Will there ever be one dominant streaming service?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
W

wco81

Ars Legatus Legionis
28,661
  • #1,681
    Comprehensive market research about the TV market.

    read-vip.variety.com

    Variety VIP

    Variety VIP - 030124_peak_TV_SR_v1
    read-vip.variety.com

    Not just US but global and not just streaming but broadcast as well.

    A lot of charts and graphs, including forecasts of programing spending.

    They also break content down by genre, track spending on sports rights and for instance shows what Netflix will spend on original vs. licensed content.

    Page 14 (of 21) shows spending forecast by region for 2022-28. Notably, North America is expected to have negative content spending growth during this 6-year period, the only region forecasted to have negative growth.

    That makes sense, spending growth in the US was much faster than other regions so now it's leveling or declining, even before the strikes since the period covers 2022.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,682
    WBD will be challenged to match the rumored NBC offer for NBA rights. But if it doesn't match, it could screw up plans for the sports-streaming service that ESPN, Fox and WBD plan to launch in the fall.

    TNT's placement in cable packages may also be threatened.

    he also has to deal with a hard-charging effort by NBCUniversal to acquire the package of NBA rights currently held by his TNT cable channel. Zaslav likely has Disney CEO Bob Iger and Fox chief Lachlan Murdoch scrambling for updates as well; the three media execs are deep in the process of creating a new joint venture sports streamer that carries livestreams of 14 networks like ESPN, TNT, and FS1, but the uncertainty over potentially losing a third of national NBA package to NBC could have Iger and Murdoch considering alternatives when it comes to the sports streaming joint venture.

    Key Facts:
    TNT and TBS would still have the MLB, NHL, NASCAR, All Elite Wrestling, U.S. Soccer, and the NCAA Men’s March Madness Tournament if WBD loses the NBA.
    WBD has the right to match any offer from NBC for basketball rights, but its lack of a broadcast channel could put it at a disadvantage.

    There are many theoretical options on the table for Disney and Fox if WBD loses the NBA, but none of them are terribly desirable.
    If TNT does lose the NBA to NBC, it would still have a solid lineup of popular sports to bring to the JV streamer. The cabler would still carry NHL regular season and playoff games, NASCAR races, U.S. Soccer matches from the Men’s and Women’s National Teams, games from the annual NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament (shared with CBS, TBS and truTV), and All Elite Wrestling. MLB plays a package of national games on TBS, as well. truTV is also expanding its sports programming with prime-time blocks that launched in March.

    The Sports Business Journal reports that Zaslav is already considering a counter to NBC’s massive bid for NBA rights, but one source said it would be “hard to justify” laying out enough money to beat NBC's reported offer of $2.5 billion per season. But not securing the NBA for the next 10 years could hasten the already-precipitous decline of WBD’s cable revenues, and the fact that games now stream live on Max in the Bleacher Report Sports Add-On will not lead to an increase in revenues big enough to make up for cable channel losses.

    Losing the NBA would also mean that WBD cannot contribute those games to the JV streamer that it is working on with Disney and Fox. That leaves the other two companies with several options, none of which are especially appealing. It’s likely too late to try and pursue NBC as a partner in the JV and leave WBD behind, as the still-unnamed platform has already named a jointly-agreed-upon CEO. But would WBD have to pursue other sports rights to try to make up for the lack of NBA games? Or could its failure to secure the package be the death knell of the JV altogether?
    Click to expand...

    thestreamable.com

    What Happens to the Disney, Fox, WBD Sports Streamer if NBC Steals NBA Rights From TNT?

    If NBC snakes WBD’s package of NBA games out from under it, there could be massive implications for the JV platform known in some circles as ‘Spulu.’
    thestreamable.com thestreamable.com
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,683
    Paramount is for sale and there are two bidders.

    It's not known what would happen to Paramount + if the sale goes through. Nominally they report losses though losses have been narrowing.

    But there's talk about merging with Peacock or some other service.


    The future of Paramount may be decided in the coming days. In addition to a bid from Skydance, the Wall Street Journal reports Sony and Apollo Global Management have teamed up to offer $26 billion in cash for the entertainment company. Ultimately, the decision will be made by Shari Redstone, who owns most of the voting shares of Paramount.
    Click to expand...


    thestreamable.com

    Sony, Apollo Offer $26B in Cash for Paramount - How Could That Impact Streaming?

    The future of Paramount may be decided in the coming days. In addition to a bid from Skydance, the Wall Street Journal reports Sony and Apollo Global Management have teamed up to offer $26 billion in cash for the …
    thestreamable.com thestreamable.com
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,684
    They seem pretty much to be at around $7 billion, not as much as the $8 billion that the NBA talked about but pretty close.

    The NBA's new media rights deals could surpass $7 billion per season, which would represent an increase of nearly 170 percent from its current $2.6 billion per deals with ESPN and TNT. According to reported figures, the combined rights fees from ESPN, Amazon and NBC (or TNT) are at $6.9 billion per season.

    Amazon will pay approximately $1.8 billion per season, according to Andrew Marchand of The Athletic. The deal will include the Conference Finals every other year as they will alternate with whoever wins the third rights between NBC and TNT. It also will include the NBA Cup and In-Season Tournament.

    TNT can match NBC's offer of $2.5 billion per season and talks are ongoing.

    ESPN's deal with the NBA, which includes the Finals and Conference Finals on an annual basis, will cost $2.6 billion per year.

    A report in 2021 indicated that the NBA was seeking anywhere between $7 billion and $8 billion per year on its next deal. After a 2023 report cooled those expectations with a doubling of the current deal a more probable target, the NBA appears to be close to reaching its goal.
    Click to expand...

    basketball.realgm.com

    NBA's Next Media Rights Deals Closing In On $7 Billion Per Season

    NBA's Next Media Rights Deals Closing In On $7 Billion Per Season - RealGM Wiretap
    basketball.realgm.com

    Amazing that NBA got Amazon to bite on the In-Season Tournament and the NBA Cup -- aren't they the same thing?

    So the only outstanding issue appears to be whether WBD will match the NBA offer to keep the NBA games on TNT.


    For perspective, the NFL signed a deal a couple of years ago for 10 years at $10 billion a year, which includes Amazon getting the Thursday Night Football package.

    NFL should get more money, because they generate much higher ratings than NBA games. But if the NBA gets $7-8 billion, that's a lot more bang for the buck, considering the ratings gap between NFL and NBA games.

    Bill Simmons had a theory, that NBA has so much more social media following that in some ways, it's more valuable to the networks than the ratings of the NBA games. There are a lot of people who follow the NBA, especially social media, but they don't actually sit down and watch a lot of the games.

    He said there are too many games and if they cut it to 72 games or even shorter, each game would get higher ratings than currently. He pointed out that the highest ratings for NBA was back in 2011 in the strike-shortened 66-game season. NBA had to quickly set up a shortened season and didn't get to promote it much. But individual broadcasts of NBA games averaged higher ratings.

    The other theory is that the networks are losing their grip, fewer viewers every year as people cut the cord. So live sports are one of the few things which keep people paying for cable TV. But also, the networks are more desperate to keep rights to the games so they may pay more and on a relatively basis, the networks are paying more for the NBA than the NFL, mainly because the NBA deal came up for renewal later.

    There's also a quiet competition brewing between the NFL and the NBA. Thursday Night Football forced TNT to cut back on NBA games on Thursday Nights during the NFL season. Not only that, NFL is now coming for the Christmas Day games.

    The next NFL contract could be even crazier, which will ultimately lead to higher cable TV and streaming subscription fees, more than likely.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,685
    Wow so it seems like WBD will match NBC's offer of $2.5 billion but the NBA doesn't want them to match. In fact, they want WBD to pay like $2.8 billion because NBC has all these broadcast channels that WBD/TND do not have.

    NBC really bid up the prices when you consider that NBA is currently getting a combined $2.5 billion a year from ESPN and TNT but ESPN had to bid $2.6 billion just to keep exclusive rights to the Finals, as opposed to alternating every year with NBC.

    Comcast’s NBCUniversal is closing in on securing the third NBA package and likely unveil a “Basketball Night in America" telecast with its annual bid of $2.5 billion per year, sources tell Sports Business Journal.

    Sources say Warner Bros. Discovery, parent company of TNT, would have to increase its bid to as much as $2.8 billion per season to retain rights unless they attempt to settle the matter with litigation.

    WBD exited its exclusive negotiating window with the NBA with the expectation they could match any bid from a rival company on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

    Sources reiterated Wednesday that the NBA believes a dollar-for-dollar match is not enough because NBC is an over-the-air network with multiple broadcast windows and an RSN infrastructure that WBD cannot replicate.

    “NBC has made their bid, and they're not budging,’’ a media industry source said. “So it's over, right? And Warner Bros. is saying, ‘We'll match it,’ and (Commissioner Adam Silver) is probably saying: ‘It's not matched.’ ’’

    Sources say Adam Silver is trying to figure out a way to sever the relationship with TNT in a "gentle way."

    “There's no mystery to this," the source said. “It's pretty blatant what's happening. David Zaslav realizes he has to have this and doesn't want to pay more than $2.5B. And Adam's saying, honestly, it's not matched at $2.5. And [Zaslav] goes, ‘Yes, it is,’ and they're going back and forth.’ And so that's where we are. How do you let [WBD] down? Is there a way? Or does Zaslav come up with more money? Because then it doesn't have to be matching because David's paid more.

    “And that's where we are. Adam's trying to be nice to David right now until David backs off his dogs. He’s trying to help David save face.’’
    Click to expand...

    basketball.realgm.com

    NBC Closing In On NBA Package At $2.5B Per Year Unless TNT Increases Offer To $2.8B

    NBC Closing In On NBA Package At $2.5B Per Year Unless TNT Increases Offer To $2.8B - RealGM Wiretap
    basketball.realgm.com

    I don't see how WBD can even pay $2.5 billion WITHOUT the rights to air the Finals. But WBD also wants to sell a sports streaming package with ESPN and Fox and also want to have a sports streaming add-on with the Max service.

    And Max is talking about raising prices again after raising them in the last year.
     
    E

    Echohead2

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    60,035
  • #1,686
    press.disneyplus.com

    Disney Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery Announce Disney+, Hulu, Max Bundle

    Today, Disney Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery announced a new streaming bundle that includes Disney+, Hulu and Max. Beginning this Summer in the U.S, the streaming services will be offered together, providing subscribers with the best value in entertainment and an unprecedented...
    press.disneyplus.com press.disneyplus.com

    Disney is going to offer Disney+, Hulu, Max combo. It will be interesting to see the pricing. Disney+hulu is $20 ad free. Max is $16 for ad free. I suspect $29.99 if they offer a deal (and not just straight $20+16). I think $25 is too optimistic.
     
    Louis XVI

    Louis XVI

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,981
    Subscriptor
  • #1,687
    Echohead2 said:
    press.disneyplus.com

    Disney Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery Announce Disney+, Hulu, Max Bundle

    Today, Disney Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery announced a new streaming bundle that includes Disney+, Hulu and Max. Beginning this Summer in the U.S, the streaming services will be offered together, providing subscribers with the best value in entertainment and an unprecedented...
    press.disneyplus.com press.disneyplus.com

    Disney is going to offer Disney+, Hulu, Max combo. It will be interesting to see the pricing. Disney+hulu is $20 ad free. Max is $16 for ad free. I suspect $29.99 if they offer a deal (and not just straight $20+16). I think $25 is too optimistic.
    Click to expand...
    By Jove, they’ve reinvented cable TV!
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: BigLan
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,690
    So streaming services are pushing to tie compensation to performance of shows, to rein in costs, rather than writing blank checks as they've been doing.

    Finally?

    After the new contracts with WAG and SAG-ATRA, streaming services may not be so generous as they've been previously. But in order to have performance-based compensation, the streamers have to provide more transparency than they've been willing to do so far.

    “In recent weeks, Apple Inc.’s Hollywood studio has told its business partners that it wants to change the way it pays talent. After years of compensating people as though all their projects were successful, Apple will soon begin basing pay on how a series or movie performs.

    Apple has already met with talent representatives to propose a new performance-based compensation regime, according to a memo that we’ve seen and conversations with several people involved. Talent would receive bonuses based on a points system; the size of the bonuses will be based on three criteria: the number of people who signed up for Apple TV+ to watch, how much time they spent viewing and the cost of the program relative to the size of its audience. People with one of the top three shows could share up to $10.5 million for a season.

    This plan isn’t final. Apple has asked people for feedback. It also doesn’t apply to every show on Apple – just those the company produces in-house. But the tech giant, along with Amazon and Netflix, is in the early stages of an experiment that will make the streaming business look a little bit more like the Hollywood of yore.

    (…)

    As media companies seek to rein in costs and boost profit, they too have begun to question the system, which they worry leads to excess. When waste doesn’t hurt a producer’s take-home pay, there is little incentive to bring in a show under budget.

    Industry experts worried about the soaring cost of producing TV seven years ago, and it’s only gotten worse since then. Under the Apple model, your bonus shrinks if the show goes over budget.

    (…)

    The biggest question in all of this is whether companies will disclose more viewership data to help talent and their representatives understand the decisions. While Netflix will likely equate performance with viewership, which it discloses, it’s not clear that any other service is ready to do that. Apple says partners will be able to have its rankings audited, but it’s not going to share raw data with anyone.

    “If we’re going to have a new system, they have to give us real numbers,” Zimmer said.

    And yet, streaming services are unmistakably inching toward a world of greater transparency. The more data they share, the easier it will be to tie pay to performance. Just give it a few more years.”
    Click to expand...

    Paywalled at:


    Not sure why they're obsessing about keeping viewership data proprietary. Under the new contracts, they have to compensate, writers and actors based on viewing numbers.

    What advantage could they have by keeping that data to themselves? If Netflix, the only service which is profitable from streaming alone, is willing to publish the numbers, what is the incentive to not disclose the numbers for other services?

    Maybe they think they can get away with keeping production costs -- the money that talent will demand -- for future projects down.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,692
    So Zaslav tried to low-ball the NBA on renewing the TV rights.

    While ESPN was firm on wanting to retain the "A" package and not letting it go to the open market by doubling its old rights fees from $1.4 billion per season to $2.8 billion, Zaslav believed he would only have to pay between $1.8 billion and $2.1 billion to retain the "B" package and refused to double it to $2.4 billion.

    WBD entered negotiations believing they could ultimately match any offer the NBA received for the package, but the league's contention is they cannot necessarily match it on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

    The NBA subsequently agreed to a $2.6 billion deal with NBC that virtually make it impossible for TNT to equal.

    WBD is believed to be preparing to sue the NBA over the issue.
    Click to expand...

    basketball.realgm.com

    WBD's David Zaslav Entered Negotiations With NBA Bargaining Harder Than ESPN

    WBDs David Zaslav Entered Negotiations With NBA Bargaining Harder Than ESPN - RealGM Wiretap
    basketball.realgm.com

    Now he may sue the NBA for not being allowed to match the NBC deal.

    But the deal is shaping up to be over $7 billion a year as the other networks have raised their bids:

    The NBA is formalizing media rights contracts with ESPN, NBC and Amazon this week with sources telling the Sports Business Journal that it is the final stage of negotiations. Deals with the three providers are expected to return over $7 billion per year for the NBA.

    ESPN will pay $2.8 billion annually, which is up from an initially reported $2.6 billion for the NBA's "A" package. That package includes the NBA Finals, a conference final, weekly primetime games, the WNBA and likely shared international rights.

    NBC's "B" package is believed to be worth $2.6 billion annually would probably include a "Basketball Night in America" on Sunday nights following the NFL season, a total of two primetime windows a week, conference semifinals and a conference final.

    Amazon's deal is believed to be worth between $1.8B and $2B and would likely include the Emirates In-Season Tournament, the SoFi Play-In Tournament, first-round playoff games, the WNBA and international rights.
    Click to expand...

    basketball.realgm.com

    NBA Finalizing $7B+ Per Season Media Rights Contracts With ESPN, NBC, Amazon This Week

    NBA Finalizing $7B+ Per Season Media Rights Contracts With ESPN NBC Amazon This Week - RealGM Wiretap
    basketball.realgm.com
     
    L

    lithven

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,932
  • #1,694
    It's unfortunate that the move to streaming hasn't separated out sports into its "own thing". I didn't like subsidizing ESPN and similar when I subscribed to cable and I don't appreciate that various streaming providers are bidding what I consider to be insane amounts of money for rights. I like it even less that they're doing it while simultaneously raising their prices, cracking down on sharing, adding advertisements, and just over all making it a more expensive and worse experience for me as a subscriber. Further, I consider it worse for sports fans too because now they have to subscribe to multiple services to get their entertainment rather than going to a single provider / app and getting everything (at least everything for a given sport / league) in one place. I'm sure it's better for the leagues though because I would assume they are making more money this way since everyone has to pay instead of just those who really want to watch it.

    Edit: fix typo
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Nevarre and Louis XVI
    Louis XVI

    Louis XVI

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,981
    Subscriptor
  • #1,696
    YoHo said:
    I sympathize with your thinking on this, but calling Disney and NBC/Universal "streaming platforms" is kinda ridiculous. They are giant multimedia conglomerates. They spend many billions on many things that aren't streaming. Disney is going to spend 10s of billions building more themeparks in Anaheim. Does that offend you?
    Click to expand...
    ESPN and NBC are more or less business as usual, but live sports going to Netflix, Apple, and Amazon are not. One of the reasons cable got so expensive was everybody having to subsidize huge sports broadcasting deals. One of the reasons Netflix and other streaming platforms were able to undercut cable on price was that they weren’t paying exorbitant amounts for sports. Now that they are, they’ll surely pass the cost on to customers.

    It would have been infinitely preferable if sports had landed in their own specific streaming services, so those who wanted them could pay for them, and those who did not wouldn’t have to. Now it’s just one more bad aspect of the old cable model finding its way into streaming.
     
    L

    lithven

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,932
  • #1,697
    YoHo said:
    I sympathize with your thinking on this, but calling Disney and NBC/Universal "streaming platforms" is kinda ridiculous. They are giant multimedia conglomerates. They spend many billions on many things that aren't streaming. Disney is going to spend 10s of billions building more themeparks in Anaheim. Does that offend you?
    Click to expand...
    My assumption is the theme parks are generally financially self sufficient and independent of the rates I'd pay for streaming.

    Similarly, if the deals are just about, and fully supported and funded by cable and OTA fees and ad revenue, then I'll retract my complaint. On the other hand, with cable TV subscription revenue declining, and pure OTA practically dead, I don't think it's a stretch to say that a lot of the deals are being written with their sights set towards the future with an emphasis on streaming revenue.

    Thus, regardless of what other revenue sources the mammoth media conglomerates have, I can't help but see these sports deals as tied directly to the streaming ambitions of those companies. And if that's true, I think there's an obvious direct connection between what they pay for those rights and what I'll have to pay for my subscription in the future.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,698
    Cable TV prices will go up regardless of whether they have sports on or not.

    I don't see the giant cable operators cutting prices either if they lost all the major sports, not unless they're forced to.

    Similarly, streaming raised prices before sports and they will raise prices after sports.

    Hollywood stars are not less paid than star athletes.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,699
    Plot twist!

    WBD may try to match the Amazon package instead of the NBC package, which is the package that it had before.

    The league is close to signing agreements with Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon for three different packages of games, the people said. If that happens without a side agreement with Warner Bros. Discovery, its CEO, David Zaslav, will have a chance to leverage matching rights that were secured — and paid for — as part of its previous deal with the league.

    Under the terms of that agreement, which runs out after the 2024-25 season, Warner Bros. Discovery can match a competing bid for the games it currently licenses from the NBA. Warner Bros. Discovery hasn’t yet seen the three potential packages, because the league hasn’t officially signed agreements with any of its potential media partners. It also hasn’t communicated any plans on matching or not matching with the league, the people said.

    Still, the company has been working with its lawyers to determine how matching would work if the league carves up Warner Bros. Discovery’s current package into deals for both NBCUniversal and Amazon.

    Amazon has reportedly offered $1.8 billion a year for a slate of games, while NBCUniversal has offered about $2.5 billion per year, according to people familiar with the matter. The league has set up frameworks for both deals but hasn’t yet signed paperwork formalizing the bids. When it does, Warner Bros. Discovery will have five days to match,     according to a person familiar with the language of the contracts.

    It’s possible Warner Bros. Discovery chooses not to match any of the packages, or it may push to strike a side deal with the league for either a settlement or a smaller, fourth package of games. It’s unclear whether the NBA would be amenable to either of those solutions.
    Click to expand...


    It's unclear if the Amazon package would include playoffs games, including at least the Conference Finals games, which TNT currently broadcasts.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,700
    WSJ publishes more specific terms of what is expected to be the finalized new TV deal:

    The NBA is nearing completion of a combined 11-year, $76 billion set of deals with Disney, NBC and Amazon. The deals average out to $6.9 billion per season for the NBA, which is more than 2.5 times higher than its existing deals. The NFL recently doubled its feeds under its last deal to around $10 billion per year.

    An official announcement could still be weeks away as it will need approval from the Board of Governors.

    ESPN's deal is considered the "A" package and they will pay an average of $2.6 billion per year, which is up from $1.5 billion under the current deal. While ESPN will broadcast fewer overall games, they retain both The Finals and a Conference Finals annually. ESPN will be allowed to air games on its direct-to-consumer streaming service expected to launch in 2025.

    NBC will pay an averaged of $2.5 billion per year, while Amazon will pay $1.8 billion per year. NBC and Amazon will alternate broadcasting one of the two Conference Finals series. Amazon will also broadcast the In-Season Tournament and Play-In games.

    NBC will air around 100 games per season with approximately half airing exclusively on Peacock. Games would air on NBC on Tuesdays and Sundays when there isn’t a conflict with NBC’s “Sunday Night Football.”

    The global popularity of the NBA was a big motivator for Amazon's Prime Video.

    Warner Bros. Discovery will almost certainly lose their longtime partnership with the NBA. Warner had a chance to commit to a deal at $2.2 billion per year, but sources say they walked away due to their displeasure with the price relative to the value of the package. Warner believed the NBA took too many playoff games and the play-in tournament out of its package to give to Amazon.

    When Warner's exclusive window closed, NBC quickly submitted a $2.5 billion per year bid.     NBC tried to get a share of the Finals during their talks with the NBA, but ultimately fell short with ESPN/ABC retaining it exclusively.
    Click to expand...

    basketball.realgm.com

    NBA Close To Finalizing 11-Year, $76 Billion Combined Deals With Disney, NBC, Amazon

    NBA Close To Finalizing 11-Year, $76 Billion Combined Deals With Disney, NBC, Amazon - RealGM Wiretap
    basketball.realgm.com

    So WBD could have signed a deal for $2.2 billion a year, though they'd have fewer playoff and play-in games since a third TV partner in Amazon had to be added.

    But then NBC quickly matched at $2.5 billion. Then supposedly WBD talked about matching the NBC bid but Silver wasn't having it, because he said that NBC bid was more valuable because of all the broadcast stations they have access too while TNT is strictly cable.

    Then Zaslav supposedly talked about matching the Amazon bid. Will WBD go away quietly or will there be litigation?

    In any event, it looks like NBA will get close to but not exactly the 3X the money of the current TV deal.

    Note also that ESPN has the rights to stream NBA games on Venu, this new sports streaming service which will start in the fall. WBD is suppose to be a part of that along with Fox. I don't recall if they will have NFL, NHL and MLB games as well or if Fox Sports, which is going to broadcast the UEFA Euro 2024, would be broadcasting some kind of European football matches as well.

    Also note that NBC plans to stream approximately half the games on Peacock exclusively. So I understand that streaming is becoming a bigger deal and that NBC wants to promote Peacock, which had been giving away subscriptions pretty much but that will probably end now.

    However, one reason that the NBA preferred NBC over WBD was supposedly that NBC had a broadcast network.
     
    W

    wco81

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    28,661
  • #1,701
    Canada is imposing a 5% surcharge on all streaming services, to support local news and indigenous content.

    Canada has ordered large online streaming services to pay 5 percent of their Canadian revenue to the government in a program expected to raise $200 million per year to support local news and other home-grown content. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its decision yesterday after a public comment period.

    "Based on the public record, the CRTC is requiring online streaming services to contribute 5 percent of their Canadian revenues to support the Canadian broadcasting system. These obligations will start in the 2024–2025 broadcast year and will provide an estimated $200 million per year in new funding," the regulator said.

    The fees apply to both video and music streaming services. The CRTC imposed the rules despite opposition from Amazon, Apple, Disney, Google, Netflix, Paramount, and Spotify.

    The new fees are scheduled to take effect in September and apply to online streaming services that make at least $25 million a year in Canada. The regulations exclude revenue from audiobooks, podcasts, video game services, and user-generated content. The exclusion of revenue from user-generated content is a win for Google's YouTube.

    Streaming companies have recently been raising prices charged to consumers, and the CBC notes that streamers might raise prices again to offset the fees charged in Canada.
    Click to expand...

    arstechnica.com

    Canada demands 5% of revenue from Netflix, Spotify, and other streamers

    Canada says $200M in annual fees will support local news and other content.
    arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

    Not great for consumers but apparently they decided local news is a social good which should be subsidized? It's not even clear if streaming services have disrupted local news.

    Chances are costs are passed to consumers so consumers can ultimately vote, both with their wallets and at the ballot box.


    There's also a good chance that this kind of levy will only grow. After all, govt is collecting taxes and fees on cable TV and as cord cutting continues to reduce the number of cable TV subscribers, local governments may be tempted to sustain these tax streams.

    For Spotify, which got the EU to intervene against Apple, this may be the flip side of govt. both helping and hurting a business. Unlikely they will suffer substantial loss in revenues because of these fees though.
     
    E

    Exordium01

    Ars Praefectus
    3,977
    Subscriptor
  • #1,702
    wco81 said:
    For Spotify, which got the EU to intervene against Apple, this may be the flip side of govt. both helping and hurting a business. Unlikely they will suffer substantial loss in revenues because of these fees though.
    Click to expand...
    Fuck Spotify.

    This isn't totally related to your point, but I'm not sure how anybody can support Spotify after Daniel Ek's comments about the cost of creating content being "near 0." At the end of the day, Apple pays artists 2x as much as Spotify per listen. IMO, that coupled with Ek's comments tells us everything we need to know about the two companies.

    Spotify doesn't want to pay artists for their content and they don't want to pay Apple for API use, platform, or distribution. They just want a free lunch. If you care about the music you listen to, you subscribe to Tidal or Apple Music because they pay out the best royalties (or you ideally buy albums and go to concerts and buy merch).

    Back on-topic. Taxing subscription services in order to support public broadcasting is something I can 100% get behind. Let's generate and fund more ad-free, free-to-watch high quality content. I wish we had something as good as BBC here in the US. So what if it makes the services more expensive?
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: ecotone
    A

    ant1pathy

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    6,461
  • #1,703
    I had the idle thought about a "better" solution for the EU issue with Apple over music streaming, where they'd ask for a 30% cut (or whatever to mimic the "App Store tax") that would be used subsidize some public good. That way there's no fiscal advantage to Apple, which seemed to be the only really reasonable complaint in the whole thing.
     
    S

    Shavano

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    59,253
    Subscriptor
  • #1,706
    lithven said:
    It's unfortunate that the move to streaming hasn't separated out sports into its "own thing". I didn't like subsidizing ESPN and similar when I subscribed to cable and I don't appreciate that various streaming providers are bidding what I consider to be insane amounts of money for rights. I like it even less that they're doing it while simultaneously raising their prices, cracking down on sharing, adding advertisements, and just over all making it a more expensive and worse experience for me as a subscriber. Further, I consider it worse for sports fans too because now they have to subscribe to multiple services to get their entertainment rather than going to a single provider / app and getting everything (at least everything for a given sport / league) in one place. I'm sure it's better for the leagues though because I would assume they are making more money this way since everyone has to pay instead of just those who really want to watch it.

    Edit: fix typo
    Click to expand...
    Yeah, it's an ugly pricing situation. Just for baseball, it''s $120/yr or $30/month or one team for a year for $105/yr. There's no option to stream one game for a few bucks. If you're not committed to spend over $100 a season, they don't even want you to watch at all. Bunch of jerks.
     
    Schpyder

    Schpyder

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,692
    Subscriptor++
  • #1,707
    lithven said:
    It's unfortunate that the move to streaming hasn't separated out sports into its "own thing". I didn't like subsidizing ESPN and similar when I subscribed to cable and I don't appreciate that various streaming providers are bidding what I consider to be insane amounts of money for rights. I like it even less that they're doing it while simultaneously raising their prices, cracking down on sharing, adding advertisements, and just over all making it a more expensive and worse experience for me as a subscriber. Further, I consider it worse for sports fans too because now they have to subscribe to multiple services to get their entertainment rather than going to a single provider / app and getting everything (at least everything for a given sport / league) in one place. I'm sure it's better for the leagues though because I would assume they are making more money this way since everyone has to pay instead of just those who really want to watch it.
    Click to expand...

    I remember in the pre-streaming era, when a lot of people were arguing that a la carte cable packages would save everyone a ton of money, and things were obviously going to go that way. I made the case then that there was absolutely no business case to be made for breaking up cable packages, so it was never going to happen, absent unlikely regulatory requirements. The early streaming years were a taste of what that would have been like, and guess what? Except for absolutely the single biggest player, everyone involved lost money. Which is why things are reverting to the cable situation of bundled services and ad-funded content.

    Shavano said:
    Yeah, it's an ugly pricing situation. Just for baseball, it''s $120/yr or $30/month or one team for a year for $105/yr. There's no option to stream one game for a few bucks. If you're not committed to spend over $100 a season, they don't even want you to watch at all. Bunch of jerks.
    Click to expand...

    I mean, the reasons for this are pretty plainly obvious, right? If people only had to pay for the specific games they wanted to watch, the league would lose BOATLOADS of money on a streaming service. This is, in fact, the a la carte endgame people weren't ready to admit was inevitable. Of course in this particular case, a lot of this is driven by MLB's continued decision to throw away billions and billions of dollars by not instituting a salary cap, but that's been the case forever.
     
    E

    Echohead2

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    60,035
  • #1,708
    Schpyder said:
    I remember in the pre-streaming era, when a lot of people were arguing that a la carte cable packages would save everyone a ton of money, and things were obviously going to go that way. I made the case then that there was absolutely no business case to be made for breaking up cable packages, so it was never going to happen, absent unlikely regulatory requirements. The early streaming years were a taste of what that would have been like, and guess what? Except for absolutely the single biggest player, everyone involved lost money. Which is why things are reverting to the cable situation of bundled services and ad-funded content.
    Click to expand...
    The thing with cable streaming is that every channel got less money, they had a lot more subscribers. If you break that up a la carte (side note, heard about someone who said "olive cart". They also said "melanoma" instead of "melatonin" and referred to things being put on "pigeon hold"). So now that channel has to charge a lot more per user since their subscribers are way lower. However, in theory you should end up paying less.

    I know I do. We have Disney+Hulu ($20), Netflix ($17), Paramount ($12), Prime ($0 sort of as it is "free" with Amazon Prime). So we are only paying about $50/month when cable would be more.
     
    B

    BigLan

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    6,907
  • #1,709
    That $50 is cheaper than cable was, but prices keep on creeping up and ads have returned as the new streaming services realized that advertisers are happy to pay more than users are to avoid ads (and when all the services have ads, they're not worried about losing customers to a competing service because of it.)

    And that's before they start force-bundling the sports channels/content and jacking prices up to cover the multi-billion dollar deals they've been signing (because ads alone won't pay for it.)
     
    Y

    YoHo

    Ars Praefectus
    4,319
  • #1,710
    The content is also more broad. There's also incentives. I get the full Disney Triple Play package (or I did) for free via verizon. So that cost is zero. Prime is factored into everything I do with prime so the cost gets amortized differently. So really I pay for Netflix, Peacock, and Paramount purely for media and I'm in the lowest tier for all of them.

    Commercials never bothered me. That was always part of the contract in my mind.
     
    E

    Echohead2

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    60,035
  • #1,711
    BigLan said:
    That $50 is cheaper than cable was, but prices keep on creeping up and ads have returned as the new streaming services realized that advertisers are happy to pay more than users are to avoid ads (and when all the services have ads, they're not worried about losing customers to a competing service because of it.)

    And that's before they start force-bundling the sports channels/content and jacking prices up to cover the multi-billion dollar deals they've been signing (because ads alone won't pay for it.)
    Click to expand...
    Perhaps. But right now only Prime as ads for me. (well...I guess they all have those little promos before it starts). But cable has ads...and a lot more! I haven't watched cable in forever until recently when at a hotel and watched some. Sheesh...so many ads and they last so long!
     
    G

    gregorerlich

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,094
  • #1,712
    Shavano said:
    Yeah, it's an ugly pricing situation. Just for baseball, it''s $120/yr or $30/month or one team for a year for $105/yr. There's no option to stream one game for a few bucks. If you're not committed to spend over $100 a season, they don't even want you to watch at all. Bunch of jerks.
    Click to expand...
    Well, except that you can't watch your local team because of blackouts, so the service is essentially worthless unless you follow a bunch of teams, or don't live in the blackout area for your preferred team. In Canada, the entire country is the blackout area for the Blue Jays, so MLB.tv's value proposition is essentially nil.


    Schpyder said:
    Of course in this particular case, a lot of this is driven by MLB's continued decision to throw away billions and billions of dollars by not instituting a salary cap, but that's been the case forever.
    Click to expand...
    That's a funny way to say, "the labour union would never allow a hard cap, thus protecting the incomes of their members, who, after all, are the product MLB is selling".
     
    • Like
    Reactions: mysdrial
    Schpyder

    Schpyder

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,692
    Subscriptor++
  • #1,714
    gregorerlich said:
    That's a funny way to say, "the labour union would never allow a hard cap, thus protecting the incomes of their members, who, after all, are the product MLB is selling".
    Click to expand...

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the players getting every red cent they can. I just find whining about prices for a league that doesn't even make a passing attempt at controlling costs to be a little disingenuous. If the market of MLB fans can't support those prices, then it'll show up in decreasing revenues. But for now, it looks like the market is actually working to support it.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: gregorerlich
    G

    gregorerlich

    Ars Scholae Palatinae
    1,094
  • #1,715
    wco81 said:
    Is it blackout for only the home games or do they black out road games as well?

    IF the Blue Jays play in NY or Detroit, Canadian fans just across the border from those cities can't see those road games?
    Click to expand...
    Road games as well, it's crazy. Blacked out until usually about 2 hours after the end of the game. So it's fine if you watch every game the next day and try to avoid spoilers in the meantime... Which is to say, crap and not worth paying for it. It's included in some ticket packs, but I wouldn't pay one cent for it as it stands.

    Up until a few years ago, the Blue Jays were the only team that didn't get blacked out, presumably because they're owned by Rogers, who also owns Sportsnet, the TV channel that carriers their games, so I guess there was something unusual in that agreement. But apparently MLB pushed them to regularize the agreement, so now we're screwed, too.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply