ESPN followed the worst ever month of subscriber loss in history with the second worst month in their history.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-l...sen-112916

Ouch....88.4 million household now. And the OTT subscribers are included in that number.

1 thing looking at the actual numbers that's interesting is that the number of subscribers on FS2 has dropped considerably as well...

since September- they've lost 1.472 million households, or more than ESPN or ESPN2.

(11-29-2016 11:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing looking at the actual numbers that's interesting is that the number of subscribers on FS2 has dropped considerably as well...

since September- they've lost 1.472 million households, or more than ESPN or ESPN2.

Even FS1 lost some...FS2 isn't gaining anymore traction on cable it seems. PS Vue has both FS1 and FS2 on the basic package (as well as ESPN/2 and NBCSN)

But the bigger thing is that the amount of $$ the FS1 isn't that much since according to the article they get $1.10/sub where as ESPN at $7/sub hits there bottom line much worse.

(11-29-2016 11:20 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Ouch....88.4 million household now. And the OTT subscribers are included in that number.

I thought we had this discussion in the thread from last month about this. I don't *think* Neilsen counts OTT but I'm not 100% sure of that. In the article it says (Bold is mine):

"Now, to be fair, ESPN fought Nielsen's latest channel estimates last month and argued that those estimates failed to count the number of over-the-top subscribers the company has, but Nielsen reviewed their data and confirmed its findings, much to ESPN's public dismay. Furthermore, there's nothing preventing ESPN from revealing its subscriber data publicly. What's more, ESPN cited Nielsen's own subscriber estimates in its most recent 10k filing last week. If the subscriber numbers were that far off would you cite them in your own public releases for the Securities and Exchange Commission? That seems unlikely.

So maybe they do? The 2nd part of the paragraph (italics mine) seems to indicate that is the case, or at least that ESPN is willing to give those numbers to the SEC which is a pretty big deal. If all of this is true, then ESPN is in much worse shape than I thought. I'm one of those people who got rid of cable (went with PS Vue). I believed they weren't counting OTT and while ESPN certainly had some loss of subscribers it wasn't as bad as Neilsen was making it out to be. This is BAD news for ESPN.

(11-29-2016 11:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 11:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing looking at the actual numbers that's interesting is that the number of subscribers on FS2 has dropped considerably as well...

since September- they've lost 1.472 million households, or more than ESPN or ESPN2.

Even FS1 lost some...FS2 isn't gaining anymore traction on cable it seems. PS Vue has both FS1 and FS2 on the basic package (as well as ESPN/2 and NBCSN)

But the bigger thing is that the amount of $$ the FS1 isn't that much since according to the article they get $1.10/sub where as ESPN at $7/sub hits there bottom line much worse.

FS2 is bad news for the G5. There isn't much space on FS1, ESPN or ESPN2 for the G5. FS2 shrinking means one less viable outlet.

(11-29-2016 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 11:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 11:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing looking at the actual numbers that's interesting is that the number of subscribers on FS2 has dropped considerably as well...

since September- they've lost 1.472 million households, or more than ESPN or ESPN2.

Even FS1 lost some...FS2 isn't gaining anymore traction on cable it seems. PS Vue has both FS1 and FS2 on the basic package (as well as ESPN/2 and NBCSN)

But the bigger thing is that the amount of $$ the FS1 isn't that much since according to the article they get $1.10/sub where as ESPN at $7/sub hits there bottom line much worse.

FS2 is bad news for the G5. There isn't much space on FS1, ESPN or ESPN2 for the G5. FS2 shrinking means one less viable outlet.

There's more than you might think. For one, there will be fewer ACC games in a few years on ESPN/2/U. 2, FS2 has never shown much as is.

Exactly how does someone "unsubscribe" to ESPN? Do you have to drop your basic cable (if you have cable)?

Is it safe to assume that the people ESPN are losing just aren't interested in sports, and now have other ways of getting what they are interested in besides cable? Personally, I doubt I would ever have gotten cable in the first place except that increasingly the sporting events I wanted to see were no longer available OTA.

If I could get ESPN ala carte, and could stop paying for movies I don't watch and endless reruns, I would be willing to pay what it is worth (which is much more than $7/month). What I don't want is a higher fee for ESPN plus having to pay what I'm currently paying for a non-sports bundle I'm not that interested in.

If they are going to unbundle, let every channel be ala carte.

(11-29-2016 11:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing looking at the actual numbers that's interesting is that the number of subscribers on FS2 has dropped considerably as well...

since September- they've lost 1.472 million households, or more than ESPN or ESPN2.

Its going to be similar for any network that's on basic cable. Its not people specifically dumping ESPN. Its people dumping cable/sat.

I do think there is a floor. There are some people who like the reliability and generally superior picture of cable. Its also easier to surf around to different option on cable. You really cant "channel surf" a Roku.

So, you likely see cable stabilize at 50-60% of its high water mark. Then they will begin to generate more subscriber income from streaming packages. Some will return to cable when smaller more economical bundles that are tailored to specific tastes are more available. The cable industry will take a hit, but they will survive and eventually thrive again. Its just going to take a while for the revenue model to adapt.

1 thing that will be interesting to watch will be if the Trump administration changes anything with regards to cable regulations.

I don't know how the leaders at FCC work ... if the new POTUS simple appoints a new person, but if that's so then I'm guessing Trump will appoint someone that favors less regulation and will allow businesses more free reign. Maybe even allow distributors to start aligning with different content networks for preferential treatment on the pathways to end-users (Net Neutrality).

And definitely kill off whatever efforts the FCC currently has in regards to municipal broadband.

As far as this thread goes, there's only one relevant discussion to be hand: how might this trend affect the amount of money the P5 conferences, particularly the Big Ten and SEC, receive in the future for selling the rights to distribute telecasts of football (and other) games.

My contention is simple: the amount of money the conferences demand for rights should only be tethered to one thing -- demand by people to view the telecasts, regardless of platform, distribution method, network brand, etc.

In other words, if the overall demand to view these telecasts of games is increasing .... then I don't give two ____ that ESPN's business model is failing to grow its subscriber base. That's their business. If they want premium content, like Big Ten football, they'll pay up. Or hit the road.

As to the trend itself.

What if, in the grand scheme of things we end up like this: peak was 100M subscribers .... and by 2020 we've flattened out to 80M subs (including Sling, VUE, DirecTV, Apple, Google/YouTube, etc etc etc streaming packages)


Whoopity friggin doo.

Much ado about nothing.

An interesting thought that I was just seeing about the subscriber loss....

At least some of it is folks dying off literally. And not being replaced by new subscribers.

You up carriage fees a bit, people who willingly pay for it now aren't going to care about another $1/mo.

And then ad revenue is from viewership of the games, not the subscriber number. So that 80M instead of 100M is still going to give you the same viewership for games, because the people who are leaving are the ones who weren't watching anyway.

(11-29-2016 12:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Exactly how does someone "unsubscribe" to ESPN? Do you have to drop your basic cable (if you have cable)?

Is it safe to assume that the people ESPN are losing just aren't interested in sports, and now have other ways of getting what they are interested in besides cable? Personally, I doubt I would ever have gotten cable in the first place except that increasingly the sporting events I wanted to see were no longer available OTA.

If I could get ESPN ala carte, and could stop paying for movies I don't watch and endless reruns, I would be willing to pay what it is worth (which is much more than $7/month). What I don't want is a higher fee for ESPN plus having to pay what I'm currently paying for a non-sports bundle I'm not that interested in.

If they are going to unbundle, let every channel be ala carte.

As far as to your unsubscribing question, that appears to be the case for the majority of the number. The other part is the small bundles that Dish and Verizon/Fios and others are offering where the sports channels are a separate package.

Regarding to your question about aren't interested in sports is yes, most people are tuned to sports....it was stated in an article the only 20% of Americans watch sports regularly. EPSN charge $6+ dollars/sub vs other that charge $1 or less is why this is a big deal and why ESPN is singled out, because they lose a very big revenue amount with that $$/sub.
But also, customer are now able to get the sport channels off there packages and for those that only watch sports now and then or the Superbowl, they basic channels offer sporting events that is enough for them.

We may never see a straight a la carte because the media companies own several to many channels (i.e. Viacom). An example just happen to me with PS Vue. Something happen between Vue and Viacom and the Viacom channels they own are not available on Vue anymore. This includes Nickelodeon, Spike, MTV....
I just found an article regarding Viacom and Vue.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-to-drop...1478640673

(11-29-2016 12:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 12:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 11:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-29-2016 11:24 AM)stever20 Wrote:  1 thing looking at the actual numbers that's interesting is that the number of subscribers on FS2 has dropped considerably as well...

since September- they've lost 1.472 million households, or more than ESPN or ESPN2.

Even FS1 lost some...FS2 isn't gaining anymore traction on cable it seems. PS Vue has both FS1 and FS2 on the basic package (as well as ESPN/2 and NBCSN)

But the bigger thing is that the amount of $$ the FS1 isn't that much since according to the article they get $1.10/sub where as ESPN at $7/sub hits there bottom line much worse.

FS2 is bad news for the G5. There isn't much space on FS1, ESPN or ESPN2 for the G5. FS2 shrinking means one less viable outlet.

There's more than you might think. For one, there will be fewer ACC games in a few years on ESPN/2/U. 2, FS2 has never shown much as is.

I believe the ACC Network games in 2019 will be coming primarily from those now shown on Raycom and FSN, so I wouldn't expect a big drop in ACC games on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. However, the loss of 20+ Big Ten games from the ESPN networks starting next season will definitely open more network windows for the G5, particularly on ESPN2 and ESPNU.

(11-29-2016 12:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  If they are going to unbundle, let every channel be ala carte.

Nope, will never happen. Pricing realities won't allow it. Only works for channels that were one-off "only via special subscription add-on fees" anyway, like HBO and Showtime.

It's really no different than any other type of product that reduces price by getting a group to go in together (like health care). If you make each individual pay full price for everything, no one can afford anything.

So you buck up, and pitch in for stuff you don't use all the time, so that when you want something, you can realistically afford it.

(11-29-2016 02:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  We may never see a straight a la carte because the media companies own several to many channels (i.e. Viacom). An example just happen to me with PS Vue. Something happen between Vue and Viacom and the Viacom channels they own are not available on Vue anymore. This includes Nickelodeon, Spike, MTV....
I just found an article regarding Viacom and Vue.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sony-to-drop...1478640673

Great point! Why would a media company, that owns several channels worth of content, be interested in any deal that only cherry picks one or two of their channels?? If you want the cream, you take the whey too. That's how it works.

I'm wondering if eventually we'll see a company like Viacom just try to go directly to end-users themselves, bypassing the distribution layer altogether. Maybe too complex and expensive for them to undertake ...

If it is one way to kill the Longhorn Network? I am in favor of that to die. Gives Texas way too much ego for them to have their own network which is why ESPN is losing subscribers. I will predicts that the Big 10, PAC 12, SEC and the ACC networks will die as well. The NCAA as a whole may have to join forces to have a streamline tv contracts with the networks to give all schools an equal amount of tv time.