Williams/Blum Pod: It's time to start talking the next round of TV contracts

Boomer

Active Member
Jun 7, 2010
914
79
28
But its working out so well for Nebraska:rolleyes:
Norman Oklahoma isn't moving no matter what league OU is in, same distance to the metro forever. Nebraska did in fact cut off its nose to spite its face but thats on them.
 

Die4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 2, 2010
7,959
5,230
113
I know its not a popular take but most Oklahoma fans would certainly rather play an SEC schedule from ticket value-roadtrip perspective and a segment wouldn't consider the Big Ten west a downgrade in any fashion. - From a fans point of view these factors have zero to do with the money.

Outside of the fan value, the league desperately needs to acquire recruiting turf/eyebrows. Like legit think the Big XII could poach the Arizona schools - Phoenix is a huge growing metro of talent/eyebrows. If there really isn't any movement to improve the leagues long term success probabilities why are we bothering?
If you'd have told me this was a direct Tom Osborne quote from a dozen years ago I would have believed it. Good luck with that whole "but we're closer to Dallas thing" I guess.
 

CloneGuy8

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 20, 2017
8,485
16,097
113
35
Norman Oklahoma isn't moving no matter what league OU is in, same distance to the metro forever. Nebraska did in fact cut off its nose to spite its face but thats on them.
I still maintain Oklahoma in the Big 12 is their best path towards success. You go to the SEC, you're already behind Alabama. Then you have the likes of LSU, Florida, and Georgia. In football, Oklahoma is the power in the Big 12. That would not be the case in the SEC.

So what is the Big 12 to do? I think the 10 team format has actually worked out pretty well. If networks need more inventory, I think the Arizona schools would jump ship. If you wanted to get to 14, I think you could also looks at schools like BYU and Houston or pick off two more schools from the Pac 12.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 4, 2011
36,580
28,380
113
North Iowa
If OU went to another conference, they would be treated like the drunken in-law (like Texas AM). If they were doing well, hey great we will put them in a NY6 but push one of the old timers to the natty game. They will get knocked to 1B status in the conference.

If we do anything we would need to pick up two attractive, larger fan bases to spread out our national scope.
 

cyclone1209

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2010
561
351
63
Denver
Enjoy.

One of your guys best pods in my opinion.

Amazon Prime is an interesting take. I feel they could roll out a great production. I love their programming on my internet tv with them (Fargo, Goliath, etc)

Maybe i'm in the minority but I think for crews out there right now? Fox to me is the best. Brando and Tillman, and Klatt and Gus do such a good job. Also their halftime crew easily beats the people that drool over clemson and bama on espn.
 

cyatheart

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 18, 2008
5,338
1,562
113
44
I do agree with Boomer on a few things. OU fans generally are not thrilled with their home schedule, since the best game is always out of state, but that is their problem, they should just go to home and homes and solve that problem.

Also, it‘s probably 15M a year at least, maybe 20. So in 10 years you are talking 150-200M dollars. That is a lot.

the Big 12 solves nothing for OU other than giving it a way to the playoff, and I do agree, the conference should try to better itself and now is probably the time.

I don’t see how the Big Ten is even an option, makes no sense, I don’t think fair minded people think that makes sense. Besides, Nebraska just did it, and it was stupid. Going to the Big 10 west is nonsense, nobody thinks that is a good idea.

However, let’s entertain the option of the SEC. OU isn’t bulletproof. Going to the SEC doesn’t solve any problems, in fact it creates more, other than you will have more money to pay the buyouts for your coaches. It makes the football job impossible.....fans demand playoffs, coach can’t deliver. Pretty soon it’s 20 years since Baker Mafield played, nobody remembers OU as being any good, and you are just a western outpost in the SEC that nobody cares about. A fate of Nebraska for OU is not out of the question and really it would be 50/50. But if you really want the SEC, look at Arkansas or Missouri, nobody even knows where that is anymore. Now I know you guys think you are so superior to Arkansas that you would scoff at that. But that is your fate down there. Nobody in the SEC gives a damn about Oklahoma, hell you all are a bunch of hillbillies to them.

DFW isn’t that close, it’s still 3 hours. And if you guys go to the SEC, you got nothing to offer a Texas kid they can’t get somewhere else in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas or Missouri. You just took over the western outpost of the SEC, congrats, your Arkansas now. Great job.

It’s a big gamble for OU to leave, I think it would be the end of OU as a college football blue blood, and really as a force in college football the way it has been.

But I agree, the Big 12 needs to figure something out to get more eyeballs. I love the Big 12, and I love watching our games. but we just don’t have a ton of good games on a weekly basis right now. Tech, TCU, Baylor, K State, Kansas, Ok State, and Iowa State...those matchups are regional on a good day. Just not a lot of sex there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TBT

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
21,250
10,089
113
I know its not a popular take but most Oklahoma fans would certainly rather play an SEC schedule from ticket value-roadtrip perspective and a segment wouldn't consider the Big Ten west a downgrade in any fashion. - From a fans point of view these factors have zero to do with the money.
How many road trips would OU fans make in the SEC and Big 10? That'd be thousands of miles in a season if they are making more than one.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
Sep 4, 2011
36,580
28,380
113
North Iowa
How many road trips would OU fans make in the SEC and Big 10? That'd be thousands of miles in a season if they are making more than one.
Big ten academics would never allow OU. Have to be AAU first, OU is near the bottom of the big 12 in academics. ISU, Texas, Kansas are the AAU schools that I know. So forget about the big ten.

Now $$$, they are 10-15 short, but don’t they still have their own tier 3 deal. Thought that was about 8MM a year. So that trims the difference down to about 5 MM.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
21,250
10,089
113
Big ten academics would never allow OU. Have to be AAU first, OU is near the bottom of the big 12 in academics. ISU, Texas, Kansas are the AAU schools that I know. So forget about the big ten.

Now $$$, they are 10-15 short, but don’t they still have their own tier 3 deal. Thought that was about 8MM a year. So that trims the difference down to about 5 MM.
Yeah the Big 10 makes no sense from many different avenues. Those away games aren't road trips. They are plane trips. You aren't driving 12 hours to Wisconsin to watch a game. It's just not happening.

The SEC makes a little more sense, but it's still a 9 hour drive to LSU.
 

Tri4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 4, 2012
1,247
1,029
113
Des Moines
What are everyone's thoughts on the ROI of over the air advertisement vs directed ad's? I would think that the likes of Google/Facebook who track damn near everything we do could generate a much higher ROI per person through targeted ad's during a stream than blanket ad's we'd see in a typical over the air broadcast. When I log into my YouTubeTV account (which is linked to my google profile) they now have access to all of my cookies on all of my devices/chrome browser. Now when the game goes to commercial break, instead of showing me an ad for some medication that isn't a concern for me at all, they could target me with something outdoors related or whatever.

I know there is a bit of that by advertisers doing market research on the type of people who are generally tuning in to certain events/shows, but the potential to go beyond the macro level and get specific to the individual user seems extremely valuable to me. I don't know the numbers, but if your targeted advertisements were 2x as effective as general ad's, then you could afford to cut viewership by 50% and still net the same level of profits.

The Googles, Facebooks, and Amazon's of the world are REALLY good at targeted advertisement and THAT is how I think they make ventures like this possible.
 

agrabes

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,551
377
83
Finally had a chance to listen to the full podcast. I thought Williams actually brought up great points at the end. It's not that one of these Tech companies will just go it alone (or if they do, they won't be able to succeed in the short term), but it's a real possibility one of them could buy up something like NBC or CBS sports or go into a partnership with them to produce CFB content. Since both of them seem to be either taking a step back or just aren't heavily in the game right now it seems like an opportunity. Some games would be on the traditional network and others being on their streaming services. That seems extremely logical and something I honestly kind of expect now that I've heard it.

What are everyone's thoughts on the ROI of over the air advertisement vs directed ad's? I would think that the likes of Google/Facebook who track damn near everything we do could generate a much higher ROI per person through targeted ad's during a stream than blanket ad's we'd see in a typical over the air broadcast. When I log into my YouTubeTV account (which is linked to my google profile) they now have access to all of my cookies on all of my devices/chrome browser. Now when the game goes to commercial break, instead of showing me an ad for some medication that isn't a concern for me at all, they could target me with something outdoors related or whatever.

I know there is a bit of that by advertisers doing market research on the type of people who are generally tuning in to certain events/shows, but the potential to go beyond the macro level and get specific to the individual user seems extremely valuable to me. I don't know the numbers, but if your targeted advertisements were 2x as effective as general ad's, then you could afford to cut viewership by 50% and still net the same level of profits.

The Googles, Facebooks, and Amazon's of the world are REALLY good at targeted advertisement and THAT is how I think they make ventures like this possible.
I think the challenge with this idea is that you are looking at it from the perspective of the person buying the advertisement rather than the person being paid to to run the advertisement. The effectiveness of the ad does not matter to the person serving the ad. I.e. ESPN does not care if you buy a new drug for your psoriasis. They only care that they get paid to run the ad. In the traditional model, there's a three party deal right? The company that wants to take out an ad, the company that sells them on the best type of ad and produces that ad, and the content network (TV, Radio, Streaming, Web, etc) who serves the ad. In the context of a Google owned sports broadcast, Google might be company 2 and 3. So they have some interest in selecting/targeting the ads they would theoretically run. But they don't control who wants to advertise and how.

The intent of targeted advertisement is to put out an ad in a situation where you would normally ignore it, but because it's targeted specifically to you you will engage with it. Or, with things like the Hy-Vee fuel saver, to find things they know you like and try to convince you to buy them more often than you otherwise would by sending you advertisements for those things you've already bought. This is basically the opposite theory of advertising on live sports. The reason live sports is considered so valuable for advertising is because people are forced to watch the ads. The concept is that you would see something you had no idea you were interested in, but you're forced to watch it and you may develop an interest.

So let's say that targeted ads actually are 2x more effective. Would you pay 2x more the already high price to advertise on live sports? Maybe. My gut says no. But then again, you could be completely right and this could be a revolution in how live sports advertising is done. Also, I personally hate targeted ads and intentionally try to disrupt any attempts at companies gathering data to serve me targeted ads. I'd rather not sell my personal information that cheaply as a chance to save 2-3 dollars a month on gas from using the Hy-Vee fuel saver. But I know that's a minority opinion, so maybe I'm biased.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: nrg4isu

Die4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 2, 2010
7,959
5,230
113
I really don't think there will be any realignment this go around.

I see it much more likely that CFB abandons the NCAA and the conference model altogether before the next media rights term ends.

The need to pay players for their likeness is going to change the equation quite a bit IMO.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
21,250
10,089
113
What are everyone's thoughts on the ROI of over the air advertisement vs directed ad's? I would think that the likes of Google/Facebook who track damn near everything we do could generate a much higher ROI per person through targeted ad's during a stream than blanket ad's we'd see in a typical over the air broadcast. When I log into my YouTubeTV account (which is linked to my google profile) they now have access to all of my cookies on all of my devices/chrome browser. Now when the game goes to commercial break, instead of showing me an ad for some medication that isn't a concern for me at all, they could target me with something outdoors related or whatever.

I know there is a bit of that by advertisers doing market research on the type of people who are generally tuning in to certain events/shows, but the potential to go beyond the macro level and get specific to the individual user seems extremely valuable to me. I don't know the numbers, but if your targeted advertisements were 2x as effective as general ad's, then you could afford to cut viewership by 50% and still net the same level of profits.

The Googles, Facebooks, and Amazon's of the world are REALLY good at targeted advertisement and THAT is how I think they make ventures like this possible.
Actually they've done studies on this. The ROI is barely better than old style marketing. BUT, people believe it's much better so they pay huge premiums for targeted ads to the tech companies.

 
  • Informative
Reactions: NWICY

Tri4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 4, 2012
1,247
1,029
113
Des Moines
Finally had a chance to listen to the full podcast. I thought Williams actually brought up great points at the end. It's not that one of these Tech companies will just go it alone (or if they do, they won't be able to succeed in the short term), but it's a real possibility one of them could buy up something like NBC or CBS sports or go into a partnership with them to produce CFB content. Since both of them seem to be either taking a step back or just aren't heavily in the game right now it seems like an opportunity. Some games would be on the traditional network and others being on their streaming services. That seems extremely logical and something I honestly kind of expect now that I've heard it.



I think the challenge with this idea is that you are looking at it from the perspective of the person buying the advertisement rather than the person being paid to to run the advertisement. The effectiveness of the ad does not matter to the person serving the ad. I.e. ESPN does not care if you buy a new drug for your psoriasis. They only care that they get paid to run the ad. In the traditional model, there's a three party deal right? The company that wants to take out an ad, the company that sells them on the best type of ad and produces that ad, and the content network (TV, Radio, Streaming, Web, etc) who serves the ad. In the context of a Google owned sports broadcast, Google might be company 2 and 3. So they have some interest in selecting/targeting the ads they would theoretically run. But they don't control who wants to advertise and how.

The intent of targeted advertisement is to put out an ad in a situation where you would normally ignore it, but because it's targeted specifically to you you will engage with it. Or, with things like the Hy-Vee fuel saver, to find things they know you like and try to convince you to buy them more often than you otherwise would by sending you advertisements for those things you've already bought. This is basically the opposite theory of advertising on live sports. The reason live sports is considered so valuable for advertising is because people are forced to watch the ads. The concept is that you would see something you had no idea you were interested in, but you're forced to watch it and you may develop an interest.

So let's say that targeted ads actually are 2x more effective. Would you pay 2x more the already high price to advertise on live sports? Maybe. My gut says no. But then again, you could be completely right and this could be a revolution in how live sports advertising is done. Also, I personally hate targeted ads and intentionally try to disrupt any attempts at companies gathering data to serve me targeted ads. I'd rather not sell my personal information that cheaply as a chance to save 2-3 dollars a month on gas from using the Hy-Vee fuel saver. But I know that's a minority opinion, so maybe I'm biased.
I would disagree here. If I'm the guy sitting across the table from you pitching an ad deal, I'm going to be VERY interested in my success rate. Let's say that traditional TV advertisement successfully engages 5% of those who view the ad and is responsible for new sales. You, the ad buyer would put pen to paper and "value" that ad. If that ad space drives new sales of $50M, then you surely wouldn't want to pay more than that. You'd have to develop your own value and call it maybe worth $25M for the risk. Now lets say I'm this marketing director for one of the big tech companies and I can show you data that in comparable sectors of industry, our success rate is 20% engagement. You now a few options. You can buy 4x few ads to drive that same level of business, or you pay 4x as much and drive new sales of $200M. The numbers are completely made up for my example.

Actually they've done studies on this. The ROI is barely better than old style marketing. BUT, people believe it's much better so they pay huge premiums for targeted ads to the tech companies.

Now this is a very interesting read! It's kind of the the coaches who won't punt on 4th down because they "know the odds." You have the old school traditional "if it's not broke don't fix it" mentality fighting up against modern tech and frankly a different society. I was in total agreement with the targeted search part of the article. I purposely avoid ever clicking on paid link. It also makes sense on why I posted that original comment that it was so difficult to find consistent numbers. They were all over the damn place. Most data you can easily find is put out by people slinging the product...and I never trust that stuff. I do have trouble accepting the same conclusion on the targeted ads. I can appreciate the "most targeted ad's just target people who would have bought your stuff anyway" comment but I can honestly say that targeted ad's have worked for me on spurring my memory or introducing me to a competing company. For example, I'm currently in the process of building a house and my brain is all over the bloody place. Well *shudders* my devices track everything I do. So when I search for something on Monday, then forget about it, and an ad pops up on Thursday, I'm often finding myself saying "oh yeah!" and doing more research on that tool, piece of furniture, etc. To add to the creepy levels here, I was talking to my fiance about a new tool that I just bought. She pulled up facebook 2 minutes later and an ad for said tool was in her FB feed.
 

benman82

Active Member
Nov 17, 2009
316
127
43
27
What are everyone's thoughts on the ROI of over the air advertisement vs directed ad's? I would think that the likes of Google/Facebook who track damn near everything we do could generate a much higher ROI per person through targeted ad's during a stream than blanket ad's we'd see in a typical over the air broadcast. When I log into my YouTubeTV account (which is linked to my google profile) they now have access to all of my cookies on all of my devices/chrome browser. Now when the game goes to commercial break, instead of showing me an ad for some medication that isn't a concern for me at all, they could target me with something outdoors related or whatever.

I know there is a bit of that by advertisers doing market research on the type of people who are generally tuning in to certain events/shows, but the potential to go beyond the macro level and get specific to the individual user seems extremely valuable to me. I don't know the numbers, but if your targeted advertisements were 2x as effective as general ad's, then you could afford to cut viewership by 50% and still net the same level of profits.

The Googles, Facebooks, and Amazon's of the world are REALLY good at targeted advertisement and THAT is how I think they make ventures like this possible.
Actually they've done studies on this. The ROI is barely better than old style marketing. BUT, people believe it's much better so they pay huge premiums for targeted ads to the tech companies.



The two recent freakonomics episodes on ads were really interesting. But IIRC they were saying that giant ad buys have a poor rate of return and they didn't really touch on advertising small scale stuff. The real value proposition is that a big tech company could serve different targeted ads to live sports viewers, and thus smaller advertisers could afford to pay for an ad. Initial product awareness campaigns from smaller advertisers are something that current producers can't offer.

Interestingly, the new over the air tv standard (ATSC 3.0) will allow for these sort of targeted ads if your tv is connected to the internet. Over the air and over the top will eventually be very intertwined.
 

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
2,419
1,831
113
37
Waterloo
Love Brando and Tillman. GREAT chemistry. Gus and Klatt are next and then it's a big fall off to anybody at ESPN. Herbstreit is good but Fowler is just so bad that it's hard to listen to. Dude should stick to tennis.
 

SolarGarlic

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2016
3,179
4,193
113
I know its not a popular take but most Oklahoma fans would certainly rather play an SEC schedule from ticket value-roadtrip perspective and a segment wouldn't consider the Big Ten west a downgrade in any fashion. - From a fans point of view these factors have zero to do with the money.

Outside of the fan value, the league desperately needs to acquire recruiting turf/eyebrows. Like legit think the Big XII could poach the Arizona schools - Phoenix is a huge growing metro of talent/eyebrows. If there really isn't any movement to improve the leagues long term success probabilities why are we bothering?
And all this time I thought the leagues were after eyeballs, it's really eyebrows that are driving the market.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Die4Cy

agrabes

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2006
1,551
377
83
I would disagree here. If I'm the guy sitting across the table from you pitching an ad deal, I'm going to be VERY interested in my success rate. Let's say that traditional TV advertisement successfully engages 5% of those who view the ad and is responsible for new sales. You, the ad buyer would put pen to paper and "value" that ad. If that ad space drives new sales of $50M, then you surely wouldn't want to pay more than that. You'd have to develop your own value and call it maybe worth $25M for the risk. Now lets say I'm this marketing director for one of the big tech companies and I can show you data that in comparable sectors of industry, our success rate is 20% engagement. You now a few options. You can buy 4x few ads to drive that same level of business, or you pay 4x as much and drive new sales of $200M. The numbers are completely made up for my example.
I see what you're saying - but the assumption there is that there is a competition available like this right now. For this competition to happen, you'd have to have the opportunity to go head to head with similar audiences on different platforms. Right now, you have the choice as an ad buyer of going to ESPN to buy an ad running on CFB vs. going to Google to run an ad on a Youtube video or a website. You don't have the ability to go to either the traditional TV and get traditional ads or a streaming platform with targeted ads on the same kind of event. Your viewership of those ads is drastically lower on a Youtube video vs. a major college football game.

So for this to go down and be successful, first the tech company has to have developed their own internal expectation of what kind of advertising revenue they can get, decide if that revenue is worth bidding on major college sports, buy the rights and set up a broadcast. Then, they have the opportunity to have that discussion you mentioned. After that, an ad buyer has the opportunity to compare cost/benefit of buying an ad on ESPN's Alabama-LSU game vs. "Google Sports" OU-Texas game. But they don't now. There's no data and no track record to say whether
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tri4Cy

nrg4isu

Active Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 29, 2009
262
179
43
Springfield, Illinois
Also, I personally hate targeted ads and intentionally try to disrupt any attempts at companies gathering data to serve me targeted ads. I'd rather not sell my personal information that cheaply as a chance to save 2-3 dollars a month on gas from using the Hy-Vee fuel saver. But I know that's a minority opinion, so maybe I'm biased.
This part got me - you can certainly try, but good luck! If nothing else, your rough location will be available to the advertiser - that alone is pretty valuable.
 

Tri4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 4, 2012
1,247
1,029
113
Des Moines
I see what you're saying - but the assumption there is that there is a competition available like this right now. For this competition to happen, you'd have to have the opportunity to go head to head with similar audiences on different platforms. Right now, you have the choice as an ad buyer of going to ESPN to buy an ad running on CFB vs. going to Google to run an ad on a Youtube video or a website. You don't have the ability to go to either the traditional TV and get traditional ads or a streaming platform with targeted ads on the same kind of event. Your viewership of those ads is drastically lower on a Youtube video vs. a major college football game.

So for this to go down and be successful, first the tech company has to have developed their own internal expectation of what kind of advertising revenue they can get, decide if that revenue is worth bidding on major college sports, buy the rights and set up a broadcast. Then, they have the opportunity to have that discussion you mentioned. After that, an ad buyer has the opportunity to compare cost/benefit of buying an ad on ESPN's Alabama-LSU game vs. "Google Sports" OU-Texas game. But they don't now. There's no data and no track record to say whether
Ahhhh now I smell what you're step'n in.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron