DISH drops NESN in scathing press release

Hyde Park Factor

token lebanese
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
2,795
Manchvegas
Can anyone shed some light on why NESN hasn't been more amenable to making their broadcasts available via services that aren't the local cable company??
 

HoyaSoxa

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2003
1,252
Needham, Mass
Can anyone shed some light on why NESN hasn't been more amenable to making their broadcasts available via services that aren't the local cable company??
They are clinging to the "basic tier" model where they get $5 from every cable subscriber, whether or not that person watches NESN. If they allow anyone to go a la carte (as DISH wanted to do), they know all of their contracts will go the same way, and there simply won't be enough people willing to pay the added subscription fee to make up the difference, even at $10 or $15 a month. YouTube TV, Hulu TV, and Sling already made a similar calculation to what DISH has done and dropped NESN, so the writing is on the wall and RSNs are going back to the days of the 80s when they were all pay-extra channels.
 

ColdSoxPack

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
2,357
Simi Valley, CA
I would expect DirecTV to be the next shoe to drop. Without Nesn I would get a lot of other things done around the house.
 
Last edited:

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
To be fair how do we expect NESN to fund all of the other original content they put out at the high quality it is now?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
To be fair how do we expect NESN to fund all of the other original content they put out at the high quality it is now?
I have a vague recollection of Tom Werner supposedly having some great ideas. I'm sure he will get to them soon.

But isn't cable tv in general built on us paying for 150 channels of which we watch about 20?
 

bluefenderstrat

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2002
2,588
Tralfamadore
To be fair how do we expect NESN to fund all of the other original content they put out at the high quality it is now?
Hah! That took me a second...it's a good point though, what is the need for NESN to product ANY original content outside of broadcasting games? It's ironic that I spent some of my teen years begging for NESN to be added to basic cable, now as an old guy I just want to be able to pay $20 per month per NESN by itself during Sox season without being tied to a full streaming service or cable package.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
I blame all those who complained about the bundle and wanted to be sure they weren't paying twelve cents/month for MTV (or whatever) and only wanted to pay the fourteen cents/month for Discovery (or whatever) because they actually did watch that. The bundle was the greatest deal going -- for distributors, for networks, and ultimately for customers... but the customers mistakenly thought they could shave a few bucks if offerings were all a la carte.

Cut to... ten years later... the end of the bundle meant less choice AND higher costs. And lower quality for a bunch of networks as well. Networks and distributors were never going to tolerate lower margins, so consumers foot the bill.

That's all a familiar (and boring) rant from me, who enjoyed a long career in the cable network business built on the old model. Sure, it was great for the networks... but it was great for consumers too.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
I have a vague recollection of Tom Werner supposedly having some great ideas. I'm sure he will get to them soon.

But isn't cable tv in general built on us paying for 150 channels of which we watch about 20?
It’s scary that Sox Appeal is probably the best thing NESN has produced in 15 years. I don’t think The Mad Fisherman was their idea.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
I have a vague recollection of Tom Werner supposedly having some great ideas. I'm sure he will get to them soon.

But isn't cable tv in general built on us paying for 150 channels of which we watch about 20?
The thing is the 20 you want to pay for are a shit-ton more expensive than you realize if only those 20 can only rely on those who like them enough to pay for it.

It's cheaper for everyone to pay for 150 at volume rates, than specialists to pay for just what they want. By a lot.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
11,355
Washington, DC
I blame all those who complained about the bundle and wanted to be sure they weren't paying twelve cents/month for MTV (or whatever) and only wanted to pay the fourteen cents/month for Discovery (or whatever) because they actually did watch that. The bundle was the greatest deal going -- for distributors, for networks, and ultimately for customers... but the customers mistakenly thought they could shave a few bucks if offerings were all a la carte.
This is basically it. We were early cord-cutters when we bought our house in 2013 for purely financial reasons--our living costs were going up substantially. I was at a lunch with a bunch of broadcast/cable/satellite lobbyists and when one of them asked me who my provider was, I replied that I used rabbit ears and streaming services which piqued a lot of interest from others. She said, "So I guess you'd prefer to get your channels a la carte." And I responded that theoretically I would, but I didn't see how the economics would work since I was sure the networks I would pay for are already the ones subsidizing the less-watched networks. The consensus was that it wouldn't, and sure enough that's the case. Where I think things are better is what I get for what I pay. We had DirecTV for a number of years until a few months ago when we realized that we watched maybe five channels, all of which were on YTTV, and we could stream Sunday Ticket. I feel like with RSNs, it's getting to the point where you're now better-served to be out-of-market since you can just get the sports packages through streaming services. ESPN+ has tons of Bruins games, I didn't get the NBA package this year but have in the past, and I gladly pay for MLB and Sunday Ticket through Apple TV. I look at a show like "Dining Playbook" and struggle to think of one reason why anyone would find value in that as a subscriber.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I feel like with RSNs, it's getting to the point where you're now better-served to be out-of-market since you can just get the sports packages through streaming services. ESPN+ has tons of Bruins games, I didn't get the NBA package this year but have in the past, and I gladly pay for MLB and Sunday Ticket through Apple TV. I look at a show like "Dining Playbook" and struggle to think of one reason why anyone would find value in that as a subscriber.
I think the next step is for NESN+ to start offering subscriptions independent of having a cable/satellite provider log-in. The app's there, they're streaming already, it's right there. A few more negotiations that go the way the DISH ones did, and it's all they've got.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
I think the next step is for NESN+ to start offering subscriptions independent of having a cable/satellite provider log-in. The app's there, they're streaming already, it's right there. A few more negotiations that go the way the DISH ones did, and it's all they've got.
Man, I hope so! NESN and Netflix would complement each other so well, February-August. I wouldn't need much else. Those two plus free Youtube 7-10 minute condensed games for basketball some non-Bruins NHL games. $25ish/month would cover it.
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,855
Mtigawi
I completely happy with alacarte services. I no longer need to pay for dogshit channels and frankly even paying for non-shit ones gives me pause. Not because I’m cheap, I’m discovering that I really do not miss them at all. Ten years ago that would be such a foreign thought to me, flipping around TV was what you did when you were bored.

I’d totally pay for a NESN streaming service. I buy the MLB package but I like the pre and post game stuff on NESN too much.
 

Haunted

The Man in the Box
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
6,196
I formally cut the cable cord 2012-2013 when my cable-installer roommate moved out and I absolutely had no interest in paying the $200 a month our (free to him) service cost. Never looked back. Between strategic streaming services I manage to watch pretty much anything I'm interested in and only miss live sports. When those get interesting, I sign up for Fubo or YTTV.

I'd probably spring for a NESN sub if offered, even if it was $20 per month. Fubo/YTTV are more than triple that and NESN was literally the only thing I watched on them.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
The thing is that if NESN is getting $10 a month from everyone now, and moves to a model where only those who want it pay, and that’s like 20%….then do the math, they either need to charge folks $50 a month or take a big hit in revenue.

It’s easy for DiSH (which frankly doesn’t have much of a footprint and is dying anyways) to play hardball with NESN in December, harder to if it’s April, the lockout is over, and the Sox look good .
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
The thing is that if NESN is getting $10 a month from everyone now, and moves to a model where only those who want it pay, and that’s like 20%….then do the math, they either need to charge folks $50 a month or take a big hit in revenue.

It’s easy for DiSH (which frankly doesn’t have much of a footprint and is dying anyways) to play hardball with NESN in December, harder to if it’s April, the lockout is over, and the Sox look good .
All the footprints are shrinking in this space. Dish still has the 4th largest footprint and 11 million subscribers.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The thing is that if NESN is getting $10 a month from everyone now, and moves to a model where only those who want it pay, and that’s like 20%….then do the math, they either need to charge folks $50 a month or take a big hit in revenue.
It'd be like the 80's and 90's all over again. At least you got Sports Channel too.

And isn't this where all sports are ultimately headed? Either the bubble bursts or sports fan pay $100+ month just to watch their 4 teams.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
The thing is that if NESN is getting $10 a month from everyone now, and moves to a model where only those who want it pay, and that’s like 20%….then do the math, they either need to charge folks $50 a month or take a big hit in revenue.

It’s easy for DiSH (which frankly doesn’t have much of a footprint and is dying anyways) to play hardball with NESN in December, harder to if it’s April, the lockout is over, and the Sox look good .
Actually, it’s worse than that. Your math is right for the sub fees, but the advertising revenue is lower with the smaller footprint too. The 80% who were NESN rejectors still contribute a not insignificant chunk of ratings.

The bundle was the best.