Bally Sports exploring stand-alone app

[TeJayDubz]

I'm all for it personally. I only watch live TV for the Twins and the Wild. I barely pay attention to anything else and I consume all other media on Youtube, Hulu, or Netflix. This is roughly $70 less than what I'm currently paying for ultimately the same utilization.

In my opinion, if you use live TV for literally anything other than local major league sports it's probably not a good deal for you. BUT, If you're someone like me who only watches live TV for sports broadcasted on Bally anyways, this is perfect.

[nicksaviking]

1 hour ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

The reason the RSNs only charged a few bucks a month from cable/satellite providers was because they were getting those few bucks a month for every subscriber, whether they cared about sports or not.

Just using some numbers for illustrative purposes, say you have a million cable/satellite subscribers, and each one brings a $5 carriage fee to the RSN. That's $5 million in revenue.

But now say half of those cable/satellite subscribers have cut the cord. At the same carriage fee, they're down to half the revenue, or $2.5 mi.

And of the 500k cordcutters, maybe only 125k care about sports enough to subscribe directly like this (and that's probably generous). Those 125k would have to pay $20 each to match the lost carriage fee revenue.

It doesn’t matter how the cake is actually made, people only care about how it lines up with their expectations for cake. This change is too drastic and too fast, and still all about greed. The average fan isn’t going to do the math, they’re simply going to quit the game.
 

For 60 years people watched their local team for free (perceived or not) on TV. You expect the regular Joe to go from $0 to $20 just like that? Not happening.

And it’s not just with the cost, now you have to download apps, verify accounts and remember passwords to watch the games. You have to actively search this out. You used to just flip through the channels and find the game. Baseball on TV should only be a nominal cost.

[TwinsDr2021]

Can I afford the app? absolutely I saved way more than that by cutting the cord. Am I going to pay that, no chance, My family has gotten along fine the last couple of years without the Twins on TV, and Hulu basically has a game on TV every night. Me and my son check the score and what is happening in the Twins game with free ESPN or MLB app, and that is good enough. It is hard to believe MLB let this happen, but then again they seem make a lot of bad decisions.

[Otto von Ballpark]

12 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

It doesn’t matter how the cake is actually made, people only care about how it lines up with their expectations for cake. This change is too drastic and too fast, and still all about greed. The average fan isn’t going to do the math, they’re simply going to quit the game.

The "made cake" in this analogy would be the total cost of cable/satellite (or their live TV streaming equivalents). Carriage fees negotiated between providers and networks are't even disclosed to customers, I really doubt the "average fan" is going to be thinking about them when they consider this new service, even if they decide against it.

12 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

For 60 years people watched their local team for free (perceived or not) on TV. You expect the regular Joe to go from $0 to $20 just like that? Not happening.

People have been complaining about cable/satellite prices and the lack of alternatives since the dawn of cable/satellite (and before that, complaining about the "Twins Vision" pay-per-view arrangement from the 1980s). No one thinks they are getting that content for "free" even if they believe cable/satellite is a necessary utility. (And those folks can continue to get this content from cable/satellite -- that's not going away with the launch of this new service.)

[baul0010]

13 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

This is Sinclair hoping desperate diehards help them save their bad business model.  It won't.  The market for this is so, so minimal.  It'll be an abject failure in less than five years.  Book it.

At least I'll get to watch the Twins for 5 years!

[Otto von Ballpark]

16 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Do you think $20 a month, or $15 a month if you pay annual upfront is too expensive for live sports? It’s right on par with Netflix ($20), Hulu bundle of Disney+ and ESPN+ ($18) and HBO Max ($15).

I agree that streaming can be more expensive than cable these days if you don’t watch your expenses. If I were still a cord cutter, I’d do this app upfront payment, over the air TV, and 1-2 streaming services on a rotating basis. 

These are great points.

Cord-cutting isn't the status quo at a lower price. Cord-cutting gives you the power to prioritize content over channels. That means you should only add services as you need them, and drop services as you don't need them.

In that context, this Bally Sports+ service could fit quite well, if you are a fan.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, baul0010 said:

At least I'll get to watch the Twins for 5 years!

I feel sorry for people back in Minnesota for having to navigate all the nonsense.  I genuinely hope it's successful for you for however long it lasts.  Or maybe it shines a light on the stupid web of BS that fans have to wade through to see the sport and inspires the league to change it.

Sports should be about getting eyeballs on the game.  Making that complicated or prohibitive is the height of stupidity.

[baul0010]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

I feel sorry for people back in Minnesota for having to navigate all the nonsense.  I genuinely hope it's successful for you for however long it lasts.  Or maybe it shines a light on the stupid web of BS that fans have to wade through to see the sport and inspires the league to change it.

Sports should be about getting eyeballs on the game.  Making that complicated or prohibitive is the height of stupidity.

I hope so.  I live 4 hours from the Twin Cities and getting to games usually doesn't happen.  I have jumped from one ship to the next when they kept dropping FSN.  The last couple years has just been watching no Twins games.  

[Otto von Ballpark]

14 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

For $20 Netflix offers me a boatload of content.  And, I'll point out, they may have priced themselves out of the market at that price point despite having about eleventy billion more things to watch than Bally.  Hulu and Disney and ESPN is actually cheaper than this.  Cheaper!!!!  And they offer the most desired content available. HBO Max is the prestige channel with the least in quantity but most in quality to offer and it's STILL CHEAPER  

The "boatload of content" on Netflix (and most other video-on-demand streaming services) is like the "300+ channels" claim of cable/satellite companies. The majority of that content isn't new. And how much of the new content actually interests you? How much of that new content are you even capable of watching in a given month?

Everyone prioritizes different content, so answers are going to vary. But for my household, none of the services you mention would hold any permanent advantage precluding Bally Sports+:

• Disney+, we watched "Book of Boba Fett" a few months ago but that took about 5 hours total, so we wrapped it up in less than a month, not currently subscribed. In no rush to see Obi Wan, so we can probably wait until all episodes are available.
• There's typically nothing for us on ESPN+ (not interested in out-of-market hockey)
• I don't think we've ever watched a Hulu original?
• Netflix... not currently subscribed, waiting for something new to interest us
• HBO... same...
• Apple TV+... same

Bally Sports+ can fit quite well in that model. Even if you're not a die-hard watching most games, it doesn't take long catching an hour here and there to top Boba Fett's runtime. And while you're watching it, that's naturally less time you have to devote to another service anyway.

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Otto von Ballpark said:

The "boatload of content" on Netflix (and most other video-on-demand streaming services) is like the "300+ channels" claim of cable/satellite companies. The majority of that content isn't new. And how much of the new content actually interests you? How much of that new content are you even capable of watching in a given month?

Everyone prioritizes different content, so answers are going to vary. But for my household, none of the services you mention would hold any permanent advantage precluding Bally Sports+:

• Disney+, we watched "Book of Boba Fett" a few months ago but that took about 5 hours total, so we wrapped it up in less than a month, not currently subscribed. In no rush to see Obi Wan, so we can probably wait until all episodes are available.
• There's typically nothing for us on ESPN+ (not interested in out-of-market hockey)
• I don't think we've ever watched a Hulu original?
• Netflix... not currently subscribed, waiting for something new to interest us
• HBO... same...
• Apple TV+... same

Bally Sports+ can fit quite well in that model. Even if you're not a die-hard watching most games, it doesn't take long catching an hour here and there to top Boba Fett's runtime. And while you're watching it, that's naturally less time you have to devote to another service anyway.

Well good thing you alone, on a hardcore baseball site, and your viewing preferences, are the guide for how to view this move.  Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to look at it more broadly and the point is relatively simple:

1) People who are looking for bang for their buck and quality depth of content are not going to find this price point, for this content, attractive.  Netflix, at the same price point, is finding people leave because it's too expensive.  They offer more for the same price.  That's relevant.  So what does that do?  Basically leave you with a subset of diehards.

2) Another service....which, by the way, also has sports....is MUCH cheaper and offers the culture's biggest attractions.  At, again, a MUCH cheaper price point.  Paramount and Peacock?  Ditto.  Just less cultural significance.  HBO?  Less content and no sports, but....again....cheaper.

So who does this appeal to?  Well, casual people with any kind of budget are going to balk at that price.  Even here, a devoted group of baseball diehards, you've got about half the people saying "Screw that".  Is it going to appeal to your 60+ folks?  Um, likely not.  They're what keeps the lights on for Direct TV because then they don't have to navigate streaming and wi-fi.  So what's left?

This will appeal to a subset of a subset of a subset.  None of the examples above have that problem.  Why?  Because they bundle the subsets together and anything you don't want is just a bonus you get.  And...I'll say it again....for a CHEAPER price.   This will fail no matter how much you try to will it not to with specious reasoning.

[Otto von Ballpark]

8 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Sports should be about getting eyeballs on the game.  Making that complicated or prohibitive is the height of stupidity.

A direct-to-consumer option is a notable step in the right direction.

That's not to say it can't be improved further, but simply launching Bally Sports+ at this price point could arguably make most in-market Twins television broadcasts more affordable and accessible than they ever have been before.

The big variable right now is getting the Twins on board, of course. I don't know the likelihood of that, but it must help that the Wolves and Wild are already on board, as well as 5 other MLB teams in their respective markets.

[TheLeviathan]

No one is arguing that "no humans ever" will want this.  Of course this will have some appeal.  Good if it does. But so does youtube's awful package.  And DirectTV.  I'm sure there are folks out there still rueing the failure of CNN Plus....doesn't change the facts. The issue is longterm viability.  If there is none then this is but the newest broadcasting misstep.

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Well good thing you alone, on a hardcore baseball site, and your viewing preferences, are the guide for how to view this move.  Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to look at it more broadly and the point is relatively simple:

Please leave out the personal shots. My post was abundantly clear that it was illustrating the subjective nature of these comparisons, not claiming any viewing superiority.

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

1) People who are looking for bang for their buck and quality depth of content are not going to find this price point, for this content, attractive.  Netflix, at the same price point, is finding people leave because it's too expensive.  They offer more for the same price.  That's relevant.  So what does that do?  Basically leave you with a subset of diehards.

2) Another service....which, by the way, also has sports....is MUCH cheaper and offers the culture's biggest attractions.  At, again, a MUCH cheaper price point.  Paramount and Peacock?  Ditto.  Just less cultural significance.  HBO?  Less content and no sports, but....again....cheaper.

So who does this appeal to?  Well, casual people with any kind of budget are going to balk at that price.  Even here, a devoted group of baseball diehards, you've got about half the people saying "Screw that".  Is it going to appeal to your 60+ folks?  Um, likely not.  They're what keeps the lights on for Direct TV because then they don't have to navigate streaming and wi-fi.  So what's left?

This will appeal to a subset of a subset of a subset.  None of the examples above have that problem.  Why?  Because they bundle the subsets together and anything you don't want is just a bonus you get.  And...I'll say it again....for a CHEAPER price.   This will fail no matter how much you try to will it not to with specious reasoning.

1. You can't really judge the Bally Sports+ business with a direct comparison to Netflix. They're both ostensibly in "TV entertainment" but they offer very different content (how do you compare episodes of "Stranger Things" to watching your local sports team?), and they have very different distribution methods (Netflix is streaming worldwide; Bally is regional and also on cable/satellite).

As a result, their revenue needs/goals are undoubtedly different too. Bally Sports+ subscriber counts don't have to match those of Netflix or other streamers, or come anywhere close -- it may only be intended to complement some continued cable/satellite/ad revenue base for now, and/or further promote Bally's gambling interests. From the outside, before the service has even launched, we really have no idea.

2. Even comparing to ESPN+, consumers can differentiate between major local pro teams and assorted national professional and college sporting events as products, and the business/revenue models will be different on the provider side too.

I don't claim that the Bally effort is going to be a success, but at this price point, if they get the Twins on board, having this option is definitely a step in the right direction for consumers (even if many will continue without it for now). I fully expect the industry to keep evolving and changing, regardless of whether Bally succeeds, fails, or simply treads water. Maybe after cable/satellite subscriptions drop even further in a few years, Amazon will swoop in and buy out Bally Sports+ to bolster Amazon Prime. Who knows?

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

Please leave out the personal shots. My post was abundantly clear that it was illustrating the subjective nature of these comparisons, not claiming any viewing superiority.

1. You can't really judge the Bally Sports+ business with a direct comparison to Netflix. They're both ostensibly in "TV entertainment" but they offer very different content (how do you compare episodes of "Stranger Things" to watching your local sports team?), and they have very different distribution methods (Netflix is streaming worldwide; Bally is regional and also on cable/satellite).

As a result, their revenue needs/goals are undoubtedly different too. Bally Sports+ subscriber counts don't have to match those of Netflix or other streamers, or come anywhere close -- it may only be intended to complement some continued cable/satellite/ad revenue base for now, and/or further promote Bally's gambling interests. From the outside, before the service has even launched, we really have no idea.

2. Even comparing to ESPN+, consumers can differentiate between major local pro teams and assorted national professional and college sporting events as products, and the business/revenue models will be different on the provider side too.

I don't claim that the Bally effort is going to be a success, but at this price point, if they get the Twins on board, having this option is definitely a step in the right direction for consumers (even if many will continue without it for now). I fully expect the industry to keep evolving and changing, regardless of whether Bally succeeds, fails, or simply treads water. Maybe after cable/satellite subscriptions drop even further in a few years, Amazon will swoop in and buy out Bally Sports+ to bolster Amazon Prime. Who knows?

Your personal viewing habits and considerations are not relevant to a broader conversation about price point.  Congrats, you find it worthwhile.  I'm sure some people really, really loved CNN Plus at it's price point too.  Didn't save that doomed-from-the-start platform either. The overall viability of the offering or the price point is not subject to your personal whims.  Injecting it into the conversation is irrelevant at best.  

By becoming a streaming app it by definition becomes a competitor for dollars with other streaming apps.  Consumers will make judgment calls about price based on comparisons with other offerings, so the comparison is absolutely relevant.  Consumers make decisions based on value and it's hard to look at $20 bucks for basically one game a night, if that, as being good value relative to other options.  (Like, for example, $0 if you pirate.  Or $90 and everything is included.  Or just catching the box score)  You're going to price out large portions of your base and that is relevant to analysis about the price and viability. 

The chief problem with this entire issue is the unnecessary complexity to view games.  One more non-viable platform doomed to fail in no way helps consumers in the long term.  It just invites more wild swings at exploiting demand without any care for the game itself and pushes people further and further from consuming the product at all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

On 5/5/2022 at 10:11 AM, TheLeviathan said:

This will fail no matter how much you try to will it not to with specious reasoning.

A bit early to declare this with such certainty, don't you think?

I, like Otto, will buy this the moment it comes out. Sure, it's not a perfect package and things could be a lot better in a variety of ways, but I'll happily pay the $15-something per month to buy this every year. If they allow out-of-market purchases, I'll also buy Bally Sports Wisconsin.

A year of this costs almost exactly the same as two months of DirecTV stream. It's a no-brainer decision for people in my position.

[Vanimal46]

On 5/5/2022 at 12:02 PM, TheLeviathan said:

Your personal viewing habits and considerations are not relevant to a broader conversation about price point.  Congrats, you find it worthwhile.  I'm sure some people really, really loved CNN Plus at it's price point too.  Didn't save that doomed-from-the-start platform either. The overall viability of the offering or the price point is not subject to your personal whims.  Injecting it into the conversation is irrelevant at best.  

By becoming a streaming app it by definition becomes a competitor for dollars with other streaming apps.  Consumers will make judgment calls about price based on comparisons with other offerings, so the comparison is absolutely relevant.  Consumers make decisions based on value and it's hard to look at $20 bucks for basically one game a night, if that, as being good value relative to other options.  (Like, for example, $0 if you pirate.  Or $90 and everything is included.  Or just catching the box score)  You're going to price out large portions of your base and that is relevant to analysis about the price and viability. 

The chief problem with this entire issue is the unnecessary complexity to view games.  One more non-viable platform doomed to fail in no way helps consumers in the long term.  It just invites more wild swings at exploiting demand without any care for the game itself and pushes people further and further from consuming the product at all.

What would you propose as an alternative? Going over the air isn’t too viable either because CBS/NBC/FOX/ABC aren’t going to cut their nightly programming 5-7 days a week from April-early November. 

There’s a major difference between live sports, TV entertainment like Netflix, and news entertainment like CNN+… Live sports still reigns supreme as the most compelling event to get to a TV and watch.

Netflix isn’t struggling just because it’s getting too expensive. Most people had that platform to watch their comfort shows like The Office over and over again. Those are gone… Their original programming is mostly terrible. And their model of dumping the entire season at once isn’t a sustainable model for keeping subscribers around. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

14 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

What would you propose as an alternative? Going over the air isn’t too viable either because CBS/NBC/FOX/ABC aren’t going to cut their nightly programming 5-7 days a week from April-early November. 

There’s a major difference between live sports, TV entertainment like Netflix, and news entertainment like CNN+… Live sports still reigns supreme as the most compelling event to get to a TV and watch.

Netflix isn’t struggling just because it’s getting too expensive. Most people had that platform to watch their comfort shows like The Office over and over again. Those are gone… Their original programming is mostly terrible. And their model of dumping the entire season at once isn’t a sustainable model for keeping subscribers around. 

The reason Netflix is struggling is because there are 20 other services doing the exact same thing. I just counted and I have 14 (!!!!) streaming apps on my Apple TV that directly compete with Netflix. Obviously, I'm not going to subscribe to 14 services simultaneously, I barely have any time to watch TV anyway.

So I rotate through services. I don't have Netflix more often than I have Netflix.

On the other hand, if I want to watch a Twins game, there is literally one place I can do that: Bally Sports North. If I want to watch a Wolves game, same. If I want to watch a Lynx game, same. If I want to watch a Wild game, same.

As a sports fan, it's a pretty easy choice for me to make. Either I give DirecTV Stream $93/mo to watch Twins (and more) games or I give Bally $15/mo to watch Twins (and more) games.

[TheLeviathan]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

A bit early to declare this with such certainty, don't you think?

I, like Otto, will buy this the moment it comes out. Sure, it's not a perfect package and things could be a lot better in a variety of ways, but I'll happily pay the $15-something per month to buy this every year. If they allow out-of-market purchases, I'll also buy Bally Sports Wisconsin.

A year of this costs almost exactly the same as two months of DirecTV stream. It's a no-brainer decision for people in my position.

I don't think so at all.  1) Bally/Sinclair have done nothing but fail at everything they've attempted (including the buggy app) and 2) The structure of this is much less valuable than competitors.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.  But so far I predicted there initial price point would be negatively received and they'd drop it (they did) and that their entire model is based on leveraging predatory behavior.  (It is)  I'm going to stick with my analysis on this because what Sinclair does is irrelevant to me.  I don't have to deal with it, viewing it purely as an outsider.Arguments predicated on "Well I like it" aren't a valid counter argument.

I'm happy for you and Otto that it works for your viewing habits.  Nevertheless, I think any kind of sober analysis on what kind of numbers/reception to expect at this point has to be incredibly pessimistic.

As evidence, feel free to scroll through the majority of responses on TD and the STrib about this.  (Reddit too if you want to peruse the random fan bases on that front.  Free sample, but go ahead and peruse)  It's overwhelmingly negative.  As it should be - $20 is a ridiculous price.  It only appears less ridiculous because the other options are even more ridiculous.

[TheLeviathan]

59 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

What would you propose as an alternative? Going over the air isn’t too viable either because CBS/NBC/FOX/ABC aren’t going to cut their nightly programming 5-7 days a week from April-early November. 

There’s a major difference between live sports, TV entertainment like Netflix, and news entertainment like CNN+… Live sports still reigns supreme as the most compelling event to get to a TV and watch.

Netflix isn’t struggling just because it’s getting too expensive. Most people had that platform to watch their comfort shows like The Office over and over again. Those are gone… Their original programming is mostly terrible. And their model of dumping the entire season at once isn’t a sustainable model for keeping subscribers around. 

Live sport viewing numbers are also way down.  Betting people are so desperate and hardcore that they'll pony up is a business model that isn't going to work in today's TV market.  Young people catch highlights later on twitter, anyone with the ability to use google can pirate with ease, and older folks aren't getting out of their comfy dish/cable packages for this.  

Streaming app?  Sure. $20?  You priced yourself out of a massive portion of the audience that would even consider this.  

[adorduan]

Sinclair is evil. I will never give them a dime of my money.