Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    7
  • views
    6,354

Go Direct to Viewer?


JeromeTyleski

4,725 views

 Share

Twins Video

For those of us that keep an eye on the financial side of the Minnesota Twins, 2024 is going to be a big year. No, there’s no long-term albatross contract that finally comes off the books (at least not yet). 2024 is the first year of a potential new local TV rights deal with Fox Sports North (or whatever Sinclair will call the station once it takes over operations).

 

Currently, the Minnesota Twins receive around $40MM a year in local TV rights. Undoubtably, that amount will grow in the new deal to a potential $60-$80MM range. But what if they go another route? What follows is a rough idea that may not even be possible with current contracts, but let’s have fun with a thought experiment. It’s the offseason, after all.

 

What if the Minnesota Twins went ahead and bypassed the middleman (Fox Sports North) and distributed the games themselves?

 

One caveat here. There would still be a local TV deal. However, due to the existence of what I’ll call “Victory Sports” (I had to do the callback. It was either that or “Minnesota Twins+”), the amount of revenue from the broadcast option will be significantly smaller. For a complete shot-in-the-dark number, let’s say the revenue from that deal is $20MM/year. Assuming a new deal would land in the $70MM range, that leaves $50MM in revenue on the table.

 

The dirty secret here is that while the percentage of viewers for MLB games is high, the amount of viewers isn’t tremendous. In 2018, the average amount of viewers for a prime time Minnesota Twins game was 77,000, which is two Target Fields worth of fans. Not exactly the large number I thought it would be. In 2019 that number grew to 110,000. Let’s say that number drops to an even 100,000 in 2024.

 

Now, you can’t just spread a $50MM charge across 100,000 viewers. That’s expecting each household to pay $500/year just to watch Twins games (and actually you would need $700/year because at that point there would be no value in a broadcast rights deal). However, what if there was a nominal $20/year charge to subscribe to Victory Sports? Let’s say half the fans do that option.

 

$20 x 50,000 = $1,000,000. Nowhere close to $50MM. On a personal note, I’m a cord-cutter who paid $50/month for YouTube TV just to watch Minnesota Twins games, but I don’t expect many fans to make that financial decision. But even if we increase the cost of Victory Sports to $50/year, that only nets us $2.5MM.

 

However, Fox Sports North doesn’t pay the Minnesota Twins $40MM/year just to get 100,000 eyeballs on their channel every night during baseball season. No, Fox Sports North pays that much so it can sell advertisements. Across a season, there are 16.2MM viewers across all Minnesota Twins games, albeit a lot of those viewers are the same from game to game. What if the Minnesota Twins were to sell ads themselves and reap the revenue? I feel like that would be worth at least $50MM and potentially up to $80MM.

 

In addition, the team could sell curated product to each Victory Sports subscriber via e-mail or video advertisements. You like Eddie Rosario? How about a $20 discount off Eddie Rosario jerseys for Victory Sports subscribers the day after he hits a home run? How about other perks like first opportunity (after season ticket holders) to buy tickets for the Home Opener?

 

Now this doesn’t include the cost of producing games, which could either be potentially baked in to the broadcast deal, or any other production costs, but as smart TVs and phone apps become more common, I believe a direct-to-consumer option is worth exploring.

 

What do you think? Am I way off the mark here? Too much speculation? Let me know.

 Share

4 Comments


Recommended Comments

Hard to tell how many would be on board to transfer to this service. Seems like a lot of casual fans I know land on the Twins when nothing else is on cable. I just don't see that group of casual fans going out of the way to get the Twins game. What would happen with Wild games and all the other MN sports related content that FSN viewers want? Wouldn't this force everyone to decide what subscriptions they want more, Wild, Twins, Twolves, Gophers, etc.  Seems more logical for FSN to make a subscription service tailored to all MN sports.

 

Imagine how many people would abandon the service when the Twins aren't contending too. Or how many people would wait and see if the Twins are good before paying for the year. Would advertisers be okay with such a variable audience number? Plus FSN has 24 hour content, are the Twins going to pay for additional content like the Twins recap programs? Would bars even want this if they can only use it 3 hours a night during the summer. At least with cable they can leave it on FSN all night or switch to Sports Center, etc.

 

I doubt the Twins are the ones to experiment with this model. Maybe someday MLB.tv can get around the local restrictions. Until then I think local cable cutters are out of luck (I am one of them).

Link to comment

 

I doubt the Twins are the ones to experiment with this model. Maybe someday MLB.tv can get around the local restrictions. Until then I think local cable cutters are out of luck (I am one of them).

 

Of all the good points you made, this one was the best. I do think some team does this, sooner rather than later. But it's probably not the Twins. 

 

However, the idea of having FSN turn into some type of standalone subscription model would be interesting. Probably would be too expensive, considering all the rights they currently have to pay for, however. 

Link to comment

@JeromeTyleski

Part of the reason the Twins TV deal is so low, is due to their trade off in the deal. The Twins got a poor deal (even at the time) and in exchange Pohlad companies received a stake in FSN.

 

The Twins moved to Go 96.3 and got a lower radio deal than they would have gotten if they went to (then) ESPN 1500.

 

The Pohlads launched Victory Sports and couldn’t get the cable distribution to make that work. With streaming the infrastructure isn’t nearly as difficult to obtain with MLB advance media already in place.

 

This is exactly the type of move Twins ownership would make ahead of say the Yankees whose cable TV viewership is much higher.

 

Good OP

Link to comment

 

@JeromeTyleski
Part of the reason the Twins TV deal is so low, is due to their trade off in the deal. The Twins got a poor deal (even at the time) and in exchange Pohlad companies received a stake in FSN.

The Twins moved to Go 96.3 and got a lower radio deal than they would have gotten if they went to (then) ESPN 1500.

The Pohlads launched Victory Sports and couldn’t get the cable distribution to make that work. With streaming the infrastructure isn’t nearly as difficult to obtain with MLB advance media already in place.

This is exactly the type of move Twins ownership would make ahead of say the Yankees whose cable TV viewership is much higher.

Good OP

 

Feel like I should apologize for not responding sooner to your reply.

 

What's really hurting the Twins in their TV rights is the fact there's no real in-market competition for them. There's pretty much just one RSN in town and will be for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying FSN lowballed them in the deal, but there wasn't there was no competition to bring costs up.

 

On the ownership stake front, I was trying to find that in a news story but didn't come across it. I've heard Gleeman mention it a few times as well. I'm probably being very poor in the use of my Google-Fu, though. 

 

I seem to remember one of their radio deals in the past where they wanted $1MM for the rights, and if I remember right they also get most (if not all) of the ad sales during the radio games. Not sure if WCCO paid them anything or just essentially gives them the time now (and the advertising revenue that comes with it).

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...