Warner Brothers Targeting Sports Content

[Roy Rangum]

I found the cnn article below interesting. In short, HBO max is now just becoming “Max” and will feature a lot more content pulling from all the things Warner Brothers own (which includes HBO).
In the article, the Warner Brothers CEO drops hints about wanting to expand their sports content and says things will be forthcoming in a few months.
“We are a global leader in sports and we are a global leader in news,” Zaslav said. “And in a few months we will come back to you on our attack plan to use this important and differentiating content to grow our streaming business even further.”
People have already linked CW to Pac12 discussions, and CW is also owned by Warner Brothers. While this is pure speculation, i wonder if CW is just the front for Warner Brothers, and they are targeting the Pac12 to be carried by this new “Max” streaming platform.
Regardless the platform, I’m actually totally all in for going to streaming as long as the money is there.
warner bro max streaming article

[dystopiamembrane]

[UteThunder]

Streaming for sports will never be a good thing, regardless of the money. 

Casual fans don’t make the effort to track down their team’s games on streaming, fans of other teams don’t make the effort to track down games not invovling their team on streaming unless it is a huge game, and even some of our more passionate fans won’t make the effort to track down games on streaming services unless they already subscribe.

If the Pac-12 goes to a streaming service, it will be worse for the conference than The Mountain ever was for the MWC.

[dystopiamembrane]

That’s the only way I can watch Irish Road Bowling Association events.

[dystopiamembrane]

Someone is offended by road bowling but not Bugs Bunny.

[dystopiamembrane]

Someone is offended by my pointing out that someone is offended by Irish road bowling but not Bugs Bunny.

[dystopiamembrane]

Is it a bias against the Irish? Cuz the Dutch do it, too. And, everyone loves the Dutch, windmills, ladies in windows.

[dystopiamembrane]

I had a thought last week that it’s probably a special order when you want white lights from the Amsterdam Home Depot. I think we got a pallet in the back.

[Roy Rangum]

I’m fully on board for streaming if it’s what gets us the most money.

I agree that it will initially reduce exposure (which isn’t good), but at the end of the day, winning is more important than exposure, and money helps us win. For example, BYU constantly beat their chest about how they got increased exposure with independence. But did all that “exposure” really help them? I don’t think it did, and I think arguably they would have won more games and gotten better true exposure and recognition had they stayed in the MWC (notwithstanding the limitations of the MWC).

Winning games is ultimately what gets you the most meaningful exposure, and money is what will help us win games. So for me, I think the PAC should take whatever gets us the most money.

Also as you look at how much streaming has changed things over the past decade, that’s only a trend I think that will accelerate. Sooner or later everything will be all streaming – and I’m ok if we get on that bandwagon sooner than later.

[Charlie]

You may be right. Will streaming be like cable and ESPN in the late 70s, early 80s? There was bitching and moaning about games that were not on the channels you get with a roof antenna and required a subscription. Over time sports fans did subscribe to services they complained about and were willing to hunt through channels beyond the 4 they knew. Then there was record a game because you were out or watching another on another channel. Settings for channel, start time, stop time. Helping my dad who’s VCR is always blinking 12:00. I am just wondering if the move to streaming will really be more difficult than moves in the past that so many thought no one could do? ESPN was once beyond the complexity and cost many would accept at the time.

[UTE98]

I often refer to this article from the Harvard Business Review we covered in my MBA. I share this when people need a nudge to focus on their sector instead of an activity. The Pac12 is in the entertainment industry. NOT the football industry. In my opinion. 

marketing-myopia

I hope Pac-12 Presidents and Pac12 conference officials are focusing on where we should be going, not on where we are now or have been. Skate to where the puck is going!

 

[//r00t4Utes]

Wish I could find my post saying similar weeks back, buried in the hundreds of TV deal threads.

So besides, the change is scary and different, that you and I had already touched on. Let’s go to the root of all this, money.

Money is what all the realignment is about, it’s getting all that TV money. Well that keg that is TV money is mostly tapped out largely thanks to the SEC and their ESPN (overpaid) deal.

So the PAC needs to first and foremost prioritize money over exposure to keep up best they can, then figure out how best to maximize their exposure based on the deals. With a little hope that streaming continues to grow.

I personally will use the money I will save on dropping the PAC12 network to pay for whichever streaming service. I already pay for Netflix, the Disney+ bundle (ESPN+ and hulu) and HBO MAX.

I had more but this is already too long

[Utesbyfive]

STreaming everything is the future.

[dystopiamembrane]

I do love the future. My favourite are the Ferengi.

[dystopiamembrane]

Gold Pressed Latinum and STreaming

[Stone]

I think streaming would end up being a disaster for the conference. It is highly unlikely you will be able to walk into a restaurant or bar and see a streaming game. Only the people that REALLY case about the game will see it.

[Central Coast Ute]

That’s what all the old guys said when it went to cable/satellite too. Also, no one would listen to the radio when they could read the newspaper. Why watch the evening news when you have a radio? Streaming is the future until it is overtaken by a newer technology.

[Stone]

I would be happy to be wrong – but the Pac12 tried being a leader in media previously (by keeping its network rights to itself) and the strategy bombed. Maybe this gamble pays off, but when the SEC and BIG are doing something different, I worry. If they were all streaming, then all the public spaces (restaurants/bars) would get onboard, but as learned with the Pac12 and Directv negotiations, the Pac12 is not “in demand” enough to force the issue. 

[UteThunder]

Key difference between switching to streaming and switching to cable – content exclusivity.

When Joe Football Fan had to switch from watching games on over the air TV to watching on Cable/Satellite, he only had to pick one service provider and he could get all of the content he wanted. With streaming content, we are now being forced to subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Paramount +, Disney +, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, etc., etc. The average football fan isn’t going to go out of their way and spend extra money to casually watch Pac-12 football the same way they will flip the channel from ESPN over to Fox to watch a Pac-12 football game.

[Central Coast Ute]

I consider myself of an above average college football fan. I have never watched a game on the BIG, SEC, ACC, or LHN. I’d rather just pay for what I want to watch and then I might watch a game that interests me on the networks. I don’t think anyone is arguing the PAC should go all in on streaming at this point.