This is from Wilner's 4th installment article.
Some schools are receiving a fraction from their regional tv networks than what they hoped for. And these networks are shrinking in reach and under performing revenue expectations. Here are the facts about these networks which were launched in August of 2012.
In a pre-launch meeting of Pac 12 ADs, Scott dazzled the room by providing three ranges of annual payouts once the networks had exited the start-up phase.
1. High End: 7-10 million per school
2. Middle: 5-7 million per school
3. Low End: 3-5 million per school
But get this. After SIX payouts their networks have yet to even hit the low end of the expected range.
From 2013 to 2018 only 9.7 million has been paid to each school. That is the TOTAL for all six years and is not even at the top of the range expected for one year per school.
And get this. Each school had to buy back their inventory from whom they had signed contracts with previously. (like IMG for example)
So take UCLA. They had to give back 5.6 million dollars to IMG to show their inventory on the new Pac 12 Networks. Do the math. That means UCLA ended up with 4.1 million dollars for the six years the networks have been in operation. Why?
Listen to ESPN analyst Brock Huard. He said the lack of reach has cast a pall over the conference, particularly in football and it affects everything. We go on the road and go out to dinner as a production crew to Buffalo Wild Wings or a sports bar and you want to watch those games and the network isn't on. You can't find it.
Because of this, the Pac 12, which has a lower population within its footprint, lower ratings for its games, and less fan affinity, has over three to four times less than what the Big 10 and the SEC are believed to generate for their schools.
Could these Pac 12 networks use the University of Houston with its 6.6 million area population and tv ratings? Oh my goodness.
Some schools are receiving a fraction from their regional tv networks than what they hoped for. And these networks are shrinking in reach and under performing revenue expectations. Here are the facts about these networks which were launched in August of 2012.
In a pre-launch meeting of Pac 12 ADs, Scott dazzled the room by providing three ranges of annual payouts once the networks had exited the start-up phase.
1. High End: 7-10 million per school
2. Middle: 5-7 million per school
3. Low End: 3-5 million per school
But get this. After SIX payouts their networks have yet to even hit the low end of the expected range.
From 2013 to 2018 only 9.7 million has been paid to each school. That is the TOTAL for all six years and is not even at the top of the range expected for one year per school.
And get this. Each school had to buy back their inventory from whom they had signed contracts with previously. (like IMG for example)
So take UCLA. They had to give back 5.6 million dollars to IMG to show their inventory on the new Pac 12 Networks. Do the math. That means UCLA ended up with 4.1 million dollars for the six years the networks have been in operation. Why?
Listen to ESPN analyst Brock Huard. He said the lack of reach has cast a pall over the conference, particularly in football and it affects everything. We go on the road and go out to dinner as a production crew to Buffalo Wild Wings or a sports bar and you want to watch those games and the network isn't on. You can't find it.
Because of this, the Pac 12, which has a lower population within its footprint, lower ratings for its games, and less fan affinity, has over three to four times less than what the Big 10 and the SEC are believed to generate for their schools.
Could these Pac 12 networks use the University of Houston with its 6.6 million area population and tv ratings? Oh my goodness.
