Why CBS doesn't deserve March Madness

UPDATE 3/19: Turns out CBS is a little better this year. They do un-blackout the games on DirectTV when the local affliliate switches. However, that solution only serves a small percentage of the viewership. They also certainly didn't publicize the change in policy or make any reference to it on their website.

---

We spend a lot of time on this blog decrying perceived inefficiencies in the news business, but I hate to see them in any medium -- particularly when I, as a customer, feel abused.

CBS has exclusive rights to televise the Men's NCAA Basketball Tournament. During the early rounds, there are usually four games taking place at any given time. Affiliates carry games based upon regional interest or, if there's no locals in the fight, national interest. Makes sense so far.

They also offer games on DirectTV and online for a fee, so avid fans can pay to see their team play. That makes sense too.

Here's the first hitch: you can't get the game your local affiliate is airing on satellite or online. I could endorse that, if it weren't for one huge problem: CBS makes decisions to switch games on the fly.

So, say you're watching the Duke/Delaware State game on the DFW affilliate. Another game is closer, so they switch to it, never returning to the original contest.

But, even with satellite or online access, you can't get the game. Because the local affiliate started with that game, it's blacked out.

I'll confess that I'm not nearly as well-versed in the technology behind broadcast as that driving newspapers. But, I can't imagine that it is that technologiclally difficult to un-blackout a broadcast when a programming switch is made.

With a closer look, the whole blackout thing doesn't really make sense anyway -- there haven't been many (maybe not any) local ads in the broadcast. So, if CBS made all the games available on satellite and online (with a subscription fee, mind you), and apportioned the revenue to the various affiliates based on overall market viewership, wouldn't everyone be happier? The avid fans get to watch their teams. The casual fans get to watch the most exciting games. The affiliates still get their cut. There are more eyeballs watching the ads (as some fans walk away when its clear that their game is offline.) And CBS would make more money in subscription fees.

Absent any data to the contrary, I'm left to assume that the only reasonable answer is the laziness of a monopoly.  They don't deserve to have an exclusive license to the world's most exciting sports championship tourney.

Unfortunately, it's a closed game, unlike the market we're going to face. The big boys may have more resources, but they don't have an exclusive license.

Which begs the question: Does modern technology enable an economic model that makes it feasible for the NCAA (or any sports league) to abandon network relationships; to disintermediate?

There has to be. Any business strategy that involves witholding content from the marketplace is wrongheaded and outdated.

Comments

[Mike]

Yes this is an awful system. I'm in Sheridan Wyoming. I paid Direct TV for "all" the games (blackout info in tiny print). I came home from work to watch the Northwestern St./Iowa game. But it isn't on. I get the hopeful message "tune to your local CBS station". But of course the one and only CBS station I get has the Arizona/Wisconsin game.

So, okay, go ahead and get online, right? Wrong. Same message there.

Who is behind this totally incompetent broadcasting? Is it really not possible to provide better coverage?? This truly sucks.

Mike.