June 24, 2024

News Analysis: For Pay TV Clients, a Steady Diet of Sports

You are paying for it regardless.

Although “sports” never shows up as a line item on a cable or satellite bill, American television subscribers pay, on average, about $100 a year for sports programming — no matter how many games they watch. A sizable portion goes to the National Football League, which dominates sports on television and which struck an extraordinary deal this week with the major networks — $27 billion over nine years — that most likely means the average cable bill will rise again soon.

Those spiraling costs are fraying the formerly tight bonds between the creators and distributors of television. Cable channels like ESPN that carry games are charging cable and satellite operators more money, and broadcast networks are now doing the same, demanding cash for their broadcast signals and using sports as leverage.

And higher fees are raising concerns across the industry that cable bills may be reaching the breaking point for some consumers who are short of money.

The N.F.L. contracts announced this week “will surely enrich N.F.L. owners and players just as much as it will impoverish all pay TV subscribers, particularly those who will never watch an N.F.L. game,” said Matthew M. Polka, the president of the American Cable Association, which represents small cable operators. His group wants government officials to step in and make it harder for channel owners to demand higher fees for carriage and drop the channels when operators disagree.

Publicly expressing the private sentiments of others, Greg Maffei, the chief executive of Liberty Media, recently called the monthly cost of the media empire ESPN a “tax on every American household.”

Patrick Flynn personifies the consumer challenge. He and his wife, who pay Comcast $170 a month for television, Internet and a home phone in Beaverton, Ore., are keenly aware that part of their bill benefits the sports leagues that charge networks ever-increasing amounts for the TV rights to games. Save for one regional sports channel, he said, none of them are worth it.

“For the two or three games a year that our Washington Huskies are on ESPN, we can arrange for someone else to host the party,” he said.

But there are also millions of viewers like Russell Tibbits, of Dallas, who says, “If you eliminate sports channels from cable packages, I literally would not own a TV.”

Television and league executives argue that the vast majority of viewers not only want sports, but are, like Mr. Tibbits, willing to pay to watch a favorite team. On Sunday night, about 25 million people watched the New York Giants play the Dallas Cowboys on NBC — by far the highest-rated show on television for the night, more than tripling NBC’s average audience. ESPN, which broadcasts “Monday Night Football” and floods its week with football programming, is typically found by surveys to be the most valuable cable channel among subscribers.

But ESPN is also far costlier than any other channel, earning about $4.69 a month for each cable and satellite household in the United States, according to the research firm SNL Kagan. Next year the firm expects ESPN to cross the $5 a month threshold for the first time (the next highest is TNT, at $1.16 this year). On Thursday, ESPN announced its latest rights deal, one that extends through 2024 with the N.C.A.A.

“Sports is hugely popular in America,” said Edwin M. Durso, an executive vice president for ESPN, “and I think the prices that we and others pay for programming clearly reflect that.” Mr. Durso noted, accurately, that ESPN does not set retail prices for its content. But together with siblings like ESPN2 and ESPN Classic, the ESPN networks take in about $6.50 per subscriber each month, according to SNL Kagan. Other sports channels like Fox Sports Net, N.F.L. Network and Versus, soon to be renamed the NBC Sports Network, account for at least an additional $1.50 or so.

In the last few years broadcasters like CBS and NBC have started to posture for monthly fees from cable and satellite providers, and indirectly, those fees pay for sports programming, too.

Eventually, subscribers feel the pinch; “if you look at the whole media food chain, the last guy on it is the consumer,” said David Bank, an equity research analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c5576cdce42f4e7523ca65b60fd61a28

Tiger Beat: Still Squeaky Clean After All These Years

Tiger Beat, even now the glossiest of rags, began as an act of capitalist savvy that was also a good deed: acknowledging the interests and burgeoning desires of young women, a group that had been ignored all too often. Started in 1965 near the height of Beatlemania by Charles Laufer, who died this month at 87, and his brother Ira, Tiger Beat remains the original teen-girl tabloid, providing a steady diet of boyflesh to longingly gaze at, and helping to launch the careers of oodles of similarly coiffed, similarly moisturized young men, some of whom actually grew up to be famous.

In truth, the names of those who have filled the pages — the boys (Davy! Leif! Corey! Luke! Brian!) and the occasional relatable girl (Debbie! Miley!) — don’t much matter. Tiger Beat is a see-no-evil, speak-no-evil place holder for young readers not yet ready for the complex questions posed by, say, Seventeen magazine and Judy Blume books. It allows for playacting at desire, before the real, parent-scaring thing comes into play.

But even at its outset, Tiger Beat, innocent and chipper and with a prim ’50s aesthetic, was a bit of a relic. Teen culture was racing toward Woodstock and to more risqué territory beyond, but polished Tiger Beat was basically staying put. And as actual grown-folks magazines began to take an interest in the Justins of the world (Timberlake! Bieber!), and as young stars became more eager than ever to prove themselves to be anything but young, Tiger Beat has remained a naïf. It’s still packed with those huge fold-out posters stapled in the center, big gleaming boy beacons meant to be taped to walls and ceilings, the raw material for sweet dreams and future fantasies.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=7c73b0a13af2934528fa94ad20b71963