Detroit Sports Network (Wings/Pistons/Tigers) - first potential direct to consumer streaming network?
This is very interesting. Presently, Fox Sports Detroit is owned by Sinclair - Sinclair purchased FSD when Fox was forced to divest regional sports networks (Fox Sports <Insert_Major_Metro_Market>) when they were bought by Disney.
Sinclair is run by idiots/people who think they understand media, technology, and distribution deals, but they actually don't.
Why?
1) It's 2021, and the ability for major rights holders to go direct to consumer via IPTV (streaming on the web/iOS & Android + TV apps) has never been easier
2) Cutting out the middle men would yield more money for owners, which owners are all about
So...this could happen, but here are my doubts -
1) The current Illlitch leadership have let the Wings/Tigers regress into a prolonged rebuild.
2) Their last major business venture, District Detroit, was rather underwhelming.
3) They don't have the technical expertise to pull this off themselves - they would contract out the infrastructure build out. They would most likely work with other owners in major metro markets to contract the infrastructure buildout.
4) They may just be doing this to get leverage in negotiations with SInclair when the deal comes up in the next 12 months.
YTTV and Hulu Live have dropped FSD - by going a direct to consumer RSN model, they wouldn't have to pay them. The cost would probably be $10 or $15/month, which is ok I guess...if the actual product on the field was decent. I think AT&T Now (which is $75/month) is the only OTT / IPTV provider to offer FSD, which is ridiculous.
How much would you pay a month for direct Fox Sports Detroit/your metro market? I think $10/month is reasonable.
I'd be willing to pay $15/month to be able to watch all my favorite teams via FSD in the Minneapolis market. (But only once Blashill is gone.)
You sure do like hanging out in the frozen tundra, eh Vlad?
It's 57 today!
In the Cities it is. Duluth is great, but our springs are not.
Regarding the service, I would also be interested, but league policies would almost certainly forbid us from watching our teams this way, requiring us instead to get the league out-of-area streaming packages instead.
Which I have done for the Tigers before, but only when they’re actually good.
Didn't they try this in the 80's? I can't remember the name of the service, but it didn't last long. Isn't the main issue, if your teams are bad, you won't get many subscribers. If you are with a "middle man", you have a guaranteed revenue stream regardless? I remember now, the Pass Sports network.
I think it was called “On.”
I remember PASS. What was the difference between them and FSD, other than the name/ownership?
Pass wasn't affiliated with any cable provider. It was a separate purchase for Pistons Tigers and Red Wings games. I don't think the Lions were part of the package. I think they showed HS sports sometimes. Tom Monaghan owned it originally, and I believe it was purchased by Fox sports. I don't think they showed all the games. I believe it was just away games.
I think that was true for the Tigers (WDIV had the home games), but for the Pistons/Wings I seem to recall them broadcasting both home and away?
PASS definitely showed home games for all of the Pistons/Tigers/Red Wings. I think, on a percentage basis, they showed more home games, particularly for the Tigers.
The Tigers' WDIV package, which was the Tigers' "Tier 1 package" (PASS was "Tier 2") was definitely road-heavy. Back in the 80s into the early 90s there was still the belief that excessive showing of home games on TV heavily hurt attendance. And more people in the 80s watched the WDIV package versus the PASS package.
PASS also picked up stuff like (1) Raycom telecasts of B1G and Big 8 athletics, (2) Prime Sports telecasts of Pac-10 games, (3) European soccer, (4) Michigan High School sports and (5) all kinds of fishing, outdoors and surfing shows.
It was definitely an eclectic mix - if it wasn't a Detroit game, virtually anything could be on. PASS for instance showed the 1996 Arizona State upset of Nebraska. That was a 10:30 PM ET start that was only cleared on the Pac-10's syndication package (Prime Sports).
FWIW Sinclair has effectively removed both the Cavs and the team formally known as the Indians from any northern Ohio fan who's cut the cord. Fox Sports Ohio is unavailable on any streaming platform and can only be accessed via cable or satellite services.
There was a rumor Fox Sports Ohio was going to go direct to consumer as you suggest in your post last fall but so far that hasn't happened yet.
Lucky for me the Cavs suck and the team formally nicknamed the Tribe will also probably suck (thanks you cheap bastard Paul Dolan) so I'm not missing much right now.
Edit: Rob reminded me below I never did answer your question OP. Yes, empathically, enthusiastically yes. i would pay for such a service and would then do exactly what Rob suggested he would do. Unfortunately though we have yet to reach the stage of "a-la carte" selection in TV channels. When that happy day does arrive though I can only imagine the economic carnage some channels are going to face when they realize NOBODY is watching them so nobody will pay for their programming.
I heard the team formerly known as the Indians will be renamed the Cleveland Ramalamadingdongs. The Dongs for short.
Introductory marketing campaign. intruducing your Cleveland Dongs. We come packing big bats.
I would gladly subscribe.
If I had subscription service to access BTN, U of M sports, and Detroit sports teams, plus ESPN for their live sports, I'd be all set. I live close enough to GR that I get a signal strong enough with a window antenna to pick up two ABC, one NBC, and one Fox local channel; the only traditional OTA network it can't pick up is CBS, and that particular station (WWMT, channel 3 in Kalamazoo) is owned and operated by Sinclair, so I can do fine w/o it. I'll instead just subscribe to the NFL network every fall.
Along with their sub-channels and independent channels and the CMU and GVSU channels, I have access to a total of 39 different stations, including two different 24-hour local weather channels, on my spare TV.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Detroit teams were regularly on “free TV” throughout the 60s-80s.
The Tigers were on channel 2, and later channel 4.
The Red Wings and Pistons were mostly on channel 50, but sometimes on channel 20.
When PASS came along, people were horrified that only the rich elitists could watch certain games. Few subscribed.
I certainly didn’t.
Back then, the big thing for any team was to once in awhile be featured on Game of the Week. It was the MLB equivalent of Monday Night Football. It was a big deal.
Then ESPN came along, and took tons of content onto cable. It centralized the content on cable.
By then, most people did subscribe and the world went on.
I suppose pro sports teams got bored, so instead of centralized content, they decided to once again splinter into regional sports networks. Again folks were horrified because while most everyone had ESPN by then, many didn’t have FSD.
Each region of the county had its own regional sports network and by then, some college conferences did too.
So the content went local > centralized > regional from say 1970-1995.
Many claimed they would never pay for or watch FSD and denounced it as a money grab.
Eventually, most everyone got over it and pay for FSD one way or the other.
Then the conferences for college sports got involved. Made their own networks and took content off centralized ESPN onto college owned networks.
People were horrified and vowed to not pay for these networks.
But most did. More regionalization of content.
Happiness ensued. (Unless you like college hockey because those fans are ignored).
Then sports got bored again, and decided to decentralize even more and is going to adopt streaming a lot this decade.
People will again be horrified.
Rinse and repeat.
Then probably around the year 2035 or so, some younger who is in the 7th grade now will say “hey, I have a brilliant idea! Let’s centralize the streaming so you can pay one fee and have it all?”
Then, around 2050, someone now wearing diapers will suggest that people pay on a game by game basis - or even have it metered so you can pay by the minute for games you watch.
History repeats itself always.
At least the Orioles had Gary Thorne, who I enjoyed a whole lot more than the Tigers duo. DC teams were pretty bad in the 2000s, so I went with DirecTV so I could buy the sports packages.
I’d pay $0. I also have Hulu so I guess I won’t be watching the Tigers lose 100 games. Stopped caring about the Lions and I never watch Pistons or Red Wings.
Too many different networks coming out with streaming services. You still need cable for your internet and at this point i feel cable is a better and often times cheaper alternative than the current cord cutting options.
And this is probably the worst possible time for them to try and break FSD off. I wouldn't pay a dollar a month to watch the current product the Wings/Tigers/Pistons are offering.
I love baseball and especially enjoy watching the progress of the young Tigers talent as it develops, so I'll gladly pay what it takes there. As it is, I'm itching to get to some WM Whitecaps games to get a look at Spencer Torkelson.
He's projected to start out in high-A ball in Grand Rapids, but I'm betting by mid season he'll be bumped up to at least AA Erie and maybe progress to the MudHens by season's end.
If I have to sign up and individually pay for 100 different channels, and end up paying more, cable is the choice. That’s why they existed and always got a group discount for their subscribers on networks. Now the networks are cutting out the middle man and selling direct but we need secretaries and accountants to manage all the damn monthly fees. That’s what cable is. A service that combines media sources, usually at a discounted price. Now, they got really greedy and started with their crazy stuff too. It’s all shitty options tbh. Hopefully, the one positive is that streaming direct causes cable companies to reel in the greed of a monopoly and stop gouging.
Nope
I have YTTV. I'm not paying any more money for anything related to TV whether it's for sports or not. I'll find something else to do.
Yes, same here.
$10 / month to watch our local teams seems reasonable. Money to be made if you’re the Illitch’s. Let’s see if they can pull it off (doubtful).
Charge me $100 for the year then be gone.
If its the Tigers/Pistons/Wings id pay whatever is in the couch cushions. Maybe. For college its teams like our U of M squads. For the pros its individuals and highlights which I can get on sportcenter. I would go watch live though. Maybe they could change my mind if one of those teams started dominating.
The price seems a little steep given how bad the teams are right now. I have Dish and they cut off FSD some time ago. I would like to watch the occasional Wings and Tigers game, but not enough to pay $10 extra.
Wings: 7-16-3 last place in Central
Pistons: 10-26 last place in Eastern
Tigers: 23-35 last place in Central
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^
What's really bugging me today is that you can't count on any one TV setup to be around for a while. YTTV is cheap! Wait now it's not. They've got local channels. Wait now they don't. There's PS Vue! Not anymore. U-verse is the next thing! Wait no now AT&T wants to sell you something different. Everything is just that much more splintered than it used to be. Goes for streaming services too. Do you want Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime, Paramount Plus? It's getting ridiculous. If the regional sports networks get in on that action, because some idiot thinks he can "disrupt" the usual model, it just makes for an even bigger headache.
I think I remember regional sports networks coming out in the mid 90s - I don't think they're very old. And the fact that they keep getting dropped by streaming services makes me wonder if they really were ever all the valuable. But yes, it's a tiresome, annoying, and ever changing environment. I will say I end up paying less per month than I used to, but my sister and I (we share streaming services) are extra diligent about what service we're going to have for a given time. My wife and bro-in-law kinda roll their eyes at us, and periodically complain about how something isn't there anymore. It's annoying but we do pay less.
I don't think I'd pay $10/month, but then that's because my sports tastes are 1) Michigan Football 2) Other Michigan Sports 3) Other football 4) Whatever else is on, but I do love watching all sports, just not willing to pay for most everything else. But I get that I'm weird.
Even if they offer an unbundled stream, I hope they also get it picked up by other streaming services/cable companies, for the simple reason that you cannot make casual fans into die hards if they dont have easy access. The NFL is the most popular league because most of their games are viewable for free over broadcast TV, whereas every other league limits access. Especially as regional sports networks become more expensive for bundling services , I worry that my favorite sports will become niche activities.