MLB working on in-market streaming service for 2023

[Otto von Ballpark]

5 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

They should let you separate.  I'll pay $120 a year to see every Twins game--I don't have much interest in access to Wild/Wolves games (and I'm sure there are Wild fans who would say the same about the Twins/Wolves, and Wolves fans Wild/Twins), and I might not be willing to pay $240 to see every Twins game.  There is significant crossover between MLB/NBA/NHL fans, either at the league or market level, but there is a significant group that has no crossover, and forcing them to take a product they don't want, and paying more for the product they do want because of it, is not a good strategy.  It's like Delta telling potential travelers that they can only book a flight if they also reserve a hotel and a rental car through Delta as well.  Will a lot of people be ok with that?  Sure.  Will a lot of people decline to book with Delta, and use their money to pursue other interests instead?  Absolutely.

The other sports gain the viewership and stability by being discounted to the subscribers--Twins subscribers happy to pay $120 for the Twins, might not be interested in paying $120 for the Wolves, or the Wild.  But if they can add both on for $120?  That's something that could happen.

FWIW, unlike air travel and hotels, consumers have never had the option to separate in-market Twins broadcasts from in-market Wolves or Wild in the way that you are describing.

Also, you're making this way more complicated than it is. Sportsnet Now in Canada doesn't separate Blue Jays, Raptors, and Maple Leafs, but they offer a monthly plan for $15/month and an annual plan at $150/year. So if you just want the Blue Jays, subscribe to the monthly plan for 6 months and you'll pay $90 for the season. You can ignore the Raptors and Maple Leafs if the seasons overlap.

Until I hear otherwise, I assume similar monthly/annual options would be part of in-market streaming in the USA too.

[Mike Sixel]

If the pay is based on market subscribers....MLB will continue to perpetuate income/spending disparities among their teams. 

So.....rather than offer 1 service to watch baseball (and others, if that's the deal) to anyone that wants to watch any game......

1. Different services for in and out of market teams (with Iowa and other markets still 100% screwed over, most likely).

2. Money will still be divided by team, rather than peanut buttered across the league.

3. I'm sure there are other silly things they are doing I can't think of right now.

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

16 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

The lack of in-market streaming is archaic. But I'm not so sure that market delineation in general is archaic, or that it is even bad for the consumer. Most fans in Minnesota have little or no interest in non-Twins regular season games, and I don't think they'd want to pay for them. I think a lot of Twins fans scattered around the country likewise don't have much interest in their "local" team either.

Much remains to be seen here, of course -- maybe they'll wind up with a plan where fans in Seattle can just purchase a Twins package, that would be fine by me and would satisfy your requirements as well. But I think it still makes sense to package it separately from the league package.

I perhaps have been unclear--I think there should be one package that every fan buys, and it gives them access to every team in the league(s) they include.  Football has managed to be a sport where market, while still important, is not critical to viewership.  As such, it doesn't matter that both NY teams are terrible, and have been for years--the league thrives even though it's best teams are in Baltimore and Green Bay (among other places).  MLB/NBA/NHL should be trying to get to that place, where they are creating not Twins or Mariners or Rangers fans, but baseball fans (who still have a favorite team, but will watch a Braves/Padres game while living in St Louis, for no other reason than that they like baseball).  MLB is declining in popularity, and needs a refresh now.  Embracing the times, and eliminating as many barriers to viewership as possible is the path forward.

[Mike Sixel]

1 minute ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I perhaps have been unclear--I think there should be one package that every fan buys, and it gives them access to every team in the league(s) they include.  Football has managed to be a sport where market, while still important, is not critical to viewership.  As such, it doesn't matter that both NY teams are terrible, and have been for years--the league thrives even though it's best teams are in Baltimore and Green Bay (among other places).  MLB/NBA/NHL should be trying to get to that place, where they are creating not Twins or Mariners or Rangers fans, but baseball fans (who still have a favorite team, but will watch a Braves/Padres game while living in St Louis, for no other reason than that they like baseball).  MLB is declining in popularity, and needs a refresh now.  Embracing the times, and eliminating as many barriers to viewership as possible is the path forward.

truth

[roger]

Truth is we don't know what is really being discussed.  And with all three leagues talking about being involved, Sinclair having some control meaning they will need to be satisfied to sign off, and baseball and all its franchises...its a long way from becoming reality.

Wasn't it only a few weeks ago that we learned Sinclair was planning its own streaming service?  Today we learn that that isn't going to happen because they are one step from going down the crapper financially and no one had any interest in loaning them the $250M they needed to get that off the ground.  

Hopefully, this will work out so that the 55% of us who weren't watching the Twins last summer can watch them in 2023.  Would be really nice if it could happen sooner, but with all those different interests at the table...that's unlikely.

[Cap'n Piranha]

13 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

FWIW, unlike air travel and hotels, consumers have never had the option to separate in-market Twins broadcasts from in-market Wolves or Wild in the way that you are describing.

Also, you're making this way more complicated than it is. Sportsnet Now in Canada doesn't separate Blue Jays, Raptors, and Maple Leafs, but they offer a monthly plan for $15/month and an annual plan at $150/year. So if you just want the Blue Jays, subscribe to the monthly plan for 6 months and you'll pay $90 for the season. You can ignore the Raptors and Maple Leafs if the seasons overlap.

Until I hear otherwise, I assume similar monthly/annual options would be part of in-market streaming in the USA too.

You're missing the point I was making--forcing consumers to pay for services they don't want in order to get services they do will invariably cause some people who otherwise would have been customers to not be customers.  Throw out the numbers I've been using, as they were meant to be merely directional--the three leagues should create 3 tiers (1 league, 2 leagues, or all 3 leagues) that anyone anywhere in North America (assuming they can't do worldwide) can subscribe to, and get access to every game (barring the signature games given to TBS/ESPN/FOX et al) for their leagues.

I'm also not making it complicated--I'm making it much easier.  A subscriber need only make one choice (what league(s) do they want), and then they're done.  Having to choose between monthly or annual, and which market do I want, and am I subject to blackouts so I have to buy a different plan for a handful of days is more complicated.

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

You're missing the point I was making--forcing consumers to pay for services they don't want in order to get services they do will invariably cause some people who otherwise would have been customers to not be customers.

Every streaming service is some combination of bundled content, from ESPN+ to Netflix etc. Bundling Twins with Wolves and Wild is pretty straightforward by that standard, and a monthly option effectively lets the consumer unbundle them rather easily, if they want to save a few bucks.

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I'm also not making it complicated--I'm making it much easier.  A subscriber need only make one choice (what league(s) do they want), and then they're done.  Having to choose between monthly or annual, and which market do I want, and am I subject to blackouts so I have to buy a different plan for a handful of days is more complicated.

There pretty much has to be a monthly option. A lot of fans will pay $20 to see their team in a pennant race but just won't shell out $100+ for the season.

And once there are monthly and annual options, it makes it more complicated to further divide that by league.

[Otto von Ballpark]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I perhaps have been unclear--I think there should be one package that every fan buys, and it gives them access to every team in the league(s) they include.  Football has managed to be a sport where market, while still important, is not critical to viewership.  As such, it doesn't matter that both NY teams are terrible, and have been for years--the league thrives even though it's best teams are in Baltimore and Green Bay (among other places).  MLB/NBA/NHL should be trying to get to that place, where they are creating not Twins or Mariners or Rangers fans, but baseball fans (who still have a favorite team, but will watch a Braves/Padres game while living in St Louis, for no other reason than that they like baseball).  MLB is declining in popularity, and needs a refresh now.  Embracing the times, and eliminating as many barriers to viewership as possible is the path forward.

I'm not really interested in a generalized "baseball is in decline" debate, sorry.

The NFL is a very different animal. 17 games a season. It's literally only ~51 hours a year, almost all of them on Sundays, to watch every single snap for one team, leaving plenty of time for consuming a meaningful amount of other games around the league. Doing the same for a single MLB team would be, what, ~500 hours a year? Spread across mostly weeknights? Invariably, baseball (and to a similar extent, basketball and hockey) needs to be consumed in a much different way, across several different methods. Live out-of-market video just isn't as important in that equation, which is why MLB.TV exists and is much cheaper than, say, NBA League Pass (or the non-existent NFL out-of-market streaming package in USA).

Can MLB improve? Obviously, that's why we're talking about in-market streaming. But any consumer profile will likely show there is a lot more overlap in Minnesota between Twins fans and Wild fans and Wolves fans, than there is between Twins fans and the level of baseball diehard that it would take to get invested in a random Braves/Padres live video stream.

Of course the league packages would still exist. And there would be bundling opportunities, where they could add MLB.TV onto the in-market service or vice-versa.

[nicksaviking]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I perhaps have been unclear--I think there should be one package that every fan buys, and it gives them access to every team in the league(s) they include.  Football has managed to be a sport where market, while still important, is not critical to viewership.  As such, it doesn't matter that both NY teams are terrible, and have been for years--the league thrives even though it's best teams are in Baltimore and Green Bay (among other places).  MLB/NBA/NHL should be trying to get to that place, where they are creating not Twins or Mariners or Rangers fans, but baseball fans (who still have a favorite team, but will watch a Braves/Padres game while living in St Louis, for no other reason than that they like baseball).  MLB is declining in popularity, and needs a refresh now.  Embracing the times, and eliminating as many barriers to viewership as possible is the path forward.

I don't disagree that MLB needs to work to be as accessible as the NFL, but the NFL still has 90% of their games on broadcast channels. Those are free, or at least perceived to be free by anyone who has cable, dish or some kind of live streaming service like Hulu Live or whatever. That is still most people.

MLB is still going to be less accessible than the NFL because they're still going to be asking people to fork over extra money on top of that. Whether it's $10 a month, $20 a month or whatever MLB.TV is charging now, plenty of people are going to say no to paying extra for a sport they spent their entire lives watching for "free".

[Mike Sixel]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

I don't disagree that MLB needs to work to be as accessible as the NFL, but the NFL still has 90% of their games on broadcast channels. Those are free, or at least perceived to be free by anyone who has cable, dish or some kind of live streaming service like Hulu Live or whatever. That is still most people.

MLB is still going to be less accessible than the NFL because they're still going to be asking people to fork over extra money on top of that. Whether it's $10 a month, $20 a month or whatever MLB.TV is charging now, plenty of people are going to say no to paying extra for a sport they spent their entire lives watching for "free".

The playoffs aren't even free for MLB.....let alone the regular season games (which, sure, NBA is the same largely)......the NFL wins because they are on free tv mostly. The question MLB needs to answer is how to be more popular than the NBA....

[TheLeviathan]

53 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The playoffs aren't even free for MLB.....let alone the regular season games (which, sure, NBA is the same largely)......the NFL wins because they are on free tv mostly. The question MLB needs to answer is how to be more popular than the NBA....

Football built their empire by putting aside their regional selfishness to build a game with parity and national appeal.  Baseball had national appeal and slowly allowed it's worst element (fervent regionalism) take over via cable contracts and fan bases.  It has killed parity, left small markets with literal decades of non-competitive play, and destabilized the ability for the league to story-tell about the game.

Making a streaming service that is still rooted in regionalism will only perpetuate the same problems.  Baseball needs to sacrifice some profits for the sake of exposure and goodwill to sports fans or they'll continue to die.  This idea and price point will be argued by the league, and has here, to be perfectly fine and reasonable because they are focused on a very narrow range of fans they listen to.  Like people in a baseball forum conducted by baseball fans significantly more passionate than the average viewer.  As has been the case for about two decades....baseball makes all their decisions based on the feelings of diehards and never recognizes the value in casual fandom.  And because of that....they kill the casual fans.  Nobody who says "I like to have a baseball game on sometimes" is going to pay $20 for a streaming service for 4 hour slog-a-thons.  

A streaming service could be the savior of baseball.  But that price point needs to be at a spot a casual fan would jump at.

[Mike Sixel]

13 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Football built their empire by putting aside their regional selfishness to build a game with parity and national appeal.  Baseball had national appeal and slowly allowed it's worst element (fervent regionalism) take over via cable contracts and fan bases.  It has killed parity, left small markets with literal decades of non-competitive play, and destabilized the ability for the league to story-tell about the game.

Making a streaming service that is still rooted in regionalism will only perpetuate the same problems.  Baseball needs to sacrifice some profits for the sake of exposure and goodwill to sports fans or they'll continue to die.  This idea and price point will be argued by the league, and has here, to be perfectly fine and reasonable because they are focused on a very narrow range of fans they listen to.  Like people in a baseball forum conducted by baseball fans significantly more passionate than the average viewer.  As has been the case for about two decades....baseball makes all their decisions based on the feelings of diehards and never recognizes the value in casual fandom.  And because of that....they kill the casual fans.  Nobody who says "I like to have a baseball game on sometimes" is going to pay $20 for a streaming service for 4 hour slog-a-thons.  

A streaming service could be the savior of baseball.  But that price point needs to be at a spot a casual fan would jump at.

Preach it! 

Remember the Saturn line of cars? They asked car lovers what they loved? You know car lovers loved? Loud cars. You know what people that buy sedans love? Quiet cars.

MLB needs to get new fans, and keep those they have. This isn't the way.

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

Preach it! 

Remember the Saturn line of cars? They asked car lovers what they loved? You know car lovers loved? Loud cars. You know what people that buy sedans love? Quiet cars.

MLB needs to get new fans, and keep those they have. This isn't the way.

I can't remember the last time I heard an analogy that spot on.  If that story about Saturn is true (I have never heard that, but I believe you) it's simply perfect for MLB.

[Mike Sixel]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

I can't remember the last time I heard an analogy that spot on.  If that story about Saturn is true (I have never heard that, but I believe you) it's simply perfect for MLB.

100% true. 

[Sousy]

10 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

But in a place like Minnesota, for example, I doubt they'd let you separate Twins and Wolves and Wild. The idea behind the partnership would be for each sport to gain viewers and stability from the others.

 

Oddly enough, this sounds just like the TV deals that were put in place in the late 80s / early 90s. The difference here seems to be the leagues themselves wanting to originate content rather than relying on some other TV provider.  (That eventually lead to the consolidation of the 'Fox Sports Net' and such.)

[Sousy]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

A streaming service could be the savior of baseball.  But that price point needs to be at a spot a casual fan would jump at.

I can imagine a few different cases happening:

1. The leagues offer a cable package similar to a "Bally Sports North" type of thing. This would obviously be heavily discounted from what exists today that is aimed at capturing the casual / non-streaming viewer. That's still a pretty large audience that they won't want to abandon.

2. There will be some games that will be given to national broadcasters as exists today - there's ESPN games, FOX games, what have you.

3. There's a single product (maybe branded in a way like MLB.tv, NHL.tv was essentially the identical technology base) that a dedicated fan can simply subscribe to for either a team or the entire league just like the offerings today. The big difference is not having blackouts - you just subscribe to "MLB, NHL, NBA" or some combination of the three as a package deal.

I can see the leagues working from the point where they are now in concern that the broadcasters, agreements, etc. that are in place now are making it too hard to actually view the games. I can see them adding a bunch of premium services, different tiers, etc. - but I can't seem them making it harder to watch the product.  (Remember how well having all the 1991 North Stars games on that weird PPV thing went?)

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Sousy said:

I can imagine a few different cases happening:

1. The leagues offer a cable package similar to a "Bally Sports North" type of thing. This would obviously be heavily discounted from what exists today that is aimed at capturing the casual / non-streaming viewer. That's still a pretty large audience that they won't want to abandon.

2. There will be some games that will be given to national broadcasters as exists today - there's ESPN games, FOX games, what have you.

3. There's a single product (maybe branded in a way like MLB.tv, NHL.tv was essentially the identical technology base) that a dedicated fan can simply subscribe to for either a team or the entire league just like the offerings today. The big difference is not having blackouts - you just subscribe to "MLB, NHL, NBA" or some combination of the three as a package deal.

I can see the leagues working from the point where they are now in concern that the broadcasters, agreements, etc. that are in place now are making it too hard to actually view the games. I can see them adding a bunch of premium services, different tiers, etc. - but I can't seem them making it harder to watch the product.  (Remember how well having all the 1991 North Stars games on that weird PPV thing went?)

I do think it would be harder to be more difficult, but the league needs to care about subscription numbers more than the bottom line.  The numbers, in time, will hit the bottom line, but only caring about dollars upfront will kill your appeal past the diehards.  MLB desperately needs to fix that tendency in general.

[Whitey333]

Great comments by all.  There is lot to think about.  My concern is that we may or may not have a system in place by 2023.  In the meantime most of us have been unable to watch the games for the past several months.  And.the future in that area doesn't look good.  Teams are obviously losing tv viewers.  Will anyone care anymore by 2023?  Let's get teams back on cable and streaming systems now!

[Otto von Ballpark]

3 minutes ago, Whitey333 said:

Great comments by all.  There is lot to think about.  My concern is that we may or may not have a system in place by 2023.  In the meantime most of us have been unable to watch the games for the past several months.  And.the future in that area doesn't look good.  Teams are obviously losing tv viewers.  Will anyone care anymore by 2023?  Let's get teams back on cable and streaming systems now!

While the target date of 2023 here is somewhat disappointing, part of this is undoubtedly trying to pressure Bally/Sinclair into action much sooner than that.

Remember, it was Bally/Sinclair that floated the idea of a direct streaming product earlier this year, with a target date of 2022. But apparently they were trying to get those streaming rights from MLB (and NBA? NHL?) on the cheap to salvage their own poor decisions (their too-high bid for the networks in the first place, plus pulling themselves off of most streaming TV providers).

So aside from a new service in 2023, possible outcomes here include Bally networks returning to more streaming platforms in 2022, or a Bally direct service coming to fruition soon, both potentially under a new owner instead of Sinclair.

[adorduan]

19 hours ago, roger said:

Truth is we don't know what is really being discussed.  And with all three leagues talking about being involved, Sinclair having some control meaning they will need to be satisfied to sign off, and baseball and all its franchises...its a long way from becoming reality.

Wasn't it only a few weeks ago that we learned Sinclair was planning its own streaming service?  Today we learn that that isn't going to happen because they are one step from going down the crapper financially and no one had any interest in loaning them the $250M they needed to get that off the ground.  

Hopefully, this will work out so that the 55% of us who weren't watching the Twins last summer can watch them in 2023.  Would be really nice if it could happen sooner, but with all those different interests at the table...that's unlikely.

off topic, but the sooner Sinclair dies, the better.  

[TwinsAce]

16 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

The playoffs aren't even free for MLB.....let alone the regular season games (which, sure, NBA is the same largely)......the NFL wins because they are on free tv mostly. The question MLB needs to answer is how to be more popular than the NBA....

Every year, it amazes me that the MLB playoffs aren't available via either MLB TV or via "free tv".  I can't imagine how many people would follow baseball more if they could actually watch the playoffs.  One downside to baseball is often the long season.  But if fans could watch the playoffs, when the teams are elite and the games are drama filled and action packed, you would have to think MLB would have a growing audience.  (Not an aging one.)  Hey, at least the WS is available. 

If they do the streaming service, I think they should also add in the option of watching "all playoff games".  Or better yet, don't even charge extra for those and add them to the in-network streaming and also MLB TV streaming.

[Richard Swerdlick]

The way I read it, MLB is hoping that Sinclair keeps losing so much money on the RSN's that they can get a good deal from them.  Also, MLB is seeing if they can go in togehter with the NHL and NBA. It's about time. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 hour ago, TwinsAce said:

Every year, it amazes me that the MLB playoffs aren't available via either MLB TV or via "free tv".  I can't imagine how many people would follow baseball more if they could actually watch the playoffs.  One downside to baseball is often the long season.  But if fans could watch the playoffs, when the teams are elite and the games are drama filled and action packed, you would have to think MLB would have a growing audience.  (Not an aging one.)  Hey, at least the WS is available. 

If they do the streaming service, I think they should also add in the option of watching "all playoff games".  Or better yet, don't even charge extra for those and add them to the in-network streaming and also MLB TV streaming.

Keep in mind, the NBA and NHL postseasons are pretty much in the same situation, in terms of broadcasts. I don't think it's a fault of the leagues as much as a reality of the series formats -- there are simply a lot more games, and quite a few of them aren't "deciding" games either. Audiences (and thus broadcasters) just don't flock to each game of the MLB/NBA/NHL playoffs like they do for the NFL playoffs. Even March Madness and the college football playoffs involve pay TV.

Edit to add: if the Red Sox can win Friday night, Saturday's ALCS Game 7 would be on broadcast FOX too.

[Sousy]

1 hour ago, TwinsAce said:

I can't imagine how many people would follow baseball more if they could actually watch the playoffs. 

This is one of those chicken-and-egg problems.  It's been a long time since all playoff games were on free TV, whether that's due to revenue or viewership concerns (i.e. 'which comes first'?)

One thing we did find out earlier in the year: MLB handling an 'event' can produce a lot of viewers (5.9 million tuned into the Field of Dreams game) and that people love watching the playoffs. *

Further down the article it notes viewership numbers of games broadcast on FOX (the only over-the-air broadcasts of MLB) and the numbers don't seem to be much greater or different than what seem to be expected for cable TV broadcasts.

* I imagine these viewership numbers are going to be the primary argument for an expanded playoff field, but there's also not a lot of evidence that expanded playoffs lead to better ratings. What does seem to lead to better ratings: having the New York Yankees and Los Angeles Dodgers in the playoffs.

[Cap'n Piranha]

23 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Every streaming service is some combination of bundled content, from ESPN+ to Netflix etc. Bundling Twins with Wolves and Wild is pretty straightforward by that standard, and a monthly option effectively lets the consumer unbundle them rather easily, if they want to save a few bucks.

There pretty much has to be a monthly option. A lot of fans will pay $20 to see their team in a pennant race but just won't shell out $100+ for the season.

And once there are monthly and annual options, it makes it more complicated to further divide that by league.

And do you think ESPN+ or Netflix would have more subscribers, fewer subscribers, or the same number of subscribers if they allowed customers to pay lower rates for only the specific type of content they wanted, for example only college sports on ESPN+, or just documentaries on Netflix?  This isn't hard--letting people order a la carte will create more customers, while setting prix fixe will create fewer customers.  It also makes no sense to allow people to opt in and out on a monthly basis if the goal is to get baseball customers to watch more hockey/basketball, and vice versa.  If the whole point of joining forces is so the three leagues gain access to each other's fanbases, why build in an option that reduces that possibility?

I think you would be surprised at how many people purchase a streaming service, and just keep it, even if they're nto actively using it.  People like knowing they can watch something if they want with the click of a button.

How is it more complicated to divide by league, even if there are monthly options?  One page, 3 boxes (one for each league), the customer selects the box(es) for the league(s) they want to subscribe to.  If it's the offseason for your league, subscribing to it would simply give you access to off-season programming (classic game replays, a few studio shows, heck you could even crowdsource from fans, and put them on the "channel" but not pay them).

[Cap'n Piranha]

23 hours ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I'm not really interested in a generalized "baseball is in decline" debate, sorry.

The NFL is a very different animal. 17 games a season. It's literally only ~51 hours a year, almost all of them on Sundays, to watch every single snap for one team, leaving plenty of time for consuming a meaningful amount of other games around the league. Doing the same for a single MLB team would be, what, ~500 hours a year? Spread across mostly weeknights? Invariably, baseball (and to a similar extent, basketball and hockey) needs to be consumed in a much different way, across several different methods. Live out-of-market video just isn't as important in that equation, which is why MLB.TV exists and is much cheaper than, say, NBA League Pass (or the non-existent NFL out-of-market streaming package in USA).

Can MLB improve? Obviously, that's why we're talking about in-market streaming. But any consumer profile will likely show there is a lot more overlap in Minnesota between Twins fans and Wild fans and Wolves fans, than there is between Twins fans and the level of baseball diehard that it would take to get invested in a random Braves/Padres live video stream.

Of course the league packages would still exist. And there would be bundling opportunities, where they could add MLB.TV onto the in-market service or vice-versa.

Suggesting you think baseball is not in decline--interesting.

There are fewer football games for sure, and it would be nigh impossible to watch the same percentage of MLB games live as football games live, even if NFL and college D1 are combined.  That said, every baseball team plays probably about a third of their games on weekend/holidays, and I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't be willing to watch a game or two during the week.  MLB's goal should be to create a fanhood that would make someone want to watch out of market games because it's a good matchup.  That's the crux of what I'm talking about--making the package based on in-market/out-of market perpetuates the system of people being Twins fans but not baseball fans (as other posters have pointed out).  No one is arguing that's not the current reality.  People are simply saying that's a bad long-term growth strategy, which is why the NFL, which has emphasized league/sport growth over team growth, has become the dominant league in the country.

[Otto von Ballpark]

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

And do you think ESPN+ or Netflix would have more subscribers, fewer subscribers, or the same number of subscribers if they allowed customers to pay lower rates for only the specific type of content they wanted, for example only college sports on ESPN+, or just documentaries on Netflix?  This isn't hard--letting people order a la carte will create more customers, while setting prix fixe will create fewer customers.  It also makes no sense to allow people to opt in and out on a monthly basis if the goal is to get baseball customers to watch more hockey/basketball, and vice versa.  If the whole point of joining forces is so the three leagues gain access to each other's fanbases, why build in an option that reduces that possibility?

I think you would be surprised at how many people purchase a streaming service, and just keep it, even if they're nto actively using it.  People like knowing they can watch something if they want with the click of a button.

How is it more complicated to divide by league, even if there are monthly options?  One page, 3 boxes (one for each league), the customer selects the box(es) for the league(s) they want to subscribe to.  If it's the offseason for your league, subscribing to it would simply give you access to off-season programming (classic game replays, a few studio shows, heck you could even crowdsource from fans, and put them on the "channel" but not pay them).

I think it's just economics. Un-bundling is obviously great when you are talking about cable or big pay TV packages, but the law of diminishing returns applies once you get down to the $10-20 price point or lower.

I appreciate that you are talking about what you want to see, but I'm speaking more in real-world examples. You need a monthly option for something like this, for accessibility (a lot of consumers won't drop $100+ on a service at one time) and to use as a baseline for selling annual plans at a discount. I see nothing to suggest that Netflix and ESPN+ are in dire need of further un-bundling; I suspect Sportsnet Now and TSN Direct in Canada aren't either. Monthly options and the calendar naturally provide consumers with the ability to un-bundle things by season if they so choose.

[Otto von Ballpark]

5 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Suggesting you think baseball is not in decline--interesting.

There are fewer football games for sure, and it would be nigh impossible to watch the same percentage of MLB games live as football games live, even if NFL and college D1 are combined.  That said, every baseball team plays probably about a third of their games on weekend/holidays, and I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't be willing to watch a game or two during the week.  MLB's goal should be to create a fanhood that would make someone want to watch out of market games because it's a good matchup.  That's the crux of what I'm talking about--making the package based on in-market/out-of market perpetuates the system of people being Twins fans but not baseball fans (as other posters have pointed out).  No one is arguing that's not the current reality.  People are simply saying that's a bad long-term growth strategy, which is why the NFL, which has emphasized league/sport growth over team growth, has become the dominant league in the country.

We all have concerns about the sport, but "baseball's decline" just doesn't seem particularly germane to the specific comparison of a monthly combined Twins/Wolves/Wild plan, vs separate annual plans for each sport, that's all. We all agree that baseball needs in-market streaming, but there's more than one valid approach to it without the discussion devolving to "any approach other than this one represents baseball's decline."

Many people already do watch the equivalent of a baseball game or two a week -- but it's generally the local team. That's what happens when every team plays 6 times a week. Football is just radically different. I mentioned upthread that one could watch every single snap for a team in just 51 hours for a season; one could also watch every nationally televised NFL snap for a season in just 270 hours! A single baseball team's broadcast season is about 500 hours, and relatively little of that competition time involves its star players doing exciting things. A Minnesotan tuning into a random Braves/Padres game will see less than 1% of both of their seasons; most of the PAs and IP in those games will be from their versions of Max Kepler or Tyler Duffey. It's okay if the people most interested in that are the local people following the team. This is why baseball has evolved with a different regional-national balance and broadcast distribution than the NFL has, much more than the decisions of its leaders.

That's not to say baseball is perfect, hence the existence of this thread! Just that they don't have to chase unicorns to get better. In-market streaming, in any number of different approaches, would likely be a big win, if they can pull it off. No need to reject reasonable in-market streaming ideas just because they don't somehow emulate the NFL enough.

[Linus]

Two somewhat unrelated thoughts. 

A nationwide option would allow MLB to market the game and its stars so much better than right now. This might be the single most important piece. 

My understanding is that live sports is what is keeping cable TV alive. Nat Geo and HGTV etc are all along for the ride. That model without sports will collapse.