Could we see changes to MASN? Please?

[weams]

10 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Yes, it could have been way better, but it still brought the team quite a bit of money.

There are a lot of fans that watch the team via MASN.

I don't think MASN makes much though. They can't afford much in the way of programing or talent. Several of their shows are talent owned and operated. I'm pretty disappointed with the content. Stan and Tony should have shows there. They would not cost much. But they sure would not pay the expenses of production and be responsible for selling the advertising. Real networks do those things. 

[weams]

Just now, weams said:

I don't think MASN makes much though. They can't afford much in the way of programing or talent. Several of their shows are talent owned and operated. I'm pretty disappointed with the content. Stan and Tony should have shows there. They would not cost much. But they sure would not pay the expenses of production and be responsible for selling the advertising. Real networks do those things. 

Ask Roy about how the network works if he is able to answer. 

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, weams said:

Ask Roy about how the network works if he is able to answer. 

I am sure Roy has all kinds of stories, probably most are not shareable.

[weams]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

I agree that Stan and Tony should have shows there. I agree they need to put money into production.

I think the Nationals and the Orioles would rather take as much money as they can for themselves, instead. just my unofficial uniformed opinion.

You and I grew up in a different era, when games were barely on TV.

So with that said, in-spite of their flaws, I have loved HTS and now MASN for bringing us everygame.

 

I sure agree. I need to watch them all. With Gary. 

[Going Underground]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

Orioles and MASN are the 4th best viewership in MLB.

Not too shabby for a mid market team.

 

Was that two years ago? They were 21st of all MLB teams with a 56% decline in viewership in 2018.MASN is very profitable for the Angelo's family but the way it is set up ,not so profitable for the Orioles.Makes sense so they dont have to share some of the profits with other teams.I saw MASN put out a statement that for 2018-2019,they would be showing like 76 Division 1 College Basketball games.Men and women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/10/04/2018-mlb-regional-tv-ratings-in-primetime-shows-continued-strong-popularity/amp/

[Going Underground]

http://www.masnsports.com/masn-news-information/2018/11/masn-announces-2018-19-college-basketball-schedule.html

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Going Underground said:

Was that two years ago? They were 21st of all MLB teams with a 56% decline in viewership in 2018.MASN is very profitable for the Angelo's family but the way it is set up ,not so profitable for the Orioles.Makes sense so they dont have to share some of the profits with other teams.I saw MASN put out a statement that for 2018-2019,they would be showing like 76 Division 1 College Basketball games.Men and women.

I will try and find what I read. The article that I read, said even with a decline in viewership, that they were still 4th. I get however, that metrics can always be maniulated. Just like attendance, are you counting warm bodies in seats, or tickets sales?

When Angelos funds a 140-160 million dollar payroll, that money is coming from somewhere.

[Going Underground]

4 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I will try and find what I read. The article that I read, said even with a decline in viewership, that they were still 4th. I get however, that metrics can always be maniulated. Just like attendance, are you counting warm bodies in seats, or tickets sales?

When Angelos funds a 140-160 million dollar payroll, that money is coming from somewhere.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/10/04/2018-mlb-regional-tv-ratings-in-primetime-shows-continued-strong-popularity/amp/

 

Here is the Forbes article  Maybe the prior year or done with different data points 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick said:

I will try and find what I read. The article that I read, said even with a decline in viewership, that they were still 4th. I get however, that metrics can always be maniulated. Just like attendance, are you counting warm bodies in seats, or tickets sales?

When Angelos funds a 140-160 million dollar payroll, that money is coming from somewhere.

When he's funding an 80 million dollar payroll that money is going somewhere.

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

When he's funding an 80 million dollar payroll that money is going somewhere.

I will remain silent and not pass judgement on the payroll, until we have a team under contract and know what the payroll is.

I think most of us expect a smaller payroll as they retool. Spending money to spend money isnt practicing fiscal responsibility, is it?

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

Orioles and MASN are the 4th best viewership in MLB.

Not too shabby for a mid market team.

 

 

1 hour ago, Going Underground said:

Was that two years ago? They were 21st of all MLB teams with a 56% decline in viewership in 2018.MASN is very profitable for the Angelo's family but the way it is set up ,not so profitable for the Orioles.Makes sense so they dont have to share some of the profits with other teams.I saw MASN put out a statement that for 2018-2019,they would be showing like 76 Division 1 College Basketball games.Men and women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/10/04/2018-mlb-regional-tv-ratings-in-primetime-shows-continued-strong-popularity/amp/

Reading the charts from that article, the Orioles were 5th in ratings in 2017, 22nd in 2018.    If measured by households (Baltimore is a small market), the O’s were tied for 17th in 2017 and 26th in 2018.    Those numbers don’t figure to get better while the team is bottom-dwelling.

That said, the Orioles’ local ratings in Baltimore don’t tell the whole story, since the games are broadcast from parts of Pennsylvania through parts of North Carolina, and MASN also owns the rights to the Nats in the same broadcast area, and the Nats’ ratings were more stable than the Orioles’.

As to profitability, we have some insight from the MASN arbitration case, though the data is pretty stale at this point.   MASN’s revenues were about $200 mm as of 2012 and the RSDC set the rights fees at a rate intended to leave a 5% profit based on what the RSDC believed to be conservative projections about future revenue.  We don’t know how MASN did over the past 6 years compared to what was projected in 2012, but if I were guessing I’d say they probably beat projections based on the success of the two teams in that period and for the most part better ratings (though trending down now).    So, I’m going to guess $10-20 mm/yr in profit based on the rights fees awarded by the RSDC, which of course is now subject to re-determination by the new RSDC following the recent hearing.    

[atomic]

31 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

Reading the charts from that article, the Orioles were 5th in ratings in 2017, 22nd in 2018.    If measured by households (Baltimore is a small market), the O’s were tied for 17th in 2017 and 26th in 2018.    Those numbers don’t figure to get better while the team is bottom-dwelling.

 That said, the Orioles’ local ratings in Baltimore don’t tell the whole story, since the games are broadcast from parts of Pennsylvania through parts of North Carolina, and MASN also owns the rights to the Nats in the same broadcast area, and the Nats’ ratings were more stable than the Orioles’.

 As to profitability, we have some insight from the MASN arbitration case, though the data is pretty stale at this point.   MASN’s revenues were about $200 mm as of 2012 and the RSDC set the rights fees at a rate intended to leave a 5% profit based on what the RSDC believed to be conservative projections about future revenue.  We don’t know how MASN did over the past 6 years compared to what was projected in 2012, but if I were guessing I’d say they probably beat projections based on the success of the two teams in that period and for the most part better ratings (though trending down now).    So, I’m going to guess $10-20 mm/yr in profit based on the rights fees awarded by the RSDC, which of course is now subject to re-determination by the new RSDC following the recent hearing.    

I am guessing viewership is not where they get most of their money. I bet that most of the money they receive is from people who never watch a single MASN broadcast.  

[Frobby]

53 minutes ago, atomic said:

I am guessing viewership is not where they get most of their money. I bet that most of the money they receive is from people who never watch a single MASN broadcast.  

Absolutely correct but I assume ratings impact the amount MASN can charge the cable carriers at least to a limited extent.    

As an aside, our local Verizon carrier is fighting with Disney over next year’s fees and sent us an email that in essence braced us for the possibility that all Disney-owned channels (e.g. ESPN) may go dark on 1/1 if the dispute is not resolved by then.    

[Going Underground]

39 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Absolutely correct but I assume ratings impact the amount MASN can charge the cable carriers at least to a limited extent.    

As an aside, our local Verizon carrier is fighting with Disney over next year’s fees and sent us an email that in essence braced us for the possibility that all Disney-owned channels (e.g. ESPN) may go dark on 1/1 if the dispute is not resolved by then.    

Food? I saw they took out a full page ad in the Post to go after Verizon.I dont have cable anymore but the fee for MASN keeps going up.The fee everyone pays no matter if you want MASN or not.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Absolutely correct but I assume ratings impact the amount MASN can charge the cable carriers at least to a limited extent.    

As an aside, our local Verizon carrier is fighting with Disney over next year’s fees and sent us an email that in essence braced us for the possibility that all Disney-owned channels (e.g. ESPN) may go dark on 1/1 if the dispute is not resolved by then.    

I have Sling TV. We only care about Disney JR and Nick JR. It is 25 a month for that and a bunch of other channels. If I subscribed to cable and they didnt have Disney JR I would ask for a refund. I think Disney will win the battle vs Verizon.  They are in position of power because people more likely to pay for entertainment for their kids.