Nice analysis on the change overall, and I agree with most of your points. When it comes to online streaming, however, I think people are more likely to make decisions as individuals than they would for something like football tickets, where there is a greater amount of networking (e.g., there being only "17" of us across all conferences on this forum). If the cost of my streaming package increases by 50% and I am planning to drop my plan, then I wouldn't be placated by knowing that OSU fans can now watch field hockey in addition for a lower price. To be sure, both the WCHA and Big Ten care more about what the average tOSU fan thinks than they do about the average fan of BSU.
Thanks for the reply; sorry about my slow, off-season response. Let me clarify my original argument.
When the Hockey-Only Package goes away, then WCHA-Only fans will be the ones who are the most disadvantaged in terms of the new cost-benefit analysis. Fans of
any of the Big Ten school (nothing unique about OSU's position) potentially gain value from other B1G sports being newly included in the package. Non-BIG fans, not so much. Obviously. Programming that will never be viewed adds no value.
But for me, the heart of the matter is the value of the hockey package vs. the new price -- in absolute terms.
To keep the math halfway simple, allow for some very slight rounding off. Let's treat the college hockey season as lasting seven months. The outgoing hockey package cost the subscriber $8 a month. The new all-inclusive package will cost $13 a month.
For those on tight budgets, an extra $5 a month may be a deal-breaker. I understand and respect that.
Others may be adequately funded, but feel insulted by the "50% price increase." This group may cancel on the principle of thing. While I'm not a fan of cutting off your nose to spite your face, subscribers have every right to react that way.
For the rest, here's the choice: If I cancel, how many times will my team be available for viewing at home? You can probably count the dates on one hand. Or, if I bite the bullet and accept the increase, I continue to have almost the entire WCHA schedule available on my home screen.
My point was that IF the Women's WCHA justifies a $55 per year/$8 a month expenditure, it probably justifies a $90 per year/$13 per month expenditure. For a majority. Of course not all.
Last and probably least, what about those subscribers who are truly on the fence? They may look to "opinion leaders" as something of a tiebreaker. As long as that leader is respected as a legitimate hockey person. Such leaders can come from any number of sources. It's certainly not limited to the members of this forum.
