That Victory+ and those local networks are still the RSN model, even if they're in more households. But then you have some like Marquee Sports Network (Cubs) and the new one in Chicago which are owned, at least partially, by the teams. There's also the one in LA owned by the Dodgers, SNY, NESN and a number of regional NBC channels which seem to be doing ok. I've heard (and heavily doubt) that some teams will take their apps/channels national. Hypothetically, a Cubs fan in Ohio would be able to watch Cubs games via the Marquee app. The problem here, of course, is that channels in the opposing team's broadcast area would obviously still have exclusive rights. The only solutions I see: 1) Teams go on other channels in their broadcast areas (and maybe...just maybe...shrink their broadcast zones so that fans in Nebraska and Montana aren't blacked out) OR they get on local channels in those areas. I have that problem now. Back in the 70s or so, the minor-league baseball team in Columbus was the top affiliate of the Pirates. The same person owned both teams and obviously wanted the Pirates to develop a fanbase in Columbus. That never happened. As a result, I think there's only two providers in Columbus that get the Pittsburgh RSN. For baseball, if someone is a fan of a team that is playing the Pirates, they're probably out of luck unless the game happens to be on national TV or they're a Reds or Guardians fan. For hockey, I think the Penguins are 100% blacked out on the RSN and on the ESPN+ NHL package. (Obviously because of the Blue Jackets...and yeah, any time Columbus plays Pittsburgh, that game is either on national TV or the Columbus RSN.) This still means there'd be some sort of "out-of-market" package like there is now. The difference being that the channels are more accessible. (Which wouldn't be an issue if the streamers signed renewal deals.) OR: 2) Leagues sign something similar to what MLS did with Apple. Every game in one place with select games simulcast (or not?) on national TV outlets. Imagine if MLB.tv had every game without blackouts. Some games could still be on ESPN, FS1, etc. The downside being that there'd be no "regular TV" option for casual fans or elderly people who have been following their team since the 70s or earlier. Part of the problem is that the local channels demand exclusivity so that more people are exposed to the commercials, ratings go up and it's easier for those channels to get renewal carriage agreements.
They're free. Yes, the local area blackouts still apply, but there's no cost to watch the games beyond owning a TV or downloading an app. That's not the RSN model because it's not being charged directly to the viewers anymore, and definitely not to the subscribers who didn't want the RSNs in the first place. Also, Rob Manfred has already talked about MLB getting rid of blackout restrictions starting in 2028. The teams that own their own streamers/networks might work in a few cities (NYC, BOS, LA, CHI, HOU) but not for long. The only league that can get away with games being all over the place in the NFL and maybe the NBA. Everyone else is going to have to at least lift blackouts on games that aren't nationally televised.
Considering people with any provider can already sign up a la carte for some stuff, I don't see what the problem would be to add that option like customers already can do for Max, etc. Or they go to a tiered system like DirecTV Stream has where the RSN might not be on the lowest tier.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...r-month-in-2025-citing-content-costs-quality/ Ummm, so YouTube TV *is* cable? Who knew? Answer: No it isn't. It never was. It doesn't want to be...but it operates very similar. "Pay one company/brand for a lot of channels owned by a wide variety of companies." The term "linear TV" exists for a reason.
Also, the pricing of cable/satellite is increasing as fast as streaming. To get the same channels I have and want through YTTV my local cable company starts at $145 before getting to all the extra fees, equipment, etc. DirecTV is the same once the RSN and other fees are added. Side note, the "senior" technology reporter for that article looks like he's 12 and clearly doesn't understand inflation.
I think part of the reason why the newer providers are so inexpensive is because they don't have added costs of infrastructure/equipment/employees. It's essentially the same as going to some website 20 years ago, giving them your card number and having access to their "Members Only" section. They've gotta save a fortune by not having 30+ techs per city.
2024 prime time TV viewership This is Variety's yearly report on average prime time numbers by network, including all OTA and cable channels. Of the 156 channels measured, only 27 saw an increase in 2024 over 2023, with one staying even. Most of the positive movement was for things like Spanish language channels (CNN en Espanol, ESPN Deportes, Universo, Telexitos, Telemundo), cable news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Newsmax), Allen Media Group (Comedy.tv, Justice Central), and broadcast channels run by smaller groups like Weigel Broadcasting (Dabl, Story TV), Sinclair Broadcasting (Comet, Charge!, TBD), Scripps Networks (Laff, Court TV, Ion Mystery), etc., and interestingly secondary sports channels like the Big Ten Network, FS1, and FS2. The big 4 broadcast channels were interesting as well. CBS was up 12%, NBC up 10%, ABC down 1%, and Fox down 15%. CW, despite their dramatic shift towards secondary sports and licensing a bunch of family friendly Canadian TV series, dropped 2%. Some of the broadcast diginets that have done well in recent years, like MeTV, Cozi, H&I, Start TV, etc. saw dips that roughly equal the increase of the ones listed above. The dip by USA, TBS, and TNT seems to almost seal the fate of cable networks as a major part of programming going forward. It really feels like it's going to be broadcast TV or streaming in that realm.
@TheJoeGreene we all know you're paid by streaming companies to spread their propaganda. Hopefully streaming collapses.
Honestly, I don't think it will. And by that, I mean, I think the future is where we all pay monthly/yearly fees for the various apps (Netflix, Max, Disney+, Paramount+, etc) and the algorithms (Google, Amazon, Roku) will serve up the shows they think we're interested in. And yeah, there'll be "paid content" that gets pushed to us whether we like it or not. "Hey, we know you like this actor. Try out this new show they're in. Oh, you don't subscribe to AppleTV? Well, you can for only $15.99/mo or $160/yr." (Apple pays Roku/Google/etc for that placement.) Live TV, as we know it now, will be limited to sports and news. Scripted series will get released to that platform either on a per-episode or per-season basis. ("Season 3 drops at 6am ET" or "New episodes debut every Tuesday at _____.") And yeah, the companies will figure out that people will pay more for early access. "If you don't want to wait until 10pm to watch the new Law & Order, you can pay 99 cents to unlock it at 6pm." Peacock actually had an idea similar to this where their Premium Plus members would get Jimmy Fallon at 8pm ET and Seth Meyers at 9pm ET. As you could guess, COVID made that tricky...then the affiliates complained. Call me crazy, but I did get my "Live streamers will replicate the cable/satellite model as they get more popular" prediction right. It's been quite a few years since the majority of them were $35/MO and offered under 50 channels each, including your local pro sports teams... although part of why the RSNs succeeded were because they were tied in with other channels owned by Fox.
This is the part I don't see happening. This TV season we've had more new scripted programs debut than anything else. Several are doing quite well in the ratings. As much as Fox has struggled, 3 of their top 6 prime time programs this fall were scripted shows, 2 of them being new (Rescue: Hi-Surf and Murder in a Small Town). It's 4 of the top 7 for ABC, and 4 of the top 5 when you exclude Monday Night Football and Saturday college football. Again, 2 of those are debuting shows with High Potential pulling 40% higher numbers than the show it replaced, The Good Doctor, and Doctor Odyssey pulling better numbers than Grey's Anatomy did in its time slot. High Potential is second only to Matlock among new shows. CBS is #1 among the broadcast networks, with a 12% jump from last year, and the only things in their top 15 that aren't scripted shows are 60 Minutes (3rd) and Survivor (15th). Matlock is #2 on CBS and #2 overall in its first season, averaging around 10 million viewers per episode. CW continues to be bizarro world, but even their top 6 had 3 scripted shows; Superman & Lois, Sullivan's Crossing, and The Chosen. Their move to second tier sports seems to be helping as their most watched show was the few Nascar Xfinity series races they had and 3rd is WWE NXT. I got those numbers from TV Line and they haven't done NBC yet, but they had 4 new scripted shows this fall and have 3 more coming this spring. I haven't seen an official number, but apparently OTA viewership stayed steady at about 15% of TV viewership and overall broadcast network viewing is only down slightly from last year, so we might have seen things bottom out for the traditional weekly scripted show and I think it holds on as a meaningful part of the future of TV. Where I think those streaming bonuses will come into play is something like what Peacock has done with The Office, creating "super" episodes where the top rated episodes from each season have been re-edited to include footage that didn't make the original TV airing. That seems like a perfect fit for summer when it's between TV seasons and people get something more than just the traditional rerun.
But if linear TV (where each show debuts on a specific channel at a specific time) goes down the tubes, then how will TV shows continue to be released?
I don't think OTA network TV is going away anytime soon, but they already use streaming as part of the release of these shows. New episodes of CBS shows are available for free on CBS dot com for a month or so. I'm not sure about other network being so open but the model is there.
Broadcast ratings held steady, at least via antenna. Overall viewership of broadcast was 1% less than last year. It really does feel like it has bottomed out and might even be turning around a bit. Cable is dying. Streaming live TV and antenna viewership aren't. Even the non-linear streamers are releasing more and more shows on a regular schedule. Netflix might be the only one that exclusively releases everything at once. On top of that, Paramount+ has now put something along the lines of 5 or 6 of their exclusive shows on CBS at a later time. We're also seeing sports return to broadcast TV at both the national and local levels. Here in Lubbock we get every non-national Dallas Mavericks game on channel 14.1, the local MyTV option. Some San Antonio Spurs games are on there as well. The NFL and NBA have both increased the number of games airing on ABC and not just ESPN, and the new NBA deal starting next season has weekly national games on NBC. Much like physical media, local TV isn't going anywhere. The shiny new toy is losing its luster and the familiar is starting to show up again. In fact, on February 24 CBS will begin airing the first new daytime soap opera in 25 years.
NBC numbers are out now. 7 of the top 10 were scripted shows. Sunday Night Football was in first place, and the two nights of The Voice were 5th and 6th. The trio of Chicago shows were 2-4. Sadly, the much improved Night Court seems to have lost its audience, dropping 24% from last year now that it's in a later time slot.
Part of broadcast TV not going anywhere may be the FCC requirement for the stations to serve the communities.
More likely, that $70 price point will include other streamers in a bundle for the 4K/commercial-free tier. As said somewhere here, the streamers are realizing they can double-dip by having a lower entry point and adding commercials.
But if Hulu Live, Fubo, Sling, YTTV and DirecTV Stream all continue to raise prices, what will happen to them? Will people really want to pay $90/mo for however-many channels, including ones they don't watch? Sling and DirecTV Stream have the right idea by dividing the programming into several tiers.
Considering $90 would still be $45 less than any cable or satellite option I have for the same channels, yes they will. Sling's tiers are useless for most sports fans and that's where the Orange/Blue split is. Orange is the ESPN channels and the Blue is the Fox Sports channels along with USA and some of the WBD channels. If you're someone who watches stuff on the Big 10 Network, FS2, NHL Network, NBA TV and some others, you have to pay another $11/mo for the Sports Extra tier. If something is on CBSSN (Texas Tech men's basketball has 2 games there this season) then you're SOL as it's not even an option. DirecTV Stream is still $25-30 more than YouTube TV at the moment with far less functionality. To get the channels I actually watch on YouTube TV, the current deal is $109.99/mo for 3 months and then $129.99/mo after that. YouTube TV is currently $72.99 before taxes and going up to $82.99. It's still a significant savings. Anyone who isn't considering sports or cable news as an essential part of what they're watching really should be looking at either Philo or Frndly TV at this point. Neither one carries local channels, so they'll need an antenna, but the current price for Philo is $28/mo which includes 82 channels, 107 FAST channels, and AMC+. Additional add-ons are available (MGM+, Hallmark+, Fandor, etc.). Frndly is $7.99/mo (SD, 1 screen), $9.99/mo (HD, 2 screens, unlimited DVR saved for 3 months), or $11.99/mo (HD, 4 screens, unlimited DVR for 9 months) for 52 channels at the moment. I got the Black Friday annual deal for the top plan at $99 compared to the usual annual price for that plan of $119.88. They've also got a few add-ons available (History Vault, Hallmark+, Great American Pure Flix, etc.). I'm planning on dropping YouTube TV after March Madness this year, not because of price but changing viewing habits, and just adding bits and pieces like NFL Sunday Ticket, MLB Extra Innings (free with my T-Mobile plan), etc. and seeing how it goes. It's not a financial issue for me, it's more of a situation where my teams from DC are mostly available through streaming, some local teams in Texas are now either OTA or free streaming, and the only thing I would really miss would be some Texas Tech stuff that I could attend in person or go to a bar if I wanted to see it badly enough.