Sports Media

[zambonir]

All lawsuits are meant to produce settlements but I certainly didn't see this one coming!

Doesn't sound like Venu is dead though, I wouldn't think Disney can get out of their deal with the other two companies, and the story says the three companies have asked the judge to reverse the ruling blocking launch.

Or there will be a whole new round of drama and negotiation with Fox and Warner.

[andyb]

Venu was always meant to be a temporary service and I think the lawsuit made them rethink their strategy. It never had NBC and CBS anyway, so they might as well put their efforts into the ESPN Flagship project.

I really doubt Venu ever emerges again. Disney was like a 60% partner in that anyway since the fees it would generate would be based on the fees those channels normally get from cable packages (even if there was a 3-way split in the management). Flagship was launching in the Spring so are they really going to put marketing dollars into Venu in the 2 months before the launch of Flagship?

[zambonir]

I guess we'll see. Gonna take a year or two for all of this to play out (at least as far this merger). Probably not great news for Fubo subscribers as far as price. Fubo will now have everything Hulu does (including ESPN+) and the Warner stuff is already bundled with Hulu/Disney too (both MAX and sports) so where does that leave Fox? They all have to pay for this settlement so I'm sure they want the partnership to continue somehow.

Disney Inks Deal to Merge Hulu Live TV With Fubo, Ending Lawsuit Seeking to...

Also under the deal, Fubo will create a new “sports and broadcasting service,” featuring Disney’s sports and broadcast networks. Disney is entering into a new carriage agreement with Fubo for the new tier that will feature networks including ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN and ESPNews as well as ESPN+.

In connection with the deal, Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery will make a cash payment to Fubo of $220 million.

[Philsmania]

I don't know, it sounds like Fubo sued to stop a monopoly but in the end surrendered to become a part of the monopoly. Am I missing something?

[zambonir]

More or less, though I wouldn't say accepting $200 million plus 30% of the new company, as well as actually taking over operations of the new company, is surrender.

It will be interesting to see how all of it shakes out. Still too many products and options and tiers.

[andyb]

Sounds like that is the exact opposite of the skinny bundles Fubo wanted though. Guessing this extra tier will just be a more expensive version of Hulu Live.

Yes it will take years to play out, but the live TV service is still dead IMO because it will be too expensive for what it offers. Youtube TV is dead long term also. These services will limp along offering the ad plan versions of Disney+ and Max and other services along with the channels, but the fundamental fact is that few people want the channels any more. Sports will be over the air or on streaming. Teams have realized they need wider distribution and that just means the RSNs will go to sports tiers on services like ESPN and not to $100 a month packages like Fubo (the price is currently in the mid $90s with RSNs but without TNT much less those extra ESPN networks).

[zambonir]

It sounds like the extra tier is literally Flagship w/in Fubo.

They all seem to be pretty committed to their carriage fees still. I'm not happy about the YT price increase but I don't know if I can actually do better a la carte (for sports and dramatic TV). I considered looking at Comcast's latest thing (not sure what they actually have at this point though obviously it would include NBC Philly and they have a new deal with WB) but I like YouTube's on-demand and Multi-view.

[andyb]

I am thinking ESPN Flagship plus Peacock plus Paramount+ will be a lot less than Youtube TV, especially since I already have the Disney bundle with ESPN+. ESPN Flagship might only be $10-$15 more than the triple bundle (which is $27 now without ads). Now I don't really watch ESPN+ that much, but it is nice to have when the price is lower because of the bundle. And I already get the ABC and Fox scripted shows as part of that bundle which makes the YTTV equation less enticing.

[zambonir]

Well, you don't live in the Philly market, though obviously Peacock/Comcast is going to have an option for us there too.

[andyb]

My NBC sports RSN got sold back to the team but is still on YTTV. Monumental is $20 for their dedicated streaming service though it does not include the Nationals who are on MASN. Obviously if I were in Philly I would want the Phillies on one of my services. Right now my options for MASN are all $95+ through Fubo and Direct TV (which is over $100). Fubo does not include Monumental though.

I love the multi-view from YTTV, but suspect ESPN Flagship will offer that too and if they link the RSNs with that it will really be a better solution price-wise than YTTV. The dream of all sports in one place is probably dead, but with more sports having streaming exclusives that was dying anyway.

[julio]

There are lots of vested interests that oppose "skinny bundles" or a la carte streaming, because there are lots of channels (with investors) that very few people would actually pay for if they weren't bundled. This mindset is presumably breaking down (somewhat), but it seems to be a really slow process.

[zambonir]

ESPN has had that for a long time, but only on Apple TV, not Roku boxes or Smart TVs. Much more flexible too (you can add anything on the ESPN app, not just preselected combos, though I'm sure that's also because YT doesn't have the rights to do it for some channels).

It all just still seems to add up to something not so skinny, regardless. ESPN Flagship plus Peacock Premium (or whatever it is for Philly RSN) plus Hulu (for original programs and FX/ABC stuff) plus HBO plus Netflix plus Apple TV plus Prime. Of course a lot of that isn't on YT TV or other streamers already, and I get a bunch of them for free (and otherwise regularly cancel/resubscribe).

Fortunately I swore off TV news after 2020.

[andyb]

I think ESPN wants to be the Amazon channels for sports. A Peacock or Paramount game would show up in the app but you could only view it with the secondary subscription (and probably a referral fee of some sort between ESPN and Peacock/Paramount). HBO broke down and is now offered through Amazon even though it is a 30% referral fee.

Skinny bundles were never going to be the future as long as the large companies made more money through channel bundles. Now the issue is nobody watches most of those extra channels, so why should people pay twice for them. The soccer on USA is an exception at the moment, but guessing all those games will be on Peacock after the next agreement with the Premier League.

[schillingfan]

There are lots of vested interests that oppose "skinny bundles" or a la carte streaming, because there are lots of channels (with investors) that very few people would actually pay for if they weren't bundled. This mindset is presumably breaking down (somewhat), but it seems to be a really slow process.

Yep. I subscribe to YouTube because it gives me Phillysports, which I’ve had since the old days of PRISM. I changed from Fumo because they cut out the news channels and watching MSNBC or CNN is my backup option for noise on television. I can get all the networks through their own streaming services.

The problem with all streaming is I would constantly be trying to figure out WHERE to find what I want to watch. It’s nice to ave the scrolling of a menu, plus a library of shows I regularly watch. The interface for a Roku, Amazon, or in my case, Infinty, is confusing. I guess I’ll have to use the voice mode. “Put on Eagles game!”

[zambonir]

It's amazing to me how bad Netflix and regular Hulu and Prime are about showing you what you want to watch, or even the newest/hottest show they are theoretically supposed to be promoting.

[zambonir]

Some of us will no longer be watching sports by the time all of this really shakes out. For now, it sounds like nothing will change. The ESPN networks will be on cable (where they still have 65 million subscribers, down from 100 million), they'll be on YT (10 million) and they'll be on Hulu/Fubo (6.2 million).

And then if you want ESPN networks on their own you''ll be able to get the flagship thing for 25 or 30 bucks, or if you want Venu you'll be able to get that for 40-50 bucks.

It stands to reason that Disney may wish to buy or squeeze YouTube going forwards, since they only get a $10ish carriage fee there.

Phillies Comcast deal doesn't expire until 2041 so MLB is going to have to figure out how to accomodate them (and the Yankees) on any new streaming deal. For now of course it will just be Peacock. But I suspect we're not a very representative group both as hardcore baseball fans and technology adapters. The overwhelming majority of viewers for any given game still comes from cable and it's going to take a couple of decades for that ratio to flip (and many younger fans just don't care about watching entire games at all).

How the new deal between Disney and Fubo will impact how fans consume sports TV

[andyb]

Peacock is probably a good solution for NBC Sports Philly viewers if it is only $10-$15 a month as opposed to the $20-$30 that standalone sports streamers are asking for. Is there a way to get NBC Sports Philly now without cable or live streaming services?

Disney is clearly biding time and willing to take customers from all directions, but I continue to believe they want to push everyone to Flagship where they will make more money in the long run. The number of people (including me) willing to pay $83 for a Live TV service is dwindling. And that service is $100+ with RSNs. An ESPN Flagship bundle (with Disney+ and Hulu) with RSNs included is just a better value for me since I already get the Disney bundle without Flagship.

[zambonir]

No, you can't get the games (Phillies, Flyers, Sixers) on NBC Philly app (or web) without some kind of accompanying cable or streaming sub to log in. Sounds like it will go to Peacock, but the cost will probably be more like $15-20 a month (Peacock is $7.99 and there would probably be an RSN add-on charge. But that will be for the whole thing not just one team).

For some folks here who only care about the Phillies, don't want a larger service or are in one of the black-out areas that feels like it shouldn't be one, this will definitely be useful until MLB gets a league wide thing going in a few years. And you can also cancel your Peacock when it's not baseball season.

[andyb]

I posted a link a month ago saying Peacock was looking at a $10-$15 add on fee for the RSNs in market. For me Monumental is $20 a month (though is still on YTTV). MASN is not available as a standalone so I do not get baseball unless I subscribe to cable or the more expensive live services.

The $8 a month for Peacock plus $10-$15 for RSNs would not bother me if part of that equation was dropping the $83 YTTV. Imagine any RSNs left on YTTV will be headed to a more expensive sports tier at some point anyway. The main point is getting rid of the $80-$100 live service gives one more money to subscribe to 3 or 4 other services like Peacock or ESPN Flagship for sports.

[zambonir]

Okay, you nailed it

Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox Pull the Plug on Venu Sports Streaming...

There was an additional twist - Directv and Echostar (Dish) didn't want the court to lift the injunction and were considering filing their own suit.