Good Faith Questions About STREAMING

[cartm25]

There seem to be a lot of members on the OBD Forum that are excited about "streaming" being part of the new P12 media deal.

 

I must be missing something. I don't share that excitement . . . YET, nor do I understand this view. NOT because I disagree, but because I literally don't understand.

 

With that preface, I hope the comments/questions to follow are NOT viewed as trolling/negative but, instead, as my attempt to better understand other viewpoints and to clarify statements/ideas that appear conflicting to me. I'm very open to changing my mind because I want to be as optimistic and excited as many of you seem to be.

 

Discussion / Questions:

 

Since 2015, I have exclusively watched Oregon Duck football games (and ALL other college football games) via streaming using some combination of Roku/Apple TV and Sling/YouTube TV.

 

??? What is the excitement about streaming being part of the deal if nearly all the games I've watched since 2015 have been streamed?

 

??? Is the idea/hope that a portion of the games will be on some platform other than cable/TV? How will that benefit exposure, viewership, etc.?

 

 

Some have stated that it will be good to lead into streaming while other conferences play "catch up".

 

??? How will the P12 "lead" the nation into streaming if the likes of Troy and Appalachian State (Sun Belt Conference) have been streaming on ESPN+ for years?

 

??? Do teams/conferences that have been streaming on ESPN+ for years now have a distinct advantage that the P12 will have to play catch up to?

 

??? If not, then what "catch up" will the SEC / B1G play once they decide to go "streaming"?

 

??? Why is USC worthy of mockery (silly question as USC should ALWAYS be mocked) for having a big game streamed on Peacock (~22M subscribers), but the P12 is revolutionary and visionary for potentially having a similar scenario play out with, say, Apple TV+ (latest estimates in 2022 for paid subscribers ~25M)?

 

??? Why did the two most powerful conferences in the SEC/B1G, and the two most powerful sports networks in ESPN/Fox sprint into each others' arms to make these massive media deals if streaming was the way of the future . . . even though I've literally streamed every B1G/SEC game since 2015?

 

??? Doesn't streaming seem more like a "substitute" way of consuming sports, rather than a "new, revolutionary" way that will somehow make the P12 bigger and more powerful than the B1G and SEC could ever dream?

 

 

Statements have been made about how a streaming option will vastly increase exposure to the P12.

 

??? Isn't the only real way to increase "exposure" to partner with Amazon (~200M subscribers)?

 

??? If the streaming portion of the new media deal is with anyone other than Amazon (i.e., Apple TV, Peacock, ESPN+), how does that increase exposure?

 

??? Even then, does "exposure" = "viewership"? - NFL Thursday Night Football's first year on Amazon saw a ~43% decrease in average viewership compared to 2021 on FOX; Amazon had to pay advertisers to keep them around after poor ratings.

 

 

Well that's all I've got. These are sincere questions/concerns . . . All which may be moot once a deal is actually agreed to.

 

Would love to hear your feedback.

[2002duck]

I think a worst case scenario for me, as well as for exposure, would be for Apple to get a big chunk of a Pac deal. It's the one service I don't have, pretty much, and I won't/can't get rid of cable. 

 

I am a big Timbers fan, but I am one of those persons who refused this year to get Apple or pay for an MLS package- almost out of spite.

 

Apple does not have much on their package, so most Americans, especially low income Americans won't have it. Terrible for exposure. Nightmare.

[CountryProf]

I can answer a few of your questions from my perspective. I live on the east coast, where I can only access the Pac-12 network through the fubo tv streaming app. I don't like that service

( it's expensive , and I much prefer YouTube TV). So when a PAC 12 Network Oregon game airs, I have to look for a free one week trial of fubotv, or find a pirated website to stream it ( but then I can't record it and I'm held hostage for game start times between 9:00 and 10:30 on the East Coast...... and the FBI has a funny tendency to shut down those sites). 

 

So, a streaming service like Amazon or ESPN Plus or even the CW would allow me to surmount those sometimes unsurmountable barriers. And, I'm guessing moving at least some games to streaming would get past that Infamous Pac-12 after Dark phenomena that either forces me to watch a recorded game the next day or go to sleep anywhere between 1:00 and 3:00 a.m. ( I used to do that, but I'm getting too old for this).

 

I know this wasn't really one of your questions, but I really hope the Pac-12 doesn't use Apple TV as one of their streaming services. That app works fine on my Roku, and I'm told it works great on Apple devices, but Apple has yet to produce an Android app for Apple TV. That means I'm forced to watch through Apple TV's browser interface if I try to watch it on my tablet in bed (my default strategy for late night games for streaming services I have a dedicated app for). And that is the clunkiest, most frustrating interface of any streaming site I have seen in the last decade.

 

I also agree with your point that Apple TV has a far smaller user base then Amazon Prime or likely ESPN Plus. They just don't have a lot of good content at this point. My family will intermittently subscribe to it for a month to watch shows like Ted Lasso, but there's not much more there that draws us in. I imagine it's relatively low user base indicates that many other people have the same experience.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by CountryProf

[DanLduck]

I think the deal about streaming is that it seems to be the direction of the not-so-distant future. And with Disney claiming espn "will" one day (sooner than later) be all streaming, clearly TV viewing will change for sport fans.

 

Here at OBD we are all wanting to be optimistic about new media deal, thus the positive reaction to streaming. 

 

If we could get a sec type deal, we'd love it. But we can't and won't.

 

Visionary leadership is required here. That means "outside the box" thinking which is new and possibly disconcerting to all us "boomers".

 

I currently don't stream except Prime.

But I'm willing to adjust if it helps get more $$ for the Pac.

And as Charles has pointed out, Oregon would greatly benefit nationally and internationally from better streaming availability.

 

Remember too, no one expects the new deal to be all streaming or even half. The primary will be linear TV as they say. That is the expectation. The streaming part is what will give added $$ to make the deal more than BIG12.

(At least as far as I've read)

 

Think about the possibilities of a streaming platform using the production ability of our Pac12 network. Viewership would sky rocket as now every state could sign up. And the P-12 network could actually be profitable. 

 

And finally, the USuC game is mocked becuz being on mainstream could pull a potential larger audience,  and becuz, well it's USuC.

 

Great questions to ask btw. Thanks.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Those are great questions cartm25.

Not sure any of my answers have value but here goes.

 

About Amazon/NFL viewership dropping.......

The NFL took alot of money and gave Amazon multiple crappy matchups.

 

The fans voted with their dollars and said to the NFL that not all your games are worth watching or spending my hard earned money on.  

 

Amazon got 1 crappy matchup a week. They did not get the league.

 

About puoneering Streaming

 

As i have mentioned on other threads the Streamer who bids and gets the PAC's tier 1 rights gets 30 OOC games to broadcast or sell some Tier 2 rights to. 6 more OOC games if we add SDSU and SMU.

 

And 5 or 6 Conference games a week (depending on expansion) for 9 weeks. Plus the PAC 12 Title game. 

 

Broadcasting 2 or potentially 3 time zones worth of games. Each school will bring their fans, who will subscribe monthly to see their teams play football and hopefully all sports.

 

This is not anything like the NFL deal or a few CF games being streamed up to this poiint.. I dont care about Arizona Cardinals vs Jacksonville on Thursday night. But i will watch UA against OSU if its part of my subscription. Or Stanford vs Utah. These games have "Interest Value" to millions of fans

 

Also, this is an entire conferemce pioneering streaming with a streaming company in control. Not an isolated game or 2 on Peacock. This should be bigger and bolder.

Also, linear ESPN will be gone in just a few years. You will have your cable bill and your ESPN+ Subscription monthly fee to.

 

Increasing viewership via a streamer?

 

Personally ESPN will lose me if they dont carry the PAC. Why would I give my money to watch the ACC or ESPN streaming? Especially when the best games of interest will be on ABC or CBS.

 

Why would i subscribe to watch uw vs michigan state or usc against anyone. Those are just test market games, nothing more.

 

Apple has like 20 million plus subscribers now. They know that they can add a few million subscribers with an entire conference like the PAC. Again i will drop my ESPN package and add an Apple subscription. 

 

Dont you think that a few million of the PAC 12 Network's 14 million will take on a subscription with a streamer for the PAC Package?

 

Also  we dont know that PAC Tier 2 rights wont be on ABC, CBS or the CW.... 

 

The Streamers know that if this opportunity is profitable for them and reaps substantial annual revenue for the PAC then the others conferences may come running for their share.

 

Hope this perspective helps and i sure enjoy your perspective.

 

GO Ducks........

[David Marsh]

On 7/19/2023 at 1:38 PM, cartm25 said:

Doesn't streaming seem more like a "substitute" way of consuming sports, rather than a "new, revolutionary" way that will somehow make the P12 bigger and more powerful than the B1G and SEC could ever dream?

Streaming isn't new... But the players in streaming are opening up new opportunities. 

 

I've streamed games since roughly 2012 on a regular basis but typically I'm using Xfinity to do so. So it's using a streaming component to the cable I already have... Basically an alternative way to watch cable. 

 

Now watching through ESPN or FOX's apps instead of say the Xfinity app really wasn't any different because I still needed to log in using my Xfinity account (or any other providers account). 

 

What I find exciting personally about streaming (as I don't have cable) is there can be alternative ways for me to get games without having to pay for cable or narrowing someone's cable or dish account. 

 

I know you can use sling or FUBO but both of those piggyback off existing traditional media streams that are repackaged. 

 

The other thing is that I think part of why there is fear around going to streaming is if anyone has worked with these apps out there they can be a real pain in the butt to deal with. So having a streaming platform who is focused on streaming would be a better service.

 

Outside of those convenance reasons, only speaking for myself here, streaming opens up new possibilities in terms of partnerships for the conference which can lead to more money and better start times. Getting in the door first can help build these relationships for the next contract (one after this one) when everyone is probably going to have something streaming. 

 

More and more people are moving away from trational media and making the move at the right time can capture a younger audience who makes the transition faster. 

[Jon Joseph]

Do not shovel sand against the tide. Like it or not streaming is coming on. Hopefully, the Pac-10 finds streaming partners which will help distribute the brand, unlike Larry's lousy network. 

 

Catch a wave and you could be sitting on top of the world.

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 7/19/2023 at 7:00 PM, CountryProf said:

I can answer a few of your questions from my perspective. I live on the east coast, where I can only access the Pac-12 network through the fubo tv streaming app. I don't like that service

( it's expensive , and I much prefer YouTube TV). So when a PAC 12 Network Oregon game airs, I have to look for a free one week trial of fubotv, or find a pirated website to stream it ( but then I can't record it and I'm held hostage for game start times between 9:00 and 10:30 on the East Coast...... and the FBI has a funny tendency to shut down those sites). 

 

So, a streaming service like Amazon or ESPN Plus or even the CW would allow me to surmount those sometimes unsurmountable barriers. And, I'm guessing moving at least some games to streaming would get past that Infamous Pac-12 after Dark phenomena that either forces me to watch a recorded game the next day or go to sleep anywhere between 1:00 and 3:00 a.m. ( I used to do that, but I'm getting too old for this).

 

I know this wasn't really one of your questions, but I really hope the Pac-12 doesn't use Apple TV as one of their streaming services. That app works fine on my Roku, and I'm told it works great on Apple devices, but Apple has yet to produce an Android app for Apple TV. That means I'm forced to watch through Apple TV's browser interface if I try to watch it on my tablet in bed (my default strategy for late night games for streaming services I have a dedicated app for). And that is the clunkiest, most frustrating interface of any streaming site I have seen in the last decade.

 

I also agree with your point that Apple TV has a far smaller user base then Amazon Prime or likely ESPN Plus. They just don't have a lot of good content at this point. My family will intermittently subscribe to it for a month to watch shows like Ted Lasso, but there's not much more there that draws us in. I imagine it's relatively low user base indicates that many other people have the same experience.

 

 

Prof, I do not know if it is available where you reside but in South Carolina I have access to the Pac-12 network on DISH. Also the ACC and B1G networks and even the Longhorn network, that will likely disappear in 2024 and no one will notice.

 

Ironic is it not that Texas cratered Scott's expansion idea over a Longhorn network that has very few subscribers and the network Larry established has also been a loser. 

[Dave23]

I agree with everyone above please, please, anything but Apple TV. That being said I think Amazon is the only real partner that will boost pac-12 viewership to new levels and they are the only ones with the infrastructure to seamlessly make it happen.

 

The big difference between linear and streaming is I have to pay 100 plus dollars a month for Dish Network or I can pay $130 a year for Amazon Prime which I have already have for other reasons, so basically free. Even if they were to increase their subscription this by double I'm still saving a whole lot of money and I could really care less about all the other channels besides the sports channels, so why should I pay for them.

 

Not sure this will happen but at some point in time teams may get paid in a true internet model of getting paid by the view which would greatly increase Oregon piece of the pie.

[1Ducker1]

I just got rid of Comcast cable. But I do have Amazon Prime and Fubo, Will either of those 2 carry all Duck and PAC games this year?

[Dave23]

On 7/20/2023 at 11:50 AM, cartm25 said:

Should the P12N have started a standalone streaming service back in the day as well? Too early? 

Yes, the second they didn't get Direct TV and Spectrum/Comcast to sign up nationally they should have taken it Direct to Consumer (DTC). I for one would have been a subscriber not just for football but baseball, basketball and the occasional track meet.

 

I forget what the PAC Networks got for their TV deal but if 10 million viewers payed $5 a month for a subscription I'm sure that would be sufficient to cover the cloud computing bill and increased the payouts to the teams.

 

This would have also kept  the the PAC nationally relevant by not have 3/4 of the nation have to switch TV providers or sign up for $70 of sling TV a month to be able to watch all the PAC games.

[Santa Rosa Duck]

I posted something about this a few months ago. I read a good article that said that streaming games last year typically were running around 45 seconds to one minute behind the actual action on the field. This keeps bugging me knowing the game might be over while I am watching the final play. Anyone else?

[2002duck]

On 7/19/2023 at 1:56 PM, cartm25 said:

I already have Amazon Prime

People amongst almost all demographics have Amazon Prime TV because they use Amazon Prime (or heck, they should!). Here's the deal with Apple TV, not many people want to give out their Apple ID account information (and heck, they shouldn't!).

 

If people can't share log-in info for streaming services for whichever platform get the Pac deal, it will be DOA in terms of exposure.