How Can I Watch the Twins Today? (And Seven Other Questions about the Twins-Bally-Comcast Clustermuck)

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, Mike Sixel said:

I'd argue it's failing because the service doesn't offer value for the cost. But sure, blame the customers, not the suppliers. 

Well I guess that's open to interpretation. Are you getting better value with a streaming service? You're here bitching about it. 

And ignoring the Twins, for a similar level of TV, are you saving any money?

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

No need to get defensive. But cable cutters are absolutely, positively, 100 percent the reason the cable/satellite model is failing.

And do you not think if there was a streaming option offering to pay the Twins anything close to similar money, the Twins would have jumped at it?

And then do you not think said streaming option would have simply passed that cost onto you?

 

I'm not getting defensive I'm pointing out that your claim of hypocrisy is wrong. Yes, that's precisely what would've happened. It's what's happening with all the streaming services out there now.

My point is that that's not what I'm complaining about. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about the cable/satellite model dying when I've played an active role in killing it. But that's not my complaint. My complaint is the Twins choosing to continue on the dying model when they didn't have to. They were out of the cable/satellite game and chose to get back in. That's my complaint. That is not hypocritical of me. I pay for MLB.tv. If the Twins had chosen to go that route like other teams did I'd have paid for their package. This isn't me being hypocritical because what I'm "up in arms about" is their decision to knowingly choose the torpedoed ship.

CDs are a torpedoed ship. I played a role in that by streaming music instead. It wouldn't be hypocritical of me to point out that it's a bad decision for an artist to only release their songs on CDs. 

[USAFChief]

47 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

That seems pretty unfair. I couldn't justify paying for both cable AND the streaming services that my wife and kids wanted. Nobody else in my house will watch a second of sports unless Taylor Swift pops on screen for five seconds. Paying cable $120/month just to watch the Twins? Terribly sorry, please accept my apology for choosing the option that 4/5ths of my family wanted but the incompetent MLB owners are unable to reconcile.

So...your argument is that the 4/5ths of your family that doesn't want to pay for sports on TV isn't the reason you can't watch sports on TV?

[August J Gloop]

Just now, USAFChief said:

Well I guess that's open to interpretation. Are you getting better value with a streaming service? You're here bitching about it. 

And ignoring the Twins, for a similar level of TV, are you saving any money?

Technically I do get better service (for now) on FUBO. If I were on comcast right now all the work I did to get the cable installed would be for naught. On Saturday, I probably have to get another provider to watch the wolves. 

But this is the magic of the capitalist. They get the consumers to fight with each other over (often fabricated) scarcity.  

[nicksaviking]

The Diamondbacks are only charging 19.99 per month for their DBacks.TV option. 39.99 if the user wanted to package that with the rest of MLB.TV games.

https://www.12news.com/article/sports/mlb/diamondbacks/how-to-watch-arizona-diamondbacks-games-tv-and-streaming-2024-season/75-c5b07291-9bd7-4d7c-b308-13719ef2d0b7

But we're followers, not innovators up here in Minnesota. Can't try something new, have to follow along with what the other kids are doing.

[USAFChief]

2 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I'm not getting defensive I'm pointing out that your claim of hypocrisy is wrong. Yes, that's precisely what would've happened. It's what's happening with all the streaming services out there now.

My point is that that's not what I'm complaining about. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about the cable/satellite model dying when I've played an active role in killing it. But that's not my complaint. My complaint is the Twins choosing to continue on the dying model when they didn't have to. They were out of the cable/satellite game and chose to get back in. That's my complaint. That is not hypocritical of me. I pay for MLB.tv. If the Twins had chosen to go that route like other teams did I'd have paid for their package. This isn't me being hypocritical because what I'm "up in arms about" is their decision to knowingly choose the torpedoed ship.

CDs are a torpedoed ship. I played a role in that by streaming music instead. It wouldn't be hypocritical of me to point out that it's a bad decision for an artist to only release their songs on CDs. 

Pretty clearly the reason they did so is because they couldn't get the cash going streaming only. 

I do think it'll end up being mlb tv. With no blackout. But that model isn't going to get them $56M annually. Or even the ~$47M they got this year

 

 

[bean5302]

3 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

No need to get defensive. But cable cutters are absolutely, positively, 100 percent the reason the cable/satellite model is failing.

And do you not think if there was a streaming option offering to pay the Twins anything close to similar money, the Twins would have jumped at it?

And then do you not think said streaming option would have simply passed that cost onto you?

 

Weeeeelllllllll, you kinda got a chicken-egg sorta thing going on. Would people have cut the cord if cable companies hadn't been the absolute worst companies in the history of the universe? Monopolies, dramatic price increases, forced packages, overall absolutely MISERABLE customer experiences. Cable companies make the DMV look like paradise.

MLB's blackout policy shares in the blame by not just tying themselves to cable, but basically permanently welding themselves to cable (blackouts, no streaming), MLB team owners being a decade behind the curve of understanding what fans want (improved access and game day experience), and the MLBPA seizing the opportunity to weaponize MLB's attempts to improve the game day experience once MLB actually figures something out (faster pace, more action, etc).

The whole thing has been an exercise in the combination of arrogance and stupidity. 

[USAFChief]

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

The Diamondbacks are only charging 19.99 per month for their DBacks.TV option. 39.99 if the user wanted to package that with the rest of MLB.TV games.

https://www.12news.com/article/sports/mlb/diamondbacks/how-to-watch-arizona-diamondbacks-games-tv-and-streaming-2024-season/75-c5b07291-9bd7-4d7c-b308-13719ef2d0b7

But we're followers, not innovators up here in Minnesota. Can't try something new, have to follow along with what the other kids are doing.

I assume the Twins will end up with something similar.

At much lower revenue for the team. 

Many, many people will complain loudly they aren't able to watch the Twins "for free. "

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

Pretty clearly the reason they did so is because they couldn't get the cash going streaming only. 

I do think it'll end up being mlb tv. With no blackout. But that model isn't going to get them $56M annually. Or even the ~$47M they got this year

 

 

That's 100% the reason. Thus my complaint that they chose the singular payday over growing their fanbase.

[Mike Sixel]

10 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Well I guess that's open to interpretation. Are you getting better value with a streaming service? You're here bitching about it. 

And ignoring the Twins, for a similar level of TV, are you saving any money?

Infinitely better, yes. I'm no longer paying for stuff I don't want to watch. 

[USAFChief]

Just now, chpettit19 said:

That's 100% the reason. Thus my complaint that they chose the singular payday over growing their fanbase.

I doubt a pay per view system like mlb.tv will grow their fanbase. 

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, USAFChief said:

I doubt a pay per view system like mlb.tv will grow their fanbase. 

Then major league baseball is in serious trouble. Not just the Twins. The entire sport. If they can't grow their fanbase through streaming the sport is going to die with the older generations.

[Schmoeman5]

I have no idea how it all works. I pay 99.00 per year for MLB network to watch the Twins. I can watch every game as long as it's not a national broadcast or if it's on YouTube tv. I have cable which includes Bally sports south featuring the Braves and predators. As well as BSO featuring the Reds. So if you live in Minnesota and have mlb network you're saying you can't watch the games?  

[Mike Sixel]

4 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I doubt a pay per view system like mlb.tv will grow their fanbase. 

This is likely true, no idea what they can do here, frankly. It just doesn't have the same appeal for tv as the other sports. 

[nicksaviking]

28 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Well I guess that's open to interpretation. Are you getting better value with a streaming service? You're here bitching about it. 

And ignoring the Twins, for a similar level of TV, are you saving any money?

Obviously you get better value with streaming. You can cancel and subscribe for a month any time you please with the streamers. A new season of Program X starts up again, you pay two months for that streamer. The Diamondbacks are playing? You pay $20 for six months instead of for 12 months, locked in. If the average monthly streamer is $15/mo, you'd need to have 10 of them to match what you're paying for in cable. In my house, I doubt we've ever had more than 5 at a time.

[bean5302]

4 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

I have no idea how it all works. I pay 99.00 per year for MLB network to watch the Twins. I can watch every game as long as it's not a national broadcast or if it's on YouTube tv. I have cable which includes Bally sports south featuring the Braves and predators. As well as BSO featuring the Reds. So if you live in Minnesota and have mlb network you're saying you can't watch the games?  

Minnesota. North Dakota. South Dakota. Iowa. Part of Wisconsin.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/news/mlb-blackout-restrictions-map-2023-baseball-games/m843wsljyvrrdmf50zjhusre

[Mike Sixel]

Btw, wish John would post more....

[nicksaviking]

10 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I assume the Twins will end up with something similar.

At much lower revenue for the team. 

Many, many people will complain loudly they aren't able to watch the Twins "for free. "

If they want to find a way to keep the sport alive, they do need to find a way to get it automatically included in Apple/Amazon/Whatever giant wide-spread streamer package. Casual fans aren't going to go out of their way to get MLBTV.

As it is, $20/mo is a better start than whatever cable costs these days.

[August J Gloop]

Just now, USAFChief said:

I doubt a pay per view system like mlb.tv will grow their fanbase. 

You do know that mlb.tv isn't PPV?

1 minute ago, nicksaviking said:

If they want to find a way to keep the sport alive, they do need to find a way to get it automatically included in Apple/Amazon/Whatever giant wide-spread streamer package. Casual fans aren't going to go out of their way to get MLBTV.

As it is, $20/mo is a better start than whatever cable costs these days.

The current model that most of the teams are executing is not aimed at growing the fan base. It is aimed off profiting from that fandom. Which is why it's been stagnant, ultimately not as valuable. If they wanted the TV games to be fan recruitment, they'd move it internally to advertising budget and understand it as a money loss. 

[Vanimal46]

Dollar for dollar, of course the bloated cable contract is going to be more than what they would have made primarily streaming. But there is no more growth to be had with the old model.

People like me in their 30s and 40s aren’t going to go back to cable, ever. I wouldn’t have Comcast today if it wasn’t included in my association fees. The only time I use it is for Bally Sports and the occasional National TV NBA/NHL playoff game. 

If MLB can’t figure out how to navigate past the old model, the league is doomed. 

[Jocko87]

40 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

What infrastructure is MLB missing? Legitimate question. I don't know enough about this to have any idea. But streaming MLB games isn't a new idea, MLB.tv launched in 2002. It's been over 20 years. How long does it take to get things figured out?

I don't think it's a technical issue.  The music industry had a path to get paid that baseball doesn't yet have.  Without a pay path, all the tech in the world doesn't matter.

I worked at a small town country radio station in North Dakota in the 90s.  If I so much as played a snippet of a song, I had to log it so it could be sent to the clearing house so the artist, label etc could be paid.  The GM would mail in a big envelope every week, honestly it was probably his most important job.  When they added tech to that mix it was sorted rather easily because it became easier to track once they settled the Napster type issues.

I think tech in sports broadcasting is pushing the other way, making it harder. 

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Jocko87 said:

It's the same ship that took them 98% of the way to the moon. The didn't tie themselves to it when it was sinking.  The preseason deal was more like climbing on the door in Titanic. 

[Jocko87]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Us "cable cutters" didn't force the Twins to sign up for another year on the torpedoed ship. I don't see any hypocrisy in pointing out that the Twins chose to take a ride on a ship everyone knows is sinking because they cared more about a singular pay day than growing their fanbase. 

Agree on the cable cutters part but I'm not sure they had any other choice than whatever Ballys could do.  If we don't know they made this choice we certainly can't claim to know what they cared about.  

The unfortunate reality of this situation is that you and I don't have much less power than they do.  

[August J Gloop]

1 minute ago, Vanimal46 said:

Dollar for dollar, of course the bloated cable contract is going to be more than what they would have made primarily streaming. But there is no more growth to be had with the old model.

People like me in their 30s and 40s aren’t going to go back to cable, ever. I wouldn’t have Comcast today if it wasn’t included in my association fees. The only time I use it is for Bally Sports and the occasional National TV NBA/NHL playoff game. 

If MLB can’t figure out how to navigate past the old model, the league is doomed. 

This is what happens to all old markets. They fight change rather than innovate.

The music industry fought like hell against digital distribution and now makes more money on music than they ever did. But it wasn't the consumers they were fighting but the artists. They squeezed consumers for napstering, sure. The real fight was in proving to the artists that they were going to have to accept .0000000002 cents per stream. And now the industry has a situation where like 25% of the people in the word just give them $25 a month automatically. 

That's never going to happen for sports. Too few people are actually involved in the distribution of the product for that large scale squeeze to take place. 

[Unwinder]

6 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Obviously you get better value with streaming. You can cancel and subscribe for a month any time you please with the streamers. A new season of Program X starts up again, you pay two months for that streamer. The Diamondbacks are playing? You pay $20 for six months instead of for 12 months, locked in. If the average monthly streamer is $15/mo, you'd need to have 10 of them to match what you're paying for in cable. I doubt we've ever had more than 5 at a time.

Correct, people complain that the cost of every streaming service they want to watch adds up to more than the cost of a cable package, but I don't need to be able to watch Stranger Things twelve months a year. No reason at all to subscribe to more than one or two services at a time.

Also, someone earlier in this thread used the term "pay-per-view" and based on my schedule I would actually LOVE if I could treat a single Twins game like a digital movie rental and pay, say, four bucks to watch one regular-season game. I've got a toddler and I can only realistically sit down for a couple of whole games a month.

[chpettit19]

Just now, Jocko87 said:

Agree on the cable cutters part but I'm not sure they had any other choice than whatever Ballys could do.  If we don't know they made this choice we certainly can't claim to know what they cared about.  

The unfortunate reality of this situation is that you and I don't have much less power than they do.  

They could've done the MLB.tv package like the Diamondbacks. It would've cost them money. But it was an option. I don't think there's any debating that. They had at least 2 options. They chose this one.

[Musk21]

I buy the NBA League Pass despite the fact that the Timberwolves are blacked out. I also had the Bally Sports app so I can watch the Timberwolves.

Would definitely have kept my Bally's subscription had the Twins been streamed on the app. Not sure who's at fault between MLB, the Twins, or Bally's, but guessing there are a lot of others like me.

[Jocko87]

5 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I mean, that's probably close to the most they can do.  

[USAFChief]

13 minutes ago, August J Gloop said:

You do know that mlb.tv isn't PPV?

Of course it is. Currently $30/mo. Or $20/mo for Dbacks only.

[Loosey]

So a large contingent of the Fanbase will be unable to watch the games on TV (Comcast).  Were the Twins unaware that Comcast and Bally's agreement was up less than a month into their season?  Did they just assume all was well and that everyone would happily re-up?

Ownership of this team is messing up on multiple levels.  This isn't even a baseball operations issue, this is something that supposedly very smart, savvy, rich business people should know how to navigate.  If they were messing up this much on any  of their other business entities the boards would be going crazy.  

And to make matters worse, this does in fact trickle down into the baseball operations by not allowing them to spend as they should be able to in order to be competitive.