NHL TV ratings are down across the board on average for Rogers

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Computers aren't needed for streaming. Amazon fire tv/Apple TV/Roku are as easy to use as a cable box, and everyone is using them for netflix anyway. This will be a big year in the US for OTT offerings that feature live tv and easy remote control use. Sling TV and PS Vue are great options and are starting to take off. ATT/Directv is going to launch a service they say will replace sat dishes by 2020.

The point stands that a lot of older people aren't going to jump onboard getting new devices and new services every five years. They know cable, they're comfortable with cable, and they'll stick with it so long as it's delivered. I'd guess cable is going to be around for 20 more years.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The point stands that a lot of older people aren't going to jump onboard getting new devices and new services every five years. They know cable, they're comfortable with cable, and they'll stick with it so long as it's delivered. I'd guess cable is going to be around for 20 more years.

Not in its current highly profitable form.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The point stands that a lot of older people aren't going to jump onboard getting new devices and new services every five years. They know cable, they're comfortable with cable, and they'll stick with it so long as it's delivered. I'd guess cable is going to be around for 20 more years.

Things change fast these days. CDs died pretty quickly, DVD/Blu-rays died even quicker.

Older people are also among the grumpiest when it comes to expensive cable bills, equipment charges, rate increases etc. Cable sports got too greedy. ESPN is the first to show signs of hurting with their subscribers down about 10%. I can see them being down 30% in 2-3 years. RSNs will go down by the same amount as well, and all those rich tv contracts are either not going to get renewed or will bankrupt some channels.

The model where ESPN and other sports channels can charge ~$20/month to every cable subscriber, whether they watch sports or not, is going to fall apart quicly once consumers have choices.

[GirlySports]

most older people struggle with anything new

last week at the office we got new computers.. the generational divide was clear.

[corporatejay]

I find most streaming services to be pretty poor overall compared to cable. I turn on my TV. Boom. No buffering, no jittering, just glorious 1080p HD with no issues.

MLB.TV and Game Center kinda suck.

[GirlySports]

I don't mind MLB.tv but I'm not picky. I still watch SD on a small 20 inch tv in my room.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I find most streaming services to be pretty poor overall compared to cable. I turn on my TV. Boom. No buffering, no jittering, just glorious 1080p HD with no issues.

MLB.TV and Game Center kinda suck.

I felt the same last season. This season I logged into NHL rogers gamecentre and was shocked how smooth the stream was. Full HD and it looked like regular tv service.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I find most streaming services to be pretty poor overall compared to cable. I turn on my TV. Boom. No buffering, no jittering, just glorious 1080p HD with no issues.

MLB.TV and Game Center kinda suck.

This is the fundamental issue for me.

I hate paying for things I am not using through my cable bill. But every game is there, and the quality is always perfect (to the extent Sportsnet delivers it anyway).

Streaming is mostly seemless now, but not 100% of the time.

And for me, getting it on my computer or phone isn't a big deal - my ass is parked firmly in front of my (much higher quality) big ole TV screen anyway.

As an old person, it isn't fear of change or technology that's holding me back - it's convenience and 100% confidence in the quality.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Things change fast these days. CDs died pretty quickly, DVD/Blu-rays died even quicker.

Not as fast as you think. CDs, for example, are still the most popular and most profitable way to sell an album. Even with Spotify and Apple Music, the CD remains king.

Why? Because people don't like change. Cliff is right, cable is not dying anytime soon. It's experiencing a natural downturn because of streaming, but it won't die for at least a decade.

Unfortunately, the death of cable means the death of TV contracts, which means a negative impact for the NHL, and likely a negative impact for the viewer. The Rogers deal alone makes the NHL significantly more money than they could possibly make with their own paid streaming service.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not as fast as you think. CDs, for example, are still the most popular and most profitable way to sell an album. Even with Spotify and Apple Music, the CD remains king.

Why? Because people don't like change. Cliff is right, cable is not dying anytime soon. It's experiencing a natural downturn because of streaming, but it won't die for at least a decade.

Unfortunately, the death of cable means the death of TV contracts, which means a negative impact for the NHL, and likely a negative impact for the viewer. The Rogers deal alone makes the NHL significantly more money than they could possibly make with their own paid streaming service.

CD revenues have fallen from 9.5 billion to 1.5 billion since 2006. In 2015, CDs accounted for 1.5 billion of the 7 billion of total revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/bu...line.html?_r=0

If cable sports sees anywhere near that decline over 10 years, it is going to be a big deal.

[nfotiu]

The sports cable tv bundle model is broken. Basically everyone who subscribes to cable subsidizes sports teams and high player salaries, whether they watch or not. I suppose it benefits sports fans in that everyone foots the bill, but it's hard to argue that it is a good thing overall. Sports revenue and salaries are in line for a big correction, and IMO that is a good thing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

CD revenues have fallen from 9.5 billion to 1.5 billion since 2006. In 2015, CDs accounted for 1.5 billion of the 7 billion of total revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/bu...line.html?_r=0

If cable sports sees anywhere near that decline over 10 years, it is going to be a big deal.

That is a big drop for sure.

But how much of that is due to LP sales (which aren't a technology change, they are simply an equivalent preference)?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The sports cable tv bundle model is broken. Basically everyone who subscribes to cable subsidizes sports teams and high player salaries, whether they watch or not. I suppose it benefits sports fans in that everyone foots the bill, but it's hard to argue that it is a good thing overall. Sports revenue and salaries are in line for a big correction, and IMO that is a good thing.

Maybe there is a correction.

Or maybe, instead of charging ALL cable viewers the current, modest amount, the model switches to where actual viewers pay a higher amount (resulting in similar revenues).

In other words, once the cable subsidy is gone, the cost of watching sports will skyrocket.

Anyone who thinks things are going to be free (or super cheap) in the future, because internet, is going to be disappointed, IMO.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I find most streaming services to be pretty poor overall compared to cable. I turn on my TV. Boom. No buffering, no jittering, just glorious 1080p HD with no issues.

MLB.TV and Game Center kinda suck.

How many channels broadcast in 1080p today? I'm genuinely curious, because I know most of the channels I watch only broadcast in 720p or 1080i.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

CD revenues have fallen from 9.5 billion to 1.5 billion since 2006. In 2015, CDs accounted for 1.5 billion of the 7 billion of total revenue.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/bu...line.html?_r=0



If cable sports sees anywhere near that decline over 10 years, it is going to be a big deal.

That's true, but it's related to the decline of the music industry in general. The driver in the industry is now single song downloads, unfortunately the pay-per-episode model in television shows no signs of being popular, and it doesn't exist (and I'd question its popularity) in sports.

The comparison isn't the death of cable, the comparison would be the death of televised/streamed sports.

[McG]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

snip...

Older people are also among the grumpiest when it comes to expensive cable bills, equipment charges, rate increases etc.

snip...

Not just older people! Everyone should be up in arms about this stuff.

I wonder how 4k and 8k broadcasts are going to come into the home as well.

Personally, the first company to have Netflix for sports, especially the way that Netflix has become almost ubiquitous on many devices and TVs, will be the big winner here. I would dump cable TV for the 8 bajillion million hours of broadcasting every year that no one in my household watches for the couple of hours per event that I watch tv. I don't want to subscribe to every service for every sport that I like to watch though, which is where SportFlix (TM) or NetSports (TM) come in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by McG

Not just older people! Everyone should be up in arms about this stuff.

I wonder how 4k and 8k broadcasts are going to come into the home as well.

Personally, the first company to have Netflix for sports, especially the way that Netflix has become almost ubiquitous on many devices and TVs, will be the big winner here. I would dump cable TV for the 8 bajillion million hours of broadcasting every year that no one in my household watches for the couple of hours per event that I watch tv. I don't want to subscribe to every service for every sport that I like to watch though, which is where SportFlix (TM) or NetSports (TM) come in.

Won't happen. Sports leagues and broadcasters are not going to transfer their growth potential to a Netflix-type distributor and let them make all the money.

Netflix works with movies because the producers have already made their money in theatres and are now simply selling the remaining distribution rights.

Sports are only valuable once. The only way for leagues and broadcasters to make money from broadcasting is to control (and charge for) the distribution rights of those broadcasts.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

CD revenues have fallen from 9.5 billion to 1.5 billion since 2006. In 2015, CDs accounted for 1.5 billion of the 7 billion of total revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/bu...line.html?_r=0

If cable sports sees anywhere near that decline over 10 years, it is going to be a big deal.

That change happened so fast because tech-savvy young people have always been the biggest buyers of music. Old people don't buy much music. But they do watch a lot of TV.

It may seem like everyone has Netflix, but there are only 5 million subscribers out of the 13 million households in Canada.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Maybe there is a correction.

Or maybe, instead of charging ALL cable viewers the current, modest amount, the model switches to where actual viewers pay a higher amount (resulting in similar revenues).

In other words, once the cable subsidy is gone, the cost of watching sports will skyrocket.

Anyone who thinks things are going to be free (or super cheap) in the future, because internet, is going to be disappointed, IMO.

That's where things will get interesting for sure. There is no way that teams are going to get the same money from only the teams' fanbase. For instance, I think for the Dodgers tv deal to pay for itself in an a la carte world, they'd have to charge their regular viewers $3000/year. Who'd subscribe to that?

The other element though is tv is just not about generating revenue, it's about marketing the game. If it isn't readily available on tv, then people are going to lose interest and this is already a problem with younger people.

It's hard to know how it will pan out, but the league's that do the best will be the ones that accept this is coming and start planning accordingly.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That change happened so fast because tech-savvy young people have always been the biggest buyers of music. Old people don't buy much music. But they do watch a lot of TV.

It may seem like everyone has Netflix, but there are only 5 million subscribers out of the 13 million households in Canada.

That might also be because a lot of people share their Netflix accounts across households. That's still close to 40% of households, which is nothing to sneeze at. Considering only 87% of Canadian households have a broadband connection, that's a fairly decent ratio.