Radio broadcasts

[Mike Sixel]

For me it isn't the price, as the principle.....

 

free over the air in Mpls, charge me money on line in Mpls. 

 

then again, if they could find a way to charge for radio, they would. That's probably the delta.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I wonder what the current radio deal is like, especially for affiliates.  I know it was a big deal when the Twins moved from WCCO to KSTP back in 2006-2007 that the Twins were keeping in-game ad revenue, as well as getting money from KSTP.

 

Now they have it on their own radio network, 96.3, but I don't know what the affiliate deals are like in the Twins radio network.  It could be that the Twins don't want to upset the apple cart with the affiliates, as it might still be a good means of promotion for them (thinking winter caravan as well as the daily broadcasts in season).

[TheLeviathan]

 

I wonder what the current radio deal is like, especially for affiliates.  I know it was a big deal when the Twins moved from WCCO to KSTP back in 2006-2007 that the Twins were keeping in-game ad revenue, as well as getting money from KSTP.

 

Now they have it on their own radio network, 96.3, but I don't know what the affiliate deals are like in the Twins radio network.  It could be that the Twins don't want to upset the apple cart with the affiliates, as it might still be a good means of promotion for them (thinking winter caravan as well as the daily broadcasts in season).

 

You can still have all that.  When I listen to a Wild game on iheart I get a blend of Twin Cities focused ads and local adds mixed in.  

 

I also understand that the league won't cater to me.  What I don't understand is why they think that makes for a good business model.

 

They've forced me to prioritize my entertainment purchases and sports dollars.  So my son hears me listen to hockey games from time to time (plus getting to watch them far more frequently on basic cable packages) and the same with football.  Baseball used to be the thing on in the backgroudn while we played.  Now?

 

It's hockey.  Or some other channel.  And while baseball may not lose any dimes over me right now, I guarantee you they are losing some on him.  And they're doing it for the sake of $20 a year.  It's a very old-school way of thinking about distribution and exposure in a world where there are far, far more choices available.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

For me it isn't the price, as the principle.....

 

free over the air in Mpls, charge me money on line in Mpls. 

 

But, they are different things.  Like takeout vs delivery.  Radio is like takeout because it's already there in the air, and the customer just needs to pick it up.  Online is more like delivery because the content creator has to deliver the stream directly to you.  Obviously audio stream bandwidth is a drop in the bucket these days, but maybe it's the principle from their perspective too.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You can still have all that.  When I listen to a Wild game on iheart I get a blend of Twin Cities focused ads and local adds mixed in.  

 

I also understand that the league won't cater to me.  What I don't understand is why they think that makes for a good business model.

 

They've forced me to prioritize my entertainment purchases and sports dollars.  So my son hears me listen to hockey games from time to time (plus getting to watch them far more frequently on basic cable packages) and the same with football.  Baseball used to be the thing on in the backgroudn while we played.  Now?

 

It's hockey.  Or some other channel.  And while baseball may not lose any dimes over me right now, I guarantee you they are losing some on him.  And they're doing it for the sake of $20 a year.  It's a very old-school way of thinking about distribution and exposure in a world where there are far, far more choices available.

 

I don't know about the Wild's arrangement, but I do see the Twins radio network is over twice as large (104) as the Wild's (49).  Why do you suppose that is?  I suspect baseball radio is a more valuable property for those affiliates, and maintaining large affiliate exposure is more important for the Twins.  Not only is baseball far better on the radio than hockey, it's basically multiple hours of daily advertising for their product, as opposed to the Wild who play a much more variable schedule.

 

And you're on the west coast, right?  And presumably you grew up in the midwest?  20 years ago, there would have been zero way to expose your west coast son to Twins baseball at all.  So it's not really proper to say that the Twins are cutting off your son as compared to when you grew up.  They are actually gaining with your son more than kids on the west coast 20 years ago, just because now it is possible to follow a team closely from that distance.  Sure, maybe they could gain a bit more with your son with free online radio, but given the multitude of modern media exposure options, it's not clear that the incremental gains from free online radio would be worth that much.  It could certainly be offset by the affiliate benefits I mentioned above.

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't know about the Wild's arrangement, but I do see the Twins radio network is over twice as large (104) as the Wild's (49).  Why do you suppose that is? 

 

Because it chews up a lot of airtime for a lot of nights.  Relatively cheap filler every night you can advertise is basically the draw, not the actual number of listeners they have.  Most of those stations overlap each other significantly too.  They don't care about being vultured by someone listening to the flagship, those aren't their listeners.  (I say that as a kid who grew up outstate and could listen to any of about 12 different stations to hear the Twins, including the Twin Cities)

 

20 years ago you could listen to WCCO online and hear a Twins game, until MLB tried to block it.  There were lots of streams and video options available online.  (I know this because I used to listen to Twins broadcasts while I lived in Chicago)  The blackout can't be more than 10 years old or so.  

 

Yes, options are more available than ever, but that isn't the case if you put up a wall around all of those options so you can charge your fans for it.

[TheLeviathan]

And, for me personally, when it feels like a thumb in the eye for a money grab....then it just irritates me. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

At this point, I would need to hear some specifics about radio network affiliate deals in order to make any judgements here.

 

This thread exists because people actually want to listen to baseball on the radio. I am not convinced the same market is there for hockey radio. The Twins product is also twice as large as the Wild's. So expecting the same freebies doesn't seem reasonable. The Vikings give away 16 broadcasts a year, on TV no less. Nobody uses that as a basis for demanding more free entertainment from someone else.

 

FWIW, I was buying Gameday Audio no later than 2003-2004 so it is at least that old. I could still sometimes find some rogue station that forgot to turn off their web feed though.

[TheLeviathan]

 

FWIW, I was buying Gameday Audio no later than 2003-2004 so it is at least that old. I could still sometimes find some rogue station that forgot to turn off their web feed though.

 

Or there were other backdoor ways to hear streams.  No baseball has shut it all down.  

 

I'm not "demanding a freebie", I'm just not going to bend over for a thumb in the eye so baseball can make $20 off of me.  I'll reward entertainment that doesn't try so hard to gouge me.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think MLB is foolish to charge for listening on your phone, when they let you listen on the radio.

The problem I have is that you're skipping a few steps, Mike.

 

Yes, radio broadcasts are free but that doesn't mean MLB doesn't receive revenue from them. The end user isn't the one paying the bill, that's the only difference.

 

Whereas there is no middle man to pay MLB for audio content in digital distribution.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Or there were other backdoor ways to hear streams. No baseball has shut it all down.

 

I'm not "demanding a freebie", I'm just not going to bend over for a thumb in the eye so baseball can make $20 off of me. I'll reward entertainment that doesn't try so hard to gouge me.

MLB and it's teams have never centrally distributed audio streams for free. I don't think you can hold them to the "free" standard set (likely not intentionally) by individual radio stations in the early wild days of the internet.

 

The media arm of MLB has never seemed the price gouging type. MLB.TV has always seemed very competitively priced given the incredible amount of content they produce, they always do a free game of the day, and they have even made big late season games free to view (I remember watching the historic last day of the 2011 season in that fashion).

 

And unlike the NHL, the MLB all star game and championship series are still both on free over the air TV. Heck, I remember visiting my brother in St. Paul, MN in 1991 and he had to order the North Stars Stanley Cup finals games on pay per view!

[TheLeviathan]

 

remember visiting my brother in St. Paul, MN in 1991 and he had to order the North Stars Stanley Cup finals games on pay per view!

 

I think perhaps calling this irrelevant is in the running for understatement of the year.

 

On a daily basis it's far easier to watch an NBA, NFL, or NHL game than it is to find a baseball game.  Baseball Gollum's the content in an effort to horde every penny it can.  I get the approach, but I don't have to like it.  Or think it's good for the sport in the long term.  

 

The NFL realized this when it changed the Thursday night games to a local broadcast.  The NHL does it with radio.  The NBA has multiple games on every night on various channels.  Baseball is the least accessible of the major sports and it's not even all that close.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I was sharing what I thought was a fun anecdote. Lighten up, will ya?

 

Where are you seeing a lot of NHL and NBA games that you are not seeing MLB games? Certainly not over the air, where the NHL and NBA at best get a token game per week on a Sunday afternoon. MLB will get a few of those this summer too. Cable? MLB games are all over ESPN, FS1, TBS (maybe just playoffs?), and MLB Network. Plus they offer a free game of the day every day all season long on their web site, no TV subscription or antenna required. On a daily basis, that free game plus the over the air all star game plus the wold series might make them the most accessible league for cordcutters (next to the NFL, who plays a significantly limited schedule).

[Otto von Ballpark]

And the NFL, while obviously still able to deploy an in-market over the air strategy for their one game a week, doesn't have an easy solution for out of market fans, does it? Last I saw, NFL Game Pass did not offer any live games in the USA. Would you have to use DirecTV to get NFL Sunday Ticket?

[Otto von Ballpark]

MLB Gameday Audio also comes with a neat feature, the radio broadcasts are all synched with a pitch tracker. I actually might use that over the video feed sometimes so I can "watch" and conserve data. (Might be nice to avoid all the repetitive player close-ups too.)

[TheLeviathan]

 

I was sharing what I thought was a fun anecdote. Lighten up, will ya?

Where are you seeing a lot of NHL and NBA games that you are not seeing MLB games? Certainly not over the air, where the NHL and NBA at best get a token game per week on a Sunday afternoon. MLB will get a few of those this summer too. Cable? MLB games are all over ESPN, FS1, TBS (maybe just playoffs?), and MLB Network. Plus they offer a free game of the day every day all season long on their web site, no TV subscription or antenna required. On a daily basis, that free game plus the over the air all star game plus the wold series might make them the most accessible league for cordcutters (next to the NFL, who plays a significantly limited schedule).

 

That's not accurate.  This is the MLB's national broadcast schedule.  By the time June rolls around the only national games are Saturday on Fox and Sunday night on ESPN.

 

The NBA and NHL broadcast a game on their network every night.  All season.  By June, MLB Network has none.  At all.  It probably does live look-ins each night, but it does not broadcast a game like either of those networks.

 

Now in addition to that butt-whooping of availability NBCsports has a hockey game on at least 3 nights, sometimes more, a week.  The NBA is on ESPN, TNT, and TBS 3 times a week.

 

So no, your post is false.  Those leagues offer a significantly higher volume of national content compared to MLB. (Despite, by comparison, having less volume of content to offer compared to a 162 game schedule)

[Otto von Ballpark]

Levi, the MLB Network schedule is only made maybe a few weeks in advance. That is why there are no MLB Network games listed yet after April, because they don't know what the games will be (they just simulcast local broadcasts, they don't produce their own, so they can do that).

 

Once you account for that, I don't think MLB's TV presence is going to be meaningfully different than that of the NHL or NBA.

 

http://m.mlb.com/network/about/

 

"MLB Network's live game coverage includes approximately 150 regular season games, two exclusive League Division Series game telecasts, more than 150 Spring Training games, and other special event game telecasts."

[Brock Beauchamp]

Another thing to keep in mind is that MLB has a unique approach to broadcasting rights. Teams are jealously guarding their television and radio rights because individual teams negotiate (and receive all the profits from) those rights.

 

Everything digital goes to MLB and is evenly distributed to all 30 teams.

 

Obviously, this creates a problem for teams like the Yankees and Dodgers, who pull in far more revenue than the Athletics or Rays.

 

I'd like to see that system change - it's better for the sport overall - but that's simply not going to happen.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi, the MLB Network schedule is only made maybe a few weeks in advance.

 

Even if the networks wash each other, there is still at least one more game a week for hockey and basketball.  Often two or more additionally because they do back to backs on those nights.

 

As Brock said, this shouldn't be all that surprising.  Baseball, in order to make a bunch of money, has prioritized high priced region-centric broadcasting.  Far more so than any of the other major sports.  And as a result their national presence is significantly behind those other sports.

 

I think that is a bad thing, for several reasons, long term for the league.  It's a short-sighted money grab I don't want to participate in.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Even if the networks wash each other, there is still at least one more game a week for hockey and basketball.  Often two or more additionally because they do back to backs on those nights

FWIW, that MLB Network blurb about 150 live games was written back in 2013, it appears.  I wouldn't be surprised if it is higher now as the network has grown.  They basically do at least one game a day for 6 months, and plenty of back-to-back games too -- just looking ahead a few days, I see 2 games on Wednesday and 3 more on Thursday this week.  This page says "40 live games in April" which, when extrapolated, could put the season total closer to 240:

http://m.mlb.com/network/shows/?id=live_games

 

I think you are exaggerating the issue.  Baseball is perhaps the strongest regional sport, largely a function of their history and long season and large stadiums, but it is doubtful that they lag the NHL in national presence, no matter how much free hockey radio you can consume.

 

I think people have been making similar "baseball's future is doomed" arguments since the dawn of the sport. I don't like everything they do, but it's generally not a grand strategic failure -- it's usually just a matter of personal preference and a changing world.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Baseball, in order to make a bunch of money, has prioritized high priced region-centric broadcasting.

I don't even know if the original goal was money. The broadcasting rights for baseball were formed when other sports just weren't really on television at all.

 

Baseball, by creating a broadcast system before anyone else and paving the way for televised sports, allowed other leagues to see what mistakes were made and correct them before teams had anything to jealously defend.

 

Sometimes, it ends up hurting you when you're first to market with something because it's hard to undo unintended mistakes.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think you are exaggerating the issue.  Baseball is perhaps the strongest regional sport, largely a function of their history and long season and large stadiums, but it is doubtful that they lag the NHL in national presence, no matter how much free hockey radio you can consume.

 

You're twisting what I meant by national presence.  Of course baseball is still a more popular sport.  But if I have a basic sports package, I have significantly more access to hockey and basketball every night than I do baseball.   That's just a fact.

[Otto von Ballpark]

You're twisting what I meant by national presence. Of course baseball is still a more popular sport. But if I have a basic sports package, I have significantly more access to hockey and basketball every night than I do baseball. That's just a fact.

Is that even true, though? As I pointed out, there is a game or two or three on MLB Network every day, at least 150 but perhaps as many as 240 in total for the season. 72 regular season games on Fox networks. At least 50 (2 per week plus holidays) on ESPN.

 

That's 270-360 games, or an average of 1.5-2 per day all season. And that's just national broadcasts, if you get a regional sports network, you will get another 150+.

 

I highly doubt that is significantly less than pro hockey or pro basketball.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Is that even true, though? As I pointed out, there is a game or two or three on MLB Network every day, at least 150 but perhaps as many as 240 in total for the season. 72 regular season games on Fox networks. At least 50 (2 per week plus holidays) on ESPN.

That's 270-360 games, or an average of 1.5-2 per day all season. And that's just national broadcasts, if you get a regional sports network, you will get another 150+.

I highly doubt that is significantly less than pro hockey or pro basketball.

 

There is one game on MLB network.  Which game you get depends on....you guessed it!...your region.  Double counting that is disingenuous.  The NHL and NBA do this as well.  In terms of what is played on their own network it's a wash.

 

What is different is that MLB has two days a week when there is a game not on their network.  The NBA and NHL have 3 every week and a healthy chunk of weeks with 4.  (And a few with 5)  These are national broadcasts that everyone with the channel sees.  Not based on your region, not based on anything other than owning the channel. 

 

So yes, in terms of national broadcasts, baseball is significantly behind the other three.  And you don't have to look far (exclusive cable provider contracts) to figure out why.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I had the car radio on 96.3 for the Twins game the other today, and turned it on this afternoon and it defaulted to 96.3. My wife has driven the car in between and probably listened to the station by default too. That would be less likely to happen if I had a free online stream of my baseball games -- I might not even know it's frequency or call sign. I'd know it only as an app that I would open exclusively for Twins games, and my wife wouldn't know it at all. (For those that don't know, the Pohlads own the Twins flagship radio station 96.3)

 

My parents live in a rural area, and vacation in another, each covered by only one Twins network affiliate, and they don't have a smartphone (and if they did, they wouldn't use it for streaming). They are a dying breed, but they are still an audience that is best served by a robust affiliate network to be reached by the Twins and their advertisers, and they still probably outnumber out of market Twins fans looking for free radio streams. (And like it or not, even without free online streams, MLB probably reaches Twins Daily posters and their children plenty.)

 

I am sure it is trending toward more streaming, but we are still relatively early in the trend, really. The iPhone is just turning 10 years old, after all.

 

That's fine if you personally don't want to pay it (I probably wouldn't either), but I wouldn't draw any sweeping conclusions about MLB's motivations and future based on Gameday Audio still costing $20.

[Otto von Ballpark]

There is one game on MLB network. Which game you get depends on....you guessed it!...your region. Double counting that is disingenuous. The NHL and NBA do this as well. In terms of what is played on their own network it's a wash.

 

What is different is that MLB has two days a week when there is a game not on their network. The NBA and NHL have 3 every week and a healthy chunk of weeks with 4. (And a few with 5) These are national broadcasts that everyone with the channel sees. Not based on your region, not based on anything other than owning the channel.

 

So yes, in terms of national broadcasts, baseball is significantly behind the other three. And you don't have to look far (exclusive cable provider contracts) to figure out why.

There are two separate games on MLB Network tomorrow, and 3 on Thursday. Check the schedule, it is not double counting those days. It is pretty easy to do with regular weekday afternoon games, which don't exist in other leagues. And of course late west coast games.

 

And MLB Network is showing a live game every day for the rest of their announced schedule (through April), I am not sure where you are getting the idea that they take off multiple days every week. Maybe the same place that told you they broadcast zero games after April? They don't start games at the same time as ESPN or Fox games, but they do broadcast games at other times on those days see this weekend for example.

 

I really don't get this stark difference you continue claiming between MLB and NHL in national TV deals/exposure.

[USAFChief]

Levi, you live in Phoenix, right? You get 160 Dbacks games on basic cable with FSAZ.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi, you live in Phoenix, right? You get 160 Dbacks games on basic cable with FSAZ.

 

There's lots of stuff on the Oprah network I hear too.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

I had the car radio on 96.3 for the Twins game the other today, and turned it on this afternoon and it defaulted to 96.3. My wife has driven the car in between and probably listened to the station by default too. That would be less likely to happen if I had a free online stream of my baseball games -- I might not even know it's frequency or call sign. I'd know it only as an app that I would open exclusively for Twins games, and my wife wouldn't know it at all. (For those that don't know, the Pohlads own the Twins flagship radio station 96.3)

My parents live in a rural area, and vacation in another, each covered by only one Twins network affiliate, and they don't have a smartphone (and if they did, they wouldn't use it for streaming). They are a dying breed, but they are still an audience that is best served by a robust affiliate network to be reached by the Twins and their advertisers, and they still probably outnumber out of market Twins fans looking for free radio streams. (And like it or not, even without free online streams, MLB probably reaches Twins Daily posters and their children plenty.)

I am sure it is trending toward more streaming, but we are still relatively early in the trend, really. The iPhone is just turning 10 years old, after all.

That's fine if you personally don't want to pay it (I probably wouldn't either), but I wouldn't draw any sweeping conclusions about MLB's motivations and future based on Gameday Audio still costing $20.

 

Allowing streaming does nothing to limit affiliates.  Both can co-exist without much of any damage to the other.

 

April afternoon games are a short-lived phenomenon.  I counted nights a week, if we want to start counting by game, the NBA has double and triple headers nearly every night they are on.  NHL too.

 

Baseball has a very limited national broadcast schedule outside of their network.  The NBA and NHL do not.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

I just showed you that MLB has a national TV game on virtually every day for 6 months. How does the NBA or NHL clearly beat that?

 

I count ~106 NHL games listed for NBC/NBCSN here:

 

http://blog.timesunion.com/sportsmedia/2016-17-nhl-national-tv-schedule-nbc-nbcsn/17435/

 

That is less than the ~135 MLB games scheduled for ESPN/Fox/TBS.

 

I see 80 regular season games quoted here for the NHL Network (if you have a better source, please share):

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Network_(U.S._TV_network)

 

That is less than the 150+ we've seen for MLB Network.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if these numbers were closer, but I absolutely don't see how the NHL has a significant advantage in national TV exposure.