tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9137059844561398433.post1465338583529904190..comments2024-03-12T11:22:30.939-04:00Comments on Matt's College Sports Media Blog: Economics of Sports A-La-Carte: Would You Pay and Does It Tilt The Playing Field?Matt Sarzyniakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07967516926073948559noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9137059844561398433.post-8407746713916695242013-05-11T02:03:55.994-04:002013-05-11T02:03:55.994-04:00If I had to guess, the cable company Mike talked a...If I had to guess, the cable company Mike talked about dropped its system not because of any relative profit or loss, but because networks wouldn't play ball.<br /><br />Sports networks in general cost more than most other networks. Remember that FS1 is asking cable companies for nearly $1 a subscriber. <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/141097593.html" rel="nofollow"> Here are some more recent numbers;</a> you see that FS1 zooms past the majority of channels on that list. ESPN has now crossed the $5 barrier; it might creep into premium territory in an a la carte world. And I bet TNT isn't in second place among non-3D networks without the NBA and to some extent NASCAR. In some sense, a la carte is already affecting sports channels, as some cable companies have begun offering sports-free channels. And keep in mind, some regional sports networks have even higher fees than ESPN, but don't get as much publicity for it because they aren't national.<br /><br />ESPN has only been able to attract big-time events like the BCS Championship because of its broad penetration; otherwise HBO, Showtime, and pay-per-view would have a lot more sports than they do. As ESPN becomes more expensive and loses more and more customers, teams and leagues aren't going to want to settle for a glorified premium channel; none of them want to follow the path boxing took. A big-time sport adds a certain amount of value to a channel that raises its price and causes some people to drop it, though, so averting that fate and finding a platform with broad penetration is nearly impossible. As a result, I think you might see a renaissance of sports on free-to-air broadcast television, especially local teams, which could accelerate "cord-cutting". Worth noting that many broadcast stations have been working on something called "mobile DTV" that would allow over-the-air broadcast signals to be received by a smartphone or tablet, which ties this in to the Wall Street Journal article you tweeted earlier.Morgan Wickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816659818434590943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9137059844561398433.post-34777856665931002392013-05-10T14:50:02.341-04:002013-05-10T14:50:02.341-04:00I read an overview of McCain's proposal. It s...I read an overview of McCain's proposal. It seemed to me he's not seeking a la carte at the consumer/subscriber level. Instead he is seeking to unbundle channels in contract negiotiations with providers. At least that was my take. <br /><br />For instance Disney couldn't require DirecTV to carry LHN in order to also have ESPN. ESPN negotiations would have to be independent. Cable and satellite companies could then continue to package channels as they see fit (in bundles) to the subscriber.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17260409658456202377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9137059844561398433.post-21170307882987413662013-05-10T14:13:12.242-04:002013-05-10T14:13:12.242-04:00There was a company here in Canada (well my neck o...There was a company here in Canada (well my neck of the Canadian woods so to speak) called LookTV that tried a hybrid version of this. There was about 30-40 channels that you received as a basic package (might have been more but I am pretty sure it was around this number). Then you could choose from a list of about 100 channels to add on an individual basis. Each extra channel cost $1.50 I believe (some cost $2). At the time I thought it was a brilliant plan. <br /><br />After a couple years of doing this, they reverted to the normal basic plus packages way of bundling channels. I don't know if they were losing money or not but I suspect they were (although it probably was more to do with the fact that they were a new up-and-coming company that couldn't compete with the big boys...almost sounds like I'm talking about a team competing with the SEC). I would definitely go this route if the number of channel options was quite varied. I can't get any ESPN channels or FSN (other than the main FOX network). Being able to choose from these would be great and would make it so I am paying for what I watch, not for the few hundred channels I don't.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17527479133423769149noreply@blogger.com