Ripple Effects: Cities Disconnect

[Steve Lein]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:20 PM, TheLeviathan said:

I'm here to tell you that Option A is a bad one too.  Sure, to hardcore baseball fans it seems great, but I guarantee you it's as good as dead at that price point.  Casual fans are not going to spent $20 a month for nothing but baseball.

Part of the dilemma here is that they waited too long for a viable long term solution.  They kept hitching their wagon to the death throws as long as they could milk a few bucks in the short term.

Oh, I agree 100%. But we know that's the minimum pricing structure anything will be. It will get more eyes on the games than now, and you are correct, the idea of bringing more "casual" fans has been baseball's problem for quite a while now, and this won't address that.

Edited October 4, 2024 by Steve Lein

[TheLeviathan]

6 minutes ago, Steve Lein said:

Oh, I agree 100%. But we know that's the minimum pricing structure anything will be. It will get more eyes on the games than now, but you are correct, the idea of bringing more "casual" fans has been baseball's problem for quite a while now, and this won't address that.

We definitely agree the right thing for baseball is fan access, I just don't think direct-to-consumer is viable long term.  It's too prohibitive to truly reach a lot of eyeballs.

[Papa B.]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:12 AM, The Great Hambino said:

The most damning part of all of this is this part of their response to Comcast dropping Bally in May:

 

"The Twins have no role or voice in this matter."

 

Really?  You couldn't have possibly foreseen the channel that's been falling off platforms left and right might have additional carriage issues?  

Yet another piece of evidence that they have zero long-term vision.  They could've been out on the front end of what is clearly where baseball broadcasts are headed while keeping promises made to the fanbase and doing something to engage with younger fans.  A lot of the people cutting the cord right now are the people that could potentially be bringing families to the park five-ten-fifteen years from now.  Might have hurt the short-term cash flow a little (which we've been told was mitigated by the decrease in payroll) but it could've paid off big time down the road. 

Paying something now for a larger payoff in the future: that's literally the definition of investment.

Quick question: who approved the contract without having a clause (and penalty) for non performance? Since they KNEW there was risk in signing again they certainly should have had options built into the contract. And the should have had a solid plan b in their hip pockets. Most contracts include such language and monetary penalties for not delivering the expected deliverables, in this case being present on all of the expected outlets. 

[Schmoeman5]

On 10/2/2024 at 10:29 AM, Major League Ready said:

No doubt that would have been ideal for customers who are unwilling to pay the current cost of coverage.  Let's keep in mind that going away from Bally's would have meant that every customer currently paving for a Bally's provider would have been forced to pay an additional fee for streaming.  There are no perfect fixes to and changing market such as this one and it does not change the fact the poster could have gotten coverage and elected not to do so. 

Had they been better at PR, their message would have been our goal is to EVENTUALLY phase out blackouts and increase availability BUT that might not happen immediately.  They need to get a PR firm or hire someone that understands every statement they make needs to be more carefully measured for potential fallout.

Maybe they can't afford it? Maybe they don't want to spend the DQ blizzard money they set aside for the kids? Similar to the Pohlads position you so staunchly defend. BAM!

[Major League Ready]

6 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

Maybe they can't afford it? Maybe they don't want to spend the DQ blizzard money they set aside for the kids? Similar to the Pohlads position you so staunchly defend. BAM!

You missed the post I responded to which said "Many of us haven't been able to watch the Twins for a few years due to most streaming systems dumping Bally Sports"  

My provider dumped Bally's.  Twins coverage was important to me so I switched providers and this poster could have dome the same.  He/she elected not to switch which is certainly his or her prerogative.  However, the option was and is still available.  If it's important, switch providers.  I just don't understand constantly bitching instead of rectifying a problem that is relatively easy to fix.

[Schmoeman5]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

You missed the post I responded to which said "Many of us haven't been able to watch the Twins for a few years due to most streaming systems dumping Bally Sports"  

My provider dumped Bally's.  Twins coverage was important to me so I switched providers and this poster could have dome the same.  He/she elected not to switch which is certainly his or her prerogative.  However, the option was and is still available.  If it's important, switch providers.  I just don't understand constantly bitching instead of rectifying a problem that is relatively easy to fix.

Good deflection. And a real concern for some. I'm a total idiot when it comes to tech. Just in our home, there's Hulu, Netflix, prime, cable, Disney and a slew of others. I kept expensive cable literally for 1 or 2 programs. My point was, that you can't tell other people how to spend their money while defending the Pohlads for not drawing from their billions to pump up Twins payroll because of lost TV revenue or the 1 time BAM money. On a yearly basis. That would be insane.  Yet when you're trying to build something, you need to invest in it as well. They could have built upon last season and earned a lot of fans goodwill.  Instead, they pivoted and gave fans a big F U