TV Home Forum

International Sports Coverage

Rights, Broadcasters et Al beyond the UK. (March 2017)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
UK
UKnews

NBC previously had streaming service NBC GOLD Sports that sat alongside NBCSN. Which was open to those viewers that already had a pay-tv subscription. It was like a free streaming add on. THis was also used for the Olympics for overflow programming. You were allowed to log in with your pay subscription and watch the expanded sports programming for free. WIth the launch of Peacock, NBC and other content providers are now making you pay for the "cable tv" channels but then also pay a subscription fee....$4.99, etc for their streaming services, like Peacock channel to watch programming that was free previously. So likely they will lock more Premier League game behind another paywall. To me its a matter of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

In terms of what happened in the past, this isn't quite right.

Originally there was just an 'NBC Sports' streaming app (and website). Cable subscribers could log in and stream NBCSN, Golf Channel, and NBC Sports coverage on the main broadcast network and other Comcast owned channels. It also included (at no extra charge) extended or overspill coverage of various events, like Premier League games being played at the same time as those being broadcast one of the other broadcast / cable networks.

Later 'NBC Sports Gold' was launched, alongside the NBC Sports app. This took most of the extra coverage - and added more - but each sport or event was sold as a 'pack' at an additional cost. Those without cable subscriptions didn't need one to be able to subscribe to these 'packs'. However the main NBC SN channel (or any other broadcast coverage) couldn't be streamed through this app or on the main app without a cable login.

The coverage from 'NBC Sports Gold' was eventually merged in to the 'NBC Sports' app, but still with extra payments required for the additional coverage, separate from any cable subscription that unlocked streaming of any events being broadcast.

When Peacock launched the additional coverage was moved on to there, but NBC started moving more Premier League coverage - including some of the biggest games - off NBCSN and onto Peacock. That hadn't gone down well, but perhaps should have been a sign of what was coming.
Jeffmister and whoiam989 gave kudos
JA
JAS84
In the UK, we have BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, and My5 for free. The latter three being funded by commercials. Why don't the network owned US streamers operate the same way? That means Peacock (NBC) and Paramount+ (CBS) at least. Does ABC have it's own streamer seperate from Disney+? I know CW has CW Seed, and most Fox programming (anything made by 20th Century Fox Television, as it was called before the buyout) probably ended up on Disney+.
NG
noggin Founding member
JAS84 posted:
In the UK, we have BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, and My5 for free. The latter three being funded by commercials. Why don't the network owned US streamers operate the same way? That means Peacock (NBC) and Paramount+ (CBS) at least.


The US affiliate model presumably is a major barrier to this. It's really important to remember that a large number of 'ABC', 'CBS' and 'NBC' stations are not owned by NBC, ABC and CBS - and instead affiliate to those networks.

If the networks bypassed these local affiliate stations by offering advertising-funded, free-to-watch, catch-up or live feeds (not that those feeds really exist?) of their content with no subscription pay-wall, then local stations would understandably complain about loss of eyeballs on their stations, which in turn would mean lower advertising revenue.

It's really tricky to map a UK-centric model of TV onto the US market, and vice versa.
TI
TIGHazard
JAS84 posted:
In the UK, we have BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, and My5 for free. The latter three being funded by commercials. Why don't the network owned US streamers operate the same way? That means Peacock (NBC) and Paramount+ (CBS) at least. Does ABC have it's own streamer seperate from Disney+? I know CW has CW Seed, and most Fox programming (anything made by 20th Century Fox Television, as it was called before the buyout) probably ended up on Disney+.


Because the networks would only be able to supply their own content and not any of the syndicated stuff? I don't think any of the non owned and operated stations like ceding control over to the network and would rather do it themselves (probably via cable on demand systems)
NG
noggin Founding member
JAS84 posted:
In the UK, we have BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, and My5 for free. The latter three being funded by commercials. Why don't the network owned US streamers operate the same way? That means Peacock (NBC) and Paramount+ (CBS) at least. Does ABC have it's own streamer seperate from Disney+? I know CW has CW Seed, and most Fox programming (anything made by 20th Century Fox Television, as it was called before the buyout) probably ended up on Disney+.


Because the networks would only be able to supply their own content and not any of the syndicated stuff? I don't think any of the non owned and operated stations like ceding control over to the network and would rather do it themselves (probably via cable on demand systems)


Yes - it's really important not to think of NBC, CBS and ABC as being like BBC One, ITV and Channel Four in this regard. They aren't channels that viewers receive at home in the way BBC One, ITV and C4 are, they are instead suppliers of content to stations (some of those stations they happen to own) which then create the channels that audiences watch via terrestrial, cable, and in some cases satellite.
BR
Brekkie
Affiliates and cable were the main barriers to national services. The timezones don't help too - think most networks don't put content up till the following day.
RR
RR
It should also be pointed out that many fewer viewers in the US use an aerial to pick up the channels for free, and the cable and satellite operators pay the affiliates to carry their channels (scene of many a dispute over the past few years) - moving to a free online model loses this income.
MO
Mouseboy33
None of it matters anyway. Like I said before the number of pay-tv house is dropping significantly. Has nothing to do with timezones, affiliates or anything like that. At the end of the day it come down to money and what families can afford to pay and if there is still value in paying for a service that no one uses in the household.... if everyone is on the internet or their mobile phones why continue to pay $200+ per month.

Quote:
In 2018, there were almost 171 million subscriptions to streaming services, which increased by 6.9% in 2019 to 182.5 million. OTT services such as Netflix, Hulu, Youtube TV and Sling lead the way here and are still expected to headline a list of streaming services that will net a total 191.5 million subscribers in 2020.

Over half the respondents in our survey stated they currently subscribe to Netflix and Amazon Prime. As new streaming services such as Peacock, Disney+, Apple TV+ and HBO Max ramp up in late 2019 and early 2020, we expect these numbers to shift, but not significantly.

Netflix: 60%
Amazon Prime: 53%
Hulu: 18%
Sling: 9.8%
Youtube TV: 9.5%
Pluto TV: 8.5%

Surprisingly consumers (56% of them) actually liked having so many streaming providers to choose from, compared to the 13.7% that found all the different choices way too confusing. Over 23% of our respondents complained that all the services were just too expensive for them.




Last edited by Mouseboy33 on 27 January 2021 2:19pm
RD
rdd Founding member
I don’t think it was a secret CBS Sports planned a rebrand for the Super Bowl, but they seem to have started rolling it out a bit early (and possibly in time for this weekend’s PGA Tour golf?)

https://www.newscaststudio.com/2021/01/27/cbs-sports-new-logo/

Not much other than the new logo to see yet. The old look had a very good innings having barely changed for five years and was consistently used across CBS Sports - compare with NBC which is using three completely different looks (NFL, golf, and everything else) and ESPN which after a period of mostly consistency (except for NFL) now seems to be all over the place.
JA
JAS84
Five years, a good innings? When the previous logo had lasted more than three decades?
BR
Brekkie
Evolution rather than revolution, and though the previous logo was 35 years old I'm sure it evolved slightly over the years. Surprised it lasted so long really - it is very much of the 80s.
TI
TIGHazard
JAS84 posted:
Five years, a good innings? When the previous logo had lasted more than three decades?


I think RDD means CBS's graphics look. Normally the main four NFL broadcasters seem to rebrand every time they get the Super Bowl on a 3 year rotation (for Fox, CBS and NBC). ESPN don't get it but seem to change their package every three years too.

However last time CBS did not change their package much - only making the play clock glow red I believe.

Newer posts