CPL TV Contract

[matty]

9 minutes ago, Blackjack15 said:

Would CBC or City TV be interested? Don't expect to see TSN, Sportsnet to broadcast CPL

CBC maybe for streaming. City TV seems possible if they're just looking to get onto TV in the markets they're in

[matty]

https://www.fool.ca/2017/11/05/dazns-failure-highlights-why-cord-cutting-is-not-a-serious-threat-to-cable-companies/

[lazlo_80]

48 minutes ago, matty said:

https://www.fool.ca/2017/11/05/dazns-failure-highlights-why-cord-cutting-is-not-a-serious-threat-to-cable-companies/

The title of the article is a little misleading and I'm not sure why they used it considering in the second paragraph they say the complete opposite by mentioning how netflix is stealing away customers from traditional tv subscriptions.

Dazn failed because it was a crap service, not because people suddenly want more traditional cable again.

[matty]

3 minutes ago, lazlo_80 said:

The title of the article is a little misleading and I'm not sure why they used it considering in the second paragraph they say the complete opposite by mentioning how netflix is stealing away customers from traditional tv subscriptions.

Dazn failed because it was a crap service, not because people suddenly want more traditional cable again.

I do think the article is flawed but does touch on the issues with sports and kind of the larger issue of DAZN's marketing and the impact it'll have. DAZN will recover I'm sure but stigma is now there on streaming.

[MtlMario]

I wonder where City and Global sit in all this?

[matty]

4 hours ago, MtlMario said:

I wonder where City and Global sit in all this?

The local angle would be cool. Give the game to the markets with teams in the game. Only issue I see is for a cities like Hamilton or KW who are served by the Toronto station.

Prehaps allowing teams to secure their own local deals in the early days would be a good option like Hamilton could do CH-CH, a Victoria team could do CHEK and others could use Global or City stations.

[MtlMario]

13 hours ago, matty said:

The local angle would be cool. Give the game to the markets with teams in the game. Only issue I see is for a cities like Hamilton or KW who are served by the Toronto station.

Prehaps allowing teams to secure their own local deals in the early days would be a good option like Hamilton could do CH-CH, a Victoria team could do CHEK and others could use Global or City stations.

All I hope for is any TV deal so I can watch as many games as possible since there probably won't be any teams in the Mtl area for awhile. But I'll definitely go see games live that are in reasonable driving distance. Can not wait.

[Macksam]

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎06 at 3:54 PM, lazlo_80 said:

The title of the article is a little misleading and I'm not sure why they used it considering in the second paragraph they say the complete opposite by mentioning how netflix is stealing away customers from traditional tv subscriptions.

Dazn failed because it was a crap service, not because people suddenly want more traditional cable again.

I wouldn't trust any article from The Motley Fool to not have some kind of agenda considering the company's main service is to act like a virtual "Financial Advisor" of sorts and push their subscribers to purchase certain equities. I'm guessing their latest revelation is to tell their base to buy stocks in Rogers and Shaw. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Macksam

[matty]

4 hours ago, Macksam said:

..... I'm guessing their latest revelation is to tell their base to buy stocks in Rogers and Shaw. 

Yea they likely will but that'll happen regardless of everything

[matty]

So I know I've droned on about this but figure it's something to kind of my point in perspective in regards to streaming vs TV. Of all those who tuned in to watch the most recent UFC event (which was a non-pay-per-view) across all platforms, 98.8% of viewers were watching on traditional television. The number comes from Dave Meltzer* who claims the number is literal and not an estimate. No idea but doubt it includes illegal streams and should say it doesn't make the case for minor or speciality broadcasters as the event was on Fox Sports.

*Meltzer is considered by some to be the top MMA and wrestling journalist. He's usually decent at reporting MMA stuff but is questionable on his UFC buyrate claims.

[ChrisinOrleans]

48 minutes ago, matty said:

So I know I've droned on about this but figure it's something to kind of my point in perspective in regards to streaming vs TV. Of all those who tuned in to watch the most recent UFC event (which was a non-pay-per-view) across all platforms, 98.8% of viewers were watching on traditional television. The number comes from Dave Meltzer* who claims the number is literal and not an estimate. No idea but doubt it includes illegal streams and should say it doesn't make the case for minor or speciality broadcasters as the event was on Fox Sports.

*Meltzer is considered by some to be the top MMA and wrestling journalist. He's usually decent at reporting MMA stuff but is questionable on his UFC buyrate claims.

I am uncertain if the incidence of overlap between spectators being engaged with UFC and spectators engaged in a potential CanPL would be statistically significant. 

Personally, as a guy who goes to 2-3 Impact games a year (and 1-2 Fury games), neither my family, nor the two other couples with whom we regularly attend, have televisions in their homes. If the CanPL does not offer streaming, we wouldn't be watching - and we're already paying customers of professional soccer.  

[matty]

32 minutes ago, ChrisinOrleans said:

I am uncertain if the incidence of overlap between spectators being engaged with UFC and spectators engaged in a potential CanPL would be statistically significant. 

Personally, as a guy who goes to 2-3 Impact games a year (and 1-2 Fury games), neither my family, nor the two other couples with whom we regularly attend, have televisions in their homes. If the CanPL does not offer streaming, we wouldn't be watching - and we're already paying customers of professional soccer.  

I'm not saying don't stream at all but instead it can't be the only avenue of broadcast if the league is aiming to expand beyond this community and make ad money and realistically survive long term.

98.8% is dominate and to dismiss it because it's UFC is wrong IMO as UFC sees a great deal of cross over with other sports and has similar numbers to MLS when it comes to the Latin fanbase stateside. On top of that it would not be a shock to see similar numbers across other professional sports in N.A. due to most fans (except for NBA) being in the 35+ bracket.

You can argue that streaming in the future but 98.8% doesn't cater well for it as your #1 option in at least the next 15 years.

Edited November 24, 2017 by matty

[ironcub14]

Yep, the silent majority still has cable, and sports is the #1 or #2 reason why.

[matty]

14 minutes ago, ironcub14 said:

Yep, the silent vast majority still has cable, and sports is the #1 or #2 reason why.

Fyp also what do you think is #1 sports or news or bundles

[ironcub14]

This is only for my case, but I think it may apply for many households out there.

For myself, sports, and for the lady, the big networks and the popular bundle channels.

[matty]

7 minutes ago, ironcub14 said:

This is only for my case, but I think it may apply for many households out there.

For myself, sports, and for the lady, the big networks and the popular bundle channels.

Similar i think for me. Looking at bundles where you get tv, phone, internet and maybe something like spotify are gnerally good deals and i think most people use tv (especially news and sports as a sort of white noise)

[baulderdash77]

I really only keep cable for sports and game of thrones.  We’ve really thinned our our cable package over the years.  

[CDNFootballer]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:52 PM, matty said:

The local angle would be cool. Give the game to the markets with teams in the game. Only issue I see is for a cities like Hamilton or KW who are served by the Toronto station.

Prehaps allowing teams to secure their own local deals in the early days would be a good option like Hamilton could do CH-CH, a Victoria team could do CHEK and others could use Global or City stations.

Local TV is good for exposure but the $$$ are in a national TV deal. Even now, there's MLS teams that have to pay to have their games shown on local TV. Don't see CPL clubs getting $ from local TV for years.

[matty]

2 hours ago, CDNFootballer said:

Local TV is good for exposure but the $$$ are in a national TV deal. Even now, there's MLS teams that have to pay to have their games shown on local TV. Don't see CPL clubs getting $ from local TV for years.

I believe CPL would be able to get local for free but would have to pay for production if they did. They'd never get money from it aside from an increase of ads

[Bison44]

Eyeballs, they would get eyeballs on the product, generate interest. (Fath mentioned it)  Nobody watching means nobody cares.  If they are at least getting local TV numbers then they dont go to advertisers/corporate partners empty handed.  

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

Streaming can do that as well and is less expensive logistically.

[matty]

21 minutes ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

Streaming can do that as well and is less expensive logistically.

It can't in the same way at all (again up to 98.8% watch sports on traditional TV even with a legal streaming option) and it's not really (still have to pay for production costs which are like $50k but now have to add a several thousand on top for bandwidth unless you just do something cheap that looks like shit)

If you're charging viewers to watch streams as well that will limit reach even more

Edited December 6, 2017 by matty

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

It's like the early years of the internet. Slow at first and mainly amongst younger more educated people, but eventually things reached a tipping point and the mainstream adopted it en masse. If you are a new startup why even bother with the dinosaur technology unless somebody else is willing to pay significant broadcast rights? Streaming can be done a lot more cheaply than a cable TV broadcast with webcam technology and its the wave of the future already adopted by the younger age cohorts that tend to be most interested in soccer.

[ironcub14]

4 hours ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

It's like the early years of the internet. Slow at first and mainly amongst younger more educated people, but eventually things reached a tipping point and the mainstream adopted it en masse. If you are a new startup why even bother with the dinosaur technology unless somebody else is willing to pay significant broadcast rights? Streaming can be done a lot more cheaply than a cable TV broadcast with webcam technology and its the wave of the future already adopted by the younger age cohorts that tend to be most interested in soccer.

I hope you don't mean Livestream a la L1O lol.

I have faith that streaming will be done professionally for CPL, based on everything we've seen with Stadium Digital it was called, I think. But to be available on SN Now, TSN GO, or beIN Sports Connect/DAZN has to be the goal for sure. And keep in mind that SN Now and TSN GO carries stuff that's on SN1 or SN360 or TSN2 or sometimes stuff that doesn't even make it to those secondary channels.

And I hope those of you who rely on Google or Kodi or one of the many famous streaming websites out there for your PL streams know that, 1) you better be paying for CPL streams if there are legal paid options, and 2) there won't be illegal CPL streams if CPL ain't on TV, and 3) people moan and complain about the free USL streams on Youtube all the time as lacking professionalism.

The only way I see CPL streaming working out well is if 1) there's a paid professional looking CPL Live option that we all pay up for, and 2) that CPL makes it to TV as a complement to CPL Live, and that depending on the channel it's on, that it will be on that streaming option as well, which I still think beIN/DAZN is still the most likeliest option and the option I prefer the most at this point. Or am throwing up prayers for.

The Costco/Amazon Prime effect is real; if a person can be convinced through a free trial to sign up for an annual membership, that person will feel compelled during those 12 months to use that product as much as he or she can. That's why CPL Live needs to be its own paid app, rather than being on Youtube piggybacking on their website, paid or free.

Edited December 6, 2017 by ironcub14

[matty]

5 hours ago, BringBackTheBlizzard said:

It's like the early years of the internet. Slow at first and mainly amongst younger more educated people, but eventually things reached a tipping point and the mainstream adopted it en masse. If you are a new startup why even bother with the dinosaur technology unless somebody else is willing to pay significant broadcast rights? Streaming can be done a lot more cheaply than a cable TV broadcast with webcam technology and its the wave of the future already adopted by the younger age cohorts that tend to be most interested in soccer.

Because it's 20 plus years until streaming is anywhere near dominant. 98.8% is not tiny. You're unlikely to grow with streaming at this stage or generate the money needed to justify spending millions a year.

You mention the younger audience but they don't watch sports man. Even soccer the vast majority of the fanbase is 35+. Hell the u35 prefer TV watching for sports too.

If you're offered free TV, it'll do more than streaming would do for decades.

1 hour ago, ironcub14 said:

I have faith that streaming will be done professionally for CPL, based on everything we've seen with Stadium Digital it was called, I think. But to be available on SN Now, TSN GO, or beIN Sports Connect/DAZN has to be the goal for sure. And keep in mind that SN Now and TSN GO carries stuff that's on SN1 or SN360 or TSN2 or sometimes stuff that doesn't even make it to those secondary channels.

The problem those are not popular on a mass scale that's needed to help the league make money and grow.

1 hour ago, ironcub14 said:

The only way I see CPL streaming working out well is if 1) there's a paid professional looking CPL Live option that we all pay up for, and 2) that CPL makes it to TV as a complement to CPL Live, and that depending on the channel it's on, that it will be on that streaming option as well, which I still think beIN/DAZN is still the most likeliest option and the option I prefer the most at this point. Or am throwing up prayers for.

A paid sub would be very bad for eyeballs but your second point is right the only issue as I've said before is beIN is so fucking limited and costly that Random Guy A will not follow CPL as a result and DAZN's launch was so fucked it might have stunted it's growth.