Comments for Sports Biz by Senno http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com Rumblings in the world of sports business and sports media. Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:57 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Forget Salary Cap, Baseball Needs a Profit Cap by Mike Stefanelli http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/forget-salary-cap-baseball-needs-a-profit-cap/#comment-613 Mike Stefanelli Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:59:57 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=473#comment-613 Good Writeup! Now if the Mets fans can stop crying that the Yankees spend too much Good Writeup! Now if the Mets fans can stop crying that the Yankees spend too much

]]> Comment on Basketball Local Streaming Launches, Still Missing Key Target by mjsenno http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/basketball-local-streaming-launches-still-missing-key-target/#comment-607 mjsenno Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:09:39 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=467#comment-607 Valid point, and now I understand your rationale. However, if they leave the rights holder in control they should be able to offer different pricing levels for different customers, possibly high enough to put more pressure on the MSO's. It's obviously a more complex scenario that requires more thought, but they can find it way to make it available for substantially more than a monthly customer subscriber, and/or limit access to features for cable subscribers, essentially discriminating service levels. Valid point, and now I understand your rationale. However, if they leave the rights holder in control they should be able to offer different pricing levels for different customers, possibly high enough to put more pressure on the MSO’s. It’s obviously a more complex scenario that requires more thought, but they can find it way to make it available for substantially more than a monthly customer subscriber, and/or limit access to features for cable subscribers, essentially discriminating service levels.

]]> Comment on Basketball Local Streaming Launches, Still Missing Key Target by Ian http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/basketball-local-streaming-launches-still-missing-key-target/#comment-606 Ian Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:31:49 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=467#comment-606 If fans can get the games outside of the cable systems, those cable systems will not listen to the demands of the teams and leagues to carry those sports networks on a basic tier. Those systems would actually prefer to carry sports networks on a premium tier, but know the backlash they would get if they didn't. Let's say that every Yankee game was available online in the NYC market, to anyone who would pay for it. If Cablevision chose not to carry YES, like they did in 2002, then there wouldn't be much of a fan backlash like their was. Fans would just circumvent the cable company and get the games directly from the team or the league. This would not give Cablevision any incentive to carry YES on a basic tier, which would give it the largest possible pay TV audience, and therefore create leverage to charge ad rates. Offering in market streaming to all would be directly competing with the status quo, and, at least in 2009-10, significantly cut into local broadcast revenues. If fans can get the games outside of the cable systems, those cable systems will not listen to the demands of the teams and leagues to carry those sports networks on a basic tier. Those systems would actually prefer to carry sports networks on a premium tier, but know the backlash they would get if they didn’t.

Let’s say that every Yankee game was available online in the NYC market, to anyone who would pay for it. If Cablevision chose not to carry YES, like they did in 2002, then there wouldn’t be much of a fan backlash like their was. Fans would just circumvent the cable company and get the games directly from the team or the league.

This would not give Cablevision any incentive to carry YES on a basic tier, which would give it the largest possible pay TV audience, and therefore create leverage to charge ad rates. Offering in market streaming to all would be directly competing with the status quo, and, at least in 2009-10, significantly cut into local broadcast revenues.

]]> Comment on Basketball Local Streaming Launches, Still Missing Key Target by mjsenno http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/basketball-local-streaming-launches-still-missing-key-target/#comment-605 mjsenno Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:08:12 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=467#comment-605 But those who are not fans still pay the cable bill and will NOT pay for the streaming, so I don't believe your logic would apply, or possibly I'm missing the point. This is not to replace cable, but to supplement. All revenue is incremental, but they can earn additional incremental revenue from non-customers by offering wider. But those who are not fans still pay the cable bill and will NOT pay for the streaming, so I don’t believe your logic would apply, or possibly I’m missing the point. This is not to replace cable, but to supplement. All revenue is incremental, but they can earn additional incremental revenue from non-customers by offering wider.

]]> Comment on Basketball Local Streaming Launches, Still Missing Key Target by Ian http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/basketball-local-streaming-launches-still-missing-key-target/#comment-604 Ian Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:42:01 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=467#comment-604 I said this about the Yankees streaming over the summer. In terms of dollars, subscribers that are not fans are more valuable that fans that are not subscribers. 10% of the average cable bill goes to sports programming, but as popular as sports are, there are many who can care less about them, but are forced to pay if they want cable. If EVERY Blazers fan paid a la carte for all the teams games, whether on tv or digitally, the revenue would be significantly less than what the team is receiving now from its limited cable coverage. By making digital rights available to all fans, it would kill the cash cow of non-sports fans subsidizing those very sports leagues and teams that actual fans don't get to watch... I said this about the Yankees streaming over the summer.

In terms of dollars, subscribers that are not fans are more valuable that fans that are not subscribers. 10% of the average cable bill goes to sports programming, but as popular as sports are, there are many who can care less about them, but are forced to pay if they want cable.

If EVERY Blazers fan paid a la carte for all the teams games, whether on tv or digitally, the revenue would be significantly less than what the team is receiving now from its limited cable coverage.

By making digital rights available to all fans, it would kill the cash cow of non-sports fans subsidizing those very sports leagues and teams that actual fans don’t get to watch…

]]> Comment on OptionIt Allows Teams to Combat Secondary Market by TomMatix http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/optionit-allows-teams-to-combat-secondary-market/#comment-600 TomMatix Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:39:28 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=451#comment-600 I have used OptionIt as well and I have to say I had a completely different experience then the person who calls option it a rip-off. First of all I think that this statement posted on the OptionIt web site makes things pretty clear "The amount you pay to exercise your option is in addition to your initial option purchase. For example, if you purchase an option for "2 Glass Seats plus 1 Zamboni Ride" you would pay $150. If you exercised your option, you would pay an additional $750, meaning the total amount paid would be $900 (please note that for Zamboni Rides, only one person can ride)." Option price + face value = ticket price I know there are three pieces to this puzzle but I believe they fit together pretty easily. The game I purchased options for I have already been in attendance so I thought it best to just use a current market value and availability for my example. As of this morning 11/02/09 on OptionIt there is a option available for a Ravens Ticket on the Ravens Pittsburgh game on 11/29/09 (ticket sec 527 row 31 seat 11) with a option price of 89.$ for a face value ticket of 95.$ dollars. So 89.$ + 95.$ = 184.$, then the primary ticket provider charges a convenience charge and a processing fee that adds up to roughly 15% of the face value of the ticket, that is 15% of 95$ = 14.25$ so option value 89$ + face value 95$ + fees 14.25 = final price of 198.25. Now if go over to a very large secondary market like stubhub we find that in sec 527 for that game there are three tickets available the least expensive being 259$ for ticket sec 527 row 27 seat ? (No seat # provided). So 259$ + 10% service fee 25.9$ = 284.9 final ticket price. Well my OptionIt ticket would end up 86.65 less than stubhub or roughly 30% less, I will gladly pay 30% less from one website to the other on something I want, that’s just good comparative shopping makes a lot of sense to me. I do feel for the guy who had a difficult experience, but come on 30% less is great. Please don't stop what you’re doing OptionIt I will be gratefully using that website over and over again. I have used OptionIt as well and I have to say I had a completely different experience then the person who calls option it a rip-off.
First of all I think that this statement posted on the OptionIt web site makes things pretty clear
“The amount you pay to exercise your option is in addition to your initial option purchase. For example, if you purchase an option for “2 Glass Seats plus 1 Zamboni Ride” you would pay $150. If you exercised your option, you would pay an additional $750, meaning the total amount paid would be $900 (please note that for Zamboni Rides, only one person can ride).” Option price + face value = ticket price
I know there are three pieces to this puzzle but I believe they fit together pretty easily. The game I purchased options for I have already been in attendance so I thought it best to just use a current market value and availability for my example. As of this morning 11/02/09 on OptionIt there is a option available for a Ravens Ticket on the Ravens Pittsburgh game on 11/29/09 (ticket sec 527 row 31 seat 11) with a option price of 89.$ for a face value ticket of 95.$ dollars. So 89.$ + 95.$ = 184.$, then the primary ticket provider charges a convenience charge and a processing fee that adds up to roughly 15% of the face value of the ticket, that is 15% of 95$ = 14.25$ so option value 89$ + face value 95$ + fees 14.25 = final price of 198.25.
Now if go over to a very large secondary market like stubhub we find that in sec 527 for that game there are three tickets available the least expensive being 259$ for ticket sec 527 row 27 seat ? (No seat # provided). So 259$ + 10% service fee 25.9$ = 284.9 final ticket price. Well my OptionIt ticket would end up 86.65 less than stubhub or roughly 30% less, I will gladly pay 30% less from one website to the other on something I want, that’s just good comparative shopping makes a lot of sense to me. I do feel for the guy who had a difficult experience, but come on 30% less is great. Please don’t stop what you’re doing OptionIt I will be gratefully using that website over and over again.

]]> Comment on OptionIt Allows Teams to Combat Secondary Market by OptionIt is a ripoff http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/optionit-allows-teams-to-combat-secondary-market/#comment-598 OptionIt is a ripoff Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:08:52 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=451#comment-598 Mr. Mastalir, You must have me confused with another dissatisfied customer as I never spoke with anyone from your company by phone. Perhaps you'd like to publicly offer a justification for charging a $22.00 (actually I believe it was $22.50) service charge on top of the $150.00 fee for the option of spending another $156. Isn't 100% of the face value enough!? Your representative suggested (by email) that I attempt to sell the tickets elsewhere. Who is going to pay $382 for a pair of $78.00 tickets? People are hurting in this country and they are tired of being ripped off. You have an interesting concept but ought to re-examine your business model. How long can you sell second-rate regular season tickets at 100% markup(with a 15% service fee tacked on as well)? Eventually, even people with money to burn are going to get better seats for less in the secondary market. Are you not trying to capture that secondary market? In the meantime, I'll continue to spread the warning as best I can. There are bound to be more like me out there. It's just a matter getting out the word. Mr. Mastalir,

You must have me confused with another dissatisfied customer as I never spoke with anyone from your company by phone. Perhaps you’d like to publicly offer a justification for charging a $22.00 (actually I believe it was $22.50) service charge on top of the $150.00 fee for the option of spending another $156. Isn’t 100% of the face value enough!?

Your representative suggested (by email) that I attempt to sell the tickets elsewhere. Who is going to pay $382 for a pair of $78.00 tickets?

People are hurting in this country and they are tired of being ripped off. You have an interesting concept but ought to re-examine your business model. How long can you sell second-rate regular season tickets at 100% markup(with a 15% service fee tacked on as well)? Eventually, even people with money to burn are going to get better seats for less in the secondary market. Are you not trying to capture that secondary market?

In the meantime, I’ll continue to spread the warning as best I can. There are bound to be more like me out there. It’s just a matter getting out the word.

]]> Comment on OptionIt Allows Teams to Combat Secondary Market by Mark Mastalir http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/optionit-allows-teams-to-combat-secondary-market/#comment-597 Mark Mastalir Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:17:02 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=451#comment-597 Sorry you did not have a good experience-- we try to make our website as clear as possible. What you failed to mention is we spoke on the phone and once I explained everything to you, you seemed to be satisfied and clear about how the system works. Being a season ticket holder, I'm sure you know that tickets are incredibly difficult to come by, and that tickets on the secondary market sell for far more than face value, particularly for the Penguins game. Using OptionIt, the option premium plus the face price of the ticket is significantly less than the secondary market. As for the service fee, we do not charge that. It is charged by the team's primary ticketing provider, which is also stated clearly on our website. Sorry we did not make things clear enough for you and that you can't be satisfied. Sorry you did not have a good experience– we try to make our website as clear as possible. What you failed to mention is we spoke on the phone and once I explained everything to you, you seemed to be satisfied and clear about how the system works.

Being a season ticket holder, I’m sure you know that tickets are incredibly difficult to come by, and that tickets on the secondary market sell for far more than face value, particularly for the Penguins game. Using OptionIt, the option premium plus the face price of the ticket is significantly less than the secondary market.

As for the service fee, we do not charge that. It is charged by the team’s primary ticketing provider, which is also stated clearly on our website.

Sorry we did not make things clear enough for you and that you can’t be satisfied.

]]> Comment on OptionIt Allows Teams to Combat Secondary Market by OptionIt is a ripoff http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/optionit-allows-teams-to-combat-secondary-market/#comment-596 OptionIt is a ripoff Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:26:01 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=451#comment-596 The manner in which OptionIt's website is designed is at the very least confusing and arguably deceptive. I made a purchase believing that I would (if I chose to exercise) pay the option price, then the difference between the option price and the advertised face value. What I was mistakenly getting myself into was purchasing two tickets with a face value of $78 each for a total of $382. When I was referred to the ticketmaster website to pay the balance I was certain there had been a billing error. Not only did I pay $150 for the option of spending another $156, OptionIt had the nerve to tack on a $22.00 "service fee" as well. I emailed OptionIt for clarification and the response was a terse reference to the Terms of Service. I asked how I could go about selling my option and was told it was too late because I had already attempted to exercise it. I'll be sending a letter of complaint to the SJ Sharks and hope I get some TV time while trying to enjoy my $382 tickets wearing my "OptionIt is a ripoff T-shirt". The manner in which OptionIt’s website is designed is at the very least confusing and arguably deceptive. I made a purchase believing that I would (if I chose to exercise) pay the option price, then the difference between the option price and the advertised face value. What I was mistakenly getting myself into was purchasing two tickets with a face value of $78 each for a total of $382. When I was referred to the ticketmaster website to pay the balance I was certain there had been a billing error. Not only did I pay $150 for the option of spending another $156, OptionIt had the nerve to tack on a $22.00 “service fee” as well. I emailed OptionIt for clarification and the response was a terse reference to the Terms of Service. I asked how I could go about selling my option and was told it was too late because I had already attempted to exercise it.

I’ll be sending a letter of complaint to the SJ Sharks and hope I get some TV time while trying to enjoy my $382 tickets wearing my “OptionIt is a ripoff T-shirt”.

]]> Comment on OptionIt Allows Teams to Combat Secondary Market by Mark Mastalir http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/optionit-allows-teams-to-combat-secondary-market/#comment-588 Mark Mastalir Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:38:20 +0000 http://sennosportsbiz.wordpress.com/?p=451#comment-588 Tom, Really nice of you to say that. We are getting good results and traction with our business model and have been embraced by fans. If fans can't get tickets via the primary marketplace and are forced to buy from the secondary, they much rather pay an option premium with the knowledge that the revenue is going to the team that is putting the product on the court/field/ice, etc. And the flexibility and convenience is something that has actual value for the fan, as you point out. Regards, Mark (CEO, OptionIt) Tom,

Really nice of you to say that. We are getting good results and traction with our business model and have been embraced by fans.

If fans can’t get tickets via the primary marketplace and are forced to buy from the secondary, they much rather pay an option premium with the knowledge that the revenue is going to the team that is putting the product on the court/field/ice, etc. And the flexibility and convenience is something that has actual value for the fan, as you point out.

Regards, Mark (CEO, OptionIt)

]]>