Bally's to Make Final Offer to Twins for 2024; Amazon May Make Bid for Streaming

[darin617]

1 hour ago, adorduan said:

It's illegal streaming.

Or just use a free website like thetvapp.to

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Cris E said:

That works because Apple only picks two games a week and makes an event out of them. If they were flooded with 12-15 a night for half a year and had to raise the payout substantially for the opportunity they wouldn't be nearly as pleased with the numbers.

As far as ad revenue goes, baseball works best selling local ads that can play off the fans' relationship with the club. And until the post-season, most national games won't draw viewers that aren't fans of one or the other participant. So maybe games on Apple or Amazon should be produced and marketed towards the local clubs and merely broadcast nationally.  But as streamers make up more of the viewership there will be more day-after speed viewing where most ads are completely skipped and we'll have to see how advertisers react.

Whatever, I hardly expect a 3x increase in subscriptions at a price point anywhere near the cost buried in a cable subscription, What was the ESPN tax, $8 per household? RSNs were about the same I think. MLB teams are not going to sell their games for $8 a month. So as they shed the cable subsidy they are going to need to charge 3x just to tread water, and to grow beyond the old income level will be very hard at $20-25 a month.

I get local adds during a Monday Night Football game between a New York team and LA team, I don't think local targeted advertising is an issue with the streaming giants.

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

I could see Bally's as 1 year stop gap,  want nothing of a long term plan.  

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Cris E said:

That works because Apple only picks two games a week and makes an event out of them. If they were flooded with 12-15 a night for half a year and had to raise the payout substantially for the opportunity they wouldn't be nearly as pleased with the numbers.

As far as ad revenue goes, baseball works best selling local ads that can play off the fans' relationship with the club. And until the post-season, most national games won't draw viewers that aren't fans of one or the other participant. So maybe games on Apple or Amazon should be produced and marketed towards the local clubs and merely broadcast nationally.  But as streamers make up more of the viewership there will be more day-after speed viewing where most ads are completely skipped and we'll have to see how advertisers react.

Whatever, I hardly expect a 3x increase in subscriptions at a price point anywhere near the cost buried in a cable subscription, What was the ESPN tax, $8 per household? RSNs were about the same I think. MLB teams are not going to sell their games for $8 a month. So as they shed the cable subsidy they are going to need to charge 3x just to tread water, and to grow beyond the old income level will be very hard at $20-25 a month.

Great posts

This is going to produce a churn that hits like a hurricane. The ride will be rough.

I'm not sure people realize what it will be like to take away accessibility from demographics who are actually consuming to provide accessibility to demographics who are not consuming much.

Being accessible to more is the only way to lessen the pain.   

It's necessary though... actually overdue.

The exclusivity that is necessary to secure these RSN deals keeps them locked into demographics that are aging out. While baseball becomes out of sight out of mind to younger demographics more interesting to advertisers.

The very same younger demographics that are telling baseball execs in focus groups that the game is too long and slow.   

Baseball needs to remove the third party, take control of their product, do a much better job marketing the product and the players in the new world they are entering. Then wait for the demographics to grow.

It might take a little while but the alternative is to follow cable on the path it is taking. 

 

 

[Althebum82]

My answer to your final two question is maybe (but, this doesn't help me any because I am unable to get Bally's currently) and hell no, Amazon is evil.

[Eris]

8 hours ago, Cris E said:

 

The cable deals worked because bundling gave a huge subsidy to the sports contracts that unbundling cleanly removes.  You need separate subscription dollars to replace that piece on top of viable advertising 

This is so true. The average cable bill as a result of sports bundling was $20/customer. Of course spread over the entire customer base. $100/month bills has led to the current cable cutting. If 1/3 (I think this number is high) of the households are sports watchers, The unbundled sports would need to charge users $60 or more / month to maintain the services. Very few people would pay that amount of money. 
 

I think the MLB streaming service is illustrative. It is slightly more than $20/month with local teams being blacked out. I live in NJ a can watch most of the Twins games. I would not pay $20/month if I could not watch the Twins. Even at the current price, I am thinking of switching to radio as I watch more than than half the games on the radio anyway. 

[Jeff K]

22 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Yep... It's in the details. 

IMO... No matter what. 

The Minnesota Twins (All of Major League Baseball) needs to be everywhere, everyone is, on whatever device. Anything that prevents that is a huge mistake. 

If that costs them financially in the short term so be it. This NEEDS to be about the future. Everyone can see the cable demographics and understand what they mean. 

If any form of blackout is part of the deal... walk away. 

I fully agree with you.  It's time to rip the band aid off and move into the future.  And it's not cable tv and it's not bally's

 

 

[TopGunn#22]

I'm currently a Charter customer because I can watch Twins, T-Wolves and Wild games thru Balleys.  The Wolves and Wild are supposed to be guaranteed until the completion of their regular seasons.  Twins baseball will overlap that.  I'm just waiting to see what my options are once a Twins decision has been reached.  I have Prime, and I'm pretty sure I would like to find a way NOT to pay $275 per month to Charter.  I get my internet and cable TV from Charter so that $275 is not just TV.  But something's going to change around April 1st for me.  

As fans of a smaller than large market team, and if MLB ends up taking over all of the teams broadcasting rights as RSN continue to go bankrupt and cable TV as we've known it ceases to exist, I wonder if some form of revenue sharing of all broadcast fees/income is ultimately possible?  It would be nice to be able to see the Cincinnati Reds retain their players.  Or Tampa Bay having the financial ability to keep a Glasnow if they wanted to.  This is why the Giants and Jets or Chargers and Rams don't just gobble up all the high priced talent.

Would that mean a salary cap would come to baseball?  I doubt it.  The Players Union has made it abundantly clear they would rather see the sport burned to the ground than accede to a salary cap.  But with this tectonic change in broadcast revenues throughout MLB happening I wonder where all this is headed.  

[Heiny]

I would like to see MLBtv take over the whole damn shooting match.  Give me the oppurtunity to subscribe to watch any MLB game at any time,  plus any minor league game that is broadcast at any time.  I would be willing to pay a reasonable monthly subscription fee for that oppurtunity.  Then for a smaller monthly subscription they could offer local MLB and an add-on of their minor league affiliates games.  No one should be blacked out of the team they choose to watch. Figure out the dollars that it would take for this to work and I think this would work best for everyone.  As long as they don't get too greedy and price themselves right out of most fans homes.

[adorduan]

18 hours ago, Althebum82 said:

My answer to your final two question is maybe (but, this doesn't help me any because I am unable to get Bally's currently) and hell no, Amazon is evil.

More evil that Sinclair? I don't think that's possible.

[IndyTwinsFan]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:19 AM, DJL44 said:

I have heard lots of positives about the MLB.tv app.

They already have a path forward for streaming - use MLB.tv. For cable - use the MLB channel plus a couple of alternates.

I agree with this thought.  I used the MLB.tv streaming option this past season and found it to be a fairly good experience.  However, because I live well outside any reasonable definition of the local market, I can't speak for any local broadcast options. 

[IndyTwinsFan]

14 hours ago, Heiny said:

I would like to see MLBtv take over the whole damn shooting match.  Give me the oppurtunity to subscribe to watch any MLB game at any time,  plus any minor league game that is broadcast at any time.  I would be willing to pay a reasonable monthly subscription fee for that oppurtunity.  Then for a smaller monthly subscription they could offer local MLB and an add-on of their minor league affiliates games.  No one should be blacked out of the team they choose to watch. Figure out the dollars that it would take for this to work and I think this would work best for everyone.  As long as they don't get too greedy and price themselves right out of most fans homes.

I agree wholeheartedly with this thought.  Therefore, I'd give two thumbs up to this post, if I could. 

[Major League Ready]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:31 AM, TopGunn#22 said:

I'm currently a Charter customer because I can watch Twins, T-Wolves and Wild games thru Balleys.  The Wolves and Wild are supposed to be guaranteed until the completion of their regular seasons.  Twins baseball will overlap that.  I'm just waiting to see what my options are once a Twins decision has been reached.  I have Prime, and I'm pretty sure I would like to find a way NOT to pay $275 per month to Charter.  I get my internet and cable TV from Charter so that $275 is not just TV.  But something's going to change around April 1st for me.  

As fans of a smaller than large market team, and if MLB ends up taking over all of the teams broadcasting rights as RSN continue to go bankrupt and cable TV as we've known it ceases to exist, I wonder if some form of revenue sharing of all broadcast fees/income is ultimately possible?  It would be nice to be able to see the Cincinnati Reds retain their players.  Or Tampa Bay having the financial ability to keep a Glasnow if they wanted to.  This is why the Giants and Jets or Chargers and Rams don't just gobble up all the high priced talent.

Would that mean a salary cap would come to baseball?  I doubt it.  The Players Union has made it abundantly clear they would rather see the sport burned to the ground than accede to a salary cap.  But with this tectonic change in broadcast revenues throughout MLB happening I wonder where all this is headed.  

Broadcasting rights have absolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing.  They could split the revenue anyway they please under the existing system.  The Dodgers / Yankees, etc are a business worth billions.  Redistributing that income going forward would drastically reduce the value of their franchises.  Why in the world would they agree?  It's just slightly more likely than Jeff Bezos agree to share their massive revenue with less fortunate competitors.  The only way this happens is if the revenue disparity kills the rest of the league.   

BTW ... when the luxury tax threshold was being discussed during the last CBA, there were very few people here who stood up and said they hope the owners don't give in on increasing the level of disparity.  The players actually started out pushing for less revenue sharing.  Why, because teams like the Dodgers can go wild and their mistakes won't cripple them.  The top revenue teams are therefore more inclined to take a giant leap.  (See Ohtani / Yamamoto) The players also pushed hard for increasing the luxury tax threshold. Should we expect them to care more about parity than earning the most dollars possible.  The players want that revenue advantage in the largest markets and it's also too the benefit of the league in general to put the stars in the largest markets.

[SteveLV]

The big markets would agree if they wanted to part of a league.  Just like Dallas and NY in the NFL.

A rising tide floats all boats.  If you kill the competitiveness of the league, or the perception of competitiveness, you will lose fans.

True parity is one of the reasons the NFL is the King of all sports leagues.

Baseball is a wonderful game, but the professional sports league is in real danger.

[Riverbrian]

22 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Broadcasting rights has absolutely nothing to do with revenue sharing.  They could split the revenue anyway they please under the existing system.  The Dodgers / Yankees, etc are a business worth billions.  Redistributing that income going forward would drastically reduce the value of their franchises.  Why in the world would they agree?  It's just slightly more likely than Jeff Bezos agree to share their massive revenue with less fortunate competitors.  The only way this happens is if the revenue disparity kills the rest of the league.   

BTW ... when the luxury tax threshold was being discussed during the last CBA, there were very few people here who stood up and said they hope the owners don't give in on increasing the level of disparity.  The players actually started out pushing for less revenue sharing.  Why, because teams like the Dodgers can go wild and their mistakes won't cripple them.  The top revenue teams are therefore more inclined to take a giant leap.  (See Ohtani / Yamamoto) The players also pushed hard for increasing the luxury tax threshold. Should we expect them to care more about parity than earning the most dollars possible.  The players want that revenue advantage in the largest markets and it's also too the benefit of the league in general to put the stars in the largest markets.

Great post

You are exactly right.

I just have one disagreement and that is the last sentence. I don't believe it is to the benefit of the league to put the stars in the largest markets. I understand the more bang for the buck logic and the market disparity between New York and Pittsburgh.

However... even the smallest market has a population base worth providing hope to and therefore interest in the product. 

Pittsburgh may be small in comparison to New York but there are a lot of consumers living in Pittsburgh.

What's that old quote: A million Here and a billion there... pretty soon you are talking about real money.   

All those small markets add up collectively. If you want the entire country to care about baseball you have to give them hope and therefore a reason to care.  

The Population of the United States is 332 Million,

The Top Ten Markets combined is maybe 65 Million. 

Hope in Pittsburgh is vital. Hope in Kansas City matters if you want to increase your reach and interest in the game.

A system that funnels superstars to the largest markets isn't the best thing for 332 million people.  

I agree with you though'... The Players union doesn't care about that. They want the big markets to spend like they do, then they want to crank the PR machine and cement the word tanking in our brains just to bully the smaller markets for not keeping up when they can't.   

 

[LanceJS]

I have Prime, so that would be okay. Since I live in another state, Bally’s would be okay too as I have used mlb.tv for several years for Twins broadcasts, so that would stay the same. Either way works for me. If they went to local over the air, I am concerned that out of market fans would not be able to view them. 

[Eris]

https://nypost.com/2024/01/17/business/amazon-poised-to-save-bankrupt-diamond-sports-with-100m-deal-to-stream-five-mlb-teams-sources/
 

works out to 20 million per team.