The Days of Bundlers (networks and cable/satellite providers) Are Nearing an End

[RegisteredUconn]

All the debate over how conferences can bully cable companies into having all subscribers, not just the interested ones, to pay them a royalty for their product may as backward thinking, i.e., unproductive, as Swofford playing follow-the-leader to twelve teams so the ACC could stage an unwanted championship game.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100967342

We are entering a world where content is king and bundlers are increasingly marginalized. This is wonderful news for fans because, as electronic customers, they will no longer be dependent on ABC/NBC/CBS/ESPN. Soon enough Comcast, Cox, Dish, Direct TV, et. al. will discover their franchise as network bundlers is just as fragile as the networks' is of individual programs.

Teams and conferences, as owners of the content, will be driving the bus. This should be great news for UConn because the relatively few busses plying the Northeast Super Region have a W-A-A-A-A-Y better chance of achieving and maintaining long term financial health than those driving the prairies of Kansas/Oklahoma/North Texas or those doing business in the super crowded quasi-jitney serviced southeast.

Looking at the American megalopolises we find the most under served (in terms of population divided by major universities located there) to be Southern California (followed by the Northeast) and most over served to be the Piedmont Atlantic (i.e., Southeast). Below is a list of each region, the universities located within, and its (projected 2025) population (both total and per university).

Southern California
UCLA, Southern Cal
34.7 / 17.4

Northeast
Maryland, BCU, UConn, Rutgers, Virginia
58.1 / 11.6

Northern California
California, Stanford
17.3 / 8.7

Front Range
Colorado
6.8 / 6.8

Texas Triangle
Texas, TCU, Baylor, Texas A&M, Arkansas
26.8 / 5.4

Gulf Coast
LSU, Mississippi, Miss St.
15.8 / 5.3

Florida
Florida, Florida St., Miami, USF
21.4 / 4.3

Arizona Sun Corridor
Arizona, Arizona State
7.4 / 3.7

Great Lakes
Ohio St., Michigan, Mich. St., Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Louisville, Kentucky, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse, Iowa, Iowa State
64.3 / 3.6

Cascadia
Oregon, Oregon St., Washington, Wash St.
10.2 / 2.6

Piedmont Atlantic
Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, South Carolina, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Va. Tech
20.5 / 1.5


To be sure, making UConn relevant under this new paradigm won't be a slam dunk. Capitalizing on the prime, eyeball-rich real estate upon which we find ourselves won't just happen. Herbst and Manuel better have their heads on straight or the eyeballs will continue to look away. We can't go forward as the I-wouldn't-kick-her-out-of-bed, not a trophy but not a two-bagger either conference-mate. Ten wins needs to be our norm not our season-of-the-decade or we won't be relevant in New York and will continue to draw disinterest among the P5. But make no mistake, the B1G realizes that in addition to operating in one of the slowest growing regions, they also do business in one of the most over served.

 

[noeynox]

10 win seasons need to be our norm? We've never had a ten win season in fbs, but now they need to be the,norm going forward. No pressure.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

10 win seasons need to be our norm? We've never had a ten win season in fbs, but now they need to be the,norm going forward. No pressure.

Think we're not under pressure already?

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Think we're not under pressure already?

"This is the business we have chosen."

 

[whaler11]

Eh if population divided by teams meant anything different schools would already be dominating. Especially when schools are collected in the wrong buckets. Penn State really has the same reach as Iowa State? Geography doesn't much matter, it's not like everyone in Arizona is in play - the transplants still roll with their northeast/midwest schools.

The end of 'builders' is great until you realize they also own the infrastructure to deliver the programming in alternate methods.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Eh if population divided by teams meant anything different schools would already be dominating. Especially when schools are collected in the wrong buckets. Penn State really has the same reach as Iowa State? Geography doesn't much matter, it's not like everyone in Arizona is in play - the transplants still roll with their northeast/midwest schools.

The end of 'builders' is great until you realize they also own the infrastructure to deliver the programming in alternate methods.

Population is a rough approximation of potential market size. Dividing by the number of teams reveals whether the market is over or under served when compared to other regions. The Northeast, for example, is a potential market of 58.1 million residents served by five programs. Piedmont Atlantic has 20.5 million residents served by 14 programs. The Great Lakes is 64.3 million served by 20 programs. Yet everybody discussing realignment wants to talk about how essential it is that the B1G, in the 3rd most over served region, expand into the MOST over served region when the 2nd most under served region is right next door. Horace Greeley advised "Go West..." because that's where the opportunities were. In today's realignment landscape, the opportunities are in the Northeast.

I disagree that geography matters little. It matters a great deal. How many are following what Westport LL is doing almost SOLELY because they're from Connecticut? I would bet that the transplants to Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc. often "adopt" a local rooting interest, even those with strong ties to institutions in other regions. I know I did when I moved to Connecticut.

Yes, someone will own the delivery infrastructure and will make money there but their relative influence is on the wane and that is likely to accelerate. Somebody owns the Massachusetts Turnpike but the value they receive from providing that infrastructure pales in comparison to the value of the commerce the traverses it.

 

[huskypantz]

Here's why bundling is going nowhere. The average family of four has dad watching sports, mom watching lifetime or bravo, kids watching nick or disney or mtv, and they all watch the broadcast stations together. That family will never save money in an a la carte environment. They're better off just getting a bundle. Grandpa and grandma are not going to go through a menu of channels and pick out what they want - they are just going to take a bundle. When I was 25 and single, a la carte would have been great. But the value in bundled services is still there for the majority of households in america.

 

[whaler11]

Population is a rough approximation of potential market size. Dividing by the number of teams reveals whether the market is over or under served when compared to other regions. The Northeast, for example, is a potential market of 58.1 million residents served by five programs. Piedmont Atlantic has 20.5 million residents served by 14 programs. The Great Lakes is 64.3 million served by 20 programs. Yet everybody discussing realignment wants to talk about how essential it is that the B1G, in the 3rd most over served region, expand into the MOST over served region when the 2nd most under served region is right next door. Horace Greeley advised "Go West..." because that's where the opportunities were. In today's realignment landscape, the opportunities are in the Northeast.

I disagree that geography matters little. It matters a great deal. How many are following what Westport LL is doing almost SOLELY because they're from Connecticut? I would bet that the transplants to Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc. often "adopt" a local rooting interest, even those with strong ties to institutions in other regions. I know I did when I moved to Connecticut.

Yes, someone will own the delivery infrastructure and will make money there but their relative influence is on the wane and that is likely to accelerate. Somebody owns the Massachusetts Turnpike but the value they receive from providing that infrastructure pales in comparison to the value of the commerce the traverses it.

The highway analogy might be the worst example I've ever seen. Let me know how that commerce works if the state were a for profit business and maximized their revenues. The road would be worth a hell of a lot more than most of the crap that travels over it.

Your buckets and dividing take huge population centers like Washington DC and ascribe it to UConn. It ignores the existence of professional sport franchises. It ignores the demographics of the population and their historic affinity for college sports.

 

[pj]

Actually, without bundling people will save a lot of money. But they will buy access to far fewer channels. And those who want many channels will be unhappy, because they will have to pay more to get it.

 

[CTMike]

I'm not convinced that I won't end up paying similar money for fewer channels.

 

[Revrat]

Here's why bundling is going nowhere. The average family of four has dad watching sports, mom watching lifetime or bravo, kids watching nick or disney or mtv, and they all watch the broadcast stations together. That family will never save money in an a la carte environment. They're better off just getting a bundle. Grandpa and grandma are not going to go through a menu of channels and pick out what they want - they are just going to take a bundle. When I was 25 and single, a la carte would have been great. But the value in bundled services is still there for the majority of households in america.

We are that family. Last month we gave up DirectTV. just couldn't justify 140 a month. we are loving life without it. The only one giving up anything really is me and ESPN/SNY. Networks? we get all the channels over the air in great HD quality plus every network has 3 extra channels of old shows and reruns, almost everything else is streamable through amazon, Hulu or Netflix. When my sports are on I will find it on the internet. one way or another everything is available live. What would I pay for? 6 bucks a month for a channel here or there if it was made available online. Otherwise Ill live without it. I really think that in 2 years everything will be available online. Next is going to be dumping cell phones. We already have our kids using WIFI only phones. As long as they have a wifi connection its a regular phone and our city has city wide wifi. so that's 2 "cell" phones that cost 0 a month while our other two phones cost us 160 a month.

 

[Adios]

You can add San Diego State to So Cal. Too bad it won't be UC-SD.

And maybe Boise State to Front Range?

 

[RegisteredUconn]

You can add San Diego State to So Cal. Too bad it won't be UC-SD.

And maybe Boise State to Front Range?

I tried to limit the schools under examination to the P5 and those Big East programs still looking for a home. Adding SDSU, Boise State, UCF, ECU, Memphis, et. al will tend to dilute other regions more that the Northeast. And, as much as I'd like to include Faber College (Knowledge is Good), I don't know what region they fall into.

 

[Adios]

I tried to limit the schools under examination to the P5 and those Big East programs still looking for a home. Adding SDSU, Boise State, UCF, ECU, Memphis, et. al will tend to dilute other regions more that the Northeast. And, as much as I'd like to include Faber College (Knowledge is Good), I don't know what region they fall into.

I personally think many of the AAC and MWC schools will be fine, in the long run. Most have been D1-A for a very long time. Even San Jose State has hope.

ODU and Charlotte are question marks, with ODU definitely having potential. UTSA has potential in San Antonio. Those are C-USA teams.

The Northeast has Buffalo, Army, Temple and UMass other FBS programs. Difficult to tell about most of those programs right now. Temple seems the most desired already.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Actually, without bundling people will save a lot of money. But they will buy access to far fewer channels. And those who want many channels will be unhappy, because they will have to pay more to get it.

The model I see is one where you sign up for a certain monthly $$ value then create your own bundle within that money framework, dropping and adding channels as your needs require. Providers may run "specials" like restaurants do to steer customers in certain directions for their own internal business needs.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The highway analogy might be the worst example I've ever seen. Let me know how that commerce works if the state were a for profit business and maximized their revenues. The road would be worth a hell of a lot more than most of the crap that travels over it.

Your buckets and dividing take huge population centers like Washington DC and ascribe it to UConn. It ignores the existence of professional sport franchises. It ignores the demographics of the population and their historic affinity for college sports.

A rule of thumb I use is that if you can cost justify something it isn't infrastructure. If Massachusetts were run as a for profit enterprise that turnpike would have never been built because it couldn't have been cost justified. Now that the road exists, if you want to apply capitalistic pricing methods to a monopolistic enterprise I'm not at all sure what would result.

You can quibble with what some have chosen (I didn't invent any of those super regions) as the boundaries if you like but I think you'll be missing the bigger picture. Yes, NYC and DC are huge population centers in their own right but that doesn't isolate them nor does it invalidate the idea of "super regions" however those might be defined. Whether Penn State belongs with Iowa is, in my opinion, a discussion for another topic because it misses the point I'm making here. The Northeast is vast and under served. If opportunities exist, they are likely to exist there. There's a reason the ACC and B1G are sniffing all over this area. It's the reason I smile.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Here's why bundling is going nowhere. The average family of four has dad watching sports, mom watching lifetime or bravo, kids watching nick or disney or mtv, and they all watch the broadcast stations together. That family will never save money in an a la carte environment. They're better off just getting a bundle. Grandpa and grandma are not going to go through a menu of channels and pick out what they want - they are just going to take a bundle. When I was 25 and single, a la carte would have been great. But the value in bundled services is still there for the majority of households in america.

The reason I see bundling as outdated is because the bundlers dump so much garbage into their packages. Nobody likes to pay for stuff they don't want.

 

[whaler11]

A rule of thumb I use is that if you can cost justify something it isn't infrastructure. If Massachusetts were run as a for profit enterprise that turnpike would have never been built because it couldn't have been cost justified. Now that the road exists, if you want to apply capitalistic pricing methods to a monopolistic enterprise I'm not at all sure what would result.

You can quibble with what some have chosen (I didn't invent any of those super regions) as the boundaries if you like but I think you'll be missing the bigger picture. Yes, NYC and DC are huge population centers in their own right but that doesn't isolate them nor does it invalidate the idea of "super regions" however those might be defined. Whether Penn State belongs with Iowa is, in my opinion, a discussion for another topic because it misses the point I'm making here. The Northeast is vast and under served. If opportunities exist, they are likely to exist there. There's a reason the ACC and B1G are sniffing all over this area. It's the reason I smile.

NYC is far from underserved. To date they haven't wanted the product. I don't imagine that is going to change much.

 

[itgoeslike]

We are that family. Last month we gave up DirectTV. just couldn't justify 140 a month. we are loving life without it. The only one giving up anything really is me and ESPN/SNY. Networks? we get all the channels over the air in great HD quality plus every network has 3 extra channels of old shows and reruns, almost everything else is streamable through amazon, Hulu or Netflix. When my sports are on I will find it on the internet. one way or another everything is available live. What would I pay for? 6 bucks a month for a channel here or there if it was made available online. Otherwise Ill live without it. I really think that in 2 years everything will be available online. Next is going to be dumping cell phones. We already have our kids using WIFI only phones. As long as they have a wifi connection its a regular phone and our city has city wide wifi. so that's 2 "cell" phones that cost 0 a month while our other two phones cost us 160 a month.

This is a great real world example of where things are headed. Most people don't know you can get HD over the air for free. Expect ESPN to become an upgrade on Netflix, Hulu, or offer a comprehensive direct access solution in the next few years. There will be more aggregators that will simplify the "you bundle" process. All you'll need is a broadband connection. If you have WIFI for your city, that may also may be a low cost solution. My friend's daughter from Switzerland came for a month to learn English and spent hours on facetime, Skype and watching her favorite movies and shows, at zero cost. A lot of money of political force is being applied to slow the rate of change, but eventually it will come to a broader audience.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

NYC is far from underserved. To date they haven't wanted the product. I don't imagine that is going to change much.

What product? Rutgers? They dine on caviar in Gotham. Of course they weren't buying Piscataway's pork rinds. UConn had all it could handle on the gridiron with URI. Why would it surprise anyone that New Yorkers weren't interested.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

NYC is far from underserved. To date they haven't wanted the product. I don't imagine that is going to change much.

Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right. So grab that gloom and doom blanket you sleep under every night and march proudly through that despondency that must be your life.

 

[whaler11]

Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right. So grab that gloom and doom blanket you sleep under every night and march proudly through that despondency that must be your life.

Not sure why thinking NYC isn't interested in college football is doom and gloom. It's a pro sports city and there isn't a school there.

Putting Rutgers in the Big 10 changes nothing in NYC.

 

[itgoeslike]

Not sure why thinking NYC isn't interested in college football is doom and gloom. It's a pro sports city and there isn't a school there.

Putting Rutgers in the Big 10 changes nothing in NYC.

NYC is such a big, affluent market that moving the needle just a small amount pays dividends. They have the alumni, they just don't have the right product. Rutgers helps a little, but still doesn't get it to the threshold that's required to build buzz, interest and support (in the broader sense). However, that doesn't mean that a viable foundation and package couldn't be put together in the future to capture a reasonable share of the market. UCONN could play an important and strategic role in building that value.

 

[whaler11]

NYC is such a big, affluent market that moving the needle just a small amount pays dividends. They have the alumni, they just don't have the right product. Rutgers helps a little, but still doesn't get it to the threshold that's required to build buzz, interest and support (in the broader sense). However, that doesn't mean that a viable foundation and package couldn't be put together in the future to capture a reasonable share of the market. UCONN could play an important and strategic role in building that value.

But NYC has forever had televised college football and outside of Notre Dame generally gets yawns. Rutgers joining the Big 10 does nothing in the city. Piscataway may as well be on the moon to someone who lives in Manhattan and isn't an RU grad or from North Jersey.

 

[huskypantz]

We are that family. Last month we gave up DirectTV. just couldn't justify 140 a month. we are loving life without it. The only one giving up anything really is me and ESPN/SNY. Networks? we get all the channels over the air in great HD quality plus every network has 3 extra channels of old shows and reruns, almost everything else is streamable through amazon, Hulu or Netflix. When my sports are on I will find it on the internet. one way or another everything is available live. What would I pay for? 6 bucks a month for a channel here or there if it was made available online. Otherwise Ill live without it. I really think that in 2 years everything will be available online. Next is going to be dumping cell phones. We already have our kids using WIFI only phones. As long as they have a wifi connection its a regular phone and our city has city wide wifi. so that's 2 "cell" phones that cost 0 a month while our other two phones cost us 160 a month.

I have verizon fios and I pay about $110-120 per month for internet (25mb) and tv together, 2 HD boxes one being a DVR. I pay $3-4 a month for a land line through ooma.
We have espn3 because of fios. The quality is average at best and annoying at worst. I can seamlessly stream large youtube videos, but for whatever reason run into issues with espn3. It was great 2 years ago but has gone downhill since then. It's sometimes bad enough that I'll just watch the game from an overseas web site that's not so legal, but at least has a consistent picture. Until consistent HD streaming is available, I wouldn't make the switch.