Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CEB" data-source="post: 883452" data-attributes="member: 4905"><p>I agree with this... I know they have run the numbers and obviously it makes some sense but it’s simply an evaluation of whether you want a little from everyone or a lot from fewer, and which one generates the most revenue. </p><p>My guess is there is also a cable company premium that they can avoid if they do go full streaming with their own service. </p><p>But the bottom line is how bullish they are on the size of the three groups who are currently paying via cable services:</p><p>Group 1: doesn’t watch sports, never will - those subscription fees are lost</p><p>Group 2: sports fans who watch, will pay to watch regardless - they get a much bigger cut of this group</p><p>Group 3: casual fans who may be viewers now but won’t care enough to pay for streaming. If they are truly in the process of elevating 30- 40 teams and in the process demoting nearly 3/4 of college football to something less, group 3 could be larger than they are anticipating. </p><p></p><p>Finally, my gut says they are already viewing traditional cable subscriptions as a diminishing (if not dying) model so the “lost” subscription fees maybe aren’t really lost in terms of financial projections... they would be gone regardless.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CEB, post: 883452, member: 4905"] I agree with this... I know they have run the numbers and obviously it makes some sense but it’s simply an evaluation of whether you want a little from everyone or a lot from fewer, and which one generates the most revenue. My guess is there is also a cable company premium that they can avoid if they do go full streaming with their own service. But the bottom line is how bullish they are on the size of the three groups who are currently paying via cable services: Group 1: doesn’t watch sports, never will - those subscription fees are lost Group 2: sports fans who watch, will pay to watch regardless - they get a much bigger cut of this group Group 3: casual fans who may be viewers now but won’t care enough to pay for streaming. If they are truly in the process of elevating 30- 40 teams and in the process demoting nearly 3/4 of college football to something less, group 3 could be larger than they are anticipating. Finally, my gut says they are already viewing traditional cable subscriptions as a diminishing (if not dying) model so the “lost” subscription fees maybe aren’t really lost in terms of financial projections... they would be gone regardless. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top