Enjoy the Perspective of The Financial Times (London)

[shmessy]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/df2704ee-bb30-11dc-9fbc-0000779fd2ac.html

 

[SamBam39]

very interesting.

these are the waters goodell and kraft are playing in, along with global marketing, while scott and bill pile up the lombardi's.

kraft is so ahead of the game in business all the time.

should be interesting to see how it all plays out over time.

 

[ljuneau]

Quite an honest perspective. Too bad we can't read articles like this from U.S. media.

 

[pheenix11]

"More questions arose, such as why US cable subscribers need to pay for so many expensive channels they do not want, why they cannot have à la carte pricing, why certain satellite programming is not made available on cable and so on. It will be surprising if next autumn's coincidence of football season and election season does not produce a candidate eager to tackle these issues."


You know considering that all the candidates will screw you one way or another, I'd probably vote for someone who would force Sunday Ticket to be available on cable.

I mean all the other BS they talk about, I will never see any of it, this would actually be something I could tangibly get a benefit out of.

 

[DCPatriot]

A la carte pricing. Talk about opening pandora's box...both the NFL and the cable companies should beware the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

>>>>It was a terrible mistake. Whether or not New England retains a distinct regional culture, it is unquestionably a distinct US sports market - and it is the only one with 12 senators in it.
>>>
In all the talk of the NFLN, that's one point I hadn't seen anywhere but it is pretty relevant. In addition, Sen. Spector is the senator from a state with two teams (pitt, Phil.) that had rabid fans....

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

"More questions arose, such as why US cable subscribers need to pay for so many expensive channels they do not want, why they cannot have à la carte pricing, why certain satellite programming is not made available on cable and so on. It will be surprising if next autumn's coincidence of football season and election season does not produce a candidate eager to tackle these issues."

A prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Funny if the NFL network debacle led to a massive cable industry restructuring with a la carte pricing. Given the ability to do video on demand cable companies cannot claim (with a straight face) that it is not technically possible.

 

[ClevTrev]

Interesting that FT could get to the core issue when so many in the US media put it into a "sports" category which translates into "pay me no mind." The crux of this issue has always been the power the Cables wield when they determine which programs get carried AND produce much of the very programming they carry for free on the basic tier. Produce their own programming, sell commercial time, and then broadcast for free to ensure advertisers maximum bang for the buck. Guess which programs they end up favoring?

Conflict of interest is a major understatement. With many crying "monopoly" in relation to the NFL (when it's obvious those who put the NFL in this category don't understand the term), the Cables hold the cards here as long as they can hold the consumers (fans) hostage by forcing them to buy a premium service with no substitutes to view the game.

 

[ironwasp]

The FT is able to get to the story because it is dispassionate, and to all intents and purposes this is its type of story. For its readers how the internal markets work is very important and it has the reporters and commentators to get to the nub of the issue. For the Globe, the Herald and even the NYT they start with the assumption that all their readers care about is whether or not they can watch the game. I suspect (and I spent 7 years at the FT) the FT assumes its readers don't care, and are more interested in who makes money out of what.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

The FT is able to get to the story because it is dispassionate, and to all intents and purposes this is its type of story. For its readers how the internal markets work is very important and it has the reporters and commentators to get to the nub of the issue. For the Globe, the Herald and even the NYT they start with the assumption that all their readers care about is whether or not they can watch the game. I suspect (and I spent 7 years at the FT) the FT assumes its readers don't care, and are more interested in who makes money out of what.

Excellent. That was the best, direct and most informative writing I'd seen on the topic. They have no emotional axe to grind.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Jolly good article.

 

[Seacoast Fan]

Interesting that FT could get to the core issue when so many in the US media put it into a "sports" category which translates into "pay me no mind." The crux of this issue has always been the power the Cables wield when they determine which programs get carried AND produce much of the very programming they carry for free on the basic tier. Produce their own programming, sell commercial time, and then broadcast for free to ensure advertisers maximum bang for the buck. Guess which programs they end up favoring?

Conflict of interest is a major understatement. With many crying "monopoly" in relation to the NFL (when it's obvious those who put the NFL in this category don't understand the term), the Cables hold the cards here as long as they can hold the consumers (fans) hostage by forcing them to buy a premium service with no substitutes to view the game.

Put me in this category, I guess. I never claimed to be an economist, but it seems to me that the NFL has as much a monopoly over pro football in this country as, well, Rockefeller had over the oil business at the turn of the 20th century. And if its not a monopoly, why is the NFL so concerned about the Antir-Turst Act and its exemption thereform?

 

[ClevTrev]

Put me in this category, I guess. I never claimed to be an economist, but it seems to me that the NFL has as much a monopoly over pro football in this country as, well, Rockefeller had over the oil business at the turn of the 20th century. And if its not a monopoly, why is the NFL so concerned about the Antir-Turst Act and its exemption thereform?

That's fair. I believe if this conflict is viewed as an issue related to the TV broadcast carriage and not a situation where another league is attempting to compete with the NFL, the focus is on the correct issue.

The NFL Network is not an over-the-air broadcast, it is not a major network with local network subsidiaries having local broadcast rights (meaning free or no additional charge to viewers) by law in the Cable context, and it depends on cable and satellite to carry the NFL Network broadcast. Given these conditions, this is an issue with a carrier (Cables) who can control which programs to carry and the charges customers must pay to view the broadcasts. The Cables also produce programming and make revenue from the advertising they sell during the broadcasts of the programs they produce. It gives them complete control when they own the cable network that carries the programs AND the programming the network carries. And since there are a finite number of hours in a programming day, guess which programs the Cables prefer to carry? It's not always the programming the viewers want.

Now, add to this the fact that many cable consumers have few alternatives in terms of substitutes for their over-the-air TV broadcasts. Over-the-air broadcasts have a limited broadcast area and limited channels. Cable is available to 97% of U.S. TV households and most regional cable providers have no cable competitors in their regions. The only alternative is to go satellite, but that's not a viable alternative for everyone. This means the Cables are the dominant provider in many regions across the country. So, when people speak about monopolistic behavior, it's hardly exhibited by the NFL in this case.

The Cables do not produce or own any part of the NFL Network. But the NFL Network depends on the Cables to carry its broadcasts to fans. The Cables happen to be the dominant party in this case. The NFL would like the games it broadcasts to be in the basic tier at no charge in order to be equivalent (not the same, it is cable) to the free over-the-air broadcasts fans have been used to with the major networks.