Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

I found this article interesting. Especially if you watch sports besides streaming racing. It even mentions Flo.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/pay-40-month-watch-favorite-214936052.html

I don't think there is any denying that 10 years from now, almost everything you watch will be through some sort of streaming and a large portion of this will be ala carte pay-per-view programs.  I hate it, but that's the reality.  A good friend of mine is a Dish Network dealer/installer.  He said the writing is on the wall for not only them, but anything related to cable.  Soon, you won't tune into networks to watch racing, football, baseball, etc.   You'll buy what you want to watch rather than flip through a guide to see whats on, you'll only have access to what you've purchased.  Have already been seeing it for years now, but we are only at the tip of the iceberg.  If Nascar decides to move forward with a streaming only audience, which it sounds like they're going to, they will even further isolate themselves.  It worked for the Chicago Cubs.  It's working for Yankees and Lakers.   Nascar?  Might actually be their death as a mainstream professional sport, and they'll be a niche like dirt track racing is.  No casual watchers are going to fork out the money for a monthly subscription to Nascar, but they will turn on the end of a race as they're flipping through the guide on Sunday afternoon and all that's on is PBA bowling and infomercials.  JMO

Just a thought. I haven't watched a NASCAR race in decades, but... wouldn't it depend on how they price their product? For example, suppose they tried to entice a lot of folks that aren't currently big NASCAR fans into watching for $5?

I wouldn't pay anything to watch NASCAR and I am still a bit of a fan. I DVR it on Direct TV and watch it at times 4 except for a few laps at each stage finish and the end. Some interviews I watch and most I don't.

I doubt anyone would get pulled in even at a bargaing price. For one thing the events are to long and there are way to many commercials like football.

NASCAR, I would NEVER pay to see it.  I used to be a huge fan, attending the first 7 Brickyards but never again. I subscribe to Flo, but not Dirtvision.  I was always of the belief that the All Stars put on a better show and having my local 410 group, the IRA on Flo as well as all USAC shows, made it a no brainer for me.  Also, I am not paying to hear nails on a blackboard. Where I live, I cannot get Packer games if they are on at the same time as the Bears.  I would pay ala carte for my teams games.  Thing is, that with Green Bay being good, I only have to go to a bar to watch maybe 3 games a year.  It obviously would matter on price.  NFL Ticket is over $375 a year or close.  If I was to move out of the area, it would be worth it, same as I would most likely get Dirtvision, because I likely would not be attending local races like I do now, every week.  

I'd bet they about 2/3 of their current audience only watches because it's free and wouldn't pay a cent.   

I don't think you can necessarily judge a potential audience just because you don't care for something. I don't care for rap music, but apparently some folks do.

My other thought is that people might not be willing to pay, say $40 to watch a NASCAR race, but would they be alright watching it for free, if they had to endure some commercial interuptions? To me, part of the future of streaming will be the shift of what we now call network TV to online form.

I've watched Nascar my entire life and still do. The product isn't what I grew up with, but I've accepted that. I will say the start of this year has been pretty freaking good. I'd pay a reasonable amonut of money to watch it all year. For full context on my dirt purchases, I buy Flo every year, I dont buy Dirtvision. Dirtvision, with just the Outlaws and other ancillary programs doesnt justify double the cost. Again, just my thought.

As far as paying for what you want, isn't that people have been clamoring for, for quite a while now. Maybe its just the people I hang with. It would usually be, "I have all these stupid channels, why can't I just buy the channels I want?" Well maybe now it'll happen. But I bet you'll probably end up paying more. 

Eight years ago I "cut the cord" (don't really understand that term since the vast majority of people still get their internet through some type of cable) and at that time it saved me about $150 a month or about $1,800 a year.  I had cable for NASCAR, NFL football and believe it or not back then there was still some decent shows on channels like the History Channel and some others like it.  I put up an antenna at my house then purchased NFL gamepass international which was about $250 a year and relied on piracy for the rest of the content I was looking for (including password sharing for streaming services).  My new "system" cost me $250 per year and probably around $1,000 in equipment on the low end (antenna, amplifiers, rewiring my house, better networking equipment and streaming boxes).  So the first year I might have saved $500.  The next year I saved at least $1,500, probably more if you figure in what the price increase of cable was but probably less if you factor in I'm a techy kind of guy and enjoyed setting this stuff up so I'm generally buying at least one new streaming box every year.  My grandpa is now paying over $300 a month for cable tv and internet (I would love to get him on a streaming package but I won't put him or myself through that torture lol).  Anyway, my point is, ten years ago I remember one of the main complaints being "I have 500 channels and only watch three or four of them, why do I have to pay for all this crap I don't care to watch?".  Well we're there now.  I love NFL football, I was happy to pay the $250 a year to get every NFL game, which I wasn't getting on regular cable, unfortunately I now have to go through Youtube TV which is $450 a year, which I will probably still get.  Two years ago I would've said I couldn't care less about NASCAR but I'm not sure if you've been watching, they've had four really good races so far and for the first time in 15 years, I'm making it a point to watch the races so I would be happy to pay for a NASCAR streaming package.  Say a NASCAR package is in the neighborhood of a Dirtvision subscription, I'm still paying $750 a year for the same content I used to have to pay $1,800 a year to get.

I think this is all great but unfortunately this is how I see it turning out and I think it's already starting.  There isn't going to be NFL only or NASCAR only streaming service.  They are going to have some games and races on Amazon, some on Youtube TV some on Apple TV, some on Hulu, some on Peacock and some on Netflix.  So you're going to end up having to subscribe to all of these different services and guess what?  We'll all be paying what we were or more than we used to pay.  But there's options now which I think is great.  However I also see this, the cable industry learned that people weren't willing to pay the prices they were charging and with streaming platforms aproaching cable prices, I think piracy is going to skyrocket again.

Your last paragraph is spot on.  The NFL is already doing just this very thing.  They put out bids for Sunday football, Sunday Night Football, Monday Night Football, and last year, signed a record deal with Amazon to play Thursday Night Football.  Then, they follow it up with an "experimental" first ever streaming-only playoff game-----and they advertised and promoted it as some kind of breakthrough, advantage for the fan!!!!   Next year, I'll bet you will need at least 3 different streaming services if you want to see every NFL playoff game.

They are turning us all into complete idiot sheep!  But hey, I love my sports, and I just keep going "bah" and paying for it.  DV and Flo are an absolute bargain when compared to the other sports and streaming services I pay for.   

TV has changed a lot since me earliest memories of the mid 50's and the b&w TV's with knobs the size of small saucers and resolution where it was hard to see the football.  When everyone started cutting the chord myself included we all knew the good prices and convenience wasn't going to last.  Like they say "live for today" and the WoO is in Texas tonight on DV.  This TV viewing model is evolving and will likely price my old retired ass out of the market before I hit 75.  I wouldn't be surprised because the good deals never last forever.

All a person can do is adapt and pay for streaming races as long as we can afford to.  I have a line drawn in the sand where I'd likely refuse to pay more.  My first step would be to dump Flo and keep DV with Knoxville and Husets weekly.  Option two, dump both and go back to audio, YouTube hilites and website updates.  The final option is to say screw it after seven decades and go sit around on a lawn chair and shoot the breeze at Vintage racing events.  I'm adaptable and even the sports I enjoy have a limit to how much I can spend to follow them.  
 

Sprint Car racing needs every fan spending every buck they possibly can.  People are busy these days so making television exposure cost prohibitive puts racing back to the level of drive in movies.  You can only watch if you drive a few hundred miles to a dirt track in the middle of nowhere and pay $300 a night for a room.  That's not a formula for future growth with all but the most hard core fans.  

Stan Meissner

Excellent post.  Yes truely cutting the cord is not the case for most folks.

I love my Direct TV and I have had it since 1996 shortly after it started up. I have paid them a lot of money. We are able to write half of it off for a rental unit. Cable is not an option at our house. Luckily we have fairly fast DSL.

NFL is different than the other sports currently.

I subscribed to Dirt Vision during their sale around the first of the year so with Flo I'm paying about $1 a day for both of them together. Everything goes up every year.

Nothing is ever cheaper in the end.

I expect people will push back eventually but it may take a very long time and then I'll be watching from heaven or hell . . . . . .

I used to fill my first car for a few bucks when a buck bought four gallons.  I literally drove to race tracks at around 26 cents per gallon when I started driving.  This inflation sucks but I have been there and lost buying power several times over the years.  I keep up with international trade and shipping as a former traffic department nerd and it's a mess. 

Stan Meissner

As a non smoker, I have spent as much money on add on sports programing as I spent on cigarettes.  No plan on changing.  But if they start paying people to watch, I will participate.

I don't think you'll have to worry about it then.  You'll soon pay for every sporting event you want to watch whether on wheels, or stick and ball.  

I get the frustration with streaming.  For one, when I want to watch TV, I just want to turn something on and not really have to think about it.  Streaming TV is a lot more "work" I would say.  Another thing I find is I think there's too many things to watch and most nights I just don't have the energy to find something to watch, going through reading tons of descriptions to try to find something to watch just seems like too much to deal with most nights, you'd hate to pick something only to find out there's something better you could be watching.  I used to just flip through the four or five channels I watched and would always find something.  The other thing is all of the great things about streaming are going away, like no commercials now we will get ads on all of them before long, the price is not as friendly as it used to be and now there's a ton of different services to get.  Also the setup sucks, years ago you ran a cable to your TV and you were good to go.  Now, you need other equipment that you either need to rent or buy, maintain and setup yourself, which in itself is very frustrating because if you don't know how to do this there's all kinds of bad advice out there which can be frustrating.  You also need to buy a streaming box, which again the options are endless.  And then you need to sign into all of these apps.  It's a frustrating experience.

But overall I think streaming is great.  Fifteen years ago I had the choice of two different local cable companies or two different satelite providers and I was at the mercy of what they offered.  And no matter which option you picked they were all expensive.  A great thing about these streaming services is from what I've seen I don't think any of them have contracts, you can literally get them for a month and drop it right after that and get it again later with no penalty.  I know someone that sticks by only having two different streaming services a month, they'll have Netflix for a few months then drop it and get Disney and just go down the line.  Last year If you wanted to watch your local NFL team and all the playoff games, most people could put an antenna up and get Peacock for a month and the grand total would've cost $15 or $20, whatever Peacock costs a month, for a whole year.  I used to pay $1,800 per year for that.  You want to watch NASCAR?  Get a live TV service for four or five months at $60 or $70 per month and then get Peacock once NBC takes over and then drop Peacock afterwards, you're talking at max $450 per year for that, again something I used to pay $1,800 per year for.  If you want to watch whatever, at most it's probably going to be at most $500 a year for.  The options are awesome if you ask me, ten years ago if you wanted to see every WOO race, you were SOL, it's a niche sport that doesn't make financial sense to be on cable TV.  Without streaming there is no way Dirtvision or Flo could've offered their services.  But my favorite part of streaming is the portability.  Even though I have a beautiful 65" OLED TV in my living room with an awesome surround sound system, in the summer time I would rather sit outside on my patio, so if I want to watch something in the summer time, I usually grab a tablet and a beverage and watch whatever I want outside in the fresh air.  Another awesome portability thing is when I travel, I bought a cheap streaming stick from Wal Mart for $15 and just plug it in to the TV at the hotel and I have everything I'm used to and don't even mess with their TV setup.  I can also watch whatever I want in the car when we're traveling.  The options are endless and you can really get a setup tailored to however you want it.  I get that it's frustrating but I think it's a much better option than we used to have.

I have an older laptop (from my son) that I use as my streaming only device. The Firestick is on my wife's big screen. My Apple TV device is back in the box. It is easy to plug the laptop into the HDMI inputs of any TV where ever I go (I also travel a long HDMI cable) and it has decent sized screen, much better resolution than a tablet although a little less convenient.

I use a Roku TV hard wired to the router like a computer.  The streaming services have apps so aside from 50' of cable, a couple cable ends and a $30 Ethernet hub to split the computer network.  There isn't any special equipment required as I have the option to connect with WiFi.  Streaming is easy and only requires an internet connection. 

Stan Meissner

I don't think streaming is very difficult either.  But back in the day, you call the cable company, they come and see where your TV is, they hook up a cable, if you had a set top box they show you how to use the remote.  It was literally that easy, you had to do nothing but be there.  If you had problems, you made ONE phone call to the cable company and they would fix it for you.  You are correct, you don't have a very difficult setup and from your previous posts, you seem to have an interest in this.  But take someone that has NO interest in anything with a computer and doesn't really know anyone that does either.  Now they have to go to the store and buy a box of bulk cable then buy a crimper and then buy some ends and then learn how to put an rj45 end on, or more than likely buy a cable.  But if they want to skip that they can do like you said and just use wifi.  So they go to the store to get a router, they're going to probably go to a place like Wal Mart and the kid working in the electronics department will sell them on the cheapest router because that's all you need.  So they get it home and now have to setup that router, which isn't as easy as it used to be, the majority are no longer plug and play.  IF and WHEN they figure that out they can connect their devices.  But do they know what the 5g thing is about?  Then why does it keep cutting out in the family room addition that was put on twenty years ago?  Why doesn't it work very good in their bedroom on the second story?  Do you call Dirtvision, they're going to tell you to fix your network?  Do you call whoever you bought your router from, they're going to say it's either Dirtvision's problem or your ISP.  Do you call your ISP?  They're going to come do a speed test WHERE IT COMES IN THE HOUSE and tell you their stuff is working and to call Dirtvision or your router manufacturer.  Will any of them come out and properly setup your network?  No it will be finger pointing.  The setup at my house works flawlessly too but I have all Ubiquiti equipment with multiple access points setup throughout my house (they are needed because I have an addition on my house) and outside with all of my streaming devices hardwired but my setup isn't for the average user either but it does work great.  As I said, I really like the streaming experience but it is in NO way easier than the traditional cable setup was and I totally get how and why it would frustrate people (I've seen it first hand).

You make a good point.  I guess every Sprint Car fan doesnt setup and maintain their home network, especially in our 70's.  I'm running a Linux network, hard wired the TV's to the router and tinker around with five guitars and a 24 track home studio.  Solder my own patch cables and guitar cords.  I suppose that isn't what most people my age are into.  You have a valid point.  

Stan Meissner