http://thebiglead.com/2016/05/10/is-fox-...than-espn/

Not so fast FOX is going to be paying out sexual harassment monies the next few months

Reportedly $20M to Gretchen Carlson and she is the start.

Always nice when a guy who got the pink slip at ESPN gets a chance to do a piece on why his new employer is better, don't you think?

(09-06-2016 06:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Not so fast FOX is going to be paying out sexual harassment monies the next few months

Reportedly $20M to Gretchen Carlson and she is the start.

Suite was not against Fox but personally against Ailes. That said, Fox will pay much of the settlement through insurance coverage but may recover most from Ailes' insurance. But to your point, Fox won't even hiccup at that out of court settlement.

ESPN has given me a venue to watch what I care about (and ONLY what I care about):

1. Louisville Sports: Thus far I have watched a number of field hockey, volleyball, mens soccer and women's soccer. All beat the heck out of any regional broadcast of baseball or throwaway NFL preseason games.

2. ACC Sports: I also enjoy the above sports from around the conference. (As a side note The ACC has some fine looking ladies playing volleyball I might add)

3. When will we get ACC Lacrosse?

Finally I would rather pay $40.00 for something I'll watch like The ACC or SEC Networks than less for a network I don't watch. Seems simple enough.
CJ

Live sports programming > Talking sports

ESPN has the advantage, FOX is slowing catching up but still trailing. Same way in sports radio, what the clowns they have on during the day really don't matter its the games they air.

Take St. Louis for example - two sports talk radio stations but neither one has the broadcast rights to any of the professional or major college football (one has SLU basketball). KMOX has the Cardinals and Blues and dominates the ratings at night because of those two. (Other factors as well but if you took the Cardinals on one of the others ratings would boom). Other side of the state - Kansas City two sports talk radio (one has Royals and KU basketball) wins the ratings because of the live games. And the number one station in the city is KCFX because of the Chiefs games. Chiefs games crushes the ratings. Live sports just dominate ratings.

Iv'e been thinking for years something like this might happen. Not just for Fox but for whatever. Young people are not into cable. Many have NOTHING but internet.

FOX BOX Streaming service (10 dollars a month or less)

BIG FOX
FOX SPORTS 1
FOX SPORTS 2
FOX SPORTS GO
BTN
FOX SPORTS REGIONAL
FOX NEWS
FOX BUSINESS
FX
FXX
FOX MOVIE CHANNEL
NAT GEO
NAT GEO WILD
MYNETWORKTV


Antenna
CBS
NBC
ABC
PBS


Netflix or HULU Plus or Amazon Prime

Of course it requires internet service. Internet is a must anyway no matter if people stream or not. I have no idea what the future of TV is but about 5 years ago i bought a ROKU and told my wife...devices like this are going to be the undoing of cable as we know it. It's inevitable....People like me might do cable but for the next 10/20/30 years or however long cable will slowly die away.


Content will be a niche thing for sure. Sports are overpriced no doubt. People like me might overpay for now but as it bleeds away and moves to streaming i don't think the masses are going to overpay if they have a choice. Now with cable people don't have a choice because of bundling/carriage.

Cable is a scam. Future generations could care less. I don't think it can be overstated the millions of people cord cutting over the last 5 years or so. It's kinda like the writing in the wall. Older people (35 plus) can't prop up cable forever.

No one knows the future of this industry. What everyone does know for fact is the current model is going to wither away.

The industry is totally going to go the way of future generations and what they are willing to pay. We might pay, they may not if they have a choice or at the very least limit cost.

(09-06-2016 10:09 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Live sports programming > Talking sports

Yes. If the subject is which company will have an advantage once cable bundles become less important to the networks' bottom line, then the question should be, "What will sports fans pay more for: Watching live sports, or watching guys talk about sports?"

The benefits to the customer of direct view vs cable are obvious - lower costs & convenience. But they are not cheaper on a per view basis or per unit basis. It's cheaper because the viewer isn't paying for the 100s of channels they don't want that come with the cable packages. The current cable model enables ESPN to pay large amounts to the conferences of choice to make that programming available to the public not so much because of those who want it but because of everyone that buys cable whether they watch ESPN or not. Cable & satellite work well for college sports conferences & pro sports because they are currently a part of most all cable/satellite packages or for a relatively low add-on surcharge. On a per program or per channel basis, direct view is actually higher priced than cable. But this isn't really the long term issue. As more folks switch to direct view formats, the issue will become a net lower revenue stream to owners of the program content because the millions who do not watch sports programming religiously won't be paying the bill in a direct view world. This means low demand sports programs & programming will receive less or no revenue and even the high demand programming (using college FB as the example) like the SEC & SEC network will have a lower total revenue potential as the transition to direct view progresses. With a lower market cap, there will be less choice & higher costs per program for the viewer. Then the revenues enjoyed today by college FB schools will begin to trend down with the progression to direct view.

Fascinating point of view.

If ESPN is for a national audience and Fox is for a regional audience, then ESPN should bid more for NFL and NBA, and FOX should bid more for college sports and MLB.

(09-06-2016 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Always nice when a guy who got the pink slip at ESPN gets a chance to do a piece on why his new employer is better, don't you think?

Here's my answer - LOL