As we read in MediaSport the way fans watch sports is changing all the time. From the failed idea in the 1990's of a premium channel called "The Baseball Network," to now "NFL Sunday Ticket," and channels such as "The NFL Network," "NBA TV," and the new "NHL Network." There are so many different ways to watch sports these days, but is this a good thing?
In 2006, "The NFL Network," which football fans can only watch if they have a premium cable deal began to exclusivly show one NFL game per week on their network beginning on Thanksgiving, going untill the end of the regular season.
The NFL was highly scrutinized by its fans for putting their games, which had always been on free national television stations (FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN) on a channel that not even half of the country was getting in their cable plans, and would have to pay to get.
The last week of the 2007-2008 NFL season had the New England Patriots, who were 15-0 in New Jersey to take on the New York Giants. If the Patriots won this game, they would be the first team in NFL history to finish their regular season with a record of 16-0. This game was scheduled to appear on the "NFL Network," which at this point in time was available to 43 million cable and satellite homes. Because of the historical implications of this game and the high demand of fans who wanted to watch the game, the NFL made a deal to simulcast the "NFL Network's" broadcast on "ABC" and "NBC," which brought the game to nearly 60 million more homes for free.
The question I pose is should premium channels like "The NFL Network" or "NBA TV" be allowed to broadcast games exclusivly on their networks and make fans who want to see them pay in a "pay-per-view" fashion?
As stated earlier, the NFL games used to always be free on national television and now, fans sometimes will have to miss their favoite team's game because they are being shown on these premium channels that not many households get.
What do you think? Is this fair?...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978169.html?categoryid=1011&cs=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The NFL has had major networks fighting for broadcast contracts since games were first televised. When one network is unwilling to pay an increase, the NFL simply finds another one who will, as was the case with CBS and Fox in 1994. As Bellamy, Jr says in MediaSport, "By losing the NFL, CBS not only lost the football audience and football advertisers but a substantial portion of its marketplace legitimacy."
The NFL clearly has power. They also have brand recognition, which they definitely depend on in promoting the NFL Network. For some of their packages, they also depend on devoted fans who are willing to pay to see their team. As diehard Patriots fans who moved to New York, my family and I are the prime target for something like NFL Ticket. It's hard to not be able to watch the Pats games except on some rare weekends. But, even we, the prime target, haven't given in yet.
Other than that specialized package, asking fans to pay extra for a premium network, because that's the only way they'll be able to see the occasional game with exclusive broadcast rights, isn't fair. What about the fans who can't afford it? With the high cost and difficulty of getting tickets to a game, there shouldn't be extra cost or difficulty in watching the game on TV.
Ah! This is such a difficult topic, such a difficult question. As a sports fan, I really don't like the idea of having to pay for a network to see my favorite teams play a game. However, I've been lucky only being affected by that historical Patriots game in the Meadowlands that they ended up showing on the major networks for free anyways.
I can see how these networks are beneficial on the business side of things because it makes money. They can use that money for things that can bring an even better NFL experince (if you can imagine that) into your home. Imagine, only NFL Network users get the camera view from inside Tom Brady's helmet!!!
I agree with Samantha that the target audience is the misplaced fans around the world. The Boston fan who's living in Arizona, the San Diego fan in Montreal. The NFL Network is the perfect ticket to keeping up with their home team throughout the entire season. I know that these networks are new, and they need to make money, but I think in the future it'd be great if they could offer certain game packages like the Pats Fan Package, so that a Patriots fan could get the three games offered on the Network, but not have to pay for an entire season of it. That means, the Network has to try as hard as they can to advertise to that Pats fan to buy it again the next season, and possibly buy a bigger package. It's more difficult for the Network in the short-term, but in the long-run it will help them because they won't be seen as money sucking scumbags trying to squeeze every penny out of sports fans.
This is difficult for the free broadcasting networks. NFL brings in a lot of viewers and a lot of revenue, and if the fans are now tuning into the NFL network because they can see inside Tom Brady's helmet, that might read bad news for the free broadcasters. In the book, Wenner described the big three ABC, CBS and NBC as the original oligopoly for the sports world. Then ESPN came in and all sports networks joined the airwaves. ESPN took Monday Night Football from the big 3 this past year, will more big games be taken in the future? If these Networks take off like they are hoping to, soon the "Big 3" won't have anything to air except Lawrence Welk re-runs.
I don't think it's fair, but its happening everywhere else in the media, HBO and Showtime are paid movie channels, and that hasn't made running movies on free television extinct. Maybe the sports broadcasts can also co-exist in the media world.
The issue of the major sports in the U.S. incorporating their own premium channels can be explained by one thing: money.
All of these sports make their fair share of money, some more than others (NFL more than NHL) but it doesn't matter because their is always incentive to make more. The introduction of these premium channels isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just as Samantha said in her post, these premium channels do have some advantages like offering displaced fans the opportunity to watch their teams play regardless of their location in the country.
The powers that be in the major sports likely thought that if fans enjoyed these sports so much, why not offer a channel that solely focuses on the sport. They were potentially trying to eliminate what Robert V. Bellamy Jr. described as the "restless" audience that were "likely to use a remote control device (RCD) to choose among many viewing options." (73, Bellamy, MediaSport)
This relates directly to the final game of the regular season between the Patriots and Giants where it was originally slated for the NFL Network's broadcast but was changed after intense pressure from everyone outside the NFL. Originally, the NFL Network likely scheduled games on their network to not only try to entice viewers to buy the premium channel but also to completely eliminate a chance for "restless" viewers, as Bellamy described. The NFL figured if they had live games on their channel, any viewer that bought the channel solely for the games would not want to change the channel as it would render their purchase a complete waste of money. This would, albeit to a lesser extent, be like purchasing the Floyd Mayweather Jr./Ricky Hatton fight on pay-per-view and then changing the channel.
The NFL may be stubborn and continue to try to put games on the NFL Network but it shouldn't. They don't need the money, as Fox President David Hill said the NFL "represents the only firm ground in the increasingly scary swamp of the TV industry." (81, MediaSport) A potential solution is to keep the channel, re-air games, show highlights, provide year-round insight and analysis and let anyone out there who can't get enough football make the purchase. Eventually, this would likely fail because it's hard to think that many people are willing to pay for that, which is likely why they tried introducing live games. It'll be interesting to see whether or not they change their approach.
As Jill mentioned, this is a difficult topic, with several valid arguments. When I first read this question, my immediate reaction was that I hate the idea of having to pay to see the Patriots play. But then I thought about the Pats-Giants game when they were going for 15-0, and I was in Florida and was going to have to miss the game if it was shown on the NFL Network. It was like Christmas all over again when I found out the game would be nationally broadcasted for free.
While it really is not fair to make people pay to see their favorite teams play, if it came down to missing the game, or paying for the NFL Network, I would have ended up subscribing. It’s for this reason that networks such as these work: most fans could not stand to miss a game. As Chapter 9 of the Handbook states, success stems from “the hunger of sports enthusiasts and the entertainment institutions that feed them.” It is a sad thing that the sports industry has become so money-hungry that they can’t let people enjoy a game for free, but this reveals the other side of the argument, it’s a business.
In MediaSport, Wenner states that, “the US sports industry is a media-made phenomenon.” This is validated by the fact that in the NFL, “media revenues (with the vast majority coming from television) constitute approximately two-thirds of total team revenues.” From this statistic it is clear that the Cable Industry will continue to evolve, creating services such as the NFL Network, to deliver a new source of revenue. The NFL is the most effective league in getting fans to pay to watch, because there are only a limited number of games in a season. As we witnessed last season with the Patriots, each game is incredibly valuable. As Wenner says, “the league is the pioneer in using television as an instrument of growth and influence.”
While I personally am not thrilled about having to pay to watch my team play, the NFL Network’s offering of 24/7 football is incredibly marketable, and fans committed to the game provide a great target audience. Even if people are slow to sign up at first, most diehard fans, no matter what their team, will not be able to go a Sunday (or Saturday or Monday for that matter) without football.
This is definitely a difficult question. I don’t think we should have to pay for a premium channel to watch our favorite sports teams. I remember when MSG was taken off the basic cable channels and I couldn’t watch the New York Knicks (when they were good) and the New York Yankees. I had to wait a year until YES came about and it wasn’t fair because my parents didn’t want to pay the extra $50 a month for it.
I understand if the public pays for premium channels, you make more money. But also if you don’t have to pay extra, the channel gets more publicity because everyone will be watching it at no charge. Money is the big issue here.
Athletes become heroes. Fans of heroes want to watch their every move. As stated in Media Sport, “Athletes become heroes because of long term, consistently outstanding performances as well as their morality, social responsibility, and intellectual capabilities” (138). If people had to pay to see their heroes on TV, they would lose interest very quickly and little kids would not able to look up to their heroes.
It’s not just sports premium channels. It’s also entertainment channels. I have never seen an episode of Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm and other shows on HBO. Since I don’t pay for that channel, I don’t like Tony Soprano because I’ve never seen him act before. People miss out on things that they have to pay for.
This is definitely a tricky question…I agree with Jill’s great point of with we could potentially benefit from the revenue brought in by these private ‘pay-per-view’ type of channels, yet also agree with Sharon in the sense that not everybody has the financial status, desire, or motivation to receive these sports channels beyond their basic cable needs.
When I think of ‘pay-per-view’ sports, I think of sports that are uncommon to everyday media networks such as boxing or the UFC cage fighting finale (which I think is unfair how the network shows a whole series then charges $40-$80 for the finale). In situations like this, I can see how broadcasting the sports privately would be of great financial benefit. These sports aren’t as popular or ‘money makers’ as football, baseball, or hockey. This is a way to up their revenue since they are somewhat of a “B” list sport. I think the issue of fairness can go either way, depending on how dedicated of a fan the viewer is.
In terms of a loyal fan, I can see someone ordering the channels making perfect sense. You are dedicated and committed to your sport, organization, team, and their players. If you are a fan, you would love to see more of a revenue come into the organization of the NFL, MBA, NHL, etc. because of the benefits and future advancements that this revenue is capable of producing. I see it being beneficial also to long distance fans (say a Boston fan living in Savannah, GA) because they are able to watch all of the leagues games even when it isn’t broadcasted on their local network (yet, there is also technology like the Slingbox which allowed viewing of local television at distant locations).
In terms of an average Joe who has only basic cable, I can see why this notion would infuriate fans whether their level of dedication be loyal, regular, or bias. It is almost like they are being penalized for not having greater cable packages. In terms of show series on HBO such as Soprano’s, Sex and the City, and 6 Feet Under, there are comparable and equivalent series shows on basic cable networks such as Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, and Law & Order – all which provide the same well written plots and story lines as the HBO series do. However, in terms of sports – if they were taken off the basic cable ways, viewers would have no alternative and would basically be penalized from something as basic as sports. As mentioned in Mediasport, “sport is the last frontier of reality on television…about the only thing that can guarantee an audience” (Wenner 73). By removing sports from cable broadcasting, it would be devastating in terms of ratings, and penalizing the success and growth to basic cable networks such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and even ESPN. An average Joe would also see the NFL, MBA, and NHL organizations as already having enough money and not needing to broadcast privately to make money.
I think the issue depends the degree of loyalty American’s are to their sports teams…
This is a hard topic to discuss because most sports fans are spit down the middle: half feeling like they are being robbed, and the other half is completely willing to pay an arm and a leg to watch their teams play.
Because the sports industry is such a powerhouse, there is no way that channels like the "NFL Ticket" and "NBA TV" will ever disappear; the demand is too high for them. Even channels which used to be free are in a "current trend" to move to pay packages according to Handbook of Sports and Media: "it's worth noting the gravitation of more networks from basic cable to pay packages, or at least into premium channel tendencies."
The demand especially comes from people who have relocated but remain loyal to their teams, or those who have originally chosen to follow another state's team. My roomate is from New Jersey and is a huge Green Bay Packers fan. She pays a premium every month to be able to watch their games on TV as well as the internet in case she is not by our cable TV. The demand has now surpassed the cable boxes and entered into the internet highway. Sadly, the future holds for the bare minimum of free sports watching.
From one fans perspective, both leagues and their franchises have taken things too far. In MediaSport it is stated that the sports industry is the 22nd largest in the U.S. in regards to annual revenues. It is also the fastest growing industry, so that number will continue to climb. It was stated that the NFL earns almost two thirds of its revenue from the media. This includes advertising space on TV and the radio. The other third is a mix between ticket sales, merchandising, and other revenue from fans. This number just does not seem right because it is the fans that gives the franchises their popularity and need.
TV stations like the NFL network have been sprouting up all across the sports world. They are just another way for the franchise to exploit the fans. The YES network is another example of this, but the NFL network is the worst because it affects multiple fan bases around the league. I have a problem with the YES network exploiting Yankee fans, just as I would any similar network exploiting their fan base; but the NFL network only airs a handful of games, so the odds of “your team” playing in one of those games in small. This does not give the fans a reason to purchase the package, but on the chance their team is playing they can’t watch; that is not right.
The NFL did the right thing by airing the Patriots vs. Giants game on basic cable television. This was a marquee game, that would go down in history because of the potentials records being set. If the NFL would have kept it on their network they would have lost a lot of money in advertising revenue. But also by airing the game on cable access TV the league “softly” admitted to the extortion caused by the NFL network. The network is not fair to the loyal fan, and does the league no good. I understand that they are trying to “snake” a few extra dollars out of the customer’s pocket, but there are definitely other ways the common moron will waste their money for the benefit of the league.
Not only should the premium channels be granted exclusive rights to broadcast games, they should be encouraged to do so. That’s what makes a free market economy so great. Supply and demand will decide if the market will bear such a move.
In the case of the Pats-Giants match-up, I’m sure the NFL didn’t allow the networks to broadcast the game for “Free” because they felt bad for the fans. 60 million additional homes tuning into the game is a ton of extra revenue for the league. If the NFL Network could have come close to the same revenue, you can bet that the game would not have been shared with the networks. As the NFL Network grows, the advertising revenue will grow accordingly. The result will be more costly contracts for the networks and less access for the viewers that don’t want to pay the premium fee. However, if the fans don’t flock to the NFL’s premium channel, it will in all probability cease to exist and the status quo will prevail. Free market economies are a great equalizer in keeping the costs of goods relative to the demand.
As far as watching the games for “Free,” there is no such thing as a free ride. Every time you spend seven dollars for a six-pack, you are paying a little bit of the price for the so-called privilege of watching the games for “Free.”
There is an evil to the NFL Network and there is a good.
I do think it is unfair for the NFL to be able to claim their games at the end of the season. I dread looking at the schedule to begin the season now figuring that one of my team's games will be played on a Saturday night in December on the NFL Network. The NFL has also taking advantage of certain markets at times. When it first began broadcasting games in the 2006-2007 season, there was a stretch in which the Giants played the Redskins and Rutgers University Football played its bowl game both on the NFL Network. I can only imagine how many subscriptions they got in the New York/New Jersey area on that alone. What’s next year’s area du jour? Put both the Lions and the University of Michigan on in the same week to boost sales in the Detroit region?
While I do believe it is unfair for us to pay for our football, I do think that the NFL Network brought back an old tradition: the guys night out. The NFL Network forces us to join together in bars and restaurants and to come together as a football community. When Dallas played Green Bay on the NFL Network this past season, every sports bar in the Hamden area was packed. My friends and I found ourselves slapping high fives with complete strangers over the game in a packed bar. It was the joy of being in the stadium 2000 miles away (and for a lot cheaper). While I'm sure this wasn't the NFL's intention, it has been a pleasant byproduct of the NFL Network.
Should premium channels like "The NFL Network" or "NBA TV" be allowed to broadcast games exclusivly on their networks and make fans who want to see them pay in a "pay-per-view" fashion?
Origionally I would think this would be a gret idea for the networks, because thier advid fans would pay any amount of money to see them play. But after watching what happened with the YES network and the fact that they put the games back on regular tv makes me think this woulndt be the best idea. In Media Sport they explain that the "emphasis on IM is that sports entities now see themselves as media cmpanies actively involved in the developmentof new sources of revenue. (Jensen, 1995)" Sports teams used to just base thier revenue on things the fans could enjoy such as souviners, and promotions. The fans might see it as a slap in the face if the games go on channels they need to pay for because of the money they spend on thier team already. I personally think they should keep the games on normal channels because thier brand alone makes them enough money. Also its supposed to be about the sport and the athletes not the franchise making money.
It's going to sound like a broken record, but I agree with the majority when they say there are both good and bad sides to this issue. On one hand, many fans do have the misfortune of missing their favorite team; and on the other is the money being made from charging for the premium channels. Personally, I have the NFL Network and I am by no means rich. It's only about $5 a month to the get Comcast's Sports & Entertainment package which includes at least 50 other sports and music channels. So I don't really buy into the money being the issue. According to Wenner in MediaSport, "in the NFL, for example, media revenues (with the vast majority coming from television) constitute approximately two-thirds of total team revenues." That money isn't coming from the NFL Network subscribers, I can promise that. The thing I want to know, is why it costs so much money to be able to subscribe to the MLB package or NFL Sunday Ticket. For someone who is a fan of a west coast team, they will essentially never see their teams play without buying a special package. Fox, for example, should make all of their telecasts available. Why is Comcast making all the money of us? I suppose contracts control all of that type of stuff, but it's not really fair to those die-hard sports fans who have to pay hundreds of dollars extra because they live outside the locale of their favorite team.
Posted on behalf of Steve Forni:
The worst part about it is the fact that the NFL Network has the ability to choose which game it wants to show midway through the season. So, it hand-selects the best game it can find, and automatically, those fan bases aren't allowed to watch the game. They even allow the NFL Network to change the times of the games. If i remember correctly, last season, there were two or three Patriots games that were changed from Sunday day-games to night games, strictly because of the run the Pats were on. Now, for my ailing grandmother who's a die-hard Pats fan, why should she be forced to stay up until midnight on three straight Sunday nights just to watch the end of her team's game? The system was designed to help the fans, and it's not.
Now, i have a HUGE problem with the NBA Network, Southern Connecticut, or both. Some of the Celtics games are on the NBA Network, however when they are, they are blacked out in So. Conn. Why? because we're in a New York market. So, because i 'should' be watching the Knicks or Nets, i'm not allowed to watch the Celtics? NBA Network is a national publication, is Southern Connecticut the only section of the entire continental United States that isn't allowed to watch the C's? Does this make any sense? I can't even order Fox Sports New England because this is a New York market, even tho i'm still in the New England region!
The idea of having to pay for games that have always been "free" is ridiculous.
I understand that obviously the whole point of these networks is to make as much money as possible, but at what cost. (no pun)
If the games were always free and the fans were able to get their favorite teams on TV at no additional charge, it seems immoral to now make them pay extra for the NFL Network.
The Pats game that was simulcast on the regular stations was portrayed as the network doing the viewers a "favor".
This rubbed me the wrong way since after all, without its viewers, the network would cease to exist. I do not think that the idea to make viewers and fans pay extra for the NFL Network is ethical, yet at the same time, they are not being "punished" because many people have ordered it and payed the extra money that the network was looking for. I understand there are football fans that can afford to pay the extra money a month for the games, but why penalize the fans who are lower income and just as enthusiastic about football as those who can pay more for the network?
I do not know what the network should do to resolve this but they should all sit down and brainstorm because this is not a good move on their part. Money wise, sure it is, they are getting people to pay for it, but ethical? No
Again, like everyone else here, I do have to say that there are positives and negatives to these types of televison networks. For the avid sports fan they can jack up prices because they know that they will pay it no matter what. However, with your run of the mill sports fan, they are risking losing viewership because of the costs. I know that in my house, if the MLB or the NFL were to only broadcast games on their own personal networks instead of national networks, that we would definitely spend the money. I'm not able to watch the Celtics here at school except for a few games that run on ESPN or ABC, so I'm the kind of person who could benefit from these kinds of channels, however as a broke college student, I don't think I would ever give in to it, at least not yet.
Do I think that it is fair to make people pay to watch their favorite teams? No, not at all. However, it is a beneficial business move for these sports organizations. They offer the viewer more opportunities through their channel because they've paid more to experience the game. Avid sports fans WILL pay for these experiences. For the people who don't necessarily care about the details, there is always the internet or SportsCenter.
On the other side of the matter, some of the basic cable channels that broadcast sports, such as ESPN are becoming costly as well. This is what I find very unfair about the entire situation. The Handbook of Sports and Media states that "basic cable began to take on pay cbale tendencies at least 15 years ago, when networks were unable to pass on rising progarrming costs to the cable franchises. At that time, pay per view programming provided an out. Today, the line between inclusion and exclusion of sports programming on a basic cable tier is beoming more and more difficult to distinguish" (158). It is very easy to see this today in our own cable packages. Some cable packages come with ESPN or TNT, but to see some of the good stuff, you need to use the on-demand feature, and you end up paying more than just the basic cable rate. Money is money though, it seems that what makes the organizations and networks money will continue to grow.
Post a Comment