2025 NASCAR TV contract

2 Sweet said:
Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think the sky is falling. People have been predicting the death of cable for over 20 years now. Meanwhile, many of these streaming services (like Youtube TV) are still carrying "cable" networks, and a lot of the channels/shows/events are available on various streaming apps in addition to cable TV. So what's the big deal?
Click to expand...
yep I have read a few articles that say the same. It isn't dropping like a rock as some would lead you to believe but it is pretty gradual with over 50% of the homes have cable. The streaming numbers are good, but split them out into all of their providers and it is a much smaller individual market. Cutting the pie many ways, the big guys are still losing money with streaming. So who knows.
 
gone said:
Well, I won't buy streaming services so I won't be watching the streaming-only races. And it's not only the cost of streaming services - unless I want to watch races on my little computer monitor I'd also have to buy more equipment to interface Internet to my TV set. Not worth the money nor hassle for such little return on investment, particularly when my experience with streaming services over my ISP is disappointing (jittery and freezes).

I was already annoyed by having to figure out what cable channel was carrying the race each week... looks like that will continue. If Disney continues to fight with Spectrum about access prices I might not be able to watch the races on their channels, too.

Probably will taper off watching race broadcasts, and once that becomes a habit I'm not likely to go back. With five weeks of streaming-only races that I will miss I will probably be doing something else instead of resuming race broadcasts once they are available on cable again. That's me knowing me - I've gotten out of the habit of watching race broadcasts before (for several years) and only started regularly watching them again these past two years, due to having more time after retiring from my own racing efforts. Might be a good thing - get my butt off the couch.

I wonder how many TV viewers will also skip the streaming channel races? I know people who live on fixed incomes and can't budget streaming. I wonder if race and car sponsors will see their exposure drop, and then scream for NASCAR to rework this deal or even cease their sponsorships? Somehow I don't expect this deal to remain unchanged all the way through 2031.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt this is going to lose some fans...but the money was too sweet to pass it up.
 
gone said:
Hope for them it's not making a few dollars today to lose many dollars tomorrow...
Click to expand...

Except this is the opposite of what is happening. Cable numbers are going down and more people are turning to streaming. I'm not at Andy's level of predicting how far down cable will go, but it does represent a shrinking portion of the TV viewing audience. The future is streaming.

NASCAR took more cash today to double down on a declining technology (cable). There are fewer races available OTA than we've had since at least 2001. They're taking more dollars today and risking alienating younger fans (the majority of whom don't have cable) who won't be able to access races because they're behind a cable paywall.

As pointed out elsewhere, Prime's reach is comparable to the cable networks that are carrying NASCAR coverage.
 
2 Sweet said:
Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think the sky is falling. People have been predicting the death of cable for over 20 years now.
Click to expand...

46% of households have cable/satellite TV now. It was 55% a year ago. The wild card is the streaming service numbers. YouTube TV claims to have 15 million subscribers, though independent analysts and surveys cited by tech journalists put that number closer to five million.

Hulu and other services are losing subscribers by the droves, but a lot of them might have just switched to YouTube TV for NFL Sunday Ticket. It's possible some of the people who dropped satellite this year also switched over to YouTube TV for NFL.

Either way, the trajectory is very clear - the amount of people watching traditional cable channels is way down. Even factoring in YouTube TV, ESPN is in 72.5 million homes. From December to March alone, FS1/FS2 lost over a million subscribers.

In 2015, TNT was available in 95.3 million homes. Three years later, it was down to 89.5 million homes. I can't "quickly" find any numbers newer than that. But, if FS1 and ESPN are only in the 70-73 million range, that's likely where TNT and USA stand, bany of these networks simply don't publish these numbers anymore. Fox News claims to be in 90 million homes, but they also claim to be fair and balanced.

The pandemic dramatically accelerated streaming media's progress. People being home all day, binge-watching TV show after TV show without interruption. The only thing that was on cable that was fresh was either NASCAR or the news.
 
gone said:
Hope for them it's not making a few dollars today to lose many dollars tomorrow...
Click to expand...
They, Nascar are going to get paid for 7 years and that is all they are looking at. I can't blame them, who knows what the future will bring. The streamers are throwing money at the sport, it's a steady income maker.
The networks are raising prices on cable to offset the loses on streaming.

May 12, 2023Disney-owned streaming services (Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu) lost $1.05 billion in the 2023 first quarter after losing $1.5 billion in the previous quarter. The Comcast-owned Peacock lost $2.5 billion in 2022 and expects to lose as much as $3 billion this year.
 
Here's the thing. I have high speed internet, Youtube TV with the sports package add-on, plus a half dozen streaming subscriptions.....and I'm STILL playing less every month than my cable/internet bundle 10 years ago. Youtube TV has every channel I could want (except for History) and includes my local stations as well. And for those who are on a strict budget, many streaming services allow you to split the subscription between houses. My buddy uses his dad's login info to watch "cable" using the provider's app, and his dad lives 600 miles away.

Devices like Roku make everything as simple as it gets. No cables or wires, no need for multiple remotes. The interface is just as easy to use as cable TV, and the performance is flawless if you have a decent internet connection. But that's a pretty big IF, and a significant reason why traditional cable TV isn't going anywhere for a long time IMO.
 
There are so many streaming services and that adds to the confusion. Have to be signed up for this one to get one thing and signed up for another one for something else, and on and on.
 
I'm sure there is an old timer or two that remember the Gas wars. I bought a gallon for 17 cents when the going rate was 29 cents. Same thing is going on here. The billion dollar corporations are running out the smaller guys while losing billions to do so. Enjoy it now, but soon like my little cable company with around 2500 subs they will eliminate as many as they can and then will come the price increases when they corner the market. Just like big oil has done. So pardon me because I am not jumping up and down over the latest grift by the gatekeepers.
 
StandOnIt said:
I'm sure there is an old timer or two that remember the Gas wars. I bought a gallon for 17 cents when the going rate was 29 cents.
Click to expand...
Ah, the good old days, when the station attendant would pump your gas, clean your windshield, check your oil and tire pressure, and give you a map or a state decal. I could go on but Denny's senior specials start in half an hour, and it takes me a while to get there at 30mph.
 
2 Sweet said:
The interface is just as easy to use as cable TV, and the performance is flawless if you have a decent internet connection. But that's a pretty big IF, and a significant reason why traditional cable TV isn't going anywhere for a long time IMO.
Click to expand...

High speed internet has made some big inroads in Rural America though. Both the Trump and Biden Administrations have invested heavily in it. Even the states with laws that are prohibitive toward expansion of rural broadband coverage (laws written by Charter, Comcast, etc.) are taking the federal grant money and using it to expand coverage, no matter how badly their governors want to look like Rambo giving Joe Biden the Philly Salute.
 
Charlie Spencer said:
Ah, the good old days, when the station attendant would pump your gas, clean your windshield, check your oil and tire pressure, and give you a map or a state decal. I could go on but Denny's senior specials start in half an hour, and it takes me a while to get there at 30mph.
Click to expand...
Not at those prices. It was pump your own damn gas lol. Full service was 34 cents.
 
The Nature Boy said:
Except this is the opposite of what is happening. Cable numbers are going down and more people are turning to streaming. I'm not at Andy's level of predicting how far down cable will go, but it does represent a shrinking portion of the TV viewing audience. The future is streaming.

NASCAR took more cash today to double down on a declining technology (cable). There are fewer races available OTA than we've had since at least 2001. They're taking more dollars today and risking alienating younger fans (the majority of whom don't have cable) who won't be able to access races because they're behind a cable paywall.

As pointed out elsewhere, Prime's reach is comparable to the cable networks that are carrying NASCAR coverage.
Click to expand...
Better factor in the make-up of the audience, too. I'm no expert, but it appears that the younger crowd is embracing streaming services while the older crowd tends to stay with what they already know and have already paid for. Meanwhile, the younger crowd doesn't have as much interest in NASCAR (or cars for that matter). Maybe NASCAR expects to overall win more viewers among the younger crowd than it loses among the older crowd... but NASCAR's marketing moves over the past couple of decades have been mostly shooting itself in the foot...

At first I thought a good compromise would be to make races available over the air / regular cable channels simultaneously with streaming services, but then I realized I wouldn't pay extra (use streaming) if I didn't have to, so why would anybody else? This tends to show that streaming services are not cost competitive.

Some industries are able to manipulate and even force their customers to buy and adopt changing technologies over the years... sometimes they can even appeal to those who "keep up with the Joneses"... but those industries usually either sell products that people must buy in order to live, or the changing technologies are cost competitive enough. Sorry, but NASCAR races are not in that category - no matter how big a NASCAR fan one may be, one can live without it. It's only one of a vast array of entertainment choices all vying for your leisure dollars. NASCAR can make all the deals it wants to make races exclusive to streaming services, but it cannot make its customers subscribe. Even the NFL struggles to get fans to buy its streaming - only games, despite whatever numbers are claimed for people using Internet vs. cable services.

Time will tell. For me, I cannot imagine being willing to pay extra to watch NASCAR races. If NASCAR inks new deals that make my only options streaming or pay-per-view, I will entertain myself another way without them.
 
gone said:
At first I thought a good compromise would be to make races available over the air / regular cable channels simultaneously with streaming services, but then I realized I wouldn't pay extra (use streaming) if I didn't have to, so why would anybody else? This tends to show that streaming services are not cost competitive.
Click to expand...

The only races that are streaming-only are going to be on Prime Video, which already has more subscribers than cable television.

I posted last night on Facebook, "Most of y'all already have Prime Video and don't even know it."
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The only races that are streaming-only are going to be on Prime Video, which already has more subscribers than cable television.

I posted last night on Facebook, "Most of y'all already have Prime Video and don't even know it."
Click to expand...
LOL, I don't have Prime Video AND I know it. Don't buy Amazon Prime at all. Also don't do Facebook, so no surprise that I didn't see your post (assuming that I would follow you anyway, which is not a disrespect - I don't follow anyone).
 
gone said:
Better factor in the make-up of the audience, too. I'm no expert, but it appears that the younger crowd is embracing streaming services while the older crowd tends to stay with what they already know and have already paid for. Meanwhile, the younger crowd doesn't have as much interest in NASCAR (or cars for that matter). Maybe NASCAR expects to overall win more viewers among the younger crowd than it loses among the older crowd... but NASCAR's marketing moves over the past couple of decades have been mostly shooting itself in the foot...

At first I thought a good compromise would be to make races available over the air / regular cable channels simultaneously with streaming services, but then I realized I wouldn't pay extra (use streaming) if I didn't have to, so why would anybody else? This tends to show that streaming services are not cost competitive.

Some industries are able to manipulate and even force their customers to buy and adopt changing technologies over the years... sometimes they can even appeal to those who "keep up with the Joneses"... but those industries usually either sell products that people must buy in order to live, or the changing technologies are cost competitive enough. Sorry, but NASCAR races are not in that category - no matter how big a NASCAR fan one may be, one can live without it. It's only one of a vast array of entertainment choices all vying for your leisure dollars. NASCAR can make all the deals it wants to make races exclusive to streaming services, but it cannot make its customers subscribe. Even the NFL struggles to get fans to buy its streaming - only games, despite whatever numbers are claimed for people using Internet vs. cable services.

Time will tell. For me, I cannot imagine being willing to pay extra to watch NASCAR races. If NASCAR inks new deals that make my only options streaming or pay-per-view, I will entertain myself another way without them.
Click to expand...
True some will drop off. On the other hand, small networks that stream like Flo do a great job with racing, but when a billion dollar corporation offers wheelbarrow loads of money for their business it won't be long in coming. All of the little guys stand to make a good sum for selling out, but it isn't done from the good of their corporate hearts. They aren't going to continue to lose billions a quarter forever.
 
gone said:
LOL, I don't have Prime Video AND I know it. Don't buy Amazon Prime at all.
Click to expand...

I have to do my shopping the old-fashioned way. Prime's free next day shipping is more like next week shipping here to start with, and the post office likes to deliver my mail someplace else.

I cancelled Prime right after the Jaguars beat the Aints on Thursday Night Football. I otherwise don't watch TNF and don't use Amazon for anything else.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The only races that are streaming-only are going to be on Prime Video, which already has more subscribers than cable television.
Click to expand...

It’s also by far the most cost efficient option for most people. I checked my Amazon account a few minutes ago and I have saved $200 this year on my Amazon shopping because I have Prime. It can almost pay for itself.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
I have to do my shopping the old-fashioned way. Prime's free next day shipping is more like next week shipping here to start with, and the post office likes to deliver my mail someplace else.

I cancelled Prime right after the Jaguars beat the Aints on Thursday Night Football. I otherwise don't watch TNF and don't use Amazon for anything else.
Click to expand...
My point is that it doesn't matter much what overall statistics claim (such as, Prime Video already has more subscribers than cable television) if the interested audience does not conform to those statistics. Relying upon statistics is part of how NASCAR keeps shooting itself in the foot.
 
The Nature Boy said:
It’s also by far the most cost efficient option for most people. I checked my Amazon account a few minutes ago and I have saved $200 this year on my Amazon shopping because I have Prime. It can almost pay for itself.
Click to expand...
That's good for you, but I don't shop online enough to come close to paying for Amazon Prime service. Even by being a bigger online customer than me you admit that it "almost" pays for itself... which sounds like you are willing to pay that extra amount for what is convenient to you. That's fine and totally your prerogative, but you might see how it is not fine for everybody else.
 
gone said:
My point is that it doesn't matter much what overall statistics claim (such as, Prime Video already has more subscribers than cable television) if the interested audience does not conform to those statistics.
Click to expand...

The problem is that NASCAR is going to need to grow its audience in order to continue to thrive, especially with costs escalating. You have to go where your potential audience may be. Relying on older people is a bad long term strategy for obvious reasons. Your fanbase needs a constant churn of young people to be sustainable.

gone said:
That's good for you, but I don't shop online enough to come close to paying for Amazon Prime service. Even by being a bigger online customer than me you admit that it "almost" pays for itself... which sounds like you are willing to pay that extra amount for what is convenient to you. That's fine and totally your prerogative, but you might see how it is not fine for everybody else.
Click to expand...

Millions of people make the choice that I do. More than who choose to subscribe to cable. At the end of the day, you’re making a very “me” centric argument. NASCAR strikes a streaming deal with Amazon, whose platform includes more than just streaming and you’re acting like it’s on some niche product that no one has.
 
NASCAR made the sports more inaccessible by putting more races on cable. I don’t understand why people are focusing on 5 races on the most widely available streaming platform. The bigger issue is doubling down on cable over the OTA options.
 
gone said:
My point is that it doesn't matter much what overall statistics claim (such as, Prime Video already has more subscribers than cable television) if the interested audience does not conform to those statistics. Relying upon statistics is part of how NASCAR keeps shooting itself in the foot.
Click to expand...

If NASCAR was relying on statistics, they wouldn't have made a deal that puts half their races exclusively on a dying medium.
 
The Nature Boy said:
The problem is that NASCAR is going to need to grow its audience in order to continue to thrive, especially with costs escalating. You have to go where your potential audience may be. Relying on older people is a bad long term strategy for obvious reasons. Your fanbase needs a constant churn of young people to be sustainable.



Millions of people make the choice that I do. More than who choose to subscribe to cable. At the end of the day, you’re making a very “me” centric argument. NASCAR strikes a streaming deal with Amazon, whose platform includes more than just streaming and you’re acting like it’s on some niche product that no one has.
Click to expand...
Agreed that NASCAR needs to grow its audience, and try to find them where they live. But simultaneously casting aside its existing audience won't help it - which has been shown by decreased live event attendees and lower car counts and more teams with partial or inadequate sponsorship.

Just because millions of people do something does not guarantee that is the best thing to do. Nor does that guarantee that is the way of the future.

I did not say that Amazon is a niche product that no one has. I'm saying that it is an alternate product that comes with increased costs and not necessarily superior service. I'm also suggesting that NASCAR's older audience may not be enthralled with it.
 
The Nature Boy said:
NASCAR strikes a streaming deal with Amazon, whose platform includes more than just streaming ...
Click to expand...
I admit I had no clue Amazon was in the streaming game before this discussion. Before, I thought Prime was just a subscription to get fast free delivery. Since I wasn't interested in that, I looked no further.
 
The Nature Boy said:
NASCAR made the sports more inaccessible by putting more races on cable. I don’t understand why people are focusing on 5 races on the most widely available streaming platform.
Click to expand...

But "older people don't know how to use a Roku," so the races need to be on cable.

Even though a large chunk of that crowd will be dead by 2030. And I'm not even saying that to be a dick. That's literally where we're at. NASCAR has a very old fanbase, and every time they take one step forward in trying to get younger fans involved (Chicago), they take two steps back to keep the geriatrics (USA, FS1).
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
If NASCAR was relying on statistics, they wouldn't have made a deal that puts half their races exclusively on a dying medium.
Click to expand...
"Dying"... well I guess that attitude explains why some younger folks think us older folks are useless and expendable...
 
gone said:
I'm also suggesting that NASCAR's older audience may not be enthralled with it.
Click to expand...

The irony that you’re missing is that this deal caters to people like you. The sport is now more inaccessible to cord cutters (a growing segment of the population).

5 out of 36 races are inaccessible to you. You’re still doing better than other demographics. This deal is not good for anyone. The cutting of races from OTA channels is a bigger deal than 5 races on streaming.
 
The Nature Boy said:
The irony that you’re missing is that this deal caters to people like you. The sport is now more inaccessible to cord cutters (a growing segment of the population).

5 out of 36 races are inaccessible to you. You’re still doing better than other demographics. This deal is not good for anyone. The cutting of races from OTA channels is a bigger deal than 5 races on streaming.
Click to expand...
This deal does NOT cater to people like me. To use it I have to pony up for service subscriptions and additional hardware so I can still get what I used to get.
 
The Nature Boy said:
Unless you’re a psychic, you’re not a “dying medium.”

Dying medium in this case refers to cable television.
Click to expand...
If I was psychic I could foresee where the markets will be now and well into the future... and be rich as a consultant.
 
gone said:
Agreed that NASCAR needs to grow its audience, and try to find them where they live. But simultaneously casting aside its existing audience won't help it - which has been shown by decreased live event attendees and lower car counts and more teams with partial or inadequate sponsorship.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, even those of us who are pro-streaming are not advocating for the majority of the schedule to be available through streaming. We're saying that streaming should complement linear television broadcasts. A handful of races being available exclusively on a streaming platform was inevitable - as much as fans tried to say it would never happen. NASCAR wound up on the best streaming platform they could land on.

NASCAR went ALL IN on cable TV. It's the absolute worst possible outcome for EVERYONE. It sucks for elderly people on fixed incomes because the AVERAGE cable TV bill is $217/month. And it sucks for younger viewers because there is no streaming component at all to a vast majority of the races.

And shocking, given that the entire NASCAR Xfinity Series season will be available over-the-air and streaming free on The CW.
 
gone said:
This deal does NOT cater to people like me. To use it I have to pony up for service subscriptions and additional hardware so I can still get what I used to get.
Click to expand...

The season is mostly on cable. 13% of the schedule is exclusively on streaming.

If it were up to me, Cup would have what other sports (including the Xfinity Series in their new deal) have, a simulcast on traditional television AND streaming. It’s not an either/or proposition. You can do both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom