51–60 of 94 posts
From[1]: But, um, how much are the Lakers – all by themselves – getting from Time Warner Cable for its new regional sports networks? $5 billion.
[1]http://www.ocregister.com/articles/lakers-329235-billion-new...
The NBA is a great example of how individual consumers are not their customer. You want to pay money to watch NBA games, but you can't. The owners want money through ticket sales, so if you live in the "home market", you don't get to watch the game on TV. But, the owners also want money from TV deals. But they don't want your $20 to watch the game on TV, they want ABC's $3 billion (or whatever) for the right to charg…
> You want to pay money to watch NBA games, but you can't. This is what frustrates the shit out of me about EVERYTHING related to TV/Cable. I HAVE MONEY THAT I WANT TO GIVE YOU FOR A GREAT PRODUCT. I know I'm not the only one. WE have money we want to fork over, PLEASE take it. You know it just blows my mind. Everything I've ever heard about capitalism/business/economics/etc. that if there is demand, someone is suppo…
About a year or two ago, I still had cable (I don't anymore), and I had the premium package with all the movie channels. At the time, a new season of Entourage was starting and I wanted to catch my wife up on the previous season. This previous season was not available via HBO On-Demand, they were not showing any re-runs on HBO that I could find, and the DVD of this season was not available in stores yet. There was li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that a fair amount of revenue for the NBA is probably coming from the deals it made with TNT, EPSN, and Fox, but a viewer is a viewer, whether they're watching from the net or through traditional venues - why do they care, so long as their advertisers are getting enough eyeballs? Not "some" all of NBA's TV Revenues come from selling the rights to networks. The networks sell the ads, and they're the ones…
The NBA is basically promising these networks they will bring them eyeballs. By offering league pass to all customers without restrictions, and passing on all ad revenue to the network which holds the right to that specific game, they increasing their ability to deliver on the promise. For instance, if a game is televised on TNT, but X number of potential viewers don't have cable TV but do have internet access, by al…
This isn't the case, most networks are extremely technically sophisticated (ESPN especially) the misunderstanding here is business related. TNT and ESPN make millions (in ESPN's case billions) a year in subscriber fees from cable operators. ESPN alone makes $3-5 from each cable subscriber in the US (there's about 120M of them) each month. A significant portion of these network's revenues are made on subscriber fees. The solution you propose jeopardizes these agreements for what would currently be a paltry amount of streaming ad revenues.
Regional sports networks, especially those owned by local cable companies, love these deals because of the recurring revenue they get from people like me who would otherwise not have cable at all. Comcast Sportsnet in Philadelphia is the only local outlet for watching the Phillies, so I have Comcast cable.
HN used to block bait sites like this with a much heavier hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's this line of thinking that will eventually send old media to the grave. They’ll hang on for a while, grasping at the golden years of yore, but if they don’t adapt to demands they will die. It’s not about “excuses”, it’s about reality, facts. If technology and the convenience it affords isn’t used as a medium to enhance customer experience it will be its demise.
> but if they don’t adapt to demands they will die. No business can meet all demands. I think this is what annoys me the most about the "I pirate because I'm underserved" crowd. They act like not getting what you want is unique to our times. Unique to the internet. It's not. People in all walks of life, in all times, have had to deal with not getting everything they want. Had to deal with making compromises . In this…
> No business can meet all demands.
Absolutely, but it isn't being met. The demand of universal access is being fulfilled elsewhere.
>They act like not getting what you want is unique to our times. Unique to the internet. It's not.
What's unique to our time and the internet is that I can get what I want and it's more convenient than the conventional way.
That's the problem I was trying to highlight, hopefully this doesn't come across as snarky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that a fair amount of revenue for the NBA is probably coming from the deals it made with TNT, EPSN, and Fox, but a viewer is a viewer, whether they're watching from the net or through traditional venues - why do they care, so long as their advertisers are getting enough eyeballs? Not "some" all of NBA's TV Revenues come from selling the rights to networks. The networks sell the ads, and they're the ones…
The NBA is basically promising these networks they will bring them eyeballs. By offering league pass to all customers without restrictions, and passing on all ad revenue to the network which holds the right to that specific game, they increasing their ability to deliver on the promise. For instance, if a game is televised on TNT, but X number of potential viewers don't have cable TV but do have internet access, by al…
If they want to cut out two middlemen (the network and the local cable provider) then the NBA must learn to create a steady audience and get money from advertisers, which is a different skill than putting on ball games.
They decided not to air it for political reasons - Jeremy Clarkson was on the panel and they wanted to keep him off the air during a row about something offensive he had said on another show.
So I got a copy from an illegal source. I still do not see this as stealing as I had already paid for it (via the UK TV License.)