LOL,,actually it wasn't a question really. Having worked in broadcasting, I do understand all that. But thanks!
The problem is down here, it's doubtful another RSN would be started. Since, we have really only one team whose games would be aired, other than college of course.
So more than likely, we would have to share an LA RSN already down here. Which on Cox the only English FSW is 29. So no options, at this time, on Cox to move games to another FSN channel. And we probably wouldn't be talking a lot of games anyway. So that's why they would probably either work out a deal with say KUSI, or try and work a deal with Cox to show it on ch. 4.
While I understand those who are out of market that suffer, I really don't have an issue with it. Cox had a product and they were able to lock up exclusive rights to it. Very smart on their end.
It's really no different than someone wanting an iPhone and at least at this point in time, being forced to go to AT&T.
4th smallest TV market.
I've posted about KUSI before not spending money.
The point I was making is, I don't believe Cox carries/offers both FSW feeds.
They wouldn't need to divide the games up anyway on the two feeds. Down here, show the Padres games, up in LA show the Angel games or normal programming. Neither game can be shown in the other market anyway. They already have to either blackout or cover FSW down here when the Angels are on.
Heck since the system is basically in place already, have Cox air switch the feed. While the game is on, Cox feeds the signal over ch. 29, and to other cable outlets in town as well as sat feed. They switch the breaks and return to the net feed (FSW) once the game is over. Very much like any network affiliate would do if they were broadcasting a local game during prime time.
The only involvement for cox would be what is going out locally on FSW. They would not handle the production of the game or the commercial sales. Of course, they would get some compensation for their involvement the part they do.
And to clarify, I was saying FSW could put either the Pads/Kings/Lakers, on ch 4 if there was a conflict. It still would be the FSW broadcast however.
One other point to consider on the Padres end. You need programming to start up a RSN, such as YES.Just one MLB team is not going to do it.
Sure college teams would help some, but without a NBA/NHL team, it would be hard to do.
And honestly, I don't see a big demand outside of San Diego, like the Yankees get outside of NY.
"It's a very large investment to start up any channel. Equipment is not cheap. Plus the fact of having to staff it, production, sales, traffic, promotion etc."
Exactly. There was no way Cox was going to start a production company, based on anything other than a long term exclusive agreement.
Have to disagree with you here.
Cox, like Comcast, #1 are cable providers. That is their bread and butter. If they have the exclusive rights to something, such as the Padres, it's very smart on their end to force people to their primary product.
So Cox gets you to get a cable package so you can watch the Padres. Next they offer you internet, then maybe a bundle package including phone service. Maybe you also get a service such as HBO/Showtime, etc.
All of this of this because the customer wanting the Padre games.
It's no different that a store selling a product as a loss leader, to get you into the door of their business. Once inside, their hope is you then will buy more items in that store.
Also just like I mentioned before with the iPhone. The cell carriers sign contracts with phone manufacturers so they have exclusive rights to certain phones. So if you want a certain phone, you have to sign up with that provider.
It already goes on in stores where products are only sold at one store, such as some new CD releases only being sold at Best Buy, Target or Wal*Mart. Or DVD/CD releases that contain special features only available at a certain retailer.
In the days of the internet, driving to Wal*Mart is not really an issue, just buy it on-line.
Product exclusives goes on in many places. If you prefer Pepsi over Coke, then don't go to Rubio's.
As far as Comcast/NBC, it's going to happen. Enough money is being "contributed" where it will pass the eyes of the FCC.
Cox has already said they are willing to release the exclusive on the game. They have hired FSN to negotiate with the dish providers.
BTW, back in 2009 Basic and Basic Digital Cable Networks and Subscribers fees charged per subscriber had an industry average of .20 for every subscriber a system had. Leaving the top two off the list, they ran from .01 to .99 depending on the channel.
For Cox to carry C-Span, they would pay C-Span .05 for every subscriber Cox has. So I'm sure some money cruncher at some time, worked the numbers and felt Cox would get much more money if people had to sign on to their service as opposed to allowing another service, such as AT&T pay a rights fee.
I mentioned that I had left the top two off. They are ESPN/ESPN HD which gets 4.08 a subscriber and FSN which gets 2.37 per subscriber.
The list can be found herehttp://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/
One thing to remember is these are channels that broadcast most of the day, if not all day. So for something like the Padres games, IMO, it would be at the lower end of the scale.
Another angle to consider. The Padres "small market" status might be jeopardized so to speak by negotiating with a carrier with higher coverage.
It has benefited the Padres substantially to use market size as an excuse to reduce payroll and continue to reduce payroll.
Although they may profit from an expanded media market I am not convinced that they are really inclined to do that.
What's the reason? Accountability.
There would be more scrutiny in regards to the amount of revenue generated from the TV deal.
Approximately how much of that TV deal revenue generated would be re-invested into player payroll would remain to be seen.
I am convinced that this "small market" tag serves a boon to the Padres organization, another smoke screen that can be used to justify not investing into player payroll.
For those interested, I was able to find the Nielsen Local Television market size estimates.
This list compares 2009/2010 to 2010/2011 Broadcast "Season"
San Diego did not move up for the coming year.
edit: By move up, I mean in ranking. It did move up by about 16,000 TV Homes from the previous list.
Absolutely but that doesn't change the fact that they still can negotiate with a carrier who can expand their coverage and pay out a more lucrative contract.
Market size may not allow us to compete with the Yankees but a new TV deal should allow us to stay "competitive" (I hate that word) within the division in regards to payroll.
The bottom line is; is this team willing to expand payroll?
Last year was an anomaly.
We were able to sign a majority of players to one year deal because the economic nature of MLB drove player salaries down.
This seems to be cyclical in nature. Guys like Adam Eaton and his contract with the Phillies represented the upswing in player payroll several years ago.
2010 saw a majority of players move into the "affordability" range but that won't always stay that way.
The only teams that can thrive with low payrolls are those with stellar farm systems( ie. Marlins and Rays).
Ours may have some depth in pitching but it lacks hitters and is far from stellar.
Eventually, if they 'want' to win, the Padres are going to have to increase payroll.