BijanBlog: Will the future of TV start with sports?
PKafka
· 3 months ago
I think we are a long way off here. Right now sports is going to direct to consumer *only* when it doesn't risk upsetting a more lucrative tv stream. MLB is happy to let you watch yankees in boston on your pc b/c there's a tiny market for that. But it won't let you watch red sox in boston b/c of rights deal -- and it won't let you watch playoffs, for the same reason. Same thing w/tennis - small audience and small dollars so no worries. But note that direct tv now selling web access to its "big ticket" NFL package for MORE than tv $.
bijan
· 3 months ago
I think it's going to change Peter.
Timing is not clear but the online audience is only growing
at some point it will tip.
I also think if the leagues don't bring it then consumers will (ie theft/p2p/bittorrent). There are just too many users online with fat pipes and it's growing
The other problem with "traditional tv" is the DVR. it's a real issue. DVR penetration is meaningful that those users don't watch ads - regardless what nielsen says....
kirklove
· 3 months ago
Do you mean it will grow and eventually “tip” that people will access internet content via their TV instead of broadcast? If so, I agree 100%. If not, I don’t see the number of folks sitting at a monitor ever surpassing the number of potatoes sitting on the couch.
For it to tip on the TV the process has to be much, much smoother, and way easier to navigate. We are still a ways from that (and I say this as someone who would love Boxee to work as well as turning on my TV). Plus, a huge issue rarely discussed is that a standard of quality has to be established for online content. Just remember the early days of audio sharing online. Ugh. It sucked. So I think you are bit off there with the p to p threat – especially with live sports. However, once you had legitimate sites, delivering consistent, quality items, you had much greater and more rapid adoption (i.e. iTunes).
You can also liken it to the early days of Cable TV. The networks crushed them. Cable caught up. Then Cable passed them (except for LOST, ha). The internet can do the same. MLB.TV is a HUGE step in that direction as I actually prefer to watch games that way with access to data, tracking, and now Twitter built right in. You can’t do that with the TV feed. Plus, I’m a Phillies fan living in NYC so like you it’s perfect for me. And yes, we’re going to beat the Yankees in the World Series. Sorry. ; )
PS: As for DVRs I agree. I watch 0 television live. Though I think you will see technology come along to force pre rolls and overlays in the next few years on DVRs. Sucks for viewers, but it’s coming.
bijan
· 3 months ago
I agree on all fronts.
My only comment about p2p is that the content owners should embrace the web (like the mlb, tennis channel etc) before people figure out it's easy to download/stream pirated content to their PCs or xbox and watch anywhere they want.
-bijan
kirklove
· 3 months ago
Glad you agree the Phils will beat the Yanks. ; )
bijan
· 3 months ago
Not a chance !
-bijan
willwhutson
· 3 months ago
Yup, I think these are some great thoughts, the NFL has been "training" viewers to tune into the NFL network the last few years for Thursday night game exclusives. Much to peoples chagrin too, but if the money is there and its a more direct route we might well be in for some changes.
Also note, that sports advertising is one of the most lucrative forms because of the viewerships deep desire to watch it in real time instead of via dvr or tivo.
The NCAA would be well served to create their own conduit but they don't think like that ... yet.
bijan
· 3 months ago
agreed. but I bet they will soon enough.
willwhutson
· 3 months ago
or maybe they already do conference by conference ...
Great point about sports advertising, but like Bijan said, the DVR has done a lot of damage here. Last spring, I watched the Celtics in the NBA playoffs solely on DVR. Avoiding tons of ads, but I also had to turn off my phone/Internet to avoid spoilers.
Now, I don't even own a TV, I've just got an iMac (on which the US Open experience is awesome). If the NBA could duplicate (and improve) such a robust viewing experience as this, then I'd be glued to the screen. And of course, same for the NHL and NFL.
I think it's really about customization. Allow consumers to make choices about their content. Let me watch exactly what I want to watch. If you build a channel for consumers to do this, they will.
Bijan made a point above about piracy/P2P. It's just like the music industry. People 'stole' lots of music, until there was the iTunes store, Amazon, Amie Street etc. Now that there's a channel to consume legally, there's a business there. (Just noticed Kirklove's comment like this above. Total agreement here.)
The SEC almost made a serious mistake in banning social media at games. They have since fixed their mistake and clarified their terms, however, I think they need to go a step further and figure out a way to embrace a group of people (customers) who are so in love with their games (products) that they want to tell everyone about them.
I suppose my overall point is, there is a ton of sports media out there. All of it has value to someone, somewhere. The people in control of this media need to figure out the ways in which they can create value for their fans/customers, and in turn make a tremendous profit as well.
And where is ESPN during all of this? I think ESPN has the potential to become more of a portal or a switcher for the online content. They will act as the great curators of the sports world and people will use ESPN as a gateway... unless someone beats them to it.
Finally, the one thing that sucks about sports video online? The quality is still catching up. This US Open video is great, but from a technical standpoint tennis (and baseball for that matter) are low movement sports making streaming video quality much easier. The good news? This will only continue improving. But for this reason, the NHL will continue to lag behind the other major sports, so I'll be waiting for the Bruins via iMac a bit longer...
reecepacheco
· 3 months ago
And to actually answer Bijan's original question. Yes. The future of TV will most definitely start with sports. It is the most engaging content over time, attracting fans year in and year out (I know, I'm a Red Sox fan who remembers what it was like before 2004).
willcole
· 3 months ago
It's hard to imagine a model where all professional leagues exclusively go straight to customers with their live content. MLB.TV is a great example of how they can optimize the revenue stream through making previously unavailable content available to out of market customers. However, as Peter mentions, none of this is at expense to the in market viewership.
I don't think ESPN will be threatened by the leagues as much on TV, but may find themselves cut out of the equation for distributing live sports content online. It's strange to think that with all the money involved in the TV deals that ESPN has been unable to roll out a compelling online live viewing experience a la CBS Sportsline with March Madness, but the damage is being done.
Kiril
· 3 months ago
My gut here is that the TV racket is ready to be fully disrupted, but it'll be from the outside, not the inside. Look at what's happening with Twitter in the NFL, and with college and even highschool leagues having legal battles with the media over "live" reporting.
Sports is in a huge bubble- as soon as the fans at the game can, in aggregate, provide an experience even close to the online gamecast that the leagues provide, alot of that exclusive value is going to vanish.
Personally, I don't think the mega-leagues, with bazillion-dollar budgets, are going to be around in this form 10 years from now. They're based on scarcity and information control, and we know that the internet commoditizes those kinds of businesses in the long run. (Trying to have a hand in doing that ourselves over here at GameChanger).
bijan
· 3 months ago
I like that notion of inside vs outside.
-bijan
Technical Translations
· 1 month ago
I often read your blog and always find it very interesting
All Comments
Timing is not clear but the online audience is only growing
at some point it will tip.
I also think if the leagues don't bring it then consumers will (ie theft/p2p/bittorrent). There are just too many users online with fat pipes and it's growing
The other problem with "traditional tv" is the DVR. it's a real issue. DVR penetration is meaningful that those users don't watch ads - regardless what nielsen says....
For it to tip on the TV the process has to be much, much smoother, and way easier to navigate. We are still a ways from that (and I say this as someone who would love Boxee to work as well as turning on my TV). Plus, a huge issue rarely discussed is that a standard of quality has to be established for online content. Just remember the early days of audio sharing online. Ugh. It sucked. So I think you are bit off there with the p to p threat – especially with live sports. However, once you had legitimate sites, delivering consistent, quality items, you had much greater and more rapid adoption (i.e. iTunes).
You can also liken it to the early days of Cable TV. The networks crushed them. Cable caught up. Then Cable passed them (except for LOST, ha). The internet can do the same. MLB.TV is a HUGE step in that direction as I actually prefer to watch games that way with access to data, tracking, and now Twitter built right in. You can’t do that with the TV feed. Plus, I’m a Phillies fan living in NYC so like you it’s perfect for me. And yes, we’re going to beat the Yankees in the World Series. Sorry. ; )
PS: As for DVRs I agree. I watch 0 television live. Though I think you will see technology come along to force pre rolls and overlays in the next few years on DVRs. Sucks for viewers, but it’s coming.
My only comment about p2p is that the content owners should embrace
the web (like the mlb, tennis channel etc) before people figure out
it's easy to download/stream pirated content to their PCs or xbox and
watch anywhere they want.
-bijan
-bijan
Also note, that sports advertising is one of the most lucrative forms because of the viewerships deep desire to watch it in real time instead of via dvr or tivo.
The NCAA would be well served to create their own conduit but they don't think like that ... yet.
http://www.bigtennetwork.com/
NB: "streamed games"
Now, I don't even own a TV, I've just got an iMac (on which the US Open experience is awesome). If the NBA could duplicate (and improve) such a robust viewing experience as this, then I'd be glued to the screen. And of course, same for the NHL and NFL.
I think it's really about customization. Allow consumers to make choices about their content. Let me watch exactly what I want to watch. If you build a channel for consumers to do this, they will.
Bijan made a point above about piracy/P2P. It's just like the music industry. People 'stole' lots of music, until there was the iTunes store, Amazon, Amie Street etc. Now that there's a channel to consume legally, there's a business there. (Just noticed Kirklove's comment like this above. Total agreement here.)
The SEC almost made a serious mistake in banning social media at games. They have since fixed their mistake and clarified their terms, however, I think they need to go a step further and figure out a way to embrace a group of people (customers) who are so in love with their games (products) that they want to tell everyone about them.
I suppose my overall point is, there is a ton of sports media out there. All of it has value to someone, somewhere. The people in control of this media need to figure out the ways in which they can create value for their fans/customers, and in turn make a tremendous profit as well.
And where is ESPN during all of this? I think ESPN has the potential to become more of a portal or a switcher for the online content. They will act as the great curators of the sports world and people will use ESPN as a gateway... unless someone beats them to it.
Finally, the one thing that sucks about sports video online? The quality is still catching up. This US Open video is great, but from a technical standpoint tennis (and baseball for that matter) are low movement sports making streaming video quality much easier. The good news? This will only continue improving. But for this reason, the NHL will continue to lag behind the other major sports, so I'll be waiting for the Bruins via iMac a bit longer...
I don't think ESPN will be threatened by the leagues as much on TV, but may find themselves cut out of the equation for distributing live sports content online. It's strange to think that with all the money involved in the TV deals that ESPN has been unable to roll out a compelling online live viewing experience a la CBS Sportsline with March Madness, but the damage is being done.
Sports is in a huge bubble- as soon as the fans at the game can, in aggregate, provide an experience even close to the online gamecast that the leagues provide, alot of that exclusive value is going to vanish.
Personally, I don't think the mega-leagues, with bazillion-dollar budgets, are going to be around in this form 10 years from now. They're based on scarcity and information control, and we know that the internet commoditizes those kinds of businesses in the long run. (Trying to have a hand in doing that ourselves over here at GameChanger).
-bijan
Thanks
kaley fandrew
______________________________________________