HDTV Almanac - The Subscriber Bowl?

[alfredpoor]

Okay, so we now have another spectacular Super Bowl in our rear view mirror. (I won’t make any mention of the favorable outcome.) But keep your eyes on the road ahead, because it may not be a smooth ride. I’m not just talking about the fact that the contract between the players and the National [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2011/02/hdtv-almanac-the-subscriber-bowl.php]Read Column[/url]

[720pete]

Not likely. Congress knows this and they will exert pressure on the NFL to keep the 'big game' on free TV in exchange for a 'hands-off' approach to possible future anti-trust investigations or labor problems, etc.

I had a conversation with a OTA network executive a couple years ago about this very issue, and he believed it would be incredibly bad PR for the NFL to move the Super Bowl to pay TV channels.

Plus it would also be a stupid move, as the NFL and networks would lose that small but still important audience that still watches with over-the-air reception, and which certain advertisers (beer, cars, etc) still want to reach.

You are more likely to see sports with narrower appeal (i.e. hockey) move completely to cable. Hockey needs the revenue from pay TV channel rights deals to survive, as it consistently gets low ratings. The NFL does not.

What's going to be interesting is when the just-negotiated CBS-Turner agreement for the NCAA Final Four expires in a decade. All of the college football bowl games have gone to cable. College basketball may follow. So you'd have a situation where taxpayers might not be able to watch their taxpayer-supported college basketball team compete for the national championship.

[alfredpoor]

Good points, Pete, but keep in mind that every game of the NCAA men's tournament is already streaming live on Internet already. And for free. Is this the new model for sports coverage: pay TV and free Internet? I don't know, but it's clearly happening now.

Also, I would not bet too heavily on the influence of the remaining 20% to 25% of the non-pay-TV viewers. I suspect that they are disproportionately lower income (or if they're from New Jersey, elderly or disabled), and I don't expect that BMW and Audi are going to complain too much if they can't be reached by Super Bowl ads. I think that pay TV coverage of the Super Bowl would be acceptable to legislators if it was also available on the Internet.

The sands under the foundations of our television entertainment systems is shifting, and I think we're witnessing the start of some major changes.

Alfred

[720pete]

Yes, but Budweiser and Coors wouldn't be happy about it.

[ccclvib]

future anti-trust

I don't know if there's any more need be said. Politicians being what they are, won't be able to avoid the screaming to be heard - and not just from the OTA folks - if and when the NFL goes to a cable-only outlet. In the first place, more than one network would be required (except for ESPN with two complete channels), and if the cable subscribers are required to add to their already brimming list (with additional cost) to see the channels, there will be loud noises aimed directly at Washington. Simple.

The number of people who would object would be lots more than just those relying on OTA. The whole idea is "Unamerican!" Not that I care, really, I don't watch American football on TV. B-o-r-i-n-g!!