I totally share your view, and while I think Scott and the PAC-12 Network have made some big mistakes, I think owning all media rights will, in the long term, be the right call - my guess is that the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten Networks are all going to be in for a brobdingnagian shock when the next round of media contracts are negotiated in 3-5 years' time, because gauging 100m cable customers for the couple of dollars per month that funds those networks is going to be a thing of the past. In the new landscape, what you'll need is a nimble distribution platform where customers can affirmatively subscribe to your content, and the PAC-12 Network will be well positioned to enter into deals with Apple, Roku, Amazon, etc.
And I've always felt the PAC-12 fan base is both narrower but also deeper and wealthier. If the network were widely available across a number of distribution platforms, I think it would generate sufficient revenue from charging somewhere in the range of $10-20 per month for streaming and on demand access. For one thing, I would think most every single parent of a PAC-12 athlete would subscribe if they knew they could see their kids' games, and fans like me will happily pay $25-30 per month for Sling + PAC-12 Networks to be able to see our football and basketball seasons. We have far fewer fans than the average SEC schools, but I suspect our fans are richer and more tech-savvy, and would be willing to dole out more for all-access. We are the conference of champions, and since we own our network, we can ensure all those championship caliber teams are covered. The next step is making sure all their fans and family members can see those games.
Right now, any fan in the country can do this via Sling, but for those with traditional cable packages, it seems ripe to have to pay $30 on top of your already-ludicrously large cable bill. In just a few years' time, I think most fans will have cut their cable packages, and the prospect of pay ~$30 per month for all the sports you actually watch won't seem as bad. Maybe I'm in an echo chamber of millennials, but there's just no universe where I or anyone I know is willing to pay $100 per month for 4,000 A&E/Lifetime type networks I wouldn't watch 2 minutes of in a year, but I'll gladly shell out $30 per month to support my alma mater's teams.
And I've always felt the PAC-12 fan base is both narrower but also deeper and wealthier. If the network were widely available across a number of distribution platforms, I think it would generate sufficient revenue from charging somewhere in the range of $10-20 per month for streaming and on demand access. For one thing, I would think most every single parent of a PAC-12 athlete would subscribe if they knew they could see their kids' games, and fans like me will happily pay $25-30 per month for Sling + PAC-12 Networks to be able to see our football and basketball seasons. We have far fewer fans than the average SEC schools, but I suspect our fans are richer and more tech-savvy, and would be willing to dole out more for all-access. We are the conference of champions, and since we own our network, we can ensure all those championship caliber teams are covered. The next step is making sure all their fans and family members can see those games.
Right now, any fan in the country can do this via Sling, but for those with traditional cable packages, it seems ripe to have to pay $30 on top of your already-ludicrously large cable bill. In just a few years' time, I think most fans will have cut their cable packages, and the prospect of pay ~$30 per month for all the sports you actually watch won't seem as bad. Maybe I'm in an echo chamber of millennials, but there's just no universe where I or anyone I know is willing to pay $100 per month for 4,000 A&E/Lifetime type networks I wouldn't watch 2 minutes of in a year, but I'll gladly shell out $30 per month to support my alma mater's teams.