DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[cosmo_kramer]

This is going to be a long autumn….

 

[slice1900]

The potential audience is smaller than it was on FOX

I know, I'm just saying that drawing conclusions based on one game is stupid, especially when there will obviously be people who didn't watch this game because they didn't know they couldn't watch it on cable who will get their ducks in a row to watch on Amazon Prime later.

Some won't, but on the other hand everyone who didn't have cable/satellite or an antenna was not part of the potential audience for games on Fox or ESPN so it may not be all that much 'smaller' of a potential audience but it is certainly a different potential audience.

 

[SamCdbs]

Some won't, but on the other hand everyone who didn't have cable/satellite or an antenna was not part of the potential audience for games on Fox or ESPN so it may not be all that much 'smaller' of a potential audience but it is certainly a different potential audience.

Yes. People that do not have access to things like ESPN, or to a lesser degree Fox, are a self-selected group. They clearly share, as a group, two primary characteristics.

One is frugality. I have never read a post, or an article, or had a conversation, anywhere about streaming that does not involve the phrase “I saved…”. 90% of them also feature the phrase “I don’t miss ____ that much…”. For me, and I think most people, life is simply too short. I want everything. I’m simply not out to save five cents.

The other is a dislike of sports. TRUE cord cutting, which is relying only on non-linear streaming, avoids, at least for now, 90% of the costs of unwanted sports. Even cord switching, or DISH, avoids the costs of the RSN. Which is why non-sports fans self-select themselves out of the pool.

Which is why any discussion of profitability or it not being predicated or other such ho-ha vis ST is just fundamentally silly. We KNOW how many people what ST. About 2M. This is TOTALLY different from a discussion of a restaurant getting X% market share in Alabama and thus moving into Georgia should have similar results. Since DirecTV, and thus ST, is already available to 99.9% of Americans, we already know how many want it. And, since ST WILL be predicated upon something, discussion of some mass of frugal customers turned off by the predication, since it will still be predicated, and predicated upon something way inferior to DirecTV.

 

[AZ.]

Not everyone has DTV only 10 million people. How many households have Amazon Prime.

People dont have Prime for TV. They have it for the soul purpose to order and purchase product, no one would pay $139 for what little they offer in streaming.

 

[Don in CT]

People dont have Prime for TV. They have it for the soul purpose to order and purchase product, no one would pay $139 for what little they offer in streaming.

They are getting the streaming for free.

 

[AZ.]

They are getting the streaming for free.

Im well aware of that...The quote was how many people have Prime...But it has nothing to do with Season ticket....Now if they get it and you must have Prime to order Season ticket fine...But comparing 10 million people with Direct TV for what? TV! Is not the same as having Prime, because its intent is not TV viewing just a small part

 

[John2021]

Yes. People that do not have access to things like ESPN, or to a lesser degree Fox, are a self-selected group. They clearly share, as a group, two primary characteristics.

One is frugality. I have never read a post, or an article, or had a conversation, anywhere about streaming that does not involve the phrase “I saved…”. 90% of them also feature the phrase “I don’t miss ____ that much…”. For me, and I think most people, life is simply too short. I want everything. I’m simply not out to save five cents.

The other is a dislike of sports. TRUE cord cutting, which is relying only on non-linear streaming, avoids, at least for now, 90% of the costs of unwanted sports. Even cord switching, or DISH, avoids the costs of the RSN. Which is why non-sports fans self-select themselves out of the pool.

Which is why any discussion of profitability or it not being predicated or other such ho-ha vis ST is just fundamentally silly. We KNOW how many people what ST. About 2M. This is TOTALLY different from a discussion of a restaurant getting X% market share in Alabama and thus moving into Georgia should have similar results. Since DirecTV, and thus ST, is already available to 99.9% of Americans, we already know how many want it. And, since ST WILL be predicated upon something, discussion of some mass of frugal customers turned off by the predication, since it will still be predicated, and predicated upon something way inferior to DirecTV.

wonders how much longer the streaming services will be free of the rsn fee's??? though i bet the rsn is included in there package like gap insurance.. but the streaming service is marketing it as no rsn fee

 

[NashGuy]

“Apple is the only one that’s had significant discussion so far with the NFL,” he said. “If Apple doesn’t get it, then maybe it’s NFL+? I don’t know.”

Report: Apple Still Seen as NFL Sunday Ticket Favorite, Decision Likely Coming Near End of Year

The NFL season is underway, with record-breaking audiences tuning in to the games, including on the new Prime Video Thursday night broadcast. Many NFL observers had expected a decision to be made on the future of NFL …

thestreamable.com

Yeah, at this point, it looks like if Apple isn't willing to stump up the billions that the NFL wants for Sunday Ticket, then no one is. I guess Amazon doesn't see enough incremental value in spending that kind of money for ST since they already have Thursday Night Football.

So if that's how it plays out, then the NFL will resort to their worst-case scenario of just selling it themselves, the way MLB and NBA already sell their out-of-market packages. As with those leagues, I can't see why the NFL would want to restrict it to just their own streaming app; the goal would be to maximize revenue, so they'd also sell it through MVPDs as a package of Sunday-only cable channels. Of course, the NFL would never rake in as much sales revenue that way as the amount they're trying to shake out of Apple.

If I was Apple, I think my play here would be to perhaps try to buy that stake in NFL Media that the NFL is trying to sell and pass on ST. Why lose tons of money on ST? I can't see how it would do *that* much to boost sales of iPhones or other Apple hardware or to make their Apple TV+ service that much more popular. But if buying a stake in NFL Media allowed them to include a handful of live games in Apple TV+ (e.g. the ones that currently air on NFL Network), along with content from NFL Films, maybe some classic NFL games, and some kind of NFL talk show (e.g. Inside the NFL), there might be sufficient value in that. Obviously depends on the price and specifics of the deal.

If Apple passes on ST, there's still going to be a fair amount of folks who stream the service via the NFL app on Apple devices and subscribing to it through Apple's app store (thereby giving Apple a cut of those subscription revenues). So in that scenario, ST actually *makes* rather than costs Apple money. I understand that landing ST would help boost Apple's profile in the world of TV entertainment but honestly, how much are they willing to lose in exchange for that kind of marketing boost? I'm sure they're already losing money on Apple TV+ (although it might at some point become profitable). How much more shareholder cash are they willing to burn to look cool and relevant if that expense can't be directly tied to an increase in sales of other Apple goods and services?

 

[raoul5788]

Directv Stream Carries Yes

They are the only streaming service with YES.

 

[raoul5788]

Is that English? DIRECTV has hinted in no way of launching more satellites or using internet satellites to distribute TV

Weren't the Spaceway sats originally intended for internet use?

 

[Bruce]

For me, and I think most people, life is simply too short. I want everything. I’m simply not out to save five cents.

But again, you do not pay what everyone else pays, it is not fair that the majority of your DirecTV bill is paid by your rent and yet you criticize those who wish to save money.

I never wasted money, at least 10% of our income went into the investment account ( the last 7 years of working, I put 50% of my income into the account), sure we did not spend that much, but by being frugal allowed me to retire at 52.

Paid Live TV is just a wasted expense now, the vast majority of content on all those channels is reruns.

The other is a dislike of sports. TRUE cord cutting, which is relying only on non-linear streaming, avoids, at least for now, 90% of the costs of unwanted sports.

Except with True Cord Cutting , you still get a lot of sports, MLB ( MLB App, ESPN+, Fox via OTA), NFL( Paramount+, Peacock, Fox via OTA, ESPN+), College Basketball with March Madness ( Paramount+) and every NHL game( ESPN+).

Next year, every NFL game and Big Ten Football.

Even cord switching, or DISH, avoids the costs of the RSN.

Good, I am glad I do not have to pay a RSN fee on top of my monthly bill for a channel I will never watch.

Which is why any discussion of profitability or it not being predicated or other such ho-ha vis ST is just fundamentally silly. We KNOW how many people what ST. About 2M.

Or look at it another way, we know how many Households can get DirecTV and do not want it, more then 110 million and growing.

And there have been a few posters here in our limited group that said they will subscribe to it when it goes streaming only and do not have DirecTV, myself included.

 

[Juan]

Yeah, at this point, it looks like if Apple isn't willing to stump up the billions that the NFL wants for Sunday Ticket, then no one is. I guess Amazon doesn't see enough incremental value in spending that kind of money for ST since they already have Thursday Night Football.

So if that's how it plays out, then the NFL will resort to their worst-case scenario of just selling it themselves, the way MLB and NBA already sell their out-of-market packages. As with those leagues, I can't see why the NFL would want to restrict it to just their own streaming app; the goal would be to maximize revenue, so they'd also sell it through MVPDs as a package of Sunday-only cable channels. Of course, the NFL would never rake in as much sales revenue that way as the amount they're trying to shake out of Apple.

If I was Apple, I think my play here would be to perhaps try to buy that stake in NFL Media that the NFL is trying to sell and pass on ST. Why lose tons of money on ST? I can't see how it would do *that* much to boost sales of iPhones or other Apple hardware or to make their Apple TV+ service that much more popular. But if buying a stake in NFL Media allowed them to include a handful of live games in Apple TV+ (e.g. the ones that currently air on NFL Network), along with content from NFL Films, maybe some classic NFL games, and some kind of NFL talk show (e.g. Inside the NFL), there might be sufficient value in that. Obviously depends on the price and specifics of the deal.

If Apple passes on ST, there's still going to be a fair amount of folks who stream the service via the NFL app on Apple devices and subscribing to it through Apple's app store (thereby giving Apple a cut of those subscription revenues). So in that scenario, ST actually *makes* rather than costs Apple money. I understand that landing ST would help boost Apple's profile in the world of TV entertainment but honestly, how much are they willing to lose in exchange for that kind of marketing boost? I'm sure they're already losing money on Apple TV+ (although it might at some point become profitable). How much more shareholder cash are they willing to burn to look cool and relevant if that expense can't be directly tied to an increase in sales of other Apple goods and services?

Disney/Espn are lurking...would be a good fit

 

[SamCdbs]

But again, you do not pay what everyone else pays, it is not fair that the majority of your DirecTV bill is paid by your rent and yet you criticize those who wish to save money.

I don’t “criticize” anyone. Just understand this business and thus that cord cutters are a self selected group. Not putting any one down, just understanding that they are not “early adopters” of some trend. They are the adopters.

Paid Live TV is just a wasted expense now, the vast majority of content on all those channels is reruns.

The VAST majority of streaming content is reruns.

Except with True Cord Cutting , you still get a lot of sports, MLB ( MLB App, ESPN+, Fox via OTA)

If you can get OTA. And not the local team(s).

BTW, SBJ had a good podcast on local RSN ratings a few days ago. Still blowing everything else out of the water. Highest rated show in many markets.

, NFL( Paramount+, Peacock, Fox via OTA, ESPN+), College Basketball with March Madness ( Paramount+) and every NHL game( ESPN+).

Just not the sports people actually want to see.

Enjoy Ball State vs. Toledo.

Next year, every NFL game and Big Ten Football.

If you buy the predicate service.

So PAY for, what 6 or 7 services, to get, what, half of the live sports (no ESPN, no FS1 or 2, no CBSSN, no TBS/TNT).

Sounds a lot like cable.

Of 20 years ago.

Good, I am glad I do not have to pay a RSN fee on top of my monthly bill for a channel I will never watch.

But which gets the highest ratings in most markets of any channel.

Or look at it another way, we know how many Households can get DirecTV and do not want it

Other people like other luxuries. TV is mine. That is why I have luxury TV.

And there have been a few posters here in our limited group that said they will subscribe to it when it goes streaming only and do not have DirecTV, myself included.

Sure. But since it will be predicated on buying something very much like DirecTV, no.

 

[Yespage]

The VAST majority of streaming content is reruns.

So is the vast majority of non-streaming content.

 

[NashGuy]

Disney/Espn are lurking...would be a good fit

I can't really see how it would be. As I see it, buying an exclusive contract for NFLST means losing money on the service. Because the NFL is only going to sell it to you if you'll pay them considerably more money than they could make by selling it directly to consumers themselves.

NFLST made sense (in the past) for DirecTV as a loss-leader tied to a *more expensive* service, their core cable TV packages. They'd give you a year of free NFLST if you came in as a new customer and took a 2-yr contract, during which time you'd spend at least $2500 on the service (Choice All-In or higher package). After that, you could leave but if you really wanted NFLST, there was nowhere else to go to get it, so you had to keep paying at least $1200 a year (Entertainment All-in) on DTV, plus another $300 for NFLST.

I assume that, at least in the earlier years of the contract, the incremental revenue that DTV got from having the NFLST exclusive more than covered the yearly amount they were paying the NFL. But that was true only because DTV was such an expensive product to begin with, and also because it always has a 2-yr contract for new subs.

None of that holds true for ESPN+ (or for that matter, Apple TV+). I don't see how NFLST can be a profitable loss leader for such cheap services. ESPN+ sells for $10/mo and Apple TV+ for $5/mo. So if either of those companies are willing to lose a load of cash on NFLST, they'll have to justify the expenditure some other way, e.g. as a form of marketing/advertising, or as a way to get lots of additional customers hooked on their core video service and hope that they stick with it even after NFL season ends and in future years even if they don't subscribe again to NFLST. Which seems like a shaky bet.

Apple has more money than God, so they can get a little crazy in terms of splashing cash around for marketing/buzz purposes (e.g. the recent decision to make Apple Music the sponsor of the Super Bowl Halftime Show). But even so, there's a limit to how much cash they'll burn that way. Disney, OTOH, does NOT have that amount of crazy cash sitting around in their underwear drawer. Yes, Disney is a big, profitable company but they're not in the same league as Apple. So if the NFL is having trouble getting Apple to cough up the kind of cash they want for ST, I don't see any way at all that Disney would come close.

I think the NFL knew all along that the only companies who could possibly afford to pay what they now want for NFLST are Apple, Amazon and Google, which is part of the reason they kept publicly talking about it becoming a streaming service. But it may turn out that the NFL is just too greedy and none of those three are willing to blow that much cash in order to brag that they're the exclusive seller of the NFL's out-of-market TV package (which, I imagine, is overall less valuable than being the exclusive home of Thursday Night Football).

 

[Yespage]

Which makes one wonder if it'll be a dual deal. Multiple companies get streaming/broadcasting (?) rights. Disney paid an unbelievably large amount for MNF. Amazon paid way too much for TNF. Every once in a while, companies look like they are sobering up on the cost they pay for rights to broadcast this stuff... but then someone makes another ridiculous deal.

Which is why I'm pretty certain Charlie Ergen will end up with the streaming rights somehow. And you'll only be able to stream it through Sling or their phone. Not even the NFL will be able to figure that one out.

 

[NashGuy]

Which makes one wonder if it'll be a dual deal. Multiple companies get streaming/broadcasting (?) rights. Disney paid an unbelievably large amount for MNF. Amazon paid way too much for TNF. Every once in a while, companies look like they are sobering up on the cost they pay for rights to broadcast this stuff... but then someone makes another ridiculous deal.

Which is why I'm pretty certain Charlie Ergen will end up with the streaming rights somehow. And you'll only be able to stream it through Sling or their phone. Not even the NFL will be able to figure that one out.

Nah. The value of distributing NFLST goes *way* down if you're not the exclusive provider (at least for residential viewers). It'll either be one company doing it -- probably Apple -- or it'll be the NFL selling it through their own app plus probably selling it as an add-on to cable TV packages via Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, DirecTV, DISH, etc., i.e. the same way that MLB.tv/Extra Innings and NBA League Pass both work.

When NFL+ came out this year as an NFL DTC service (meaning they couldn't get anyone else to overpay for those rights to bundle it in with their own service), that was a clue that we may end up seeing the same thing happen with NFLST.

 

[Juan]

I can't really see how it would be. As I see it, buying an exclusive contract for NFLST means losing money on the service. Because the NFL is only going to sell it to you if you'll pay them considerably more money than they could make by selling it directly to consumers themselves.

NFLST made sense (in the past) for DirecTV as a loss-leader tied to a *more expensive* service, their core cable TV packages. They'd give you a year of free NFLST if you came in as a new customer and took a 2-yr contract, during which time you'd spend at least $2500 on the service (Choice All-In or higher package). After that, you could leave but if you really wanted NFLST, there was nowhere else to go to get it, so you had to keep paying at least $1200 a year (Entertainment All-in) on DTV, plus another $300 for NFLST.

I assume that, at least in the earlier years of the contract, the incremental revenue that DTV got from having the NFLST exclusive more than covered the yearly amount they were paying the NFL. But that was true only because DTV was such an expensive product to begin with, and also because it always has a 2-yr contract for new subs.

None of that holds true for ESPN+ (or for that matter, Apple TV+). I don't see how NFLST can be a profitable loss leader for such cheap services. ESPN+ sells for $10/mo and Apple TV+ for $5/mo. So if either of those companies are willing to lose a load of cash on NFLST, they'll have to justify the expenditure some other way, e.g. as a form of marketing/advertising, or as a way to get lots of additional customers hooked on their core video service and hope that they stick with it even after NFL season ends and in future years even if they don't subscribe again to NFLST. Which seems like a shaky bet.

Apple has more money than God, so they can get a little crazy in terms of splashing cash around for marketing/buzz purposes (e.g. the recent decision to make Apple Music the sponsor of the Super Bowl Halftime Show). But even so, there's a limit to how much cash they'll burn that way. Disney, OTOH, does NOT have that amount of crazy cash sitting around in their underwear drawer. Yes, Disney is a big, profitable company but they're not in the same league as Apple. So if the NFL is having trouble getting Apple to cough up the kind of cash they want for ST, I don't see any way at all that Disney would come close.

I think the NFL knew all along that the only companies who could possibly afford to pay what they now want for NFLST are Apple, Amazon and Google, which is part of the reason they kept publicly talking about it becoming a streaming service. But it may turn out that the NFL is just too greedy and none of those three are willing to blow that much cash in order to brag that they're the exclusive seller of the NFL's out-of-market TV package (which, I imagine, is overall less valuable than being the exclusive home of Thursday Night Football).

It fits with ESPN3 and possibly a freebe for stand alone ESPN..the price would have to be reasonable..2 billion wouldn't work...amazon and apple will just lose money on it

 

[slice1900]

Weren't the Spaceway sats originally intended for internet use?

Yes. Neither is used in any way for Directv anymore, not even as a spare.

 

[meStevo]

Yes. Neither is used in any way for Directv anymore, not even as a spare.

Yeah, figured Juan might eventually point to them when asked for a citation (which would be wrong), but he then proved it was just another invented point by pivoting and dropping it, like so many points before it.