MWC Tex
Heisman
Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
MHver3– @MHver3
ESPN and NFL are working towards a deal that will transfer MNF off espn balance sheet and network and back over to ABC's
Granted this a tweet from Mhver3, but anyone have or hear anything to support this? This would free up some $$ on the ESPN side
|
|
10-27-2015 09:48 PM |
|
Tom in Lazybrook
Hall of Famer
Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-27-2015 11:05 AM)SeaBlue Wrote: I don't know what you guys are complaining about here.
In 5 years we'll probably be paying $6 pay-per-game.
ESPN is the best thing that could have happened for sports fans. Splitting the market won't help.
For a fan of a Sun Belt school, that has had his conference raided because we never got any real money from ESPN....while other G5 conferences got huge payouts...
I'm good with ESPN getting slapped.
|
|
10-27-2015 10:53 PM |
|
utpotts
Heisman
Posts: 6,969
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Toledo
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
|
Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
I just want CBC back, so I can watch Hockey Night in Canada. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
10-27-2015 11:13 PM |
|
Tom in Lazybrook
Hall of Famer
Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-27-2015 11:13 PM)utpotts Wrote: I just want CBC back, so I can watch Hockey Night in Canada. Is that too much to ask?
It just isn't the NHL without Don Cherry.
|
|
10-28-2015 12:01 AM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-27-2015 09:37 PM)MU88 Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:01 PM)MU88 Wrote: How about the NBA? The NBA is only sports league wherein a majority of the fans are African American. That means inner city cable subscribers.
That is not true. It is just a higher percentage. The total number of blacks in the country (around 16%) by and large simply make the numbers too small for this to be true.
According to a Sports Demographics, in 2013 article, African Americans made up 45% of the NBA's fans, 40% are White and 15% Hispanic. An article last year about the Clippers suggested that 55% of NBA fans belonged to a minority groups. There is also data to suggest that African American NBA fans in the 18-34 demographic watch 2 1/2 times more NBA basketball, than white fans in the same age group. So, if its not true, it still holds that African Americans in large cities are a very important demographic to ESPN and the NBA attractive to that demographic.
Even using those numbers, 45% is not "a majority," which is what I said. The logistics just don't work to make that possible. I never said blacks don't watch NBA more than other groups on average, or that blacks were not more likely to be NBA fans than others, I just said we don't make up the majority of NBA fans. And certainly not the majority of ticket buying fans.
(10-27-2015 03:19 PM)GreenHornet33 Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:01 PM)MU88 Wrote: How about the NBA? The NBA is only sports league wherein a majority of the fans are African American. That means inner city cable subscribers.
That is not true. It is just a higher percentage. The total number of blacks in the country (around 16%) by and large simply make the numbers too small for this to be true.
I'm not even..............................never mind
If you think you have something, speak your mind. But as it is, even the OP proved my point...
|
|
10-28-2015 02:09 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-27-2015 09:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: MHver3– @MHver3
ESPN and NFL are working towards a deal that will transfer MNF off espn balance sheet and network and back over to ABC's
Granted this a tweet from Mhver3, but anyone have or hear anything to support this? This would free up some $$ on the ESPN side
I doubt that. The moment, and I mean the moment, MNF moves off ESPN, all of their subscriber agreements go up in smoke. That is why MNF moved from ABC to ESPN in the first place, after they lost SNF to NBC. And just moving it on the balance sheet, would be a huge problem for the accountants on the ABC side. So I just can't see it.
|
|
10-28-2015 02:11 PM |
|
MWC Tex
Heisman
Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-28-2015 02:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (10-27-2015 09:48 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: MHver3– @MHver3
ESPN and NFL are working towards a deal that will transfer MNF off espn balance sheet and network and back over to ABC's
Granted this a tweet from Mhver3, but anyone have or hear anything to support this? This would free up some $$ on the ESPN side
I doubt that. The moment, and I mean the moment, MNF moves off ESPN, all of their subscriber agreements go up in smoke. That is why MNF moved from ABC to ESPN in the first place, after they lost SNF to NBC. And just moving it on the balance sheet, would be a huge problem for the accountants on the ABC side. So I just can't see it.
I see both sides, but wonder what the Hearst Corporation has to say about it since they own 20% of EPSN. Disney ABC Media Group probably could absorb that cost. I'm sure a lot of people would like to have ABC have MNF again. I was researching a little how Disney's subsidies are setup and came across that Disney only own 80% of ESPN.
(This post was last modified: 10-28-2015 02:33 PM by MWC Tex.)
|
|
10-28-2015 02:29 PM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
But their subscriber fees agreements have a clause in them about them having prime time football. If they moved the game to ABC, it would cost ESPN at least $1.00 per month in subscriber revenue, possibly up to $2.00 per month. They would not make up that ad revenue by the move. The only way that works is if their new contract has a clause that lowers the price if they move it back to regular TV, maybe to the same price (or lower) than what NBC pays for the NFL. But I doubt the NFL did that.
|
|
10-28-2015 02:41 PM |
|
uccheese
1st String
Posts: 1,888
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-27-2015 02:52 PM)TerryD Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:00 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: (10-27-2015 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Really, this sucks. I have no idea why people hate on ESPN. ESPN has 4 channels that show all kinds of awesome sports. Would hate to see its demise.
I agree for the most part. I would like to see a strong FS1 though to help rise the tide to say. Two big time competing networks for sports would be a win for us sports fans IMO.
Yep, I want FS1, NBCSN and CBSSN to thrive as well. The more the merrier.
Do I like ever single ESPN talking-head show? No, Stephen A. Smith makes me turn the channel as soon as I see his mug. But that's what I do, I just don't watch what I don't like. I don't denounce ESPN because I don't like every single thing they air.
But on a college football Saturday? It's AWESOME to have ESPN showing wall to wall games on 4 channels all day long. Amazing compared to what I grew up with.
(10-27-2015 02:45 PM)GTTiger Wrote: (10-27-2015 11:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote: (10-27-2015 11:41 AM)GTTiger Wrote: Isn't the SEC network by all accounts making a profit?
Maybe the ESPN overpaid for other TV rights, but I don't think the SEC network is part of the issue.
There are many people who do not want it. The ratings are not what is the ESPN sold to their advertisers. Lets say they sold it to the advertisers as how many subscribers, but the actual numbers that do watch the channel could be 1%. Why would people in Arizona want the SEC Network, and why people here in the south wants the Big 10 Network?
It doesn't matter if they want it or not, they have millions of subscribers for the SEC Network, and because of the carriage fees it makes money.
Does it makes less than anticipated because some subscribers have dropped? Maybe... but it still makes money and lots of it.
So does the Big Ten Network... I don't want that channel, don't ever watch it, but I have it is bundled with other sports channels I do watch.
Even the Pac 12 Network with all carriage problems, makes a small profit.
An interesting concept, a private business forcing American citizens to pay for something that they do not want.......and somehow that is touted as a good and wonderful thing.
Sure, but you're on a sports board. I have no idea why people are anti-ESPN or anti-any sports network on here. Cord cutting hurts people like us. We are being subsidized by all the non-sports fans who pay for cable/sat packages. Take them away like many seem to want, and we all pay more that still want to see just as much sports.
This is the equivalent of parents at a public school complaining about school taxes and trying to get the county to stop taxing everyone including people that don't use the schools. Who do you think will end up footing the bill?
|
|
10-30-2015 07:04 AM |
|
quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,224
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2440
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-28-2015 02:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (10-27-2015 09:37 PM)MU88 Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:53 PM)adcorbett Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:01 PM)MU88 Wrote: How about the NBA? The NBA is only sports league wherein a majority of the fans are African American. That means inner city cable subscribers.
That is not true. It is just a higher percentage. The total number of blacks in the country (around 16%) by and large simply make the numbers too small for this to be true.
According to a Sports Demographics, in 2013 article, African Americans made up 45% of the NBA's fans, 40% are White and 15% Hispanic. An article last year about the Clippers suggested that 55% of NBA fans belonged to a minority groups. There is also data to suggest that African American NBA fans in the 18-34 demographic watch 2 1/2 times more NBA basketball, than white fans in the same age group. So, if its not true, it still holds that African Americans in large cities are a very important demographic to ESPN and the NBA attractive to that demographic.
Even using those numbers, 45% is not "a majority," which is what I said. The logistics just don't work to make that possible. I never said blacks don't watch NBA more than other groups on average, or that blacks were not more likely to be NBA fans than others, I just said we don't make up the majority of NBA fans. And certainly not the majority of ticket buying fans.
Anecdotally, when I tune in to an NBA game on TV, or when I got to the occasional game in New Orleans, whites almost always appear to be a significant majority of the people in the stands. A big majority, not even close.
|
|
10-30-2015 07:17 AM |
|
orangefan
Heisman
Posts: 5,223
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
Quick reality check here. For the 9 months ending June 27, 2015, Disney's Cable Networks had operating income of $5.132 BILLION, on revenues of $12.336 BILLION. Revenues were UP by over $1 BILLION from the same period the year before, but operating income was down by about $60 MILLION. https://cdn.thewaltdisneycompany.com/sit...nings.pdf. That's an operating margin of 42%, which is incredibly high. Apple's is only around 30%.
Although Disney owns other cable networks, ESPN is the mothership. At $6/subscriber, ESPN would have generated $5 BILLION in subscriber fees alone during the period. Disney's Annual Report comes out next week.
Really, the biggest mistake made by ESPN was overpaying for Monday Night Football. The rights fees jumped from $1.1 billion per year to $1.9 billion per year. That's the vast majority of the $1 billion increase in ESPN's expenses for the 9 months. It would seem that they overpaid for the property as FOX, NBC and CBS are each only paying around $1 billion per year for their respective NFL packages. If ESPN pays even $1.8 Billion per year instead, operating income would be up over last year. If they pay $1.5 or $1.6 Billion, they actually have reasonable earnings growth.
|
|
10-30-2015 07:43 AM |
|
Hokie Mark
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,848
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1414
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
ESPN may also have made a mistake by putting too many eggs in the SEC basket. For one thing, look at the S&P ratings by division...
From SBNation: The SEC West is the best Power 5 division, but the SEC East might be the worst!
Rank Division S&P+
1 SEC West 11.9
2 ACC Atlantic 10
3 B1G East 8
4 B1G West 6.7
5 Pac-12 South 6.4
6 ACC Coastal 5.2
7 Pac-12 North 4.2
8 SEC East 4
Ouch! South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and Vanderbilt are all mediocre at best, and even Georgia and Florida have already lost the SEC West opponents.
Then, there is the issue of needing strong teams in the Eastern Time Zone...
SEC Time Zones
Eastern (5 teams)
Kentucky (4-3)
Tennessee (3-4)
South Carolina (3-4)
Georgia (5-2)
Florida (6-1)
Central (9 teams)
Vanderbilt (3-4)
Alabama (7-1)
Auburn (4-3)
Miss. State (6-2)
Ole Miss (6-2)
LSU (7-0)
Arkansas (3-4)
Texas AM (5-2)
Missouri (4-4)
Despite ESPN's best efforts to hype the Florida Gators, there simply isn't enough football power in the time zone where almost half of the US population lives. The network has 2 options: promote ACC football or buy more Big Ten football (at considerable cost)
SEE ALSO: Cable Trends and the ACC Network, part 1.
|
|
10-30-2015 08:50 AM |
|
nole
1st String
Posts: 1,883
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: FSU
Location:
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
ESPN is to sports what MTV is to music. Garbage network that just pushes man soap opera instead of sports. Can't wait to cut it out and just pay for individual games. Tired of the drama queens on that network that make up pretend soap operas
|
|
10-30-2015 09:28 AM |
|
adcorbett
This F'n Guy
Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-30-2015 07:43 AM)orangefan Wrote: Really, the biggest mistake made by ESPN was overpaying for Monday Night Football. The rights fees jumped from $1.1 billion per year to $1.9 billion per year. That's the vast majority of the $1 billion increase in ESPN's expenses for the 9 months. It would seem that they overpaid for the property as FOX, NBC and CBS are each only paying around $1 billion per year for their respective NFL packages. If ESPN pays even $1.8 Billion per year instead, operating income would be up over last year. If they pay $1.5 or $1.6 Billion, they actually have reasonable earnings growth.
This pretty much sums it up.
|
|
10-30-2015 11:29 AM |
|
DavidSt
Hall of Famer
Posts: 23,128
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 884
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
|
RE: Article: ESPN's two critical mistakes
(10-30-2015 07:04 AM)uccheese Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:52 PM)TerryD Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (10-27-2015 02:00 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: (10-27-2015 01:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote: Really, this sucks. I have no idea why people hate on ESPN. ESPN has 4 channels that show all kinds of awesome sports. Would hate to see its demise.
I agree for the most part. I would like to see a strong FS1 though to help rise the tide to say. Two big time competing networks for sports would be a win for us sports fans IMO.
Yep, I want FS1, NBCSN and CBSSN to thrive as well. The more the merrier.
Do I like ever single ESPN talking-head show? No, Stephen A. Smith makes me turn the channel as soon as I see his mug. But that's what I do, I just don't watch what I don't like. I don't denounce ESPN because I don't like every single thing they air.
But on a college football Saturday? It's AWESOME to have ESPN showing wall to wall games on 4 channels all day long. Amazing compared to what I grew up with.
(10-27-2015 02:45 PM)GTTiger Wrote: (10-27-2015 11:46 AM)DavidSt Wrote: (10-27-2015 11:41 AM)GTTiger Wrote: Isn't the SEC network by all accounts making a profit?
Maybe the ESPN overpaid for other TV rights, but I don't think the SEC network is part of the issue.
There are many people who do not want it. The ratings are not what is the ESPN sold to their advertisers. Lets say they sold it to the advertisers as how many subscribers, but the actual numbers that do watch the channel could be 1%. Why would people in Arizona want the SEC Network, and why people here in the south wants the Big 10 Network?
It doesn't matter if they want it or not, they have millions of subscribers for the SEC Network, and because of the carriage fees it makes money.
Does it makes less than anticipated because some subscribers have dropped? Maybe... but it still makes money and lots of it.
So does the Big Ten Network... I don't want that channel, don't ever watch it, but I have it is bundled with other sports channels I do watch.
Even the Pac 12 Network with all carriage problems, makes a small profit.
An interesting concept, a private business forcing American citizens to pay for something that they do not want.......and somehow that is touted as a good and wonderful thing.
Sure, but you're on a sports board. I have no idea why people are anti-ESPN or anti-any sports network on here. Cord cutting hurts people like us. We are being subsidized by all the non-sports fans who pay for cable/sat packages. Take them away like many seem to want, and we all pay more that still want to see just as much sports.
This is the equivalent of parents at a public school complaining about school taxes and trying to get the county to stop taxing everyone including people that don't use the schools. Who do you think will end up footing the bill?
The Power 5 conference schools are supposed to be non-profit, but they want to make profit from sports? Then they should never complain about Grand Canyon being a for profit school.
Not everybody is interested in these conference. I am more for the little guys.
|
|
10-30-2015 12:09 PM |
|