Adding some social capabilities to the existing apps might be a good start. It can be as simple as letting people leave comments on a game using their Facebook or Twitter accounts. The comments would show up on those users’ activity streams (with some sort of hash tag), which would help build further conversations around the games, while also promoting the mobile audio product.
They’re taking it a step beyond, integrating what seems to be a full-fledged Twitter client within MLB.tv and Gameday. Not quite sure how it will work yet (i.e. do you see your full Twitter feed, or just the tweets about that game? Will it automatically add a hashtag to your tweets if you post directly from MLB.com?), but the screenshots look damn nice (see below, courtesy of SAI).
The one thing I’ll point out is that the goal seems to be promoting team hashtags — i.e. #redsox — which I don’t think is the right approach. As a viral marketing tool, it would be better to add a shortened link to the MLB.tv or Gameday screen that the user is on, or a hashtag with an embedded link in it — such as #redsoxyankees.
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
posted by Shawn Hoffman, on July 28th, 2009 at 02:25 pm, in category 1
“We’ve been very successful. We’ve sold over 90 percent of all tickets available this year in our new stadium, which as the mayor will tell you, is an absolutely beautiful stadium.”
I assume he’s including the comp tickets that were given away to existing season ticket-holders.
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
posted by Shawn Hoffman, on July 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm, in category 1
I’m writing about online streaming this week on BP, specifically on how MLB’s strategy is so different from the NFL’s — whereas MLB has been very aggressive, the NFL doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers with their TV partners. I understand this, to a certain extent, with out-of-market games — DirecTV pays the NFL a lot for its exclusive, and it’s somewhat justifiable that the league wouldn’t want to piss them off.
But for in-market games, especially those on CBS and FOX, why wouldn’t these games be streamed? The broadcast networks have one revenue source: advertising. The more eyeballs watching the games, regardless of what screen it’s on, the better for the networks. Plus, the internet audience is far more measurable and interactive than the TV audience, opening up plenty of other opportunities in this space.
And yet MLB, which has to deal with each and every RSN and cable operator when it wants to stream games locally, has beaten the NFL to in-market streaming. Doesn’t make much sense.
More on BP later in the week.
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
posted by Shawn Hoffman, on July 27th, 2009 at 03:18 pm, in category 1
Not-so-shocking rumor of the day: Apple’s long-awaited tablet PC (imagine a bigger version of the iPod Touch) is coming as early as September. This just a few days after reports had come out that it had finally gotten Steve Jobs’s final seal of approval.
There are a lot of questions to be answered, not the least of which is, why would I buy a bigger version of the iPod Touch for $700-800 or so (assuming that is the price), when I could get an iPhone or iPod Touch for a third the price, or I already own one? Isn’t the point of the iPhone that you never have to carry around another device?
Here’s what could be the differentiator, if there is one: media, particularly movies and books. The iPhone is a tremendous platform for short-form reading and video, but it hasn’t totally caught on as an ebook reader (although I love reading books on mine), and it’s not easy to watch a full-length movie or a baseball game on a 3.5 inch screen. I’ve talked about the latter problem before.
That’s presumably where the tablet could come in. The bigger screen (10 inches) would make it a lot easier to watch video on, and it could be a great way to watch MLB.tv. In fact, I’m not sure there’s a single app that would benefit more from an extra few inches of screen real estate.
I have some other concerns about the tablet (Won’t it be too big to type on with your thumbs? Will App Store apps be compatible?), and I’m not sure how it could offer $700 of value beyond what I already have with my iPhone. So in all likelihood it will become a high-end niche device. But for MLB.tv, it really could be the ultimate mobile viewing experience.
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
posted by Shawn Hoffman, on July 21st, 2009 at 08:24 pm, in category 1
Pretty straightforward, and not at all unexpected: you can now watch any game on your iPhone, if you’re an MLB.tv subscriber. There will be one free game per day for non-MLB.tv subscribers.
Also some numbers, straight from the CEO’s mouth: 350,000 MLB.tv subscribers, which translates to about $35 million in revenue. Also, the WSJ says there are 210,000 At Bat subscribers, which should yield about $1.5 million.
Bowman is incredibly bullish on mobile, but the dollars aren’t quite there yet. As I’ve said a thousand times, the biggest revenue generator for BAM would be making archived videos and MLB.tv embeddable on third party sites.
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
The good news (for some), is that we may be seeing the end of an era. While the draft and the overall player procurement system has always been the red-headed stepchild when it comes to baseball’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, that might no longer be the case, and this year’s free-agency season finally had the player’s side of things sitting up to take notice.
Said one exec, “Look, Bobby Abreu can’t find a job and then signs for $5 million. While 16-year-old are getting signed off sandlots in the Dominican for $3 and $4 million? That’s the kind of thing that’s going to get the union going,” he added, while predicting than during the next bargaining session, once the players figure out what they want, them giving into financially harnessing the signing system for both draftees and international players will be what they use for leverage.
Well that’s interesting. Really, if there’s any obvious concession for the players to utilize during the next round of CBA negotiations, it’s this, since it could hypothetically have a positive impact on current players’ values. Not exactly what the agents would want, but for the players themselves, it does make a decent amount of sense.
But on the other side, this should be one of the last things the owners should be pushing for. If the players end up using this as a “major” concession, I can almost guarantee the owners will come out the losers.
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
posted by Shawn Hoffman, on July 14th, 2009 at 08:54 pm, in category 1
Let’s blow this one up quickly. This is a pure lose-lose for both the players and the owners. The team would have to choose between bringing a player back with no rehab assignment, or losing him for an extra 4-5 games. For the players, it should simply be a nonstarter; this rule would effectively extend the suspension period, which seems pretty needless and arbitrary. Especially for an issue that nobody cared about (if they even knew it existed) until a high-profile player was suspended.
No doubt, part of Bud’s job is being a politician, and that aspect is probably his biggest weakness. When he sells one thing poorly (his record on PEDs), he feels has to go out of his way to compensate for it. But this is just pointless grandstanding, and better left ignored.
As Craig wrote, “Amazing that Bud didn’t consider this a problem when the CBA was negotiated. Hey Bud: if you’re going to let the Bill Plaschkes and Tracy Ringolsbys of the world dictate your opinions about such things, why don’t you send them to the bargaining table next time?”
Feedback? Write a comment, or e-mail the author at shawn(AT)squawkingbaseball.com
