White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2018, 11:40 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default Interesting Quote...

Since it will impact the White Sox in ways that can't be determined yet, I thought I'd post it here:

Crane Kenney at the Cubs convention on their future media plans:

"If the Cubs are successful, it could have a domino effect in the market, with Kenney saying the team is “probably 80 percent inclined” to leave its NBC Sports Chicago partnership with the Bulls, Blackhawks and White Sox.

“We like controlling our own destiny,” he said. “You start adding partners, it becomes a little more complicated.”

----------

The Cubs are going to start their own TV Network, that's pretty clear. What it means for the Sox since their deal is up at the same time is unknown from an advertising standpoint and an interest standpoint and a rights fee standpoint.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:17 PM
Domeshot17 Domeshot17 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Plainfield
Posts: 11,617
Default

I don't know why they wouldn't. They dominate the chicago market, and lets be honest, they always will. The Sox are never going to be more popular, and the Cubs are always going to have a bigger national following.

Given their relationship with the Hawks, I could see the Hawks moving to the Cubs network and they should have plenty of content.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:19 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 54,697
Blog Entries: 9
Default

I don't see the Sox ever severing themselves from the Bulls so long as JR owns both teams. I also think it's very difficult to fill programming on a channel that only covers one team. Unless they are picturing an NFL Redzone equivalent where they go dark between broadcasts they are going to struggle to fill hours or programming time and I cannot picture anyone but the most diehard Cubs fan wanting to watch hours of games from Cubs history. There is a reason I used to call them the flubs. I guess they can keep showing that day's game on a loop but again, that's not gonna draw many viewers and their advertising revenue is going to struggle.

Add in the fact that for the vast majority of teams success is cyclical, if they lock themselves into this concept and then have a bad decade it's gonna hurt big time.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:40 PM
anewman35 anewman35 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo Grove, IL
Posts: 3,326
Default

There are other areas, some smaller than Chicago, that are able to support multiple RSNs (list of RSNs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_sports_network). So I would think that it would probably work out ok, and maybe even better for the Sox because they wouldn't have to complete on their own channel with another baseball team.

Last edited by anewman35; 01-14-2018 at 05:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-14-2018, 01:47 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
I don't see the Sox ever severing themselves from the Bulls so long as JR owns both teams. I also think it's very difficult to fill programming on a channel that only covers one team. Unless they are picturing an NFL Redzone equivalent where they go dark between broadcasts they are going to struggle to fill hours or programming time and I cannot picture anyone but the most diehard Cubs fan wanting to watch hours of games from Cubs history. There is a reason I used to call them the flubs. I guess they can keep showing that day's game on a loop but again, that's not gonna draw many viewers and their advertising revenue is going to struggle.

Add in the fact that for the vast majority of teams success is cyclical, if they lock themselves into this concept and then have a bad decade it's gonna hurt big time.
Voodoo: The YES Network is a good comparison. During baseball season they fill an incredible amount of time with documentaries on the Yankees, sports-talk shows focusing on the Yankees, Yankee biography shows and classic Yankee games. It's not easy but they can fill the time. Of course the Yankees have had access to historical video over decades since they were smart enough to hang on to their history (unlike the Sox who have lost most of theirs) so it is easier for them to put together these type shows. The Cubs library at WGN goes back to the late 60's to my knowledge so it may not be as big of an issue for them.

The off season? That's another story. The YES Network of course has the Nets.

But remember JR and Wirtz built the United Center and have worked closely on other projects.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-14-2018, 04:02 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 54,697
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
Voodoo: The YES Network is a good comparison. During baseball season they fill an incredible amount of time with documentaries on the Yankees, sports-talk shows focusing on the Yankees, Yankee biography shows and classic Yankee games. It's not easy but they can fill the time. Of course the Yankees have had access to historical video over decades since they were smart enough to hang on to their history (unlike the Sox who have lost most of theirs) so it is easier for them to put together these type shows. The Cubs library at WGN goes back to the late 60's to my knowledge so it may not be as big of an issue for them.

The off season? That's another story. The YES Network of course has the Nets.

But remember JR and Wirtz built the United Center and have worked closely on other projects.
Exactly and of course the difference between the Yankees history and the Cubs' history is huge. People like to watch films of those old HOF players and all those championships, but what do the Cubs have to do that with? You think the current crop of fans wants to reminisce over those golden years of the 50's, 60's and 70's?

I think there are very few teams that can actually get away with this and maybe only one - the Yankees.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-14-2018, 05:17 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
Winner 2016 WSI Preseason Prediction Contest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 15,751
Default

With the prevalence of cord-cutting, I am dubious of how well a Cubs-only (or even Cubs-Blackhawks) RSN would do. The Dodgers did that a few years ago and it's hard to get their games in LA now because cable networks don't want to raise their rates to make that network a standard cable channel. I suspect though the Cubs would likely have learned from the Dodgers mistakes and improve it. But I wouldn't necessarily assume that a Cubs only network would be a huge winner.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-14-2018, 05:21 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,717
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
With the prevalence of cord-cutting, I am dubious of how well a Cubs-only (or even Cubs-Blackhawks) RSN would do. The Dodgers did that a few years ago and it's hard to get their games in LA now because cable networks don't want to raise their rates to make that network a standard cable channel. I suspect though the Cubs would likely have learned from the Dodgers mistakes and improve it. But I wouldn't necessarily assume that a Cubs only network would be a huge winner.
Isn't Disney gobbling up all the regional network (Fox included)?
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-14-2018, 07:15 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Isn't Disney gobbling up all the regional network (Fox included)?
Yes
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:38 PM
I_Liked_Manuel I_Liked_Manuel is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: downers ****ing grove
Posts: 1,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
With the prevalence of cord-cutting, I am dubious of how well a Cubs-only (or even Cubs-Blackhawks) RSN would do. The Dodgers did that a few years ago and it's hard to get their games in LA now because cable networks don't want to raise their rates to make that network a standard cable channel. I suspect though the Cubs would likely have learned from the Dodgers mistakes and improve it. But I wouldn't necessarily assume that a Cubs only network would be a huge winner.
The landscape is different now that would give a business like the Cubs more leverage. The few cable companies that we have in Chicago couldn't afford to lose the Cubs to the streaming packages right now, they're already losing subscribers left and right to them
__________________
Teacher Says, Every Time Brian Anderson Gets A Hit, An Angel Gets Its Wings.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-15-2018, 05:21 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domeshot17 View Post
I don't know why they wouldn't. They dominate the chicago market, and lets be honest, they always will. The Sox are never going to be more popular, and the Cubs are always going to have a bigger national following.

Given their relationship with the Hawks, I could see the Hawks moving to the Cubs network and they should have plenty of content.
What is their relationship with the Hawks? I'm not saying that to disagree with you, but I'm not familiar with what special relationship the Cubs and Hawks have (other than McDonough used to work for the Cubs).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-15-2018, 05:23 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Isn't Disney gobbling up all the regional network (Fox included)?
They would acquire the Fox Sports RSNs. But not the NBC Sports RSNs, which are owned by Comcast/NBC/Universal.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-15-2018, 05:59 PM
doogiec doogiec is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 404
Default

I don't see how the Cubs pull this off in this market.

I don't believe a channel has ever succeeded with one team. The Blackhawks are the only possible team to move, and Reinsdorf's relationship with Wirtz is tight (common ownership of United Center).

Besides that, the other factor I've not seen discussed is Comcast. Comcast is a partner in the current partnership. They also control a large segment of the cable market in the Chicago area. What is their motivation to carry a Cubs only channel? Certainly they would fear losing Cubs fans. But the majority of people aren't Cubs fans to the extent they would change, as a majority of people don't care that much about baseball in the first place. A price increase to carry the Cubs could cost them a lot of customers, in an era where every price increase motivates cord cutters.

If the Cubs do attempt this, I could see them in the same situation as the Dodgers, with very limited coverage. The partner in that deal, TWC, is reported losing insane amounts of money. Don't think any potential Cubs partner is going to ignore that fact and be taken advantage of in the same manner as the Dodgers took advantage of TWC.

The Cubs are too late to the party. I see the threats as an attempt to get a better deal for themselves in the current partnership, to make their take based more on viewership than ownership percentage.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:37 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is online now
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 54,697
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
What is their relationship with the Hawks? I'm not saying that to disagree with you, but I'm not familiar with what special relationship the Cubs and Hawks have (other than McDonough used to work for the Cubs).
Yeah if anything the Bulls and Hawks have a real good relationship dating back to the opening of the United Center.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:42 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiec View Post
I don't see how the Cubs pull this off in this market.

I don't believe a channel has ever succeeded with one team. The Blackhawks are the only possible team to move, and Reinsdorf's relationship with Wirtz is tight (common ownership of United Center).

Besides that, the other factor I've not seen discussed is Comcast. Comcast is a partner in the current partnership. They also control a large segment of the cable market in the Chicago area. What is their motivation to carry a Cubs only channel? Certainly they would fear losing Cubs fans. But the majority of people aren't Cubs fans to the extent they would change, as a majority of people don't care that much about baseball in the first place. A price increase to carry the Cubs could cost them a lot of customers, in an era where every price increase motivates cord cutters.

If the Cubs do attempt this, I could see them in the same situation as the Dodgers, with very limited coverage. The partner in that deal, TWC, is reported losing insane amounts of money. Don't think any potential Cubs partner is going to ignore that fact and be taken advantage of in the same manner as the Dodgers took advantage of TWC.

The Cubs are too late to the party. I see the threats as an attempt to get a better deal for themselves in the current partnership, to make their take based more on viewership than ownership percentage.
Good points but I'd submit the Chicago market is a lot different baseball-wise than L.A. who has more transient fans many coming from other locations.

And the bottom line from a Cub standpoint I think is this, they'd love to have everybody on the planet watch them but as long as they get their money and its in the bank, number of viewers take second position to $$$$$$$$$$.

And I think they won't break the bank but they'll get a TON of advertising income at the start with companies falling all over themselves to join the bandwagon.

The real question is, assuming what I think comes to pass, how much advertising money is left for the Sox? Do the Cubs suck that market dry??
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.