John Kosner spoke with Bloomberg's Lucas Shaw about the Deshaun Watson case
Original Article: Bloomberg, by Lucas Shaw, April 25th, 2021
In the five weeks since more than a dozen women accused Houston Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson of sexual assault, sports media has been tongue-tied.
ESPN's “First Take” and “Pardon the Interruption” have spent more time on the NCAA Tournament and the NBA playoff race. Talk radio has gone long on the NFL trade market and the Masters. It's not just sports media. While coverage of the allegations picked up after two women came forward with their stories -- prompting Nike to drop Watson -- the story has yet to appear outside the sports section of national newspapers.
Several senior media executives have expressed surprise at how little coverage the case has gotten thus far. Watson is one of the best players in the most popular sport in the U.S. His demands for a trade received wall-to-wall coverage at most of the major sports media outlets. But allegations of sexual abuse, not so much.
“It’s not been nearly as big a story as the merits of it warrant,” says Pablo Torre, host of the ESPN Daily podcast.
Torre’s podcast has been a notable exception, having now devoted two full episodes to the story. In the first episode, he interviewed investigative reporter John Barr about the case, and then spoke with Texans beat reporter Sarah Barshop. In the second episode, Barr returned to talk about the “conflicting narratives” now that some women have come to Watson’s defense.
The muted coverage contrasts with that of recent entertainment scandals. National newspapers like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times have run a series of front-page stories about toxic cultures at institutions like the Magic Castle and the Friars Club. Both the Hollywood Reporter and New York Times just this month published long investigations into producer Scott Rudin for being an abusive boss. (The Rudin story ran on the front page of the paper.)
Media executives cite many factors for the subdued coverage of the case thus far, including the relative anonymity of football stars, a long history of false accusations against Black men and the profession of the accusers. Watson is accused of sexual assaulting his massage therapists. While they are trained professionals, it has led some to dismiss the case as “tabloid fodder.”
“If you go to the NFL page for ESPN, it’s there. But I haven’t really seen coverage in leading newspapers I look at,” says John Kosner, a longtime sports media executive who used to work at ESPN and the NBA. “I suspect at the moment they are going on the information available to them.”
The story has received more coverage in the Houston market, though the tenor of that coverage has missed the mark, according to Texas Monthly's Dan Solomon.
One reason this story is still relegated to the B block is the evolution of sports media, which now prioritizes “the take” above all. A take is an interesting opinion, an angle on a story that no one else has discovered. It is the foundation of all the biggest sports media personalities on TV.
Stephen A. Smith is the maestro of the outrageous, if not always correct, opinion. Skip Bayless, his former partner-in-banter, built his entire career on takes. Bill Simmons, Colin Cowherd and Mike Francesa all have loyal followings because their listeners want to hear their take on a given topic.
It’s hard to have a good take on the Watson case. If you make it about the football impact, you may dismiss the allegations themselves. If you believe the women, you risk being the latest bigot guilty of falsely accusing a Black man. If you don’t believe the women, you have even bigger problems. Top sports hosts have often resorted to say things like, “This doesn’t look good for Deshaun Watson.”
None of these concerns have ever stopped cable news pundits from speculating or commenting on ongoing legal matters, but sports media treads more carefully. ESPN has a policy distinguishing between a civil trail and a criminal trial. Criminal trials merit closer coverage.
The investigations into Watson are still ongoing. The Houston police department and the NFL are looking into the allegations. The Texans haven’t punished him either.
“When there is active litigation, civilly -- and you don’t have obvious conclusions to draw about what’s true and false -- it would be irresponsible to do so. I don’t fault the shows that are run on takes for not diving into this through their lens,” says Torre, who is also a frequent guest on “Around the Horn” and co-host on “Pardon the Interruption."
And yet, ESPN showed no such reluctance to cover the outcome in the case of Derek Chauvin. The network, which just a couple years ago vowed to stick to sports, spent more than an hour of “First Take” on the trial’s verdict, and made it the biggest story on its website’s homepage.
Most members of the media cheered this coverage as a sign of how the activism of professional athletes has forced ESPN to adapt. That story has little to do with sports. But professional athletes cared about it, and spoke out about it, which means their teams had to pay attention, which meant the leagues and their media partners had to pay attention.
But in the case of Watson, his teammates, the Texans and the NFL would prefer this story just go away. -- Lucas Shaw
John Kosner & Ed Desser connect with David Halberstam of Sports Broadcast Journal
Original Article: Sports Broadcast Journal, by David J. Halberstam, April 22nd, 2021
Ed Desser and John Kosner worked together at the NBA for a significant number of years under the tutelage of the late commissioner, David Stern. It was a precious way to learn the business. Stern built the NBA from a drug infested league that failed to get its championship playoff round on live television to a multi-billion dollar entity with huge global footprints. Anyone who worked for the driven Stern knows that he was hands-on and a taskmaster. But many will also tell you how much they learned interacting with him regularly.
For 23 years, Desser served as the senior media executive in Stern’s NBA office and ultimately as President of NBA Television and New Media Ventures. He now has more than 40 years of experience in sports media, performing valuations, determining strategy, and negotiating major media deals in the local, national and international TV marketplaces, and serving as an expert witness.
At the NBA, Kosner was in charge of U.S. broadcasting during the Dream Team era. He then spent 21 years at ESPN where he helped build the world’s leading digital sports destination, a powerhouse in short- and long-form editorial content, streaming, social media, podcasting and fantasy sports. In 2018, John and Stern created Micromanagement Ventures, a portfolio of sports technology start-ups focused on media, betting and player health. Stern passed on New Year’s Day 2020 after a brief illness.
Kosner and Desser negotiate sports media agreements for rightsholders. They’re both ahead of the curve and clearly project conceptual frameworks that will dictate future television deals. The average fan might not know their names. Yet they’re well known and greatly respected in the suites of top television and network executives.
In light of the whopping $113 billion NFL deal, I checked in with them to get their takes on how the deal breaks out, what viewers can expect, the entities that they think could be big TV players down the road and how in a changing world we’re likely to consume sports down the road.
Q& A – Ed Desser and John Kosner
Both of you worked for the late David Stern at the NBA. He had a reputation of being somewhat of a taskmaster. What are each of your memories of David? Any fun recollections?
Kosner: I got to work with David twice – the first time after Ed hired me from CBS Sports, 1987-1994, and then after I left ESPN, David and I worked together in 2018 and 2019. My first go round, I got very accustomed to screwing things up and then hearing about it in high volume and frequency from David – leading to multiple “firings.” When we reconnected in 2018, David was a more content, relaxed person and my work experience with him was great fun. But he never lost his competitive edge. David kept his phone number private so when you saw the “no caller ID” show up on your phone you knew who it was. One time, I was working with David on an investment/advisory deal with a startup and the startup rejected one of our key terms. I sent David an email late on a Friday night, stating that success was unlikely because the startup “can’t do the deal we want.” As soon as I sent it, I felt this familiar shudder – No!!! David’s going to call me right back and say: “Listen, you ____, it’s not that they can’t, it’s that they won’t. You’re fired!” Two minutes later the “no caller ID” popped up on my phone. The difference this time was that after David read me the riot act, he had a good laugh when I told him that I got exactly what I deserved.
Desser: I too was “fired” multiple times by David…sometimes more than once in a day, sometime deserved and other times just for dramatic effect! Perhaps that was the reason he had both John and me working there at the same time! There are so many stories I could share about my 23 years at the NBA (plus another 5 before that locally, and 16 since working on NBA-related deals), but I think it’s best to just say there has never been a smarter, harder-working, more gifted, and more transcendent sports executive. David understood how every aspect of the business worked, and what needed to happen to advance the state of the NBA: “everything is a priority.” He recognized the power of new technology to supercharge opportunities, which was especially valuable for me. He never took himself too seriously, but made sure that we understood that “no one was going to care about the NBA more than we did.” He made my career possible, and I will forever be grateful for all the opportunities he provided, the support he gave, the lessons he taught, and his friendship.
Kosner: Can’t say any of that better. I would just add that David was also self-taught. He reinvented the industry but only after he learned each part of it (broadcasting, marketing, basketball operations, community service, next-gen technology, etc.).
Desser: I was one of his early teachers, before he mastered the subject and taught me a thing or two about sports broadcasting!
Did the enormity of the $113 billion NFL TV deal surprise you in any way? Other than a few tweaks here and there, be they ABC joining the Super Bowl rotation and Amazon getting Thursday nights, the distribution of rights mirrors what the league and networks have now.
Desser: The NFL deals collectively are the most outrageous, audacious, overpriced, but completely worth it media deals in sports history. The power of the NFL as a property, a brand, and a perfected form of entertainment, is something that can launch series, networks, businesses, and technologies in the USA. It is simply unmatched. It defines the high-water mark that all others seek to attain. While the deals are innovative (e.g., carving out gambling rights, making Amazon exclusive on Thursday nights), they largely continue the NFL’s long practiced approach, staying with established incumbent partnerships, while continuing the practice of “slicing the salami,” as David would say, just a bit thinner each cycle. No one gets all they want, but everyone is happy to be inside the tent.
Kosner: I was pleasantly surprised that Amazon paid $1 billion annually to get exclusive rights to the Thursday night games. Amazon’s purchase of these rights is the most significant deal in our industry since Fox took the NFC package away from CBS in 1993. What Amazon does with these rights – innovative production, multiple feeds, heavy stats, Twitch, shopping, X-ray – is going to be the most fascinating part for me. I’m also very curious about the streaming plans for other broadcast partners. They are each approaching the challenge differently.
The huge dollar amounts required of the networks for the NFL might very well diminish what the networks have left in the till for other sports broadcast rights. As such, it’s been reported that the NBA is seeking an early renewal of its rights deal with Turner and ESPN. The league is hoping to triple its rights fee from $24 billion to $75 billion. The current deal ends in 2024-25. From an overall revenue picture, other than the NFL, which of the sports will fare best in a landscape that can be financially tighter?
Kosner: I believe the strong will get stronger. The NBA is uniquely popular among young fans and basketball continues to grow globally. If the NBA does not re-up early with ESPN and WarnerMedia, it could become the first league to strike a truly global media agreement with one or more tech companies when its current deal expires mid-decade.
Desser: The upward trajectory of major sports rights is unabated. There is still nothing else quite like sports to gather a huge, reliable audience. The pool of available funding is growing from streamers and potential gambling opportunities, while the pay television market continues to slowly shrink. Caught in the middle will be the sports properties that don’t command sub fee allocations, and which can’t bring large amounts of content and subscribers to streaming platforms. They will have to adjust to the new normal, but will find a host of alternative options available as streamers look to build sub-bases in the current phase, creating new leverage for previously marginalized properties, provided that they have devoted, well-heeled audiences. Combining out-of-market rights with national rights is also a key “new” opportunity for MLB, NBA, and NHL.
NBC had the whole kit and caboodle in an exclusive NHL deal. ESPN recently bought a chunk of the rights beginning next season. NBC would like to cut a deal for the half that remains but has drawn a line in the sand. It will pay just so much. Thoughts?
Kosner: The NHL’s deal is indicative of what’s coming. The traditional rights buyers are all launching streaming services (except for Fox) and that is where they are investing. The NHL gets the ESPN and ABC platforms for its biggest events but the real news here is that the NHL’s outer-market package and its vast number of games is moving to ESPN+. Did ESPN backstop the deal to pick up the other half of the NHL if it doesn’t find a buyer between incumbent NBC, Fox and CBS?
Desser: The news here is that after 20 years of being a secondary national sports product in the US (primary in Canada), the NHL has become sought-after by multiple networks. This will be transformational to the NHL’s national revenue picture, which has lagged for some time since ESPN abandoned it in the early 2000s. Gary Bettman and David Proper have done a great job building the league into a true major league media property.
The sponsorship market seems hot. No issues there. Is it sponsorship revenue alone that is fueling these eye-popping deals?
Kosner: The ad market is hot now, but with ratings down across the board, will there be enough sports GRPs (gross rating points) to buy? Part of the energy here is coming from betting companies looking to build brand as legalized sports betting accelerates state by state – and to use sports to sign up more first-time depositors.
Desser: Sponsorship helps but the main driver of revenue is pay TV subscriber fees and current + future subscription revenue from SVOD (Subscription Video on Demand). The future revenue adds leverage to the valuation as they (like entertainment companies and Wall street) consider the lifetime value of a sub, and right now, valuations on new streaming services are very high for that reason.
Amazon struck hard and is putting lots of dough behind Thursday nights. Can other major digital retailers like e-Bay for instance take an interest. E-Bay engages with 35% of American consumers?
Kosner: I doubt it but it wouldn’t surprise me to see telecom giants like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile jump in, using sports to supplement their Netflix, Disney+, Discovery+ offers. They’re the real bundle now.
Desser: I’d also consider competitors of Amazon as potential players…Walmart, Costco, Target are unlikely to completely leave entertainment content + retail to Amazon alone (Amazon Prime is a subscription service which packages together free shipping, entertainment programming, music, photo storage, and many other items to create subscriber value). That could also pave the way for 3-way tie-ups with Apple, Netflix, and Google.
Kosner: I have to admit, David, that Ed seconded your point so maybe I need to reconsider …
How will Amazon measure the results of its investment? Where does it expect to generate its revenue beyond advertising? Can the NFL be a profitable package?
Kosner: Amazon is an eCommerce company – so, gaining new Amazon Prime members (lift), better retention of those Prime members (less churn), targeting TV advertising to those members, presenting them with new commerce opportunities, perhaps a new Black Friday initiative … In general, Amazon can use its superior personalization to grow affinity with NFL fans and take a chunk of ad sales in NFL broadcasts. Most media companies have some sort of black box analysis to tell them whether or not a particular sports or entertainment package is profitable. Amazon is perhaps the most analytic of all sports TV rights buyers. I expect them to make the point internally and externally that their NFL investment is profitable for them.
Desser: Amazon is unique with ads, promotional value and subscription like traditional networks, plus the data analytics, commerce and future options like ticket sales, travel packages, merchandise and even prescriptions. Figure Amazon to also play in the gambling space as a data-based operation. Thus, Amazon can make money via content in many unique ways giving them a competitive advantage. And added sports content provides justification for Prime price increases as well, which they have proven is highly inelastic. The formula is working very well, as Prime now boasts more US subscribers than all pay TV operators combined, next only to traditional OTA (over the air) broadcasters.
Is the very threat of social media and Direct to Consumer (DTC streaming) marketing forcing the Regional Sports Networks (RSNs) to dig deeper into their pockets so that they’re not marginalized?
Kosner: Yes and RSNs have to embrace both to survive and re-invent themselves.
Desser: RSNs have valuable, exclusive content that fans want. The marketplace is changing, but content is still king. RSNs are the incumbents, so they start out with established revenues and credibility that newcomers don’t have. Teams are very cautious about how they approach the platform (media). That is the primary way most fans experience their products. That isn’t something easily entrusted to newcomers. Change will happen, but RSNs still represent value in a changing ecosystem.
What’s the next piece of intrusive technology that will affect the way fans consume games?
Kosner: Sub-second video latency to enable in-play betting, instant highlights, watch party tech and other features.
Desser: The NFL carved out an opportunity in this space in the new deals. Look for others to follow. I also think the idea of live cut-ins as a new product is intriguing.
There is the issue of Sunday Ticket. We know that DirecTV won’t bid again. Where is it headed and how can it differ from a distribution perspective? Any last minute, surprise bidders?
Kosner: Sunday Ticket could go non-exclusive. it’s an appealing product for streaming platforms.
Desser: Yes, unlike the other NFL packages, Sunday Ticket has always been an à la carte subscription offering, that requires a buy-through, meaning that you had to first buy a DirecTV subscription in order to get Sunday Ticket. This means that it has both direct and indirect revenue opportunities for a licensee. Amazon, ESPN+ or YouTube tv could offer Sunday Ticket as a way to get new prime, ESPN+ or YouTube TV subscribers, and then still charge for Sunday Ticket subscriptions on top. And, like HBO, this need not be exclusive. DirecTV could even keep non-exclusive rights at a lower cost as a retention tool. While it might drive fewer new sign-ups, a non-exclusive deal with multiple players could maximize total NFL à la carte subscription sales.
Will the NBA, MLB and NHL ever go an NFL model and sell all their rights to one network that would also get local distribution rights?
Kosner: if the RSN business unravels it’s likely that some sort of hybrid arrangement will emerge.
Desser: Historically, there was only so much shelf space for NBA, NHL, and MLB on a national basis. This drove the current national/local bifurcation approach. While any change will impact teams in different ways, depending on market size and attractiveness, something more like the NFL model could very well emerge in places from the changing dynamics of the regional business.
What do these leagues and networks do about recapturing young viewers?
Kosner: Most need a new playbook and will have to re-examine their current rights agreements and philosophies around exclusivity, distributing live games and highlights. You have to be where your audience is – and that is going to be increasingly fragmented.
Desser: This is something that sports has never had to deal with before. The built-in father/son bonding and things like Little League created automatic affinity for young fans. Sports has taken this automatic fan development for granted historically. Now under 30s don’t have pay TV, and prefer Esports rather than playing catch with Dad. Teams and leagues will have to find new ways to get where future fans are in order to indoctrinate them and power the business for future generations.
Betting has been embraced by the leagues. DraftKings recently announced that it’s purchasing VSiN for $100 million. How will it change the way we watch games in the next ten years or so?
Kosner: We are likely to see separate streaming feeds that feature in-play betting. However, most betting activity will probably take place on your phone than on your TV set. The movement of betting companies to get into content (such as DraftKings purchasing VSiN) will probably be hit and miss. I favor connections to live games, influencers versus establishing your own sports media company.
Are you surprised by the continued growth in franchise values – despite the deep losses suffered by the scourge of Covid?
Desser: Covid is mostly (though not entirely) a transitory event. While it has long term implications, humans continue to be hard-wired to gather. Sports, concerts, weddings, and even business dinners are all things we enjoy. However, never before have we needed to question the wisdom of getting into a room with 20,000 others. This will pose a long- term hang-over, but there is also pent-up demand to eat, play, watch, travel, gather and cheer. The growing number of the world’s billionaires, with little left to spend on after buying a few homes, a jet, and saving humanity, are left with sports franchises as a real life play toy and the ultimate status symbol.
Kosner: The rich “franchise team” will continue to get richer. There is plenty of wealth out there and very few beachfront properties. Values of the 32 NFL teams will benefit from the new TV and betting data deals. Smaller market teams with less certain local TV rights potential may not be as successful.
Desser: It is the most exclusive of all “clubs,” with “initiation” starting in the multiple billions of dollars.
What are the two of you focusing on and what kind of questions are you being asked?
Kosner: I am fascinated by the explosive growth of the video games business and believe it provides a roadmap of sorts for sports.
Desser: I am constantly focused on how the old world of pay TV sports will evolve as a practical matter. The underlying dynamics of changing taste, availability of broadband, expectation of on-demand products of all sorts must co-exist with a historical business model based on nearly everyone paying a small amount for nearly every kind of programming they could want in a huge package. Like when cable evolved from broadcast, and again when digital/DBS (Direct Broadcast Satellite) provided an alternative to cable, the new world of SVOD (Subscription Video on Demand), DTC (Direct to Consumer), and AVOD (Advertising supported Video on Demand) superimposed upon an installed pay TV base provides financial and practical exposure challenges for the sports industry. Trying to be ahead of that curve provides a fascinating, dynamic puzzle to solve.
***
For more information on our guests visit:
Ed Desser www.desser.tv
John Kosner www.kosnermedia.com
John Kosner on “Hot Mic” issues with Sportico’s John Wall Street
Original Article: Sportico, by JohnWallStreet, April 13th, 2021
Back in late March, NHL referee Tim Peel was fired after admitting on a “hot mic” that a penalty called in a game between the Nashville Predators and Detroit Red Wings was predetermined. That slip-up came two months after Golf Channel microphones caught PGA Tour star Justin Thomas uttering an anti-gay slur following a missed putt. (It’s believed he was fined; the PGA does not publicly disclose disciplinary actions toward its members.) That followed just weeks after Meyers Leonard was banished from the Miami Heat indefinitely for using a derogatory term during a live video game stream (Kyle Larson was fired by Chip Ganassi Racing for a similar offense in 2020). But despite the series of costly microphone missteps, a pair of media industry insiders—Mark Gross (senior vice president, production and remote events, ESPN) and Dan Cohen (SVP, Octagon)—expect that leagues will only be providing their media partners with more access moving forward (think: MLB Spring Training on ESPN). “Collectively, the top priority [for leagues and networks] is serving the sports fan, and access is at the very top of the list of what they want,” Gross said.
Our Take: Sports leagues looking to gain younger fans and/or keep them engaged will provide more and more access to their media partners because that is what sports fans have come to expect. “This is an established element of broadcast at this point,” Cohen said. “[The leagues] opened up the opportunity for fans to be this close to the action. [They] can’t close that lid now. Sports leagues are punching into the wind if they think they can [now] turn the ship away from providing consumers a better viewing experience.” Gross agreed, saying, “Access has been increasing for a long time now across sports, so the cat is out of the bag in that regard.”
Research studies done by ESPN during the 2020 season have confirmed that point. When given a choice of alternative production elements, most fans advocated for ones that brought them deeper into the telecast. The element fans were most passionate about was the utilization of player microphones to provide the natural sounds and conversations during a game.
John Kosner was on board with that line of thinking until the recent succession of hot mic incidents. The former NBA and ESPN executive-turned-startup investor now views “the combination of hot mic risk, social media’s instant global distribution and the current unforgiving culture that we all live in” as too great a liability for the big four leagues, and thinks a change in approach is on the horizon. The potential for “players, coaches and executives [to blow] themselves up instantaneously by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time is so palpable that you’re going to have people retreating here. When you have incidents that come up, and the punishment is that the person who makes the mistake is gone forever, there is just too much risk,” he reasoned. Remember, there was already a lot of pushback before the recent series of mic slips.
Kosner suspects it won’t just be the players’ and coaches’ unions, worried about one of their members landing in hot water, that will oppose the increased use of hot mics on the field. “If [a team] has a star player, who is caught saying something offensive, and there is public pressure for the team to sever their relationship with that player, then the owner feels [the burden], the team feels it, and the league feels it,” Kosner said.
Putting on-field/behind-the-scenes audio content on a short delay is a logical enough solution to the problem. Kosner reasoned leagues could “achieve 85% of the value and take out most of the risk” by doing so. But while a delay is fine for the purpose of short audio vignettes or an alternative feed, the approach would seemingly run counter to the leagues’ desire to capitalize on sports betting. “You need a real-time audio/visual feed to make in-game prop bets,” Cohen reminded. In-game sports betting is expected to explode in the U.S. within the next three to five years. For perspective, Bet365 has estimated roughly 80% of sports betting revenues in the U.K. come from in-play bets.
It’s fair to point out, as Kosner did, that “access is just one part of modernizing the game experience to get more [young] people interested.” Providing those fans with “watch party” functionality (commonplace in the gaming world) or any number of other innovations could potentially serve the same purpose. But Cohen says, “While a block party is great and creating multiple feeds with alternative broadcasters is great and tokenizing a match like the NWSL has on Twitch is awesome, none of these different engagement enhancements or innovations replace feeling like you’re a part of [the game] as miking up some of these athletes.”
To be clear, Cohen didn’t deny that “mic slips” can be problematic. But he said leagues concerned about them should focus their attention on accountability and education rather than trying to put the toothpaste (i.e. access) back in the tube. “It’s incumbent upon these leagues to remind people when you’re in public, you’re in public,” he said. “Everyone on the court or field [including the coaches and referees] needs to be aware that [on-court/field mics] are now a normal operating procedure for sports that are broadcast.” Those on or near the field of play simply need to be responsible for the language they use in the workplace—no different than employees in any other field of work.
Key questions teams should ask now about their RSN deal
Original Article: Sports Business Journal, by John Kosner and Ed Desser, 4/5/2021
“How much more are my rights worth?”
For the last 30-plus years that’s the first question teams had about their next local media deal. But now, with the NFL’s $100 billion-plus agreements speeding pay TV’s decline and (with an assist from COVID-19) Americans’ move to streaming, change is upon us. “Power” RSN teams retain solid options, but for the majority of pro franchises, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The pressing questions facing teams right now:
Can they expect to get an increase in rights from their current RSN partner? That depends upon the leverage the team has in its market, and when and where its last deal landed. If under-market, the team should still expect some improvement, though not nearly as much a reset as in the past. If already at or above market, don’t expect much, if any, growth. Supporting value: There is little else in media quite like the home team in the home market (check out “How to make your media rights more valuable”; SBJ 4/23/18).
Since streaming is all the rage, should a team abandon RSN distribution now to establish a new position? Probably not. RSNs still provide favorable economics and broader coverage — at least for now. Streaming has certain benefits, but is less likely to produce superior results for most teams near-term.
With the traditional cable audience aging, how can a team reach and galvanize interest among young viewers? This was a big challenge even before sports media started to change dramatically in the last decade. Heavy use of social media, creation of non-live game products to attract younger fans (highlight sharing, partial games, experience-orientation, access to players and behind the scenes, esports, fantasy and betting) all play a role. However, teams need to explore some availability of their live product on platforms where young fans are. This cuts to the heart of traditional RSN exclusivity grants, which support lucrative rights payments.
Can a team retain streaming rights and sell linear rights to an RSN like the NFL did previously with Fox and Amazon on Thursdays? Perhaps, but expect the RSN to demand a steep discount for the loss of exclusivity, and don’t anticipate replacing lost rights fees with direct-to-consumer subscriptions alone. It might be better for the team to partner with its RSN to develop a differentiated companion streaming product which addresses both sides’ interests. But the RSN will have to justify such an approach with its MVPD distributors, contend with MFNs and, of course, the execution of the streaming app matters (see “Sports DTC squeeze play”; SBJ 1/13/2020).
Are long-term deals (10-plus years) still preferable? Probably not. With much greater uncertainty in cable distribution, new opportunities developing, and added risk that highly leveraged RSNs may not always be able to meet their financial obligations, shorter deals seem prudent.
Are Apple, Netflix, Amazon and YouTube poised to be big bidders, filling in the potential void of retrenching RSNs? Unlikely. Netflix has focused on long-tail “evergreen” programming — content they can produce and show for many years globally — unlike live sports, which principally matters when they’re played. Apple has not yet shown interest in acquiring sports, focused rather on entertainment and its “services” business. Amazon has just made an $11 billion bet on NFL, but that’s a national deal, and its emphasis has been international with major brands such as the Premier League. YouTube’s audience is growing significantly without live sports, though it has dabbled with some regional MLS rights (see “Netflix of sports”; SBJ 1/18/21).
How does a team know if it’s a good DTC candidate? Market size is critical in forming the denominator for any revenue projection. Relative popularity is next most important. If just tens of thousands of fans watch a team’s games when they are available via RSNs (without game-specific incremental cost), what portion will choose to pay for a team subscription? Also, smaller audiences will influence ad and promotional value. However, a highly popular franchise in a single-team market could have a true opportunity. Further, if a team’s current deal is well below market, it may have to consider DTC in order to achieve a material fair market value reset in today’s environment. DTC is also another way (along with fans threatening to switch carriers) to address coverage gaps resulting from certain MVPDs (e.g., Dish, YouTube TV) not carrying particular RSNs. However, a team that doesn’t deliver large audiences, or in a midsize market, may be better of being packaged with other teams on an RSN or local broadcast station.
How can leagues assist regional rights transactions? A league could marry its own national network (NBA TV, MLB Network) and/or out-of-market streaming services (NBA League Pass, MLB.TV) with local team rights in individual markets. The league’s network could serve as an optional backstop if a team can’t get the local deal it desires, by packaging its innermarket game rights with the league network to derive value and exposure through a combined sale (while raising attribution/allocation issues). Will this become part of the new NHL/ESPN deal? Alternatively, leagues could revert to selling primarily national TV packages, as the NFL has done for decades. How a team exploits its media rights is both its biggest business challenge and opportunity. Time to plan wisely!
Ed Desser is president of Desser Media Inc. (www.desser.tv), which has advised on over $30 billion in sports/media transactions. John Kosner is president of Kosner Media (www.kosnermedia.com), a digital media expert and sports investor. Together they developed league strategy and ran the NBA’s electronic media operation in the ’80s and ’90s.
John Kosner appeared in the SPAC in Sports panel for UJA-Federation on March 24
Original Article: UJA, March 24th
PART 2: SPACS IN SPORTS
INTRODUCTION
Sports For Youth Council Members:
Rob Tillis, Inner Circle Sports
Seth Finkel, Neuberger Berman
MODERATOR
Donna Orender
CEO, Orender Unlimited & Founder, Generation W
Former President, WNBA
PANELISTS
Jon Ledecky
Co-Owner, New York IslandersJohn Kosner
President, Kosner MediaAlan Kestenbaum
Chairman of the Board and CEO, Sports Ventures Acquisition Corp.
John Kosner spoke to Digiday about the NFL's latest rights deals
Original Article: Digiday, by Tim Peterson, March 23rd, 2021
For the past several years, the National Football League’s next round of broadcast rights deals were seen as the likely tipping point for streaming to overtake TV.
But now that those deals have been announced, they underscore an oxymoronic moment: streaming is overtaking TV, but also that TV is overtaking streaming. “It’s less a revolution than an evolution,” said Patrick Crakes, a former Fox Sports executive and principal of Crakes Media Consulting
The major TV network groups, including Disney, Fox, NBCUniversal and ViacomCBS, retained their rights to air NFL games on their TV networks on March 18. But the 11-year deals also enable the companies to distribute more games on their streaming services to people who do not have traditional TV. And whereas the potential loomed for a tech giant to swoop in and steal rights away from the traditional media companies, in the end only the NFL’s Thursday Night Football package went to Amazon, albeit on an exclusive basis aside from the local TV broadcasts.
As a result, the NFL’s latest rights deals do not appear to represent a watershed moment for the convergence of traditional TV and streaming. But they are — or, at the least, they have the potential be. “To me when all of these games are available to stream and you don’t need a pay-television subscription, that’s when things change tremendously,” said John Kosner, a former ESPN executive and president of Kosner Media.
That moment may not be much farther off. Starting this year, NBCUniversal and ViacomCBS will have the rights to stream their NFL games on Peacock and Paramount+, respectively. Additionally, Disney will air one game exclusively on ESPN+ in 2022 and has the rights to air all of its NFL games on the subscription-based streamer starting in 2023. Fox appears to be the only one of the TV networks not to acquire rights to make games available to streaming-only audiences, though it will air condensed games on its free, ad-supported streamer Tubi. That the networks have acquired these streaming rights puts them in position to retain their positions in the broader TV market as it shifts to streaming.
“It’s very hard to see that the future of any digital distribution won’t be owned by the same established media companies that owned the old” distribution model, Crakes said.
However, while the networks have the rights to stream games to cord cutters, only NBCUniversal has been explicit about actually doing so. Disney and ViacomCBS said they have the opportunity to do so but not that they, in fact, will as soon as they have the option. That leaves open the possibility that the companies could choose to keep their NFL games limited to traditional TV viewers. That would be an odd move considering the networks are reportedly paying more than $2 billion per year — $2.7 billion in Disney’s case — for their NFL rights, per CNBC. But it’s because the networks are paying so much that they may be wary of making the games accessible to cord cutters and severely undercutting their linear TV businesses that effectively subsidize their streaming businesses.
Protecting their linear TV businesses appears to be why the TV network owners were reportedly willing to pay 75% to 80% more money for the right to air NFL games, according to The Wall Street Journal. “For these networks, they’re trying to give life and breath to their traditional channels,” said Eunice Shin, who has consulted for companies including Disney, Warner Bros. and NBCUniversal and is a partner at consulting firm Prophet.
If the TV network owners all were to make their NFL games available to streaming-only audiences, “it’s going to accelerate the decline of pay-TV subscriptions, which already largely subsidizes sports in this country at the moment. That’s going to be an earth-moving moment,” Kosner said.
The earth is moving, though. The pay-TV industry lost 6 million subscribers in 2021, according to research firm MoffettNathanson, and two of the companies that own NFL rights — Disney and NBCUniversal — each reorganized their companies around streaming last year. So, for as much as the latest NFL deals suggest the TV market isn’t changing all that much as streaming takes center stage, it is changing, but the companies involved are largely staying the same. “Ninety percent of [NFL games] are staying with established partners who built new streaming assets,” Crakes said.
The TV network owners’ primary motivation for paying up to retain their NFL rights may have been to protect their legacy linear businesses, but at least a contributing factor was likely that traditional TV’s most prized programming could prove just as valuable in building up their streaming businesses.
Offering NFL games could help the networks’ standalone streamers to contend with the likes of Netflix and WarnerMedia’s HBO Max in the war for people’s streaming subscription budgets. Not only may people be more likely to sign up for Peacock or Paramount+ because of the NFL’s availability, but they may be more likely to stay subscribed.
““Fewer people are going to drop subscriptions from September through February because of the power of NFL programming.””
That power was not lost on Amazon whose acquisition of NFL rights should not be overlooked. While last year Netflix had hits like “Tiger King” and “Queen’s Gambit,” Disney+ had “Hamilton” and “The Mandalorian” and HBO Max had “Wonder Woman 1984,” Amazon Prime Video “didn’t really have a moment. There was just no news about Amazon,” said Shin. That has now changed. Whether it amounts to much by way of drastically increasing Amazon Prime Video’s audience remains to be seen, but it will likely increase the competition among TV networks and streamers for live sports rights overall.
“Amazon’s aggressive move into sports will neither be their last nor are they likely to be the only digital entity to get into sports,” said Kosner. “This might have been the moment that broke the dam a little bit.”
Is Gonzaga an NFT?
Original Article: Medium, by John Kosner and J Moses, March 14th, 2021
Is Gonzaga an NFT?
Not yet, but soon.
Gonzaga is the undefeated #1 seed in men’s college basketball as tonight millions of us fill out our March Madness brackets. A year from now, we will probably use blockchain technology for our brackets – opening up prizes, experiences and recognition not possible today; the winning one would become March 13, 2022’s biggest “NFT.”
Perhaps you live under a rock … or your eyes glaze over when confronted with the latest complicated and speculative idea. What is an NFT and what is all the excitement about?
An NFT is a “non-fungible token.” As Mason Nystrom and Ty Young of Messari write in their excellent explainer, “NFT’s are a [digital] file format that transfers data and value on a blockchain network like Ethereum … an NFT is simply a token (or piece of information) that is unique.” An NFT is neither divisible nor interchangeable – you can’t exchange it 1-1 like you can Bitcoin, today’s leading cryptocurrency. Today, among other things, you can buy NFTs that represent art work (Yes, a Beeple went for $69 million at Christie's this week) and in sports, NBA video highlights through Dapper Labs’ “NBA Top Shot” app (where one collector’s $175K investment is now worth $20 million).
Virtual goods are coming to sports – finally.
This is the third in a series of essays about why gaming is ascendant in culture, especially among the young, and what those of us in Sports, Media, Investment … all of us in business … can learn from games. In our second installment, published on Super Bowl Sunday, Feb. 7, 2021, we wrote that games naturally promote and benefit from super-engaged communities. A direct result: a virtual goods business in games worth $79B annually. The business of those “goods” – including “skins” to dress up and “powers” to enhance your in-game persona – is actually growing 8% a year. But Sports gets about $0 from virtual goods.
That is, until NFTs and blockchain – the most important new trend in sports fandom and, intriguingly, a potential threat to the games business which invented the virtual goods bonanza.
You can buy an NFT and own it forever and monetize it however and whenever you want. That is possible because of blockchain – the new internet that allows everything to be catalogued. David Pakman, a partner with VC firm Venrock and one of the earliest investors in Dapper Labs, notes that NBA Top Shot [here is an example owned by John’s friend Ryan] is “a digital collectible. It has a provenance. It has a set of rules encoded in software behind it. It is written on a public blockchain. It’s fully verifiable. It runs across hundreds or thousands of computers around the internet. On a network that anyone can join.” Because NFTs can be cataloged, they can be traced. In there is the revolution.
Today, there are two types of virtual goods:
1. Powers & Skins
2. Collectibles
Powers & Skins. Virtual goods in games (the $79B business referenced above) is fully-integrated. Think: Fortnite. You can only use virtual goods in the game you’re playing. They give you an edge in the game. Favored by early adopters and super users, they power the super communities supporting games.
This industry is pre-blockchain and there are downsides. Virtual goods in games are virtual and you only really “own” them while you’re engaged in the individual game. They are not interchangeable between games. Control of these game virtual goods rests with the game’s publisher (like Epic Games) which means, per Pakman that you have “to trust them not to print more all of a sudden like Fortnite does all the time to ruin your scarce assets.”
With the explosion of NBA Top Shot, one might expect that any video game based upon league name and marks – such as EA’s Madden NFL or FIFA games – would begin to include NFTs.
That is not likely anytime soon.
A version of game virtual goods (“loot boxes”) is the subject of a class action suit against Apple in California, arguing that these are “gambling” and potentially “predatory practices enticing consumers, including children.” To counter any gambling taint, game companies offering virtual goods take the following legal position currently: virtual goods can be consumed within the game only and nothing of value can be transferred or traded out of the game.
Worth noting also that NFTs are the nemesis of the game model because the player, not the publisher, actually owns them and thus they have a value outside of the game’s vertical walled garden. The 80 (or rather, 79)/2 rule applies here. Two percent of the super engaged gamers create the 79B virtual games marketplace. We expect similar dynamics for sports.
Collectibles. Sports collectibles hasn’t really changed its physical roots since we were kids. It’s still a robust business. But prior to the blockchain, there was no way to enforce digital scarcity.
For those of us over 40, remember when you saved up your money as a kid to buy Topps trading cards? Put them in your bike spokes or traded them with your friends? Then you put them in a cigar box and there they sat until you moved and your parents tossed them out? In J’s case, heartbreakingly, movers lost his childhood memories box. In that box was a Stan Musial baseball card in mint condition. John would nag his father to go to New York Yankees’ Bat Day so he could get a Reggie Jackson bat. The latter was the subject of great attention for 48 hours, then went into a closet and oblivion.
The new world of NFTs solves all of these problems and creates monumental new opportunities. Yes, NFTs are virtual and you may think: who wants a virtual card, bat, highlight or ticket? But let us explain why you might. Remember, you were once reluctant to purchase a movie online when you could buy a physical jewel box version instead. Collectibles are morphing from physical to digital because of the scarcity enabled by NFTs on the blockchain. Your possession of the NFT with its digital certificate of authenticity means movers can’t lose it, you can’t spill water on it, etc. The new owner of the New York Mets’ Steve Cohen recently purchased Collectors Universe. How long until the Mets roll out a game ticket that’s an NFT and rewards their long-suffering fans? Scan in the QR code at the gate and, after you attend 25 games, you get a tour of the clubhouse. Fifty and perhaps you can meet the Owner himself!
And then there is the real game-changer: the subject of the collectible and its owner – say, the Honus Wagner estate or Zion Williamson and you – can now capture future value together.
In the past, professional athletes would get paid for their rights to be represented in a trading card, typically through their league’s joint-player license with a third party like Topps or Upper Deck. That’s it. When their card value escalated, the players got bupkis. But now, the players don’t just participate in the future value of their virtual good, they have incentive to do so. Forever.
As in games, this is where super-engaged communities (the subject of our last column) come in. There is a connection between the original Bitcoin subreddits of the previous decade, wallstreetbets and the 2021 stock market “short squeeze” and where NFTs are headed. Passionate communities will drive adoption and value of NFTs over time as individual investors stand to gain by connection to the creator. It is one thing to subscribe to a notable’s YouTube account, another to be financially tied.
This is a crucial point as we look at the future of sports and the triple whammy of (1) the current decline of key revenue sources like pay TV through cord cutting, (2) the lessening interest of young audiences towards watching live games and sports in general and (3) escalating player salaries. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has made the point that 99% of a team’s fans will never attend a game. Now through digital collectibles and unique products like Fan Tokens (pioneered by Socios, a European blockchain startup, now serving some of the top European football clubs like FC Barcelona, Juventus and Paris Saint Germain), sports can offer an interactive experience with previously impossible access to young fans globally. Today, fans of certain teams can choose the music that their players enter to and the shoelaces they wear. In time, that input will expand. And, sports rights become more valuable to digital players!
Imagine if the bat that John forgot about included a limited-edition signature from the Yankee Hall of Famer? If it constantly updated with new video highlights and metadata? [Nike is already doing this with NBA replica uniforms]. If John could show it to friends on his phone and potentially sell shares of it through collectible marketplaces like Rally Road? If, at the time, it could have facilitated some actual connection to Reggie Jackson?
Typically, collective bargaining agreements are among the most grueling processes and often feel like a zero-sum game for leagues and their players. In the new world, however, the right collective bargaining agreement is the key to unlocking tremendous value for both. Ultimately, those 100 “official” Zion dunk highlights on NBA Top Shot are most valuable with both the imprimatur of the league and its IP (the highlights, the marks, the brand) and Zion’s participation himself. How long before a blockbuster deal like Dak Prescott’s 4-year, $160M contract with the Dallas Cowboys includes a club buyout of the player’s NFT rights?
Of course, it will be a long and pothole-filled road getting from here to NFT nirvana. The user experience in acquiring many NFTs remains hopelessly difficult for normal people. It’s not a coincidence that Dapper Labs, creator of NBA Top Shot, is actually a games company. If you use Top Shot, there is no mention of NFTs, blockchain or crypto wallets and you can use your credit card. Dapper is abstracting the experience just as Steve Jobs and Apple did with the complications of MP3s and digital music players when they launched the world-beating iPods 20 years ago. Additionally, some of the blockchains being utilized today will not succeed. For that and other reasons, the legal agreements here need work. Today’s speculative boom is certainly tomorrow’s bust. The energy, ecological, social-political, money-laundering and IP control issues now being raised are complicated to say the least.
Nonetheless, in time, we believe these problems will all be solved or dealt with. NFTs are a breakthrough for sports – not just economically but because of the joy they will bring.
Originally, we would fill our NCAA brackets by pen and paper. Then they moved online – and the faraway schools we selected, such as Gonzaga, were pre-NFT’s (digital assets that were ours). We may be a ways off from sports’ virtual goods having powers – like a Gonzaga-killer that fans of the other 67 NCAA Tournament schools would be buying now – as that product would require a vertically-integrated engine similar to what we see in games. But that’s coming too.
Meanwhile ... look out! And, since you asked, yes, this column is also available as an NFT here: JohnKosner.Kred
John Kosner is President of Kosner Media (www.kosnermedia.com), a digital and media consultancy, and an investor and advisor in sports tech startups. He was the senior digital executive at ESPN for 20 years. J Moses has been in and around the Sports, Games, and Tech businesses for over 40 years. He has been a Director at T2 since 2007, and is currently an Executive Producer on a scripted Esports show for the CW (www.optinstudios.com). Both John and J are disciples of the legendary Roone Arledge of ABC Sports.
John Kosner moderated the SIGA Female Leadership in Sport Web Summit panel, “Has Women’s Sport Been Hit Harder by COVID-19” on March 9, 2021
Original Article: SIGA, March 9th, 2021
John Kosner moderated the SIGA Female Leadership in Sport Web Summit panel, “Has Women’s Sport Been Hit Harder by COVID-19” on March 9, 2021.
A big thank you to the Sport Integrity Global Alliance for the opportunity and to all of the speakers!
John Kosner on the NHL in Lake Tahoe for Barrett Sports Media
Original Article: Barrett Sports Media, by Seth Everett, February 26th, 2021
Was the NHL’s great success also a great failure?
“You can’t have success if you don’t risk failure,” NHL commissioner Gary Bettman commented to Mike Tirico on Saturday as the sun made the league’s most picturesque outdoor game unplayable.
Instead of a 3 pm eastern time NBC telecast, the last two periods of the game between the Colorado Avalanche and Vegas Golden Knights was moved off NBC to the lame-duck NBC Sports Network at midnight EST. Sunday’s game between the Boston Bruins and Philadelphia Flyers moved from 3 pm to 2 pm to then 7 pm and back to NBCSN.
“I still think it was a big success given how unique it was once the ice situation was squared away,” NESN announcer Billy Jaffe told me. “How majestic it was, is what made it successful.”
The pictures alone were breathtaking. I found myself glued to the television. Unlike the 31 previous outdoor games, no fans could attend. They didn’t even build stands. Television was the only way to expose that scene to the masses.
Saturday’s first period averaged 1.398 million viewers on NBC. The final two periods on NBCSN averaged 394,000 viewers. That’s more than a million fewer viewers after the delay.
“The sunny weather and its impact on the weather was a bad break for the NHL in terms of lost windows and audience on NBC,” said John Kosner, President Kosner Media and former head of digital media at ESPN. “However, the weekend was a spectacle, it generated tons of attention and coverage and did produce very big audiences for NBCSN.”
“I thought it was spectacular,” NHL Network senior reporter EJ Hradek told me. “I think every time they go play an outdoor game there are always risks. I’ve covered almost all of them. I was not at this one, unfortunately, because nobody was really at this one. I’ve been in situations where games are moved and changed.”
Going into the weekend, the NHL’s decision to try to play at Lake Tahoe was one of the more innovative ones I’d seen. Certainly, during the year-long pandemic, it’s one of the most out-of-the-box ideas from any sport. Still, if a million people could not see the end of the game, what was it all done for?
“People will always talk about the sunny weather that delayed the NHL in Lake Tahoe,” said Kosner. “That’s not all bad in my book!”
“We’re in such a crazy unique environment right now that I think anything different is good. It’s worth risk-taking, but it’s also gonna have challenges presented. But I think when it was all said and done, especially the Flyers and Bruins showed itself beautifully.”
The Sunday night game between the Flyers and Bruins averaged 1 million viewers. The afternoon NBC replaced the game with a Washington Capitals-New Jersey Devils that only averaged 750,000 viewers. The debate rages how many more people would have watched a Lake Tahoe afternoon game on that Sunday.
The NHL was being bold in designing this unique event. Previous NHL outdoor games have been held in football or baseball stadiums with over 50,000 people.
“I still enjoyed the pageantry,” Jaffe added. “The whole ‘Mystery, Alaska’ type thing about it. But on the business side, which I’m not really qualified to speak about. I’m sure it wasn’t as much of a success as it could have been.”
One other issue with the event. The Colorado Avalanche uniforms received tons of praise for their version of the “Reverse Retro” jersey that every team has. The Avs wore the logo of their previous incarnation, the Quebec Nordiques. The Nordiques left Quebec in 1995 and became the Avalanche, winning the Stanley Cup in their first season in Denver.
I think the decision to use that logo, and for NBC to put that logo in their graphics is a direct insult to the fans in Quebec. Their team was taken from them. That does not celebrate their history. It rubs salt in the wound.
The Avalanche are not the only team that uses a previous incarnation of the franchise. The Carolina Hurricanes are wearing the Hartford Whalers logo as their Reverse Retro jersey. One Hartford fan told me it reminds him of the departure, a wound that is not fully healed.
I suggested that if the NBA’s Oklahoma City Thunder wore Seattle SuperSonics uniforms for some kind of retro night, there would be a legitimate mutiny in the Pacific Northwest. Relocation is a sad story in sports, and celebrating it, sends the wrong message.
“I mean, it is the same franchise,” Hradek said. “The franchise was sold and moved. I didn’t live in Hartford. I didn’t live in Quebec City. I could only tell you as a hockey fan. I mean, I enjoy seeing those jerseys because I don’t take offense to them, but again, I can’t speak for a fan in Hartford or a fan in Quebec City.”
The Avalanche could have used the old Colorado Rockies, hockey team. That franchise played in Denver but left to go to New Jersey in 1982. The difference is that Denver got a new team. The Wild honor the North Stars, but again nobody is left in the cold.
All in all, I applaud the NHL for trying the Lake Tahoe experience. Unfortunately, it had to hurt to lose a million viewers. If a picture is worth a thousand words then Lake Tahoe can write its own novel.
John Kosner on the Clubhouse App with Sportico’s John Wall Street
Original Article: Sportico, by John Wall Street, February 8th, 2021
Back in late January, Clubhouse—an audio-based social networking startup—confirmed it had closed on a $100 million Series B round (led by Andreesen Horowitz), reportedly at a $1 billion valuation. However, despite the company’s newly minted unicorn status, the invite-only iPhone app remained largely under the radar outside of Silicon Valley circles. That changed on Jan. 31, when an unexpected conversation between Tesla founder Elon Musk and Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev brought Clubhouse into the mainstream lexicon, sparking a secondary market for invite codes in the process (each user receives a limited number of invitations to dole out during the pre-launch period). With the drop-in audio platform gaining momentum—roughly a third of the app’s 3.5 million-plus downloads came within the last week—it seemed like an opportune time to explore if/how Clubhouse is likely to affect the sports ecosystem (the company declined an opportunity to share its thoughts). Conversations with a tech-savvy venture capitalist and a sports media investor/adviser painted vastly differing views on the subject.
Our Take: Peter Rojas (partner, Betaworks Ventures) has long been a believer that social audio can play a prominent role within the existing media landscape. Back in 2015, he invested in a mobile voice-messaging app called Unmute that served a similar function (but was just a bit ahead of its time). He says the ease with which creators can produce audio-only content, and the ability for both the audience and creators to go in depth on topics, differentiates the platform from other creator-driven social networks in the marketplace. Of course, audio-only channels are well-suited for deep conversations because “it can be easier for audiences to listen in to longer, more nuanced conversations when they can do it in the background of something else they are doing, like driving or working out,” Rojas explained. By contrast, “You don’t necessarily want to sit and watch a two hour YouTube video of people discussing something,” he said.
Considering people love to talk about sports, one would think there is a use case for social audio. But John Kosner (founder, Kosner Media) remains skeptical that a drop-in audio app is the “best format” for fans to consume sports-talk programming:
““Podcasting is a more efficient way to find what you want to find out, when you want to find out, and there is virtually an unlimited supply of podcasts.””
Remember, Clubhouse conversations aren’t always going to be taking place at a convenient time, and you can’t fast-forward through them. Old-fashioned AM radio also still exists (the business remains healthier than one might think) and serves the older fans’ need for real-time, in-depth discussion. Kosner did acknowledge “Clubhouse is relatively new, so obviously it will add product features and capabilities.”
Rojas, on the other hand, doesn’t see Clubhouse as a competitor to existing media channels. He says podcasts, radio and social audio are not mutually exclusive, and each can serve a purpose. “Platforms that open [access] up to people who didn’t have the ability to participate before are expanding the media ecosystem. It’s a different audience and different dollars in a lot of cases; and I would never bet against people finding more time to consume the media content they love.”
While it remains to be seen if sports fan will regularly make the time for social audio consumption on top of everything else, Clubhouse does appear to be chasing different dollars than those playing in the podcasting or radio space. Unlike those advertising reliant businesses, Clubhouse plans to drive much of its revenue via subscriptions (presumably to schedule shows hosted by engaging voices) and ticketed events (think: Musk-Tenev chat). The company will retain a percentage of the revenue generated by their creators, no different than Patreon or Substack. The company’s latest round of funding will in part be used to establish a “creators fund”—money to entice talent to participate on the platform.
Reaching critical mass (think: 100 million active monthly users) will help Clubhouse retain creators once they are on the platform. But Kosner said: “It’s not clear how [the platform] scales or gets to a level that really makes it an important part of the sports ecosystem”—even with plans to make invites more widely available and introduce an Android app. The former EVP of digital at ESPN sees the transition from “digital in-crowd” to average Joe as a difficult one to make (there are also moderation issues that need to be addressed). “It’s more likely [the app] serves just a certain small segment of sports fans and is not a big factor in sports anytime soon,” he said.
Rojas balked at the suggestion Clubhouse’s current exclusive nature would be a long-term headwind for the company. “A lot of these [social networks] started as sort of insider, Silicon Valley [apps],” he said. “Twitter started out that way too. The audience ends up expanding.”
In addition, Rojas said, “The sense of proximity and immediacy offered by Clubhouse is really, really powerful.” But considering the rise of the social audio platform has come in the midst of a global pandemic (launched in April ’20), it’s fair to wonder—as Kosner did—“how much of the popularity is because we’re stuck in our homes and have time on our hands. When people are going back out and [regularly interacting with others] will something like [Clubhouse] be as popular?” The answer may determine whether the app will end up playing a prominent role in sports.
Considering the buzz around Clubhouse (see: Clubhouse Media Group, a totally unrelated company, saw its stock price rise as much as 117% on Feb. 1), it is no surprise there are “fast followers” positioning themselves as “Clubhouse for sports.” Even if social audio catches on in sports, it remains to been seen if whether it’s best suited to be verticalized around specific communities (like LockerRoom) or constructed as a broader platform where users can seek out the specific type of content or community they’re interested in (like Clubhouse). It’s possible both platforms could find a dedicated following—though Clubhouse undeniably has more momentum right now.
And as Rojas said, “Momentum has a way of compounding itself.”
A Trillion Hours! Why Community Is The Game Behind The Games
Original Article: Medium, by John Kosner and J Moses, February 7th, 2021
Tonight, again, will be the Tale of Two Rooms.
In our living rooms, we will watch the Super Bowl, while jury rigging together a Twitter/Zoom solution (laptop in front of the couch) so each of us can interact with our friends during the game. Given latency issues for sports broadcasts offered by multiple distributors, we will not all be watching the same feed at the same time. Some of us will see, say, Patrick Mahomes’ TD pass as much as 30-seconds in advance of others. We will not be able to buy a champion’s hat as part of our hacked-together digital viewing party.
Meanwhile, in their bedrooms, our 13-year-old sons will be playing video games on their big screens or laptops as part of a fully-integrated platform – maneuvering, plotting, yelling and screaming at each other in real-time. A true modern community experience made possible by the game’s publisher. To understand why gaming is ascendant in our culture, especially among the young, look no further.
In our first piece published on Jan. 1, 2021, we wrote that the world’s fastest-growing game is … TikTok, and how gaming mechanics is building the most popular media property for young audiences. This is part of our broader POV that there is much that Sports, Media, Investors … all of us in business … can learn from games.
In part II of our series, we explore a key feature of the popularity of games: how they naturally promote and benefit from super-engaged communities.
Super Bowl Sunday is perhaps the biggest community activity day in our country. John Ourand of Sports Business Journal estimates that tonight, CBS will get 95.1M TV-only viewers (before approximately 5MM out-of-home and streaming numbers are added).
And yet, the shared “Watch Party” technology available to us right now is inferior. The pay TV industry has not advanced “TV Everywhere.” As we see with Games, now is the perfect opportunity.
The Games business is differentiated:
It engages its community in real time;
It enables its community to share in bits and bytes;
It mines its community to create stupendous value in virtual goods.
Achieving these three should be possible for Sports and Entertainment too. But both industries must figure out how to do them effectively.
Games publishers are fully vertically-integrated from an ownership standpoint. They own the code, the data and, in most cases, the customer singularly. The result: an end-to-end experience that lets gamers pick and choose what they want, engage with each other as they want – all in real time all over the world. For gamers, it is easy to share clips, purchase virtual goods and interact with celebrity streamers.
The resulting participant numbers in Games are mind-boggling as are the revenues. On an average day, concurrent usage for gamers at peak times is approaching 100MM globally. Per Newzoo, in 2020, Gamers (between community and streaming):
generated practically a trillion hours of activity! One trillion hours.
spent an estimated $79B on the purchase of virtual goods and other merchandise — a category that is growing 8% a year.
That’s a stark contrast with Sports. The sports broadcast (even the Super Bowl) remains (like the linear world in which we grew up) a “push” experience where we watch the game and then talk about it afterwards. COVID has eliminated traditional “water cooler moments,” at least for the time being (few of us will be headed into an office tomorrow morning to chat up our colleagues). Yes, through second-screen experiences like Twitter, Zoom, iMessage, Verizon Mobile, we can all talk about the games globally and watch and share highlights, memes, etc.
But it’s all actually and structurally limited, especially compared to games. For Sports, it used to be that showing the game was community. Now it is enabling fans not just to watch in real time but to do whatever they would like, in whatever-size group. But leagues and rightsholders are not inclined to give their customers to third part social networks and messaging platforms. You can find NFL clips of J’s favorite Steelers WR JuJu Smith-Shuster on YouTube ... but you are not permitted to share them.
The limiter is the historical approach to granting rights. We appreciate the issues — both for rightsholders and licensees — many of whom have, or are negotiating currently, long-term agreements in a period of accelerating change especially with younger audiences. But think about: $79B in virtual goods sales annually for Games. Sports gets about $0. The total cost of U.S. sports rights this year is approximately 25B. We think loosening the reins on sharing activity at the expense of traditional “exclusivities” is actually a win/win. Using the Super Bowl as an example, the NFL could jumpstart a significant new revenue stream with virtual goods and live in-game activities for purchase; CBS would benefit from a much more engaged audience, probably larger at the younger end.
Lessons to take away:
Like game publishers, Rightsholders need to vastly improve their co-viewing and sharing experience. That is the way to own and mine your customer. To start, imagine tonight’s CBS viewing experience with a “+” button where you could easily add friends and then “share your screen” for the synched game telecast plus access to merch, prop betting and fantasy and other streamers. For the Super Bowl, the NFL should offer this and more as its own “Super Viewing” experience — every bit as compelling as what gamers can do right now on Fortnite, Minecraft or World of War Craft (now a $3B business on its own – for Activision Blizzard!). Efforts are underway at Yahoo and startups like Teleparty and LiveLike.
The same opportunity exists for Entertainment. For Disney+, for example, a truly dynamic Watch Party experience for the next installment of “The Mandalorian” opens many new options to surprise and delight an already passionate audience. Once you figure out your community, you can mine it.
And there is an investment thesis here too (elucidated in “The Content Trap” by Bharat Anand) – pay attention to activities and businesses that breed connections. For example, as the sports industry prioritizes betting, don’t forget about fantasy sports.
For sports fans, we believe true co-viewing is when not if. Cable TV pioneer Ted Turner recognized the power of distribution and (community) with the advent of satellites he introduced WTBS, our first nationally-distributed “superstation” in 1976. That caused lots of problems for rightsholders but we overcame them, before TBS became just another national cable network. In 1982, legendary advertising Hall of Famer George Lois famously coined the phrase “I want my MTV” to get carriage on the burgeoning cable distributors shortly after ... and we got our MTV. Forty years later, fans want community watching. We all win by giving them what they want!
John Kosner is President of Kosner Media (www.kosnermedia.com), a digital and media consultancy, and an investor and advisor in sports tech startups. He was the senior digital executive at ESPN for 20 years. J Moses has been in and around the Sports, Games, and Tech businesses for over 40 years. He has been a Director at T2 since 2007, and is currently an Executive Producer on a scripted Esports show for the CW (www.optinstudios.com). Both John and J are disciples of the legendary Roone Arledge of ABC Sports.
Netflix of Sports hasn’t arrived but…
Original Article: Sports Business Journal, by Ed Desser and John Kosner, January 18th, 2021
In the five years since Ed wrote “Handicapping the Netflix of sports” ( SBJ, 3/28/16 ), streaming has boomed: Disney+, HBO Max and Apple TV+ have joined Netflix and Amazon and “over-the-top” is now materially affecting traditional cable. As predicted for sports, BAM and Disney…
The Fourth Quarter of Sports Media, Part II with Ed Desser
Original Article: Sportico, by Ed Desser and John Kosner, January 15th, 2021
Last week, we wrote about electronic sports media heading into its “fourth quarter”—a new streaming epoch driven by developments in tech and entertainment. Today, we examine how the business will further evolve this decade.
We expect the incumbent sports networks to lock in historical advantages (existing rights, relationships, distribution, revenue and brand names) with expensive new NFL agreements, in time for a 17-game regular season.
However, sports will also start to make sense for entertainment streamers, because it offers compelling, day-to-day, original content that provides continuity to help businesses built around hit-driven binge viewing and shows to fit everyone’s filter bubble of taste. (Recall USA Network launched with entertainment—plus MLB, NBA and NHL). In fact, other than gaming and the occasional blockbuster movie, sports may be the last category with broad enough appeal to attract the remaining streaming holdouts. Sports is appointment viewing, an advertising magnet and a means of counter-programming against services with stronger libraries like Netflix. Managing churn is also likely to drive seasonal sports acquisitions (e.g., The Masters), particularly for non-football months.
To integrate sports successfully, entertainment streamers will have to upgrade their home-screen experiences originally designed for video-on-demand (VOD). They’ll also need to add live curated scheduling (as they do for shows/movies), and personalized real-time scores, stats and highlights, to serve sports fans.
The path to follow is fairly well worn. TNT grew quickly with just a half-season of NFL Sunday nights, NBA rights and the MGM library. Then Fox Broadcasting hit its stride with Married with Children, The Simpsons and Sunday afternoon NFL. The same process was reinvented over the past 20 years with HBO offering movies, boxing, The Sopranos and Game of Thrones to justify $15/month. Netflix did it, originally with movies and TV shows (delivered via mail!), and now on-demand streaming hits such as House of Cards and The Crown, a vast global library, and a content budget equivalent of everyone else’s combined. The profitable formula: Offer high-demand, exclusive, promotable content (such as sports) to attract new subscribers, multiply by a price increase, plus ad sales.
Major SVOD platforms are approaching critical mass distribution thresholds, thanks to U.S. broadband penetration that’s greater than conventional linear cable networks, enabling them to provide similar or superior exposure for sports. While Netflix and Apple have abstained thus far from live sports, focusing on long-tail evergreen content, will they reconsider? If these digital goliaths choose to invest, they will be able to pick off packages from traditional sports platforms while barely denting their earnings per share. They can justify outspending linear TV because of their scale, applications for data, and superior monetization capabilities. More commerce via Amazon, more engagement from Netflix, more services revenue for Apple. However, they don’t have to do any of this; they already possess billions of active customers.
And, as Lightshed’s Walt Piecyk points out, “The one thing you’re never going to disconnect is your cellphone.” That makes AT&T (177 MM subs), Verizon (120 MM), and T-Mobile (102 MM), potentially the “new bundle(s).” Do the carriers now move to acquire live rights themselves to motivate 5G upgrades and book sports subscriptions as their own “services” revenue?
Do players like Roku and Google’s Chromecast get into sports, with their combination of TV browsers and app stores, making them owners of exceptionally valuable home screens? Will retailers like Walmart and Target concede the combined retail/media field to Amazon alone?
The upshot: The bundle is melting, but there are more logical buyers of the resulting sports rights icebergs, with bigger balance sheets and loftier motivations.
This leads us to predict that the traditional bundle will morph into mini-bundles. Some sports including the NFL will remain mostly on conventional networks via multichannel video program distributors (MVPDs), while others will be streamed. Think ESPN+/Disney+/Hulu, which together account for more than 100 million U.S. subs, or perhaps Peacock, HBO Max and Paramount+ selling as a package.
Amazon already is its own 112-million-sub bundle, combining shipping, video, music and book content, and the Fire TV Stick, and it could use Twitch (the most popular free live-streaming service) as a modern alternative to national “broadcast” distribution with a much younger audience.
For rights holders to embrace streaming as a primary distribution platform, the magic “critical mass” number might be 50 million active subscribers. Here, growing direct-to-consumer services and mini-bundled subscriber bases begin to approach the shrinking pay TV universe size. And with the growing threat of piracy, rights holders will value partners like tech giants who can provide high-quality streaming.
Rather than buy a single pay TV bundle, future fans will likely subscribe to three or four streaming services that include sports, switching some of them out during off-seasons (especially football), making 12-month programming calendars critical. This is little different than those of us who still subscribe to a traditional MVPD, but also buy at least one streamer.
International streaming will also help justify the migration. Amazon, YouTube, Netflix and Apple all play well overseas, and Disney’s Star has significant penetration—and cricket rights—in Asia, potentially providing U.S.-based sports (think NFL, college, NASCAR) with wider worldwide exposure on prestige platforms than current small-dollar foreign syndication deals. It’s a backstop with a global backdrop.
Google’s YouTube is the biggest free video platform, and it’s still growing, while Facebook/Instagram has a huge user base. They can all easily play in sports that prioritize exposure, generating the bulk of their revenue from gate and sponsorship. They are also more focused on reaching younger viewers, which could birth new subscription models.
Thus, we do not anticipate one dominant sports player in the 2020s, but several: each platform with certain sports, with its own unique selling proposition, and major customization. Sports fans will no longer be forced to take all or none, as with cable, but rather will be able to select those of greatest interest.
This will present new challenges for sports owners. Leagues will struggle to replace the automatic inertia-viewing that linear networks historically provided. Meanwhile, services will compete to have their unique package of rights, much as networks have done in earlier quarters of the sports media game.
The new fourth-quarter world will call into question how rights are apportioned. Will league inner- (regional sports network) and outer- (national network) market rights continue to be sold separately? Will leagues choose to do several separate packages or combine rights to increase leverage across multiple services? Will digital companies choose to invest big bucks only if all rights (linear and digital worldwide) are available? Long underutilized, league libraries will become more attractive as the source for new sports documentaries and “inside access” shows to stream. Also look for ubiquitous use of world feeds for TV production.
For fans, who will no longer have automatic access to everything through a single subscription, progress will come at a cost. Gone are the days of TV Guide and newspaper listings; content discovery will be a curation sport unto itself. Leagues will align with the platforms able to pay them the most money while providing sufficient exposure (to grow their young fan base), an ominous development for legacy cable sports and broadcast networks that no longer deliver the massive promotion, huge audience and desirable demographics they once did.
It is unlikely to be cheaper in total for fans and may make some pine for the “good old days.” But ultimately the fourth quarter of sports media will bring true competition, with a greater diversity of offerings such as megacasts, group viewing, sub-second latency (true “live live”) betting, personalized highlights products—and better service for tomorrow’s sports fans.
We can’t wait!
Desser, a senior media executive at the NBA for 23 years, founded Desser Media, a sports media consultancy that provides valuation, negotiations and expert witness services. Kosner was the senior digital executive at ESPN for 20 years. In addition to managing Kosner Media, a digital and media consultancy, he is an investor and advisor in sports tech startups. Together, Desser and Kosner ran NBA Broadcasting in the 1980s and ’90s.
John Kosner Quoted in Sportico Regarding Dan Le Batard’s New Venture
Original Article: Sportico, by Eben Novy-Williams & Corey Leff, January 24th, 2021
The first priority for Dan Le Batard’s next media endeavor—a project he’s launching with his former boss, one-time ESPN president John Skipper—is to secure a distribution deal for his audio empire.
Those negotiations will likely be bolstered by something he took with him from ESPN. As part of his severance from the Disney unit, Le Batard negotiated for the RSS feed to his podcast, according to multiple people familiar with the talks. It’s allowed the talk show host to maintain continuity with his followers, without requiring them to re-subscribe to a new show.
Le Batard also negotiated the use of the oceanfront Miami Beach studio where he recorded for ESPN, the people said. A representative for ESPN declined to comment on the arrangement. Le Batard also declined to comment when reached by phone.
The RSS feed, in layman’s terms, is the podcast’s connection to its audience. When listeners subscribe to a podcast on iTunes or Spotify, they’re committing to have new shows delivered to their phones via the RSS feed. By retaining it, Le Batard was able to maintain his loyal—and sizeable—audience. He’s also kept the 23,000-plus reviews that give his podcast a valuable 4.8-star rating on iTunes.
While the specific terms of his negotiations with ESPN are unknown, having the pre-built audience and data associated with it should help as he begins talking to distribution partners. That said, it likely won’t make or break a deal, said John Kosner, a media consultant and former ESPN executive.
“Dan Le Batard is a very popular talent. He’s been on television and radio and podcasts for a long time,” Kosner said. “If he had no rights to anything, I still think he’d get a significant distribution deal. But this definitely strengthens his hand.”
ESPN theoretically could have kept the RSS feeds and used them to boost the following of another show. That would have run the risk of alienating Le Batard’s avid fans and potentially backfiring if listeners found themselves subscribed to a podcast they didn’t want.
Le Batard wasted little time putting the RSS feed to work. Just one day after his final ESPN show last week, he was posting new episodes of “The Dan Le Batard Show with Stugotz” to his existing subscribers. As of Thursday morning, the show was No. 1 on Apple’s sports podcast chart; a separate Le Batard offering is No. 10.
Skipper and Le Batard plan to build a new personality-driven media company that could cover a variety of topics, starting with sports, according to someone familiar with the plans. It’s unclear when exactly the venture will get off the ground, but Skipper will remain in his role as executive chairman of sports streaming service DAZN while working on the new venture.
A former Miami Herald columnist, Le Batard spent nearly a decade at ESPN, where he became one of the company’s most popular and visible personalities. He had a presence on ESPN’s TV, radio and podcast platforms, and at the time of his departure, he was making $3.5 million per year, according to Sportico sister publication Deadline.
Frequently outspoken, Le Batard clashed with his bosses toward the end of his tenure, first over the company’s policy not to directly address political matters, and later over the abrupt firing of his long-time radio producer. Both sides have described his departure as amicable.
Le Batard is the latest media personality to leave a major network and launch his own venture. Those hosts have more leverage now, Kosner said, because there are other ways for fans to interact with them.
“Modern talent negotiations are all skewed by the fact that powerful talent have their own independent social media following on places like Twitter and Instagram, and that’s their property not their employer’s,” Kosner said. “Whether you’re Stephen A. Smith, or Bill Simmons, or Dan Le Batard, that’s a valuable asset that you have going forward, and it weakens the positioning of your current employer.”
The Fourth Quarter of Sports Media, Part I
Original Article: John Wall Street, by Ed Desser and John Kosner, January 8th, 2021
The advent of electronic sports media’s “first quarter” started a century ago, first as radio game recreations from press reports in 1920, and then as live on-site play-by-play (boxing and Pirates-Phillies baseball) in 1921 on KDKA in Pittsburgh. In the second quarter, broadcast TV ascended, with live sports becoming national weekend daytime and local primetime TV staples in the 1960s and ’70s. The third quarter came via cable TV, adding huge programming volume and bringing to fruition in 1979 the previously unthinkable notion of a 24/7 sports network: ESPN.
Today, as platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon lead entertainment, and now have higher penetration of broadband than pay TV, we are entering the sports media’s “fourth quarter” and its impending inclusion into the new mainstream—emphasis on stream.
With the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) taking place virtually next week for the first time, we thought this would be the perfect opportunity to look out into the digital future and project what the next phase will look like. First, let’s recap the scores….
ESPN+ is the highest-profile sports streamer today. Amazon has invested in top brands like NFL and EPL rights. New streaming entrants FloSports and DAZN bought up niche sports and boxing, respectively, while fuboTV offers a streaming package of multiple linear sports and entertainment networks. However, none has yet become a true aggregator (think cable TV for the past 40 years), and we do not believe any single entity or platform will—at least for the next decade. Instead, we see a confluence of factors leading to a multiverse of sports viewing options for the remainder of the 2020s.
In entertainment, AT&T launched HBO Max, Comcast unfurled Peacock, and Disney has built the first true Netflix challenger with Disney+ (after consolidating Hulu and Star from Fox). CBS was early with All Access, but streaming remains a relatively small side business for CBS and Viacom, and essentially nonexistent at Fox. Meanwhile, Netflix expanded its domination during COVID and now claims 195 million non-sports global subscribers. Netflix has not only redefined the streaming viewer experience; critically, it has done so at price points that for now undercut the rest of the entertainment industry. Otherwise, it’s hard to imagine that Disney+ would price itself at $7.99 (as of this March), especially with first-run Disney movie content. Or that HBO Max would be bringing blockbuster Warner Bros. movies direct to subscribers in 2021 at no extra charge. Or that each of these services would be subsidized and magnified through wireless carrier bundles (T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T, respectively). The super low (to zero) prices for high-end entertainment fare create a significant challenge for high-priced sports content purchases by streamers going forward.
In sports, ESPN/ABC, Fox/FS1, Warner/Turner, CBS/CBSSN, and NBC and its cable channels still remain the kings of live major U.S. properties, holding the pay TV bundle together.
However, that bundle is fraying:
Cord-cutting continues unabated. Another 5 million subs exited in 2020;
More than one-third (37%) of the 121 million U.S. TV homes have cumulatively eschewed or abandoned traditional pay TV;
Cord-shaving, or cutting back on service, has further eroded the penetration of expensive top sports networks, shrinking available audiences;
Virtual MVPDs (like YouTube TV, fuboTV and Hulu Live) no longer pick up the slack;
COVID-19 stopped sports cold last spring and posed formidable challenges upon their return—no crowds, scrambled schedules and huge additional expenses (though with some production-efficiency savings);
According to Roku’s 2020 study, 28% of cord-cutter households ranked the loss of live televised sports as their top reason for cutting the cord;
Entertainment streaming services filled the void with extended free trials and special events such as Hamilton on Disney+ on July 4;
Perhaps most important, a generation of younger viewers who have grown up with smartphones (an entertainment ecosystem in their pocket) has accelerated the bundle’s decline by being “nevers”—new households that have never had linear pay TV.
Sports media’s third quarter is ending with a level of uncertainty we’ve never seen before. Besides the NFL, there are no sure things. Perhaps that is why we expect essentially one last “traditional” rights acquisition cycle, where the “surviving” sports TV networks reach for still-richer NFL agreements to maintain relevance and boost their own asset value, with consolidation likely to follow.
But in making bigger and bigger rights commitments, the leading networks will find themselves in a paradoxical trap. The digital platforms that command the most attention from young sports fans—YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Snap and increasingly TikTok—pay practically nothing in rights fees. None carry live games, and all flaunt fairly comprehensive highlights on their platforms (both through league deals and user-generated content). Going forward, those paying the most (ESPN, Fox, Warners, NBC and CBS) will have the least financial flexibility to invest in new approaches necessary to attract young audiences, who are less likely to watch live three-hour game “marathons.”
For over three decades, the traditional pay-TV bundle powered non-gate revenue growth for pro and college teams on a scale never before experienced. But on Dec. 10, 2020, at a four-hour Investor Day presentation, the biggest beneficiary of traditional bundle economics, the Walt Disney Co., laid out an unequivocal path forward: streaming. Disney is effectively betting a world-renowned $325 billion company on it. We may look back at that date as the demarcation between the old and the new sports media worlds.
In Part II of this series, we will look at what we expect the fourth quarter of sports media to look like. How will the MVPD bundle morph? What moves are the linear stalwarts of the industry likely to take in their next acquisitions? Will a new bundle emerge, or will the business further disaggregate? How will sports fans navigate the new world’s options and alternatives? What benefits are in store for tomorrow’s fan in return? Look for those answers here next Friday.
Desser, a senior media executive at the NBA for 23 years, founded Desser Media, a sports media consultancy that provides valuation, negotiations and expert witness services. Kosner was the senior digital executive at ESPN for 20 years. In addition to managing Kosner Media, a digital and media consultancy, he is an investor and advisor in sports tech startups. Together, Desser and Kosner ran NBA Broadcasting in the 1980s and ’90s.