AAC leader Mike Aresco touts new media rights deal...

[zls44]

What exactly does the phrase "production costs" entail? Does the school also provide for on air talent? Who determines how many cameras and the placement? What is the obligation for halftime analysis?

Production costs is the cost of building out a control room, cameras, cabling around the arenas, etc. The schools handle hiring the talent as well as the cameras/placement. It comes down to how much a school wants to put into it. There's a bare-minimum standard, but there are some schools that clearly go way above and beyond and it shows. Halftimes are usually canned pre-recorded pieces rather than actual analysis or highlights (example, Preseason all-AAC team, weekly AAC player awards, etc.).

 

[zls44]

and this guy is trying to make that out to be some sort of value to be thankful for....

Yeah, Mike Aresco isn't terribly bright.

 

[CL82]

Production costs is the cost of building out a control room, cameras, cabling around the arenas, etc. The schools handle hiring the talent as well as the cameras/placement. It comes down to how much a school wants to put into it. There's a bare-minimum standard, but there are some schools that clearly go way above and beyond and it shows. Halftimes are usually canned pre-recorded pieces rather than actual analysis or highlights (example, Preseason all-AAC team, weekly AAC player awards, etc.).

Thanks. How much do the fixed and variable cost would be? ESPN increased our deal but off loaded a bunch of costs to us. I wondering what the net revenue is. I understand that it is variable, but on average. I appreciate your informed insight rather than having the board speculate.

The thing that is frustrating is that if ESPN allows SNY to broadcast the games it doesn't want for OTA, then UConn not only gets these broadcast increasing our exposure, but also gets to off load the production/personnel costs to SNY. We're already losing the money we get from selling our tier 3 to them it would be good if we can at least get rid of some of the costs associated with the broadcast.

 

[CL82]

Yeah, Mike Aresco isn't terribly bright.

Meh, he has near zero leverage in negotiating so he's putting a positive spin on our deal. I get that.

 

[JoePgh]

I'm pretty sure the first statement is untrue and I know the second one is untrue.

Would you mind providing some specific facts to back up these concllusionary statements?

Regarding the first point (advertising revenue), currently SNY pays UConn for broadcast rights and also incurs production costs to show UConn WCBB games? Are you saying that SNY’s advertising revenue doesn’t cover that, implying that they currently lose money on WCBB game broadcasts? I find that hard to believe, in view of the time and effort that SNY puts into the current broadcasts and related material. And if they are making money, then why couldn’t they also make money on a new deal where the only change is that they pay ESPN rather than UConn for the broadcast rights?

Regarding the second point which you “know” is incorrect, my understanding is that advertising revenue is based on the number of eyeballs that view the ads. Can there be any doubt that the number of viewers of ESPN online access (where each viewer has to pay $5/month and plug in an HDMI cable to see it on his TV) will be a tiny fraction of the number of viewers that will be available for regular (“linear”) TV? If advertisers pay based on the number of viewers that they expect, then they will pay far, far less to advertise online than to advertise on SNY. That was the basis for my statement.

 

[zls44]

Would you mind providing some specific facts to back up these concllusionary statements?

Regarding the first point (advertising revenue), currently SNY pays UConn for broadcast rights and also incurs production costs to show UConn WCBB games? Are you saying that SNY’s advertising revenue doesn’t cover that, implying that they currently lose money on WCBB game broadcasts? I find that hard to believe, in view of the time and effort that SNY puts into the current broadcasts and related material. And if they are making money, then why couldn’t they also make money on a new deal where the only change is that they pay ESPN rather than UConn for the broadcast rights?

My disagreement is more based on how much revenue you think SNY gets for those ads. I'm not saying its nothing, but I bet its lower than we'd think. Bobs' deal might be part of a larger overall one, they're pretty involved with the Mets stuff on SNY as it is.

SNY's UConn deal's greatest value to them was getting onto CT cable systems and staying there. That's their main objective. Their coverage is fantastic, but UConn allows them to expand their market and have relevant programming in the baseball offseason.

My guess: SNY makes a little bit of money on UConn WBB, but its peanuts compared to the Mets (no fault of UConn's, pro sports TV deals are stupid big). One hint will be how long a ESPN/SNY negotiation takes. The longer it goes, the better the odds are that SNY's getting worried about being squeezed at the margin. If they do a deal quick, great for everyone and it shows they're doing really well business-wise from the games. Let's hope for that one.

Regarding the second point which you “know” is incorrect, my understanding is that advertising revenue is based on the number of eyeballs that view the ads.

I was interpreting it as a claim that ESPN can't sell ads separately for ESPN+/ESPN3 content. They can. They already do this on the audio side with different ad setups for radio streams/podcasts.

 

[zls44]

Thanks. How much do the fixed and variable cost would be? ESPN increased our deal but off loaded a bunch of costs to us. I wondering what the net revenue is. I understand that it is variable, but on average. I appreciate your informed insight rather than having the board speculate.

The good news for UConn is production costs have come way way down as the technology's improved. You don't have to rent satellite time, uplink/downlink like back in the day. UConn can probably put together a digital operation for well until $1 million.

Virginia Tech's new ACC Network studio is $10 million, but that's a much bigger setup than what UConn needs.

 

[CL82]

The good news for UConn is production costs have come way way down as the technology's improved. You don't have to rent satellite time, uplink/downlink like back in the day. UConn can probably put together a digital operation for well until $1 million.

Virginia Tech's new ACC Network studio is $10 million, but that's a much bigger setup than what UConn needs.

$1 million initial capital outlay then how much per game? Does that change much by sport? Is UConn obligated to produce content or can it opt not to do it?

 

[zls44]

$1 million initial capital outlay then how much per game? Does that change much by sport? Is UConn obligated to produce content or can it opt not to do it?

$1m is for all the equipment. Cost per game, no idea. Not a whole lot, though, in the grand scheme. Most of the people working most broadcasts will be students getting real-world experience (read: free labor), less so for MBB/WBB/FB, talking stuff like WLax, Baseball, Softball, etc.

I have no access to any contracts or anything, but the expectation is every home game for all conference sports will be produced. I'm expecting them to do the same for the hockeys (field & ice) even though they're in different conferences.

 

[donalddoowop]

Fair to say that it is becoming harder/more expensive to watch our Huskies?

Yes, as longer as the harder to watch part is because of expense and not because of their play on the court.