Is spending $110M to piss off fans a good business model?

[Wazmankg]

Tv hasn’t been free since I was 6 years old

It has nothing to do with tv in the "olden days". I watched every nfl playoff game for free last year. This year one will cost me extra and some I've heard claim this is a positive development. I disagree.

No wonder this generation is in so much trouble. They whine about the cost of living for them on 1 hand and celebrate paying for something today that was free yesterday on the other. Pick a damn lane.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Every so often we catch a thread here that makes me feel like I’m visiting a nursing home. Do you guys wanna talk about Metamucil next?

Ahh, don't get me STARTED

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Smart TV yes...amazon prime not on it

25$ fire stick will fix that right up

 

[belcherboy]

25$ fire stick will fix that right up

That is how I see the whole thing crumbling down like what happened to the music industry with Napster. I wonder how many people pirate their movies/tv shows/sporting events as opposed to pay for them? I've seen some of these devices at people's homes and the picture quality is great.

I wonder what will happen in 5-10 years when most people are just pirating their entertainment? I know that Netflix, Youtube TV and Disney+ are really struggling to keep people from sharing their accounts. I heard something like 30% of users just long into someone else's account when watching these streaming platforms.

 

[shopson67]

That is how I see the whole thing crumbling down like what happened to the music industry with Napster. I wonder how many people pirate their movies/tv shows/sporting events as opposed to pay for them? I've seen some of these devices at people's homes and the picture quality is great.

I wonder what will happen in 5-10 years when most people are just pirating their entertainment? I know that Netflix, Youtube TV and Disney+ are really struggling to keep people from sharing their accounts. I heard something like 30% of users just long into someone else's account when watching these streaming platforms.

Depends on the depth of the sharing. Those streaming services allow for multiple users within a single account. Why should it matter if they are all in the same household? Why should a man and wife only get two users worth when the account allows for more? Unless the create a range of rates per user, not a lot to stand on really.

 

[fightinfunbags]

No wonder this generation is in so much trouble. They whine about the cost of living for them on 1 hand and celebrate paying for something today that was free yesterday on the other. Pick a damn lane.

Who is celebrating? I was laughing at bitter old men. How did you watch the playoffs for free last year?

 

[cowboycolors]

Anybody want to guess how long until the first lawsuit over this. The teams use taxpayer dollars to fund the stadiums Then roll to pay per view? I’m sure some attorney somewhere is drafting a suit now using something like this as a criteria for a suit. Not an attorney and maybe my thoughts are nowhere in the legal arena just curious for some of y’all online attorney types think .

 

[fightinfunbags]

Anybody want to guess how long until the first lawsuit over this. The teams use taxpayer dollars to fund the stadiums Then roll to pay per view? I’m sure some attorney somewhere is drafting a suit now using something like this as a criteria for a suit. Not an attorney and maybe my thoughts are nowhere in the legal arena just curious for some of y’all online attorney types think .

This isn’t pay per view though. It’s a subscription service. This is no different from ESPN or TNT carrying a playoff game.

 

[belcherboy]

Depends on the depth of the sharing. Those streaming services allow for multiple users within a single account. Why should it matter if they are all in the same household? Why should a man and wife only get two users worth when the account allows for more? Unless the create a range of rates per user, not a lot to stand on really.

The problem is that they don't know the depth of the pirating only the numbers who are sharing. Most streaming services are taking a bath financially trying to gain as much market share as possible, so they don't know the true extent of the loss. These streaming services have been losing subscribers most recently. Disney lost a big chunk of subscribers these past few quarters, and Netflix finally flipped it back after they cracked down on people sharing accounts.

If they can't get a handle on the pirating, and get more people paying for the service, they will have to pass it on to the consumer in higher fees, which often have the consequence of subscribers canceling their service. Disney+ just added commercials this past fall, so they are hoping to get out of the loss column they are seeing every quarter.

I don't know if it will get to the Napster level, but I have read that it is a great concern for these streaming services. Youtube TV has REALLY cracked down on it over the past year too.

 

[belcherboy]

Anybody want to guess how long until the first lawsuit over this. The teams use taxpayer dollars to fund the stadiums Then roll to pay per view? I’m sure some attorney somewhere is drafting a suit now using something like this as a criteria for a suit. Not an attorney and maybe my thoughts are nowhere in the legal arena just curious for some of y’all online attorney types think .

I think I heard that they still show the games in the local markets over the air, although I don't if that is true or not.

 

[cowboycolors]

This isn’t pay per view though. It’s a subscription service. This is no different from ESPN or TNT carrying a playoff game.

The arguement be made that since they did not carry any games during the season and are paying 110 million just for this game it is de facto pay per view. I can’t find where they carried any other games in the season. I’m just throwing it against the wall have no dog in the fight per se it’s just the NFL being the greedy pigs they always are.

 

[belcherboy]

This isn’t pay per view though. It’s a subscription service. This is no different from ESPN or TNT carrying a playoff game.

Anybody want to guess how long until the first lawsuit over this. The teams use taxpayer dollars to fund the stadiums Then roll to pay per view? I’m sure some attorney somewhere is drafting a suit now using something like this as a criteria for a suit. Not an attorney and maybe my thoughts are nowhere in the legal arena just curious for some of y’all online attorney types think .

It looks like it is free, over the air, for the local markets:

 

[cowboycolors]

It looks like it is free, over the air, for the local markets:

View attachment 350647

That’s the out then IMO free in local markets.

 

[belcherboy]

The arguement be made that since they did not carry any games during the season and are paying 110 million just for this game it is de facto pay per view. I can’t find where they carried any other games in the season. I’m just throwing it against the wall have no dog in the fight per se it’s just the NFL being the greedy pigs they always are.

They've carried a handful of NFL games this year.

 

[shopson67]

The problem is that they don't know the depth of the pirating only the numbers who are sharing. Most streaming services are taking a bath financially trying to gain as much market share as possible, so they don't know the true extent of the loss. These streaming services have been losing subscribers most recently. Disney lost a big chunk of subscribers these past few quarters, and Netflix finally flipped it back after they cracked down on people sharing accounts.

If they can't get a handle on the pirating, and get more people paying for the service, they will have to pass it on to the consumer in higher fees, which often have the consequence of subscribers canceling their service. Disney+ just added commercials this past fall, so they are hoping to get out of the loss column they are seeing every quarter.

I don't know if it will get to the Napster level, but I have read that it is a great concern for these streaming services. Youtube TV has REALLY cracked down on it over the past year too.

Napster is different, as it harmed the artists providing the content as much or more than the record companies. Record companies still exist by altering their business model and not supporting artists as much (and dipping into their merch sales to add a revenue stream).

 

[shopson67]

It looks like it is free, over the air, for the local markets:

View attachment 350647

It's funny how those markets have changed in coverage. When the NFL used to blackout the local markets if ticket sales didn't reach a certain level, Rochester was included as part of Buffalo's blackout area. For this free coverage for the last Peacock only Bills game, that local area was greatly reduced.

 

[belcherboy]

Napster is different, as it harmed the artists providing the content as much or more than the record companies. Record companies still exist by altering their business model and not supporting artists as much (and dipping into their merch sales to add a revenue stream).

How is different than pirating movies or broadcasts?

The movie industry is bleeding badly and pirating is a major part of that. It affects artists (actors), directors, and all the little people in the industry.

In my mind, this couldn't be more of the same thing.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

The arguement be made that since they did not carry any games during the season and are paying 110 million just for this game it is de facto pay per view. I can’t find where they carried any other games in the season. I’m just throwing it against the wall have no dog in the fight per se it’s just the NFL being the greedy pigs they always are.

peacock had a game on Saturday before x mas

 

[shopson67]

How is different than pirating movies or broadcasts?

The movie industry is bleeding badly and pirating is a major part of that. It affects artists (actors), directors, and all the little people in the industry.

In my mind, this couldn't be more of the same thing.

The actors and production companies still get paid by the network. Musicians are in a much weaker position.

 

[fightinfunbags]

The arguement be made that since they did not carry any games during the season and are paying 110 million just for this game it is de facto pay per view.

No. Pay per view is the consumer directly paying for access to a one time event. Subscribers drawn to the service that subscribe have access to all Peacock content.

I can’t find where they carried any other games in the season. I’m just throwing it against the wall have no dog in the fight per se it’s just the NFL being the greedy pigs they always are.

That’s just capitalism, bro.