(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Amazon has signed a deal with the NFL for the exclusive rights to the Thursday night package. Perhaps the NFL is less concerned with exposure, but this clearly demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Another data point is that Prime has 160 million members in the United States. This is more than the number of TV households that have any of the major OTA or cable networks. This is possible because, on average, there is more than one Prime subscriber per household in the U.S. There are undoubtedly many households without a Prime subscription and many Prime subscribers that don't avail themselves of Prime Video. However, like the NFL rights, this demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Or secure a media company- buy espn or fox sports

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

IMO, If Amazon or Apple for that matter want access to tier 1/2 games for any conference they will have to pay over market value to get them. The question is how much are they willing to pay. It would be a bold move for conference to move to a streaming platform for their premier games, because of the lack of coverage outside of the games they would get. Part of the deal on being with FOX/ESPN etc.. is how much they hype the games and teams during the week to get viewership.

However, I could see the PAC/B12 doing a split TV deal with ESPN or FOX and a streaming Service. Much like the NFL did with Amazon who now has the Thursday night game, as that game will be promoted every Sunday on CBS/FOX/NBC. Again is the question is how much does an Apple or Amazon want to pay for college football content?

(08-11-2022 08:28 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Amazon has signed a deal with the NFL for the exclusive rights to the Thursday night package. Perhaps the NFL is less concerned with exposure, but this clearly demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Another data point is that Prime has 160 million members in the United States. This is more than the number of TV households that have any of the major OTA or cable networks. This is possible because, on average, there is more than one Prime subscriber per household in the U.S. There are undoubtedly many households without a Prime subscription and many Prime subscribers that don't avail themselves of Prime Video. However, like the NFL rights, this demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Yeah - I'd put Prime in a different category compared to Netflix/Disney+ or even Apple. Prime membership is almost like a utility for many households (including mine) where you just pay it for the shipping and delivery advantages. This means Prime streaming is available in households on par with the top cable networks (at a minimum). It's more of a matter of whether that Prime streaming service is being used.

Also, Amazon isn't going after small fry niche content. They secured exclusivity for the NFL TNF package and they're streaming at least one Yankees game per week exclusively in the NYC market. Their involvement in the Big Ten rights bid is further evidence of this here. Amazon is looking for big-time brands with large and wide fan bases because THAT is what Prime needs. In essence, Amazon is looking for OTA-level viewer content. Amazon doesn't need more Prime subscribers as much as simply activating the Prime subscribers that it already has to use the streaming service... and sports conveniently provides a lot of ads... and Amazon has a great interest in targeting those ads where you can just click on them and order even more products on Prime.

This is very different from Apple, which seems to be focusing on a la carte subscriber services that are on top of (or even outside of) Apple TV+. That's how the MLS deal is structured and why Apple appears to be in position to get NFL Sunday Ticket.

As a result, we all need to be careful in looping Apple and Amazon together because their approaches and goals for streaming sports are extremely different.

I'm surprised Prime Video isn't an addon by now

From the Arizona Republic---this interesting tidbit. As I suspected---the package that ESPN was bidding on would never get the #1 Big10 game. My guess is it wouldnt get the #2 either as those would be bouncing between FOX and CBS. They were probably bidding against NBC for the rights to the #3 game (at best)---but that last part is purely speculative.

The agreement would not have given ESPN the ability to have first choice of Big Ten games in a given week at any point.

(08-11-2022 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:28 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Amazon has signed a deal with the NFL for the exclusive rights to the Thursday night package. Perhaps the NFL is less concerned with exposure, but this clearly demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Another data point is that Prime has 160 million members in the United States. This is more than the number of TV households that have any of the major OTA or cable networks. This is possible because, on average, there is more than one Prime subscriber per household in the U.S. There are undoubtedly many households without a Prime subscription and many Prime subscribers that don't avail themselves of Prime Video. However, like the NFL rights, this demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Yeah - I'd put Prime in a different category compared to Netflix/Disney+ or even Apple. Prime membership is almost like a utility for many households (including mine) where you just pay it for the shipping and delivery advantages. This means Prime streaming is available in households on par with the top cable networks (at a minimum). It's more of a matter of whether that Prime streaming service is being used.

Also, Amazon isn't going after small fry niche content. They secured exclusivity for the NFL TNF package and they're streaming at least one Yankees game per week exclusively in the NYC market. Their involvement in the Big Ten rights bid is further evidence of this here. Amazon is looking for big-time brands with large and wide fan bases because THAT is what Prime needs. In essence, Amazon is looking for OTA-level viewer content. Amazon doesn't need more Prime subscribers as much as simply activating the Prime subscribers that it already has to use the streaming service... and sports conveniently provides a lot of ads... and Amazon has a great interest in targeting those ads where you can just click on them and order even more products on Prime.

This is very different from Apple, which seems to be focusing on a la carte subscriber services that are on top of (or even outside of) Apple TV+. That's how the MLS deal is structured and why Apple appears to be in position to get NFL Sunday Ticket.

As a result, we all need to be careful in looping Apple and Amazon together because their approaches and goals for streaming sports are extremely different.

Exactly. The Prime business model is completely different than any of the other streaming players. They need to keep their Prime members engaged so that they will remain members and buy more products. An average person may be indifferent to whether they buy merchandise from Amazon, Walmart, or other online retailers. Once they are Prime members, their purchases will skew towards Amazon for free shipping, etc. The average rate of spending for a Prime member is $1,400 per year compared to $600 for non-Prime members. The profit on that extra $800 in spending provides some of the revenues that support the programming investment by Prime Video.

(08-11-2022 11:45 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 08:28 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Amazon has signed a deal with the NFL for the exclusive rights to the Thursday night package. Perhaps the NFL is less concerned with exposure, but this clearly demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Another data point is that Prime has 160 million members in the United States. This is more than the number of TV households that have any of the major OTA or cable networks. This is possible because, on average, there is more than one Prime subscriber per household in the U.S. There are undoubtedly many households without a Prime subscription and many Prime subscribers that don't avail themselves of Prime Video. However, like the NFL rights, this demonstrates significant breadth of availability.

Yeah - I'd put Prime in a different category compared to Netflix/Disney+ or even Apple. Prime membership is almost like a utility for many households (including mine) where you just pay it for the shipping and delivery advantages. This means Prime streaming is available in households on par with the top cable networks (at a minimum). It's more of a matter of whether that Prime streaming service is being used.

Also, Amazon isn't going after small fry niche content. They secured exclusivity for the NFL TNF package and they're streaming at least one Yankees game per week exclusively in the NYC market. Their involvement in the Big Ten rights bid is further evidence of this here. Amazon is looking for big-time brands with large and wide fan bases because THAT is what Prime needs. In essence, Amazon is looking for OTA-level viewer content. Amazon doesn't need more Prime subscribers as much as simply activating the Prime subscribers that it already has to use the streaming service... and sports conveniently provides a lot of ads... and Amazon has a great interest in targeting those ads where you can just click on them and order even more products on Prime.

This is very different from Apple, which seems to be focusing on a la carte subscriber services that are on top of (or even outside of) Apple TV+. That's how the MLS deal is structured and why Apple appears to be in position to get NFL Sunday Ticket.

As a result, we all need to be careful in looping Apple and Amazon together because their approaches and goals for streaming sports are extremely different.

Exactly. The Prime business model is completely different than any of the other streaming players. They need to keep their Prime members engaged so that they will remain members and buy more products. An average person may be indifferent to whether they buy merchandise from Amazon, Walmart, or other online retailers. Once they are Prime members, their purchases will skew towards Amazon for free shipping, etc. The average rate of spending for a Prime member is $1,400 per year compared to $600 for non-Prime members. The profit on that extra $800 in spending provides some of the revenues that support the programming investment by Prime Video.

I blame you for making me buy something I don't really need on Amazon Prime just now.

An I understanding correctly, CBS and NBC each bought one game apiece and will alternate between the 2nd and 3rd picks while Fox keeps #1 (Big Noon) and everything else?

Will Fox be airing any Big 10 games at 3:30 or in prime time or are this CBS and NBC slots exclusive?

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Just as a random aside about streaming, it was announced today that Disney's family of streaming services (D+, Hulu, ESPN+) now has more combined subscribers than Netflix, 221m to 220m
.

(08-11-2022 05:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  An I understanding correctly, CBS and NBC each bought one game apiece and will alternate between the 2nd and 3rd picks while Fox keeps #1 (Big Noon) and everything else?

No data available. IMO, for that kind of money, they're rotating #1-2-3 picks somehow

[/Quote]
Will Fox be airing any Big 10 games at 3:30 or in prime time or are this CBS and NBC slots exclusive?
[/quote]

Very good question. One the one hand, Fox would want 2 Big Ten games. On the other hand, CBS and NbC are paying a lot.

(08-11-2022 05:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Just as a random aside about streaming, it was announced today that Disney's family of streaming services (D+, Hulu, ESPN+) now has more combined subscribers than Netflix, 221m to 220m
.

Isn't this an apples to oranges type comparison? Yes you're correct, but you're also comparing three streaming channels to one. Netflix, a service I personally don't use, still destroys each service when comparing individually.

(08-11-2022 05:56 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 05:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Just as a random aside about streaming, it was announced today that Disney's family of streaming services (D+, Hulu, ESPN+) now has more combined subscribers than Netflix, 221m to 220m
.

Isn't this an apples to oranges type comparison? Yes you're correct, but you're also comparing three streaming channels to one. Netflix, a service I personally don't use, still destroys each service when comparing individually.

Yes, I realized I was comparing 3 to 1, but those 3 are all owned by the same company, so IMO it is noteworthy that Disney is now the biggest streaming company, even though Netflix remains the #1 streaming channel.

Netflix is IMO great, btw, I love it. Love the Disney bundle as well.

(08-11-2022 06:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 05:56 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(08-11-2022 05:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 09:40 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-10-2022 03:56 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Amazon is going to have to acquire a media company for live sports or else have a partnership. I think that is the lesson here. Everyone likes the money but they need a big OTA component in that.

I don't think so. People are currently ambivalent about signing on with the streaming services, they'll have to go with a smaller conference, or at least mid-major like Pac or Big12, before the P2 will give them a shot.

I'd wager that it wouldn't take much, if any, over $30m per team to get Amazon all the Pac coverage they could handle.

Just as a random aside about streaming, it was announced today that Disney's family of streaming services (D+, Hulu, ESPN+) now has more combined subscribers than Netflix, 221m to 220m
.

Isn't this an apples to oranges type comparison? Yes you're correct, but you're also comparing three streaming channels to one. Netflix, a service I personally don't use, still destroys each service when comparing individually.

Yes, I realized I was comparing 3 to 1, but those 3 are all owned by the same company, so IMO it is noteworthy that Disney is now the biggest streaming company, even though Netflix remains the #1 streaming channel.

Netflix is IMO great, btw, I love it. Love the Disney bundle as well.

That's very fair, Quo.
I did have Netflix when "6 Underground" first came out, love that movie.