think book publishers are idiots for charging full price for 40 year old ebooks, I think MLB is foolish to charge for listening on your phone, when they let you listen on the radio.

 

Right, the only difference between me listening on my phone and me listening from a radio in my car is where I'm at when I do it.   If I'm in my car it's free too.  I don't pay a subscription.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Unless you only want to watch about 10 games a year.....I could never sit around and watch sports like I used to.

 

As for the radio, who the F has a radio sitting around anymore? It always bugged me when I lived in MN that I could listen for free on 1950s tech, but I couldn't listen to the same thing for free on my phone or computer. 

 

I don't sit down and watch full games either, but if you check the score and it looks interesting, flip it on. If the Twins game is a stinker but another one is close, especially late in the season, you can flip on that one instead.

 

Radio -- obviously the car is a key spot! But I suspect most people still have a stereo in their house with a radio function. Also some smartphones have FM radio capability.

[Otto von Ballpark]

NFL games are generally on free over the air TV, but they don't let you stream them at all.  Short-sighted business decision?

 

I think MLB, especially the media arm, is doing well enough to earn some benefit of the doubt about their strategy here.  It's not like my hometown podunk newspaper, in the year 2017, allowing zero online access beyond headlines for non-subscribers, which is clearly a strategy that is dooming them to failure and irrelevance in the modern world.

 

MLB making Gameday Audio free might generate a little goodwill among fans, but probably concentrated among diehards anyway -- I think most folks who seek out a radio broadcast in 2017 are probably in the diehard group!  And among out-of-market diehards, there is already the great deal of MLB.TV which supercedes Gameday Audio, and in-market diehards can already get the broadcasts over the air without much effort.  If they think such a free offering might upset a few local affiliates, it might not be worth it for those modest benefits.

 

Sure, I'd love to have more free options too, but let's not pretend that it's a clear business imperative for MLB.  I'm just cheap.

[TheLeviathan]

 

NFL games are generally on free over the air TV, but they don't let you stream them at all.  Short-sighted business decision?

 

I think MLB, especially the media arm, is doing well enough to earn some benefit of the doubt about their strategy here.  It's not like my hometown podunk newspaper, in the year 2017, allowing zero online access beyond headlines for non-subscribers, which is clearly a strategy that is dooming them to failure and irrelevance in the modern world.

 

I find the two strategies very similar actually.  I became a baseball fan because my grandfather always had the Twins on the radio or the TV.  Just like you'll go elsewhere for your news thanks to that dumb decision by the newspaper, restricting access for fans will lead them to make other entertainment choices.  Things they have to pay less for and have easier access to.  And that has long term ramifications that may not be immediately evident.

 

The radio package isn't intended for your average fan, it's for your diehards.  Why nickle and dime them?  

[Otto von Ballpark]

Are you honestly going to be making any significantly different entertainment choices because Gameday Audio is $20 instead of free?

 

You've already stated that MLB.TV at $113 is "stupid expensive" when it's generally regarded as a pretty good value for out-of-market viewers, so it seems doubtful that MLB would make much money on you anyway, regardless of whether they extended a free online radio olive branch.

 

And I'm not criticizing you -- I am the same kind of frugal fan.  But I understand that modern sports leagues are never going to have to cater to me to be successful.