(05-11-2015 10:18 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote: (05-11-2015 03:27 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (05-10-2015 03:13 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote: (05-10-2015 01:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (05-10-2015 10:09 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote: But, how many years is that deal for? 13 years? Are they really going to be happy about the value of the deal in 10 years? I doubt it.
Plus most of their games are placed on ESPN3.
Between 2013 and today we've gone from 13% of homes having a dedicated streaming device to 25% today (a target that was hit faster than predicted 12 months ago).
Just for perspective, more homes can receive ESPN3 on a streaming device than can watch ESPN Classic from their cable or satellite provider.
At the current pace, in early 2017 ESPN3 via dedicated streaming device will be in more homes than CBS Sports.
That's not addressing anyone watching on a tablet, smartphone, game console, blu-ray player or computer.
This year ESPN3 just on dedicated streaming devices will hit the same number of homes ESPN hit in 1983 the year before ESPN secured the rights to major college football from the CFA.
The modern American watches 17 channels on a semi-regular basis. The idea of "flipping around" to find something to watch no longer exists. Consumers use a program guide to find anything not on their regular core of channels. People don't stumble onto an AAC game on ESPN News or a CUSA game on CBS Sports or Fox regionals they find those games in the program guide. The same format they will use on ESPN3.
MAC may not like the money down the road but they are going to love the ESPN3 exposure.
As to the length of the deal, MOST of the TV deals conferences have signed recently have been around 12 years long.
It's great that more people are watching streaming, but I don't think most of those numbers are a result of wanting to watch G5 games on ESPN3. I watch Netfix too. The quality of a streamed movie is still much better then that of a live streaming football game.
MOST of those deals are to have games broadcast on television. 13 years of having most of their games on ESPN3 doesn't sound good to me. And, I doubt they will love the coverage of ESPN3. For the most part, media ignores reporting on those games, and the highlights. when you can find them, usually look like crap.
Most people don't "flip around" to find games, but they will "flip" though their guide to find random games. What most people don't do is accidentally stumble across a game on ESPN3. Maybe someday streaming will rival broadcasts, but I don't believe most people think that day is here yet.
You are not HONESTLY claiming that a newspaper or TV station chooses what it reports on based on whether a game is on CBSS or ABC? If you are you are so far off base it is ridiculous.
ESPN reports primarily on Top 25 with the biggest audience programs getting the lions share. In local markets what drives reporting is local interest.
You are right. ESPN does focus on the top 25 teams. I hate ESPN. I hate the way they relegate the majority of the G5 games to ESPN3. And, I hope C-USA never signs a deal that would place the bulk of our games on a streaming website.
I'm saying that big time television and newspapers focus on reporting higher profile games, which tend to be on television. The networks and major papers never report on games that were only available on ESPN3. Top 25 match-ups never appear on ESPN3. Small local papers and stations will cover the local teams, but large media outlets in major U.S. markets focus on higher profile match-ups and games that are televised. In many cases, even local teams don't get much attention, but if they appear on television, they certainly get more and better coverage, then if their game was on ESPN3.
When it is being reported that ESPN3 averaged about 3,000 viewers for games, it is obvious television is still the way to go.
You are mixing things up.
When was the last time a college game on CBSS, FS2, ESPNU, NBC Sports, Fox Regional, Fox College, or ASN was a major national focus games.
NEVER.
If it is a major event it isn't on those channels. Blaming being on ESPN3 for not being a major event is like saying ESPN isn't a major cable network because it doesn't have the Super Bowl.
You scoff at the first year of serious use of ESPN3 by the MAC and ESPN as lackluster but Fox Regional audiences of 6,000 are not unheard of on a channel most people have had in their home for 30+ years.
How about you tell me some about the great and wonderful ASN. I've watched some games on there. Watched part of UNT and Rice basketball most recently. Living in Little Rock, I cannot see it unless I pay extra for the sports package even though the nice map ASN has says it is in Little Rock on KATV, my locals package doesn't include the subcarrier stations OR you can put up an antenna (which I've done because rain fade during tornadic weather is dangerous). Since it is on sub-carrier the game was shown in 480p (ie. standard definition like the TV you had before HDTV) and the picture looked like crap. Sometimes they will offer ASN in 720p and that's watchable if I remember to hit the input button and switch to antenna otherwise it's not even viewable without paying extra money.
Now let's get some perspective.
July 2006 Netflix hits 5 million streaming customers.
February 2009 Netflix announces they have 10 million streaming subscribers.
October 2013, Netflix passes HBO with 31 million streaming subscribers.
July 2014 Netflix hits 50 million subscribers.
In 8 years we've gone from Netflix being the geeky way to watch movies for people either too cheap or too lazy to go to blockbuster and get a decent movie you've actually heard of.
Four years after streaming started at Netflix, Blockbuster seeks bankruptcy protection. 10 months before Netflix passes HBO the last Blockbuster stores closed.
Blockbuster was doomed and never realized it.
First Netflix discovered that most people would just as soon watch an old TV series or old movie as drive 10 minutes to the Blockbuster store for a new release that might not be in stock. They made life easier for the consumer.
Second, Netflix caught on to what HBO had realized. If you are 100% dependent distributing someone else's content, you are at their mercy. HBO was built on movies, then the movies started going to video (first tape then disc) before coming to HBO and then started going to PPV (which has now exploded with not just cable and satellite providing it but also Apple, Google, Vudu, MGo, etc). HBO started making their own content and it is what drives subscriptions.
If you were around in the early days of ESPN360 now ESPN3, it was really hit or miss or what you could watch. Some big content was online, some of it was not. Now ESPN in their new contracts are securing the online rights as well.
If you have the WatchESPN app on tablet, smartphone, iPhone, Roku, Kindle Fire it is integrated. You can click by channel, by league, or just by sport. Scroll through and pick a game. I suspect they will learn from some of the other online service and start including the score in the menu.
You can suppose that ESPN online is to be an eternal backwater, the way ESPN is spending to aquire content for it some dismiss as just warehousing content, I think it is far more likely ESPN knows the days of demanding $7 a month from cable and satellite and having vast sums roll in with little effort are numbered and they see the future in online.
Apple is reportedly rolling out its own version of the Sling/Dish subscription this fall, HBO signed with Apple exclusively for online subscriptions. The day when ESPN3 content is just as accessible as ESPN content is fast approaching.
HBO was long thought to be the last bastion of cable TV the reason many would never leave for internet delivery, now HBO is available direct to consumer. ESPN is clearly preparing for that day as well.
You can dismiss it all you want but within the next five years, you will probably watch most of your content on an app, either on phone, tablet, streaming device, or built into your television.
/
CBS reporting CUSA won't ammend by laws for UAB
