Everything You Need to Know About the New Twins TV Setup in 2025

3 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

You have only quantified one element of the financial equation.   That being the subscription revenue.  What is the advertising revenue?  I have no idea but I suspect the subscription fee is a small percentage of the total revenue.  What are the operating costs.  Simply looking at subscription revenue is of little value.

I heard this discussed on of the MLB radio programs last year and they thought the new model would yield roughly three-quarters of the old model going forward.  However, they offered no details other than that's what they ascertained from talking to people in the industry.

If the user of subscribers is 40K like San Diego i doubt advertising revenue will be as good as what was on Bally. Their rumor of viewers was near 140K. 

5 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

It would help, in general, if you spent less time speculating in your responses and more time researching them and presenting actual arguments and evidence.  

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/cost-of-marketing-ii-advertising-on-cable-tv

Let's go with the highest possible amount of money they could get according to this: $200.  (They won't get that with 40k subscribers....I assure you)

According to estimates, an average baseball game has about 32 minutes of commercials.  In 30 second spots, this would be 64 ads per game.  That would be about 11,000 commercials throughout the entire season.  At the elevated price of $200 that would be roughly 2M.

So....no.  No that will not pay 3/4 of 50M.  And go ahead and wildly inflate/double/change those numbers all you want, you'd have to multiple by them by several factors to even get close to such a price tag.

I was not speculating, I simply relayed what was said on the front office show on MLB radio.  My speculation is that they have much better sources than you and I.  Meanwhile, you speculate that an advertising on a MLB game can be had for $200 based on a generic suggestion from Legal Zoom.  Do you have any actual data on the cost to advertise on a MLB game? 

What about viewers on all the other platforms which is going to be multiples of their subscriptions.  I doubt MLB only collects for their own subscriptions.  Did you account for that?   

What do you suppose it costs to produce the broadcast.  (Talent, production crew, travel, equipment, etc).  We have virtually no reliable information on the various components of revenue and operating costs.  IDK why any of us would think we have the ability to quantify income with the quality of information we have on revenue and virtually no information about production costs.

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

If the user of subscribers is 40K like San Diego i doubt advertising revenue will be as good as what was on Bally. Their rumor of viewers was near 140K. 

It think it's fair to assume advertising revenue will be less.  However, given we have no reliable information, I thought I would share what Jim Duquette and Jim Bowden said on their show.  It also seems reasonable to assume they have had discussions with industry insiders that would provide greater insight than those of us on TD given we have very little reliable information.  I am going to assume their sources are better than mine.

13 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

The simple truth, is that you can watch any game you want for free with as little information as knowing a reliable streaming site.  This price point will get some people and the effort is commendable, it will be so little that they'd be better putting it on for free as an act of good will IMO.

It does seem like they are shooting themselves in the foot trying to get $10 per household a month, when like you said with little information, know how or minimum research you can get it for free.

Taking a product that has been "free" (included in most cable services) forever, then removing that and finally charging people for it doesn't seem like a smart business move.

I ran this by everybody in couple of my fantasy football and baseball leagues, and 1 out of 34 said they would be willing to pay, small sample and anecdotal for sure but not a good outlook.

6 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Taking a product that has been "free" (included in most cable services) forever, then removing that and finally charging people for it doesn't seem like a smart business move.

Part of the problem here is it wasn't being included in most cable services. Most cable services (including Comcast) were dropping the team's regional sports network. Now people with cable and satellite will have access to Twins games again. People without cable will have access to Twins games through streaming. People in Iowa will have access to Twins games. It's a huge improvement.

35 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I love how I have to provide more evidence but your evidence is *checks notes* two talking heads on sports radio? 

And then you do your normal thing - you came here to argue, make a point with flimsy to no evidence, get pinned on it, and then claim total ambiguity on cost certainty and therefore everyone is wrong but you.  Somehow.  Magic I assume. If only Jim Bowden would share more mysteries of life with us peasants on his glorious sports radio day time talk show.  What a world it would be!

First, your source is an ad from Legal Zoom (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/cost-of-marketing-ii-advertising-on-cable-tv) using a $200 figure as if all ads cost the same regardless of views per 1000.  The Twins can now reach 3X as many households as last year.   In the past 5 years they have average anywhere from 50-150K viewers per game.

Given the wide swing and tripling of households reached, how many households are you using in this calculation?  You offered no supporting information and failed to even consider the 75% of the Twins audience viewing on cable and satellite platforms.  Why are you only considering advertising and subscription revenue from direct users?  What about the out 75% of viewers on other platforms?

What are you using for a cost per 1000 views?  According to Skyworks marketing, the average cost per 1,000 views varies from $5-10 per 1000 for a local broadcast of a professional sports event.  Are you using the minimum, maximum or any figure at all to come up with the $200 per ad pricing.  

I did not realize I was conversing with someone who possessed have more knowledge of MLB and better information sources than not one but two former GMs who speak to baseball executives on a daily basis.  What you offered was a calculation with virtually no information to support your position and no evidence that you even considered the primary elements that go into calculating net income generated.

49 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

I already answered most of this.  Using top end projections of 40k subscribers, with an average of 64 ads per game, with 11,000 possible ads.  The other media streams haven't changed, we're simply talking about the change from their Ballys payout in the past to this year.  After all, this is the only place they are experiencing a change and is the topic of the thread.  So your first few paragraphs are purposeful misdirection and irrelevancy.  Per usual.

I already cited a cost per thousand views and a link.  That link tracks with others you are welcome to research.  I used the high end (ridiculously high end at $200).  Had you read that link between your devotion to Jim Bowden, paragraph 3 would've been unnecessary.  

I should've known that daytime sports radio hosts are the pinnacles of knowledge and inside information.  My bad for asking you to, for the first time ever, actually back one of your arguments with evidence and not conduct this trolling exercise you are ever so good at.

One, you completely ignore production costs which is equally critical to understanding the net.  You are also proceeding under a badly flawed assumption that the only source of advertising revenue is the direct subscribers.  What about the other 75% of viewers?   What revenues are derived from them?  We know very little.  The difference between you and I is that I know what I don't know.  I also believe that a couple of ex-GMs can make a couple phone calls to current GMs and acquire a far better estimate than you or I can assemble.  

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

You cited radio sports talk show hosts.  You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back them. Every one of your complaints is utterly irrelevant to the analysis or the topic.  At this point you are back to your usual trolling so I'm out.  Good day to you.

In other words, you can't answer any of the questions so you don't want to play.  You won't acknowledge you have completely and utterly ignored any operational costs and the revenue from three-quarters of the subscribers.  

On 1/20/2025 at 11:51 AM, PatPfund said:

MLB.tv was required to blackout most local games due to contracts between the teams and various regional broadcasters. As teams move to MLB as their broadcaster (as the Twins have done) the blackout restriction goes away, so... If you live in the Twins' local area, it sounds like you would sign up for Twins streaming if you want to watch (almost) all of their games live, and if you want to see Twins and others, you sign up for MLB.tv. (If you don't live in the Twins local zone, you can just do MLB.tv and watch them since you are 'out of market'. The only exception is if you are located in a team-with-a-blackout-regional-sports-network contract (then you can watch all Twins' games except those against your "home" team). (I actually held on to a crappy internet service for a couple extra years, because the server was based in Chicago, so the Twins were 'out of market' according to MLB.tv unless they were playing the Pale Hose or Cubs.)

@Original_JB as a regular MLB.tv subscriber, I'd bet money you will need to add a +Twins package to watch local games live on MLB.tv. Away games are likely free with your package, and you can watch home games once they are archived (about a couple hours after broadcast ends).

@LambchoP my experience is not only that you get available spring training games on MLB.tv, but they tend to offer them even to non-subscribers to lure people into subscribing for the season. But the key word there is "available". Broadcasters don't televise almost every game as they do once the season starts; still fun to get peeks at your team's prospects, and the number of games shown goes up as ST progresses.

Random thoughts: 1. The Twins are NOT the broadcaster, MLB is; that means any rough estimates of team "profits" should be scaled back. The reason the Twins stuck with a bankrupt RSN last year is even the crummy deal looked better than MLB's offer. 2. At the very least, this is at least a model than provides some incentive to make the team better (for the new owner if not the Pohlads); the better the team, the more interested fans, the more subscription revenue). 3. I'll miss Smalley, but then I'm old enough to have seen him play for the Twins. 4. Looks like I'll get to see more live Twins games this year. (Now I just have to figure out if MLB.tv is back or not, though the minor league game broadcasts are addictive enough I might have to re-up there, too.)

 

Not quite the case about the Twins+ thing.  As a MLB.TV subscriber (for years) I've been able to watch all the MLB broadcast teams games w/o any additional subscriptions.  Shouldn't change any with the Twins broadcast this year.

4 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

That's only a very recent development.  And part of why it's become alarming is precisely because it felt borderline free as part of a package.  

My in-laws haven't had Twins games on Dish Network for 5 years. They're excited to be able to watch the Twins again.

7 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

That's only a very recent development.  And part of why it's become alarming is precisely because it felt borderline free as part of a package.  

The truth is, you can sit anywhere you want in the country and access any game through your browser if you choose to.  The option literally exists at $0 for those who want to put a modicum of effort into finding it.  Couple that with the way this price will "feel" like a hike, probably limits things more than most would think.

Look, I'm happy for those that have felt shut-out the last few years and like this option.  That's great!  But the viability of it from a financial or efficiency perspective is a completely different conversation.  This has been bandied about here for years and I'll just say this: those of us reiterating the more pessimistic/realistic view have been right time and time again.  This is only a patch in hopes of a brighter, more league-wide solution down the line.  It isn't sustainable or profitable as is.  (Which is why I'd just prefer they make a grand gesture of good will to the fans and make it widely available, no strings attached)

I assumed those sources were illegal.  Are you telling us they are legal or are you suggesting stealing is just fine if you can get away with it?

On 1/20/2025 at 8:41 AM, nicksaviking said:

I'm happy this is an option, however I think the team is going to find they get fewer subscribers than they expect up here. Pricing it above Netflix/Hulu/Amazon is going to turn off a lot of casual fans.

Re: pricing

I too think they way you do. I'm excited for this, but when it comes to actually pulling the trigger on a $100 viewership option to watch baseball on TV I admittedly pause. They use the SD market pricing as an example, but that area is pretty robust population wise (compared to even our multi state area up here) so I can't help but wonder if maybe closer to $15/month and $75 a season would get better subscription numbers... thoughts? I'm just  spit ballin here. 

36 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

Yeah, Minnesota isn't a small market, but the market is disproportionately rural, especially when factoring in the Dakotas and Iowa. These areas tend to have significantly lower wages and probably more importantly, lower cost of living expenses than markets on the coasts. I'd guess the Twins market will have a similarly disproportionate percentage of their fanbase that would balk at prices those on the coasts wouldn't think twice about.

Counterpoint - there is nothing to do in those rural areas and 60 cents per Twins game on TV is a pretty good entertainment value. Most of those areas have limited internet speeds so having the games back on satellite TV will be a huge win.

I hope we see some bundling of the streaming package with discounted game tickets. Example: Buy the streaming bundle and you get $5 off per ticket up to 4 tickets.

I assume Fubo will add this channel?

The most difficult thing to lose with pausing Fubo is the Fox Sports stuff.  There's no app for streaming Fox Sports (used to be).  With the Vikings and Big Ten tied to Fox Sports (including BTN), that's where I'm screwed, though losing March-August isn't a bad idea.  That's half a year of not having to pay for Fubo (about $110/mo).  I have a free Paramount+ that comes (or came) with my 247 subscription, and that gives me the local channel 4 WCCO plus Showtime, and I use a Roku device to stream things (about $40 once and probably the best stick).

If monthly is $30 for Twins, I think that's the way to go.  If it's $40, I don't know.  I might decided into the season.  I'd only need five months before starting Fubo again.  

29 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

they're not going to snag many of the rural casual fans. 

I am not sure how to remedy this. If they're that poor they're probably not able to pay for internet access or satellite TV. They're also really unlikely to attend a game. I'm fine if the Twins decide to leave people without any disposable income out of their business plans.