The Soaring Cost Of Sports Programming Is Simply Not Sustainable
from the something-has-to-give dept
One of the biggest reasons for soaring cable rates is the bloated and soaring cost of sports programming. Similarly, one of the biggest causes for the unprecedented rise in cord cutting (ditching cable and going with a streaming alternative) is the cost of sports programming. Surveys have shown that 56% of ESPN viewers would dump the channel just to save the $8 per month it costs each subscriber. Once streaming alternatives emerged for the sports-bloated traditional cable bundles that let them do just that, users began flooding to the exits at a historic rate.
The reality is millions upon millions of customers don't give a shit about sports, yet are forced to pay $120 or more per month for cable bundles filled with content they don't watch, and didn't want. And when some cable companies initially tried to offer "skinny bundles" without ESPN or other sports networks, they were sued by ESPN for trying to give consumers what they wanted. And while that has slowly started to change with the rise of live TV streaming alternatives, for traditional cable providers something in this cycle of dysfunction needs to change. Quickly.
Case in point: Axios points to Magna's latest Media Sports Report that highlights how cable companies are now paying significantly more money for sports programming than they make off advertising during the games. For example, cable operators now pay the NBA $2.6 billion annually in licensing fees, but "only" make $1.3 billion from the ads run during sports events. The associated graphic highlights how it's the same for most leagues:
Of course cable companies make up for the difference by not only imposing endless cable TV rate hikes, but via the bevy of misleading fees they've long used to jack up the advertised rate of service post sale. But their ability to do this has been dramatically compromised by the mass exodus of users fleeing traditional cable. And the problem is notably worse for broadcast networks:
This (sic) economics are especially problematic for broadcast networks that carry live sports games, because they don't have access to subscription revenues to subsidize the high cost of programming, like cable networks do. Broadcasters rely on ratings, driven by viewership — which is getting increasingly older and aging out of the coveted 25-54 marketing demographic, as well as retransmission fees.
As a result, more sports distribution rights have migrated to cable networks — think TNT and TBS carrying the NBA and MLB, respectively. But there are problems there, too. Cable channels are losing subscribers to digital streaming options at the fastest rate ever. It's worth noting that both cable and broadcast networks make a substantial amount of money from retransmission fees (charging cable and satellite providers to carry their content), but collectively it's still not enough to completely offset the rate of increases to programming costs.
The report proceeds to state the obvious by proclaiming that analysts "don't see the ever-increasing gap between ad revenues and rights fees as sustainable in the long term," something cable subscribers could have told them years ago. Wall Street analysts have similarly been discussing how retransmission fee hikes and the soaring cost of programming simply isn't sustainable for the better part of the last decade, not that it appears to have changed the landscape -- or the executive quest to milk the traditional cable TV cash cow to death -- in any meaningful fashion.
This will likely most harm small cable TV operators, who have said they may just stop selling cable TV as margins get tighter. Don't feel too badly for larger cable providers like Comcast, however. As their TV margins get squeezed, they are simply using their monopoly over broadband to jack up the cost of broadband via unnecessary and confusing caps or overage fees. The end result: cable companies get their pound of flesh one way or the other, as users are punished for fleeing the cable and broadcast sectors' walled gardens and the seemingly endless TV rate hikes therein.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cable rates, sports, sports programming, tv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pretending nothing has changed, while one delivers beatings to the other telling them they deserve it.
Somehow I can't find any fscks to give to these billion dollar babies having tantrums.
We need tax breaks and public money for our stadiums or we'll leave! It rarely delivers any of the promised benefits to the community & often leads to black outs on the channels because the stadium isn't full because $15 beer isn't a good way to draw fans in.
Perhaps its time to admit that the model they've used forever and pushed to the limit is broken.
Millions of consumers are forced to pay for content they don't want & don't use.
Perhaps its time someone suggest they stop treating consumers like cows to be milked, & consider they might just be slightly important. This broken model is only going to get worse & eventually the public will hit a point where they will demand that Congress stop pretending its a free market & we deserve better options.
The last few olympics have been complete clusterfooks because they air them at stupid times & pretend we couldn't see online the results from 8 hours earlier in the day.
All of this money is being pulled from consumers who just want to pick and chose what channels they want. When you drive the consumers away, do you think that lost money will some how just keep appearing?
Leagues keep making stupid rules about social media & grab more control in an attempt to keep their kingdom rich... ignoring that even dire hard fans are walking away now because $150 for a partially obstructed view seat isn't a draw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was in Houston when they renovated the Astrodome, and many of the new seats were behind very large support pillars. The backlash from that was bad. I never cared to check at the time (was busy in college), but I imagine there were quite a few lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More cable customers would be likely to cut the cord if live sports streaming were more readily available. But it isn't because the content providers get the Brink truck filled with cash backed up to them from network like ESPN, NBC and FOX.
BUT, those networks can't really afford the content they pay for, but need to keep the price as artificially high as possible so I real competitor can't swoop in and offer live sports programming at market rates.
So in turn, these same networks need to keep charging higher carriage fees, which in turn makes more consumers want to cut the cord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no mystery
we've beat this topic endlessly here--- cableTV is a mess because the government heavily intervened in the normal buyer/seller realtionship... preventing real competition... and establishing seller cartels.
We KNOW what the problem is. The discussion here should ONLY address the best ways to amputate the government tentacles in cableTV markets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no mystery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no mystery
Did you just go out as a hypocrite for Halloween one year and decided it suited you very well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're likely cutting the cord
local MLB (and sometimes others)
local NFL (and sometimes others)
local/regional college football and men's/women's basketball
We do NOT watch:
NBA, NHL, car/motorcycle racing, golf, poker, soccer, tennis, UFC/boxing, or most of the rest.
We'd probably pay for a season subscription to our local MLB, NFL, and college teams, then go a la carte for other games we'd like to watch. But we can't, because neither Comcast nor Verizon offers any such thing.
So at the moment we're Comcast subscribers who pay for and ignore 95% of their programming, consume the other 5%, and pirate everything else. But we're getting damn close to cutting the cord and just figuring it out on the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks to me like a death spiral...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Showtime, I don't watch. I can't seem to get the app to work for it. Not that I care much. I had wanted HBO, but somehow ended up with Showtime.
Comcast sucks. It's the Local and State along with the Federal Government who created these Monopolies. Then give them anything and everything they want, screwing all of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an example, NASCAR signed their latest TV agreements in late 2012 and early 2013 for 8 and 10 years respectively. Those deals were signed when NASCAR still had reasonably high ratings - which have fallen significantly in the last 5 years. Attendance is down, viewership is down, and the "halo" effect of having NASCAR on your channel isn't that significant at this point. The sport itself is undergoing major transitions as a lack of sponsorship is driving some teams out of the sport and lowering the salaries and such all around. The latest series sponsor, Monster, is in there at a price that is reportedly about 25% of what the previous sponsor was paying, and on a much more short term basis.
Now, this gap between direct advertising and the cost of the boardcast rights is made up in no small part by subscription fees, but it is also made up by going "wall to wall" on certain sports. The latest NBA deal comes with a significant increase in NBA related programming, including preview and review shows, NBA themed interview shows, and the like. Those are relatively cheap to produce (done in house) and the ad revenue there goes to pay towards the broadcast rights. So the report you point to, while reasonable accurate in a direct way, does not consider all the ways that the content is marketed and monetized.
Since most of the sports have TV contracts that run well past 2020, it's doubtful that much will change, except perhaps what people pay for. Instead of paying for ESPN on cable, people may end up paying for the streaming version.
The money will be made and the bills will get paid, at least for another 5 to 10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where is the aw that guarantees that a company will get the income it needs to meet its commitments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
NASCAR is facing that very problem. The TV deals are nice, and they are filling in the coffers for now. But the teams are having a hard time finding sponsors, the races are rapidly losing attendance, and the elephant in the room is that the TV ratings have declined significantly. While their TV deals do run for a few more years, it's very likely that when it comes time to renegotiate, they will find themselves backing into a corner, and forced to accept a very reduced deal.
The trickle down of course is that the teams can't afford as much staff and goodies, the driver are getting paid less, and experienced drivers are coming out of contract and not getting rehired. It's a potential death spiral.
Yet, on the other side, the public loves sports. The Superbowl is one of the most watched events every year. Where is the tipping point? How much sports can we live without before we need it bad enough again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Sports, that's something you do with your friends in the park, right?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The thing about the content and copyright holders that MyNameHere supports is that they all operate under the belief that people are ridiculously, hopelessly, irreparably addicted to their content. Reality indicates that's often not the case. Cut off one arm of content, make it inaccessible or a bitch to find, and people move on. Maybe even make content of their own. It's why fair use is such a thorn in MyNameHere's side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I returned the equipment earlier they hurried me out of the physical store without changing my account, had to call back and force the issue. Nothing like walking in with 5 boxes to return. They wanted me GONE before I scared other customers I suppose.
Comcast customer since 1991, $270 a month before fees. They tried to warn us we'd lose our home phone number. ( Only ever used to make a misplaced Cell phone ring) Had to check if we were under contract...(hahahahaha).
Could we have absorbed the broadcast and ESPN fees? Sure! But when you hit the Popeye limit, (Alls I can stands, and I can't stands no more!) You lose us. All we wanted was Cartoon Network for Rick and Morty, SciFi, and TV Japan.
Comcast wants my money again, I want A la carte. No broadcast fees, no ESPN.
$85 fiber now. 940mb down, 899mb upstream.
Even my stroked out mother in law knows how to stream on her own now. That's how much Comcast annoyed us, and she can barely walk and talk. Inconvenience means nothing compared to not playing Comcast's game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides getting all the broadcast channels of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW, PBS, I'm getting MeTV, and AntennaTV and others and can watch a lot of older TV series, which is great. If you haven't seen them in years or maybe never, then it's new to you. With a Antenna and say Netflix, which Netflix has a ton of Original content now, and have a lot of Kids programming, that should be more then enough. What shows you may miss out on, what you don't see/watch you won't miss and at some point may come to Netflix anyway. I see no point in HULU or CBS All access. If want like Sports, maybe SlingTV is for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somehow the cable industry seems ass backwards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Somehow the cable industry seems ass backwards
As it is all about revenue from advertisers willing to spend up bigger with more eyeballs watching your pay TV broadcasts when eyeball numbers go down so do the advertising rates and profits as the article points out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boomer Sooner!
Sadly they sucking the life out of college sports too not to mention the cost of a single seat is getting stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps they would be interested in attending a quick symposium on the merits of examining something called a "Price Point".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't watch the knitting channel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viacom Cable, in the early 1980s, used to charge $12 a month extra if you wanted the Sports Channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, being in Holland, with servers in Sweden, makes them not subject to US laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then there’s those who live in cities captive to crybaby sports fans
Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a simple fix...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a simple fix...
You are correct in that they do not have to do that ... but they have and will continue to do so. The time prices are reduced is in a competitive market. Most major league sports are exempt from anti-trust laws ... why? ... idk, because there is money to be made I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Dutch. If I upgrade my DSL internet subscribtion (40 Euro/month for up to 40Mbit down, 4 up) to include TV, I would pay only 17.50 Euro more (70 channels, 33 of them HD and including almost all of the best known international channels) And I'm using one of the more expensive providers (XS4ALL)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Less and less every day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since they starting doing that, I haven't turned on a Football game. I already don't watch award shows as I know what those will end up being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]