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

[polak]

It's not that hard to figure out how it's going to work once cable inevitably dies.

NHL Game Center will be how you watch NHL hockey games. Exclusively. You'll download the Game Center app just like you do with Netflix or whatever and you'll pay your $200 for the season or something and have quality streaming.

You'll probably see a massive market correction in salaries and values of professional sports, but the appetite for Sports and normal Television isn't going to go away and people will figure out a way to capitalize on that appetite. Also NHL ratings are tiny and the NHL is a gate driven league so it should be less impacted than say Baseball.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

The apt comparison and the big problem for sports is the death of the bundle.

It has been an extremely lucrative model for years and there is really no way to replace that revenue. It is a problem fairly unique to the sports channels as they are the channels relying on large carriage fees. Most non-sports channels make their money from advertising. Most RSNs have viewership around 2% of the market, yet have 100% pay up to $60/year for them.

[metal_geek]

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.

TV as we knew it is dying the same way the "home phone" is dying . Anyone under 16 these days don't watch TV, Cable is pointless for them, barely know home phones are a thing. They still watch stuff but it's youtube or twitch, or less often netflix. When these kids grow up and move out, they WILL NOT be installing cable tv. They barely know it exists let alone pay for it. These kids won't be calling the phone company to set up their home phone. They want their cell phone, Internet/wifi, and if it can be streamed great if it's not they'll find something that is streamed to watch.

The demographic for TV is getting older cause, nobody new is coming along to replace them. I don't know what the answer is ... but unless they effectively kill the internet the end days of cable tv are rappidly approaching.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by polak

It's not that hard to figure out how it's going to work once cable inevitably dies.

NHL Game Center will be how you watch NHL hockey games. Exclusively.

You'll pay your $200 for the season or something and have Netflix quality streaming.

That will be a huge problem for sports leagues if that is the route it goes.

A typical US hockey regional market will have 4 million households paying $3/month for the channel that shows local hockey games. That is $144 million/year to split between the RSN and the team. That's why local tv rights are in the 10s of millions in US cities where hardly anyone watches.

That same market probably averages 50,000 viewers per game. If (and that's a huge if) all those viewers were willing to pay $200 per year, then that's only $10 million per year. The even bigger problem comes when only half those viewers will pay that price and that number drops to $5 million in revenue minus whoever they are paying to distribute and produce the games.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by tfi racing

Even the NFL isn't immune to the general trend of plummeting TV viewership.All major sports properties are experiencing a decline in viewers and attendance,it will be fun to watch the management of these big media companies sweat and panic after boning us for decades...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...cc0_story.html

It's really not that surprising to see this happen considering how the big leagues have treated their traditional, hardcore fans by effectively pricing them out of games. I said this in the NFL thread, but I'll repeat it here. In the NFL you often had generations of fans who would hand down season tickets to the next one and it would become kind of a family affair, and as such the city became attached to the team as it became ingrained in the culture. It was also the working man's source of entertainment, and you'd see NFL teams become sort of part of the blue-collar identity of certain cities. Once the NFL exploded in popularity and owners started demanding new stadiums and threatening to leave, it was only a matter of time before the hardcore fan was priced out and the cities grew less attached to their teams.

Now the NFL is still making money hand over fist, but the warning signs are there. The hardcore fans are more than happy to stay home and the corporate and casual fans become unreliable in down years. So now you have what is essentially the first generation of fans who can't afford to go to the games their parents took them to, and so the sports team isn't going to be as much of a part of their identities except in the years that the team is doing well. They're also not going to be passing on the tradition of going to games to their kids, so it's unlikely that their kids are going to feel any real attachment to the local team. I predict the next generation will likely grow more attached to certain players than local teams (we're already seeing this in European soccer).

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with this but combining it with a decline in cable subscriptions means that viewership likely continues to decline for all but the big matchups.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

That will be a huge problem for sports leagues if that is the route it goes.

A typical US hockey regional market will have 4 million households paying $3/month for the channel that shows local hockey games. That is $144 million/year to split between the RSN and the team. That's why local tv rights are in the 10s of millions in US cities where hardly anyone watches.

That same market probably averages 50,000 viewers per game. If (and that's a huge if) all those viewers were willing to pay $200 per year, then that's only $10 million per year. The even bigger problem comes when only half those viewers will pay that price and that number drops to $5 million in revenue minus whoever they are paying to distribute and produce the games.

I think you are under-selling the number of subscriptions here.

There may be 50,000 viewers per game (or whatever the number is in each particular market), but it isn't the same 50,000 people each game. There are lots of fans that only tune in periodically.

If there is no cable (saving them money) and the only way to get sports is to subscribe, a LOT more people will subscribe I would guess.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by polak

It's not that hard to figure out how it's going to work once cable inevitably dies.

NHL Game Center will be how you watch NHL hockey games. Exclusively. You'll download the Game Center app just like you do with Netflix or whatever and you'll pay your $200 for the season or something and have quality streaming.

Network TV isn't going anywhere. There will be ad supported nationally available broadcasts of sporting events for decades to come. The platform the game is available on will open up. But it will not be exclusive to a NHL app.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

It's not that hard to figure out how it's going to work once cable inevitably dies.

NHL Game Center will be how you watch NHL hockey games. Exclusively. You'll download the Game Center app just like you do with Netflix or whatever and you'll pay your $200 for the season or something and have quality streaming.

You'll probably see a massive market correction in salaries and values of professional sports, but the appetite for Sports and normal Television isn't going to go away and people will figure out a way to capitalize on that appetite. Also NHL ratings are tiny and the NHL is a gate driven league so it should be less impacted than say Baseball.

Baseball is mostly gate driven, too, I believe, but I wouldn't be so sure this doesn't impact the NHL. Baseball gets away with having fancy new stadiums because their owners don't threaten to relocate (Loria excluded) nearly as often as NFL owners do and they can keep ticket prices low due to the sheer amount of games they play.

With the NHL, we're starting to see what happens with Canadian teams when the price of a ticket doesn't match the quality of play on the ice. Look at Winnipeg already starting to see attendance drop. Vancouver might actually be the best example. It is prohibitively expensive to go to a Canucks game at face value, and when they're not playing well, people in Vancouver will just find other things to do as it's simply not worth the money to attend a game. Edmonton might get away with it for a year or two in their arena just because there's a lot less to do in Edmonton but eventually if the product on the ice doesn't improve, those gate numbers are going to decline. Even the Flames are going to have some serious decisions to make regarding ticket prices if the economy doesn't improve and the team doesn't either.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Network TV isn't going anywhere. There will be ad supported nationally available broadcasts of sporting events for decades to come. The platform the game is available on will open up. But it will not be exclusive to a NHL app.

That's true for the NHL in Canada, and the NFL in the US. But American NHL teams, MLB teams and NBA teams have raked in some very lucrative regional tv deals over the last decade that have really escalated revenues and salaries.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think you are under-selling the number of subscriptions here.



There may be 50,000 viewers per game (or whatever the number is in each particular market), but it isn't the same 50,000 people each game. There are lots of fans that only tune in periodically.



If there is no cable (saving them money) and the only way to get sports is to subscribe, a LOT more people will subscribe I would guess.

Maybe by a bit, but it's still a pretty dire situation.

Look at Netflix. Worldwide, it has about 74 million subscribers paying (on average). Last year it made less than 50 million in profit charging (on average) about $100 a year.

The NHL: it's not going to hit 74 million subscribers. If it keeps the current pricing model of Gamecentre (about $200 for a season), and manages comparable overhead to Netflix (unlikely, as Shaw found out with Shomi) then it would have to do at least 37 million subscribers to hit the same 50 million and EVEN THEN, would be lagging far far behind it's current profit from television.

If cable dies and major sports go to a streaming model, you'll see a financial breakdown that will change the landscape of that league completely.

It's likely a huge reason why sports aren't giving in completely to the streaming demand.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think you are under-selling the number of subscriptions here.

There may be 50,000 viewers per game (or whatever the number is in each particular market), but it isn't the same 50,000 people each game. There are lots of fans that only tune in periodically.

If there is no cable (saving them money) and the only way to get sports is to subscribe, a LOT more people will subscribe I would guess.

I'd be pretty surprised if the number willing to pay $200/year is higher than the average number of viewers watching it as part of their cable subscription. I don't know there is a whole lot of data available on that though. Only 6% of customers would pay $20/month for ESPN if they had a choice
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/on...or-espn-011416

And only 44% would keep ESPN if they could save $8/month by getting rid of it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

TV as we knew it is dying the same way the "home phone" is dying . Anyone under 16 these days don't watch TV, Cable is pointless for them, barely know home phones are a thing. They still watch stuff but it's youtube or twitch, or less often netflix. When these kids grow up and move out, they WILL NOT be installing cable tv. They barely know it exists let alone pay for it. These kids won't be calling the phone company to set up their home phone. They want their cell phone, Internet/wifi, and if it can be streamed great if it's not they'll find something that is streamed to watch.

I don't disagree with any of that. But 38 per cent of Canadians are 50+. And most of them are going to be around for a long time yet.

[polak]

Sports fans and kids of sports fans of all ages are familiar with cable tv and will have to install it until their is an alternative.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

That's true for the NHL in Canada, and the NFL in the US. But American NHL teams, MLB teams and NBA teams have raked in some very lucrative regional tv deals over the last decade that have really escalated revenues and salaries.

The thing about the NBA is that it is very popular with young people, especially minorities which an increasing demographic. That's the one that seems to make sense because it's a valuable property. The shoe market alone would make it viable.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by metal_geek

TV as we knew it is dying the same way the "home phone" is dying . Anyone under 16 these days don't watch TV, Cable is pointless for them, barely know home phones are a thing. They still watch stuff but it's youtube or twitch, or less often netflix. When these kids grow up and move out, they WILL NOT be installing cable tv. They barely know it exists let alone pay for it. These kids won't be calling the phone company to set up their home phone. They want their cell phone, Internet/wifi, and if it can be streamed great if it's not they'll find something that is streamed to watch.

The demographic for TV is getting older cause, nobody new is coming along to replace them. I don't know what the answer is ... but unless they effectively kill the internet the end days of cable tv are rappidly approaching.

Why do you assume that kids are going to behave the same way as adults as they did as kids? I agree, times are constantly changing, however I certainly don't do things now that I did as a 16 year old.

Cable, in the way we know it may disappear, but it will just be available online. If you have Telus Optic it already is.

[nik-]

You can't get Sportsnet Flames on the mobile version of Sportsnet Now yet you can on the web version.

That was pretty annoying yesterday

[DJones]

I've slowly got my whole family to cut cable. 65 year old Dad that can't figure out his phone is using an android box for everything now.

Gamecenter and NFL Redzone are the only way I watch sports now. Would get Sportsnet Now but $25 a month seems outrageous.

[djsFlames]

[chedder]

Originally Posted by DJones

I've slowly got my whole family to cut cable. 65 year old Dad that can't figure out his phone is using an android box for everything now.

Gamecenter and NFL Redzone are the only way I watch sports now. Would get Sportsnet Now but $25 a month seems outrageous.

My question, because I don't know how it works, is this: does everyone that uses these Android boxes 'pirate' all the content they watch? Or is it all completely above board.

[polak]

Originally Posted by chedder

My question, because I don't know how it works, is this: does everyone that uses these Android boxes 'pirate' all the content they watch? Or is it all completely above board.

You can keep it all legal if you're a millionaire and accept regional content restrictions.