Every year, less
and less people pay for cable. These people are known as “cord cutters.” Some
are doing it for financial reasons, others because they simply don’t watch that
much television and would rather purchase OTT services, such as Netflix and
Hulu. But what about sports programming? Sports programming is meant to watch
live and in order to watch live sports, you need to have cable. I think that no matter
what, sports will always stay relevant to the consumer because the concept of
watching sports live on television will never change. Specifically ESPN, which
serves as a monopoly in the sports TV network industry, is what is leads most
of the male demographic (18-49 year olds) to keeping their cable channel
packages.
If
you are a sports enthusiast, would you pay for cable if you couldn’t watch
ESPN? According to a Sports Illustrated article,
most people wouldn’t pay for cable if they couldn’t get ESPN. In the article
Jon Wertheim says “Just under
100 million cable homes get ESPN in their cable package; before selling a
single commercial unit, the network earns around $7 billion annually in
subscriber fees. Still, how many consumers would voluntarily pay for ESPN? In
conjunction with a 2004 renegotiation, one cable carrier surveyed its consumers
and found that one-third of them would drop their current carrier if it didn’t
offer ESPN.” How else do you watch sports programming and news? ESPN serves as a
monopoly by being the only cable network to provide sports games and news. Even
though NBC Sports is one of their cable competitors, people go to ESPN due to
their reputation and sports properties.
Right now
I pay for cable and the only times I use it is to watch sports or late night
entertainment shows such as a program on ESPN, NBC Sports and The Tonight Show
with Jimmy Fallon. But that’s as far as my cable watching goes. Otherwise, I
watch Netflix to watch all other shows. The trend for other programming genres
has shifted as cord cutters are causing ratings to decline. However, sports
programming has seen an increase in ratings and viewership. According to a
Nielsen report, “While the rise in time-shifted viewing largely altered
viewership trends for most program genres, live viewing remains the standard
for sports. According to TV data from Q4 2015, 95% of total sports program
viewing happened live. In 2015, there were over 127,000 hours of sports
programming available on broadcast and cable TV and 31+ billion hours spent
viewing sports, which is up 160% and 41% respectively from 2005.” These
findings have been key for sports programming networks because live television has
seen a decrease in viewership year after year.
 |
| 2015 Nielsen Report. |
This
increase in live sports programming viewership came from many angles. One being
the increase of Fantasy sports participation. According to the Nieslen report,
“Fantasy sports participation is a key way fans have used digital platforms and
technology to enhance their live TV viewing experience.” In particular there
was a 72% increase in Unique Audience for PC in 2005 and a 163% increase in
Unique Audience for smartphones cross top daily fantasy sites. This is true for
myself as well because this year was my first time joining a fantasy football
league. Being that I got very consumed by my fantasy football team, I found
myself watching games live that were relevant to my fantasy football team, even
if I had not previously planned on turning into that particular game. I usually
wouldn’t watch any other games besides New York Giants but due to my
participation in a Fantasy football league, I watched many other games live
which contributed to the increase of viewership for that particular live sports
program.
 |
| 2015 Nielsen Report. |
The future of
sports programming is selling its rights to OTT content and even social media
companies. This can be seen through a recent deal between Twitter and the NFL.
According to Sports Business Daily, “The
NFL went with Twitter for its "Thursday Night Football"
streaming package, because the league is "intrigued by Twitter’s mobile
capabilities, and Twitter is already a popular medium for sports fans," according
to Ben Volin of the BOSTON GLOBE.” The NFL wants to make an international fan
base and they thought the best way to do this is by streaming with Twitter
because people don’t have to sign in with their cable provider. According to
the Boston Globe, “The
deal comes on the heels of the NFL’s experiment last October in which 15.2
million fans tuned into Yahoo to watch the Bills and Jaguars play in London at
9:30 a.m. Eastern time. The NFL has other streaming deals — Verizon customers
can watch Red Zone Channel and certain games on the NFL Mobile app on their
phones, while CBS, NBC, and Fox allow fans to watch games on mobile devices
once they sign in and authenticate through their cable providers — but
Twitter’s Thursday night package will be the only truly free stream of NFL
games throughout the world."
This is a change in the sports programming industry but I
think it’s in a positive direction for fans, not so much big name networks in
terms of ratings. But this is a great way for people to access games wherever
they are around the world.
No matter where you are from, sports unite people together
and will always be more meaningful when watched live, unlike other types of
programming genres. I think that the future of sports programming will be
available on other platforms but the concept of it being live on cable won’t
hurt as much as people may think. How do you envision the future of sports
programming? Do you think that sports will be available live in the future on
television or will streaming on OTT channels and other platforms takeover?
Works Cited
Master, Stephen.
“Year In Sports Media Report 2015.”
Nielsen. February 2015.
Sports Business
Daily. “Twitter’s Reach To Psorts Fans, International Presence Seen As Key In NFL Streaming Deal.” http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2016/04/06/Media/Twitter- NFL.aspx?hl=cord%20cutters&sc=0. April
6, 2016.
Wertheim, Jon. "As More
Viewers Cut Cable, What Will Happen to Sports?"As More Viewers Cut Cable, What Will Happen to
Sports? Sports Illustrated, 17 Dec. 2014.
Web. 10 Apr. 2016. <http://www.si.com/more-sports/2014/12/17/future- cable-sports-tv>.
Volin, Ben. "NFL’s
Twitter Deal Is a Nod to the Future - The Boston Globe."NFL’s Twitter Deal Is a Nod to the Future.
Boston Globe, 5 Apr. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/football/2016/04/05/nfl-twitter-deal- nod-future/99C3WnsUu29ZXSAaKr1GKN/story.html>.
Rachel LaRotonda
ReplyDeleteSteven Perlberg from The Wall Street Journal said it best, “Advertisers are still interested in getting in on the cable action, reflecting the continuing belief that sports remains one of the few events that people watch live” (Perlberg). In my opinion, the world of sports revolves around the idea that you almost have to watch it live. There is nothing better than watching a big game in real time and being able to comment on it with everyone else. Just like every other live event, if you miss even just one game, you feel like you’re light-years behind everyone else.
Being that I am not a sports fan at all (minus maybe the Super Bowl and World Series if I’m feeling up to it) I would probably never pay for a streaming service just for sports. Now, that doesn’t mean that other people wouldn’t. I know so many people who are borderline obsessed with their favorite teams that would be interested in this kind of service. “ESPN as a stand-alone streaming service isn’t happening anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean sports fans won’t be able to watch the big game on outlets like Dish, Apple TV, or Amazon in the future. John Skipper, the sports giant’s president, is facing increased pressure to move the network to other outlets as a way to combat a loss of subscribers. He says more ESPN streaming is coming as an increasing number of Americans cut the cable cord and look for more inexpensive ways to watch programming” (Jarvey). As more and more people start cutting cable, I think that eventually we’re going to have to have these streaming services just to keep these big businesses afloat.
I think the future of sports television is going to go to streaming services. It’s almost inevitable at this point. Thinking back to a time when streaming services weren’t even available, it seems that they exploded into our lives. I know for me, Netflixs came out of nowhere and took over my life. For huge sports fan, I believe if they had the option to buy a service like Netflixs but for only sports, ESPN would hit a jackpot. The new craze is to watch TV on your time, anywhere. Sports I think could be similar. If there was an option to re-watch old games or catch up on the ones you missed, I think any sports fan would want to have that kind of power at the touch of their fingertips. The only thing I really hope they don’t do for the future of sports TV, is to completely take it off cable. Sporting events like the Super Bowl, World Series and the Olympics bring people together. I shouldn’t have to fear that I wont be able to watch them if I don’t have a subscription. I think that in order to please both worlds there should be benefits to a streaming subscription of course, but they can’t take the games completely off cable.
Works Cited
Jarvey, Natalie. "ESPN Says It's Exploring Streaming Deals During Code/Media." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Perlberg, Steven. "All Eyes on Turner as NCAA Championship Moves to Cable." The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 29 Mar. 2016. Web.
In regards to sports, live programming will never go away. It simply can’t. I believe that live events such as sports games, award shows, and presidential debates will become the focal point of traditional television. Scripted shows, on the other hand, will be primarily moved toward OTT services. This is because people want to watch these live events, live. It really doesn’t matter if you witness yet another Game of Thrones character die when it originally airs or if you see it a day after -- or even a month after. But, to paraphrase your blog, people want to watch the players on their fantasy teams score them a whole boatload of points. To take it even further than fantasy sports, think about how many people bet on sports games. If you have money on a game or a fantasy league you’re going to watch it live when it airs. As Biggie and Puff Daddy so eloquently said, “mo money mo problems.”
ReplyDeleteNow, to be honest, I was extremely surprised when I heard the news about Twitter and Thursday Night football. I understand that “twitter is where live events unfold” and that “people watch NFL games with Twitter today,” but they don’t necessarily want to watch it on Twitter (twitter wins rights). Last year, the NFL streamed a regular season game on Yahoo and got millions of viewers -- but I know first hand how frustrated some fans were that they could only watch it by streaming. And that is only one game. The good thing about the Twitter move is that the games will still be available on network TV and the NFL Network. This gives fans an option. Plus, it is good for Twitter and the NFL because it is sort of a trial period. If it works, it could be revolutionary; if not, we go back to traditional viewing. Personally, I will probably watch a couple of games on Twitter. But that is only because I still use Twitter avidly. I know that a lot of my friends and peers have slowed down considerably on their usage of the app. Therefore, this move may resurrect some idle users or fail horribly.
ESPN is looking into more streaming options, which I find quite interesting. The company realizes that ESPN as a stand-alone product is not “good business” (hollywood rep). More streaming of a program that recaps sports makes a lot of sense. I know that after big games that I missed I usually write “(insert two teams here) game recap” on Google. Having a potential stand-alone streaming service that covers these games and highlights extensively would make my search much easier.
Personally, sports is one of the only things that I watch live. I love watching games with friends and talking about the teams and players. It just gives you something to bond over. The implementation of more streaming services in the sports world means more individualized viewing, with social media interaction. I don’t necessarily like that. Call me old school, but I’d prefer to watch a game in a room full of friends over a chat room full of “friends.”
Works Cited
Jarvey, Natalie. "ESPN Says It's Exploring Streaming Deals During Code/Media." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
Urbain, Thomas. "Twitter Wins Rights to Stream Thursday Night NFL Games." Yahoo Finance. N.p., 5 Apr. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
I am one of the few people these days that absolutely refuses to cut the cord! I really do enjoy cable television and truly enjoy watching events such as sports while they are on live. The excitement is taken away when you already know what happened or the results are already posted online. Because there are very little people who agree with me, however, this does pose a problem for cable networks such as ESPN and other sports media companies. Since they rely on an audience who have cable and watch events live, they may experience a bit of trouble as the amount of people that pay for cable have gone down. To deal with this, these companies must look at new ways to show live events and bring in a bigger and more well rounded audience.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is, out of the cable this is being watched, sports viewing is on the rise. In a Neilson report about sports media habits, “Sports accounted for 93 of the top 100 live viewed TV programs in 2015, compared to 14 in 2005” (Master, 2015). There is definitely an audience for live TV and I do not see that going away any time soon. Sports are probably at the top of the most important events to watch live and nothing will be able to replace that. Some of my best memories are watching the Super bowl with friends and watching drama during the halftime show live as it happens. This is something that I don’t ever see disappearing unless there become more options and ways to watch sports.
Sports companies are, however, turning to streaming services to compete with major competitors. MLBAM is beginning to look into streaming OTT services to compete with companies such as ESPN, ‘“Do we think we could ever beat ESPN? Not in the farthest stretch of the imagination,’ he said, adding that he would like to compete for over-the-top, worldwide sports programming” (Jarvey, 2016). This is where live television on cable could run into trouble. If sports programming turns to streaming services, I believe that will be the final straw to get rid of cable as a whole. Not to say that we will not watch sports games while they are live, however, there will be absolutely not reason for people to have cable and almost everyone will cut the cord. Yes, people definitely look at Twitter and social media outlets as a way to watch the game and stay updated about live events, however, this itself will not be enough to get rid of cable all together. As almost every media outlet is turning to streaming, it is not surprising that sports media companies are looking into more streaming options as well.
Works Cited
"2015 Year in Sports Media Report." Nielsen.com. Accessed 12 April 2016. Web.
Jarvey, Natalie. "MLB Streaming Company Aims to Bid on Sports Rights." The Hollywood Reporter. 18 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.