Is it really much better to have five $15 services to get the same content?
I do think I'd rather pay YouTube than ESPN directly, because the latter's video services have never worked well for me. Part of me wishes the various services would just tell Disney to get lost, and let them see how much they like providing that service on their own. Though, the conventional wisdom seems to be that live sports programming can't exist on it's own, and that 'regular TV' can't exist without live sports.
It feels that way. On the one hand, it seems like you have to be something of a super-fan to subscribe to one or more of the sport/league-specific sites/apps. On the other hand, local sports availability or even just sports as TV on in background seems like a pretty significant sweetener for a lot of people who might not pay for TV just for the occasional late night talk show, local news broadcast, or reality show.
Sports isn't enough for me to pay for cable any longer. But, if I did, watching a game now and then would probably be what would push me over the line to pay up.
It's much easier to just find pirated live game streams than it is to figure out the cobweb of television rights, which service actually shows local sports, if you're "in" or "out" of market, etc.
I'm sure the economics are still strongly in favor of the TV licensing deals but this has to turn at some point, I'd think, where leagues can go direct-to-consumer across all markets or they just sign deals with streaming companies directly, which Amazon is already doing with the NFL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
> Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. In legal terms, a tying sale makes the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto customer (or de jure customer) conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good). Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related. It is related to but distinct from freebie marketing, a common (and legal) method of giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item.
> Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.
> One effect of tying can be that low quality products achieve a higher market share than would otherwise be the case.
> Tying may also be a form of price discrimination: people who use more razor blades, for example, pay more than those who just need a one-time shave. Though this may improve overall welfare, by giving more consumers access to the market, such price discrimination can also transfer consumer surpluses to the producer. Tying may also be used with or in place of patents or copyrights to help protect entry into a market, discouraging innovation.
> Tying is often used when the supplier makes one product that is critical to many customers. By threatening to withhold that key product unless others are also purchased, the supplier can increase sales of less necessary products.
> In the United States, most states have laws against tying, which are enforced by state governments. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice enforces federal laws against tying through its Antitrust Division.
HBO on the other hand was constantly fighting for subscribers not just viewership. For them every viewer was worth more money so they had a high bar without much filler.
1) on demand whatever you want to watch whenever you want to watch on whichever device you want to watch
2) no advertisement breaks
3) no mandatory long term contract (maximum length 1 month)
Though I suppose with a happier ending.
And it has been dying. Look at the ads the roll between the shows and it's clear that TV watchers are aging out. It's all hearing aid commercials and malpractice lawsuits' the only people watching TV through a settop box anymore are the elderly. Bringing that same format of content to youtube's platform, to be watchable on the devices young people use (smartphones, laptops, etc) is a play to make this format relevant to young people again. I hope they fail.
Now, it's hard to argue that people shouldn't be able to pay for just what they want. But now you're effectively arguing for relatively expensive a la carte rentals/purchases which I'm guessing people wouldn't want either if you want to keep revenues neutral. People may want to pay only for the media they watch. But they may not want to pay $5 for a TV show even though I was probably paying way more than that per show when I had cable TV.
If I'm inherently after a passive entertainment experience, there are situations where I want the decisions made for me. If I put on the TV while I exercise, or for background while cooking or cleaning, I don't need it stopping every 30 minutes asking me to choose something else to watch, and yet I also don't want it showing 23 seasons of the Great British Bake Off in a row either. I'll put on a broadcast channel instead.