FOX claims FS1 is 3rd among sports networks

[BEwannabe]

rather than contribute to the tit-tat I'm posting a really interesting site which should provide some interesting observations. #1 being FS1 is charging much more than I expected given the news around their launch and ratings and with that said you tinker around with checking boxes you can see why ATTuverse could leave FS1 out of the mix. ESPN has the bulk of content and you can get NBC & CBS for additional content for half of what you pay for FS1&2. Below the boxes you can click thru to see the actual carriage rates. Also including a link to a Wall Street Jrnl article on the subject comments tab. Interesting, Verizon has been marketing the unbundling in the philly & NYC markets for several months.


http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-c ... /comments/

[BEX]

Wow. Apparently watching an A-10 game is free.

[robinreed]

Is this report reading FS1 is generating .90 per subscriber? If so, the narrative is nothing but propaganda much like the polls in UK over the last few weeks. SPEED was generating .23 per viewer and FS1 ratings have been no better than SPEED and unlike SPEED, FS1doesnt deliver a target audience.

The report is complete FOX propaganda. I wish I had saved an article I read last year (around Thanksgiving if I remember correctly) which stated FS1 was getting between .25 and .79 per viewer depending on the cable system they were on. Please don't misunderstand I believe Fox Sports Net will eventually be a major player in cable sports and that will be excellent news for the Big East but it is not true today. We need the money and the exposure and our contract is better than any other non-football conference as well as most of the G5. Perhaps Fox will measure up in 3 to 5 years.

Remember this was written by a FOX propagandist, some would say a hack. It is true he did mention the ad revenue was not included and I think we all know why it was not. It is not that I have a problem with FOX sports although you might say their veracity is at about the same level as FOX news. Their production values are second only to ESPiN and certainly better than NBC or CBS. Their talking heads are not as bad as ESPiN although I would agree they need improvement. However this article is an Everest of dreck and as unbiased as an Adolph Hitler rally speech.

There is as equal a chance of these stats being true as there is of my walking down Vine St. in Cincy and seeing Jesus and Sasquatch playing put put golf.

[MUPanther]

You still keep calling it the wrong thing. The network is Fox Sports 1. Fox Sports Network are the regional stations.

[Xudash]

Wow. Apparently watching an A-10 game is free.

Which is appropriate, given that backwater deal they just put together. Embarrassing.

[robinreed]

You still keep calling it the wrong thing. The network is Fox Sports 1. Fox Sports Network are the regional stations.

I am appreciative of your comments. I expect you understand what I am referring to.

[Xudash]

You still keep calling it the wrong thing. The network is Fox Sports 1. Fox Sports Network are the regional stations.

I am appreciative of your comments. I expect you understand what I am referring to.

Do you primarily have an issue with the author and article or do you have concerns about FS1?

[gtmoBlue]

Is this report reading FS1 is generating .90 per subscriber? If so, the narrative is nothing but propaganda much like the polls in UK over the last few weeks. SPEED was generating .23 per viewer and FS1 ratings have been no better than SPEED and unlike SPEED, FS1doesnt deliver a target audience.

The report is complete FOX propaganda. I wish I had saved an article I read last year (around Thanksgiving if I remember correctly) which stated FS1 was getting between .25 and .79 per viewer depending on the cable system they were on. Please don't misunderstand I believe Fox Sports Net will eventually be a major player in cable sports and that will be excellent news for the Big East but it is not true today. We need the money and the exposure and our contract is better than any other non-football conference as well as most of the G5. Perhaps Fox will measure up in 3 to 5 years.

There is as equal a chance of these stats being true as there is of my walking down Vine St. in Cincy and seeing Jesus and Sasquatch playing put put golf.

Jesus n Squatch are at a putt putt tourney in Cleveland this week.

Obviously your opinion is carved in stone and you seem to be axe grinding.

FS1 is growing and gaining ground. When ISPs debundle cable tiers, it will be interesting to see the percentage of defectors from ESPN due to its' high cost. Consumers can get all of TNT/CBS/FS1/NBC for less than $4, vs $6.60 for ESPN. ESPN and cable costs are projected to continue rising. Fortunately there is a limit to how much gouging the consumer will take. $6.60 per month is it. With de-bundling at the ISPs, the competition will have a chance to catch the WWL on a more level playing field. Should be fun to watch as Espns earnings in a de-bundled cable world should drop to a more realistic, less extortionistic, $3.00/mo.

No big concern here as BE money is guaranteed. However, it is entertaining to see how the various companies strategize and employ their business tactics.

FS1 is one acquisition/Joint Venture away from being #2 on this list. They were thwarted in their
attempt to buy TNT (this time), but there are other candidates. I look forward to seeing the battles when the NFL and NBA contracts open up for renewals.

[Xudash]

Is this report reading FS1 is generating .90 per subscriber? If so, the narrative is nothing but propaganda much like the polls in UK over the last few weeks. SPEED was generating .23 per viewer and FS1 ratings have been no better than SPEED and unlike SPEED, FS1doesnt deliver a target audience.

The report is complete FOX propaganda. I wish I had saved an article I read last year (around Thanksgiving if I remember correctly) which stated FS1 was getting between .25 and .79 per viewer depending on the cable system they were on. Please don't misunderstand I believe Fox Sports Net will eventually be a major player in cable sports and that will be excellent news for the Big East but it is not true today. We need the money and the exposure and our contract is better than any other non-football conference as well as most of the G5. Perhaps Fox will measure up in 3 to 5 years.

There is as equal a chance of these stats being true as there is of my walking down Vine St. in Cincy and seeing Jesus and Sasquatch playing put put golf.

Jesus n Squatch are at a putt putt tourney in Cleveland this week.

Obviously your opinion is carved in stone and you seem to be axe grinding.

FS1 is growing and gaining ground. When ISPs debundle cable tiers, it will be interesting to see the percentage of defectors from ESPN due to its' high cost. Consumers can get all of TNT/CBS/FS1/NBC for less than $4, vs $6.60 for ESPN. ESPN and cable costs are projected to continue rising. Fortunately there is a limit to how much gouging the consumer will take. $6.60 per month is it. With de-bundling at the ISPs, the competition will have a chance to catch the WWL on a more level playing field. Should be fun to watch as Espns earnings in a de-bundled cable world should drop to a more realistic, less extortionistic, $3.00/mo.

No big concern here as BE money is guaranteed. However, it is entertaining to see how the various companies strategize and employ their business tactics.

FS1 is one acquisition/Joint Venture away from being #2 on this list. They were thwarted in their
attempt to buy TNT (this time), but there are other candidates. I look forward to seeing the battles when the NFL and NBA contracts open up for renewals.

Absolutely spot on post. Well done.

Great point about debundling. Otherwise, there don't appear to be many people around here paying much attention to Fox's go forward strategy and position for making acquisitions.

As usual, most of the negative reaction to Fox around here is from fans who have no direct connection to the Big East.

[robinreed]

You still keep calling it the wrong thing. The network is Fox Sports 1. Fox Sports Network are the regional stations.

I am appreciative of your comments. I expect you understand what I am referring to.

Do you primarily have an issue with the author and article or do you have concerns about FS1?

Xudash,

I have a serious issue with Clay Travis and our ratings on FS1. I believe there is some argument that can be made that FOX is using the BE as seasonal filler for their pseudo boxing and other equally absurd programming. However since they are paying a premium they have the right to do that. However taking second fiddle to such programming is derogatory to the BE. Also I must say as I have before that ESPiN still has the top in game programming by a wide margin. It is their talking heads which cause me to grind my teeth.

I would ask you when you have the time to go to the FOX website or elsewhere on the net and read other articles by Travis. After having done so come back and tell me if you believe his reportage is fair, unbiased and entirely rational.