ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Well the NHL is already streaming games so how are they going to be forced to change?

Well not really. The majority of hockey fans want their local team, somthing that package doesn't offer...which is really what my discussion is about.

So you're right actually. Why would the NHL change the way they do things? The NHL is making lots of money by selling the local rights to cable companies...so why change?

That's a good question, one that we may not really have an answer for until it actually happens. Because, the fact is, until the NHL believes they can make more money by not selling the entire local rights to cable companies, they will not do so.

But, I believe, and it is just that, a belief, that things are changing. How? I''l give you a hint...it kind of has something to do with everyone's favorite villain, Mr. Jobs.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Really? You don't see how an advertiser in Detroit doesn't give a fata about people in Minnesota or Miami seeing their ad? You're joking right? I can see that conversation going really well. 'You see there are 200 people in Miami and 300 in Phoenix and 75 in Seattle watching our games online so we're going to bump ad rates up because of all this additional exposure to markets you don't care about.' Can you guess the response?

You think that the bits and pieces of viewers scattered across the country are going to make Ford go 'hey, we should shell out for a national campaign'? Do you watch NHL games? Tell me, how many national ads do you see on a local broadcast? There's a reason that there are only a few national games a week, the market simply doesn't exist to turn every single game into a national broadcast.

I see where this is going and I have to admit, it is rather amusing. You are so bent on defending your position that you would rather assume and flat out invent numbers that you are not a privy to than consider that this could potentially be successful. How does TSN or CBC or NBC sell advertisers when they do national broadcasts? Heck, how does any national broadcast draw in advertising revenue? Local broadcasts draw in local ads because, as it currently is, local viewers are the only ones that are able to watch (sure, with a smattering of CI subscribers). Increase the accessibility of the game and the viewers become less local and more national. Sports are broadcast on a national level constantly. This isn't something new.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What's your point?
Increase in viewers = higher ad rate = number of tractor and seed advertisement decreases = number of advertisements from national corporations increases.

Obviously, the commercials will get replaced but that does not mean decrease in advertisement revenue.

So you're suggesting that the telecom companies you referenced will buy up all the ad space? Okay.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I see where this is going and I have to admit, it is rather amusing. You are so bent on defending your position that you would rather assume and flat out invent numbers that you are not a privy to than consider that this could potentially be successful. How does TSN or CBC or NBC sell advertisers when they do national broadcasts? Heck, how does any national broadcast draw in advertising revenue? Local broadcasts draw in local ads because, as it currently is, local viewers are the only ones that are able to watch (sure, with a smattering of CI subscribers). Increase the accessibility of the game and the viewers become less local and more national. Sports are broadcast on a national level constantly. This isn't something new.

Inventing numbers? Oh man, you are entertaining. Where? The so blatantly made up that a 3 year old could understand that they're used to demonstrate a point numbers in my last post? Yep, you caught me, I totally invented those numbers.

You think every game will achieve sufficient viewership to attract national advertisers? Is that seriously your argument?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you're suggesting that the telecom companies you referenced will buy up all the ad space? Okay.

Yeah, they will buy all 2 advertisements Sportsnet will lose by broadcasting the program across the internet.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Inventing numbers? Oh man, you are entertaining. Where? The so blatantly made up that a 3 year old could understand that they're used to demonstrate a point numbers in my last post? Yep, you caught me, I totally invented those numbers.

Are you serious? You just said that an additional 200 viewers in Miami, 300 in Phoenix and 75 in Seattle watching games aren't going to make a difference and you are asking me why I accuse you of inventing numbers? I guess someone must have hacked into your account and typed that then, because clearly, that person feels quite creative when it comes to ascertaining the increased number of viewers via a free online stream. Maybe I will get lucky and that person will log back on using your account again.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I see where this is going and I have to admit, it is rather amusing. You are so bent on defending your position that you would rather assume and flat out invent numbers that you are not a privy to than consider that this could potentially be successful. How does TSN or CBC or NBC sell advertisers when they do national broadcasts? Heck, how does any national broadcast draw in advertising revenue?

CBC and NBC don't do national broadcasts. They broadcast the same programming nationally through a group of local broadcasts with a mix of national and local advertising. TSN does national broadcasts but they have a limited mix of advertisers which isn't as big a deal for them because they generate a good chunk of their revenues from subscriber fees as well as advertising, unlike CBC and NBC.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Are you serious? You just said that an additional 200 viewers in Miami, 300 in Phoenix and 75 in Seattle watching games aren't going to make a difference and you are asking me why I accuse you of inventing numbers? I guess someone must have hacked into your account and typed that then, because clearly, that person feels quite creative when it comes to ascertaining the increased number of viewers via a free online stream. Maybe I will get lucky and that person will log back on using your account again.

This is an incredible example of density. You're giving platinum a run for it's money.

Of course those were invented. I said that in my last post for f sakes. THEY WERE USED TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT THAT SPREADING VIEWERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY DOES NOT APPEAL TO LOCAL ADVERTISERS.

They were not intended to be taken literally. A child can comprehend that.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Well not really. The majority of hockey fans want their local team, somthing that package doesn't offer...which is really what my discussion is about.

So you're right actually. Why would the NHL change the way they do things? The NHL is making lots of money by selling the local rights to cable companies...so why change?

That's a good question, one that we may not really have an answer for until it actually happens. Because, the fact is, until the NHL believes they can make more money by not selling the entire local rights to cable companies, they will not do so.

But, I believe, and it is just that, a belief, that things are changing. How? I''l give you a hint...it kind of has something to do with everyone's favorite villain, Mr. Jobs.

Well NHL doesn't have to do anything. We're just proposing ideas (that may or may not occur) to combat the on going piracy.

If NHL is content with what they have or the amount of money they're making right now, they don't have to do anything.

Piracy isn't going anywhere, industry can adapt and try to maximize their revenue or they can just keep going after pirating sites even though a new one will pop up when the old one is "seized" by Homeland Security.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Of course those were invented. I said that in my last post for f sakes.

Thank you. I said you invented numbers and you took issue with it. Absolutely asinine on your part. That aside, the point is, you inferred with your made up numbers that the increases in viewer ship would be so minuscule that it couldn't possibly be financially viable. Again, you have no idea whether this is true or not, yet you spout it off as though it were a fact, which further lends to the point that I made.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

This is an incredible example of density. You're giving platinum a run for it's money.

Of course those were invented. I said that in my last post for f sakes. THEY WERE USED TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT THAT SPREADING VIEWERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY DOES NOT APPEAL TO LOCAL ADVERTISERS.

They were not intended to be taken literally. A child can comprehend that.

Spreading viewers across the country might not appeal to local advertisers BUT NO COMPANY NEEDS TO APPEAL TO LOCAL ADVERTISERS.

Why does Sportsnet have to only accept advertisements from local companies? You don't think other companies will try to advertise with Sportsnet knowing that they can get to more viewers across the nation?

At the end of the day, Sportsnet can use increased viewer numbers to demand higher ad rate. Too distributed for local advertisers? They can stop advertising with Sportsnet then. Increased number of viewers will attract other companies to advertise with Sportsnet.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Thank you. I said you invented numbers and you took issue with it. Absolutely asinine on your part. That aside, the point is, you inferred with your made up numbers that the increases in viewer ship would be so minuscule that it couldn't possibly be financially viable. Again, you have no idea whether this is true or not, yet you spout it off as though it were a fact, which further lends to the point that I made.

I took issue? Where?

And again, they're used to illustrate a point. You want to add a couple zeroes to the end of each one feel free.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Spreading viewers across the country might not appeal to local advertisers BUT NO COMPANY NEEDS TO APPEAL TO LOCAL ADVERTISERS.

Why does Sportsnet have to only accept advertisements from local companies? You don't think other companies will try to advertise with Sportsnet knowing that they can get to more viewers across the nation?

At the end of the day, Sportsnet can use increased viewer numbers to demand higher ad rate. Too distributed for local advertisers? They can stop advertising with Sportsnet then. Increased number of viewers will attract other companies to advertise with Sportsnet.

Heck, even if national audiences don't go up for whatever reason, it's not like this would adversely affect local viewers at all. They would still be able to watch the games exactly as they would without the online feed. So let's say that national interest in a game where Nashville plays Minnesota is quite low. In this case, estimated audience numbers would be low and as a result, the cost of advertisements would be, at worst, the same as if the game weren't streamed, allowing local companies to purchase commercial time. On the other hand, in a game where Montreal plays Toronto, projected audiences would be significantly higher and advertising costs would increase as a reflection of that. Should it be too high for local companies, then those companies aimed at a national target audience would see value in purchasing air time given the more national audience.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Yeah, Homeland Security was not created to chase down muslim terrorists, it was created to crack down on Americans.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Heck, even if national audiences don't go up for whatever reason, it's not like this would adversely affect local viewers at all. They would still be able to watch the games exactly as they would without the online feed. So let's say that national interest in a game where Nashville plays Minnesota is quite low. In this case, estimated audience numbers would be low and as a result, the cost of advertisements would be, at worst, the same as if the game weren't streamed, allowing local companies to purchase commercial time. On the other hand, in a game where Montreal plays Toronto, projected audiences would be significantly higher and advertising costs would increase as a reflection of that. Should it be too high for local companies, then those companies aimed at a national target audience would see value in purchasing air time given the more national audience.

Try to get local broadcasters to agree to the same level of broadcast contracts when you're telling them they no longer have a monopoly over free to air games in their market. You take away their competitive advantage and don't think it will adversely impact the price their willing to pay to broadcast games? There are markets where it won't matter, namely Canada, but the majority of markets are almost exclusively local advertisement driven. Most US teams don't draw enough of a national following to appeal to US national advertisers, why do you think NBC runs out the same lineup of teams for its national games? FSN Arizona, or other broadcasters similarly situated see absolutely no upside. They get increased competition and don't see the benefit of reaching a level that appeals to national advertisers. Even if the loss of viewers due to competition is negligible it still takes a bargaining chip away from the league and gives the local broadcaster a credible argument for a decreased fee.

One potential idea would be to make all advertisements specific to the IP of the viewer, that could result in the local market getting exposure regardless of the teams in the game.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

Well not really. The majority of hockey fans want their local team, somthing that package doesn't offer...which is really what my discussion is about.

Then your beef is how Sportsnet runs their business not the NHL. I'm sure if Sportsnet wanted to stream games for regional viewers the NHL would let them because it would have zero impact on their NHLCI/GC product.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

At the end of the day, Sportsnet can use increased viewer numbers to demand higher ad rate.

And where does the NHL get their piece of the pie if they have now lost all that revenue from NHLCI/GC?

You found a way for Sportsnet to make a profit too bad the salary cap is dropping. Honestly I would love to know the number of subscribers to see how big that piece of the pie is and if you can show a way that the NHL can get that money back while showing increased profits to Sportsnet then you have my support. I just don't think those numbers can be reached with clicking on banners above a streamed game on NHL.com

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Try to get local broadcasters to agree to the same level of broadcast contracts when you're telling them they no longer have a monopoly over free to air games in their market. You take away their competitive advantage and don't think it will adversely impact the price their willing to pay to broadcast games?

Would it though? They would still have a monopoly on what they broadcast on television locally, so that wouldn't change. The only thing that they wouldn't have a monopoly on would be the online stream, but they don't have that anyway considering the existence of illegal streams. I suppose there could be some concern if you believe that a local viewer that normally watches games on television would switch to watching online and would end up watching the opposing team's broadcast, but I have difficulty believing that this would be much of a sticking point.

One potential idea would be to make all advertisements specific to the IP of the viewer, that could result in the local market getting exposure regardless of the teams in the game.

This is a pretty good idea. You could also have it so that every time you open a free stream, you have to watch a 30 second commercial before the stream begins. This commercial could be a national ad or local based on your location. Revenue could also be based on the number of times it gets viewed, mitigating the risk for the advertiser while directly providing the league with revenue.

You guys might be right, this could be a poor business model, but I think if you look at it, you can see that, if done properly, there could be a lot of potential in something like this.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

And where does the NHL get their piece of the pie if they have now lost all that revenue from NHLCI/GC?

You found a way for Sportsnet to make a profit too bad the salary cap is dropping. Honestly I would love to know the number of subscribers to see how big that piece of the pie is and if you can show a way that the NHL can get that money back while showing increased profits to Sportsnet then you have my support. I just don't think those numbers can be reached with clicking on banners above a streamed game on NHL.com

NHL gets their piece of the pie by moving Coyotes to Winnipeg.

That being said, like I said previously in the thread, they could keep something like Hulu / Hulu Plus model.

Game Center Lite, which is available for free can bring viewers who would've otherwise used an illegal stream. Obviously, the feed they show on Game Center would be the feed they currently show now on Game Center (so Sportsnet, except they don't replace the commercials with "We'll be right back" message to keep Sportsnet happy)

Game Center Plus, which is a subscription based program doesn't have limited quality of Game Center Lite, also offers PVR features and viewing non-live games.

Hardcore fans will obviously subscribe to the Plus, but this doesn't limit casual fans, who watches a game once a week outside of the market, to rely out illegal streams.

The real question about the implementation is, for every legitimate GC subscriber right now, how many people are watching the illegal stream? Although they might lose $200 from a customer (not necessarily though, since they can subscribe to the Plus), they might gain advertising revenues from 100 new viewers who relied on illegal streams to watch the game.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Then your beef is how Sportsnet runs their business not the NHL. I'm sure if Sportsnet wanted to stream games for regional viewers the NHL would let them because it would have zero impact on their NHLCI/GC product.

I'm not sure if they have the rights to do that. They have the TV broadcasting rights, but I'm not sure if that also includes streaming it on the web.

For example, if SNet started a radio station, they obviously wouldn't be allowed to broadcast the game through that station because Fan 960 owns that right (although now that SNet bought Fan 960...). This was just to illustrate the point that their broadcasting right may only cover "TV" broadcasts.