Even during the World Series run in 2005, they averaged 4.1% of households watching. So, even if the team is making a run to the World Series, 96% of the subscribers are not watching. That is a lot of people not watching to ask every subscriber to pay what they are asking.
Considering how many channels there are, 4% seems significant. Also people actually tend to watch sports live. My wife and I don't watch more than 25% of the channels we have access to, but we still have to pay for them...
What is the comparable? Not all households are subscribers. Most of the big companies use national pricing.
The Big Ten Network model is probably going to be the norm at some point, if it isn't already. BTN generates $1.10 per month per subscriber within the conference's geographic footprint and $0.10 per month outside of that footprint. Obviously the numbers would be different, but the concept would be similar.
Mariners confirm they have bought controlling stake in new local TV partnership Seattle Mariners Sign Estimated $2 Billion Network Deal With DirecTV Spoiler <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>BREAKING: <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Mariners">#Mariners</a> and DIRECTV announce formation of new regional sports network partnership. Mariners will hold a majority stake.</p>— Seattle Mariners (@Mariners) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mariners/status/324237194590052353">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As part of new agreement, network will televise <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Mariners">#Mariners</a> Baseball through the conclusion of the 2030 <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23MLB">#MLB</a> season.</p>— Seattle Mariners (@Mariners) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mariners/status/324237296297730048">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>New <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Mariners">#Mariners</a> regional TV network will remain @<a href="https://twitter.com/rootsports_nw">rootsports_nw</a>. No changes for fans who currently have the channel.</p>— Seattle Mariners (@Mariners) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mariners/status/324241398813564929">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>As reported, the <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Mariners">#Mariners</a> just announced they have bought majority stake in new RSN partnership with DirecTV (owner of ROOT Sports).</p>— Geoff Baker (@gbakermariners) <a href="https://twitter.com/gbakermariners/status/324237594038775808">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Mariners">#Mariners</a> new TV deal divides AL West into 4 teams with first-class park and TV (LAA, TEX, HTN, SEA) & <a href="https://twitter.com/search/%23Athletics">#Athletics</a>. Impetus for SJ decision?</p>— Bill Shaikin (@BillShaikin) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillShaikin/status/324240638314946560">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>AL West avg annual local TV rights before new deal: Angels - $150M, Rangers - $150M, Astros - $80M, A's - mid $40M, Mariners - $45M</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricFisherSBJ/status/324240480021913601">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Seattle Mariners have struck new TV deal w DirecTV, with club now owning majority share of RSN serving Pacific NW.</p>— Eric Fisher (@EricFisherSBJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/EricFisherSBJ/status/324237666096906241">April 16, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From that article... D'oh. I wonder if they're betting on the Kings moving to Seattle as a potential partner. I'd also bet that the Sounders will eventually be part of it, too...nearly identical to the Astros situation with <strike>Time Warner</strike> Comcast.
Suddenlink executive with a very good response to Hutchings http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2...onal-appeal-outside-houston/?cmpid=sportshcat
I don't live in Houston, so not sure how this is playing out locally, but the comments on that article seem to about 80-20 in favor of the providers.
Honestly it's playing out locally with some of us diehard fans being very upset about this, continually posting on boards like this, complaining about it to anyone who will listen . . .while a majority of the city doesn't seem to care that much
Suddenlink is right on. Fox Sports SW shows multiple teams in multiple cities and has regional appeal. CSN Houston only has appeal in the Houston metro. I have a solution. Take FSSW off basic/standard in the Houston metro and sub it with CSN Houston. Problem solved. Put CSN Houston on the sports pack elsewhere. Viewers outside of Houston metro aint got no time for CSN Houston.
1) The providers can't do that because they have a contract with FSSW 2) CSN wouldn't agree to that because they want the carriage fee for all the people who currently get FSSW, not just the people in the Houston metro market area
Then CSN Houston needs to provide a product that appeals to everyone. FSSW/NO has the Spurs, Mavs, Stars, Rangers, Hornets, and Big 12.
I guess I shouldn't say all because I don't know that 100%, but they want it for more than just the Houston metro area. Edit: But yes, I agree with you completely.
3) There are plenty of Houston ex-pats/fans outside of Houston. If they want to grow their brands (which I'm not entirely sure they do any more), the teams and CSN will continue to fight to be on the standard tier.
CSN Houston carries Rockets, Astros, UofH, Rice, SMU, Tulane, UTEP, Dynamo, & Aeros. Hopefully they will add more as they go along, but it isn't as if they are only broadcasting Rockets/Astros.
This is completely untrue. CSN Houston has every bit the non-Houston content that FSSW has of non-local-team content. CSN works with CSS, which shows numerous SEC games in both football and basketball, along with several mid-tier conferences. They also show smaller regional games, such as Southland Conference basketball. It's basically the same exact model as FSSW, only replace lower-tier Big 12 games with lower-tier SEC games. http://www.csssports.com/ Problem is, you don't get all of those teams. For starters, you can only get one NBA team on your FSN affiliate because of market restrictions. It's not as if you randomly get Spurs games one night, then Mavs the next and Hornets another night. Basically, FSSW offers you the Rangers, whoever your local NBA team is, Stars, lower-tier Big 12, and smaller regional content. CSN offers you the Astros, Rockets, Dynamo, lower-tier SEC and smaller regional content.
Very little chance csn wins out on this. They don't provide the wide area of teams that fssw does and the demand here in the city simply isn't as great as they hoped it would be. They might carry some sec games, but in a majority of the 5 state area they won't be providing any local coverage of teams. This is a Houston station, and not a lot of people outside of Houston cares about it
So explain to me why, if I were a Spurs fan in San Antonio, why I would be ok paying $3.40 a month (or whatever it is) for CSN Houston.
