Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HuskyHawk, post: 4664797, member: 1414"] Sort of. The question around everything is really about ad supported content. Newpapers are all but done because newspaper ads aren't worth anything anymore. The only reason sports is big, is because it is the only thing people watch live, in real time. The ad money for regular TV has dried up. So the shift is to the subscription model, hence Netflix, Prime, Max, Apple etc. Do they need live sports? Not really and in some ways it is wasted on them unless they can work ads in, since ads still have value with that content. So where would it make sense? YouTube, probably, since they already have an ad driven model. I think it's really hard to blend an ad driven sports model with a subscription based movie/show model. ESPN+ was an attempt to find out if people would subscribe to live sports while also getting commercials. The content people consume and the manner in which they consume and pay for it is evolving pretty rapidly. Apple, Peacock, Paramount and Prime have toe in the water on the sports side. With a subscription service they have different goals than a cable channel. It's not clear that sports = net additional subscribers. My guess, long term, is that we may see a lot more PPV for live sports. It's already how they fund some sports with more limited appeal. You have to recoup production costs somehow. What the streaming services have, that cable doesn't, is a very easy way to monetize that. Want to watch UConn vs KU, pay $3.99 in the app. Just like renting a movie. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach