The Twins Need a Broadcast Partner. It’s Time to Go Local.

[Peter Labuza]

Beyond roster construction, the Twins will need to negotiate a new television deal to position themselves for the future. The team should look toward how some NBA and NHL teams are prioritizing the fanbase over profits.

Image courtesy of Ron Chenoy-USA TODAY Sports

Among the many dramas that filled the Twins season, perhaps the strangest one was where fans might be able to watch the games. After its declaration of bankruptcy, the Diamond Sports Group—a subsidiary of Sinclair that broadcasts Bally Sports North among many regional sports networks (RSN)—announced to a number of MLB teams they were unlikely to pay out their contracts for the year. As legal fights jockeyed throughout the courts, two teams (the Padres and Diamondbacks) were forced onto MLB Network. Somehow, the Twins were able to receive full payment from Diamond.

That contract, however, is over, and the Twins now face a $50 million deficit going into the next season. The question is what would be next. Most RSN companies—such as the AT&T networks run by Warner Bros. Discovery—are attempting to get out of the business. ESPN’s own future has become perilous for its parent company, Disney. Streaming seems ideal, but the costs involved to make it profitable might not necessarily attract the number of fans necessary.

But out West, a few non-MLB teams are trying a different method: rather than replace the money for streaming, why not work on expanding the fanbase first?

In what might seem like a truly radical move, four teams have already made a decision to not abandon cable and return to free local broadcasts. This includes the Las Vegas Golden Knights, the Utah Jazz, the Arizona Coyotes, and the Phoenix Suns (alongside their WNBA team, the Mercury). The idea is simple: fewer and fewer households have cable, and various fights over retransmission fees have even blacked out those who do. So rather than prioritize profits, the plan is to get as many eyeballs onto games as possible. According to ESPN, “The shift could cost the Suns tens of millions in guaranteed money per year in the short term, but it will boost the number of households the games are available in from around 800,000 to more than 2.8 million.” 

These deals will certainly cost the team in terms of revenue—the large winners will be the giant broadcast companies like Nexstar, Scripps, and Gray—but the idea could work toward expanding the fanbase. Regulated under licenses by the Federal Communications Commission, they are essentially still public utilities and must remain free to consumers. The Suns even offered fans free HDMI connected antennas. And while many might think local broadcast is more dead than cable, new technologies such as ATSC 3.0 will increase connectivity and allow for 4K broadcasting once the technology is ready for ballparks (currently most 4K broadcasts in sports are simply upscaled). For those who would rather just stream, teams like the Suns offer the broadcasts either at $15 a month or $110 for the entire season (lower than the $20/month for Bally's attempt at streaming).

The question on the other side is money. For the Phoenix Suns owner Mat Ishbia, going local is “the biggest no-brainer of them all." Rather than prioritize his own financial wealth, Ishbia declared, “It’s the right thing to do and that’s our job as stewards of the organization.”

That’s all well and good, but this is also a curious financial gamble.  If the problem of streaming as currently constructed is there are not enough fans willing to pay for a service, the goal is to build more fans. Rather than continue to diminish their fanbase under an RSN, these owners are hoping to lose a little money now in the hope to gain it later. 

Will the Pohlads feel the same way? The organization has created some goodwill by generally increasing spending in recent years. And President Dave St. Peter’s goal to increase attendance 2 million came true thanks to four packed-to-the-rim playoff games that only Citizens Bank Park has matched in energy so far. 

Like the Suns, the Twins are ripe for more eyeballs. As Nick Nelson wrote, they are essentially guaranteed to become a dynasty within the AL Central with very little fight for the next few years. The Minneapolis-St Paul Metro Area has grown by 4% over the last five years and is only due for continued increases. Each one of those is a potential Twins fan in the making. Requiring they buy into cable is one way to make sure they never will be.

As numerous studies have shown, the problem with attracting youth to baseball has less to do with the sport than its actual ability to access fans. Rob Manfred has suggested as much as well. 

Of course, Manfred might have the final say with his own plans for what might be next for baseball on TV. That might be simply an expanded MLB.TV with more options than simply a full season subscription, and even the possibility of purchase of individual games (something the Knicks will be trying this year). That would likely give it pretty high revenue—especially as the league continues to connect with gambling and expands globally—but lessen the impact of the sport in every local community.  

Diehard Twins fans might worry also about what a lessened TV deal might mean for the team. For this organization, less revenue from broadcast has always meant less payroll. It would be an unfortunate turn of events as the team enters this window of contention, coming off a year of record spending.

But that isn’t a hard rule, and why the plans in the NBA and NHL remain so exciting. More fans, more jerseys, and more playoff games will bring in money. And just because the rule has been to put 50% of revenue toward payroll, this is perhaps a moment to throw out the rulebook and redefine this team.

When the government of Minnesota finally gave in and gave the Twins their needed subsidy to stay in the state, they signed an unofficial pact to remain part of the community. If the Twins want to honor that pact, going local could be a path forward that ensures the team succeeds not just on the field, but across the state.

View full article

[Karbo]

I don't know which local broadcaster would be able to handle the schedule. All 4 of the local majors (4,5,9,11) are network channels and I'm pretty sure the networks (NBC,ABC.CBS,FOX) would not be trilled having their programs pre-empted.

[DJL44]

Even a local broadcast contract would bring in tens of millions of dollars. MLB needs to offer multiple options - over the air, on basic cable and streaming. Get as many people watching as possible and take a cut of the advertising revenue. Increased TV viewership will also increase demand for in-person attendance as part of a virtuous cycle.

I think Boston bundled game tickets with their year-long streaming subscription. That's another way to increase revenue creatively.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

15 minutes ago, Karbo said:

I don't know which local broadcaster would be able to handle the schedule. All 4 of the local majors (4,5,9,11) are network channels and I'm pretty sure the networks (NBC,ABC.CBS,FOX) would not be trilled having their programs pre-empted.

The major issue would be April and first weeks of May and end of Sept.  Most of those channels have an overflow channel as well. Thus could do both at once.  The station could decide what to air on the main station.  

[RpR]

20 minutes ago, Karbo said:

I don't know which local broadcaster would be able to handle the schedule. All 4 of the local majors (4,5,9,11) are network channels and I'm pretty sure the networks (NBC,ABC.CBS,FOX) would not be trilled having their programs pre-empted.

Twin Cities stations bought up (and shut down some) private channels.

The ones still used could broadcast Twins games, and they can be recieved via antenna with few exceptions.

St.Cloud is a dead spot for old school signals, and WCCO killed the Alexandra station which used to have great programming.

[2wins87]

5 minutes ago, Karbo said:

I don't know which local broadcaster would be able to handle the schedule. All 4 of the local majors (4,5,9,11) are network channels and I'm pretty sure the networks (NBC,ABC.CBS,FOX) would not be trilled having their programs pre-empted.

I've barely used broadcast TV in the last few years, but with the current digital encoding technology, aren't most channels capable of handling 2 or 3 sub-channels?

Going back to like 1 game a week on broadcast TV would definitely not be the way to get more fans, but could they use the subchannels to broadcast both sports and their regular programming at the same time?  Maybe there are other logistical issues I'm not aware of.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

As long as MLB lives in the world of regional television rights, small and mid-market teams will not be able to maximize profits.

The Twins would better off with MLB and a national broadcast deal.  Going local is short-sighted, they need to be able to be seen in the five state area, along with pushing into Montana and Nebraska.

[DJL44]

15 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

As long as MLB lives in the world of regional television rights, small and mid-market teams will not be able to maximize profits.

The Twins would better off with MLB and a national broadcast deal.  Going local is short-sighted, they need to be able to be seen in the five state area, along with pushing into Montana and Nebraska.

Montana can just subscribe to MLB.tv if they want. The key to this is EVERYONE should be able to subscribe to MLB.tv and see the Twins, regardless of where they live.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, Karbo said:

I don't know which local broadcaster would be able to handle the schedule. All 4 of the local majors (4,5,9,11) are network channels and I'm pretty sure the networks (NBC,ABC.CBS,FOX) would not be trilled having their programs pre-empted.

They all have sub-channels showing 30 year old reruns that would work for broadcasting the Twins. Channel 45 would be a great fit for Twins games.

[lake_guy]

11 minutes ago, Fire Dan Gladden said:

As long as MLB lives in the world of regional television rights, small and mid-market teams will not be able to maximize profits.

The Twins would better off with MLB and a national broadcast deal.  Going local is short-sighted, they need to be able to be seen in the five state area, along with pushing into Montana and Nebraska.

Exactly this.  MLB has a golden opportunity in front of them to broaden the fan base of every team in MLB by enabling streaming rights with no geographic restrictions.  Also work out a deal with the remaining regional networks to stream in parallel.  If they do come to their senses on lifting the geographic restrictions perhaps an over the air solution could work with a partnership across networks.

[BA Papi]

We'll see if ATSC 3.0 takes off in a few years. I'd like to think they could do something like the radio network, and have various affiliates broadcast games on subchannels. Try not to interrupt the Andy Griffith re-runs on MeTV though! :)

[Riverbrian]

Accessibility is absolutely critical. This is a major opportunity for Baseball to create a model with no barriers to access and by doing so... the sport can grow in the demographics that they desperately need to grow in to sustain their product well into the future. 

If short term financial gain is the goal of whatever they come up with... they will blow this opportunity.  

Baseball needs to be everywhere every one is. There should be no barriers to accessing your baseball team on all devices and all locations.

Making up numbers to illustrate in a very elementary way. If given the choice between 1 million consumers at $100 per or 5 million consumers at $20 per... Take the 5 million.

I shouldn't have to struggle to watch the Twins vs Red Sox in July on my cell phone from Knoxville Tennessee if I happen to be in Knoxville Tennessee.     

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Montana can just subscribe to MLB.tv if they want. The key to this is EVERYONE should be able to subscribe to MLB.tv and see the Twins, regardless of where they live.

How would that work? Montanans aren't just going to randomly start paying $20 per month to see if they like watching the Twins.

The Twins need to put themselves in everyone's living rooms (OK, that's an archaic TV idiom, put themselves in everyone's streaming devices) and then get the money from advertising once they have enough eyeballs.

The sport is going to continue to lose fans if they insist on making them pay for a TV service that ONLY shows them baseball games.

[CRF]

All the current over the air free broadcast channels have sub-stations. Some have as many as 6 or 7 of them. That would work quite nicely for Twins games. I honestly don't care who televises them, just as long as we can get the games. I don't particularly want to pay for them, but we'll see what they come up with. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

The bundling tickets and streaming access is a fascinating idea to me.  Every team would choose to have an individual fan attend an individual game in person over watch it on TV, so doing something like charging $150 a year for streaming with no blackouts (other than games carried by national partners like Youtube and Fox), but lowering that by $10-$15 for every game attended seems like a no-brainer.

As others have said, baseball has been gifted a golden opportunity to become a truly national sport in a way that even the NFL is not (for example, it is very expensive for me to watch every Vikings game, living as I do in the Seattle area).  If MLB has not figured out a way to make every game available everywhere to everyone willing to pay (again, barring games given to national partners) within the next 5-10 years, something has gone massively awry.

[Johnny Ringo]

To engage a local station or new network as a partner is a complication that is only a temporary solution at best. All these leagues will disintermediate cable and traditional broadcast ventures pretty darn soon in my view.

Using the MLB app or something like it allows the Twins to reach the most viewers and ultimately to maximize revenues.  

The functionality would be immediate too. 

Rabbit ears? C'mon. That is something idiosyncratic to that market or just a gimmick. 

[DJL44]

18 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

How would that work? Montanans aren't just going to randomly start paying $20 per month to see if they like watching the Twins.

The Twins need to put themselves in everyone's living rooms (OK, that's an archaic TV idiom, put themselves in everyone's streaming devices) and then get the money from advertising once they have enough eyeballs.

The sport is going to continue to lose fans if they insist on making them pay for a TV service that ONLY shows them baseball games.

If they've apparently never heard of baseball before and need to decide if they enjoy it the people in Montana have several options. They can watch the nationally televised games on FOX or the free game of the day on MLB.tv. Then once they decide on a team to follow, they should be able to pick whichever team they want. MLB shouldn't care if they're watching the Twins, the Mariners, the Rockies or the Marlins in Montana as long as they subscribe. Streaming revenue should be shared equally across all 30 teams.

[Karbo]

1 hour ago, 2wins87 said:

I've barely used broadcast TV in the last few years, but with the current digital encoding technology, aren't most channels capable of handling 2 or 3 sub-channels?

Going back to like 1 game a week on broadcast TV would definitely not be the way to get more fans, but could they use the subchannels to broadcast both sports and their regular programming at the same time?  Maybe there are other logistical issues I'm not aware of.

I can't get any local stations over the air because I live about 45 miles out of the city so I really don't know about sub-channels. Either way, unless you live in the cities, I guess cable or satellite will still be necessary.

[nicksaviking]

18 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

If they've apparently never heard of baseball before and need to decide if they enjoy it the people in Montana have several options. They can watch the nationally televised games on FOX or the free game of the day on MLB.tv. Then once they decide on a team to follow, they should be able to pick whichever team they want. MLB shouldn't care if they're watching the Twins, the Mariners, the Rockies or the Marlins in Montana as long as they subscribe. Streaming revenue should be shared equally across all 30 teams.

That doesn't help the Twins considering they're lucky to get one national game a month.

And there isn't a reason to have 30 markets if MLB only pushes 10 markets on baseball fans to watch, and those markets already have easily accessible broadcasting. The other 20 markets are just going to continue to lose fans each year. And I'm guessing MLB does care about that.

A single service streaming/TV option will never gain more fans. Never. They need the 'Not much to watch tonight, maybe the Twins are on' crowd, just like the NFL did. Those people will only watch if it's on a service they already pay for.

 

[Karbo]

1 hour ago, RpR said:

Twin Cities stations bought up (and shut down some) private channels.

The ones still used could broadcast Twins games, and they can be recieved via antenna with few exceptions.

St.Cloud is a dead spot for old school signals, and WCCO killed the Alexandra station which used to have great programming.

I live by Cambridge and can't get any stations w/o cable or satellite.

[Karbo]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

They all have sub-channels showing 30 year old reruns that would work for broadcasting the Twins. Channel 45 would be a great fit for Twins games.

Do you know if they broadcast in HD?

[IaBeanCounter]

If the Twins go to a local market TV station, it seems to me that the blackout rules would no longer apply.  Currently Iowa is blacked out for the Twins, Royals, Cardinals, Cubs, White Sox & Brewers.  MLB had a test this year with the Padres and AZ being only on MLB.  I wonder how much money that generated and how much teams received?  I dropped cable this year so I was unable to watch the Balley Sports broadcast.  

Assuming the Twins got 50% of the fee to sign up I would gladly pay MLB $100 to have 162 games available.  The Twins would have to sell 1 million fans to purchase the package with the local rights to make up the $54 million.  .   

FWIW I am old enough to remember when a Sioux Falls station (channel 13?) carried the Twins.  My home was about 100 miles from Sioux Falls, but Dad had put up a antennae that could pointed to Sioux Falls, Sioux City or Omaha.  If the weather was right the picture was decent, if it wasn't right we got a lot of snow, but I still watched.

[TwinsFan98]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

They all have sub-channels showing 30 year old reruns that would work for broadcasting the Twins. Channel 45 would be a great fit for Twins games.

Exactly. 45TV, Fox9+, My29(if that's still a thing), or even the CW would be great channels to air the games.

[DJL44]

33 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

They need the 'Not much to watch tonight, maybe the Twins are on' crowd, just like the NFL did. Those people will only watch if it's on a service they already pay for.

That's why you have the local broadcast partner. Do you really think someone halfway across the country is going to pick the Twins to watch over the other MLB teams?

You have local teams because there is enough population locally to draw 2 million fans to the stadium. People from Montana are NOT part of that local population for the Twins. If they're baseball fans they will subscribe to MLB.tv to watch baseball. If they're just looking for something random to watch on TV they can watch a nationally televised game on Fox.

[DJL44]

44 minutes ago, Karbo said:

I can't get any local stations over the air because I live about 45 miles out of the city so I really don't know about sub-channels. Either way, unless you live in the cities, I guess cable or satellite will still be necessary.

Or subscribing to MLB.tv.

One benefit of broadcasting locally is the games would end up on basic cable, not an expensive sports tier.

[TwinsFan98]

45TV, Fox9+, My29My29(if(if that's still a thing), or even the CW would be great channels to air the games.

[DJL44]

45 minutes ago, Karbo said:

Do you know if they broadcast in HD?

KSTC-TV - Wikipedia

Quote

KSTC-TV's main signal is also seen on the second subchannel of both of KSTP-TV's full-power satellite stations, KSAX (channel 42.2) in Alexandria, and KRWF (channel 43.2) in Redwood Falls; both stations carry KSTC-TV over-the-air in widescreen standard definition due to transmitter multiplexer limitations, though it is available in high definition on pay-TV services otherwise. KSTC-TV is also carried in high definition on KSTP-TV's main signal and translator stations as a repeater signal, classed as KSTP-DT5.

 

[DJL44]

12 minutes ago, IaBeanCounter said:

If the Twins go to a local market TV station, it seems to me that the blackout rules would no longer apply.

That's the whole point. If it's local you can get it over the air, over basic cable or satellite in the broadcast footprint of the station. If you choose to subscribe to MLB.tv you can watch there instead. As long as you're watching the advertising the Twins make money.

[IaBeanCounter]

12 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

That's the whole point. If it's local you can get it over the air, over basic cable or satellite in the broadcast footprint of the station. If you choose to subscribe to MLB.tv you can watch there instead. As long as you're watching the advertising the Twins make money.

I would think after this year and the promise of 2024.  It may be easier to advertisers to sign on.

[Hrbowski]

Not really a reasonable comparison between the NHL and NBA vs MLB. The NHL salary cap is approximately half of what the 2023 Twins' payroll, so they can afford to have less TV revenue. Another thing to keep in mind is the demographics where baseball is struggling - young people - most who don't watch local TV. If you want to increase your fan base, affordable streaming without blackout restrictions is the correct route. Finally, increasing the percentage of revenue devoted to payroll is a terrible idea. There are teams who are in debt right now because they did this and are not going to be able to field long-term competitive teams because of it.