[Paul M]

But, the NFL Network is not on a basic tier either I believe.

So, MLB's flagship channel will be seen by 80% fewer people. How is this a good thing?

No matter what tier is on, the value is determined by baseball fans who will watch. Even if every DirecTV subscriber were a baseball fan, it's hard to see this being much more profitable.

It's not like cable is saying they won't put it on their list of premium channels.

Would HBO or Showtime be pulling this crap? Produce a great show or have compelling content and it will work. How can anyone defend MLB?

[Chemistry Schmemistry]

Given the absolute clusterfuck the NFL has made with the NFL channel and its demand to be carried on the basic tier at an exorbitant rate, I don't understand why Buddy boy would be so anxious to follow suit.

Did the powers that be with all the major sports get a memo that 2006-07 was the season to screw the fan?

This programming should be a la carte or on a special sports tier. As should the Food Network, Fox News, Home and Garden, Disney and the Game Show Network. But telling the cable industry how to run its business is only going to hurt the fans.

Basically, two billion-dollar industries are fighting over a few short-term pennies.

[bosoxgrl]

I've read this thread so much hoping I'd see some sort of relief from MLB about this issue. I get more and more pissed off.

If I have to switch to DirectTV at some point to get my games, I'll probably eventually do it. However, what makes me angriest is the late timing of all of this. They don't want to make an official announcement, so those of us that have to make the switch are being put into an unfair financial bind.

I don't understand why they couldn't keep it on cable for this year and switch to Direct next year. That gives the consumer a chance to make a decision.

I really don't want to go back to MLB.TV. Thank god I still have XM. And I live in the Orioles market, so I'll at least get those 19 games a year, besides the networks.

[JohntheBaptist]

MaurySABR, on Feb 16 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

Unless there is a major shift, the deal happens next week:

The announcement of the deal to make MLB Extra Innings available only on DirecTV maybe announced as early as next week, as a last-ditch effort by the cable industry to match DirecTV's offer has been rebuffed.

Sources familiar with the negotiations said cable reps went back to MLB about a week ago and offered to match the financials of DirecTV’s bid but without the requirement of exclusivity. The cable lobby also agreed to guarantee the same amount of distribution for MLB’s planned channel, which is scheduled to launch as soon as ’09.

More:
Extra Innings / DirecTV Deal As Early as Next Week

Wow. So not only are they doing this, but they were given an "out" from it after months of bad PR, and they turned it down.

I was pretty put off by this before, but this is amazingly crappy on their end.

Why won't cable fold and allow the baseball channel on the basic tier?

[Paul M]

Maury, is there a way to monetize the value of basic vs. premium tier?

If cable + DirecTV both purchase EI rights and both have it on premium, then MLB will have x NPV dollars from EI/baseball channel over time, right?

The Baseball Channel on basic on DirecTV better be an enormous cash cow. MLB could take the cable EI money and put it in bonds and probably earn more than 10 years of Baseball Channel. If I'm cable, I don't even put this channel on any package now.

[NYCSox]

JohntheBaptist, on Feb 16 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

Why won't cable fold and allow the baseball channel on the basic tier?

Because the cable companies have to pay an amount to MLB based on their total subscribers (if it's on basic tier) versus based on the number of subscribers to the actual channel (if it's on premium tier). The difference can be substantial, especially if cable doesn't think the channel will have that many subscribers.

[glennhoffmania]

MaurySABR, on Feb 16 2007, 03:19 PM, said:

Unless there is a major shift, the deal happens next week:

The announcement of the deal to make MLB Extra Innings available only on DirecTV maybe announced as early as next week, as a last-ditch effort by the cable industry to match DirecTV's offer has been rebuffed.

Sources familiar with the negotiations said cable reps went back to MLB about a week ago and offered to match the financials of DirecTV’s bid but without the requirement of exclusivity. The cable lobby also agreed to guarantee the same amount of distribution for MLB’s planned channel, which is scheduled to launch as soon as ’09.

More:
Extra Innings / DirecTV Deal As Early as Next Week

This makes absolutely no sense. If MLB accepted cable's offer, they could still sell the package to DirecTV at a lower price. Bottom line, they make more money in total. Then they could work out a deal for DirecTV to carry the baseball channel under the same terms as the impending deal. The end result would be that the same amount of people would have the baseball channel offered for free, EI would be available to many more people, and MLB actually makes more money. But instead, they're accepting the exclusive deal, making less money, and not increasing the viewership of the baseball channel. Can someone from MLB please explain the reasoning here?

This post has been edited by glennhoffmania: 16 February 2007 - 04:11 PM

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

glennhoffmania, on Feb 16 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

This makes absolutely no sense. If MLB accepted cable's offer, they could still sell the package to DirecTV at a lower price. Bottom line, they make more money in total. Then they could work out a deal for DirecTV to carry the baseball channel under the same terms of the impending deal. The end result would be that the same amount of people would have the baseball channel offered for free, EI would be available to many more people, and MLB actually makes more money. But instead, they're accepting the exclusive deal, making less money, and not increasing the viewership of the baseball channel. Can someone from MLB please explain the reasoning here?

The more we learn about this deal, the less sense it makes. And Brosnan's "reassurances," which would have been more honestly framed as an apology, have only clouded the issue further. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I smell a rat in here somewhere. A sweetheart deal, a kickback or something. I understand the importance of the Baseball Channel to MLB, but by giving it exclusively to DirecTV, it seems to me like they are limiting its viewership rather than maximizing it. So how important can it really be?

The HBO example cited earlier is a good one. HBO is the most profitable network in the history of broadcasting. And not only is it not on basic cable, it's not even on "premium" cable. It is and always has been what was called back in the days HBO was just starting out, "Pay TV."

If MLB created a super-high quality Baseball Channel -- an HBO for baseball -- heck, I'd pay for it. Just like I pay for EI.

MLB's actions here defy logic, even by their own standards of loose logic. There's something going on here that we're not seeing and may never find out. Otherwise, this whole thing makes absolutely zero sense from any standpoint.

[xjack]

Tim Brosnan's statement really is annoyingly off point. It would be like MLB reassuring fans that humidors will have no impact on hot dog prices.

Also, if MLB really wants to build up the baseball channel, what's the sense of making it available only to a minority of the TV viewers who have DirectTV?

[Paul M]

Is it too simplistic to point out what's been said earlier that DirecTV's parent is a soon-to-be owner of a MLB franchise, the Atlanta Braves!!!

I'd think some digging by our resident journalists and more coverage of this apparent conflict of interest is overdue.

Since the most important piece is now The Baseball Channel, why would MLB rebuke cable? If I'm cable, I don't even bother putting this channel in 2009. And if I'm DirecTV, I'd low-ball MLB on this deal since no matter what cable does, MLB doesn't care. (Or maybe The DirecTV owners don't want to piss off MLB since they haven't been approved yet.)

I was coming to grips with this decision, but this latest statement from MLB is so pathetic.

[Lucen]

Socal Pinstripper over at nyyfans.net sent me a pm with this link just now.

http://biz.yahoo.com...20_id.html?.v=1

Quote

According to Variety, MLB was unhappy with the fact that cable operators would not agree to put The Baseball Network ("TBN"), a 24-hour per day channel dedicated to all things baseball scheduled for launch in 2009, on the basic cable tier. About 95% of cable subscribers would get TBN if it was available on basic cable, meaning that MLB could garner a bigger audience and more ad dollars.

I don't buy into that theory as the main reason for baseball going exclusively with DirecTV. After all, the National Football League ran into the same issue last fall when it launched its own network, and the gridiron guys command a lot more power than the diamond dudes.

Quote

Major League Baseball Advanced Media ("MLBAM"), the online arm of MLB, has been wildly successful. The unit has built the most compelling online offering of any professional sports league; integrating video, audio, blogs, real-time scores, stats, and reams of other content. MLB.TV, which offers a more robust package of games than Extra Innings, is a hit (1.3 million subscribers in 2005, according to New York Magazine), and last year, over 20 million tickets to baseball games were sold via MLB.com and team websites. It's not just baseball that MLBAM is involved with.

MLBAM's back- and front-end technology helps powers websites and streaming technology for organizations ranging from Major League Soccer and CBS Sportsline, to the City of New York and rock band Guns N' Roses. MLB can't guarantee a steroid-free game, by they'll keep your streaming video up and running!

If MLB has done nothing else right in the past 50 years - and let's be honest, the only other thing they've done right in the past 60 years was integrating the game - they've done the Web right.

Late in 2005, MLB scrapped the idea of taking Major League Baseball Advanced Media public. The reason, according to published reports, was that team owners did not want chests full of cash on their doorsteps as they were in the midst of negotiating a new labor contract. That excuse is no longer valid because MLB and the Major League Baseball Players Association reached a new five-year agreement last October.

With the labor contract out of the way, MLB can now focus on taking Major League Baseball Advanced Media public. One of the key assets of the company is, of course, its MLB.TV product. See where I'm going?

Quote

By shifting the Extra Innings package to DirecTV, MLB has now vastly expanded the market for its own offering. Fans like myself who have cable and no interest in switching to satellite television, are left with only one alternative to watch out-of-market games: MLB.TV.

There's quite a bit more in the article, but those are the most relevant parts, as far as I can see.

[geoduck no quahog]

Quote

By shifting the Extra Innings package to DirecTV, MLB has now vastly expanded the market for its own offering. Fans like myself who have cable and no interest in switching to satellite television, are left with only one alternative to watch out-of-market games: MLB.TV.

After that explanation (which really makes a lot more sense than the baseball channel angle), and after Brosnan's insult to our intelligence - I'm with Paul and more furious with MLB than I've been since the strike years.

Screw them, screw their lousy internet toy, and screw Directv. Go blow yourselves. I'll be happy figuring out ways to spend my money elsewhere.

Us out-of-market guys survived without this stuff for a long time (remember picking up the Globe at the Pan Am Building newstand the day after the game?) and now it's just a matter of toning down our addiction.

Plus, there's always the game threads...

[TheRooster]

Two points of clarification:

-DirecTV's deal with Liberty has not closed yet. The MLB deal was almost certainly initiated by the old regieme (Murdoch) and it fits perfectly with their long term strategy (see Sunday Ticket). Liberty is not expected to keep the Braves for too long anyway. Therefore it is highly unlikely this is a back room deal to help out a fellow team owner.

-The issue of Basic Tier carriage is huge. Someone mentioned the fees, but it has an even bigger effect on ad revenue. This has been a very contentious issue in the industry for the past few years with senior people at TV networks getting fired as big cable companies bump the network out of the basic tier. I don't expect cable to blink, espcially since they didn't with the NFL.

[DaveJstice]

Wow, this whole thing sucks. I just ditched DirecTV for Comcast and looks like kind of a mistake. Anyway, I guess the question I have is I understand the deal with basic tier. However doesn't most of MLB (and maybe for that matter the NFL) subscribe to some sort of sports package anyway, therefore increasing revenues for both MLB and NFL? And, what ever happens if the whole a la carte programming comes into play and there is some sort of elimination of tier packaging? I don't see the long term benefit of any of these deals. Why cut out such a huge part of your viewing public? Again, thank goodness for XM at this point.

[Maureen Adele]

Don't corporations generally treat their best customers well and sometimes even reward them with extra perks? MLB's responses to the outcry regarding this deal have been condescending and a slap in the face, thanks.

[SoxinSeattle]

Interesting that MLB.tv just happens to get many new features and 50% better picture quality than last year. It's good news for those of not able or not willing to switch to DTV but bad news for all baseballs fans now that we know MLB cares more about the bottom line than the happiness of its customers.

It's a really great business move for them. Get the most money they can from the tv package and at the same time create millions more customers for there MLB.tv product. Players and agents must be very happy about all this.

[Fred not Lynn]

SoxinSeattle, on Feb 17 2007, 04:33 PM, said:

Interesting that MLB.tv just happens to get many new features and 50% better picture quality than last year. It's good news for those of not able or not willing to switch to DTV but bad news for all baseballs fans now that we know MLB cares more about the bottom line than the happiness of its customers.

What I don't understand is how/why DTV is willing to make the financial commitment thay are making in the face of the fact that the people they are paying it to are, essentially, aggressively marketing the same product directly to consumers - in direct competition with DTV. I'll give you that MLB.tv isn't quite there yet in terms of consitency and quality - but do we doubt that in 5 years it probably will be?

[Lucen]

Fred not Lynn, on Feb 18 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

What I don't understand is how/why DTV is willing to make the financial commitment thay are making in the face of the fact that the people they are paying it to are, essentially, aggressively marketing the same product directly to consumers - in direct competition with DTV. I'll give you that MLB.tv isn't quite there yet in terms of consitency and quality - but do we doubt that in 5 years it probably will be?

I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait 5 years to be able to watch my Sox on HD. We just bought my dad a big screen HDTV for his birthday so he can watch the Red Sox in HD this year. Luckily, we're in the northeast and this won't affect him. But what about all the people it will affect? How many people have recently upgraded to HD with the Sox being a primary motivation only to find themselves in a position where their only option is to purchase Direct TV? And what of those people in areas that don't offer DTV?

There are going to be a lot of pissed off fans. (Well, a lot more than we have here now, at any rate)

[NWsoxophile]

Lucen, on Feb 18 2007, 01:41 PM, said:

There are going to be a lot of pissed off fans. (Well, a lot more than we have here now, at any rate)

Right you are....along with letters about this matter to two Oregon senators and my representative, I have sent several emails to MLB in which I tried to convey that this deal will engender some serious ill will between them and a segment of their fan base. Judging from every comment made by MLB on the issue that I have seen, Brosnan's "reassurance" being the prime example, MLB doesn't seem to be the least bit concerned about the negative response this deal is getting. To those of us that will be negatively affected by this deal, they seem to have a staunchly "tough shit for you" attitude. It's very frustrating, but what difference is it really to MLB if there are a few thousand disgruntled fans? It seems the only way to register one's dissent is to not switch to DirectTV. But while such a protest would have no practical effect on MLB or DirectTV, it would mean about 15 Sox games for me this year, instead of the 140 or so I normally watch...wonderful.

[MaurySABR]

Announcement should be within 24 hours. There's a new wrinkle in the deal that may lessen the blow in the long term...

Industry sources said DirecTV's exclusive hold on the package will only last the first three of the seven years of the deal, potentially opening up an opportunity for other carriers to get Extra Innings starting in the 2010 season…. could ease angry fan sentiment surrounding the DirecTV-MLB marriage.

More... DirecTV / Extra Innings Deal: "Within 24 Hours"