MASN has lost 27% of its subscribers in 8 years

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yep, I'd pay even more...20-25 a month to watch games.  MLB.tv with a VPN is a smoke and mirrors game that I don't necessarily like to play but I will.  

Look at what you make me do, MASN.  Look at what you make me DO!!!

I was reading some article on the Washington Post how a group of friends share a MLB TV subscription.  And they all pay $5 each for a VPN connection so it works out to $7 a month per person.

How many people can use an MLB TV Subscription at the same time?

[sportsfan8703]

I bet this correlates closely to what all cable companies have lost in the last 8 years.  

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, atomic said:

I was reading some article on the Washington Post how a group of friends share a MLB TV subscription.  And they all pay $5 each for a VPN connection so it works out to $7 a month per person.

How many people can use an MLB TV Subscription at the same time?

Legally?

[atomic]

5 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I bet this correlates closely to what all cable companies have lost in the last 8 years.  

Yeah and the other companies have figured out what is going to happen.  You can purchase stand alone Disney, ESPN and HBO.  I think everyone knows the end game to what is going to happen.   Cable and Phone companies will provide Internet and you will subscribe to whatever channel you want. 

 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I bet this correlates closely to what all cable companies have lost in the last 8 years.  

Probably.    In the court filing, MASN described this as an industry trend rather than something specific to MASN’s market.     It’s interesting that it’s in-market loss is much smaller than their out-of-market loss.     I don’t totally understand what “out-of-market” means in this context and how those customers access MASN.    Is this primarily people who live outside the Pennsylvania - North Carolina corridor and either get MASN via satellite subscription or some kind of premium channel on their cable?

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Legally?

I don't think so.  

[atomic]

4 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Probably.    In the court filing, MASN described this as an industry trend rather than something specific to MASN’s market.     It’s interesting that it’s in-market loss is much smaller than their out-of-market loss.     I don’t totally understand what “out-of-market” means in this context and how those customers access MASN.    Is this primarily people who live outside the Pennsylvania - North Carolina corridor and either get MASN via satellite subscription or some kind of premium channel on their cable?

Maybe their deals with cable companies vary by the market.  I know the arguement with RCN is that MASN wanted a gurantee that a higher percentage of their customers would carry MASN.  Maybe the percentages vary by market.  So say in Baltimore and DC they want it in one of the lower number of channel packages.  And in North Carolina they have it in an everything package. 

 

 

[SteveA]

MASN is in a tough spot.   Cable is dwindling and they are very much a niche network.   Essentially baseball only (they air other sports but it's a very, very weak selection just to fill airspace).    Compare with NBCSN-Wash (formerly CSN) -- they have two major teams' games (Caps and Wizards), they are part of the regional network that airs ACC football and basketball, and of course they are part of a larger conglomerate (NBC Sports) which means they don't have to totally sink or swim on their own.

[atomic]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

MASN is in a tough spot.   Cable is dwindling and they are very much a niche network.   Essentially baseball only (they air other sports but it's a very, very weak selection just to fill airspace).    Compare with NBCSN-Wash (formerly CSN) -- they have two major teams' games (Caps and Wizards), they are part of the regional network that airs ACC football and basketball, and of course they are part of a larger conglomerate (NBC Sports) which means they don't have to totally sink or swim on their own.

The should sell MASN to NBCSN.   It would make NBCSN a stronger network and it would get the Orioles out of the Sports Network business.   If NBCSN had the Orioles and the Nationals they would be a year round network that could be strong enough to stand alone service.

[Roll Tide]

50 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Yep, I'd pay even more...20-25 a month to watch games.  MLB.tv with a VPN is a smoke and mirrors game that I don't necessarily like to play but I will.  

Look at what you make me do, MASN.  Look at what you make me DO!!!

Sounds like MASN could use a new CEO

[interloper]

vpnbook dot com. It's free and good. 

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Probably.    In the court filing, MASN described this as an industry trend rather than something specific to MASN’s market.     It’s interesting that it’s in-market loss is much smaller than their out-of-market loss.     I don’t totally understand what “out-of-market” means in this context and how those customers access MASN.    Is this primarily people who live outside the Pennsylvania - North Carolina corridor and either get MASN via satellite subscription or some kind of premium channel on their cable?

For years I had the spots pack from Directv. It was combined with I believe Showtime. Anyway, I had access to all the RSN’s throughout the country. You received all the programming minus the games. Spring training games were not blacked out.  Sometimes college games would still be available to watch. I would occasionally watch a NY or Boston channel for a different perspective, pregame show etc. 

[eddie83]

3 hours ago, SteveA said:

MASN is in a tough spot.   Cable is dwindling and they are very much a niche network.   Essentially baseball only (they air other sports but it's a very, very weak selection just to fill airspace).    Compare with NBCSN-Wash (formerly CSN) -- they have two major teams' games (Caps and Wizards), they are part of the regional network that airs ACC football and basketball, and of course they are part of a larger conglomerate (NBC Sports) which means they don't have to totally sink or swim on their own.

This is all true but the Orioles and Nats both have superior ratings plus double the games of the Caps and Wizards. Having some college games help NBCW no doubt.  

[theocean]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

Probably.    In the court filing, MASN described this as an industry trend rather than something specific to MASN’s market.     It’s interesting that it’s in-market loss is much smaller than their out-of-market loss.     I don’t totally understand what “out-of-market” means in this context and how those customers access MASN.    Is this primarily people who live outside the Pennsylvania - North Carolina corridor and either get MASN via satellite subscription or some kind of premium channel on their cable?

I'd assume out-of-market describes people who get MASN via a satellite or cable provider outside a subscription package. They're paying for it a-la-carte because they personally want to watch it. They're likely a diehard fan who moved out of town.

It makes sense to me that the in-market numbers have went down more, because MASN is a part of the higher-tier packages that Comcast or Verizon offer. There's probably a lot of people who had MASN previously who didn't even watch it, it was just part of the package they purchased from their cable provider.

As cord-cutting has increased, that's fewer people who are paying for MASN locally - whether they were watching it or not. ESPN has the same problem. You might have heard of the term "ESPN Tax" before. ESPN is by far the most expensive channel for cable providers - a few years ago I remember it cost them about $4.50 per customer - and that cost is passed along to each of its customers, whether they are watching ESPN or not.

Ultimately, I see why MASN wants to avoid a MLB.tv type option - there's no long-term commitment. People rarely change their cable service, but its pretty easy to choose not to renew a MLB.tv subscription if your team is going to suck that year.

[atomic]

53 minutes ago, theocean said:

I'd assume out-of-market describes people who get MASN via a satellite or cable provider outside a subscription package. They're paying for it a-la-carte because they personally want to watch it. They're likely a diehard fan who moved out of town.

It makes sense to me that the in-market numbers have went down more, because MASN is a part of the higher-tier packages that Comcast or Verizon offer. There's probably a lot of people who had MASN previously who didn't even watch it, it was just part of the package they purchased from their cable provider.

As cord-cutting has increased, that's fewer people who are paying for MASN locally - whether they were watching it or not. ESPN has the same problem. You might have heard of the term "ESPN Tax" before. ESPN is by far the most expensive channel for cable providers - a few years ago I remember it cost them about $4.50 per customer - and that cost is passed along to each of its customers, whether they are watching ESPN or not.

Ultimately, I see why MASN wants to avoid a MLB.tv type option - there's no long-term commitment. People rarely change their cable service, but its pretty easy to choose not to renew a MLB.tv subscription if your team is going to suck that year.

ESPN is 9 dollars per subscriber.