2 ms·
Note that Newell's comments are from the perspective of the consumer. I, as the consumer, don't care at all about how expensive it is or is not to run a product
by revolvingocelot 4y ago
Note that Newell's comments are from the perspective of the consumer. I, as the consumer, don't care at all about how expensive it is or is not to run a production company or cable channel or streaming service or sports team, I'm assessing quality, ease of access, and price.
>because the audience itself has been sold to other companies who can then force them to pay more money
Again, don't care. The point is that I, as the consumer, can't pay to watch NHL games in a reasonable way, but the pirate's product is better and free. So! Is it immoral to "steal" from ESPN/NHL in this way? Maybe, but it strikes me as kinda like Mr. Burns setting up a sunshade so as to be able to force everyone to use nuclear power for their lights -- it's a way to try to make money, and aw-shucks things are expensive [0] so they've gotta make money, but it's not going to work terribly well because of the realities of the medium and the consumer's experience.
>It's tempting to look at Netflix and say, "oh they're stupid, why would they stop being like they were in 2012"
Your straw-reasoner doesn't seem to get that Netflix isn't the owner of the content they're trying to get you to pay money for. Understanding that 2012-Netflix is streaming things they've licensed at rates reasonable to them is key to understanding why modern-Netflix stopped being like they were in 2012 -- the rates are no longer reasonable, so the content gets dropped. In contrast, the NHL is the owner of the content they're trying to get you to pay money for.
The NHL could unwind itself from predatory audience-eyeball-deals, just as I, as the consumer, could jump through flaming hoops to get a low-quality legal stream, but neither party wants to do that. So!
[0] I'm well aware of the horrifying practice of municipal (and even higher levels of government!) spending on private sports arenas, but I was under the impression that sports teams printed money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_le... suggests I'm not wrong...
- kmeisthax 4y agoYes, you are correct that the NHL sets the price of the content. And if fans were to lose interest or move to piracy, then Newell's argument would absolutely apply. The problem is that, as it stands, sports fans aren't going to do that. Remember, these are the same kinds of people who shout at city governments to keep subsidizing sports arenas so they don't lose "their team". The NHL has a massive money spigot and they're going to keep it flowing for as long as they can.
- cardiffspaceman 4y ago> same kinds of people who shout at city governments to keep subsidizing sports arenas In San Diego, we had a stadium which had hosted 3 Super Bowls. The NFL team owner arranged for multiple referendums on the question of city subsidies for an improved stadium in a San Diego location he preferred. These votes failed. Then the owner moved the team to Los Angeles. American fans: You can loose the bonds of subsidy to teams that believe they can get anything and be paid to take it.