What do you think about NBC broadcasting the playoff game only on Peacock?

IBleedMaroonDawg

Well-known member
Nov 12, 2007
23,084
7,098
113
I caved and subscribed and then dropped it after the game. In retrospect, I should've saved my money the game sucked.
 

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
7,555
6,132
113
Yeah, I was “hell no” I’m not paying for that ****** streaming service…but when my 13yo daughter said she would pay me to watch, I caved. I mean I pay $6+ for a can of Copenhagen. I never thought this girl would ever have any interest in football.
How it happened. iMO

1. T Swift probably started it.
2. The Chick Berrios dates is apparently a huge social media thing.
3. we watched Dolphins Hard knocks, which sold her. I have to say, back in the day, getting my wife to watch all the HBO Boxing lead ups, got her into it, and got is the PPVs.


Anyway, it wasn’t worth it…
COPENHAGEN IS $6 A CAN NOW?!?


Admittedly, I haven't been around many dippers since leaving Mississippi, but man, that's excessive. No wonder my dad switched to Timber Wolf.
 

Podgy

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2022
2,317
2,588
113
Haven't read the thread so this may have already been mentioned. I remember when the NFL used to blackout games locally if there wasn't a sellout. That's power. Loyal fans had to buy tix to go to a taxpayer supported stadium with all sorts of other benefits the owners of NFL teams enjoyed. And the owners could always say FU, I'm taking my team elsewhere so thanks but no thanks for the loyalty and taxpayer supported welfare benefits. If enough people buy an app then that model will work. There may not be enough "I don't like this change or model" for networks and the NFL to care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

PBRME

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2004
9,712
2,378
113
So... 23 Million viewers across Peacock and local NBC. The total population of the KC and Miami metros combined are about 8 million, so even if 100% of households in those metros were tuned in to the game, that's 15 million viewers on Peacock. The local affiliates were obviously not 100%, so you could probably estimate a Peacock only audience of about 18-20 Million. This was an unmitigated success for NBC and means we're very likely going to see more streaming only content in the future.


Saturday’s Dolphins-Chiefs AFC Wild Card Game averaged 23.0 million viewers across Peacock and the NBC affiliates in Miami and Kansas City, per Nielsen fast-nationals — up 6% from Chargers-Jaguars on NBC last year (21.8 million across Nielsen and Adobe Analytics) and the most-streamed live event ever in the United States. In an unusual, perhaps even unprecedented move, NBC announced the numbers on-air during the Rams-Lions playoff game Sunday night.
That’s bad news. Going to open up more sports/games to ppv.
 

dog12

Active member
Sep 15, 2016
1,816
458
83
What is "peacock?"

Whatever it is, it doesn't sound good, so I'm gonna keep my distance.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,454
3,373
113
That’s bad news. Going to open up more sports/games to ppv.
This is the NFL though- for years, games have been on ESPN, NFL Network, and even Amazon. Further, to actually see specific games, you would have to pay for what is effectively a PPV model and buy Sunday Ticket.

The NFL choosing to limit access and require fans to pay to watch games is hardly new and its wild to see people act like it is new.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
22,067
9,386
113
This is the NFL though- for years, games have been on ESPN, NFL Network, and even Amazon. Further, to actually see specific games, you would have to pay for what is effectively a PPV model and buy Sunday Ticket.

The NFL choosing to limit access and require fans to pay to watch games is hardly new and its wild to see people act like it is new.
There’s still a lot of people that don’t stream and simply have standard cable or satellite. Yes I realize they’re paying for cable but an additional cost for a streaming service to watch one game is still not palatable to some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbaydog

kired

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2008
6,477
1,441
113
So... 23 Million viewers across Peacock and local NBC. The total population of the KC and Miami metros combined are about 8 million, so even if 100% of households in those metros were tuned in to the game, that's 15 million viewers on Peacock. The local affiliates were obviously not 100%, so you could probably estimate a Peacock only audience of about 18-20 Million. This was an unmitigated success for NBC and means we're very likely going to see more streaming only content in the future.


Saturday’s Dolphins-Chiefs AFC Wild Card Game averaged 23.0 million viewers across Peacock and the NBC affiliates in Miami and Kansas City, per Nielsen fast-nationals — up 6% from Chargers-Jaguars on NBC last year (21.8 million across Nielsen and Adobe Analytics) and the most-streamed live event ever in the United States. In an unusual, perhaps even unprecedented move, NBC announced the numbers on-air during the Rams-Lions playoff game Sunday night.
Not downplaying it… but you’d expect KC / Miami to draw more viewers than Chargers / Jags. Would have been up a lot more than 6% on NBC

I didn’t bother with it but definitely would have if it’d been Titans or Cowboys
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,454
3,373
113
There’s still a lot of people that don’t stream and simply have standard cable or satellite. Yes I realize they’re paying for cable but an additional cost for a streaming service to watch one game is still not palatable to some.
100%, I totally understand that paying for a streaming service to watch one game is not palatable for some.
Just pointing out that this is anything but unprecedented, since so much of the pushback have been claims of 'how could they limit viewership and put it behind a paywall!'. That is exactly what the NFL has done for years, so its dumb to cry foul as if this is something new.

Just sack up and say you dont want to have to pay $6 to watch the game and move on.
 

PBRME

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2004
9,712
2,378
113
This is the NFL though- for years, games have been on ESPN, NFL Network, and even Amazon. Further, to actually see specific games, you would have to pay for what is effectively a PPV model and buy Sunday Ticket.

The NFL choosing to limit access and require fans to pay to watch games is hardly new and its wild to see people act like it is new.
For the regular season it isn’t new. For the playoffs it is. It’s a huge difference in choosing to buy the Sunday ticket to watch games outside your market, and being forced to buy peacock to watch the playoff game.

It’s just pure greed at this point, and pushing boundaries to see how far they can go. That game would’ve been the most watched in the time slot. Arguably the most watched play off game for the weekend. The ad revenue is no longer enough apparently.

How long before you have to buy a playoff package? How long before you have to pay to watch the Super Bowl. How long before college copies? It’s a bad precedent that will only lead to more broadcasts doing the same.
 

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
7,555
6,132
113
How long before you have to buy a playoff package? How long before you have to pay to watch the Super Bowl. How long before college copies? It’s a bad precedent that will only lead to more broadcasts doing the same.
You already have to pay to watch the college football playoffs and you've had to pay to watch BCS/NY6 games since ESPN took the rights over from Fox in 2009.
 

PBRME

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2004
9,712
2,378
113
You already have to pay to watch the college football playoffs and you've had to pay to watch BCS/NY6 games since ESPN took the rights over from Fox in 2009.
You’re not following what I’m saying. Most of America is paying for a subsriction service. Whether it’s cable, satellite, or streaming. It’s pretty standard in most households. Rabbit ears died a long time ago. Those games are included in these services. My point is how long before these greedy *** executives decide to make their highest revenue producing games a must buy or can’t watch?
 

Drebin

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
16,790
13,633
113
Yeah, I’m really considering jumping back to directv. I’m shocked i typed that
Get the Directv streaming platform. That solves the dish/weather issue. Then call in once a year and threaten to cancel, and they'll throw you some discounts. That will keep the price down.

At the end of the day, you're not really saving a lot if you're subscribing to five or more of these streaming services.
I’ve had Directv for 20 years and haven’t left. We went down through the list of different streaming services and couldn’t find one that had what we wanted (none of them carry Bally Sports for one) so we just stayed. Their streaming service is good and you have the ability to use it on your devices like AppleTV even if you still have the dish and receivers. You can use it in rooms where you don’t have a receiver or just want to cut down on the number of receivers you have in your house.
Bally has an app in which you can stream live games. But it's hot garbage.
 

Drebin

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
16,790
13,633
113
My neighbor has it and it constantly screws up.
It is turrible. Constantly buffers and the only way to fix it is to close it and open it back. And then every time you go back in, it doesn't remember who you are and you have to jump through all the hoops to access the site from your phone and enter a code. It's a pain in the ***.

I only use it to watch Grizzlies games when I'm traveling.
 

Dawgg

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2012
7,555
6,132
113
You’re not following what I’m saying. Most of America is paying for a subsriction service. Whether it’s cable, satellite, or streaming. It’s pretty standard in most households. Rabbit ears died a long time ago. Those games are included in these services. My point is how long before these greedy *** executives decide to make their highest revenue producing games a must buy or can’t watch?
Rabbit ears didn't die a long time ago. I use rabbit ears today to get local channels because I don't pay for cable or satellite.

Are you saying there's going to be a PPV model? Because that's totally different from a game being on a subscription service.
 

PBRME

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2004
9,712
2,378
113
Rabbit ears didn't die a long time ago. I use rabbit ears today to get local channels because I don't pay for cable or satellite.

Are you saying there's going to be a PPV model? Because that's totally different from a game being on a subscription service.
I know rabbit ears aren’t dead. My dad still uses them. The primary use of rabbit ears over paying for a service died a long time ago.

Yes. I’m saying the success of Sunday night is the first step in moving to a pay per game scenario. My prediction is your basic service, including rabbit ears, will not include playoff games. You’ll have to pay an additional fee to watch. Sunday night already proved people are willing to do it. Which network is next is the question.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
13,454
3,373
113
For the regular season it isn’t new. For the playoffs it is. It’s a huge difference in choosing to buy the Sunday ticket to watch games outside your market, and being forced to buy peacock to watch the playoff game.

It’s just pure greed at this point, and pushing boundaries to see how far they can go. That game would’ve been the most watched in the time slot. Arguably the most watched play off game for the weekend. The ad revenue is no longer enough apparently.

How long before you have to buy a playoff package? How long before you have to pay to watch the Super Bowl. How long before college copies? It’s a bad precedent that will only lead to more broadcasts doing the same.

Hold up, are you saying for-profit companies are using technology to find ways to maximize revenue streams?!?! What?!?! That cant happen- those for-profit companies need to adhere to arbitrarily set profits that random people who are users get to establish! I mean that makes perfect sense!**

Yeah, its greedy- wont argue that.
I think the greed is for a different reason that what you claim, at least for this example, but yeah its greed nonetheless.
Read about Peacock for the last few years- it hasnt been great from a content perspective, subscriber perspective, or revenue generation perspective. So this surely got who didnt have the app to sign up for it. Maybe some keep it because they see content they like and use the app moving forward. Maybe some keep it because they forget to cancel. Maybe some remembered they even have it and start using it. It was an opportunity for NBC to get users onto its streaming platform in the hopes that it adds to the subscriber base. Thats really what this was, at least in this specific instance.


As for your whole 'its new for the playoffs' complaint, yeah ok, but my point in mentioning how other games are on paid platforms was to show that at one time those were also new. Its not like this is some revolutionary change to how football is viewed.
- most all College football games are on cable or any number of streaming services(espn, fox, b10, etc).
- College playoffs are on cable.
- NFL games are on ESPN.
- NFL games are on NFL Network.
- NFL games are on Amazon Prime.
- NFL games are on Sunday Ticket.
- MLB regular season and playoffs are on cable and stream.
- NBA regular season and playoffs are on cable and stream.
- NHL regular season and playoffs are on cable and stream.


But the moment an NFL playoff game is on a streaming service, well that is just not acceptable and clearly over the line. You know the line- its the arbitrarily drawn one that you made. Others made their lines too, but in other arbitrarily set points along the spectrum of acceptable change. Its almost like your arbitrary line is...arbitrary.
 

The Cooterpoot

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
4,157
6,749
113
Prime comes with your Prime subscription your wife cleans out your bank account on worthless BS with. Get a divorce and cancel that subscription and you'll be able to afford every subscription out there as long as you have a great attorney.
 

PBRME

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2004
9,712
2,378
113
Hold up, are you saying for-profit companies are using technology to find ways to maximize revenue streams?!?! What?!?! That cant happen- those for-profit companies need to adhere to arbitrarily set profits that random people who are users get to establish! I mean that makes perfect sense!**

Yeah, its greedy- wont argue that.
I think the greed is for a different reason that what you claim, at least for this example, but yeah its greed nonetheless.
Read about Peacock for the last few years- it hasnt been great from a content perspective, subscriber perspective, or revenue generation perspective. So this surely got who didnt have the app to sign up for it. Maybe some keep it because they see content they like and use the app moving forward. Maybe some keep it because they forget to cancel. Maybe some remembered they even have it and start using it. It was an opportunity for NBC to get users onto its streaming platform in the hopes that it adds to the subscriber base. Thats really what this was, at least in this specific instance.


As for your whole 'its new for the playoffs' complaint, yeah ok, but my point in mentioning how other games are on paid platforms was to show that at one time those were also new. Its not like this is some revolutionary change to how football is viewed.
- most all College football games are on cable or any number of streaming services(espn, fox, b10, etc).
- College playoffs are on cable.
- NFL games are on ESPN.
- NFL games are on NFL Network.
- NFL games are on Amazon Prime.
- NFL games are on Sunday Ticket.
- MLB regular season and playoffs are on cable and stream.
- NBA regular season and playoffs are on cable and stream.
- NHL regular season and playoffs are on cable and stream.


But the moment an NFL playoff game is on a streaming service, well that is just not acceptable and clearly over the line. You know the line- it’s the arbitrarily drawn one that you made. Others made their lines too, but in other arbitrarily set points along the spectrum of acceptable change. It’s almost like your arbitrary line is...arbitrary.
I buy a certain packages in order to expand on what’s available to me.

The network removing what was included in my package, and making me pay extra for what I was already getting is not the same.

That’s where I draw my “arbitrary” line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstateglfr

ETK99

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2019
4,965
6,640
112
So... 23 Million viewers across Peacock and local NBC. The total population of the KC and Miami metros combined are about 8 million, so even if 100% of households in those metros were tuned in to the game, that's 15 million viewers on Peacock. The local affiliates were obviously not 100%, so you could probably estimate a Peacock only audience of about 18-20 Million. This was an unmitigated success for NBC and means we're very likely going to see more streaming only content in the future.


Saturday’s Dolphins-Chiefs AFC Wild Card Game averaged 23.0 million viewers across Peacock and the NBC affiliates in Miami and Kansas City, per Nielsen fast-nationals — up 6% from Chargers-Jaguars on NBC last year (21.8 million across Nielsen and Adobe Analytics) and the most-streamed live event ever in the United States. In an unusual, perhaps even unprecedented move, NBC announced the numbers on-air during the Rams-Lions playoff game Sunday night.
Peacock has 30 million subscribers. 16.3 million of those were included in that. Peacock didn't note the new signups just for that game.
 
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login