# Streaming - What exactly do the media giants have in mind?



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Today Barron's offered this article Are Streaming Rights for 'The Big Bang Theory' Really Worth $600 Million? which begins:

Sell everything, quickly, and use the proceeds to buy distribution rights for _Gilligan's Island_ and _ALF._ The hottest trend in show business is to pay extravagant sums for temporary permission to stream old shows. The biggest shows are already spoken for, so it's only a matter of time before bidding heats up for the B-list stuff. You'll thank me after rampant ALF-flation sets in.​
The article reflects what I already feel about streaming without the new streaming services: So Much Streaming, So Little Time....

On average every week on (in alphabetical order) Acorn TV, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Hulu, Netflix, and PBS five new scripted series or scripted series seasons become available. In a ten day period beginning on Monday September 23, the day after the Emmy Awards, the big 4 broadcast networks begin their fall season and the next 20± days look like this for scripted series all of which will be streaming on Hulu or CBS All Access or something:

_The Good Doctor_ (ABC, Season 3)
_The Neighborhood_ (CBS, Season 2)
_Bob ♥ Abishola_ (CBS, new comedy series)
_All Rise_ (CBS, new drama series)
_Bull_ (CBS, Season 4)
_Bluff City Law _(NBC, new drama series)
_9-1-1_ (Fox, Season 3)
_Prodigal Son_ (Fox, new drama series)
_The Conners_ (ABC, Season 2)
_Bless This Mess _(ABC, Season 2)
_Mixed-ish_ (ABC, new comedy series)
_Black-ish_ (ABC, Season 6)
_Emergence_ (ABC, new drama series)
_NCIS _(CBS, Season 17)
_FBI_ (CBS, Season 2)
_NCIS: New Orleans_ (CBS, Season 6)
_This Is Us_ (NBC, Season 4)
_New Amsterdam_ (NBC, Season 2)
_The Resident_ (Fox, Season 3)
_Empire_ (Fox, Season 6; final season)
_The Goldbergs_ (ABC, Season 7)
_Schooled_ (ABC, Season 2)
_Modern Family _(ABC, Season 11; final season)
_Single Parents _(ABC, Season 2)
_Stumptown _(ABC, new drama series)
_Chicago Med_ (NBC, Season 5)_Chicago Fire_ (NBC, Season 8)
_Chicago P.D._ (NBC, Season 7)
_Grey's Anatomy_ (ABC, Season 16)
_A Million Little Things_ (ABC, Season 2)
_How to Get Away with Murder_ (ABC, Season 6)
_Young Sheldon_ (CBS, Season 3)
_The Unicorn_ (CBS, new comedy series)
_Mom_ (CBS, Season 7)
_Carol's Second Act_ (CBS, new comedy series)
_Evil_ (CBS, new drama series)
_Superstore_ (NBC, Season 5)
_Perfect Harmony_ (NBC, new comedy series)
_The Good Place_ (NBC, Season 4; final season)
_Sunnyside _(NBC, new comedy series)
_Law & Order SVU_ (NBC, Season 21)
_American Housewife _(ABC, Season 4)
_Fresh Off the Boat _(ABC, Season 6)
_Hawaii Five-O_ (CBS, Season 10)
_Magnum P.I._ (CBS, Season 2)
_Blue Bloods_ (CBS, Season 10)
_The Rookie_ (ABC, Season 2)
_NCIS: Los Angeles_ (CBS, Season 11)
_The Simpsons_ (Fox, Season 31)
_Bless the Harts_ (Fox, new animated comedy series)
_Bob's Burgers_ (Fox, Season 10)
_Family Guy_ (Fox, Season 18)
_Poldark _(PBS, Season 5; final season)
_The Durrells in Corfu _(PBS, Season 4; final season)
_SEAL Team_ (CBS, Season 3)
_S.W.A.T._ (CBS, Season 3)
_Almost Family_ (Fox, new drama series; fka Sisters)
_The Blacklist_ (NBC, Season 7)
_God Friended Me_ (CBS, Season 2)
_Madam Secretary_ (CBS, Season 6; final season)
There are, of course, numerous non-scripted shows and The CW shows. And over the same period: Netflix will have added _Criminal, The Politician, Peaky Blinders;_ Amazon Prime will have the next season of _Goliath;_ Acorn TV offers _Doc Martin Season 9; _... well you get the idea. Not that I watch every show, because who could?

So, of course, I'm eagerly looking forward to reruns of _Friends_, right? Who is this valuable audience for reruns? I like what the article says: "Other clear winners include office workers still saying things like 'That's gold, Jerry!' and 'Hello, Newman!' to blank looks from millennial colleagues."

All I can think is that at some point this is going to cost me money in order to watch some show I want to watch because AT&T "outbid itself for _The Big Bang Theory_" and needs to recoup a billion bucks (yeah, it's complicated, see 'The Big Bang Theory' goes to AT&T's HBO Max streaming service for over a billion).

Oh well....


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Well, when everyone jumps on the bandwagon, eventually somebody gets bumped off. It may take several years to sort out, in the meantime the rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer. I am already up over $300/m in "entertainment" costs.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Nick said:


> I am already up over $300/m in "entertainment" costs.


Does that include your beer, Nick?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

billsharpe said:


> Does that include your beer, Nick?


No, beer is extra.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

What do the media giants have in mind? I have no idea. But here's what I think, over time, consumers will begin to become more selective in what they watch and subscribe to.

Look at all of the shows the OP listed. Who has time to regularly watch half of that rundown? That doesn't even include live sports, news programming, or movies. Not to mention the day-to-day run of living our lives. For the longest time, we've all felt like we have to have all of these channels because "we've gotta have options", but we only watch a dozen or so channels on a regular basis. The direct-to-consumer product is here to stay, I think, and will become more prominent as time goes on.

What does that mean? We piece together our packages, built specifically for what we as an individual consumer wants. It's not a la carte, but it's as slimmed down of a version as it most likely can be.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

B. Shoe said:


> What do the media giants have in mind? I have no idea. But here's what I think, over time, consumers will begin to become more selective in what they watch and subscribe to.
> 
> Look at all of the shows the OP listed. Who has time to regularly watch half of that rundown? That doesn't even include live sports, news programming, or movies. Not to mention the day-to-day run of living our lives. For the longest time, we've all felt like we have to have all of these channels because "we've gotta have options", but we only watch a dozen or so channels on a regular basis. The direct-to-consumer product is here to stay, I think, and will become more prominent as time goes on.
> 
> What does that mean? We piece together our packages, built specifically for what we as an individual consumer wants. It's not a la carte, but it's as slimmed down of a version as it most likely can be.


Yup, don't think we will ever see a true a la carte option anywhere. Streaming is about as close as we can get at the moment.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Nick said:


> Well, when everyone jumps on the bandwagon, eventually somebody gets bumped off. It may take several years to sort out, in the meantime the rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer. I am already up over $300/m in "entertainment" costs.


You are not alone. I don't want to think about how much "entertainment" costs us a month.

Rich


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Wife wants to see "Downton Abbey" in a theatre. That will add at least $12 to this month's entertainment charges. Local theatre has cheap afternoon senior price of $6.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

To get back to the topic, are well worn reruns from past decades really worth what these services are paying? 

The answer to that is, IMHO, no. 

First, these shows were on TV, over and over. At least three times on the networks that made them, and then many dozens of reruns on “general rerun” linear channels (TBS, USA, etc.). 

Bluntly everybody who want to see them, has. 

How interested in a 20 or 30 year old sitcom are people who have no memory of the era? There are exceptions (once called “evergreens” by syndicators, the best being Andy Griffith) but most shows age very quickly. 

So that leaves people who really want to see the same shows over and over and over and over and over. Leaving out sci-fi, really? 

Massive overbids.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SamC said:


> To get back to the topic, are well worn reruns from past decades really worth what these services are paying?
> 
> The answer to that is, IMHO, no.
> 
> ...


Yeah, massive is a good word for what they paid. I guess they can justify that. Don't see how, but what do I know?

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ratings and ad dollars will tell you they didn’t overpay. I think the reason is several of these shows are so much better than anything else on tv that’s even new they still bring in the viewers. I can say a lot of the new shows this week aren’t nearly as entertaining as watching some of my old favorites from years ago.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Ratings and ad dollars will tell you they didn't overpay. I think the reason is several of these shows are so much better than anything else on tv that's even new they still bring in the viewers. I can say a lot of the new shows this week aren't nearly as entertaining as watching some of my old favorites from years ago.


I'd say that about _Seinfeld, Cheers_ and _Frazier_. I look forward to binging on _Seinfeld_.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Frankly watching episodes of shows I've seen and generally remember within the first three minutes seems like such a waste of what little time I have left on Earth. But different strokes....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are some shows that are worth seeing again ... sometimes because details are forgotten, sometimes because the characters were written so well that I want to see them again. The shows above fit in to that category for many people. For lesser shows I occasionally like to watch them again knowing the ending to see what hints were written in to the story before the big reveals. Unfortunately some shows fall apart on the second or subsequent watching if the writers changed a story arc. Then it just becomes a way of spotting deficiencies and leaving the viewing with a lower opinion of the show. (Which brings us back to well written shows with a canon and supported arcs.)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Now that Apple TV+ and Disney+ have launched with Peacock on the horizon I have to note that what makes the situation puzzling to me is how to measure the revenue potential given that in the early 1960's there were about 60 million U.S. TV homes with about 180 million viewers. Today there are 120 million TV homes and 300 million viewers. I realize that the international market has expanded potential revenue by a significant factor, but much as I try I cannot see the survival of all these streamers and I expect costs to subscribers to jump substantially within five years. But I'll enjoy it while I can.


----------



## Eva (Nov 8, 2013)

And some cable outfits are now pushing streaming. One of my nephews recently moved and called a provider and he had a hard time trying to get normal cable boxes. They kept pushing "Stream on your device or phone." He did get his boxes though. I sometimes think someday shows will only be via streaming only and no more linear TV. Motor Trend (in the U.S.) is pushing their app really hard.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

Eva said:


> And some cable outfits are now pushing streaming. One of my nephews recently moved and called a provider and he had a hard time trying to get normal cable boxes. They kept pushing "Stream on your device or phone." He did get his boxes though. I sometimes think someday shows will only be via streaming only and no more linear TV. Motor Trend (in the U.S.) is pushing their app really hard.


I've long been of the impression that land-based TV providers (cable and telcos) made more money from selling pure bandwidth than they do selling content. Revenue for tv content requires payments to content vendors and regularly negotiating carriage agreements.

Revenue from internet service can be nearly as much without having to share the revenue with others. Compare the cost of internet only with the cost of cable tv... Tge 200 MBit service from spectrum would cost me about $45/mo. Basic cable alone, $45/mo. Same price, but cable TV costs the cable co more to deliver.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

wmb said:


> I've long been of the impression that land-based TV providers (cable and telcos) made more money from selling pure bandwidth than they do selling content. Revenue for tv content requires payments to content vendors and regularly negotiating carriage agreements.
> 
> Revenue from internet service can be nearly as much without having to share the revenue with others. Compare the cost of internet only with the cost of cable tv... Tge 200 MBit service from spectrum would cost me about $45/mo. Basic cable alone, $45/mo. Same price, but cable TV costs the cable co more to deliver.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Cable companies do not get their Internet connectivity for free any more than we do. The backbone providers get their share...


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NYDutch said:


> Cable companies do not get their Internet connectivity for free any more than we do. The backbone providers get their share...


True, but they are paying significantly less in transit fees than are for programming - probably under $1/GB/sec of capacity. So, transit fees are much smaller for an ISP than, say ESPN, is to a cable company.

And, unlike programming, transit fees have been going down.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

One other thought on cable companies and streaming.... 

Moving from a captive MVPD customers to a streaming vMVPD model, the current cable/satellite companies open up their potential customer based beyond only those customers that the company's wires touches. For AT&T, that allows them to sell without a truck roll and equipment install. Someone like Spectrum or Comcast could create a streaming service using their current packages.

That said, AT&T is the only provider to go that route. I find that somewhat surprising. For DirecTV, the ability to authenticate and steam content was a big deal only a few years ago. It seemed a priority for everyone.

The current live streaming vMVPDs are a mixed bag... You Tube TV and Hulu make some sense as they were online video distributors anyways. AT&T is a Teir 1 network peer, so buying DirecTV and it's streaming service made sense. But, where are Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, and other traditional cable companies in the streaming marketplace?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Companies streaming on their own networks (cable, satellite and fiber) have the advantage of old school MVPD contracts and packaging. Once they take a step beyond their network (such as Sling TV and AT&T Now) they are under different contracts. Both DISH and AT&T|DIRECTV have tried to extend their MVPD contracts to cover their vMVPD businesses, but the success rate has not been 100%. Their previous contracts were for on-net delivery (via their own network). Any time an MVPD goes to a programmer and asks to add a different distribution method, the programmer sees the opportunity to raise the price. (Especially in a marketplace where subscribers are being lost to smaller packages.)

AT&T's purchase of DIRECTV was in the hope of being able to leverage the 20 million subscriber satellite contract to reduce the cost for their 5 million subscriber on-net UVERSE customers as well as move forward into the Over The Top (bring your own ISP) delivery market. They knew they couldn't survive as a vMVPD with UVERSE's higher subscription costs (UVERSE paying more than DIRECTV due to size of each company). Unfortunately it does not appear that they got the pricing they wanted.

There are other companies that seem to be doing "OK" when it comes to vMVPD service ... DISH's SlingTV is still growing but PSvue is shutting down. The marketplace for "selling our own content" seems to be stronger than the "selling other people's content". When content licensing expires or needs to be renewed at a higher price we may see other companies "selling other people's content" leave the business.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> The marketplace for "selling our own content" seems to be stronger than the "selling other people's content". When content licensing expires or needs to be renewed at a higher price we may see other companies "selling other people's content" leave the business.


I'm not sure whether it's the marketplace or the dreams of the content owners to go this route. At this point, the content owners see being able to pocket a larger percentage of the revenues from selling their own content as preferable. Time will tell as to whether total revenues/profits will be larger distributing through an vMVPD or direct to consumers. My guess is that most content owners will make more money through an vMVPD, except maybe Disney.

I'll have to give Disney props for keeping the price of Disney+, and moreover the Disney bundle relatively low. However, I don't see CBS All Access as near as good a bargain. Their content isn't worth it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I am surprised that no streaming entity like Sling, YouTube, Disney+, has offered a sports only package. Disney owns ESPN and HULU and ABC. I wonder if Diisney could put together a package that includes all of the ESPN's, the FSN's, a regional selection per area like PAC-12 etc.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I am surprised that no streaming entity like Sling, YouTube, Disney+, has offered a sports only package. Disney owns ESPN and HULU and ABC. I wonder if Diisney could put together a package that includes all of the ESPN's, the FSN's, a regional selection per area like PAC-12 etc.


ESPN offering a "sports only" package (including the core ESPN channels) would lead to MVPDs dropping the channels - or offering more "no sports" tiers to the point where the channels would lose net subscribers and the money they rely on.

HBO has made it easier to get all of their content via streaming than through a MVPD. I don't expect ESPN or FSN to make that mistake with their channels.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

James Long said:


> ESPN offering a "sports only" package would lead to MVPDs dropping the channels - or offering more "no sports" tiers to the point where the channels would lose net subscribers and the money they rely on.
> 
> HBO has made it easier to get all of their content via streaming than through a MVPD. I don't expect ESPN or FSN to make that mistake with their channels.


The difference is that Disney owns ESPN and HULU and ABC plus several others. Since the introduction of Disney + which can (at a price) include ESPN+ and HULU. So Disney already has the platform for some kind of sports package.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> ESPN offering a "sports only" package (including the core ESPN channels) would lead to MVPDs dropping the channels - or offering more "no sports" tiers to the point where the channels would lose net subscribers and the money they rely on.
> 
> HBO has made it easier to get all of their content via streaming than through a MVPD. I don't expect ESPN or FSN to make that mistake with their channels.


ESPN+ has a lot of sports on it and that is a streaming app. Seems to be picking up speed.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The core channels are not streamed without a MVPD or vMVPD subscription. They are also in the "no sports" packages (if offered by that provider). That is where ESPN makes their money, millions of subscribers who may never watch. These are not subscribers ESPN wants to lose.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

If ESPN+ is allowed to broadcast major college football games and basketball games it will detract from the mother network ESPN. NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, all major NCAA sports will never be available on ESPN+. You may see some minor NCAA events on ESPN+ like, swimming, soccer, lacrosse, track and field, water polo, hockey. Maybe even the XFL.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

James Long said:


> The core channels are not streamed without a MVPD or vMVPD subscription. They are also in the "no sports" packages (if offered by that provider). That is where ESPN makes their money, millions of subscribers who may never watch. These are not subscribers ESPN wants to lose.


You are 100% correct. No matter now you feel about sports. Love it or hate it. Sports absolutely rules TV. From a marketing standpoint, men rule and sports rule men. Plus there are many many more women now loving sports.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> If ESPN+ is allowed to broadcast major college football games and basketball games it will detract from the mother network ESPN. NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, all major NCAA sports will never be available on ESPN+. You may see some minor NCAA events on ESPN+ like, swimming, soccer, lacrosse, track and field, water polo, hockey. Maybe even the XFL.


Lots of boxing cards too. I used it for a couple months and dropped it. Seems I have no interest in boxing.

Rich


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> If ESPN+ is allowed to broadcast major college football games and basketball games it will detract from the mother network ESPN. NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, all major NCAA sports will never be available on ESPN+. You may see some minor NCAA events on ESPN+ like, swimming, soccer, lacrosse, track and field, water polo, hockey. Maybe even the XFL.


ESPN+ has already been airing one MLB game per day, for all of the 2019 season. ESPN+ also adds some great viewing options for most major NCAA football games, like the SkyCam-only view (no announcers included, just the ambient noise of the stadium. It's really a great alternative to view a game.)

There is plenty of major sports content out there to share through all their platforms. It won't be an exclusive spot, but you'll see more professional events aired on ESPN+ as time moves on.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

B. Shoe said:


> ESPN+ has already been airing one MLB game per day, for all of the 2019 season. ESPN+ also adds some great viewing options for most major NCAA football games, like the SkyCam-only view (no announcers included, just the ambient noise of the stadium. It's really a great alternative to view a game.)
> 
> There is plenty of major sports content out there to share through all their platforms. It won't be an exclusive spot, but you'll see more professional events aired on ESPN+ as time moves on.


Good point. All these new sites will evolve. What you see today is just the beginning. Can't stop evolution. Don't want to.

Rich


----------

