Ok, It’s possible that the Detroit Lions could pull off a dramatic upset. Not freaking likely, but possible. More likely, but still not likely that the Seattle Seahawks could upset the Dallas Cowboys. More likely still is that the best game of the day will be the Arizona Cardinals taking on the Philadelphia Eagles, and almost nobody — except those in Arizona and Philadelphia, where the game will air for free on one of the local channels — will get to see it.
I love football, and I love NFL football most of all. But the entity that is the National Football League has a lot of hubris. When the economy was very good, I understood the hubris a little bit more. When you’re making a gazillion dollars no matter what you do, squandering a few hundred million while you try to build something like the NFL Network could actually make some sense.
But in a bad economy? In a bad economy squandering hundreds of millions of dollars is a little harder to take. The NFL cries like a little girl who dropped her ice cream cone when it comes to cable companies and the NFL network. I love a lot of services that Comcast provides, but I don’t necessarily love the entity that is Comcast. But I’m on the side of Comcast and other cable companies when it comes to the NFL Network.
The NFL comes to Comcast and other cable companies and says, “look, we want to be on your basic cable lineup, but we want to charge you a fee for EVERY ONE OF YOUR SUBSCRIBERS in the same way ESPN does!”
Quite naturally, Comcast says, “Uhhhh…no. The only thing our customers are going to watch in large numbers are the football games you air. You wind up airing like 8 games a year and you want fees from all of our subscribers every month? NO. F-NO! That’s dumb and we’re not going to pass those charges on to our subscribers every month when even the ones who will watch will only watch EIGHT TIMES A YEAR over a two month period. NO!”
And so the NFL Network is banished to the digital tier. It’s available for everyone with digital cable, but it costs extra. Since we’re mostly cheap, that means almost nobody gets it. There are some markets where the NFL Network itself is on the basic cable lineup, but without the games. In other words, all the content that nobody watches is available at no extra cost, but you have to pay extra for the content you really want to see: the GAMES.
The NFL has this dream that someday it will charge everyone for every game. But in this economy that dream is pure vapor. It wasn’t likely going to happen for years and years, if ever, anyway, and it certainly won’t happen in the current environment. The best way for the NFL to make money is the same way it always has: get HUGE BUCKS from the TV Networks.
The NFL probably has too much hubris, even now, to fold up shop with the NFL Network and package the games it kept for itself up back to the TV Networks. The CW in particular might be very interested in spending a lot of money for the rights to those games, but ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS (which owns 50% of the CW) would likely be willing to pay too. Particularly FOX which doesn’t have much in the way of a Thursday night lineup (for ABC, CBS and NBC, Thursdays are one of the biggest, if not the biggest night).
I understand greed and hubris as much as the next guy. Sometimes it pays off. But this isn’t one of those times. The good old fashioned greed of extorting the television networks, who will in turn extort the advertisers, who will gladly be extorted since they cherish the demographics of people who watch NFL games, seems to be the way to go.
On Thanksgiving night, as many as 20 million might have watched the Eagles/Cardinals game. As it is, outside of the local Philadelphia and Phoenix markets where the game will air freely, it’s quite possible that less than two million people will see the game. Last Thursday’s Bengals/Steelers game, even with the free local market viewing drew only 3.226 million viewers. Meanwhile, a below average game in terms of viewers still drew over 15 million viewers on NBC last Sunday night (Colts/Chargers).
Ok, It’s possible that the Detroit Lions could pull off a dramatic upset. Not freaking likely, but possible.
Um, did you just see the touchdown they gave up. They threw the ball DIRECTLY INTO THE TITANS HANDS like 5 yards from their own goal.
Putting Steve Borenstein in charge of the NFL Network signaled the death of the entire project. As the former (and hated) head of ESPN’s Programming Department and ultimately the network president, Borenstein then ran the Disney Internet group right into the ground.
Just like former ESPN “bad cop” Mark Shapiro, Borenstein believes only in leverage and arm twisting. The legacy of Shapiro’s failure at Six Flags and Borenstein’s current NFL Network disaster is the result of doing business without personal relationships and compromise.
No one is going to make the current cable TV systems that are still struggling to pay the ESPN fees that Borenstein originated add to that with an NFL Network fee. A four month season and only a few actual games should have told Borenstein that his approach needed to be different.
The shame is that the production group and the on-air network content is wonderful. Rather than compromise to get network carriage and build the overall NFL franchise in the off-season, this short-sighted approach is going to drain the NFL bank account in what is one of the most economically challenging business environments of the past century.
Perhaps, removing Mr. Borenstein and bringing in a well-respected CEO would be a move that paid immediate dividends.
JD
That’s why you have to have DIRECTV!!!!!
I wrote that before the game started. But YIKES. Down 21-3 after one quarter. That’s going to put people to sleep before we can even blame the tryptophan!
So that was all the fuss about. I’ve read before about the NFLN vs cable companeis. But I had no idea the NFL wanted to charged fees for the entire year.
I know American Football is the most popular sport in the states but, when non-playoff games average 15 million people from over 300 million people in the country (5 percent), it’s moronic to expect from every one with basic cable (10 years ago it was 75% so now it’s probably over 90% now) to carry the cost.
I don’t see how they are squandering that much money.
They currently have 42 million subscribers. The monthly fee they get is around .75 per household. That fee X 12 means the NFL network makes around $378 million from “fees” alone.
If they grow that number by 20 million in the next year or so–that will mean another $180M a year in fees…. for a total yearly subscriber fee of $558 MILLION.
Granted, they will never be like ESPN (which generates over $4 billion a year in “fees”) but the money they have coming in now (and the potential they could have) is certainly worth them doing what they are doing.
They just need to add lots more programming that is watchable .. besides the games.
–
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/11/nfl_network_gets_ready_to_rumb.php
The NFL Network’s distribution peaked at 44.1 million last year before Comcast downgraded the network, leaving it in about 40 million homes. NFL Network has been adding subscribers and was back at 42 million homes by the end of the summer, according to the network.
—-
Paul, sorry, although I love TV Week, sometimes it is TV Weak…
The 42 million it cites is spin, it includes what I described above, the NFL Network on the basic cable but **without** access to the games. When you factor in homes that actually have access to the games, it’s much lower.
But so far it looks like the Cardinals v. Eagles game isn’t any good either.
Sorry Robert, I thought that one “might” be accurate because they mentioned the Comcast downgrade and them losing all those homes.
How about this figure, 31 million homes, used in the San Antonio article (posted below)? That would still give them subscriber revenue of around $279 million per year.
But I thought the NFL Network was a Nielsen rated channel now. I thought you had to be at 40 million for that to happen. Which just recently happened with the Gospel Channel.
But regardless, remember when people thought FNC was crazy for paying $10 to get on networks. Now they take in anywhere from $850 to $900 or so million each year in fees alone.
The NFL Network should (don’t they still own a portion of the league?) be showing all the arena football games. Give people other things to watch when the season isn’t going on.
—-
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA_062108_WEB_WhattoWatch_en_2333b2f6_html1504.html
NFL Network subscribers have dropped to an estimated 31 millions homes. The channel lost 8 million viewers when Comcast Cable won a court ruling that let the operator move the channel from basic-level service to a less viewed digital-tier service. Satellite provider DISH Network moved the NFL’s channel from their America’s Top 100 package to the America’s Top 200 package that lost the league an additional 4 million subscribers.
Paul, I’m sorry, you’re trying too hard. Do you work for the NFL? If so, you know just how ridiculous comparing it to FNC is. The same Thursday the game aired last week (Cincy/Pittsburgh) O’Reilly had 400K MORE viewers than the GAME and that includes the FREE viewers in Pittsburgh and Cincy!
Your $279 million is bogus since so many of even the 31 million make practically nothing (but again, a lot of that number is “free” NFLN which *DOESN’T INCLUDE THE GAMES” — the cable companies are paying little to nothing for that — the NFLN is glad to have the carriage). When you air ~161 airings a week, and the only ones above a million are the pregame, game, and post game, and when ~90% of the airings are under 200K viewers, with the bulk of those being under 100K viewers, and you could have 8-10 games with 15 million viewers if you sold to a network…over a few years, it’s squandering hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also, the articles you cite point to a trend — a trend that *isn’t* good. Just like the Thanksgiving day games :-/
Agree 100%
Bob
http://njfrogman.blogspot.com/2008/11/nfl-duh-award-goes-tonfln.html
Agree 100%
Bob
njfrogman.blogspot.com/2008/11/nfl-duh-award-goes-tonfln.html
The NFL Network is a very good idea being killed by very poor execution. If they don’t pull the plug, and if they drop this insane idea of right off the bat getting the same fee that it took ESPN 25 years to earn, then the NFL could become omnipresent overnight. Hell, they could even be on the basic tier if they would give away the network. Within a few years, they could start charging some fees. Within a few years of that, they could have a ton of games on the network, have built up their non game programming to rival that of the top basic cable nets, and then they could start charging exhorbinant fees.
But they have to put the horse back in front of the cart first if they ever want to do anything. It’s not greed. It’s stupidity. Because eventually I think the NFL network could be the biggest cable network in the country. Unfortunately, they forgot the first cliche of sports: If you build it, they will come.
Guys, you gotta build it first. There are billion to be made, but you actually have to have a product first, else what are people paying you billions for?
in 2010 there most likely will be an 18 game season with a game every thursday for 18 weeks on NFLN….then it wiil get interesting with the cablers.
I agree with the poster above about DirecTV. Screw the cable companies.
With some clever sleuthing you can easily find NFL Network games streamed in very good quality for free online.
After having to watch Charter, Time Warner and the Big Ten Network snipe at each other for the last year over how much to pay for their network and finally getting it, I have to say that the parallels between BTN and the NFL Network are amazingly similar. The BTN claims to have a great product, but it’s mostly the B-level matchups where say, Wisconsin gets to beat up on some weak liberal arts squad that barely fielded the amount of players they needed. And then the rest of the time they loop their evening review show; was their really that much demand to hear about the ins and outs of the awful Indiana football program? And of course ‘classic’ games…that we forgot about with good reason. I’m paying 75c a month to watch a 1987 Illinois/Michigan game that’s only a classic in the eyes of a lazy scheduler.
Same thing with NFLN…eight games a year, and the rest of the time overanalysis of lower-tier games, NFL Films programs, repeats of games from earlier in the week and (guh!) fantasy football. I’m glad I don’t get the channel because it adds nothing I can find out from anybody else.
I do think though that MLB went about things the right way with their network in January. They got everybody to sign up, they’re not making too many demands, and their programming schedule sounds appealing. That and their game
After having to watch Charter, Time Warner and the Big Ten Network snipe at each other for the last year over how much to pay for their network and finally getting it, I have to say that the parallels between BTN and the NFL Network are amazingly similar. The BTN claims to have a great product, but it’s mostly the B-level matchups where say, Wisconsin gets to beat up on some weak liberal arts squad that barely fielded the amount of players they needed. And then the rest of the time they loop their evening review show; was their really that much demand to hear about the ins and outs of the awful Indiana football program? And of course ‘classic’ games…that we forgot about with good reason. I’m paying 75c a month to watch a 1987 Illinois/Michigan game that’s only a classic in the eyes of a lazy scheduler.
Same thing with NFLN…eight games a year, and the rest of the time overanalysis of lower-tier games, NFL Films programs, repeats of games from earlier in the week and (guh!) fantasy football. I’m glad I don’t get the channel because it adds nothing I can find out from anybody else.
I do think though that MLB went about things the right way with their network in January. They got everybody to sign up, they’re not making too many demands, and their programming schedule sounds appealing. That and their game schedule is broad, but not too broad that it cannibalizes other audiences and actually encourages viewers to ask for the channel. Hopefully NFLN gets the point soon, but I doubt it.
Now, I will start this out by saying that I do get the NFL Network from Comcast as part of the $5 “Sports and Entertainment Package”. I, however, do not have the Package for the NFL Network, but for the other content that is offered within it (The FCS channels, the NHL Network, the NBA Network, CBS College Sports-which is coming out of this package). That being said, I enjoy having the NFL Network, but the only programming I watch is the Thursday Night games and the stats they show during the first game on Sunday Afternoon. That is it.
On the flip side, I watch the NHL Network MORE than the NFL Network and I am by far a bigger football fan. But the NHL Network’s programming is much better. The “On The Fly” program is fantastic, with extended highlights of each game, etc. Now, I know it’s a different animal because they have more games to show during the week, but the point is, the NFL Network’s content is just terrible. And even the commentating is ridiculously bad.
And, as far as the NFL’s future dreams of charging everyone to see every game, they must have some serious delusions if they think that is going to work. I can tell you right now, if they did that, I personally would have two options. A) Go to a sports bar. B) Leave the NFL behind and move on with my life (the more likely option). Football is great, but not THAT great…
Sorry I’m late to this party but just want to chime in that I enthusiastically agree with JDaly’s comment. Steve Bornstein has driven NFL Network into a ditch with his preposterous negotiating tactics.
How Bornstein still has his job is mind-bending to me. It’s only a matter of time until the team owners decide they’ve had enough of this miserably failed approach. Given current economic conditions, how can they accept another year of the status quo?
Any true NFL fan has the DirectTV NFL Ticket and gets the NFL Network… and watches every game (Ok, maybe you flip around at the early games when there is like 10 on at the same time or you just watch the Red one Channel…LOL). Now all those casual fans… those are the ones that are missing out on these NFL Network games… you are never going to get the casual fan to pay extra for digital channels or agree to a price hike for NFL Network on the basic channels…
I am in even more favor of just scrapping the Thursday night games, what’s the point… oh $$$$ I forgot… or even better… move the Thursday and Monday night games to Saturday night… nobody wants to stay up until 1 am on the east coast to watch a game and then have to go into the work in the morning… unless its YOUR team that is playing… why else would the Thursday/Monday night numbers be so poor… Not like there is anything good on TV Saturday night anyway…