https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2023/12/amazon-diamond-sports-discussing-potential-streaming-deal.html

 

As Diamond’s bankruptcy process continues, Lauren Thomas and Joe Flint of the Wall Street Journal report that the corporation is engaged with Amazon about a potential multi-year streaming agreement. The discussions, which are not complete and would need to be approved by the bankruptcy court even if Diamond and Amazon reach an agreement, would see Amazon invest in Diamond with a goal of eventually acquiring streaming rights for teams on those broadcasts. Diamond would continue to operate its cable networks.

There has been a general expectation that Diamond’s reorganization will see the business abandon all of its broadcasting deals with MLB after the 2024 season. Evan Drellich of the Athletic wrote last week that Diamond and MLB were nearing agreement on a deal that would at least provide clarity on how which of its 11 contracts* it would honor for the ’24 campaign. The Athletic reported last month that the company was considering dropping its contracts with the Rangers and Guardians before next season.

 

Could be an interesting development - not sure if deals would be re-negotiated or if it'd be the same deal just on Amazon.

This has been where I have felt the RSN networks were headed for a while anyway.  Just a matter really of WHICH streamer wanted to step up to this.

What is truly needed is for MLBAM to partner with a streamer for these rights essentially (which may the ultimate route), in order to really get the product out.  

Where I THINK MLB should ultimately go:

 

Put the products in the local markets on local stations.  Sell ads and make money

Put the product on any number of streatming platforms (though his really can be accomplished via mlb.tv), BUT you also actually sell ads and play the ads (probably more localized ads for your regular games) and then some national ads mixed in.

Because the reality is that the money on the RSN deals are from the ad buys, the local ads you sell are based on viewership largely, increase viewership and increase ad rates.  

I'd almost rather see local ads over the stupid commerical break banner on mlb.tv honestly. 

56 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

This has been where I have felt the RSN networks were headed for a while anyway.  Just a matter really of WHICH streamer wanted to step up to this.

What is truly needed is for MLBAM to partner with a streamer for these rights essentially (which may the ultimate route), in order to really get the product out.  

Where I THINK MLB should ultimately go:

 

Put the products in the local markets on local stations.  Sell ads and make money

Put the product on any number of streatming platforms (though his really can be accomplished via mlb.tv), BUT you also actually sell ads and play the ads (probably more localized ads for your regular games) and then some national ads mixed in.

Because the reality is that the money on the RSN deals are from the ad buys, the local ads you sell are based on viewership largely, increase viewership and increase ad rates.  

I'd almost rather see local ads over the stupid commerical break banner on mlb.tv honestly. 

I agree.  It is nice with Bally having the app where it can be streamed or paid on its own now if you don't have a cable bundle with access.

The real problem with shifting things to streaming is the antiquated blackout rules, which would limit broad streaming ability.

 

With streaming, you theoretically should be able to purchase and watch the team's broadcast from anywhere.  But MLB's blackout restrictions don't allow that, which is dumb.

 

2 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

With streaming, you theoretically should be able to purchase and watch the team's broadcast from anywhere.  But MLB's blackout restrictions don't allow that, which is dumb.

Someone's gotta step up and revamp blackout rules sooner rather than later. The whole concept is outdated, it doesn't do what it was intended to do anymore. 

1 hour ago, Das Texan said:

This has been where I have felt the RSN networks were headed for a while anyway.  Just a matter really of WHICH streamer wanted to step up to this.

What is truly needed is for MLBAM to partner with a streamer for these rights essentially (which may the ultimate route), in order to really get the product out.  

Where I THINK MLB should ultimately go:

 

Put the products in the local markets on local stations.  Sell ads and make money

Put the product on any number of streatming platforms (though his really can be accomplished via mlb.tv), BUT you also actually sell ads and play the ads (probably more localized ads for your regular games) and then some national ads mixed in.

Because the reality is that the money on the RSN deals are from the ad buys, the local ads you sell are based on viewership largely, increase viewership and increase ad rates.  

I'd almost rather see local ads over the stupid commerical break banner on mlb.tv honestly. 

When I used to watch the Marlins on DirecTV through that MLB pass it always played the local ads and it would also often keep streaming until the actual post game show stuff came on versus just immediately cutting off when the final out is made. 

I particularly enjoyed one for Estrella car insurance with a lovely endowed lady of class

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

Someone's gotta step up and revamp blackout rules sooner rather than later. The whole concept is outdated, it doesn't do what it was intended to do anymore. 

They should give the provider for each team the opportunity to run their own streaming service for that team, so that folks across the country have the ability to watch that team, and while still giving the provider rights to the broadcast for that team.

For example, there is zero reason for folks in Iowa to not get one Chicago team or the other because they "technically" fall in one or the other's jurisdiction (I think that's the reports we've gotten from our Iowa posters, anyway).  let them sign up for whichever they want.  The team/broadcaster will still get the fees.

3 hours ago, rmc523 said:

I agree.  It is nice with Bally having the app where it can be streamed or paid on its own now if you don't have a cable bundle with access.

The real problem with shifting things to streaming is the antiquated blackout rules, which would limit broad streaming ability.

 

With streaming, you theoretically should be able to purchase and watch the team's broadcast from anywhere.  But MLB's blackout restrictions don't allow that, which is dumb.

 

If its offered as a part of MLB.tv there arent really any blackout rules since both MLB and well MLB owns the streaming rights.

 

The biggest reason for that is because Diamond doesnt actaully own streaming rights to most clubs.  

 

Its a problem MLB has adckowledged but havent really been serious about correcting, though it seems they actually are semi serious this time ,they just mostly need Diamond to go away. 

2 hours ago, hovertical said:

When I used to watch the Marlins on DirecTV through that MLB pass it always played the local ads and it would also often keep streaming until the actual post game show stuff came on versus just immediately cutting off when the final out is made. 

I particularly enjoyed one for Estrella car insurance with a lovely endowed lady of class

They seem to be inconsistent in when they play ads v when they dont play ads, agreed on that completely.   What I think they either dont track (though i dont see why they cant) is how many people actually watch x team's games live.  Which is something truly sellable to both national and local ad buyers.  Though my assumption that they dont track it officially becuase well MLB gains zero from mlb.tv streaming outside fo the actual subscription rates which they already have.

If they are selling the ads also, you bet your bottom dollar that will be fully tracked, reported and everything else. 

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

They should give the provider for each team the opportunity to run their own streaming service for that team, so that folks across the country have the ability to watch that team, and while still giving the provider rights to the broadcast for that team.

For example, there is zero reason for folks in Iowa to not get one Chicago team or the other because they "technically" fall in one or the other's jurisdiction (I think that's the reports we've gotten from our Iowa posters, anyway).  let them sign up for whichever they want.  The team/broadcaster will still get the fees.

This is 100% due to Diamond not owning those streaming rights.

5 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

If its offered as a part of MLB.tv there arent really any blackout rules since both MLB and well MLB owns the streaming rights.

I thought this was much more the cable companies wanting to black out local teams to force people who want to watch baseball to buy their packages and MLB saying "yeah ok fine."

 

That said if the RSNs all go kaput, then ... 🤷‍♂️ all onto MLB TV with no blackouts. Do it!

3 minutes ago, Michael said:

I thought this was much more the cable companies wanting to black out local teams to force people who want to watch baseball to buy their packages and MLB saying "yeah ok fine."

 

That said if the RSNs all go kaput, then ... 🤷‍♂️ all onto MLB TV with no blackouts. Do it!

It was probably a little of all of that.

Regardless, the RSN's only own whatever the 'approved' market is for that team, they didnt own the streaming rights only the over air rights.  So if you were in that approved market you 'should' be able to subscribe to the Bally's package, which has gotten much better in the last year (when they first rolled it out holy hell was it bad quality), but I also know there are a lot of limitations on what they are and arent allowed to do based on what rights they own.  

In the NBA for instance, the streaming rights for every team has been bundled with the other rights, so it has been far easier for them on NBA and NHL rights as well. 

57 minutes ago, Das Texan said:

If its offered as a part of MLB.tv there arent really any blackout rules since both MLB and well MLB owns the streaming rights.

 

The biggest reason for that is because Diamond doesnt actaully own streaming rights to most clubs.  

 

Its a problem MLB has adckowledged but havent really been serious about correcting, though it seems they actually are semi serious this time ,they just mostly need Diamond to go away. 

Hmm.....for some reason, I thought MLB.tv also had those limitations (which doesn't make sense, but that's why it was always a confusing issue to me).

 

50 minutes ago, Michael said:

I thought this was much more the cable companies wanting to black out local teams to force people who want to watch baseball to buy their packages and MLB saying "yeah ok fine."

 

That said if the RSNs all go kaput, then ... 🤷‍♂️ all onto MLB TV with no blackouts. Do it!

Yeah, I thought that's how it was too.

5 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Hmm.....for some reason, I thought MLB.tv also had those limitations (which doesn't make sense, but that's why it was always a confusing issue to me).

 

Yeah, I thought that's how it was too.

MLB.tv does have limitations on local rights.  They cant stream games in markets where a RSN has acquired those rights.

 

What I"m simply saying is if the RSN and MLB.tv are essentially both owned by MLB....

 

There really wouldnt be any other party not being made whole on these rights.  The fact that MLB has allowed this to happen (when they very well could have resolved this YEARS ago) is another issue in and of itself, which is beyond fucking stupid at this point.

An update:

Evan Drellich of the Athletic reports that Diamond has streaming rights for five of the MLB teams whose broadcasting deals it covers: Detroit, Kansas City, Miami, Milwaukee and Tampa Bay. Even if an agreement between Amazon and Diamond is reached with regards to streaming, they would need to negotiate additional deals with MLB if they want to stream games for any of the other six clubs.

 

Which explains why Bally's can stream Marlins games.