True. But it’s a very minor inconvenience.
I’m certain MLB knows where its bread is buttered financially (RSN contracts).
Couldn’t agree with you more, HH, but for someone like me on the road for work each week wanting to watch the Astros and not being able to stream certain games because I’m in a certain city (which in a few cases wasn’t even near Houston, e. g. Honolulu, El Paso), it’s maddening/frustrating and defeats the purpose of having the service.
Great discussion per usual on this thread.
And I get it. I want it all too. But teams like the Yankees know that the YES Network will pay them more money if they get exclusive broadcast rights. I’m thankful I get as many games as I do. Hell, I’m thankful I can listen to games on the radio, as that hasn’t always been the case in my life.
It’s absolute sci-fi Jetson stuff that I can carry a device in my pocket that notifies me if someone is throwing a perfect game, and with one press of a button I can listen to (and maybe watch!) that broadcast.
2 Likes
Some day we’ll put a man on the moon.
1 Like
Speaking of watching highlights – MLB now has something called MLB Big Inning, which is basically their version of NFL Red Zone – jumping from game to game each night. It’s included with the MLB Audio subscription (best $20 I spend each year), and it looks to be available on both smartphones and smart TVs via the MLB app:
https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games/big-inning
I got to watch at least a little bit of Saturday night’s game this way.
That’s what’s puzzling.
MLB.TV uses either the home team or the visiting team’s feed, minus commercials.
It isn’t a stretch to see how the RSNs provide the stream, with ads, and MLB.TV is the traffic director.
Anyway the RDN bubble is going to pop if it hasn’t already.
Entitled? These are customers (current and potential) talking about a service.
A service they’re willing to pay for but MLB does not offer with the end result of fewer subscriptions and fewer eyeballs watching baseball.
They can do it because that’s not where their bread is buttered. When the need arises to emphasize streaming more then RSNs they’ll do it. But it’ll probably take them way longer than it should.
Yes, entitled. Just because you want them to offer you a product you find more convenient doesn’t mean they have some obligation to do so. And again, people bring up this “fewer eyes watching baseball”, but what is the evidence for this conclusion? Why is there this automatic assumption that MLB never considered that in their model?
Why would anyone assume baseball used any calculus besides ‘what makes the most money for the big market clubs’?
FIFY.
No one would. That’s the point. This isn’t about appealing to the die-hard fans. The die-hards don’t pay the bills. You seem to be concluding that because MLB is pissing off the one who want to pay for a full blown MLB TV package it must mean that fewer people are watching games. But why do you make that assumption? Professional baseball has never been about attracting the people who will watch no matter what. It’s about the casual fan. Having games on an RSN puts more casual fan eyes on the game than a PPV scheme.
The point is RSNs are not in front of many causal fans eyeballs. (there should be an apostrophe in there somewhere).
RSNs are expensive, providers aren’t making their nut on them, and they’re being dropped.
Why not both? A PPV model offering the RSN feed to die-hard fans at a premium price that is shared by the teams and RSNs. That can’t be too complicated or costly to set up.
While it may be changing, I would guess that more people subscribe to cable/satellite than are willing to pay for an all-inclusive MLB package.
I’m sure it’s easy to do, but it’s the exclusivity that builds the worth of the RSN. Sure there are many dynamics at work, and again, I agree those are changing as people cut the cord. I’m not arguing the model won’t change as circumstances change, only that MLB didn’t pull their broadcast model out of a hat. It’s based on careful consideration of what works best for them.
I have no doubt—or little doubt—that they are rational actors making considered decisions about how best to capitalize their assets.
I have copious doubt that they are baseball fans.
(Ditto the MLBPA.)
2 Likes
No, the owners are not fans. They produce a product for sale and the goal is to maximize return on investment. They are no different than owners of any other type of business.
The average age of a baseball spectator is 57, and they’re cozying up with Vegas.
Thus capitalism.