NFL's possible coming deals with Amazon

[gilthorp]

I am saying that on the xfinity bill, it says all you need to do for us to charge you for this service is call up Peacock on your remote. Nothing more than that, no additional confirmation. You will be charged. Seems shady.

[Def.]

4 hours ago, Big Country said:

So you and everyone else saying they will never or have never paid don't have cable/DirecTV/Streaming Service of any kind and only watch via an antenna?

Whether paying directly (ie PPV or Sunday Ticket), semi-directly (subscribing to a service like Prime/Paramount for access to certain games as a part of their total service) or indirectly (paying for DirecTV, cable or a live streaming service like Hulu or YouTube TV to be able to watch NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.), we are all paying to watch football games. Even people with those services that don't watch football are paying for it as it is baked into the cost of the service, just as those that have those services just to watch sports are paying for the cost of providing the other channels, whether they watch them or not.

The NFL is just tinkering with the model to maximize their revenue stream. The success of Sunday Ticket (and now the Youtube package of it) over the years and the amount of money providers are willing to spend to have broadcast rights tells me that the majority of the football watching population is willing to spend to have access to watch games.

 

Sorry, maybe I'm missing the point.  Nobody said NFL is not currently making money.  Thought thread was more about how we (the viewers/fans) view yet another platform carrying NFL games?

[stevegrab]

3 hours ago, Big Country said:

Peacock as a service was not free - much like Apple TV was “free” for a year when you bought an iPhone - it was a pay service that they added in as part of another service to hook people in. Buy an Android, get Peacock for a year or buy XYZ product or service and we add it on for a year.

Same as when I purchased some AirPods, I was offered Apple Music free for several months. The hope being that after that period, I’d like it enough that I’d keep it.

Much like any good dealer, the first taste is free, after that, you gotta pay. Just about every streaming service offers a free trial - either a week or a month usually so you can get hooked and just keep the service.

But some of those things (like Peacock for Comcast subscribers) was FREE and was not a limited time trial. Now that has changed. It is different from me getting a free trial of Prime which was very clear when I got it. 

Also, the real hope with the free trials is not that you like it and don't cancel, but that your forget to cancel and keeping paying for one or more months. I once saw an app for finding recurring fees you pay so you can determine which you don't need and cancel them. That's part of the issue with all these extra services with monthly fees, especially if you do them as some form of autopayment. People don't even know they're spending the money for things they don't need/want/use. 

[Big Country]

1 hour ago, Def. said:

Sorry, maybe I'm missing the point.  Nobody said NFL is not currently making money.  Thought thread was more about how we (the viewers/fans) view yet another platform carrying NFL games?

The point is those saying that I will never pay to watch an NFL game already are and have been. It's always been that way (other than those that only watch TV via antenna), whether it's if you want this channel to be able to watch this show, you need to get this cable service, or, if you want this NFL Sunday Ticket package you need to get this DirecTV service, it has always been a pay to watch model.

The NFL has always divvied up their broadcast rights between AFC and NFC games, Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Football, Thursday Night Football and the playoffs. It's just that we've in general been spoiled that the rights usually go to the big broadcast channels - Fox, ABC, CBS etc., but now the various platforms have entered the fray to get the rights for the one offs - such as TNF going to Amazon. When the broadcast right are next up, I would not be shocked if a big player like Amazon or Youtube is in the running for the sole rights for broadcasting something like all of the NFC games.

[Def.]

1 hour ago, Big Country said:

The point is those saying that I will never pay to watch an NFL game already are and have been. It's always been that way (other than those that only watch TV via antenna), whether it's if you want this channel to be able to watch this show, you need to get this cable service, or, if you want this NFL Sunday Ticket package you need to get this DirecTV service, it has always been a pay to watch model.

The NFL has always divvied up their broadcast rights between AFC and NFC games, Monday Night Football, Sunday Night Football, Thursday Night Football and the playoffs. It's just that we've in general been spoiled that the rights usually go to the big broadcast channels - Fox, ABC, CBS etc., but now the various platforms have entered the fray to get the rights for the one offs - such as TNF going to Amazon. When the broadcast right are next up, I would not be shocked if a big player like Amazon or Youtube is in the running for the sole rights for broadcasting something like all of the NFC games.

Again, no one was saying the NFL is not making money.  Just saying I already cannot partake of much of the NFL and they are continually making it harder.  Seems like it may not be the wisest or most liked move.   

[Big Country]

2 minutes ago, Def. said:

Again, no one was saying the NFL is not making money.  Just saying I already cannot partake of much of the NFL and they are continually making it harder.  Seems like it may not be the wisest or most liked move.   

I'm not talking about the NFL making money and in none of my posts has anything been said about whether or not the NFL is making money. 

The complaint posed was OMG I'm going to have to pay for my NFL - I'm never going to do that. I was merely pointing out that the statement was not true. Regardless of how you currently watch the NFL, short of an OTA antenna, we are all already paying to watch the NFL. We have just been fortunate that in the past, almost all broadcast rights went to the big networks that a person could relatively easily get from their preferred service provider, whether that be a cable company (Comcast/Spectrum), a satellite provider (DirecTV/Dish) or a streaming provider (Hulu, Youtube). Mental gymnastics all anyone wants (not you personally Def.), but this is still "paying to watch NFL", there's just a host of other offerings that come with it, whether you watch them or not.

Then as the rights came up, the providers themselves entered the fray, starting with TNF going to Amazon. No different that any of the previous ways of accessing NFL games, you would pay to get access to the NFL game as well as a host of other offerings, whether you used them or not. Some say I got Prime to watch the NFL. Others say I already had Prime so I get to watch the NFL. All Amazon cares about is if you get Prime or not. If the NFL is the hook that gets you, that works for Amazon. If it's the free shipping on products that gets you, that also works for Amazon.

So now the networks like NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX will be in bidding wars, not just with each other, but with the service providers themselves like Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, maybe even the Discovery/HBOMax types. So far they have lost TNF and this playoff game to the providers. I would not be surprised to see the providers win more of these bidding wars in the years to come, especially as the line between broadcast and streaming continues to get blurred into one.

[chester]

BC, to clarify my situation.

I get ABC, NBC, FOX via antenna.

I pay for Amazon 100% for free shipping. I almost never utilize Prime TV. Free games are a bonus.

I do pay for CBS/Paramount because there is no CBS over the air here. So I suppose I am paying to see football, but not specifically for that reason.

I get no ESPN.

As for Packer games, I don't know how it technically works, we do get all the games but one county over (in WI) gets Vikings. I remember when GB/Milwaukee got preseason and we didn't. Whether that hypothetical playoff would air, I don't know.

[Def.]

1 hour ago, Big Country said:

I'm not talking about the NFL making money and in none of my posts has anything been said about whether or not the NFL is making money. 

The complaint posed was OMG I'm going to have to pay for my NFL - I'm never going to do that. I was merely pointing out that the statement was not true. Regardless of how you currently watch the NFL, short of an OTA antenna, we are all already paying to watch the NFL. We have just been fortunate that in the past, almost all broadcast rights went to the big networks that a person could relatively easily get from their preferred service provider, whether that be a cable company (Comcast/Spectrum), a satellite provider (DirecTV/Dish) or a streaming provider (Hulu, Youtube). Mental gymnastics all anyone wants (not you personally Def.), but this is still "paying to watch NFL", there's just a host of other offerings that come with it, whether you watch them or not.

Then as the rights came up, the providers themselves entered the fray, starting with TNF going to Amazon. No different that any of the previous ways of accessing NFL games, you would pay to get access to the NFL game as well as a host of other offerings, whether you used them or not. Some say I got Prime to watch the NFL. Others say I already had Prime so I get to watch the NFL. All Amazon cares about is if you get Prime or not. If the NFL is the hook that gets you, that works for Amazon. If it's the free shipping on products that gets you, that also works for Amazon.

So now the networks like NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX will be in bidding wars, not just with each other, but with the service providers themselves like Amazon, Hulu, YouTube, maybe even the Discovery/HBOMax types. So far they have lost TNF and this playoff game to the providers. I would not be surprised to see the providers win more of these bidding wars in the years to come, especially as the line between broadcast and streaming continues to get blurred into one.

Ok but it was like one post with that, so your posts towards "everyone not paying" kind of came off as a gotcha! posts.  Again I want to give the NFL my money just in a feasible way.  Thus I agree with others in not liking yet another service provider in the fold.   

[Big Country]

1 hour ago, chester said:

BC, to clarify my situation.

I get ABC, NBC, FOX via antenna.

Which makes you the exact outlier that I specifically mentioned. Since you get the bulk of your services via over the air, you are looking at the biggest potential upheaval if the broadcast networks don’t keep their grip on the NFL games.

[darin3]

In other news, my DirecTV bill is almost $200.  Time for my yearly call to yell and get it reduced to under $100.  Too bad it won't include Red Zone.

[chester]

44 minutes ago, Big Country said:

Which makes you the exact outlier that I specifically mentioned. Since you get the bulk of your services via over the air, you are looking at the biggest potential upheaval if the broadcast networks don’t keep their grip on the NFL games.

And if I was 25 again, playing in 10 FF leagues, I would probably pay to get every NFL game (I would have paid anything for Red Zone back then). But at twice that age, I'm comfortable getting the Packers and I even fall asleep during those sometimes 😁

[Big Country]

3 minutes ago, chester said:

And if I was 25 again, playing in 10 FF leagues, I would probably pay to get every NFL game (I would have paid anything for Red Zone back then). But at twice that age, I'm comfortable getting the Packers and I even fall asleep during those sometimes 😁

I’m a bit younger than you, but other than the occasional Sunday Night game with the kids while BBQing, and maybe a few playoff games, I’ve not watched a complete NFL game in probably the last 15 years - kids make life too busy.

[DMD]

46 minutes ago, darin3 said:

In other news, my DirecTV bill is almost $200.  Time for my yearly call to yell and get it reduced to under $100.  Too bad it won't include Red Zone.

I dropped DirecTV after 22 years. I'd bet they are in the mood to do whatever to keep subscribers.

[chester]

8 minutes ago, DMD said:

I dropped DirecTV after 22 years. I'd bet they are in the mood to do whatever to keep subscribers.

What exactly does DirecTV now offer above any other tv service?

[Anonymouse]

9 hours ago, chester said:

What exactly does DirecTV now offer above any other tv service?

They're the next blockbuster. I doubt they survive five more years

[stevegrab]

9 hours ago, chester said:

What exactly does DirecTV now offer above any other tv service?

Not sure, and being it is dish based and no longer offers Sunday Ticket what's the difference from Dish TV? 

Yes BC is kind of right, we do "pay for the NFL" but few of us are paying just for the NFL or specifically to get the NFL. That is the point I've tried to make, and why many of us won't pay extra for other services that get the rights to NFL games. We pay for a TV package, with many channels, for some people that's the only way to get broadcast TV signal. 

The $150 or whatever it is I pay per month now is about $5/day and I watch some TV almost every day, unless I'm not home. That includes 7 months of the year with no NFL games. I also watch a lot of NFL games, sounds like many here barely watch due to family etc. The point some of us are making is we're not going to keep subscribing to every service that ends up with some NFL games. Personally, if in 10 years (or whenever next contract is up) the bulk of the weekly games move to various streaming services, that will probably be the end of me being a big NFL fan. I'll be 68 then and on the tail end of life. Maybe I'll just watch the extended highlights on YouTube, if those remain free. 

[Big Country]

1 hour ago, stevegrab said:

Not sure, and being it is dish based and no longer offers Sunday Ticket what's the difference from Dish TV? 

Yes BC is kind of right, we do "pay for the NFL" but few of us are paying just for the NFL or specifically to get the NFL. That is the point I've tried to make, and why many of us won't pay extra for other services that get the rights to NFL games. We pay for a TV package, with many channels, for some people that's the only way to get broadcast TV signal. 

The $150 or whatever it is I pay per month now is about $5/day and I watch some TV almost every day, unless I'm not home. That includes 7 months of the year with no NFL games. I also watch a lot of NFL games, sounds like many here barely watch due to family etc. The point some of us are making is we're not going to keep subscribing to every service that ends up with some NFL games. Personally, if in 10 years (or whenever next contract is up) the bulk of the weekly games move to various streaming services, that will probably be the end of me being a big NFL fan. I'll be 68 then and on the tail end of life. Maybe I'll just watch the extended highlights on YouTube, if those remain free. 

This is all I've been saying - whether specifically for them or not, you are paying for the NFL games. To your statement that many will not pay extra for services to get NFL games, I think the exodus from DirecTV and the surge of YouTube TV subscribers are proof that this is not true for a large portion of the viewing audience.

The comment about DirecTV now being no different than Dish, and realistically no different than Comcast, Spectrum, Xfinity or any of the other providers is another sign of why the fight for content is key for these companies. Having unique content is what drove customers to the platform, losing that content is what drove customers away.

The model is changing. It is a war for content, and it is slowly, but more quickly, moving away from the broadcast model. I'm doubtful if it will ever fully move away from broadcast, but it's in the realm of possibility, and the TNF and this playoff game are just the test runs of the model.

 

[stevegrab]

4 hours ago, Big Country said:

This is all I've been saying - whether specifically for them or not, you are paying for the NFL games. To your statement that many will not pay extra for services to get NFL games, I think the exodus from DirecTV and the surge of YouTube TV subscribers are proof that this is not true for a large portion of the viewing audience.

The comment about DirecTV now being no different than Dish, and realistically no different than Comcast, Spectrum, Xfinity or any of the other providers is another sign of why the fight for content is key for these companies. Having unique content is what drove customers to the platform, losing that content is what drove customers away.

The model is changing. It is a war for content, and it is slowly, but more quickly, moving away from the broadcast model. I'm doubtful if it will ever fully move away from broadcast, but it's in the realm of possibility, and the TNF and this playoff game are just the test runs of the model.

 

To the bolded, that was to pay for the same Sunday Ticket package they were already paying for. I doubt non ST subscribers made the move. 

Yes I recognize the change is coming, I don't like it, and I know others who are not. And clearly those consumers just don't matter much.

[Big Country]

23 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

To the bolded, that was to pay for the same Sunday Ticket package they were already paying for. I doubt non ST subscribers made the move. 

Yes I recognize the change is coming, I don't like it, and I know others who are not. And clearly those consumers just don't matter much.

But that is exactly the point - DirecTV lost subscribers... a lot of them.... YouTubeTV gained subscribers.... a lot of them.

The same happened for Prime when they got TNF - the gained a lot of subscribers because of the offering.

Peacock (aka NBC) is testing the waters with this playoff game. If it drives enough subscribers, don't be shocked if instead of bidding on just airing games on NBC, they bid on exclusive rights to stream via Peacock.

Access to the NFL games is the carrot dangling on the stick for the content providers in the war for subscribers.

 

[DMD]

Here's a scary note. YouTube TV crashed for the final half of the fourth period of the Heat-Celtics playoff game. What is Sunday Ticket going to be like when millions of streamers are hitting their servers all day? It was trending on Twitter last night.

[darin3]

20 minutes ago, DMD said:

Here's a scary note. YouTube TV crashed for the final half of the fourth period of the Heat-Celtics playoff game. What is Sunday Ticket going to be like when millions of streamers are hitting their servers all day? It was trending on Twitter last night.

The Peacock streaming playoff game has been a big trend on Twitter for the past couple days according to NFL-Radio.  Lots of NFL-Radio shows have been talking about it too.  Things are changing.  Thanks, millennials!  :oldunsure:

[rajncajn]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:13 AM, Big Country said:

So you and everyone else saying they will never or have never paid don't have cable/DirecTV/Streaming Service of any kind and only watch via an antenna?

Basically, yes.

I do have Amazon Prime, but it has nothing to do with the NFL. All the football that I watch is via antenna with the occasional Thursday game on Amazon. If it's a Saints game that I can't get at home then I'll just go watch it somewhere else or just not watch. 

[stevegrab]

17 hours ago, DMD said:

Here's a scary note. YouTube TV crashed for the final half of the fourth period of the Heat-Celtics playoff game. What is Sunday Ticket going to be like when millions of streamers are hitting their servers all day? It was trending on Twitter last night.

That has been a concern with the change to streaming. Traditional TV whether OTA or thru a "cable" operator doesn't have any kind of issue with "too many people trying to watch". 

I doubt these outlets do anything to compensate those who missed the game. Just like they don't do anything when dropping a channel that many were watching and considered part of what they paid for. 

[Chief Dick]

Jeez you old farts.

Just do a free trial for Peacock for a month and watch the game. Or, if they aren't providing a free trial, pay the $4.99 for one month and cancel.

That's the beauty of streaming. I do this all the time to watch certain events and cancel when they are over.  My overall streaming bill is still about $60 less a month vs when I had cable all those years.  And I subscribe to a ton of stuff.

 

[rajncajn]

2 hours ago, Chief Dick said:

Jeez you old farts.

Just do a free trial for Peacock for a month and watch the game. Or, if they aren't providing a free trial, pay the $4.99 for one month and cancel.

That's the beauty of streaming. I do this all the time to watch certain events and cancel when they are over.  My overall streaming bill is still about $60 less a month vs when I had cable all those years.  And I subscribe to a ton of stuff.

Why pay $5 to watch a singke game when I can just go watch with a relative or friend who will have the game on anyway? It's nice to watch the game in the comfort of of your own home,  but it's also beneficial to "need" to spend time with others. I see it as lagniappe. If nobody has Peacock or whatever else streaming service is required then I just won't watch. The good thing is, I'm close enough to be in the local market,  so there's usually only a couple of games a year where I have to go elsewhere to watch.