It’s Brent Musburger’s fault. If you watched the NFL in the 1980s Brent’s open for The NFL Today on CBS is the stuff of legend. I can hear him now:
You are looking LIVE at Soldier Field in Chicago where today the Bears take on their arch divisional rival the Green Bay Packers…
Except for the opening to ABC’s Wide World of Sports, no one before or since so perfectly captured what makes sports television great. It’s all about LIVE – the unique ability of sports to gather large audiences in front of the screen to watch the same thing at the same time. Or to use a more technical term, sports is the ultimate synchronous viewing experience.
I’m sure Brent had no idea how transformational his catchy line would be when he first uttered it more than forty years ago. “You are looking live” has been the catalyst for unimaginable growth and wealth creation among media companies, leagues, and players. It has been every sports network’s ace in the hole, showstopper, and knock-out punch in negotiations with advertisers and distributors.
Today the idea of live is more powerful than ever, just look at the record ratings of the NFL Playoffs, where all other forms of content (besides news) are mostly consumed on demand. Live stands on a pedestal, separate and apart from everything else we watch.
“You are looking live” has been so powerful, effective, and successful that it is the closest thing we have in this industry to sacrosanct, incontrovertible dogma. Part and parcel of this dogma is the universally accepted belief that the entire traditional television ecosystem dangles precariously over the abyss, supported only by the thread of live sports. It’s no longer a question of if the thread will break and television as we’ve known it will tumble into oblivion, it’s a question of when.
Ironically, for all the undeniable success of the “you are looking live,” I think it is the biggest stumbling block for executives challenged with migrating their sports businesses into the new world of DTC, streaming media. “You are looking live,” or the devotion to synchronous viewing experiences, has been so good and so ingrained in the heads of anyone who’s ever worked in sports media, that it is practically impossible to think about the business in any other way.
The prevailing fear consuming sports media executives today is that when the traditional linear bundle finally craters, there won’t be enough demand for sports DTC packages (ESPN could reportedly cost $30-$40 a month) to replace the once lucrative revenue from the old business model.
To succeed sports media executives will have to embrace the realities of a messier, complicated, and fragmented media landscape. They must think beyond a once-size-fits-all live approach and master delivering different types of synchronous AND asynchronous viewing experiences. And they will need to get a lot more creative and innovative in how they package and market their content.
Of course, live will remain paramount. The core pitch to consumers will be a monthly/annual subscription for full, unfettered access to the content. But no pure play sports offering, including ESPN, can make it on its own strictly as a standalone DTC product. Aggregation or bundling with a range of partners and networks is a must.
But that’s just the beginning. Sports networks will need to come to market with more innovative products targeted to smaller, more specific fan segments. Access to games can be packaged in all sorts of ways, like how teams sell tickets. Rivalry games, multi-game packages, marquee matchups, whatever the case may be. The idea is to experiment with a host of products and find out what resonates.
It’s no secret that younger fans often prefer highlights to live events. How can networks monetize this audience with highly curated, real time (or close to it) highlight driven offerings?
Also, it will be essential for networks to think differently about their non-game content or shoulder programming: pre/post game shows, news and highlights, opinion and analysis, gambling, etc. These shows are broadcast live, or practically live, but you don’t necessarily have to view them live. Today the baseline for success for this type of programming is ratings, but in a streaming world it will be their ability to generate affinity and loyalty that people are willing to pay for.
This will be a difficult transition. The philosophical divide between the traditional and today’s on-demand world was front and center in the recent public feud between Pat McAfee and ESPN management. I’m not going to recount the facts nor pass judgement on anyone’s behavior, but what the dust up plainly revealed is that traditional sports television networks remain slavishly focused on live ratings as the primary criteria for success.
That will need to change if networks are to create new business models beyond “it’s all about live ratings” for non-game sports programming. With its deep roster of talent and resources, ESPN has a host of opportunities to experiment and innovate around highly customized, bespoke, subscription products. Just to use one obvious example, the network could package a daily magazine type offering of highlights and analysis from Stephen A. Smith, Dan Orlovsky, Mel Kiper, etc. delivered daily via email or text to fans for a monthly fee.
Sports networks could learn a lot from successful, niche media companies like The Information, Puck, and The Ankler. They are building good businesses by being laser focused on delivering high quality content for very specific niches and audience segments.
I’m not suggesting that these new products will supersede the live product. Far from it. But to truly maximize consumer reach and revenue sports networks will need a broad portfolio of products and price points.
Such an approach will require a wholesale change in how sports networks market themselves. Yes, the macro, we have this big game strategy would be part of it. But they also will need to invest heavily in marketing technology and data and analytics, as well as embrace rapid test and learn strategies. It also will change the way they evaluate and compensate talent. These skill sets and philosophies are native to digital companies, which is part of the reason why I suggested ESPN would be better off partnering, or merging, with a company like YouTube.
Of course, none of this innovation can happen at scale until the networks decide to bite the bullet and renegotiate their carriage agreements with traditional distributors. This is no easy decision. Even in an epidemic of cord cutting, today’s business model still accounts for billions in revenue and margin. But the day is coming when that will no longer be the case. I’m sure media executives in Bristol, Stamford, New York, and Los Angeles have a future date circled on their calendars projecting when that day finally arrives.
The paradigm shift from the “you are looking live” world of the single, synchronous feed to endlessly fragmented and complicated modes of distribution is incredibly daunting and terrifying for anyone who has grown up working in traditional television. At the same time, it’s hard to imagine anything more exciting in media today than the opportunity to reinvent sports television.
Those fortunate to have positions of power to drive such changes have been given an incredible gift. Don’t fight it, embrace it. And in the end, even with all the change that’s coming, for as long as we enjoy watching sports Brent’s iconic line will remain as relevant as ever.