QUOTE:
...if cord cutting continues to accelerate, pretty soon ESPN is going to be the biggest media bubble since AOL merged with Time Warner.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rst-071215



.

Couldnt happen to a more deserving organization. They have way too much influence on college sports.

They have a business model, that is going to fall apart. Will it be a slow leak that lets them build a new model that works or a massive one? Who really knows. No doubt though the bleeding is just starting and not ending.

(07-13-2015 11:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  QUOTE:
...if cord cutting continues to accelerate, pretty soon ESPN is going to be the biggest media bubble since AOL merged with Time Warner.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rst-071215



.

A FOX article?

Quote:A FOX article?

Yeah -- I wouldn't take it as the gospel truth for "insight". :)

I think ESPN having so many channels and such + cable subscriptions falling = necessary adjustments for ANY big cable station. So there is a threatening aspect to them taking a solid hit for a while or something -- but it's not going to go away, that's Ridiculous. I would see it as more of a moment of transition to shift things to Internet-based streaming and being in line with things like Roku and other non-cable services, and not just by ESPN3 (and expanding it with more commercials, etc).

Just an adjustment period. They may have invested too much in expansion without factoring in (enough) the cable TV shift that will occur.

I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

If it all comes to fruition, it couldn't happen to a nicer company. Karma.

(07-13-2015 11:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  QUOTE:
...if cord cutting continues to accelerate, pretty soon ESPN is going to be the biggest media bubble since AOL merged with Time Warner.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rst-071215



.

It is like I said in the other thread. ESPN overplayed their hand as far as content and hoping that the cable/satellite companies will go for $10/subscriber when the contracts come up for renewal.

However I am questioning the article because I know TNT gets more per sub.

(07-13-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

Clay Travis is not loyal to Fox Sports. He is loyal to Clay Travis and probably to his audience, and emotionally invested in the SEC and Tennessee.

(Of course this has implications for FS1.)

(07-13-2015 12:28 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 11:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  QUOTE:
...if cord cutting continues to accelerate, pretty soon ESPN is going to be the biggest media bubble since AOL merged with Time Warner.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rst-071215



.

It is like I said in the other thread. ESPN overplayed their hand as far as content and hoping that the cable/satellite companies will go for $10/subscriber when the contracts come up for renewal.

However I am questioning the article because I know TNT gets more per sub.

Travis is citing SNL Kagan (who I only know of because Travis cites their numbers). What's your source?

(07-13-2015 12:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:28 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 11:25 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  QUOTE:
...if cord cutting continues to accelerate, pretty soon ESPN is going to be the biggest media bubble since AOL merged with Time Warner.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...rst-071215



.

It is like I said in the other thread. ESPN overplayed their hand as far as content and hoping that the cable/satellite companies will go for $10/subscriber when the contracts come up for renewal.

However I am questioning the article because I know TNT gets more per sub.

Travis is citing SNL Kagan (who I only know of because Travis cites their numbers). What's your source?

I been trying to remember that, I know its more than what is stated.

Sent from my Z987 using Tapatalk

I want to say that it was 4.50, I will have to double check that will I get back home :)

(07-13-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

The collapse of the everyone-pays-for-the-bundle model would hurt FS1 more than ESPN.

ESPN has a large portfolio of live sports rights that fans will pay to see. FS1, unless it acquires a lot more than it has now, doesn't. Sports fans who decide they're only willing to pay X dollars, total, for the channels they choose to buy are going to have ESPN much higher on their priority list than FS1.

(07-13-2015 12:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

The collapse of the everyone-pays-for-the-bundle model would hurt FS1 more than ESPN.

ESPN has a large portfolio of live sports rights that fans will pay to see. FS1, unless it acquires a lot more than it has now, doesn't. Sports fans who decide they're only willing to pay X dollars, total, for the channels they choose to buy are going to have ESPN much higher on their priority list than FS1.

Well, FS1 has 2 things that could make it viable... UFC and soccer. And to a degree NASCAR.

QUOTE:

"According to these new Nielsen figures, ESPN has lost an average of 300,000 subscribers per month between February and July. For ESPN and ESPN2 — whose subscriber figures are practically identical — 300,000 subscribers adds up to $2,232,000 in carriage fees.
If we presume these losses are constant, ESPN collected $33,484,000 less in carriage fees than they would have had they kept all of their subscribers between February and July."

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/...m-at-espn/

This article compliments the other article. Wall Street Analysts reporting trouble at ESPN too. If ESPN does go into red ink and keeps losing subscribers than wouldn't the bubble-priced Pro Sports and P5 contracts have to be re-negotiated to a lower payout OR raising the price to subscribers?

.

Overreaction. ESPN won't lose. Sports won't lose.

Which cable channels get the best ratings? Despite Breaking Bad and the Christmas and Valentines Movie Specials, AMC and Lifetime don't get the ratings. ESPN is delivering stellar ratings. The CFP broke all-time records - despite losing cord-cutters.

While there is definitely a shift to more channel-specific and on demand programming - it won't be ESPN or sports that suffer; it will be Lifetime and AMC and the bunch of niche/crap channels that ride the coattails of ESPN, TNT, TBS, USA, Disney, and Fox News.

The subscription fees for the top 10 channels comes out at a total of about $15. Fifteen dollars! That means we're paying for $50-75 for crap that we don't watch.

Of course subscription fees matter and ESPN will continue to tighten the belt, but even if ESPN2 and ESPNU disappear completely, ESPN has ABC as an outlet, plus ESPN3 and WatchESPN. But the more likely scenario is that ESPN (and TNT, Fox News, etc.) actually increase their share of the money that subscribers pay.

As ESPN continues to own the majority of quality live sports programming, they will continue to drive the bus - whether its through subscriptions, ABC, online or on demand.

In the end, if there is a complete breakdown in the subscription model, there will be millions ready to pay $30 per month for ESPN/2/U. Sign me up! The only reason that I, and most sports fans, pay $100 per month right now is to get ESPN/2! Kids shows? Women's shows? Netflix and PBS have you covered.

(07-13-2015 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

The collapse of the everyone-pays-for-the-bundle model would hurt FS1 more than ESPN.

ESPN has a large portfolio of live sports rights that fans will pay to see. FS1, unless it acquires a lot more than it has now, doesn't. Sports fans who decide they're only willing to pay X dollars, total, for the channels they choose to buy are going to have ESPN much higher on their priority list than FS1.

Well, FS1 has 2 things that could make it viable... UFC and soccer. And to a degree NASCAR.

Those make FS1 a niche channel. FS1 and FS2 together might have one-tenth as many a la carte subscriptions as the ESPN channels, at one-fifth the monthly price.

To get more a la carte subscriptions and/or command a higher price, FS1 might have to combine with the sports properties of another company (e.g. Turner), in a company merger, a sale of assets, or just an agreement to sell the channels together as a bundle.

Here another article Washington Post, complimenting this as well about Comcast and cable cord cutting

Comcast Article

(07-13-2015 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

The collapse of the everyone-pays-for-the-bundle model would hurt FS1 more than ESPN.

ESPN has a large portfolio of live sports rights that fans will pay to see. FS1, unless it acquires a lot more than it has now, doesn't. Sports fans who decide they're only willing to pay X dollars, total, for the channels they choose to buy are going to have ESPN much higher on their priority list than FS1.

Well, FS1 has 2 things that could make it viable... UFC and soccer. And to a degree NASCAR.

And one other property with a sizable, affluent fanbase whose name escapes me at the moment...

Also a MUCH lower subscriber cost than ESPN. That MAY mean that Fox Sports weathers a storm better than ESPN--FS1 goes from $90M a month to $70M a month, while ESPN goes from er, 6*$90M=$540M a month to $420M a month.

Or it may mean that the FS1 project loses value to the Fox mothership--the appeal of building an ESPN competitor wanes if ESPN is bleeding money on long-term sports-rights contracts that are no longer supported by cable-subscription-dollars.

(07-13-2015 01:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the thing as well, you will see ESPN start looking at that Sling thing and pull out of it if too many more folks take advantage of it.

Also- while Travis is writing it for Fox- does he think for a second that it won't impact FS1?

The collapse of the everyone-pays-for-the-bundle model would hurt FS1 more than ESPN.

ESPN has a large portfolio of live sports rights that fans will pay to see. FS1, unless it acquires a lot more than it has now, doesn't. Sports fans who decide they're only willing to pay X dollars, total, for the channels they choose to buy are going to have ESPN much higher on their priority list than FS1.

Well, FS1 has 2 things that could make it viable... UFC and soccer. And to a degree NASCAR.

And one other property with a sizable, affluent fanbase whose name escapes me at the moment...

Also a MUCH lower subscriber cost than ESPN. That MAY mean that Fox Sports weathers a storm better than ESPN--FS1 goes from $90M a month to $70M a month, while ESPN goes from er, 6*$90M=$540M a month to $420M a month.

Or it may mean that the FS1 project loses value to the Fox mothership--the appeal of building an ESPN competitor wanes if ESPN is bleeding money on long-term sports-rights contracts that are no longer supported by cable-subscription-dollars.

Yes golf, but since all Fox has is the US Open, a lot of that is aired I'm assuming by contract on Fox Network.

Great point on the possible long term impact for FS1. Would be tough for them for instance to add the Big Ten, and then try to increase their subscriber rate fees in this climate.