Tag: ESPN

The Odds and Ends of the NFL Media Rights Deals – Most Important Story of the Week – 19 Mar 21

Last week the NFL media rights story went from “potential” to “actual” news. (The latter happens, the former is rumors.) Not to toot my own horn, but I wrote last week that the Disney-NHL deal would set the template for the NFL deal (and all future rights deals). And I was right.

That’s our story of the week. Which is a bit delayed because, frankly, March Madness basketball slowed me down.

(Sign up for my newsletter to get all my writings and my favorite entertainment business picks from the last 2 weeks or so. Next issue goes out early next week.)

Most Important Story of the Week – The NFL Media Rights Grow 5.9% Per Year and Go Digital

Editorially, the NFL didn’t help me out. I had hoped the NFL would take a few more weeks to finish these deals, so my weekly column wouldn’t cover sports two weeks in a row. Last week’s column explored the strategic issues for all parts of the digital video value chain. This week, I’d like to provide a bit of context to the specific numbers for the NFL, speculate about the two remaining wild cards in the NFL media rights package, and give my overall thesis. In short, a bit of an “odds and ends” column.

Bottom Line: This Deal Isn’t “Earth Shattering”, But “Evolutionary”.

The NFL signed a big rights deal that we all knew was coming, and most observers assumed that all the major linear channels (Viacom, Fox and Disney) would insist on digital rights as well. Which is the deal we got. Did this stop some outlets from hyperventilating that this deal would “end the bundle as we know it”? 

Of course not.

Will it? Not really. If “earth shattering” means to figuratively have the Earth break apart like Alderaan in Star Wars, then this deal is not that. Unfortunately for narratives, most business trends resemble the slow but steady movement of the continents rather than earth-destroying super lasers.

For the vast majority of customers, they can (and will) watch TV mostly how they have before. Amidst this, TV consumption is slowly changing, as more Americans cut the cord. More but not all. As I often remind readers, though, this rate is still in the single digits percentage-wise. In 2021, cable “only” lost 6 million subscribers. Yes, this is a shrinking business, but the majority of TV viewers use cable or satellite to access TV.

This deal matches that slow evolution, not the online narrative. Since many customers are digital only, the NFL needs to reach them and ESPN+, Paramount, Prime video and Tubi provide that reach. But there are still so many traditional customers that the NFL can’t blow up the linear bundle entirely. Again, think “tectonic shifts” not “earth shattering”. 

(This is the “aggressively moderate” take versus the “headline grabbing soundbite” take.)

Whither Sunday Ticket?

Partly, I’m a bit disappointed that Sunday Ticket, the subscription service that lets DirecTV customers watch every NFL game, hasn’t been awarded to a suitor. Given the sorry state of DirecTV’s finances–they were just spun off from AT&T–it is unlikely they will renew this extremely expensive and exclusive contract.

So who grabs it? Amazon is often rumored, but likely the NFL has concerns that Amazon alone doesn’t have the reach to justify a deal. Neither would any one cable company, since no one cable company covers all of America. (That’s why the deal made so much sense for DirecTV, since every house was a potential customer.)

Hence Sunday Ticket is a “wildcard”. I think that the NFL could actually generate more revenue by letting multiple MVPDs and OTTs sell it as an add-on, for a given up front fee and splitting per customer revenue. (Say ESPN+, Apple TV+, Peacock, and Prime Video, plus any cable provider.) But that is much riskier for the NFL overall. The NFL prefers a big upfront paycheck, which may lend itself to one big (likely tech) player going all in. We’ll see which way they go.

Whither NFL Network?

One of the rumored sticking points in Thursday Night Football to Amazon was whether the deal was totally “exclusive”, meaning on every platform, or “digital exclusive”, meaning the only digital provider, as it was the last few years. The answer is the former, as TNF will leave its sometime home on the NFL Network. Losing an actual live sporting event will hurt the NFL Network’s negotiating position in the future, so conceding the point likely means the NFL knows the smaller linear sports channels days are numbered. Plus Amazon doubled the price tag, which likely makes up for the loss.

That said, there is the caveat that in their Press Release, the NFL said the NFL Network will carry some games. Hmmm. It will be fascinating to see what and how often these games show up on the calendar:

Screen Shot 2021-03-23 at 12.55.46 PM

Amazon Will Syndicate Airings to Local Broadcasters

That said, here’s a fun point: Amazon must syndicate rights to local markets for Thursday Night Football. That’s a footnote with big implications I didn’t see highlighted in the coverage!

Screen Shot 2021-03-23 at 12.56.17 PM

In other words, if hypothetically the Los Angeles Rams play the Kansas City Chiefs, a local broadcaster like KTLA could buy the rights for Los Angeles. In fact, Amazon must sell the rights to someone. Same for Kansas City. Everywhere else? They have to go to Prime Video to watch that week’s games.

How much does this decrease the overall value? Somewhat. Diehard NFL fans will tune in to Prime Video.  But the casual fans who only follow their team will have a non-Amazon option, which does decrease the upside for Prime Video. Does this make it a bad deal for Prime Video? Probably not. They still need to convince people to use Prime Video on a regular basis, and sports offer that opportunity.

This isn’t a “108%” increase, but a “5.9%” per year increase.

Whenever a big sports deal is announced, the league loves to celebrate the huge increase in price. Often announcing it “doubled” the previous deal. What they fail to mention is that the previous deal took place ten years before, so it doubled over ten years, which is less impressive. Since 2010, the S&P 500, for example, has gone up 249%, so if a sports right deal doubled in value, that’s less impressive than the just basic growth of the stock market!

I wrote about this before, here or here. How does this apply to the NFL? Well the previous deals were signed in 2014, roughly, meaning 9 years. Using the prices per year–from this great Sportico article–the actual per year increase is from $5.67 billion to $9.46 billion. That’s a combined annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.9%, or an average growth rate of 7%.  Still really, really good to grow revenue by 5.9% per year! But not nearly as eye popping as 108% growth sounds.

For new readers, here’s the picture of what I call the Video Value Chain in all its glory.

The last two weeks, I’ve written about the Digital Video value chain. Here is that laid out in all its glory for those who don’t know:

image-7-video-value-web-1

What did the Twitterati have to say?

Every so often I collect your thoughts on Twitter. Here are the best hot takes I found:

Context Update – Antitrust Heats Up as Biden Appoints Lina Khan to FTC

Mergers & acquisitions are fun to write about. You get to imagine two companies putting together their combined business heft and dominating a new industry, or presenting a unique new value proposition. Ignore how often the mergers fail to deliver the expected value in real life; on paper they’re fun! (Especially compared to building a real strategy, which is often much harder.)

This game was especially fun over the last four decades, as US and global regulators mostly allowed every deal to pass through. (There are a few exceptions, like Comcast and Time-Warner Cable and AT&T and Sprint, but they are vastly the exception.) But has the tide turned on antitrust? And does the business community have an accurate gauge on that yet?

Maybe not. That’s my outlier hypothesis right now. As I wrote last November, whether or not Democrats will fundamentally change antitrust enforcement (from lax to aggressive) depends on President Biden’s appointments. On this front, he has been mixed. Some appointments are traditional (meaning lax) corporate lawyers. Others are strong advocates for renewed antitrust enforcement. Some advocates for stronger antitrust enforcement were disappointed when Biden nominated Rohit Chopra for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, since he was very aggressive on antitrust as a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Then Biden nominated Lina Khan to the FTC. She’s just as fierce of a critic, and a protege to Chopra, . Khan helped write the House Subcommittee on Antitrust report on Big Tech last year, and is a rising star. She’ll likely be a strong advocate for increased scrutiny on future mergers and acquisitions. 

Toss in economist Tim Wu joining the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Chopra’s commitment to enforcing rules at the CFPB, and the Senate weighing new antitrust bills that may–but likely won’t–have bipartisan support, and I see a changing landscape. Heck, when a Republican Senator writes an op-ed in favor of unions, anything is possible!

Yet the business community isn’t ready for this outcome. After a down year in deal-making due to Covid 19, they’re ready to get back on the merger train. (Speaking of, two big train companies want to merge.) Writing in his newsletter, Matt Stoller noted:

Screen Shot 2021-03-23 at 1.06.32 PM

So what is the most likely outcome? Well, deal making won’t slow down until the Biden Administration sends even clearer signals that it will stop deals from happening. I expect this will start first with increased scrutiny on “megadeals”, those over $5 billion in value. 

As for entertainment, this biggest potential impact is that Big Tech will be a pinch more worried. (Big Tech being at least Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon, maybe Microsoft, maybe Netflix.) Sure, maybe increased antitrust scrutiny won’t come for train companies, but clearly Big Tech is in the crossfire. This could hamper the long hoped for M&A spree of Big Tech on smaller media companies. That would change a lot of potential strategy.

Other Contenders for Most Important Story

Netflix May (Huge May) Crack Down on Password Sharing

To continue the game of the last two weeks, is this “actual or potential” news? Every few months something about password sharing and Netflix circulates on the Twitter (and then news websites) rumor mill.

Is this one different? Maybe. On the actual side, Netflix is genuinely running test messages telling customers to not share passwords. On the potential side, Netflix hasn’t actually limited password sharing to one household yet either.

Tubi May Produce Original Programming

Because of course they will. Everyone is making originals. However, paired with the news that Tubi will carry Fox NFL games, clearly the remaining pieces of Fox post-merger with Disney (Fox broadcast, Fox Sports and Fox News) see Tubi as the future.

Alibaba May Have to Sell Media Businesses

For a perfect example of a “potential” news story, see this Alibaba news out of China. Sources say that Alibaba may have to spin off media businesses to stay on the Chinese government’s good side. Let’s wait until this actually happens, but China seems to be cracking down on media consolidation by Big Tech in their backyard.

Walmart Considering a Smart TV Device

Walmart has a confusing approach to the Digital Video/Big Tech “dust up”, as The Economist recently described it. (Tech is having a dust up whereas entertainment is having a war.) A year after buying Vudu and then selling it to Comcast, Walmart is back exploring if they should manufacture/brand a streaming stick under their brand.

The WME IPO is Back!

Buried in the news coverage was the return of the WME IPO, derailed by Covid-19 and a weak economy last year. Will it stick this time?

Lots of News with No News – March Madness

I’m sure I’ll stumble across articles either bemoaning, celebrating, worrying or any other emotion over the ratings for March Madness this year. Whatever they are, folks will likely use them to justify their preexisting beliefs on the future of TV, digital videos and the streaming wars. (Apply this to awards shows too if you’d like.)

I, meanwhile, will enjoy the tournament and how well the Pac-12 is dominating, especially my Bruins. Let’s hope they don’t delay any more columns!

ESPN Grabs NHL Rights, Setting the Sports Media Rights Template – Most Important Story of the Week – 12 Mar 21

(Sign up for my newsletter to get all my writings and my favorite entertainment business picks from the last 2 weeks or so. Next issue goes out early next week.)

I love when a weekly column like this ends up having a “theme”. This week, that’s the difference between “actual” and “potential” news stories. The former are things that happen: a movie opens, a company launches a new product, or a studio head steps down. “Potential” news stories are all the things in the news that may happen: a company may be putting itself up for sale, a studio head is considering leaving or, most commonly and consequently, two companies are negotiating and are close to announcing a deal.

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen the difference between actual and potential stories play out with sports rights in particular. The NFL had quite a few “potential” stories, from a potential deal with Amazon (still not finalized) to potentially poor negotiations with Disney for Monday Night Football (also not finalized as of this Monday morning the 15th of March). Then, in the middle of last week, with no forewarning–that I saw–Disney and associated sports entities (ESPN, ABC, Hulu and ESPN+) and the NHL announced a 7 year, 2.8 billion sports rights deal with the NHL. That’s actual news! And it’s our…

Most Important Story of the Week – ESPN Grabs NHL Rights for Pay TV and Digital

Gosh I love this story. It combines sports with almost every part of the “digital video value chain”. First, I’ll go over the basics–if you missed them–and then the ramifications, from the most disrupting digital to the most disrupted linear.

First, Andrew Marchand delivered the basic facts in a tweet:

Marchand later adds that Disney is going to raise the price of their bundle from $13 per month to $14 upcoming, partially my guess is to pay for this deal. As John Ourand points out, this deal only covers some of the NHL’s content output. Potentially up for grabs are the NHL Network, NHL.TV, their digital OTT service, more national games for broadcast (about 20) and whatever happens to regional sports networks (RSNs).

The remarkable thing, overall, is how close this deal is to what I expected for the next round of sports rights. The rights are shared between linear and digital. And the deal is with a partner who can offer both linear and digital distribution, Disney. Some games will air exclusively on digital, but the crown jewel playoffs will air on ABC (and maybe simulcast ESPN+). Moreover, the rights aren’t on a league-owned platform, but part of the Disney bundle.

I can imagine that some of you won’t think the NHL is that big of a deal. But frankly, it is one of the four major sports leagues in the US, even if it is clearly fourth. Or fifth if you put college football ahead of it. Which is barely amateurism anyways. (Commentary!)

Let’s review the impact on each part of the value chain and speculate about what this deal may say about the future of sports rights.

Digital Streamers – ESPN+ is the first third-party streamer to grab sports rights for a major professional sports league. 

The non-NFL professional sports leagues had dabbled with owning their own streaming sports applications and channels “over the top”. Indeed, an MLB subsidiary, MLBAM, created the application for baseball.  The MLB then spun off this into BAMTech, which Disney bought to become the backbone for Disney’s streaming business. However, most of those league-owned applications are niche streamers at best. Because the true power of sports is in a bundle of sports in a bundle of content. 

Clearly, ESPN wants to deliver that sports bundle in the 21st century, the way they delivered that content for linear cable in the 2000s. I expect this trend to continue and most league-owned streamers will eventually fold or get purchased by larger sports streamers, as ESPN and Peacock have already done.

Traditional Broadcast – Still Not Dead…Yet.

I thought the sports leagues would avoid going “digital only” because the risk is that you lose quite a bit of eyeballs in the process of collecting extra revenue. As I wrote when Peacock secured the WWE streaming network, the risk of any league is that if only the hardcore fans follow you to a very small channel, your brand suffers as casual fans drop out. 

Hence, most leagues are looking for a partner who can offer both digital natives and traditional viewers content. As big as cord cutting is–a point I’ll make repeatedly–more folks have traditional cable than do not have cable in America. (See below) As a result, the traditional players still seem best positioned to secure sports rights for this round of negotiations. 

A traditional player and Big Tech company could partner to offer both digital and linear rights. But given that Comcast, CBS, AT&T and Disney all own streaming platforms, they won’t partner with a tech platform. That leaves Fox. The challenge then is “exclusivity”. Since having exclusive content drives so much of the value, splitting rights doesn’t traditionally work. Even then, it would make more sense for DAZN or Amazon to buy a linear channel than vice versa.

By the end of the decade, this could change. For now? I’d keep betting on most major sports deals to happen with the traditional players, but with digital rights included.

Traditional Cable – ESPN is still the behemoth.

ESPN was a must carry channel in the cable ecosystem. As such, it commanded the highest prices for customers in the traditional bundle. When it added the SEC Network and Longhorns network, it only entrenched this position further.

Traditionally, the focus is on the value of games. What is more fascinating is how ESPN did and does drive coverage outside of games. Frankly, with the NHL owned fully by NBC, ESPN downplayed its coverage of hockey. It covered Stanley Cups and the playoffs, but highlights took a backseat to the other sports. Some have speculated that this hurt the NHL’s brand and I agree. Will ESPN’s coverage of hockey increase after his deal? Probably.

As a result, any league, professional or amateur, needs to have some presence on ESPN. To have that share of voice. That said, I like having a second partner as well to keep prices honest. Take the NHL on NBC. That still gets a ton of publicity from NBC to drive the coverage. If I were advising sports leagues, I’d say your best bet is to be on ESPN in some capacity, but have a back up partner who is incentivized to drive your product, like either NBC/Peacock or TNT/HBO Max.

The NHL Network – At risk.

John Ourand covered this best, so I don’t want to steal his point and will just quote him:

…if you read between the lines, the future of that network does not look so rosy, especially since Disney’s high-respected affiliate team no longer will be handling its carriage deals.”

Meaning it could go away. Speaking of disappearing cable channels…

Regional Sports Networks – Unclear, but potentially very bad.

A big wild card for me is what happens to the regional sports networks now. Most  NHL, NBA and MLB teams own their local viewership rights. (The NFL controls national broadcasts since their supply is much more limited.) Regional sports networks first disrupted local broadcast channels by buying these rights, with some college rights throughout the 2000s. Ultimately, several teams disrupted the RSN disruptors and launched their own channels. (The Yankees and Lakers being arguably the two biggest.) As the bundle starts to collapse, RSNs will likely be one of the first casualties. (Though don’t guess when. Predicting the future can be easy, predicting when is very, very hard.)

My question about this deal is how many of these ESPN+ games are inventory previously dedicated to RSNs. If the answer is “all of them”, that’s a lot of lost content for RSNs to lose. My guess is that ESPN+ will have out-of-market rights. That obviously dampens a lot of the value for customers, since most fans still care about their local team first and foremost.

Was this a good price?

Uh, I don’t know? It was definitely a jump in price, the way all multi-year deals are. Specifically, the deal from 2013 with NBC was for about $200 million per year for seven years. This price alone doubles that price, and the NHL still has more games to sell. Overall, though, I’d say this is inline with past price increases. As for whether ESPN+ can make that back for Disney, maybe, but not by itself. Meaning this is a stepping stone deal in some ways.

What’s Next?

First, ESPN+ has a head start on everyone, including DAZN. They’ve managed to leverage their power position as ESPN to start securing OTT rights. That’s a big deal. But they can’t and likely won’t stop here.

Second, all eyes turn back to the NFL. Seriously guys, make a deal for something! My best guess is Disney and the NFL do a similar deal for Monday Night Football, and it likely mimics the key components of this deal, with digital and linear rights. Though don’t put it past Disney and friends to do something crazy with NFL Sunday Ticket.

Third, Amazon still wants NFL rights. The most likely outcome is they get more Thursday Night Football, but they could be the first digital only deal. But I doubt it. The NFL Network is more valuable than the NHL Network, and the NFL doesn’t want to hurt that value prematurely. Likely, a split-deal (not exclusive to digital) is still the likeliest outcome.

Fourth, since most biz executives are naturally conservative–in temperament, not political leaning–I expect most leagues will copy the NHL and ultimate NFL deals in their rights deals. However, between Disney, Comcast, AT&T, ViacomCBS, DAZN, Amazon and any wildcards I may have missed, the leagues should all drive higher prices for their content.

Lastly, customers will see all this in their digital streaming bills. As Andrew Marchand pointed out, the Disney bundle will be up to $14 after this deal is done, for Hulu with ads. In other words, as Disney bundles sports, some of that cost will be passed along to customers.

Entertainment Strategy Guy Update – Should Netflix License Its Content?

If you want a perfect example for why I wait to call a story news until it actually happens, here’s a headline from this very website last May I stumbled upon this week as I was updating my website:

Screen Shot 2021-03-15 at 3.07.04 PM

But you’ll notice, since that headline, Apple hasn’t actually bought a library. I jumped the gun. The premise was so sexy, I wrote an entire column on it. But I was wrong! (The strategic logic though is still spot on.)

I feel the same way for the huge headline dropped by The Information this week:

Screen Shot 2021-03-15 at 11.51.14 AM

First, The Information is definitely filling the void by the general move of the trades away from breaking stories. Since The Information is subscription-driven, not FYC advertising driven, they can drop a few bigger tidbits every so often. Credit to them for this scoop in a series of scoops.

That said, I don’t want to go too far in calling this actual news, since, notably, we haven’t actually seen the goods. Netflix may ultimately license their wholly-owned series into second windows, or they may not. Or this story may be something less groundbreaking, but still interesting. Until we see a big series arrive on another streamer and/or linear channel, this is just a “potential” story.

But I had some quick thoughts.

– This may be cover to explain why some “Netflix Originals” will end up on other services/channels. For example, Orange is the New Black. That’s a show owned by Lionsgate. Essentially, Netflix has to pay to keep it streaming after a certain number of years pass. (We don’t know specifically.) Earlier shows like OiTNB had shorter hold back than some recent series, so it’s a show I’m keeping my eye on. Netflix could have leaked this story to help explain why more and more licensed shows end up elsewhere.

– The math here is pretty simple. If a show is worth more to someone else than it is to you, you sell it to them. Netflix benefitted from this for years; it was worth more to Netflix to license big movies to its service than it was for movie studios to keep them in the vault or on cable/home entertainment. 

– The converse could also be true now. Some linear channels or streamers could benefit more than Netflix by leveraging the buzz/awareness Netflix built for a show like Grace and Frankie or OiTNB to get some subscribers. Given the volume of new releases on Netflix and how most shows seem to disappear into their morass of library content, I could see content being more valuable off Netflix.

– The Marvel angle. Does everything revolve around Marvel? Maybe. The story to monitor here is when all these series with “Marvel” in front of them return to Disney, who owns them outright. Do they end up in the Marvel tab in Disney+? That’d help flesh out the Disney+ offering. I’d have said DIsney wouldn’t do this, since they could want a coherent MCU offering, but then they put the X-Men films onto Disney+, and even a Fox X-Men character–spoiler alert–in WandaVision. Given the commanding negotiating position of Disney in all negotiations, these Marvel shows could leave Netflix sooner than you’d guess.

– This article only referenced selling subsequent windows of content, but you have to wonder how far a revamped theatrical window is. Given that all the streamers have different windows, something could be worked out with one of the theater chains for some content.

If this happens, I’d call it both a big deal and the right strategy by Netflix. Clearly, this is a firm focused on cash flow positivity from here on out. Nothing is more cash flow generating than joining the content licensing biz. We’ll see if it happens.

Other Contenders for Most Important Story

Disney Investor Day: Disney Passes 100+ Million Subscribers; Will Close Some Retail Stores

The Disney streaming business chugs along, and they announced that they passed 100 million subscribers. I don’t have a lot of strategic takes on that big news, but Disney is also shutting some of their Disney stores across America. Likely, the explanation is what you think: Covid-19 crushed retail stores, especially malls. Lastly, Disney is planning to reopen Disneyland in California in April as California emerges from lock downs. Taking the balance of these two stories, theme parks have a higher upside than merchandise going forward.

Peacock Joins Hulu and Netflix in Losing Money

What if no one can actually make money in streaming? We know that Netflix lost money for a decade plus, that Hulu lost money for all its owners and all streaming is losing money for Disney. Now we know that Peacock has joined the money losing streaming crowd

Listen: all new businesses lose money at the start as they gain customers. But the key to valuations is accurately estimating how much money a business will make at full-strength. There is still the chance that streaming video is just much less lucrative than traditional cable. The sooner everyone can make money–and for Netflix go beyond just breaking even–the better for industry valuations.

Pay TV continues Its Losses According to Moffett Nathanson

Every year, Moffett Nathanson produced one of the definitive estimates of cable subscribers in the US, and recently it has highlighted the trend in cord cutting. 2020 was no different, though I will note that the potential acceleration of cord cutting presaged by Covid-19 didn’t really come to pass, as customer losses was about the same as 2019, a non-pandemic year.

AT&T Investor Day

AT&T announced they are expecting 120-150 million subscribers by 2025 and HBO Max’s AVOD option will come in the summer. The AVOD news interests me more, as it really seems like it will complicate their offering for customers. Previously, HBO Max had an easy value proposition to communicate. Well, actually they didn’t. Customers didn’t know if they had it, or if they had to pay and how. Now, customers may end up seeing a bunch of ads. So I’m hesitant to call this a good idea.

M&A Updates – Roku Acquiring Nielsen TV Advertising Biz

This is a small, but fascinating deal. Roku is acquiring Nielsen’s smallish smart advertising business. But in the acquisition, they’re also incorporating Nielsen into their TV measurement, which should make Nielsen numbers more accurate in the future. Axios has the details.