# ViacomCBS streaming to add Viacom assets to CBS All Access/Showtime



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

CNBC reported tonight:

Newly combined ViacomCBS is working on combining media assets for a new streaming service that will build on CBS All Access, according to people familiar with the matter.

While ViacomCBS executives haven't made any firm decisions, they are considering creating a service with advertisements that will combine CBS All Access with Viacom assets including Pluto TV, Nickelodeon, BET, MTV, Comedy Central and Paramount Pictures, said the people, who asked not to be named because the product discussions are private.

An ad-free version will also be available, and a premium version of the streaming service will include Showtime, the people said. ViacomCBS executives haven't decided on a name for the service, nor a price, though the base service will probably be less than $10 a month, two of the people said.​
Reportedly the company plans to unveil more details on February 20, when it releases its first quarterly earnings since completing the merger in December. Should be interesting!

Per Deadline Hollywood:

The new service would be differentiated product from what exists now. It would combine sports, news live viewing and the full breadth and depth of the company's expanded portfolio across demos, genres and geographies, insiders indicate.​


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

So something similar to the upcoming HBO Max product it seems. That’s interesting and if it comes to fruition, may be the next wave of the future. And other content owners may start looking at doing the same thing.

So assuming it happens, that means:
ATT - HBO Max
Comcast - Peacock
CBS - whatever this new idea turns out to be

That does not bode well for the cable/sat replacement streamers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> So something similar to the upcoming HBO Max product it seems. That's interesting and if it comes to fruition, may be the next wave of the future. And other content owners may start looking at doing the same thing.
> 
> So assuming it happens, that means:
> ATT - HBO Max
> ...


Bodes well for us.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Bodes well for us.
> 
> Rich


Possibly, but all of these various schemes have one goal in mind from the providers, and that goal is to keep making the profits they do now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Possibly, but all of these various schemes have one goal in mind from the providers, and that goal is to keep making the profits they do now.


That was inevitable once Comcast/NBCU, Disney/ABC/ESPN/Hulu, (Viacom)CBS, Fox (shifting FX into Hulu) and WarnerMedia/HBO (AT&T) decided to compete with Netflix in the streaming arena. However, they are competing with Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Google's YTTV. Remember Amazon in its experimental mode even offered Thursday night NFL games live.

Still, there is a lot of activity in the streaming arena so it will be more complicated


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yeah, complicated! 

I’m diddling with cutting the cord. Thought I had the ideal way with this:
CBS All Access
Hulu basic
Peacock
HBO Max

But maybe not. Since it isn’t certain just exactly which live ‘channels’ will be in Peacock and HBO Max, and which one-day delayed will shift out of Hulu, that may not get the job done.

And right now, with CBS All Access, Hulu basic you miss USA and SyFy stuff and those two are among my ‘must haves’, so today I’d have to have at minimum Sling Blue.

And when those are all in place, will the cable/sat streaming apps still have the channels they do now?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Based on what all I've read so far, it sounds to me like ViacomCBS is going to launch a new app, presumably with a new brand name, that will have a free ad-supported tier that's made up largely or exclusively of the content in their Pluto TV app.

Then there will be an add-on paid tier that will include everything in CBS All Access plus additional Viacom content, like stuff from Nickelodeon, MTV, Paramount Pictures films, etc. You'll be able to get that tier either with ads or without ads. One report said they're thinking of charging $10 or just under for this expanded bundle (presumably with ads) while another report suggested that it would be priced just the same as CBS All Access ($6 w/ ads, $10 w/o) despite offering additional content.

And then, lastly, there will be an option to bundle an add-on Showtime subscription (always w/o ads, I'd say) inside this new app. Right now, you can bundle Showtime and CBS All Access on the same account if you subscribe directly through either of those two websites and you get a $2 bundle discount. But you can't access the Showtime content in the CBS app or vice versa. This new app would integrate everything together.

This is pretty much what I've predicted that CBS would do after re-merging with Viacom, only I expected all this to happen inside a redesigned CBS All Access app. (I also thought they might change the name to just "All Access" or something else to indicate that it's way broader than just CBS content.) Instead, it looks like they're going to let the existing CBS All Access app/brand/service continue to exist, for awhile anyhow. They'll do the same with Pluto TV. Eventually, though, as awareness of this new app/brand builds and more and more folks use it, you can imagine them shuttering the original CBS AA and Pluto TV apps. The separate Showtime app, though, will likely live on because I think their vision for it is to always be an optional add-on service available in as many different systems/apps as possible (including traditional MVPDs, YouTube TV, AT&T TV, Fubo TV, Hulu, Prime Video, Apple TV, and probably HBO Max eventually).


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Interesting to me that they're going to put films from their own Paramount Pictures studio in this new service rather than in Showtime, which has always been their main outlet for theatrical films. I wonder if it's only going to be older Paramount films that go in this new thing, while the ones that were recently in theaters will go to Showtime? That makes more sense to me. In that way, the film library of this new service would be to Showtime kind of like what Encore is to Starz. (At any rate, Showtime also gets recent movies from STX, Participant/Amblin, IFC Films, etc.)


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Related question: what happens to Epix? Epix was originally founded and jointly owned by three film studios -- MGM, Paramount, and Lionsgate -- when they all walked away from renewing their existing film output deals with Showtime years ago. (Showtime apparently wasn't willing to pay them what they wanted.) Years later, Paramount (Viacom) and Lionsgate sold their shares of Epix to MGM, making it the sole owner. Just recently, Lionsgate has struck a deal to shift its films over to Hulu for the next two years. Meanwhile, Paramount will be moving its films to the new CBSViacom streaming service (and maybe to Showtime too).

I don't know how either of those deals may impact the back catalog of movies on Epix but it's going to pretty much destroy the stream of recent theatrical releases hitting the service. There were only three movies that MGM themselves distributed in the US last year: Fighting with My Family, The Hustle, and The Addams Family. Their 2020 slate looks better, though, with the new Bond film (No Time to Die), Legally Blonde 3, and Respect (Aretha Franklin biopic).

I don't know how Epix makes it once their stream of new films dries up to only one every 3 months. Yes, Epix has begun beefing up their slate of original series but I can't see how they survive this new era of big direct-to-consumer services. Epix will have too little content for $6/mo relative to everything else. Do MGM and Epix get acquired or just wither away?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

That question could be asked about all of the premium movie channels. Here’s my opinion about each:

HBO - still the best of bunch, but now there are just a very few movies of interest and only one original series going on.

Showtime - no movies of interest at all and no current originals of interest either

Cinemax - same as Showtime

Epix - as you said. And right now few movies of interest. A very few original series that are interesting.

This is really odd for me. I usually have one or more premium movie sub going. Now I have none and can’t think of a good reason to sub anytime soon. Possibly HBO when we get to the tail end of Westworld.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> Do MGM and Epix get acquired or just wither away?


Well, EpixNow started streaming last year for $5.99 a month.

But MGM Holdings which owns Epix is bleeding money with the last reported quarter 2019 3rd Quarter Net Income -$436.20 million. Having been in and out of bankruptcy and owned by creditors, who knows what its future will be. Obviously they have assets which could be sold off.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> That question could be asked about all of the premium movie channels.


Well, regardless of any one person's opinions about any of those premium services, my point is that Epix will be at a big disadvantage in terms of the number of recent theatrical films it gets if they're going to be down to only a few flicks from MGM each year.

HBO (and Cinemax) will always get new films from Warner since they're the same company. They also will continue to get films from two other major studios, Universal and 20th Century, that they release through the end of 2022, when those current output deals expire. HBO also gets recent films from Lionsgate subsidiary Summit. For at least the next few years, HBO will continue to offer the strongest slate of recent theatrical movies.

Showtime has current output deals in place with small-to-midsized studios including STX, Participant/Amblin and A24. And since its parent corp. just bought Paramount, plus a 49% stake in the acclaimed Miramax film library, I expect them to get those movies too.

Starz only has a deal in place with Sony Pictures to get their releases up through the end of 2021. Starz is owned by Lionsgate and is supposed to start getting the movies they release come 2022. (I question whether Starz will exist by then rather than having been acquired and rolled into something larger, such as Showtime.)

Hulu gets releases from Lionsgate in 2020-21 and also recent films from smaller studios Annapurna and IFC Films. It's expected that 20th Century movies (a division of Hulu parent Disney) will come to Hulu starting with those released in 2023. (For the past few years, Hulu had a deal in place to get Paramount's, Lionsgate's and MGM's recent movies from Epix 90 days after they debuted there. So they may continue to get MGM releases that way.)

Disney+ obviously gets recent releases from now on from Disney+, Marvel Studios, and Lucasfilm (Star Wars).

Netflix doesn't get any recent theatrically-released films any more, with the exception of Netflix Originals that get a limited run in select cinemas (e.g. Marriage Story) and movies released from Sony Pictures Animation.

Prime Video did have a deal in place with A24 but that has lapsed, with A24 now going to Showtime. I think the only new films hitting Prime now may be their own Amazon Originals.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

HBO/Cinemax does seem the strongest when it comes to movies. HBO is also strongest with originals as well. Pretty much it will eventually come down to originals with movies really taking a backseat in order to stand out. 

I do forsee eventually Cinemax being folded into HBO once it is no longer profitable to WarnerMedia. I wouldn't be surprised if Epix and/or Starz gets acquired by another company. If it is by ViacomCBS I could see them merge whichever into Showtime. So I wouldn't be shocked if the premium service space goes down from 5 to 3 in the future.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

techguy88 said:


> HBO/Cinemax does seem the strongest when it comes to movies. HBO is also strongest with originals as well. Pretty much it will eventually come down to originals with movies really taking a backseat in order to stand out.


I see that happening too. It's gotten to the point where I have little interest in movies. I do have a lot of interest in originals of all sorts.

Rich


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

techguy88 said:


> I do forsee eventually Cinemax being folded into HBO once it is no longer profitable to WarnerMedia. I wouldn't be surprised if Epix and/or Starz gets acquired by another company. If it is by ViacomCBS I could see them merge whichever into Showtime. So I wouldn't be shocked if the premium service space goes down from 5 to 3 in the future.


Yeah. I also think that the term "premium" to describe these services will fade away. It already feels a bit like a relic from the earlier days of cable TV.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. I also think that the term "premium" to describe these services will fade away. It already feels a bit like a relic from the earlier days of cable TV.


The other thing for movies is that they will all show up on a cable channel of one sort or another at some point in time. And with DVR skipping available in most cases, you can see them without ads. Just have to wait awhile.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> The other thing for movies is that they will all show up on a cable channel of one sort or another at some point in time. And with DVR skipping available in most cases, you can see them without ads. Just have to wait awhile.


No thanks. I want to see them uncut, commercial-free, and without annoying graphics at the bottom of the screen. Movies on basic cable, for me, were only ever good for re-watching a few minutes of a movie I'd already seen before while channel surfing.

I do think movies will continue to be an important part of these services, though, both theatrical films as well as original movies made just for streaming. Warner Bros. just announced a new division/label called Warner Max that will make mid-budget films just for HBO Max. And of course Netflix went all-in in 2019 on original films, scoring two Best Picture nominations. I think movies that appeal to adults -- dramas, romantic comedies, mysteries -- will increasingly be made for these streaming services while theatrical films will just be the comic book/sci-fi/special FX blockbuster-type movies that appeal primarily to young guys.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NashGuy said:


> No thanks. I want to see them uncut, commercial-free, and without annoying graphics at the bottom of the screen. Movies on basic cable, for me, were only ever good for re-watching a few minutes of a movie I'd already seen before while channel surfing.


Agreed. The thought of watching a movie with commercials upsets me.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Rich said:


> Agreed. The thought of watching a movie with commercials upsets me.
> 
> Rich


Me too if it is a movie that I really want to see instead of just something to watch. In that case I generally just rent the movie. In all of last year I averaged less than one movie a month rented because there are so few new movies that interest me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Me too if it is a movie that I really want to see instead of just something to watch. In that case I generally just rent the movie. In all of last year I averaged less than one movie a month rented because there are so few new movies that interest me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


My son usually buys every movie we would have interest in. Then I have to watch them. I have several waiting for me and I'm never gonna get to them at this rate.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Some movies are worth paying for, some are not. 15-20 years ago I bought movies and was building a DVD collection (supplementing the VHS collection from 20-35 years ago). Then I realized I wasn't getting my money's worth. My brother still buys movies and lends them to the family living closer to his house. I buy very few movies and go to the movie theater for even less movies.

"Buying a movie allows you to watch it as many times as you want." A good point, but for me once is enough for most movies. And for most movies the cost is much cheaper if one is willing to accept a bug on the screen or the occasional banner. I watch enough TV that most of the bugs and banners are blocked out and the times that a banner covered some critical on screen information in a movie are rare (in my experience). I am not looking for a pristine uninterrupted presentation for every movie that consumes my time.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Some movies are worth paying for, some are not. 15-20 years ago I bought movies and was building a DVD collection (supplementing the VHS collection from 20-35 years ago). Then I realized I wasn't getting my money's worth. My brother still buys movies and lends them to the family living closer to his house. I buy very few movies and go to the movie theater for even less movies.
> 
> "Buying a movie allows you to watch it as many times as you want." A good point, but for me once is enough for most movies. And for most movies the cost is much cheaper if one is willing to accept a bug on the screen or the occasional banner. I watch enough TV that most of the bugs and banners are blocked out and the times that a banner covered some critical on screen information in a movie are rare (in my experience). I am not looking for a pristine uninterrupted presentation for every movie that consumes my time.


We have over 200 movies in our iTunes (or whatever they call it now) movie library and there are only a few that we watch over and over. I can't get enough of _Black Panther_ or _Avatar,_ for instance. It makes sense to rent them but my son keeps buying them.

Rich


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Since the original post here, more information has come forth. From ViacomCBS Adding 'Broad Pay' Streamer in Late 2020:

Ahead of its first post-merger earnings call Thursday, ViacomCBS pulled back the curtain on plans to expand its streaming portfolio with the addition of a "broad pay" product.

The new offering will be at the center of a three-tiered approach to streaming, with the other two tiers being a free option (AVOD Pluto TV) and a premium option (Showtime). "Our going forward approach to streaming is rooted in the belief that the streaming world will evolve similarly to the linear world. That means it will have three broad pay and premium pay segments and, just like in the linear world, we will have a streaming product for each," ViacomCBS CEO Bob Bakish said on the 4Q19 call.

To create the broad pay option, the company plans to expand CBS All Access by adding a significant amount of content from the libraries of Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, BET and Smithsonian as well as movies from Paramount Pictures. Approximately 30K TV episodes and up to 1K movies will be added to the new streamer.​
One thing for certain, they are not rushing into this - late 2020, really?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Yeah, I’m surprised they are projecting a late 2020 launch. I’m hoping that they will start earlier in expanding the offerings with CBS All Access. Would seem they should be able to.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

phrelin said:


> Since the original post here, more information has come forth. From ViacomCBS Adding 'Broad Pay' Streamer in Late 2020:
> 
> Ahead of its first post-merger earnings call Thursday, ViacomCBS pulled back the curtain on plans to expand its streaming portfolio with the addition of a "broad pay" product.
> 
> ...


This makes a lot of sense. In essence, they're mimicking the old model of "free TV + basic cable + premium cable". In this case, it's the stuff from Pluto TV + CBS and Viacom + Showtime. But, yeah, I don't see why it should take several months to ready this. Seems to me that they basically just need to redesign the UI of the CBS All Access app, add in the additional content, and come up with a new brand name for it.

My question is how long they continue to operate the existing CBS All Access app/brand. If all its content (plus the new Viacom stuff) is included in the middle level of the new app, you'd think they'd want to shepherd all CBS All Access subscribers over to the new thing (just as HBO wants to shepherd HBO Now subscribers over to the bigger HBO Max service). Will they price this new thing a bit higher than CBS AA? Or will they do the same thing that HBO is doing and price the new, bigger thing the same as its predecessor, so that existing subs have no reason not to migrate over?

One of the TV industry guys I follow said that on their recent earnings call, ViacomCBS made it sound like this new thing would have an authenticated cable login (i.e. "TV everywhere") aspect to it. I'm wondering if we won't see them do the same thing with this app that Warner will do with HBO Max. It sounds like Warner is hoping to get MVPDs to distribute HBO Max rather than regular HBO. And if they do, then those cable TV subscribers can use their cable login to access the HBO Max app, just as they do now with the HBO Go app. But, of course, HBO Max will also be sold directly to consumers, as HBO Now currently is. So you can see how the HBO Max app will replace both the HBO Go and HBO Now apps.

I'll bet that going forward, as ViacomCBS renews their carriage contracts with MVPDs, they'll try to force them to include a subscription to this new service as part of the deal. So if your cable channel bundle includes CBS and Viacom channels, then you'll be able to use your cable login to access this new app (in lieu of the existing set of TV everywhere apps from Nickelodeon, MTV, etc.) But, alternatively, consumers will also be able to just purchase a subscription for the app on a direct standalone basis too.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

I find it very interesting watching as these various providers try to thread the streaming needle. We started with Hulu/Netflix and look where we are now.

CBS pioneered the single channels+originals subscription app, and I remember all the discussion and conjecture about how this was great or terrible, depending on your outlook. But it appears to have been pretty successful. This gave the others ideas. 

So now we have ATT’s upcoming HBO Max, which will be HBO+originals+other content. Comcast/NBCUniversal’s Peacock which is going to do the same thing with a different mix. All with very low subscription fees.

For scripted, reality and other shows, the combo of CBS, HBO Max, Peacock will cover one heck of a lot of those. At today’s prices, and the announced prices of those not yet released, with no ads, the math certainly looks good. CBS no ads $10, HBO Max $15, Peacock no ads $10, for a total of $35 is attractive.

Today you can get close to that with Sling Blue for cable channels and some sports ($30), Hulu no ads $12, CBS no ads $10, total of $52.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

lparsons21 said:


> For scripted, reality and other shows, the combo of CBS, HBO Max, Peacock will cover one heck of a lot of those. At today's prices, and the announced prices of those not yet released, with no ads, the math certainly looks good. CBS no ads $10, HBO Max $15, Peacock no ads $10, for a total of $35 is attractive.


For folks who don't need sports (or primetime opinion talking heads on cable news), this is a very good time to be a consumer. There's never been more content, including high-quality stuff, with better picture quality, ad-free, available on demand at any time, for such a low price.

From what I can gather, $13 was a typical price for HBO in the mid-1980s. Of course, at that time, it was just a linear channel (or maybe a few), nothing on-demand (without a VCR, anyhow), and it could only be purchased if you first had a basic cable channel package. At any rate, $13 in 1985 is equal to $31 today, adjusting for inflation. Yet HBO Max will be available for less than half that, with way more content, much higher quality, appealing to a broader audience, all of it ready to watch when you want.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

NashGuy said:


> For folks who don't need sports (or primetime opinion talking heads on cable news), this is a very good time to be a consumer. There's never been more content, including high-quality stuff, with better picture quality, ad-free, available on demand at any time, for such a low price.


The owners of those services also own the major sports and news outlets, except Fox News.

The biggest sports obstacle is getting your RSN. Who knows what will happen there, but I could see MLB, NBA, and NHL offering a reasonably priced 'home team' package for in-market fans that would gut the RSNs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

wmb said:


> The owners of those services also own the major sports and news outlets, except Fox News.
> 
> The biggest sports obstacle is getting your RSN. Who knows what will happen there, but I could see MLB, NBA, and NHL offering a reasonably priced 'home team' package for in-market fans that would gut the RSNs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That would seem to make sense. I wonder if the teams have figured out how to offer it? At the moment it doesn't seem so.

YouTubeTV has my RSNs, FS1, FS2 and some ESPN stuff for info. And at $50/month is actually a pretty good deal even if the UI is a bit weird in many ways.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> That would seem to make sense. I wonder if the teams have figured out how to offer it? At the moment it doesn't seem so.
> 
> YouTubeTV has my RSNs, FS1, FS2 and some ESPN stuff for info. And at $50/month is actually a pretty good deal even if the UI is a bit weird in many ways.


I'm not sure if the issue is figuring out how to offer it or waiting for the current agreements for the rights to expire. An easy way to offer it is through their existing league-wide streaming platforms.

FS1 and FS2 are owned by Fox Corporation, who also own the Fox network. Disney sold the Fox Sports RSNs they acquired to Sinclair, so RSN ownership is split between a couple of firms - for example, I think Stan Kronke owns Altitude.

So, to me, the future of RSNs is uncertain. As far as I can tell, local MLB, NBA,and NHL are their raison d'être.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> YouTubeTV has my RSNs, FS1, FS2 and some ESPN stuff for info. And at $50/month is actually a pretty good deal even if the UI is a bit weird in many ways.


This is essentially what I view at YTTV as; a $50/month sports subscription package. I've mentioned this in other threads, but my primary means of viewing with YTTV revolves around live sports, local news and event-based viewing (Oscars, etc.) My guide is stacked at the top with local channels, sports, and TNT/TBS to keep NBA and MLB games near the top of the list. Rarely do I get past that in my guide when looking for something to watch.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

wmb said:


> The owners of those services also own the major sports and news outlets, except Fox News.
> 
> The biggest sports obstacle is getting your RSN. Who knows what will happen there, but I could see MLB, NBA, and NHL offering a reasonably priced 'home team' package for in-market fans that would gut the RSNs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The day RSN can be bought by themselves through streaming they will also be able to be sold like premiums on traditional services imho. Because once that happens they lose all leverage with DIRECTV and others and DIRECTV and others will drop them. Yes even DIRECTV imho would if they still required massive rights fees from them while also selling direct.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> The day RSN can be bought by themselves through streaming they will also be able to be sold like premiums on traditional services imho. Because once that happens they lose all leverage with DIRECTV and others and DIRECTV and others will drop them. Yes even DIRECTV imho would if they still required massive rights fees from them while also selling direct.


It's not the RSN per say, it's the content provided by the RSN, and that's primarily local pro baseball, basketball and hockey.

DirecTV's raison d'etre is NFL Sunday Ticket. Ok, rural subscribers without cable service and Sunday Ticket.

It will be interesting to see what happens to these sports as the rights renew. I'll note that MLS expects a big pay day in about 2 years when their rights renew. They've ensured all team local rights and national rights are available for rebid in 2022. The players also get a cut if the rights renewal bump in the new CBA.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The issue the RSN’s and those like MLB will be facing in the very near future is that in the past they had contracts with other businesses and little contact with the actual viewers. With the growth of streaming and the individual nature of it, the viewers might not be as willing as the cable/sat providers to accept high prices.

Gonna be interesting!


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> The issue the RSN's and those like MLB will be facing in the very near future is that in the past they had contracts with other businesses and little contact with the actual viewers. With the growth of streaming and the individual nature of it, the viewers might not be as willing as the cable/sat providers to accept high prices.
> 
> Gonna be interesting!


MLB home team pass through the MLB app for $50-100 per season could work. Same for NBA and NHL. That kills RSNs. These games get over 100,000 households, that could be $10 million per team in subscriptions plus ads, and I can't imagine the RSNs pay them that much.

What will be interesting will be what happens when Sunday Ticket renews. Will DirecTV put up $1+ billion again? What will the other networks do... will someone outbid DirecTV? Will the NFL do their own thing and go direct to to consumer? Subscribers through DirecTV are willing to pay upwards of $300 per household. At 3 million subscribers, about 20 percent of DirecTV's current subscriber count, that's $1 billion plus ads to the NFL if they go it alone. Of course, they'll have to contract with someone like BAMTech (ESPN) to make it work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fortunately for the RSNs the league offered non-streaming packages are out of market games. Other than national broadcasts, the leagues have transferred the rights to the team for in market viewing. Streaming has been separated. The MLB is considering transferring their in market streaming rights to the teams, which creates another benefit for the local RSN that the team has sold the rights to.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

wmb said:


> The owners of those services also own the major sports and news outlets, except Fox News.
> 
> The biggest sports obstacle is getting your RSN. Who knows what will happen there, but I could see MLB, NBA, and NHL offering a reasonably priced 'home team' package for in-market fans that would gut the RSNs.


Yeah, sports is the really complicated nut to crack and it's the main thing that's keeping the cable channel bundle alive at this point. The average consumer who doesn't care much about sports gets a much better bang for his buck by subscribing to 2 or 3 direct-to-consumer on-demand services. And while those services started out just offering movies and scripted series (both new originals and older broadcast/cable reruns), they now also offer quite a bit of unscripted-type content (reality/lifestyle/competition/documentary) that fills up so much of the airtime on basic cable. Netflix has a fair amount of their own original stuff in that category. HBO Max will too. Hulu, of course, has that kind of stuff next-day from the broadcast nets (e.g. The Masked Singer, The Bachelor, etc.)

And it looks like maybe Discovery will finally launch their own service this year (after talking about it forever) that features content from across their brands (HGTV, Food, ID) plus BBC Nature docs. They announced today that they've poached a Hulu exec to head up that new service.

Meanwhile, another of the small cable network groups, A+E Networks (co-owned by Disney and Hearst), yesterday announced a massive deal to license a big portion of their library for inclusion in NBCU's upcoming Peacock service.

At this point, pretty much all of the cable network groups are aligned with one of the big direct-to-consumer services. The exception are AMC Networks and Crown Media (Hallmark). I suspect both are holding out to be acquired rather than striking a deal to license their content.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

B. Shoe said:


> This is essentially what I view at YTTV as; a $50/month sports subscription package. I've mentioned this in other threads, but my primary means of viewing with YTTV revolves around live sports, local news and event-based viewing (Oscars, etc.) My guide is stacked at the top with local channels, sports, and TNT/TBS to keep NBA and MLB games near the top of the list. Rarely do I get past that in my guide when looking for something to watch.


Exactly. I think a whole lot of folks are like you and only pay for the cable bundle to watch those things you mentioned -- live sports, news, and events. And if, like me, you can get the major broadcast nets well enough with a free OTA antenna, there's even less reason for the bundle since you can get a decent amount of that live stuff that way.

But if you need the bundle for live sports, news and events (plus other stuff for channel surfing), YouTube TV offers the best bang for your buck right now at $50.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

wmb said:


> MLB home team pass through the MLB app for $50-100 per season could work. Same for NBA and NHL. That kills RSNs. These games get over 100,000 households, that could be $10 million per team in subscriptions plus ads, and I can't imagine the RSNs pay them that much.
> 
> What will be interesting will be what happens when Sunday Ticket renews. Will DirecTV put up $1+ billion again? What will the other networks do... will someone outbid DirecTV? Will the NFL do their own thing and go direct to to consumer? Subscribers through DirecTV are willing to pay upwards of $300 per household. At 3 million subscribers, about 20 percent of DirecTV's current subscriber count, that's $1 billion plus ads to the NFL if they go it alone. Of course, they'll have to contract with someone like BAMTech (ESPN) to make it work.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You'd be a bit off in your numbers... the Lakers get about 200k or more people watching their games. At your price that's be 20 million a year. But then you could probably charge double for the Lakers over others. So let's s 40 million a year... oh heck let's say that we are still off by 50%. So call it 80 million a year.

Their current deal is 150 million from their RSN... they where at 30 million from FOX (showed half their games) at the end of their contract in 2011.

The team with the smallest deal is 10 million a year. With revenue sharing though you have to have the higher teams to help out the lower teams...

Most teams are closer to 30 than 10 and closer to 70 than 150... but still...

Dodgers deal is over 140 million a year. Most are well
over 50 million a year for mlb teams.

You are way underestimating how much teams get paid for their local tv deals.

NHL maybe not. But then they have far fewer viewers too.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

We're in a period of virtually no live sports now. It looks like that will last at least a month. Right now nobody needs RSN's or ESPN.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I’m guessing June...


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

I think ViacomCBS should buy up Philo and offer a $30-35 monthly plan that includes all the Philo channels - a good chunk are Viacom channels already, and CBS affiliate, CW affiliate, Pop, CBSN, CBS Sports HQ, ET Live, Smithsonian integrated with the Philo cloud DVR, as well as the Pluto music channels, and CBS All Access on Demand. It'd be somewhat like a smaller scale version of Disney's Hulu.

Offer HBO, Showtime, Starz and Epix as well as add ons.


----------

