Can someone explain MLB.TV blackouts?

[CB3UK]

SIAP on here in the past.


I understand how it works. I understand why it's done.

What I'm asking is can any of you explain or show me how its more profitable for MLB to do it this way. Obviously, a LOT of baseball fans would just buy MLB.TV to get from April to football kickoff and eschew cable.

So are there cable kick backs? Tie ins where MLB is already double dipping through both?

Im sure someone on here can explain it, so I figured I'd ask. It seems to me they would have a no brainer monopoly on a lot of sportsfans TV streaming dollars in the summer if they allowed your local team in addition to the rest of the games.

So there has to be a higher profit margin for them doing it as they do currently, but I dont see how. MLB.TV is a product they 100% control.

The obvious answer is the # of houses that pay for cable/streaming packages subsidize them, and that more than offsets what Im talking about. Is it that simple?

So what would happen if folks just wrnt with MLB for the summer instead? Is cable going to just pull baseball? I doubt it. So what would it hurt? You still double dip.

 

[StanMarsh51]

My guess is that the local network showing the game doesn't want to lose viewers if other channels/platforms are broadcasting the game (which affects ad revenue), so they probably have a clause in the contract that they can be the only one in market X to show the game.

 

[PEOPLESCHICKEN]

You are not familiar with tv blackouts?

 

[broncosmitty]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_blackout_policy

 

[huskers1217]

No i can not

 

[CB3UK]

You are not familiar with tv blackouts?

As a Bengals fan, I dont know how you can even ask me that with a straight face.


For those who are keeping up, Im asking someone to explain to me how it is more profitable for MLB, when they presumably control all profit margin from MLB.TV., to blackout local areas.

I can only assume the revenue generated by piggybacking off cable subs is greater than the revenue projected by opening all games on the service.

I would buy it and just watch baseball April- August until football takes off. Would cancel Sling/Hulu/whatever if I could just pay for sports channels.

 

[CB3UK]

My guess is that the local network showing the game doesn't want to lose viewers if other channels/platforms are broadcasting the game (which affects ad revenue), so they probably have a clause in the contract that they can be the only one in market X to show the game.

Yes, I know thats the case. Again, Im asking for someone to explain to me how thats more profitable as opposed to holding a monopoly. In this new age of streaming, it becomes increasingly more plausible. In 2000 it made sense when cable held all the cards. Obviously going to get more house holds that way, regardless of whether those houses want (for example) FSOhio in their lineup.


Most of you are looking at the surface here. Im talking about profitability in this age of cord cutting.

How many of you baseball guys out there would just go with MLB.TV for the flat yearly fee and ditch cable entirely during the season? I understand family men have more than themselves to consider when making such a decision.

 

[molsaniceman]

5.6 billion reasons

ESPN flexed its financial muscles again Tuesday, extending its Major League Baseball rights for $5.6 billion from 2014 to 2021. At an average of $700 million annually, ESPN is doubling what it is now paying.

 

[huskers1217]

why can't TBS drop the stupid playoffs and bring back the Braves?

 

[JohnU]

SIAP on here in the past.


I understand how it works. I understand why it's done.

What I'm asking is can any of you explain or show me how its more profitable for MLB to do it this way. Obviously, a LOT of baseball fans would just buy MLB.TV to get from April to football kickoff and eschew cable.

So are there cable kick backs? Tie ins where MLB is already double dipping through both?

Im sure someone on here can explain it, so I figured I'd ask. It seems to me they would have a no brainer monopoly on a lot of sportsfans TV streaming dollars in the summer if they allowed your local team in addition to the rest of the games.

So there has to be a higher profit margin for them doing it as they do currently, but I dont see how. MLB.TV is a product they 100% control.

The obvious answer is the # of houses that pay for cable/streaming packages subsidize them, and that more than offsets what Im talking about. Is it that simple?

So what would happen if folks just wrnt with MLB for the summer instead? Is cable going to just pull baseball? I doubt it. So what would it hurt? You still double dip.

It deals mostly, almost completely, with the value of the advertising contracts that are connected to exposure. And a guy who has a few spots on a local broadcast for ... say, his Ford dealership, and here comes the national advertising hammer for the newest Nissan Sentra ... the local guy is getting beaten to death by a mega-rich ad agency.

That's an oversimplification ... but advertising and blackouts are designed to steer the consumers in certain directions.

But cable systems are contracts inside various communities. They pay for the right to monopolize the market and sell ads inside that monopoly. I guess, in a phrase, if a national MLB game walks all over a cable company's monoply, the blackout rules apply.

 

[The Derski]

why can't TBS drop the stupid playoffs and bring back the Braves?

Because it’s stupid for a national channel to broadcast 162 games for a local team. That’s even dumber than NBC forcing everyone to watch ND football.

 

[Pure Steel]

You are not familiar with tv blackouts?

I blackout in front of the tv all the time.....

 

[molsaniceman]

why can't TBS drop the stupid playoffs and bring back the Braves?

cause they dont own them anymore

 

[CB3UK]

It deals mostly, almost completely, with the value of the advertising contracts that are connected to exposure. And a guy who has a few spots on a local broadcast for ... say, his Ford dealership, and here comes the national advertising hammer for the newest Nissan Sentra ... the local guy is getting beaten to death by a mega-rich ad agency.

That's an oversimplification ... but advertising and blackouts are designed to steer the consumers in certain directions.

But cable systems are contracts inside various communities. They pay for the right to monopolize the market and sell ads inside that monopoly. I guess, in a phrase, if a national MLB game walks all over a cable company's monoply, the blackout rules apply.

Hadnt considered that angle.. more profitable on the whole to have all those regional advertisers than one blanket ad space purchase for national brands. That makes sense in addition to the reasons Ive outlined above.

 

[molsaniceman]

Yes, I know thats the case. Again, Im asking for someone to explain to me how thats more profitable as opposed to holding a monopoly. In this new age of streaming, it becomes increasingly more plausible. In 2000 it made sense when cable held all the cards. Obviously going to get more house holds that way, regardless of whether those houses want (for example) FSOhio in their lineup.


Most of you are looking at the surface here. Im talking about profitability in this age of cord cutting.

How many of you baseball guys out there would just go with MLB.TV for the flat yearly fee and ditch cable entirely during the season? I understand family men have more than themselves to consider when making such a decision.

how is it profitable to buy all 30 contracts yes paid yanks 1.5 billion to show games

plus the mlb streaming service sucks

 

[wazzu31]

They don’t want to ruin their product by putting shitty teams on it?