Boycott paying networks - Stand up, or get bent over.

[Jeezla]

4 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Why can’t I stand up AND get bent over???????

You can, and our defense will show you how in just a few hours.

[Mazrimiv]

On 1/15/2024 at 12:22 PM, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

For those not reading the article, it's HIGHLY misleading/borderline just lying:

It wasn't just Peacock, it was across all of those things. Peacock accounted for 3.1 million of those views:

So, you know, companies just straight up lying about numbers to make themselves look good, as per usual.

Not sure where the discrepancy is, but I've seen multiple reports of NBC saying they peaked at 16.3M concurrent devices streaming Peacock during the game.

EDIT: Looks like that 3.1M number was the early game, not the KC-MIA game.

Quote

Earlier on Saturday, NBC Sports also broadcast the AFC Wild Card game between the Cleveland Browns and the Houston Texans. While streamed on Peacock, it was done so as a simulcast while the game was broadcast on over-the-air NBC affiliates across the country, as well as on Telemundo, NBC Sports Digital, and NFL Digital. That game ranked as the most-watched Saturday NFL Wild Card game on NBC since 2014. Led by Peacock, it also pulled in a digital Average Minute Audience of 3.1 million viewers, making it NBC Sports’ largest streaming simulcast of an NFL game not including a Super Bowl.

 

Edited January 17 by Mazrimiv

[naptownskinsfan]

 

[PincheJimmy]

Does anyone use a streaming service ? 🤔. I use Apollo, pay $84 every 6 months and get everything (Red Zone, Netlicks, Amazon, PPV, movies , EVERYTHING), and have antenna for over the Air ( NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS ) . Cut the cable bill and never looked back 😎

[FrantikRam]

On 1/13/2024 at 4:06 PM, wackywabbit said:

Unpopular opinion: it is ok to pay for things. That's how things are supposed to work. I watch pretty much every game I want over the course of a year and I don't think I spend more than my parents spent on cable a decade ago (granted I cancel most things after football season).

The peacock thing is inconvenient, but I'm paying $6 (and immediately cancelled it) for 3 people to (hopefully) be entertained for 3 hours. Not a terrible deal.

 

Opinion is popular with me. Except I end up keeping everything.

Even with some of them cracking down on password sharing, it's pretty easy to circumvent. If you have close friends or family, split em up and share.

[FrantikRam]

On 1/13/2024 at 6:39 PM, Forge said:

These things don't bother me. It's their product. 

Now, as it happens, I have peacock and espn and amazon for reasons that had nothing to do with the NFL. And then they got the NFL and nothing really changed for me. 

 

I had peacock, amazon and YouTubeTV already. So I hit the jackpot. Especially because for a hot minute it looked like apple would get the ticket

[Jakuvious]

On 1/13/2024 at 3:06 PM, wackywabbit said:

Unpopular opinion: it is ok to pay for things. That's how things are supposed to work. I watch pretty much every game I want over the course of a year and I don't think I spend more than my parents spent on cable a decade ago (granted I cancel most things after football season).

The peacock thing is inconvenient, but I'm paying $6 (and immediately cancelled it) for 3 people to (hopefully) be entertained for 3 hours. Not a terrible deal.

I think people know this, I think people just struggle with the reality of getting outvoted. The way all of this should work, is company introduces things, says it costs X, if people buy it, they keep doing it, if not enough people buy it, they make it cheaper or do away with it. If people agree universally that this isn't worth the money, then it will go away. But enough people either like Peacock in the first place, or they thought hey, it's $6, who cares, so it was a success. I think streaming has demonstrated that there's a cap to this (next year if there's 4 playoff games on 4 different streaming services, I don't think people will buy in still, just as some streaming services have started to struggle with more competition), but ultimately, those who are outraged got outvoted by those who are fine with it and/or don't care, so you get rallying cries like this trying to get more people to say it's unacceptable.

My wife's cousin pays for every single streaming service, and the family versions of each one, so I couldn't care less, but I'm also not paying for any of it. So I don't really have a vote.

[FrantikRam]

In this situation Peacock and Amazon pay a large fee and the only way that will be worthwhile is if it ups their subscriptions by a substantial amount. They are basically relying on people to sign up for a free trial/one month membership and then fall in love with the other content (or as will happen to a few thousand I'm sure, just forget to cancel it).

If everyone signs up for one month and then cancels, they won't do this again.

The NFL are not the bad guys here, at all. They are just your run of the mill business making the best decision financially, which will in turn continue to increase revenue which increases the salary cap and pays the players more.

It's kind of bizarre to label the NFL as greedy for this - like all of us who go to work - they are only doing this for money. They have no obligation to their fans - and in fact, they have MORE of an obligation to the players and if this makes them more money, which in turn makes the players more money, they should really do this more often.

Remember the next time that you are complaining about this that anyone who makes the league minimum and is at the bottom of the roster is NOT set for life - not even close. And probably isn't too far off from your salary relative  to the revenue of your company and the total number of employees. Doing more to be able to increase those salaries is much more important than making sure a fan who doesn't want to spend $6 can watch the game.

[lavar703]

2 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

In this situation Peacock and Amazon pay a large fee and the only way that will be worthwhile is if it ups their subscriptions by a substantial amount. They are basically relying on people to sign up for a free trial/one month membership and then fall in love with the other content (or as will happen to a few thousand I'm sure, just forget to cancel it).

If everyone signs up for one month and then cancels, they won't do this again.

The NFL are not the bad guys here, at all. They are just your run of the mill business making the best decision financially, which will in turn continue to increase revenue which increases the salary cap and pays the players more.

It's kind of bizarre to label the NFL as greedy for this - like all of us who go to work - they are only doing this for money. They have no obligation to their fans - and in fact, they have MORE of an obligation to the players and if this makes them more money, which in turn makes the players more money, they should really do this more often.

Remember the next time that you are complaining about this that anyone who makes the league minimum and is at the bottom of the roster is NOT set for life - not even close. And probably isn't too far off from your salary relative  to the revenue of your company and the total number of employees. Doing more to be able to increase those salaries is much more important than making sure a fan who doesn't want to spend $6 can watch the game.

I mean, they might not be set for life but the league minimum last year for non-vets was $430K. You probably lost a good bit of it to taxes but say they take $130K of it. That guy still made $300K for like 6-7 months worth of work. And that's the league minimum so that guy probably isn't even playing. If they were a scholarship athlete and finished free college they can easily get a job I'm sure and invest that money they made. Even if you only spend two years in the league that's still $600K lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a jerk here but 90% of these dudes will make more in two years than most people will in the next 10. 

[TheKillerNacho]

NBC was going to swing this as a success by manipulating the numbers no matter what they were - I just hope they came out at a loss. Considering they haven't spoken to this in their gloating, I'm assuming this is the case.

[adamq]

7 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

NBC was going to swing this as a success by manipulating the numbers no matter what they were - I just hope they came out at a loss. Considering they haven't spoken to this in their gloating, I'm assuming this is the case.

The actual success of this only comes if, A. This game got a large # of new people to subscribe, and B. Those same people have to stick around and keep paying for the service. A ton of people signing up and then canceling within a month does nothing for them 

[Jakuvious]

39 minutes ago, adamq said:

The actual success of this only comes if, A. This game got a large # of new people to subscribe, and B. Those same people have to stick around and keep paying for the service. A ton of people signing up and then canceling within a month does nothing for them 

Yeah, they won't really know for a few months how successful it was. The real test is how many people either like it and stick around, or how many people forget about it or say it's too much hassle to unsubscribe. I imagine they'll be happier with half a million new subscribers still being there in a few months, than 10 million subscribing for one month and dipping. All the subscription services every market is getting loaded with right now are all about long term, steady and reliable revenue, rather than one big sale.

[TheKillerNacho]

49 minutes ago, adamq said:

The actual success of this only comes if, A. This game got a large # of new people to subscribe, and B. Those same people have to stick around and keep paying for the service. A ton of people signing up and then canceling within a month does nothing for them 

There's going to be some subset of those who subscribed for the game that decides they like the service & others who will simply forget to cancel. Their ultimate goal was trying to get more people in the door, though.

I do find it funny though that the day after one of the most common Google searches were "how to cancel peacock"

[INbengalfan]

13 hours ago, FrantikRam said:

In this situation Peacock and Amazon pay a large fee and the only way that will be worthwhile is if it ups their subscriptions by a substantial amount. They are basically relying on people to sign up for a free trial/one month membership and then fall in love with the other content (or as will happen to a few thousand I'm sure, just forget to cancel it).

If everyone signs up for one month and then cancels, they won't do this again.

The NFL are not the bad guys here, at all. They are just your run of the mill business making the best decision financially, which will in turn continue to increase revenue which increases the salary cap and pays the players more.

It's kind of bizarre to label the NFL as greedy for this - like all of us who go to work - they are only doing this for money. They have no obligation to their fans - and in fact, they have MORE of an obligation to the players and if this makes them more money, which in turn makes the players more money, they should really do this more often.

Remember the next time that you are complaining about this that anyone who makes the league minimum and is at the bottom of the roster is NOT set for life - not even close. And probably isn't too far off from your salary relative  to the revenue of your company and the total number of employees. Doing more to be able to increase those salaries is much more important than making sure a fan who doesn't want to spend $6 can watch the game.

Where people start to turn on the idea is when you factor in that most stadiums are at least partially, if not fully, paid for with public tax dollars.  So Joe Q taxpayer is footing the bill for the stadiums, only to now not be able to at least watch the games on non subscription outlets.  

[TheKillerNacho]

4 minutes ago, INbengalfan said:

Where people start to turn on the idea is when you factor in that most stadiums are at least partially, if not fully, paid for with public tax dollars.  So Joe Q taxpayer is footing the bill for the stadiums, only to now not be able to at least watch the games on non subscription outlets.  

To play devil's advocate, though, these are local public tax dollars. So, as long as the games are broadcasted normally for the teams involved, Joe Q. whose taxes helped fund that stadium wouldn't have to pay to see it.