[OutsiderFan]

Larry Scott tried that, making the Pac-12 a complete media vertical.  In a different era with different leadership and focus, it might have worked, but we just don't draw the eyeballs to compete with the revenue that other schools are receiving, and that translates to competitive disadvantages.  (I think...)

Focus on these two elementary marketing vectors:

1. Place: Where to access content (absent a cable or satellite or Sling subscription)
2. Price: The amount it costs to access the Product

The conventional thinking is Place must be a media distribution partner like ESPN or CBS. That’s now changing to include streaming services. But this still relies on a partner paying a rights fee and providing access to the content. The Product is not available for direct purchase from the rights holder in the current sports landscape. This is because leagues want guaranteed money.

Price and changing the Product are unexplored vectors. The conventional thinking is you need to charge a large audience a small fee that pays for the content. The Big Ten model is predicated on this, as it gets subscription fees for its network from cable subscribers who don’t even watch, like $1/mo. This drove its expansion, the more cable TV households, the more it could generate in small fees.

The PAC doesn’t have this luxury. Rather than going with a low price and making money on volume, the PAC must get a much, much, much higher price from fewer more passionate fans.

Whereas the Big Ten might get $1 from 50,000,000 cable customers (many forced to pay against will), the PAC needs to get $500 from 100,000. This is imminently doable if you develop a different product from linear TV coverage with different benefits.

It takes having some imagination and not playing by the rules of media companies and other conferences. It takes developing your own business model and if you need the financing to start up, going and getting it, rather than relying on selling your weakened product to customers for whom it has little value.

The PAC CEOs are utterly clueless how to create value by being entrepreneurial, and they lack marketing savvy. Kliavkoff clearly doesn’t even understand the business the PAC is in. He thinks he’s in the selling media to partners business. He’s actually in the fan satisfaction business and completely oblivious to how value is created that they will pay to have in the cord cut world.

[OutsiderFan]

Larry Scott tried that, making the Pac-12 a complete media vertical.  In a different era with different leadership and focus, it might have worked, but we just don't draw the eyeballs to compete with the revenue that other schools are receiving, and that translates to competitive disadvantages.  (I think...)

Focus on these two elementary marketing vectors:

1. Place: Where to access content (absent a cable or satellite or Sling subscription)
2. Price: The amount it costs to access the Product

The conventional thinking is Place must be a media distribution partner like ESPN or CBS. That’s now changing to include streaming services. But this still relies on a partner paying a rights fee and providing access to the content. The Product is not available for direct purchase from the rights holder in the current sports landscape. This is because leagues want guaranteed money.

Price and changing the Product are unexplored vectors. The conventional thinking is you need to charge a large audience a small fee that pays for the content. The Big Ten model is predicated on this, as it gets subscription fees for its network from cable subscribers who don’t even watch, like $1/mo. This drove its expansion, the more cable TV households, the more it could generate in small fees.

The PAC doesn’t have this luxury. Rather than going with a low price and making money on volume, the PAC must get a much, much, much higher price from fewer more passionate fans.

Whereas the Big Ten might get $1 from 50,000,000 cable customers (many forced to pay against will), the PAC needs to get $500 from 100,000. This is imminently doable if you develop a different product from linear TV coverage with different benefits.

It takes having some imagination and not playing by the rules of media companies and other conferences. It takes developing your own business model and if you need the financing to start up, going and getting it, rather than relying on selling your weakened product to customers for whom it has little value.

The PAC CEOs are utterly clueless how to create value by being entrepreneurial, and they lack marketing savvy. Kliavkoff clearly doesn’t even understand the business the PAC is in. He thinks he’s in the selling media to partners business. He’s actually in the fan satisfaction business and completely oblivious to how value is created that they will pay to have in the cord cut world.