PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Find - Reds Cable TV Deal Well Below Normal



MikeS21
02-18-2012, 07:45 PM
This is week old article, but it says much about the financial condition of the Reds.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/11/more-scary-news-on-tv-front-for-reds/?odyssey=obinsite


The Reds’ deal doesn’t even pay that. It’s believed to be worth $10 million a year and believed to run through 2016. The club won’t comment on it.

But if the Reds are going to have the money to be competitive, they’re going to have to get a better cable deal at some point.

Think about it: $75 million per year just for payroll for one year. And that is not counting ANY income from attendance and/or concessions - which is 90% of the Reds' income. And the Angels can almost double the Reds' payroll without adding income from ticket sales and concessions.

This why we don't see too many high priced FA or players in Cincinnati.

RBA
02-18-2012, 08:08 PM
I think the Padres deal starts off at $40 million a year and goes higher over the years. Rumor is the new owners will be using the new TV contract to help pay for the team, not on payroll.

But it is sad the Reds are only getting $10 million until 2016.

camisadelgolf
02-18-2012, 11:20 PM
Uninteresting Loss - Dodgers Betamax VCR Disagreed Less Above As Always

Brutus
02-19-2012, 05:38 AM
This is week old article, but it says much about the financial condition of the Reds.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/11/more-scary-news-on-tv-front-for-reds/?odyssey=obinsite



Think about it: $75 million per year just for payroll for one year. And that is not counting ANY income from attendance and/or concessions - which is 90% of the Reds' income. And the Angels can almost double the Reds' payroll without adding income from ticket sales and concessions.

This why we don't see too many high priced FA or players in Cincinnati.

Fortunately, revenue sharing cuts down on that gap somewhat. Further, with the way MLB Properties are trending, much more of the media revenue will be centralized in 10 years, meaning teams will be making far more revenue from the centrally-distributed MLB Fund than they will from their local sources. This means the financial disparity in baseball will be a lot less pronounced.

membengal
02-19-2012, 09:38 AM
However revenue sharing might help staunch the bleeding, the fact remains that is an abomination of a cable deal, and it is cuffing this team's ability to, say, retain a player like Votto.

Tony Cloninger
02-19-2012, 10:55 AM
Who was responsible for creating such an abomination? Did they have the Reds over a barrel when the deal was being made?

mth123
02-19-2012, 12:14 PM
IIRC, when the Reds signed this deal, it was a significant increase over what they'd been getting previously.

MartyFan
02-19-2012, 12:32 PM
For the Reds to get a major upgrade in revenue from cable they would have to OWN Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia in a HUGE WAY. There is not enough add dollars spent on a Cincy/Tri-State area to get a significant cable deal done.

The Reds have in recent history been an incredibly lazy organization when it comes to their media situation. In the 90's there was talk that Clear Channel was going to buy the team or at least a big minority chunk of the team and create a Reds Centered Sports Network, obviously that never came to pass but it would have been a step in the right direction and the Reds would have been one of the first in the race instead of one of the last.

The Reds are not in a media savvy market, none of the markets they impact are media leaders in quality or innovation.

The Reds as a team are still a wannabe organization who even though they've made some strides recently are still living off of memories of 30+ years ago and BRM. For the Reds to improve their media situation they need to appreciate nostalgia but do something NOW.

If the Reds lock up Votto and Bruce and Stubbs come into their own as exciting players over the next 5 years then I'd say the ball starts rolling. To me, the most value BPhillps presents is as a marketing piece and if the Reds resign him, maybe his check should be setup that way? He gets social Media, connecting with the fans and as far as I know, he is one of the leading players who get this and correct me if I am wrong, he is one of only a few Reds players who are active in their efforts that the average Reds fan cares about. I know other guys have twitter accounts and so on but most of them are fairly boring...BPhillips is an event and while I do not favor resigning him if the team will be killed by his contract, I would say he is more valuable than any other player the team has had over the last decade for what he does OFF the field...those guys don't grow on trees and I am afraid this organization does not "GET IT" when it comes to how the media is changing and what media is.

OK...I love baseball, I love media and would love to work with the Reds on implementing a new media strategy to reach fans that would help them improve their brand and fan interaction.

757690
02-19-2012, 12:33 PM
The San Diego TV market is probably close to 4 times bigger than the Cincinnati market, as there a lot of Dodger and Angel fans that follow the Padres as well. They don't root for them, but they watch the games.

This disparity in the deals seems about right. The big problem is the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, etc who get close to $100M or more from their TV deals.

Chip R
02-19-2012, 01:15 PM
I would think that in order to get a better cable deal, there would have to be competition from other networks. We know that free TV is a non-starter. Most teams are going away from free TV. Besides FSO, what other network would carry the Reds? People talk of the Reds creating their own network but I think that would be tougher - and more expensive - than it seems. At contract time, FSO can just give the Reds a figure and tell them, "take it or leave it" and the Reds have to take it. It's basic supply and demand.

One of the other problems is that there is not a huge demand for Reds games. The Reds have never been a great draw. Every team in our division - with the exception of Pittsburgh - has drawn over 3M people to their games several times over. St. Louis and Milwaukee are similar sized markets. Now, if the ballpark was sold out every night and the only option people had to watch the Reds was cable, then perhaps the Reds could get more TV money.

Brutus
02-19-2012, 01:20 PM
The San Diego TV market is probably close to 4 times bigger than the Cincinnati market, as there a lot of Dodger and Angel fans that follow the Padres as well. They don't root for them, but they watch the games.

This disparity in the deals seems about right. The big problem is the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, etc who get close to $100M or more from their TV deals.

It's actually not that large a discrepancy. According to Nielsen, San Diego DMA is about 1.4 million homes and Cincinnati is about 900k.

Now, to be fair, regional sports networks often encompass a much larger geographical region than just their home DMA, so obviously San Diego would benefit from a larger target audience than just their DMA. But in terms of actual market, it's not all that much larger than Cincinnati.

bucksfan2
02-19-2012, 01:42 PM
It's actually not that large a discrepancy. According to Nielsen, San Diego DMA is about 1.4 million homes and Cincinnati is about 900k.

Now, to be fair, regional sports networks often encompass a much larger geographical region than just their home DMA, so obviously San Diego would benefit from a larger target audience than just their DMA. But in terms of actual market, it's not all that much larger than Cincinnati.

When you take into consideration the Reds entire market it isn't all that small. The Cincinnati market may be one of the smallest in baseball, but the TV market would stretch to Columbus, Dayton, Indy, Louisville, and Lexington. They aren't massive TV markets, but they are pretty big none the less when added all together. Granted there may be competition in some of those markets, Columbus with the Indians, but the Reds TV broadcast will be shown in those markets.

dougdirt
02-19-2012, 02:17 PM
When you take into consideration the Reds entire market it isn't all that small. The Cincinnati market may be one of the smallest in baseball, but the TV market would stretch to Columbus, Dayton, Indy, Louisville, and Lexington. They aren't massive TV markets, but they are pretty big none the less when added all together. Granted there may be competition in some of those markets, Columbus with the Indians, but the Reds TV broadcast will be shown in those markets.
At the same time, just about every city also extends beyond that city to include other places as well.

BrooklynRedz
02-19-2012, 03:38 PM
For the Reds to get a major upgrade in revenue from cable they would have to OWN Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia in a HUGE WAY. There is not enough add dollars spent on a Cincy/Tri-State area to get a significant cable deal done.

The Reds have in recent history been an incredibly lazy organization when it comes to their media situation. In the 90's there was talk that Clear Channel was going to buy the team or at least a big minority chunk of the team and create a Reds Centered Sports Network, obviously that never came to pass but it would have been a step in the right direction and the Reds would have been one of the first in the race instead of one of the last.

The Reds are not in a media savvy market, none of the markets they impact are media leaders in quality or innovation.

The Reds as a team are still a wannabe organization who even though they've made some strides recently are still living off of memories of 30+ years ago and BRM. For the Reds to improve their media situation they need to appreciate nostalgia but do something NOW.

If the Reds lock up Votto and Bruce and Stubbs come into their own as exciting players over the next 5 years then I'd say the ball starts rolling. To me, the most value BPhillps presents is as a marketing piece and if the Reds resign him, maybe his check should be setup that way? He gets social Media, connecting with the fans and as far as I know, he is one of the leading players who get this and correct me if I am wrong, he is one of only a few Reds players who are active in their efforts that the average Reds fan cares about. I know other guys have twitter accounts and so on but most of them are fairly boring...BPhillips is an event and while I do not favor resigning him if the team will be killed by his contract, I would say he is more valuable than any other player the team has had over the last decade for what he does OFF the field...those guys don't grow on trees and I am afraid this organization does not "GET IT" when it comes to how the media is changing and what media is.

OK...I love baseball, I love media and would love to work with the Reds on implementing a new media strategy to reach fans that would help them improve their brand and fan interaction.

The Reds have been in the top 5 avg rating among the 30 clubs for the past two years (per Sports Business Journal):


TEAM RSN 2011 RATING (CHANGE^)
Philadelphia CSN 9.12 (+10.5%)
St. Louis FS Midwest 9.00 (-4.5%)
Milwaukee FS Wisconsin 7.95 (+59.0%)
Boston NESN 7.80 (+31.1%)
Cincinnati FS Ohio 7.44 (-0.5%)

I see this stated as fact that the Reds 'don't get it' with respect to media but I never see any real examples and the results (improved attendance and broadcast ratings) would suggest the exact opposite. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point and if that's the case, I apologize.

The return on the current TV deal is not troubling. Without knowing the contract details, and specifically the exclusive negotiation window, I'd imagine the club will be fairly aggressive in the next couple of years working to renegotiate given the increased attention on the club and their performance on the field.

757690
02-19-2012, 04:12 PM
At the same time, just about every city also extends beyond that city to include other places as well.

Exactly, and the Padres market is just a few hours away from the 10 million people market of LA. That dwarfs most other team's expanded market.

Captain Hook
02-19-2012, 04:58 PM
When you take into consideration the Reds entire market it isn't all that small. The Cincinnati market may be one of the smallest in baseball, but the TV market would stretch to Columbus, Dayton, Indy, Louisville, and Lexington. They aren't massive TV markets, but they are pretty big none the less when added all together. Granted there may be competition in some of those markets, Columbus with the Indians, but the Reds TV broadcast will be shown in those markets.

It would be nice to know just how big the Reds TV market is compared to other teams.That top 5 TV rating means very little if we're talking about a tiny market when compared to the other MLB viewing markets.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

According to this Cincinnati is one of the smallest markets in baseball but I'm not sure what's being included there.Do they consider Newport or any other cities in Kentucky?Like it has been pointed out, Cincinnati's TV market is even bigger but how big is it compared to other team?

I'd like to know if the Reds have the potential to even the financial playing field in the future.If they do, it could start factoring in on some decisions the Reds are making and things we are talking about right now.

RBA
02-19-2012, 05:17 PM
Exactly, and the Padres market is just a few hours away from the 10 million people market of LA. That dwarfs most other team's expanded market.

Yeah, but much of those 10 million are Dodgers and/or Angels fans. Plus the Padres TV contract does not include LA/Orange County. The TV contract is for San Diego County, Western Arizona, Palm Desert, and Las Vegas. Many of those areas are shared with other MLB teams. For example. Las Vegas is shared by the Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Diamondbacks, and A's.

RedsManRick
02-19-2012, 05:17 PM
A relative big share of a small market doesn't add up to much. How many eyeballs do the Reds get in front of? Advertisers pay for eyeballs.

757690
02-19-2012, 05:36 PM
Yeah, but much of those 10 million are Dodgers and/or Angels fans. Plus the Padres TV contract does not include LA/Orange County. The TV contract is for San Diego County, Western Arizona, Palm Desert, and Las Vegas. Many of those areas are shared with other MLB teams. For example. Las Vegas is shared by the Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Diamondbacks, and A's.

DirecTV Extra Innings and MLB.com is how most viewers watch Fox Sports MLB games these days.

Most Dodger fans watch Padre games as well, just like most Reds fans watch Cardinal games, plus there are a lot of Padre fans in Orange County and even LA. There are also a lot transplants in LA that watch their team when they play the Padres. The SoCal market is very different from most other markets, it's really not focused on just one team, wherever you live.

RBA
02-19-2012, 06:01 PM
DirecTV Extra Innings and MLB.com is how most viewers watch Fox Sports MLB games these days.

Most Dodger fans watch Padre games as well, just like most Reds fans watch Cardinal games, plus there are a lot of Padre fans in Orange County and even LA. There are also a lot transplants in LA that watch their team when they play the Padres. The SoCal market is very different from most other markets, it's really not focused on just one team, wherever you live.

Yeah, that's MLB Extra Innings. Extra Innings is a separate national contract with MLB where all teams share revenue. Just like I watch Reds games here in San Diego, I am not paying for Fox Sports Cincinnati for the Cincinnati market share, I am paying for the MLB Extra Innings package in which is shared by all MLB teams. When a Dodger fan pays for Extra Innings to watch Padres games, they are not paying for Fox Sports San Diego, they are also paying for the MLB Extra Innings just like I pay Extra Innings to watch the Reds. The only way to watch the Padres in LA/Orange County is to subscribe to an MLB package, Extra Innings or At Bat app.

IslandRed
02-19-2012, 06:53 PM
At the same time, just about every city also extends beyond that city to include other places as well.

Yep.

I don't remember the link offhand, but several years ago some guy did a baseball TV market comparison that included not just the local MSA (and split thereof for the big-city teams) but also its reasonable share of extended markets, which accounted for the Reds having a slice of Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville etc. It helped our relative position, but only a little; it was still in the bottom third of MLB.

757690
02-19-2012, 07:27 PM
Yeah, that's MLB Extra Innings. Extra Innings is a separate national contract with MLB where all teams share revenue. Just like I watch Reds games here in San Diego, I am not paying for Fox Sports Cincinnati for the Cincinnati market share, I am paying for the MLB Extra Innings package in which is shared by all MLB teams. When a Dodger fan pays for Extra Innings to watch Padres games, they are not paying for Fox Sports San Diego, they are also paying for the MLB Extra Innings just like I pay Extra Innings to watch the Reds. The only way to watch the Padres in LA/Orange County is to subscribe to an MLB package, Extra Innings or At Bat app.

Doesn't matter how you watch the games, you are still watching the same commercials, which is all advertisers care about. As RMR put it, it's the number of eyeballs that determine how much they can charge advertisers, which dertermines how much they can pay the team for the rights.

RBA
02-19-2012, 09:07 PM
Doesn't matter how you watch the games, you are still watching the same commercials, which is all advertisers care about. As RMR put it, it's the number of eyeballs that determine how much they can charge advertisers, which dertermines how much they can pay the team for the rights.

Ok, but I think you over estimate the amount of people watching Padres games out of market. This survey say the Padres are one of the least popular teams.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/region/baltimore_city/baltimore-orioles-rank-13th-most-popular-mlb-team

I don't have the numbers, but I think more people watch the Reds over the Padres on television.

Roy Tucker
02-19-2012, 09:24 PM
Whenever the renewal of the Reds' cable contract comes around, I would think they'll do better money-wise. Under BCast's watch, the Reds have greatly improved their marketing of the team and I'd think their mindshare is growing again. Not $75M a year better, but better.

Under Lindner's "watch", they pretty well sleep-walked through anything remotely resembling marketing. It was a "roll the ball out and they will come".

Brutus
02-19-2012, 09:38 PM
It would be nice to know just how big the Reds TV market is compared to other teams.That top 5 TV rating means very little if we're talking about a tiny market when compared to the other MLB viewing markets.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml

According to this Cincinnati is one of the smallest markets in baseball but I'm not sure what's being included there.Do they consider Newport or any other cities in Kentucky?Like it has been pointed out, Cincinnati's TV market is even bigger but how big is it compared to other team?

I'd like to know if the Reds have the potential to even the financial playing field in the future.If they do, it could start factoring in on some decisions the Reds are making and things we are talking about right now.

Cincinnati's actual designated market area, drawn up by Nielsen, includes 25 counties:

In Ohio, Adams, OH ~ Brown, OH ~ Butler, OH ~ Clermont, OH ~ Clinton, OH ~ Hamilton, OH ~ Highland, OH ~ Warren, OH

In Kentucky, Boone, KY ~ Bracken, KY ~ Campbell, KY ~ Carroll, KY ~ Gallatin, KY ~ Grant, KY ~ Kenton, KY ~ Mason, KY ~ Owen, KY ~ Pendleton, KY ~ Robertson, KY and,

In Indiana, Dearborn, IN ~ Franklin, IN ~ Ohio, IN ~ Ripley, IN ~ Switzerland, IN ~ Union, IN

However, this is kind of a misnomer because ratings are based mostly on the regional sports networks that are carrying these games. Since FSN Ohio is on sports packages nationwide, how big Cincinnati's market spans really is only a portion of the equation. The key is how many subscribers there are to FSN Ohio and how many people are going to be watching.

TV markets are important when determining or negotiating cable subscriber fees, because it's based on size of market and cents per subscriber. However, with the Reds, it's purely a matter of how many people are going to be watching. Market size is part of that, but there's no real exact way to determine how big the Reds' sphere of influence spans. I'm sure FSN has those numbers, as do the Reds, but the research probably varies from person to person.

757690
02-19-2012, 09:45 PM
Ok, but I think you over estimate the amount of people watching Padres games out of market. This survey say the Padres are one of the least popular teams.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/region/baltimore_city/baltimore-orioles-rank-13th-most-popular-mlb-team

I don't have the numbers, but I think more people watch the Reds over the Padres on television.

Interesting, thanks for that.

BCubb2003
02-19-2012, 10:19 PM
When the Reds have sustained success, they pull in the Indianapolis, Columbus, Charleston, Lexington outer belt. After a losing decade, that faded away.

Also, the regional sports networks, satellite, cable, MLB.com and Extra Innings help spread interest in the Reds, but they also fragment the interest by bringing access to other teams, too.

Can you imagine the Big Red Machine in this media environment?

Sea Ray
02-19-2012, 10:35 PM
For the Reds to get a major upgrade in revenue from cable they would have to OWN Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia in a HUGE WAY. There is not enough add dollars spent on a Cincy/Tri-State area to get a significant cable deal done.

The Reds have in recent history been an incredibly lazy organization when it comes to their media situation. In the 90's there was talk that Clear Channel was going to buy the team or at least a big minority chunk of the team and create a Reds Centered Sports Network, obviously that never came to pass but it would have been a step in the right direction and the Reds would have been one of the first in the race instead of one of the last.



If the Reds are really intent on breaking out of their small market doldrums, that's exactly what they have to do. Put together their own sports network and market it to most of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, W Va and Tenn. This is what Powell Crosley did many generations ago with the Reds and WLW. There was a time when Reds games were broadcast over 100 radio affiliates

If I'm Castellini I hire some folks very savvy in the cable TV business and investigate starting this sort of venture. Then he can decide whether it's worth the risk and hassle but I'd sure look into it. If not then they're locked into FSN and the raises will be nominal.

Phhhl
02-19-2012, 10:57 PM
If the Reds are really intent on breaking out of their small market doldrums, that's exactly what they have to do. Put together their own sports network and market it to most of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, W Va and Tenn. This is what Powell Crosley did many generations ago with the Reds and WLW. There was a time when Reds games were broadcast over 100 radio affiliates

If I'm Castellini I hire some folks very savvy in the cable TV business and investigate starting this sort of venture. Then he can decide whether it's worth the risk and hassle but I'd sure look into it. If not then they're locked into FSN and the raises will be nominal.

I agree. The Reds need to take the bull by the horns here. I am always upset whenever I drive anywhere within a 100 mile radius of Cincinnati. By 20-30 miles outside of town, you start seeing Cubs, Cardinals, Indians, Steelers and Browns geer with more prominance at convenience and retail stores than Reds or Bengals paraphenalia. You see it when you go into a sports bar and on the streets too. We have relatives in Louisville that are Yankee fans, as if they are unaware that there is a major league city just up the road. It is disgusting. For all of the good that Marge did in fueling the major league club with the means to win in the 80's and 90's, the damage done to these outlying markets during and after her reign is really smarting today. I don't know how they get that fanbase back now, but it appears to be critical to the long-term health of the franchise that they do.

I really feel they need to try something inovative with TV or the internet to get it done. Personally, I would love it if I could stream Reds home games over MLB.tv, for starters.

MikeS21
02-20-2012, 12:27 AM
The issue with the Reds having their own sports network comes back to the central question: Does the relative small market of the Greater Cincinnati region provide enough viewers to make a Reds Channel profitable? I hear all the arguments why the Reds need their own network, but the truth remains that a baseball network in Cincinnati will NEVER earn the money that a network in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Southern California, etc. will earn.

It's easy to blame the FO, easy to blame the lost two decades, easy to blame Carl Lindner (RIP), etc. But this is not just a baseball issue. This is a Southwest Ohio fact. Jeff Wyler and his multi ads for his many Cincinnati area auto dealerships does not pay as much for his Cincinnati spots as he would if he were advertising in Atlanta, St. Louis, or Minneapolis. Cincinnati is not the market of those cities. I know how the market was for the Reds back in the 1970's. It was huge. I remember being in Florida around 1974, and attempting to tune in Marty and Joe on WLW one night, only to discover them on a Florida radio station.

However, the baseball market has changed since 1974. Florida has gained two major league franchises (and two NFL franchises) since then. And Atlanta's major league team has actually learned how to play baseball during that time.

Another issue is that cable companies dictate what sports channels you can have. I have Time Warner cable out of Cincinnati, and as part of my regular digital cable lineup (no premium channels), I am "blessed" with the Yankee's YES network. No one asked me if I would rather watch the Cardinals (which I would) rather than the Yankees. The incorrect assumption was made that I would be delighted to have the YES network as part of my lineup. So, my cable bill every month is helping the Yankees pad their already too big payroll, and even though I have the right to complain to Time Warner, its not like they will replace the YES channel with another channel of my choice. Trust me, if they did, I have about 20 channels I'd like to trade for better channels (Game Show Channel ... reallly?) Plus, didn't I read that the YES network was owned by the late George Steinbrenner - not the Yankees, and therefore was shielded from the whole revenue sharing thing? There was some loophole Steinbrenner found that enabled him to pump money in to the team without it affecting the revenue sharing the team paid out.

Sports is not the only thing that has changed in the last 40 years. Atlanta, itself, has grown as corporations have moved in to the area. Tourism in the state of Florida has drawn transplanted folks from all over the United States - many of whom are fans of teams where they came from. Florida TV markets have grown in places like Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Miami. And I think Cincinnati as a whole is not viewed as a major market by cable providers and even though it may be similar in size to some markets, those other markets are considered more prime, and providers are willing to pay more money.

While I believe it is possible for the Cincinnati market to expand some, and the Reds could increase their cable contract with a better deal, I'm not sure the Reds will ever get the benefit that most other teams have, and as long as that disparity is there, the Reds are going to be hard pressed to compete with teams that cable companies are willing to pay more money for.

mth123
02-20-2012, 01:04 AM
Putting a cable channel together to market the Reds to a larger audience sounds good and all, but for it to work, the cable channel itself would have to be profitable. For that to happen they would need to have programming for those other 21 hours per day when the game isn't on. They would need to incur some cost for programming and for people to run the station. If it was so easy all teams would be doing this. I think it has a much bigger chance of being a disaster that loses money (that directly comes out of the team's budget) than it does a solution to the Reds' revenue problems.

dougdirt
02-20-2012, 01:10 AM
Putting a cable channel together to market the Reds to a larger audience sounds good and all, but for it to work, the cable channel itself would have to be profitable. For that to happen they would need to have programming for those other 21 hours per day when the game isn't on. They would need to incur some cost for programming and for people to run the station. If it was so easy all teams would be doing this. I think it has a much bigger chance of being a disaster that loses money (that directly comes out of the team's budget) than it does a solution to the Reds' revenue problems.

A lot of teams do it already. The Reds could get UC and Xavier sports on there. They could do plenty of programming around those three (including themselves). Infomercials in the morning. Replays after midnight of any sport that happened the night before on the channel. Do like FSN does, have a high school game of the week for basketball and football when those sports are going on. See if the Cyclones are interested in having some games on TV. There is enough programming available if you want it to be.

kaldaniels
02-20-2012, 01:14 AM
Because watching the Reds live isn't something I TIVO, the 2 most watched ads in my household are Ray St Clair Roofing and AE Doors and Windows. But wait, im hundreds of miles away from Cincy. Would it be worth it for national brands to advertise more on FSNOH (or others of the like) due to the spread of the Extra Innings package?

mth123
02-20-2012, 01:23 AM
A lot of teams do it already. The Reds could get UC and Xavier sports on there. They could do plenty of programming around those three (including themselves). Infomercials in the morning. Replays after midnight of any sport that happened the night before on the channel. Do like FSN does, have a high school game of the week for basketball and football when those sports are going on. See if the Cyclones are interested in having some games on TV. There is enough programming available if you want it to be.

And it all costs money. Revenue would be diverted to those other teams and they would need to be interesting enough to get the audience in the target area to watch. Think people in Indy or Louisville are going to want to watch Xavier or the Cyclones? The cable operators would need it to be interesting enough to pick it up and stick it in their base package. Otherwise it would be offered as a channel in a sports option that people would have to pay a premium for. Anyone going to pay that to watch the Cyclones? They would probably need the Pacers and the Blue Jackets involved to even have a chance and those teams would be taking more of the profit out of it and there would still be the issue of what to put on TV all day long. Even if you get some infomercials in the morning and replays over night, its still a lot of airtime to fill. If you are going to fill in with stuff like Lacrosse, Wrestling and Track and Field, it all costs money to produce. Its not nearly as easy as many seem to be assuming IMO.

kaldaniels
02-20-2012, 01:38 AM
A lot of teams do it already. The Reds could get UC and Xavier sports on there. They could do plenty of programming around those three (including themselves). Infomercials in the morning. Replays after midnight of any sport that happened the night before on the channel. Do like FSN does, have a high school game of the week for basketball and football when those sports are going on. See if the Cyclones are interested in having some games on TV. There is enough programming available if you want it to be.

If we are looking at it from the Reds POV, after everyone wets their beak in the revenue, the Reds probably would be better off latching onto FSNOH (surely they will get more come next contract time) as they are now.

mth123
02-20-2012, 01:41 AM
If we are looking at it from the Reds POV, after everyone wets their beak in the revenue, the Reds probably would be better off latching onto FSNOH (surely they will get more come next contract time) as they are now.

Exactly.

CaiGuy
02-20-2012, 01:57 AM
At the same time, just about every city also extends beyond that city to include other places as well.

But how do they compare between cities?

100 Mile Radius:

Chicago (3 teams)
Total population in radius = 12,631,290
Total number of businesses in radius = 516,310

Cincinnati
Total population in radius = 7,366,782
Total number of businesses in radius = 301,70

Atlanta
Total population in radius = 6,714,980
Total number of businesses in radius = 272,843

Houston
Total population in radius = 5,593,304
Total number of businesses in radius = 239,428

St. Louis
Total population in radius = 3,864,669
Total number of businesses in radius = 160,471

100 miles was an arbitrary pick, but I got simillar results for 200-250 miles

Source: www.searchbug.com/tools/zip-radius.aspx

757690
02-20-2012, 02:02 AM
And it all costs money. Revenue would be diverted to those other teams and they would need to be interesting enough to get the audience in the target area to watch. Think people in Indy or Louisville are going to want to watch Xavier or the Cyclones? The cable operators would need it to be interesting enough to pick it up and stick it in their base package. Otherwise it would be offered as a channel in a sports option that people would have to pay a premium for. Anyone going to pay that to watch the Cyclones? They would probably need the Pacers and the Blue Jackets involved to even have a chance and those teams would be taking more of the profit out of it and there would still be the issue of what to put on TV all day long. Even if you get some infomercials in the morning and replays over night, its still a lot of airtime to fill. If you are going to fill in with stuff like Lacrosse, Wrestling and Track and Field, it all costs money to produce. Its not nearly as easy as many seem to be assuming IMO.

Basic cable channels are actually very inexpensive to run. It literally only costs around $25-$50 a 30 second spot in non-prime time for a channel like FoxSportsOhio. The other 21 hours wouldn't be an issue, as most channels make all their profit in prime time and the rest of the day is gravy.

However, the big problem would be how to make money the other six months. For that they would need some other big league team like the Pacers or Blue Jackets.

mth123
02-20-2012, 02:58 AM
Basic cable channels are actually very inexpensive to run. It literally only costs around $25-$50 a 30 second spot in non-prime time for a channel like FoxSportsOhio. The other 21 hours wouldn't be an issue, as most channels make all their profit in prime time and the rest of the day is gravy.

However, the big problem would be how to make money the other six months. For that they would need some other big league team like the Pacers or Blue Jackets.

It only costs that because no one will pay more than that and those stations have Fox national power behind them to get programming like college football and the fox sports news shows so they don't have to pay the associated production costs for those shows. A station independently run by the Reds would be producing those shows themselves, hiring technical and on air talent, investing in equipment etc or paying for the right to air prgramming like that when its produced by some one else. Those market ad rates wouldn't be enough to cover those costs.

The overloooked issue here is that the entire purpose is to expand the Reds market coverage to bring in more ad revenue from outside the Cincy area. I'd imagine a Reds based cable channel would get picked up by the Cincy and immediately adjacent areas no matter what that other programming is. If this is really going to expand the Reds market area, the programming would need to be interesting enough for other cable operators to include the channel in their offerings. Otherwise, their still isn't an expanded market area. Would Indy, Nashville or Huntington pick it up for just the Reds or would there need to be other decent stuff to watch? I'd guess it would be a channel in a premium package that people would need to choose to pay for and that probably wouldn't bring enough viewers to really expand the potential market and increase advertising revenue all that much. The people who would pick it up are probably already watching. It would take more than the Reds to get that channel added to enough people's cable offerings to really expand the potential market size IMO and that's where the added programming costs come in.

MikeS21
02-20-2012, 08:32 AM
Putting a cable channel together to market the Reds to a larger audience sounds good and all, but for it to work, the cable channel itself would have to be profitable. For that to happen they would need to have programming for those other 21 hours per day when the game isn't on. They would need to incur some cost for programming and for people to run the station. If it was so easy all teams would be doing this. I think it has a much bigger chance of being a disaster that loses money (that directly comes out of the team's budget) than it does a solution to the Reds' revenue problems.
Exactly. Cincinnati is known as a regional market. Watch the games. The advertisers on Reds games are 75% local businesses who do not have huge advertising budgets that national corporations have. Even local corporations like Proctor & Gamble don't spend advertising dollars on Reds games.

I have nothing against local businesses such as A E Doors, or U.D.F., or Jeff Wyler car dealerships, or JTM Meats, or Gold Star Chili, or Frisch's Big Boy. But combine the advertising of all those local places, and it wouldn't equal what a company like Coke or Pepsin or Nike or Apple or Target would pay.

Scrap Irony
02-20-2012, 08:55 AM
If you wanted a big splash in this area, take the Big Blue Network games from UK, the UC and UL games from the Big East, the OSU games not on the Big 10 network, and the Xavier games. If the game isn't played nationally or on anothe network, it could be played (live or recorded) on "Redszone".

Make deals for replays of famous or infamous games already broadcast. How many of you would watch Game Three of the 1990 NLCS, Ron Villone's one-hitter against Randy Johnson, or Adam Dunn's grandslam in the bottom of the ninth?
Add a trivia show or two about Red- or area-related sports. Give away $5,000 tops.
Infomercials overnight and in the morning
Run a bi-weekly (offseason) Reds call in show with a local hack as host. Bring in cheesy guests, like Bernie Stowe.
Get some local reporters in a four- or five-man panel to discuss all sports twice a week. Run a show wherein a camera crew tours various sports arenas locally, regionally, then nationally. (Then, internationally. That would be really interesting.)
Run a crapload of those Top Ten type shows, wherein talking heads discuss the best Red ever at specific positions.

It'd be pretty easy to find programming that could make money. It'd be cheap, too, to produce. The overhead would be small as well.

Anyone else think of any shows that would be worth watching on a Wednesday night?

bucksfan2
02-20-2012, 09:57 AM
At the same time, just about every city also extends beyond that city to include other places as well.

Not exactly. Lets take two rivals of the Reds and look at their market. Take Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. In Pittsburgh you go west and you run into the Cleveland market. Head east you hit Philly and the NY markets, you head south and you hit the Reds and Cleveland markets as well. In Milwaukee you can't head south because you hit the Chicago market and you turn west you can only go so far until you hit the Minnesota Market.

I think the Reds have a unique situation in that they have several midsize markets within their viewer audience that have no professional baseball franchises there. Its not like they are the Rockies with hundreds of miles between them and the next franchise but with scarse population. I think the Reds are attempting to get a larger presence in those markets as of late. The winter caravans have been a start, hopefully they can continue.

Sea Ray
02-20-2012, 11:34 AM
The issue with the Reds having their own sports network comes back to the central question: Does the relative small market of the Greater Cincinnati region provide enough viewers to make a Reds Channel profitable? I hear all the arguments why the Reds need their own network, but the truth remains that a baseball network in Cincinnati will NEVER earn the money that a network in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Southern California, etc. will earn.



Of course it won't but that's not the question. Can they make more than $10mill a yr? That's the question and it's a much smaller bar to clear. I don't know the answer but I think the idea should be explored

MikeThierry
02-20-2012, 12:38 PM
Of course it won't but that's not the question. Can they make more than $10mill a yr? That's the question and it's a much smaller bar to clear. I don't know the answer but I think the idea should be explored

It seems to me that they should be able to make more than $10 million per year. I'm also looking at what the Cards TV deal makes. I was shocked to learn that they only make $15 million for their TV deal.



If you wanted a big splash in this area, take the Big Blue Network games from UK, the UC and UL games from the Big East, the OSU games not on the Big 10 network, and the Xavier games. If the game isn't played nationally or on anothe network, it could be played (live or recorded) on "Redszone".

Make deals for replays of famous or infamous games already broadcast. How many of you would watch Game Three of the 1990 NLCS, Ron Villone's one-hitter against Randy Johnson, or Adam Dunn's grandslam in the bottom of the ninth?
Add a trivia show or two about Red- or area-related sports. Give away $5,000 tops.
Infomercials overnight and in the morning
Run a bi-weekly (offseason) Reds call in show with a local hack as host. Bring in cheesy guests, like Bernie Stowe.
Get some local reporters in a four- or five-man panel to discuss all sports twice a week. Run a show wherein a camera crew tours various sports arenas locally, regionally, then nationally. (Then, internationally. That would be really interesting.)
Run a crapload of those Top Ten type shows, wherein talking heads discuss the best Red ever at specific positions.

It'd be pretty easy to find programming that could make money. It'd be cheap, too, to produce. The overhead would be small as well.

Anyone else think of any shows that would be worth watching on a Wednesday night?

Here is the problem with that. Do you think that would be enough to draw enough eyes to a Reds Network? I think for any kind of network like that to succeed, there needs to be more "meat", so to speak. They would probably have to air more sporting events. What other sporting events is there in Cincy that would draw? I'm looking at the ratings for the Blue Jackets and they are getting the worst viewership in the NHL this year. I know they are a bad team this year so I don't know if this year's ratings are a reflection of what their normal ratings are. With St. Louis, I think a Cardinals network could be successful because they have some of the highest ratings in the country for both Baseball and Hockey.

RBA
02-20-2012, 01:53 PM
Exactly. Cincinnati is known as a regional market. Watch the games. The advertisers on Reds games are 75% local businesses who do not have huge advertising budgets that national corporations have. Even local corporations like Proctor & Gamble don't spend advertising dollars on Reds games.

I have nothing against local businesses such as A E Doors, or U.D.F., or Jeff Wyler car dealerships, or JTM Meats, or Gold Star Chili, or Frisch's Big Boy. But combine the advertising of all those local places, and it wouldn't equal what a company like Coke or Pepsin or Nike or Apple or Target would pay.

I see a huge difference between the Reds and Dodgers.

The Dodgers have major sponsors: Union 76, Toyota, Coca-Cola, Bud, etc.

Also, going back to people watching out of market teams on Extra Innings, MLB TV, AT BAt app. On MLB.tv and AT BAT app the local commercials are filtered out. Sometimes replaced with national commercials.

Roy Tucker
02-20-2012, 02:45 PM
I just worry that this is an order of magnitudes kind of thing. I just can't see the Reds getting to the $100-$150M level.

Here is the original article:

http://www.usatoday.com/SPORTS/usaedition/2012-02-10-MLB-TV-cover-0210_CV_U.htm

REDREAD
02-20-2012, 03:05 PM
Who was responsible for creating such an abomination? Did they have the Reds over a barrel when the deal was being made?

John Allen negotiated a horrible cable deal for the Reds when he arrived.
He basically got rid of all the "over the air" TV stations to get a poor cable deal.

Couple that with a long string of uninteresting seasons, and the Reds really didn't have much leverage when they negotiated their current deal. I can't recall who negotiated the last deal. Yes, it was an increase from the pathetic early late 90's - early 2000 era deal, but not very good at all.

The Reds have never been accused of thinking big, that's for sure.

REDREAD
02-20-2012, 03:19 PM
Putting a cable channel together to market the Reds to a larger audience sounds good and all, but for it to work, the cable channel itself would have to be profitable. For that to happen they would need to have programming for those other 21 hours per day when the game isn't on. They would need to incur some cost for programming and for people to run the station. If it was so easy all teams would be doing this. I think it has a much bigger chance of being a disaster that loses money (that directly comes out of the team's budget) than it does a solution to the Reds' revenue problems.

That's a good point.
I am not dismissing that point at all.
However.. Another way around filling in time is to do like the early version of TBS did. Put the Reds programming, talk shows, etc on the cable channel.
Fill in the rest of the time with Andy Griffin, etc reruns.

If a college team wants air time, then they could negotate.
Heck, our CW channel in Columbus gets Big East basket ball games.
Not sure anyone here really cares, but if it's profitable for CW, maybe some college games are doable.

But I would not count on making it a 100% sportschannel.
It might be better to make it a network that is 1/4 Reds, 3/4 reruns.

mth123
02-20-2012, 09:12 PM
That's a good point.
I am not dismissing that point at all.
However.. Another way around filling in time is to do like the early version of TBS did. Put the Reds programming, talk shows, etc on the cable channel.
Fill in the rest of the time with Andy Griffin, etc reruns.

If a college team wants air time, then they could negotate.
Heck, our CW channel in Columbus gets Big East basket ball games.
Not sure anyone here really cares, but if it's profitable for CW, maybe some college games are doable.

But I would not count on making it a 100% sportschannel.
It might be better to make it a network that is 1/4 Reds, 3/4 reruns.

So, if you were a cable provider in Indy, Louisville or Nashville, would such a channel be in your line-up? Would this actually be adding enough viewers to increase revenue? The only thing that would distinguish that network from a bunch of others would be the Reds. For that network to take off, the Reds would have to be pretty darned good to get the network into the line-up. Guess what, if the Reds become good enough to the extent that they could make a network like that desireable, the TV revenue would go way up without having the network sucking the profits out of it.

Captain Hook
02-20-2012, 09:59 PM
So, if you were a cable provider in Indy, Louisville or Nashville, would such a channel be in your line-up? Would this actually be adding enough viewers to increase revenue? The only thing that would distinguish that network from a bunch of others would be the Reds. For that network to take off, the Reds would have to be pretty darned good to get the network into the line-up. Guess what, if the Reds become good enough to the extent that they could make a network like that desireable, the TV revenue would go way up without having the network sucking the profits out of it.

Were the Indians good enough when they created their own network?STO went on air in 2006 following a season that the Indians went 93-69 but failed to make the play offs.The three years before that were all loosing seasons for the Tribe.

If they were somehow able to put together their own network there's no good reason the Reds can't do the same.

dabvu2498
02-20-2012, 10:12 PM
Were the Indians good enough when they created their own network?STO went on air in 2006 following a season that the Indians went 93-69 but failed to make the play offs.The three years before that were all loosing seasons for the Tribe.

If they were somehow able to put together their own network there's no good reason the Reds can't do the same.

Right. STO is the obvious comp for a Reds network. Here's a rundown of what's on STO, other than Indians coverage:


Mid-American ConferenceOn July 30, 2010 STO reached an agreement with the Cleveland headquartered Mid-American Conference to broadcast football, men's and women's basketball, and neutral site conference championships in baseball, softball and volleyball.[2]

[edit] Other programmingSTO is on the air 24 hours a day. In addition to Indians games, STO now broadcasts several other shows—many of them going HD in 2008 when STO unveiled its 24/7 HD format—including:

All Bets Are Off; a daily three hour live call-in show hosted by Bruce Drennan, with producer/sidekick Gene Winters and sports anchor Ashley Collins. The show generally airs Monday through Thursday from 3 p.m. - 6 p.m. with an encore airing from 12 a.m. - 3 a.m.; and Sundays from 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. The times are somewhat flexible, based on the Indians' schedule and length of games. The show also has special live postgame editions for important games; in the past, such as for the Cavaliers' appearance in the 2007 NBA Finals and the Indians' postseason games in 2007. (HD)
The Tribe Report; A weekly show hosted by Al Pawlowski and former Indians pitcher Jason Stanford reviewing the week that was and previewing the week ahead for the Cleveland Indians. (HD)
Indians Minor League Magazine; A weekly show hosted by Al Pawlowski and Jason Stanford, profiling the Minor League Baseball teams affiliated with the Indians. (HD)
Chuck's Last Call; A nightly call-in show with veteran Cleveland sportscaster Chuck Galetti. During baseball season it airs on weeknights following Indians games. In the offseason, it airs Monday through Thursday from 10 p.m. - 11 p.m. (HD)
The Berea Report; a show hosted by Jim Donovan, which airs every Monday night during the regular season for the Browns. Donovan, along with a co-host (the co-host varies from episode to episode) recap and discuss the game from the day before as well as show clips of player interviews and head coach Pat Shurmur's press conference. (HD)
Training Camp Daily; This show is filmed on the sideline of the practice field in Berea, where the show's personalities discuss the Browns upcoming season and interview players. (HD)
Sunday Strategy; A round table discussion with Jim Donovan, Plain Dealer sports writer Tony Grossi, and former Browns LT/current Browns radio analyst Doug Dieken. The show moves from topic to topic, previewing the Browns next game and discussing the opponent. (HD)
Browns Red Zone; A show where fans can call in and voice their opinions on the Browns, that airs Monday and Thursday nights on STO. Monday's episode features Donovan, Dieken and Grossi, while Thursday's episode features WTAM Browns beat reporter Andre Knott and Plain Dealer Browns beat reporter Mary Kay Cabot. (HD)
Browns Insider; Browns radio sideline reporter Jamir Howerton interviews current and former Browns, previews the upcoming opponent and recaps the action from last Sunday. (HD)
Browns Postgame Live; A live, two hour call-in show that airs immediately following Browns games hosted by Michael Reghi. (HD)
Beer Money; In this show, Ashley Collins and Jamir Howerton visit local bars and give contestants a chance to win money by asking Cleveland sports trivia questions.
Tee It Up Ohio; an Ohio golf show that profiles in-state courses and offers tips starring local golf pro Jimmy Hanlin and Mike Cairns. (HD)
The Golf Zone; A weekly golf oriented call in show hosted by Jimmy Hanlin. (HD)
NAAFS Cage Fighting; A weekly one hour highlights program for the Northeast Ohio based North American Allied Fight Series (NAAFS), one of the largest regional MMA promotions in the USA. NAAFS Cage Fighting features corporate sponsors Bud Light, Intimidation Clothing, John P. Lennon and more. Program airs on Sunday nights at 11 pm ET.
Outdoors Ohio with D'Arcy Egan: an outdoors show featuring Ohio fishing and hunting adventures. It is hosted by The Plain Dealer outdoors writer D'Arcy Egan and his wife, artist Laura Brown Egan, owner of Desdemona's Fine Art & Other Cool Stuff, an art gallery in Port Clinton, Ohio. Cleveland Browns Offensive Tackle Joe Thomas (known for his love of fishing and hunting) was added as a co-host in 2008. (HD)
Ohio Sports Profiles; a show profiling the lives of Cleveland Indians' players and other local athletes
Pro Wrestling Ohio; A professional wrestling program featuring matches from the Cleveland independent promotion of the same name. Airs Sunday nights at 10 p.m.
Ohio Fight Fest; A showcase of local mixed martial arts bouts. Airs on Friday and Monday nights.
Ohio Boxing-In This Corner; A showcase of local boxing bouts with analysis. Airs on Friday and Monday Nights.
The Viking Basketball Report; A showcase of the Cleveland State University basketball team with head coach Gary Waters. Hosted by Mike Cairns.
Crew Xtra; A weekly half-hour program, where host Beau Bishop and a panel of guests review the past week in Columbus Crew and Major League Soccer action and look ahead to upcoming matches.
Buckeye Blitz; A weekly hour long program that reviews the previous game and previews the upcoming game for the Ohio State Buckeyes football team. It's hosted by Beau Bishop, with former Buckeyes Dee Miller and Jason Winrow, and Columbus Dispatch OSU beat reporter Tim May as analysts. A half hour long version airs during basketball season.
High School Football; STO airs a game of the week Friday nights during the season (on tape delay). Tony Rizzo and former Browns LB Frank Stams are the announcing team. STO also carries playoff games as well as the six divisional State Championship games.
STO airs seasonal programming for the Cleveland Browns, Ohio State football and basketball, Notre Dame football and basketball, Youngstown State football, Cleveland State basketball, and Columbus Crew soccer.[3]

STO has broadcast 6-8 Cleveland State Vikings basketball games each season since 2006-07.

The network had also expressed interested in obtaining rights to broadcast Cleveland Cavaliers games, which are currently held by FSN Ohio. However, FSN Ohio agreed to a long-term deal with the Cavaliers in 2006 to air 70 games per season.

STO has broadcast some high school football and basketball since its launch. In 2007, STO announced they would acquire the rights to some of the Ohio High School Athletic Association championships, including eight football playoff games, six football championship games, boys and girls playoff basketball, and four events to be announced. Time Warner Cable will provide coverage in Dayton and Cincinnati, which do not air STO.[4]

During late night hours the station shows various infomercials.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SportsTime_Ohio

mth123
02-21-2012, 04:25 AM
Has STO expanded Cleveland's market? I can't get it where I live.

The premise here is that the Reds need their own network to increase TV revenue to raise payroll to compete for players who we currently have no shot with. The Reds already get the veiwers in Cincinnati, so for the network to achieve that goal, it will need to be available on TVs in other towns in and beyond "Red's country." Where is STO available? Which cable systems are including it in their offerings? How many more dollars is it bringing Cleveland's way? It hasn't enabled them to keep Cliff Lee or CC Sabathia, what exactly has STO added to the Indians bottom line?

I have no doubt that the Reds could put together a network that would get viewers in Cincy and probably Dayton and Northern Kentucky. They could get some cheap programmming and People locally would watch. How does that increase revenue? Will it get viewers in indy? Nashville? For the Reds to increase revenue, they need to increase their market size by having games available to viewers in places where more viewers are. They already get ratings in the Cincy area. I don't see how moving from Fox to a local channel adds much.

dougdirt
02-21-2012, 09:46 AM
Has STO expanded Cleveland's market? I can't get it where I live.

The premise here is that the Reds need their own network to increase TV revenue to raise payroll to compete for players who we currently have no shot with. The Reds already get the veiwers in Cincinnati, so for the network to achieve that goal, it will need to be available on TVs in other towns in and beyond "Red's country." Where is STO available? Which cable systems are including it in their offerings? How many more dollars is it bringing Cleveland's way? It hasn't enabled them to keep Cliff Lee or CC Sabathia, what exactly has STO added to the Indians bottom line?

I have no doubt that the Reds could put together a network that would get viewers in Cincy and probably Dayton and Northern Kentucky. They could get some cheap programmming and People locally would watch. How does that increase revenue? Will it get viewers in indy? Nashville? For the Reds to increase revenue, they need to increase their market size by having games available to viewers in places where more viewers are. They already get ratings in the Cincy area. I don't see how moving from Fox to a local channel adds much.
The premise of your own network is being able to get what you are worth. Right now, with FSN, they aren't. Expanding your market is all good and fine, but even if your tv network doesn't do that, it isn't something that keeps you confined if you are getting what you are actually worth in your own market versus not getting what you are worth in an expanded market of maybe 15-20%. Maybe FSN steps up and pays them. We will see.

Chip R
02-21-2012, 10:32 AM
The premise of your own network is being able to get what you are worth. Right now, with FSN, they aren't. Expanding your market is all good and fine, but even if your tv network doesn't do that, it isn't something that keeps you confined if you are getting what you are actually worth in your own market versus not getting what you are worth in an expanded market of maybe 15-20%. Maybe FSN steps up and pays them. We will see.

But if you have your own network, you are just taking money from one pocket and putting it into the other. If the Reds had a TV network of their own, the TV network could theoretically pay the Reds $50M for TV rights. But that just makes the TV network lose money.

For those wanting a superstation similar to what the Braves and Cubs had, the key word is had. You aren't seeing 150 Braves games on TBS anymore or 150 Cubs games on WGN. That's not just a coincidence. MLB doesn't want teams giving away their out of market area games for free anymore. This helps teams like the Reds who were really hurt by area fans getting Braves and Cubs games that were in competition with Reds games. That's a big reason whenever the Braves and Cubs come to town, there is a greater amount of fans coming to the games that aren't rooting for the Reds. Now, if you want to watch Braves or Cubs games in Cincinnati - moreso the Braves instead of the Cubs - you have to subscribe to Extra Innings.

IslandRed
02-21-2012, 10:58 AM
The premise of your own network is being able to get what you are worth.

What it's worth is what someone will give for it, be it FSO or advertisers on a potential Reds network. But yeah, the state of the art with respect to these kinds of networks has changed over the last several years, and the Reds should absolutely do some groundwork on this before the deal comes up for renewal so they're not locked into "take it or leave it" from FSO.

REDREAD
02-21-2012, 11:07 AM
So, if you were a cable provider in Indy, Louisville or Nashville, would such a channel be in your line-up? Would this actually be adding enough viewers to increase revenue? The only thing that would distinguish that network from a bunch of others would be the Reds. For that network to take off, the Reds would have to be pretty darned good to get the network into the line-up. Guess what, if the Reds become good enough to the extent that they could make a network like that desireable, the TV revenue would go way up without having the network sucking the profits out of it.

I am not an expert at setting up sports channels, obviously.
I have never seen the Texas Longhorn channel, but I imagine they struggle to fill in all their time as well. To some extent, the Big Ten channel really sucks if there's not a major game on .

There's channels like MeTV, RetroTV, etc that only play 30+ year old reruns, and they get a slot on the cable lineup. Now granted, some of them are "over the air channels" and I think the cable system might be forced to carry them.

I guess the point is this.. Monday at noon, it's highly unlikely there will be any interesting sports to broadcast. A Gunsmoke rerun might have better ratings than a replay of a college wrestling match. It was just a thought.. reruns are cheap programming.. In theory, the channel would only have to break even during the rerun time. I agree that in the evenings, it would be nice to have better programming. But I don't think the Blue Jackets or Xavier is the answer either.

I actually agree with your point that setting up a Reds only network is no easy task.

dabvu2498
02-21-2012, 11:34 AM
Markets like Nashville and Knoxville are gone. The Braves were too good for too long and did a great job marketing themselves as the "Southern team" to get those areas back. Unless of course, you win 14 straight division titles. Then you will make some inroads.

The other thing that's being lost here is that you'd have 12 months of revenue, rather than 7. Even if you just barely did better than even on your off season programs, it's still better than the donut hole you have now.

Some of the local programming mentioned above would be interesting in this market. Cincy is a big college sports town. I know lots of folks would love a local-centric college basketball show, focusing on XU, UC, but also some UK, Miami, IU, OSU, Big 10 content. Miami gets no local coverage. Maybe 30 seconds on the 6 and 11 news. Make inroads there. NKU is going D1 next year. Do a few of their games and a coaches show. I know tons of people aren't going to watch MU or NKU basketball, but if you prove yourself, doing a first class job, maybe you get a few XU and UC nonconference games. And then you're talking. A weekly high school sports show, if well done, would do great here. The outdoors and golf shows are solid, low-cost programming and can be recycled. In season, do a couple Bats and Dragons games. People would eat that up.

Louisville, Lexington, Dayton, and Columbus would almost certainly go for this type of network. Are all Reds games available on FSN in Indianapolis currently? I know for my dad, in Glasgow, KY, they are not.

dabvu2498
02-21-2012, 11:43 AM
Also, FWIW, STO is not available to me through Time Warner (NESN and YES are though). I did call TW to request STO, not so much for the Injuns, but more for their local programming. Yeah, I'm a nerd like that.

Captain Hook
02-21-2012, 02:21 PM
But if you have your own network, you are just taking money from one pocket and putting it into the other. If the Reds had a TV network of their own, the TV network could theoretically pay the Reds $50M for TV rights. But that just makes the TV network lose money.

For those wanting a superstation similar to what the Braves and Cubs had, the key word is had. You aren't seeing 150 Braves games on TBS anymore or 150 Cubs games on WGN. That's not just a coincidence. MLB doesn't want teams giving away their out of market area games for free anymore. This helps teams like the Reds who were really hurt by area fans getting Braves and Cubs games that were in competition with Reds games. That's a big reason whenever the Braves and Cubs come to town, there is a greater amount of fans coming to the games that aren't rooting for the Reds. Now, if you want to watch Braves or Cubs games in Cincinnati - moreso the Braves instead of the Cubs - you have to subscribe to Extra Innings.

Wouldn't that be a good thing if a Reds owned channel turned into something like TBS?I'm sure there are still ways for Braves fans within a reasonable distance to watch all their games and with it sounding like the YES network reaching so many fans MLB can't be limiting things too much.

757690
02-21-2012, 02:33 PM
The Reds don't have to start their own network on their own. They can partner with FSO, where the Reds own a certain percentage of the network. Lots of ways to work out a deal that helps eveyone.

FSO pays for the operating costs year round, get to keep all the revenue from non-Reds shows in the Reds market, and split the revenue from the Reds shows. This way, FSO doesn't have to pay for the rights upfront, but still gets money from airing the games. The Reds get more control over the broadcasts, plus a chance to make more money if ratings increase year to year instead of being locked into long term deal. I'm sure there is a way to make the figures work for everyone.

savafan
02-21-2012, 03:13 PM
They could always bring in George Clooney and Nick Lachey as minority owners in the team to produce some original entertainment type programs which would draw in even non-sports viewers, and then in addition to Reds games, show some of the minor league games here and there to build up excitement in the prospects as fans follow their careers to the show. Just some other ideas not already discussed, and I have no idea how well it would work, but I thought I'd throw it out there. :)

Captain Hook
02-21-2012, 04:28 PM
The Reds don't have to start their own network on their own. They can partner with FSO, where the Reds own a certain percentage of the network. Lots of ways to work out a deal that helps eveyone.

FSO pays for the operating costs year round, get to keep all the revenue from non-Reds shows in the Reds market, and split the revenue from the Reds shows. This way, FSO doesn't have to pay for the rights upfront, but still gets money from airing the games. The Reds get more control over the broadcasts, plus a chance to make more money if ratings increase year to year instead of being locked into long term deal. I'm sure there is a way to make the figures work for everyone.

There's still a bunch of Indians game shown on FSN even when they're on STO. I wonder if what your suggesting goes on in that situation.