<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: NESN gives Boston fans reason to believe the Sox are just as selfishly stupid as they&#8217;ve always suspected</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/</link>
	<description>Media, Baseball, Boston, the Red Sox, Music, Literature, and Mnookins</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:14:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: MTMoore</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18660</link>
		<dc:creator>MTMoore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18660</guid>
		<description>Seth;  You hit a few nails on the head with this entry. "There's too much product out there" Selig has blown everyone off by stating only 5000 cannot have a dish, all others are deemed too stubborn to switch. Discounted are retirees (many of our dads) &#38; transients living in apts. &#38; condos, anyone situated in hilly terrain or in a valley where buildings &#38; trees block signals. Altho' we live in a condo I would not switch the DTV out of principle -- besides I like Comcast's On Demand feature too much to give it up. What will happen when the expected subscribers don't materialize? I'll predict DTV will raise package rates in 2008 to make up for their "misunderestimation". With a monopoly they can raise the costs as high as they want to recoup losses.

iNDemand advertises the E.I. package as "follow your fave team or player". Perhaps foolishly, Selig believes baseball fans will adopt their new home team, that is Red Sox &#38; Yank fans living in FL will switch allegiences to the Rays. Perhaps he thinks it will help fill seats in poorly attended games or perhaps he's just an asshole. Selig singled out Red Sox fans as the ones stirring the pot, making it sound as though we're the only ones complaining.

Remember last playoff season MLB spent $$ running commercials with the theme "just because your team isn't in the playoffs doesn't mean you shoudn't watch." Extra Innings helped garner said viewers, without E.I. fans may answer "I don't know the teams, so who cares?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seth;  You hit a few nails on the head with this entry. &#8220;There&#8217;s too much product out there&#8221; Selig has blown everyone off by stating only 5000 cannot have a dish, all others are deemed too stubborn to switch. Discounted are retirees (many of our dads) &amp; transients living in apts. &amp; condos, anyone situated in hilly terrain or in a valley where buildings &amp; trees block signals. Altho&#8217; we live in a condo I would not switch the DTV out of principle &#8212; besides I like Comcast&#8217;s On Demand feature too much to give it up. What will happen when the expected subscribers don&#8217;t materialize? I&#8217;ll predict DTV will raise package rates in 2008 to make up for their &#8220;misunderestimation&#8221;. With a monopoly they can raise the costs as high as they want to recoup losses.</p>
<p>iNDemand advertises the E.I. package as &#8220;follow your fave team or player&#8221;. Perhaps foolishly, Selig believes baseball fans will adopt their new home team, that is Red Sox &amp; Yank fans living in FL will switch allegiences to the Rays. Perhaps he thinks it will help fill seats in poorly attended games or perhaps he&#8217;s just an asshole. Selig singled out Red Sox fans as the ones stirring the pot, making it sound as though we&#8217;re the only ones complaining.</p>
<p>Remember last playoff season MLB spent $$ running commercials with the theme &#8220;just because your team isn&#8217;t in the playoffs doesn&#8217;t mean you shoudn&#8217;t watch.&#8221; Extra Innings helped garner said viewers, without E.I. fans may answer &#8220;I don&#8217;t know the teams, so who cares?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Realchili</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18608</link>
		<dc:creator>Realchili</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:31:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18608</guid>
		<description>I'm a transplant from CT and now live in Milwaukee (pretty close to Bud, actually) and have cable.  I have my phone, internet also through cable, and really have no interest in switching to directv, and I know my wife has no interest in a dish on our house.  I honestly feel completely screwed over by the directv deal.

Assuming Time Warner doesn't match the directv deal, which seems like a safe assumption, what are my options?  I'm not crazy about looking at a computer screen any more than I already do, and with the time difference I wouldn't typically get home until well into most games anyway.  I have young kids, its summer with nice, long evenings, and really EI with dvr/tivo was ideal.  I honestly feel like I have no legitimate means of watching the Sox, other than the occasional ESPN game.  What's actually a little funny is that through osmosis I've gotten my neighbor's kids hooked on the Sox, to the point that the families are making a trip out to Fenway this summer.  Those kids would lap it up if they could wander over and watch Boston anytime they wanted.

So, any suggestions?  I figure they just gave me every reason not to follow the Sox this year, and learn to live without watching nearly as much baseball.  While I like the Brewers, I'm not going to turn into a huge fan and watch 120 games.   I suppose I should extend my family's thanks next time I see Bud wandering aimlessly around the neighborhood.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a transplant from CT and now live in Milwaukee (pretty close to Bud, actually) and have cable.  I have my phone, internet also through cable, and really have no interest in switching to directv, and I know my wife has no interest in a dish on our house.  I honestly feel completely screwed over by the directv deal.</p>
<p>Assuming Time Warner doesn&#8217;t match the directv deal, which seems like a safe assumption, what are my options?  I&#8217;m not crazy about looking at a computer screen any more than I already do, and with the time difference I wouldn&#8217;t typically get home until well into most games anyway.  I have young kids, its summer with nice, long evenings, and really EI with dvr/tivo was ideal.  I honestly feel like I have no legitimate means of watching the Sox, other than the occasional ESPN game.  What&#8217;s actually a little funny is that through osmosis I&#8217;ve gotten my neighbor&#8217;s kids hooked on the Sox, to the point that the families are making a trip out to Fenway this summer.  Those kids would lap it up if they could wander over and watch Boston anytime they wanted.</p>
<p>So, any suggestions?  I figure they just gave me every reason not to follow the Sox this year, and learn to live without watching nearly as much baseball.  While I like the Brewers, I&#8217;m not going to turn into a huge fan and watch 120 games.   I suppose I should extend my family&#8217;s thanks next time I see Bud wandering aimlessly around the neighborhood.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dbvader</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18592</link>
		<dc:creator>dbvader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18592</guid>
		<description>jdreid,
Copyright law makes it that copyright holders have to protect their property in order not to lose the protection of the law.  A party can defend itself from copyright infringement by showing that the material at issue had been republished in violation of the original copyright without any attempt by the holder to restrict the publication.  MLB cannot select which violations of its copyrights it will allow and which it will prosecute without the possibility it will lose its copyright.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>jdreid,<br />
Copyright law makes it that copyright holders have to protect their property in order not to lose the protection of the law.  A party can defend itself from copyright infringement by showing that the material at issue had been republished in violation of the original copyright without any attempt by the holder to restrict the publication.  MLB cannot select which violations of its copyrights it will allow and which it will prosecute without the possibility it will lose its copyright.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trouthead</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18590</link>
		<dc:creator>Trouthead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18590</guid>
		<description>MLB and Bud do not understand baseball fans.  I've had the MLB EI package for 2 years.  I watch most Red Sox games, a few Yankee games, and zero KC, TB, or Seattle games.  The fact that they want me to buy the whole package is ridiculous.  Now I can't even buy the package without changing from DISH to Direct TV.  Give me NESN and nothing else and I'd be happy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MLB and Bud do not understand baseball fans.  I&#8217;ve had the MLB EI package for 2 years.  I watch most Red Sox games, a few Yankee games, and zero KC, TB, or Seattle games.  The fact that they want me to buy the whole package is ridiculous.  Now I can&#8217;t even buy the package without changing from DISH to Direct TV.  Give me NESN and nothing else and I&#8217;d be happy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jdreid</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18544</link>
		<dc:creator>jdreid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18544</guid>
		<description>Another example of MLB grossly misunderstanding newer media and how it can help them:

Last year I excitedly posted my first video to YouTube, a 4 minute piece I put together on Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS. I was lucky enough to be there and had a small video camera that captured, from the bleachers, both the Roberts steal and Big Papi's home run. At the time there were dozens of other such videos, but I was very proud of my baby, which quickly collected several thousand views and many comments. About a month later, I was served notice that it was taken down due to a copyright complaint by MLB. 

Of course I &lt;i&gt;was&lt;/i&gt; in violation of my ticket license, and they were within their right to complain and have the video removed (as other videos were). But what harm did my shaky movie, which mostly captured fan reaction to the moments, cause to their product? Did they not sell a 500,000th copy of the 2004 WS DVD because someone could watch a few fan videos on YouTube? Will someone not buy a playoff ticket and wait for the highlights on YouTube? With low resolution and a 10 minute limit, YouTube videos shot in a park offer no viable alternative to watching a game online or on TV. All these videos of walkoff home runs do (I saw some great ones from the Tigers' playoffs last year) is sell the experience of being at a great game. &lt;b&gt;It's grassroots marketing! Some companies would &lt;i&gt;pay&lt;/i&gt; for it!&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another example of MLB grossly misunderstanding newer media and how it can help them:</p>
<p>Last year I excitedly posted my first video to YouTube, a 4 minute piece I put together on Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS. I was lucky enough to be there and had a small video camera that captured, from the bleachers, both the Roberts steal and Big Papi&#8217;s home run. At the time there were dozens of other such videos, but I was very proud of my baby, which quickly collected several thousand views and many comments. About a month later, I was served notice that it was taken down due to a copyright complaint by MLB. </p>
<p>Of course I <i>was</i> in violation of my ticket license, and they were within their right to complain and have the video removed (as other videos were). But what harm did my shaky movie, which mostly captured fan reaction to the moments, cause to their product? Did they not sell a 500,000th copy of the 2004 WS DVD because someone could watch a few fan videos on YouTube? Will someone not buy a playoff ticket and wait for the highlights on YouTube? With low resolution and a 10 minute limit, YouTube videos shot in a park offer no viable alternative to watching a game online or on TV. All these videos of walkoff home runs do (I saw some great ones from the Tigers&#8217; playoffs last year) is sell the experience of being at a great game. <b>It&#8217;s grassroots marketing! Some companies would <i>pay</i> for it!</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tecosystems &#187; links for 2007-03-20</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18149</link>
		<dc:creator>tecosystems &#187; links for 2007-03-20</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 05:27:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18149</guid>
		<description>[...] The Feeding the Monster Blog — In which the author discusses Boston, the Red Sox, the media, and very occasionally popular music. » NESN gives Boston fans reason to believe the Sox are just as selfishly stupid as they’ve always suspected &#8220;I usually defend the Sox when they’re accused to trying to soak every last penny from their franchise&#8230;But this feels like one toke over the line. And it feels remarkably stupid as well.&#8221; - +1 (tags: SethMnookin RedSox NESN fairuse local TV) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Feeding the Monster Blog — In which the author discusses Boston, the Red Sox, the media, and very occasionally popular music. » NESN gives Boston fans reason to believe the Sox are just as selfishly stupid as they’ve always suspected &#8220;I usually defend the Sox when they’re accused to trying to soak every last penny from their franchise&#8230;But this feels like one toke over the line. And it feels remarkably stupid as well.&#8221; - +1 (tags: SethMnookin RedSox NESN fairuse local TV) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johnw</title>
		<link>http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18067</link>
		<dc:creator>johnw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2007/03/19/selfish-nesn/#comment-18067</guid>
		<description>This boneheaded move by NESN harkens back to the bad old days when the Lords of Baseball were extremely slow to embrace game broadcasts -- believing that fans would stop buying tickets if they could see (or hear) the games for free. It took them decades to realize that exposure is inherently good: exposure means higher brand recognition which means more fans and more ticket sales, not to mention hats, jerseys, bobblehead dolls, and stuffed Wallys. Baseball has prospered in the era of almost omnipresent game broadcasts. 

So now NESN (and I assume Sox management) wants to virtually erase the team from non-NESN local TV? They don't want anybody showing Big Papi hitting home runs, Mike Lowell stabbing a line drive, or Jonathan Papelbon striking out the side? They don't want Bob Lobel and friends talking up the expensive accomplishments of Dice-K? 

Greed, I expect from the Sox hierarchy. Stupidity, I don't. This move is stunning in its shortsightedness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This boneheaded move by NESN harkens back to the bad old days when the Lords of Baseball were extremely slow to embrace game broadcasts &#8212; believing that fans would stop buying tickets if they could see (or hear) the games for free. It took them decades to realize that exposure is inherently good: exposure means higher brand recognition which means more fans and more ticket sales, not to mention hats, jerseys, bobblehead dolls, and stuffed Wallys. Baseball has prospered in the era of almost omnipresent game broadcasts. </p>
<p>So now NESN (and I assume Sox management) wants to virtually erase the team from non-NESN local TV? They don&#8217;t want anybody showing Big Papi hitting home runs, Mike Lowell stabbing a line drive, or Jonathan Papelbon striking out the side? They don&#8217;t want Bob Lobel and friends talking up the expensive accomplishments of Dice-K? </p>
<p>Greed, I expect from the Sox hierarchy. Stupidity, I don&#8217;t. This move is stunning in its shortsightedness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
