Very curious as to how it is viewed at this point in its young life. Coug95man2, I am especially curious as to your take on how well you think it's doing, how well the bugs have been ironed out (Or not), and prospects for the future. I tend to see it as tied to the health of the conference, going forward....Thoughts, anyone?
Pac-12 Network -- Time for a checkup
- Thread starter SCglory
- Start date
Remember first, when you ask this, it seems you are lumping "the network" and the conference together. The network could fail miserably and the conference would be ok. Not great but in the business sense, it is separate. Regarding how the Network is doing, first remember I'm a little cog in a massive machine so my perspective is pretty narrow. But it seems like it's starting to hit its stride. Much of what I percieve as the "goals" are now being hit. Crewing is pretty smooth (no walk outs like it's 2nd year), the number of shows are increasing (which will increase it's stock). Things like that.
I saw the other thread SC but being on vacation I wasn't really able to read through the article well. But in a generic sense, I think the network is ding great and I like their business model of owning it outright. It'll take time to build it up verses have a partner but that's ok. Long term they are positioning themselves to succeed. When I get time I'll read that article on the other thread though. But again, I'm just a little cog
We Americans tend to think only in the short game. The network is long game thinking. In the long run, it will place the conference in a much better place than the partnerships that the Big10 and SEC have. It is a gamble, but a good one to take.
People look at a new network and want to compare it to existing networks. It really should not be looked at that way. When I was at WSU, the Fox network started. Except for the Simpsons and Married with Children, the rest of the lineup was subpar. Now, it is much different and they have many more quality programs. It just takes time to try new things and to hire more quality people. It really does not happen overnight.
Speaking of Fox, it is not quite an apples to apples comparison, but it is similar. Fox News lost a half a billion dollars a year for their first five years. Now, it is a money making machine. Most things take years for the vision to take place. The P12 Network is no different.
Well I am, because, as you said, they own it outright. So, it seems to me Scott has laid it all on the line on this MO
Well I guess I'm assuming Scott has done his due diligence and made sure that financially this branch of this non-profit, i.e. the Network, has enough separation that if something happens, it'll hurt as any financial venture does if/when it goes under, but won't kill. They are separate ventures and I'm sure separate "books". I'm just assuming there but I can't imagine any other way to structure it.
Your initial question… I think they are doing well. Every year they bring up more live broadcasts. If I remember correctly, the year previous they had 750 live broadcasts and this year they up'ed it by 100 or so. That increases the value for the advertisers and keeps viewers engaged. It also creates new viewers, as many of the new shows are some of the smaller programs, like baseball, volleyball, soccer, etc. etc.
My ever present caveat… I'm just a little man. Bottom of the totem pole worker ant. I know nothing about any financial structure or flow or books or anything… I know just as much as you and I. I'm just a fan of the Network.
I will say this. I've had production companies that work with other sporting channels, that won't pay for months and months after the show. There's one company that a couple years ago I worked a gig and I still haven't gotten payed for it. There are production companies that struggle year after year just to pay us worker ants. Pac 12 Networks is NOT one of them. That is huge.
The article I posted a few days ago suggested that the Pac-12 is in danger of falling behind the other conferences. I agree with that, but that has to do with our league being located on the West coast. No amount of negotiating is going to change the fact that 75% of the US population care less about West coast athletics than they do any other region.
I don't think we should expect to, or need to have the most lucrative TV network contract. We need to address the DirecTV issue, as that's only furthering the gap between us and the other major conferences. Trust me, the Eastern and Central time zones don't care whether or not our games are televised; particularly when many of our games begin at or after 8:00PM EST.
We need to focus on being the strongest conference we can be, not fighting an unwinnable battle.
I don't think we should expect to, or need to have the most lucrative TV network contract. We need to address the DirecTV issue, as that's only furthering the gap between us and the other major conferences. Trust me, the Eastern and Central time zones don't care whether or not our games are televised; particularly when many of our games begin at or after 8:00PM EST.
We need to focus on being the strongest conference we can be, not fighting an unwinnable battle.
Still haven't had the time to read that thing so all of my responses might be kinda "off"…. but Patrol, if that's the basis for all of this… I'm shaking my head. West Coast bias is real. West Coast teams will always have an up hill battle, regardless of whom they are. UCLA, USC, Oregon, all of them will always battle "time zone" and all the affects that has. Including other coaches, writers, etc not actually watching the games. So it is what it is. But if the whole article is based on that, it's a stupid article, no offense Patrol. No one can control that one. I'm sure Scott would like to but...
But in general "how's it going?"… All seems great to me… for whatever that's worth in Eastern Washington.
No offense taken. I agree completely. There's only so much we can do. We're still the best league West of Texas, and most of our recruiting occurs in our own region. What will hamper us is the ever escalating coaching salaries / facility arms race. The other leagues will out earn us due to TV revenue, and I *think* that's what the article was referring to.
Maybe but man… Maybe I'm naive or just not "worldly" enough but I just can't see anyone significantly out-flashing Oregon or USC's new(er) place, two of the flashiest in the nation and a part of our conference. I don't even know how to "up" the ante when it comes to waterfall's flowing into the hydrotherapy pools, for instance. Or so-and-so's arcade has the newer games? At what point is it just different flash, not flashier? Are these examples good? Probably not because of Uncle Phil and such but still. Off-season fodder it seems…
