Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

[JimmyJack]

Re: Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

JJ - I think I remember you posting a while back that they were gonna try to get the coaches shows on locally (SDSU channel in Brookings, and also something in Sioux Falls). Did that get tied up somewhere along the lines or is it still in the works?

Athletics has an agreement for next year's coaching shows to air on the Mediacom Channel regionally. I would imagine they'll try to find a way onto Midcontinent, too. I would expect wider distribution of those shows next year, which is just one more reason not to put them behind the subscription wall at gojacks.com.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

I missed it then

I agree with JimmyJack then!

You didn't miss it. I wasn't clear about that. But you are right on the money.

[MilwaukeeJacksAlum]

Re: Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

If money is the issue, why not sell advertising on the website? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to drum up an internet sponsor willing to put their product on the side of the web page. CBS did that with their internet coverage of the NCAA tourney. The first year they provided the all-access package at a cost of approx $25 per customer. They made something like $250K on that first year. The next year they made it free and sold advertising rights to the internet feeds, stat page, etc. The first year they made an amount around $10 million if memory serves me. SDSU could never dream of making that sort of money, but it couldn't hurt to look into whether advertising versus subscriber dollars would essentially be a wash or possibly a net gain in favor of advertising dollars.

For what it's worth, I have a yearly subscription to the Jackrabbit plan so I'm not arguing for the sake of saving my money. I just think the concept of providing greater access to more people is both profitable by way of advertising dollars and putting butts in the seats (as has been pointed out in earlier threads).

[JimmyJack]

Re: Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

If money is the issue, why not sell advertising on the website? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to drum up an internet sponsor willing to put their product on the side of the web page. CBS did that with their internet coverage of the NCAA tourney. The first year they provided the all-access package at a cost of approx $25 per customer. They made something like $250K on that first year. The next year they made it free and sold advertising rights to the internet feeds, stat page, etc. The first year they made an amount around $10 million if memory serves me. SDSU could never dream of making that sort of money, but it couldn't hurt to look into whether advertising versus subscriber dollars would essentially be a wash or possibly a net gain in favor of advertising dollars.

For what it's worth, I have a yearly subscription to the Jackrabbit plan so I'm not arguing for the sake of saving my money. I just think the concept of providing greater access to more people is both profitable by way of advertising dollars and putting butts in the seats (as has been pointed out in earlier threads).

I think online advertising in the works. It might be a thing where you just don't have provisions in long-term contracts with your major sponsors that cover online sponsorships and advertising. That would mean you couldn't just run around and sell those things to anybody else since you don't even have the mechanism to offer them first to your major sponsors. And you don't want to anger them by selling them out from under them. It's a catch-22. You can't sell online ads to the big sponsors because it's not in their contracts. And they can't turn you down so you can't sell them to anybody else.

That's a guess. But it's not uncommon in this changing age of new media for contractural stuff to lag behind the changing habits of media consumers.

[MilwaukeeJacksAlum]

Re: Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

I think online advertising in the works. It might be a thing where you just don't have provisions in long-term contracts with your major sponsors that cover online sponsorships and advertising. That would mean you couldn't just run around and sell those things to anybody else since you don't even have the mechanism to offer them first to your major sponsors. And you don't want to anger them by selling them out from under them. It's a catch-22. You can't sell online ads to the big sponsors because it's not in their contracts. And they can't turn you down so you can't sell them to anybody else.

That's a guess. But it's not uncommon in this changing age of new media for contractural stuff to lag behind the changing habits of media consumers.

As usual, it's all the lawyers faults. Lawyers ruin everything. (still can't figure out how to insert the winking icon here - consider it inserted for the purpose of reading my post)

[JimmyJack]

Re: Editorial: Putting weekly shows behind a subscription wall

As usual, it's all the lawyers faults. Lawyers ruin everything. (still can't figure out how to insert the winking icon here - consider it inserted for the purpose of reading my post)

Lawyers are an easy target to complain about... until you need one.