Viewership

[southsider2k5]

19 hours ago, Texsox said:

The Detroit suburbs are very nice. If you prefer a quieter, more outdoor rich lifestyle, the Detroit area would be a great option. 

My favorite part of the Detroit area was always Canada.

[Texsox]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

My favorite part of the Detroit area was always Canada.

Another great Detroit suburb. 

[JoeC]

8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

My favorite part of the Detroit area was always Canada.

aka the mythical “South Detroit.”

[caulfield12]

https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2025/02/24/white-sox-broadcasts-chsn-ratings

If Blackhawks are down 80% and Bulls 63%, one would hate to see the Sox numbers.

Ofc Cubs conversely are now taking off at the exact perfect time to cushion the move to a higher tier pricing model at Comcast.

[tray]

Comcast in a monopoly rules over distribution, availability,  and subscriptions, and that is no different when it comes to their monopoly over content. So who  was holding the upper hand when it came time to dealing with Sox/Bulls/Hawks ? Should the Sox/Bulls/Hawks/Reinsdorfs//Wirtz just accept whatever deal Comcast dictates to them?

[southsider2k5]

20 minutes ago, tray said:

Comcast in a monopoly rules over distribution, availability,  and subscriptions, and that is no different when it comes to their monopoly over content. So who  was holding the upper hand when it came time to dealing with Sox/Bulls/Hawks ? Should the Sox/Bulls/Hawks/Reinsdorfs//Wirtz just accept whatever deal Comcast dictates to them?

This is patently false.  Comcast holds a monopoly over their own distribution network, because it is their own.  There is every other cable company, satellite company, and streaming service out there, not to mention free network television out there.  Comcast has 55% of television in Chicago, which again isn't a monopoly.  You sound like Jerry's errand boy with stuff like this.

[caulfield12]

9 minutes ago, tray said:

Comcast in a monopoly rules over distribution, availability,  and subscriptions, and that is no different when it comes to their monopoly over content. So who  was holding the upper hand when it came time to dealing with Sox/Bulls/Hawks ? Should the Sox/Bulls/Hawks/Reinsdorfs//Wirtz just accept whatever deal Comcast dictates to them?

Why would Comcast give in when the White Sox are simultaneously trying to give their product away for free?

Let's just argue viewership at CHSN is down 70% from what was already a terrible base or foundation in 2024 to start off with...for Comcast and/or advertisers you're not getting much bang for your buck.

And you can make a lot more money off a surging Cubs' team that fans will (at least for now) much more willingly pay another $20 per month on the plus tier.

No more leverage from Bulls or hockey fans either.

[tray]

17 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is patently false.  Comcast holds a monopoly over their own distribution network, because it is their own.  There is every other cable company, satellite company, and streaming service out there, not to mention free network television out there.  Comcast has 55% of television in Chicago, which again isn't a monopoly.  You sounds like Jerry's errand boy with stuff like this.

 

Look, I am going to defer to another person who commented elsewhere on this:

"I’m not sure why they aren’t more scrutinized for anti-trust behaviors in general, and specific to Internet access services. About 80% of US households have one “broadband” option.

Traditionally cable TV was the alternative to satellite TV, or OTA (over the air) broadcasts. Data was not in the picture then. The franchise agreements were formed around this time. With data becoming (maybe not legally) a “utility” service since, one would think things should change now. But they really haven’t. What I would like to see happen is competition, but that is really, really expensive. Google Fiber is one of the only “over-builders” in this area. There are some municipal networks now too, small in scale.

What is interesting about competition is, Comcast and a collective of cable and telco companies form groups/organizations that lobby and fight off this competition (“overbuilders”). They try to pass state laws that prohibit municipal investments in a fiber network, or even Google Fiber from expanding, etc. And, for whatever reason, this is not considered anti-trust (eg, “cartel”) behavior.

It’s not that it (the cable industry) started out a cartel, but with data services they have effectively become that in my eyes (and Netflix, unofficially Google and others). There were hundreds of cable networks, now there are 4 or 5 large ones, who bought up the rest. And they don't compete with each other. This is the definition of cartel per the Sherman Act. It's just not clear IF or what collusion is involved between them as far as setting prices, packages or terms (caps). But like I said, they do form "anti-competition" groups.

Probably factoring in their lobbying efforts, they also are able to set (their own) data caps, and speed and general performance standards. No regulatory board is doing that. Other than some very low (basic) customer service requirements (franchise agreement contracts), they are not really regulated when it comes to data offerings. The FCC is trying (Title II), but of course the cartel is fighting that in the courts. And congress is watching the show, if they even are aware there is a show.

The latest franchise agreements no longer provide exclusivity, but that was not the case 5 and 10 years ago. Hence, Comcast claims anyone can compete… come and build. They then complain about other things, how they pick the service areas, how the municipalities are involved, etc. Basically, they want competition to compete is ways that cannot work, cannot scale. Using old, 1980’s telco models. The Internet has changed things, except for the grandfathered companies.

Another similar/related concept is how the FCC manages RF spectrum, and more specifically how the broadcast TV providers were granted rights back in, I think the 30's and 40’s, to broadcast television. Keep in mind, the airwaves are public domain/property - a public resource. At the time, there was little infrastructure and ability for the government to propagate information (news, Presidential addresses, PSA, etc). ABC, NBC, CBS and like were given an awesome resource, for peanuts. They now reap huge profits off of these resources. Times have changed, it’s time for us to use that RF spectrum in more efficient and better ways. It belongs to the people. The people can get better use, at the expense of loss of some free entertainment. And forcing the companies in question to change, evolve."

 

[southsider2k5]

31 minutes ago, tray said:

 

Look, I am going to defer to another person who commented elsewhere on this:

"I’m not sure why they aren’t more scrutinized for anti-trust behaviors in general, and specific to Internet access services. About 80% of US households have one “broadband” option.

Traditionally cable TV was the alternative to satellite TV, or OTA (over the air) broadcasts. Data was not in the picture then. The franchise agreements were formed around this time. With data becoming (maybe not legally) a “utility” service since, one would think things should change now. But they really haven’t. What I would like to see happen is competition, but that is really, really expensive. Google Fiber is one of the only “over-builders” in this area. There are some municipal networks now too, small in scale.

What is interesting about competition is, Comcast and a collective of cable and telco companies form groups/organizations that lobby and fight off this competition (“overbuilders”). They try to pass state laws that prohibit municipal investments in a fiber network, or even Google Fiber from expanding, etc. And, for whatever reason, this is not considered anti-trust (eg, “cartel”) behavior.

It’s not that it (the cable industry) started out a cartel, but with data services they have effectively become that in my eyes (and Netflix, unofficially Google and others). There were hundreds of cable networks, now there are 4 or 5 large ones, who bought up the rest. And they don't compete with each other. This is the definition of cartel per the Sherman Act. It's just not clear IF or what collusion is involved between them as far as setting prices, packages or terms (caps). But like I said, they do form "anti-competition" groups.

Probably factoring in their lobbying efforts, they also are able to set (their own) data caps, and speed and general performance standards. No regulatory board is doing that. Other than some very low (basic) customer service requirements (franchise agreement contracts), they are not really regulated when it comes to data offerings. The FCC is trying (Title II), but of course the cartel is fighting that in the courts. And congress is watching the show, if they even are aware there is a show.

The latest franchise agreements no longer provide exclusivity, but that was not the case 5 and 10 years ago. Hence, Comcast claims anyone can compete… come and build. They then complain about other things, how they pick the service areas, how the municipalities are involved, etc. Basically, they want competition to compete is ways that cannot work, cannot scale. Using old, 1980’s telco models. The Internet has changed things, except for the grandfathered companies.

Another similar/related concept is how the FCC manages RF spectrum, and more specifically how the broadcast TV providers were granted rights back in, I think the 30's and 40’s, to broadcast television. Keep in mind, the airwaves are public domain/property - a public resource. At the time, there was little infrastructure and ability for the government to propagate information (news, Presidential addresses, PSA, etc). ABC, NBC, CBS and like were given an awesome resource, for peanuts. They now reap huge profits off of these resources. Times have changed, it’s time for us to use that RF spectrum in more efficient and better ways. It belongs to the people. The people can get better use, at the expense of loss of some free entertainment. And forcing the companies in question to change, evolve."

 

Because only one company seeing an individual marketplace as profitable doesn't necessarily make it a monopoly.  If a town only has a Wal-Mart or one grocery store it doesn't make it a monopoly.  That isn't how that works.

[caulfield12]

That was probably Love to Watch Ray Run...by definition, if anything, there's much more competition in this market segment now than 10-15 years ago.

Any type of monopoly argument would have been more relevant in the 80s or 90s.

 

Basically the White Sox are in the entertainment business, but are not providing a compelling product.  Business 101. 

Same reasons the Astros famously had a 0.0 local share in the early 2000s...but then went on an almost dynastic run for a decade following that when they put playoff team after playoff team on the field.

Why would market forces do them the favor of bailing them out of that decision to not put a competitive product on the field?

For that matter...why would local or state government help them out with public financing for a new stadium?

Do better.

Be better.

You have to spend money and invest in your product to make money and build trust in the community.

Edited April 25 by caulfield12

[tray]

Comcast has worked with (legitimately of illegitimately) local Mayors and municipalities to restrict build outs for Google Fiber and ATT in some suburbs, and that has not always been out in the open.  Comcast is wired almost everywhere including my SW suburban neck of the woods. NO ATT or Google Fiber. Oh sure, want a satellite on your roof that has terrible reliability in storms ?

Bottom line is that JR/the Sox/Bulls/Hawks got told what the deal was by Comcast and it was not acceptable to them. Hard to say which side(s)  were unreasonable without knowing all the facts. I do know that one side had the upper hand and the  other (didn't) bow to them.

Edited April 25 by tray

[Milkman delivers]

3 hours ago, tray said:

Comcast has worked with (legitimately of illegitimately) local Mayors and municipalities to restrict build outs for Google Fiber and ATT in some suburbs, and that has not always been out in the open.  Comcast is wired almost everywhere including my SW suburban neck of the woods. NO ATT or Google Fiber. Oh sure, want a satellite on your roof that has terrible reliability in storms ?

Bottom line is that JR/the Sox/Bulls/Hawks got told what the deal was by Comcast and it was not acceptable to them. Hard to say which side(s)  were unreasonable without knowing all the facts. I do know that one side had the upper hand and the  other (didn't) bow to them.

There’s a Norm Macdonald meme that would fit perfectly here, but I’m not exactly sure it wouldn’t result in a suspension.

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Milkman delivers said:

There’s a Norm Macdonald meme that would fit perfectly here, but I’m not exactly sure it wouldn’t result in a suspension.

I will allow it 

[Lip Man 1]

There's plenty to blame on both sides here but given the broadcasting climate in general, the regional sports issues and cord cutting it didn't make much sense for the Sox, JR and Brooks to attempt to start a new regional sports network under those conditions.

That gamble was a long shot and they are paying the price.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. 

[fathom]

He’s just so out of touch with everything 

[Kyyle23]

3 hours ago, fathom said:

He’s just so out of touch with everything 

Also out of sync/time.  If they did this the same time that the cubs did the Marquee deal they would probably be in much better shape, but instead they doubled down on what they were doing and made NBCSports all theirs at the time and didn’t anticipate anything in the current climate until it was too late.

[caulfield12]

https://out.reddit.com/t3_1auvlyp?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcclark_13%2Fstatus%2F1759654666499928519%3Ft%3D5VoOKYZDNVcBqwWyF3ZlAA%26s%3D19&token=AQAAyvEMaMnIWNCprHF2vfx9nITG69XySY5sxIfAiDak1eeHNkIx&app_name=reddit.com
 

Obviously the Suns are more popular in Phoenix than the White Sox in Chicago, but Ishbia’s plan to provide free coverage led to a 95% increase in Suns’ viewership in 2023-24 versus the previous season.

Whereas the White Sox are down somewhere between 63-80% going by the Bulls and Hawks’ released numbers….or maybe even WORSE than that, potentially.

 

 

Edited April 26 by caulfield12

[77 Hitmen]

15 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There's plenty to blame on both sides here but given the broadcasting climate in general, the regional sports issues and cord cutting it didn't make much sense for the Sox, JR and Brooks to attempt to start a new regional sports network under those conditions.

That gamble was a long shot and they are paying the price.

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. 

Even when the Cubs launched their own network, it was becoming clear that the RSN bubble was bursting and it wasn't exactly smooth sailing for the Marquee network even with the Cubs' huge fan base.  JR and Wirtz should have anticipated the difficulties that lay ahead.  

Now, it's a perfect ****storm for the Sox/Bulls/Hawks to try to launch their own RSN and get carriers and individual subscribers to sign up.  Carriers are no longer very motivated to pass along RSN fees to all their subscribers and all 3 teams are terrible.  The Sox have been basically unwatchable for what is going on their 3rd straight season, with no end in sight.  To make matters worse, Reinsdorf personally disliked Jason Bennetti and paved the way for him to leave for Detroit and then the Sox hired an incompetent clown to be the TV voice of the team.  Forget about many fans paying $20/month or getting Comcast adding CHSN to their basic plan (thus passing along a big RSN fee to all customers).  Even with the games being free on Ch. 62.2, I doubt most Chicagoland fans are wasting their time getting a $20 antenna to hear Schriffen to PBP for a 110+ loss team.  

Edited April 26 by 77 Hitmen

[kitekrazy]

14 hours ago, fathom said:

He’s just so out of touch with everything 

Except for destroying a fanbase. 

[tray]

11 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Even with the games being free on Ch. 62.2, I doubt most Chicagoland fans are wasting their time getting a $20 antenna to hear Schriffen to PBP for a 110+ loss team.  

A bit too much sarcasm to take your comments seriously. Anyway, Bulls improved as the season progressed and I hope the Sox will as well. Baldwin, Quero, Meidroth and I hope a few more additions like Elko will make the team better and more interesting for those of us who are Sox fans.

 

 

[WhiteSox2023]

23 minutes ago, tray said:

A bit too much sarcasm to take your comments seriously. Anyway, Bulls improved as the season progressed and I hope the Sox will as well. Baldwin, Quero, Meidroth and I hope a few more additions like Elko will make the team better and more interesting for those of us who are Sox fans.

 

 

But the fact remains that they are televising three sub .500 teams.  Where is the market for that?  I think you are sorely mistaken about the kind of money Comcast will earn signing a deal with Jerry and the Wirtz family.  Their teams all suck and they are both pretty terrible owners.

Also, Elko is a few months younger than Vaughn.  He isn’t some great prospect.

These three teams are perfect for free OTA viewing.  But I have no idea why Comcast would even want to pay up to televise this losing crap if they aren’t making money from it.

Edited April 27 by WhiteSox2023

[tray]

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

But the fact remains that they are televising three sub .500 teams.  Where is the market for that?  I think you are sorely mistaken about the kind of money Comcast will earn signing a deal with Jerry and the Wirtz family.  Their teams all suck and they are both pretty terrible owners.

Also, Elko is a few months younger than Vaughn.  He isn’t some great prospect.

These three teams are perfect for free OTA viewing.  But I have no idea why Comcast would even want to pay up to televise this losing crap if they aren’t making money from it.

Very odd opinion for someone purporting to be a fan of the White Sox.  I can't take any of that seriously.

[Kyyle23]

25 minutes ago, tray said:

Very odd opinion for someone purporting to be a fan of the White Sox.  I can't take any of that seriously.

That’s ok, this is also how the board treats you, very unseriously.  Carry on

[caulfield12]

JR already had his answer in Washington.

The White Sox dont exist on the same sphere or plane as the Yankees...or anywhere close to being on the national radar as a serious legit franchise right now.

[Dick Allen]

3 hours ago, tray said:

Very odd opinion for someone purporting to be a fan of the White Sox.  I can't take any of that seriously.

Comcast was in business with these teams and each team let themselves go to hell. They aren’t going to take on risk being in business with them again.