(12-12-2016 01:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 10:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 05:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  We don't know if this is a bad deal for ESPN or not, but let's assume it is.

Bad deals come and go and can be fixed in the long run. ESPN fits with Disney in that it is an enduring, well-established entertainment brand name. That's what Disney traffics in.

Your implied conclusion is that the ESPN-Disney marriage is based on more than the usual media conglomerate synergy stuff, putting ESPN alongside MArvel and Star Wars and the Disney Princesses as a Disney property that they will curate, caretake and profit off of for decades to come.

Have they really been able to integrate ESPN into the Disney empire that way, though? Disney Channel, the parks, the movies show no trace of ESPN. There was or is an ESPN Zone restaurant, but that's an interchangeable part, like the Hard Rock Cafe or the Godiva Store.

If ABC/ESPN and Disney split tomorrow, the rest of Disney's operations don't change very much.

ESPN actually is a pretty heavy cross-promoter of Marvel and Star Wars. (Recall The Force Awakens blitz last year in particular.) The sports complex in Disney World is the ESPN Wide World of Sports (which does massive business as a location for traveling sports tournaments and competitions). Sports are also, by far, the number one property to attract age 18-49 males (which also happens to be the target for Marvel and Star Wars).

I think people are taking a side comment from a competing executive and blowing entirely out of proportion. It's the equivalent of Phil Jackson speaking as Knicks president and saying, "Well, the Cavs would totally trade LeBron at the right place." Liberty has a vested and biased interest in driving down the price of ESPN.

ESPN is still the single most valuable *media and entertainment" company in the entire world. This isn't even just about sports - ESPN is worth more than Lucasfilm and Marvel and every other piece of the Disney empire (as the operating costs of the theme park division actually cost significantly more because it's so capital intensive).

As a side note, Monday Night Football single-handedly enables ESPN to charge a higher subscription price under their contracts with cable providers. So, the NFL is unbelievably important to ESPN on that level and they're making an insane level of money on that deal.

The number of obituaries that keep getting written about the single most profitable and valuable media and entertainment company (not just sports network) on Earth continue to amuse me. ESPN will need to adjust, but the money that they make is still incredible compared to any other media property anywhere. We should all be so lucky to own something that generates the gross revenue of The Force Awakens in subscription revenue (before a single ad is even sold) EVERY SINGLE MONTH. The people here that think ESPN is going to be less powerful in the future are going to be sorely mistaken.

I'll put money on it. I'm not the only one whos a sports fan who doesn't pay for ESPN any more, several of my friends and family are following me. I haven't gotten to the NON-SPORTS FAN yet. Many don't even realize they can save money by cutting out ESPN. I'm helping my Grandma next week save on her cable bill. She only cares about Fox News and CNN. She didn't even she has ESPN and is paying for it until I told her. Not after this week. Hahaha...I hate ESPN for destroying college athletics and you love them because your precious Illinois benefits. But one of us will be proved right and one proved wrong despite our biases Frank. Name you terms. I bet ESPN is "going to be less powerful in the future" and you bet that "I will be sorely mistaken." I'll take that bet. Name your terms Sir.
Cheers!

The "sorely mistaken" reference is to some people's misguided beliefs that there will suddenly be a bunch of schadenfreude for the P5 conferences "when" ESPN collapses. The reality is that the Big Ten and SEC were the richest conferences long before ESPN rose to power and they'll continue to be the richest conferences even if ESPN loses power. If I'm wrong, the biggest losers will actually be the G5 and smaller leagues that lose both their revenue and exposure that came from the ESPN platform. The Big Tens and SECs of the world can continue to make money on in a over-the-top world if ESPN actually died (as you seem to hope). The smaller leagues are the ones that would get completely crushed since they have almost no value in that type of over-the-top-world.

The amount the G5 get in TV revenue is nothing...that doesn't effect them. The exposure of the G5 on the ESPN is hardly there at all. There is nothing lost in exposure because hardly anybody has ESPN News and ESPN U. If they were on the main channel/2 that'll be different...that isn't the case.

(12-12-2016 01:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 10:05 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 05:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  We don't know if this is a bad deal for ESPN or not, but let's assume it is.

Bad deals come and go and can be fixed in the long run. ESPN fits with Disney in that it is an enduring, well-established entertainment brand name. That's what Disney traffics in.

Your implied conclusion is that the ESPN-Disney marriage is based on more than the usual media conglomerate synergy stuff, putting ESPN alongside MArvel and Star Wars and the Disney Princesses as a Disney property that they will curate, caretake and profit off of for decades to come.

Have they really been able to integrate ESPN into the Disney empire that way, though? Disney Channel, the parks, the movies show no trace of ESPN. There was or is an ESPN Zone restaurant, but that's an interchangeable part, like the Hard Rock Cafe or the Godiva Store.

If ABC/ESPN and Disney split tomorrow, the rest of Disney's operations don't change very much.

ESPN actually is a pretty heavy cross-promoter of Marvel and Star Wars. (Recall The Force Awakens blitz last year in particular.) The sports complex in Disney World is the ESPN Wide World of Sports (which does massive business as a location for traveling sports tournaments and competitions). Sports are also, by far, the number one property to attract age 18-49 males (which also happens to be the target for Marvel and Star Wars).

I think people are taking a side comment from a competing executive and blowing entirely out of proportion. It's the equivalent of Phil Jackson speaking as Knicks president and saying, "Well, the Cavs would totally trade LeBron at the right place." Liberty has a vested and biased interest in driving down the price of ESPN.

ESPN is still the single most valuable *media and entertainment" company in the entire world. This isn't even just about sports - ESPN is worth more than Lucasfilm and Marvel and every other piece of the Disney empire (as the operating costs of the theme park division actually cost significantly more because it's so capital intensive).

As a side note, Monday Night Football single-handedly enables ESPN to charge a higher subscription price under their contracts with cable providers. So, the NFL is unbelievably important to ESPN on that level and they're making an insane level of money on that deal.

The number of obituaries that keep getting written about the single most profitable and valuable media and entertainment company (not just sports network) on Earth continue to amuse me. ESPN will need to adjust, but the money that they make is still incredible compared to any other media property anywhere. We should all be so lucky to own something that generates the gross revenue of The Force Awakens in subscription revenue (before a single ad is even sold) EVERY SINGLE MONTH. The people here that think ESPN is going to be less powerful in the future are going to be sorely mistaken.

I'll put money on it. I'm not the only one whos a sports fan who doesn't pay for ESPN any more, several of my friends and family are following me. I haven't gotten to the NON-SPORTS FAN yet. Many don't even realize they can save money by cutting out ESPN. I'm helping my Grandma next week save on her cable bill. She only cares about Fox News and CNN. She didn't even she has ESPN and is paying for it until I told her. Not after this week. Hahaha...I hate ESPN for destroying college athletics and you love them because your precious Illinois benefits. But one of us will be proved right and one proved wrong despite our biases Frank. Name you terms. I bet ESPN is "going to be less powerful in the future" and you bet that "I will be sorely mistaken." I'll take that bet. Name your terms Sir.
Cheers!

The "sorely mistaken" reference is to some people's misguided beliefs that there will suddenly be a bunch of schadenfreude for the P5 conferences "when" ESPN collapses. The reality is that the Big Ten and SEC were the richest conferences long before ESPN rose to power and they'll continue to be the richest conferences even if ESPN loses power. If I'm wrong, the biggest losers will actually be the G5 and smaller leagues that lose both their revenue and exposure that came from the ESPN platform. The Big Tens and SECs of the world can continue to make money on in a over-the-top world if ESPN actually died (as you seem to hope). The smaller leagues are the ones that would get completely crushed since they have almost no value in that type of over-the-top-world.

The amount the G5 get in TV revenue is nothing...that doesn't effect them. The exposure of the G5 on the ESPN is hardly there at all. There is nothing lost in exposure because hardly anybody has ESPN News and ESPN U. If they were on the main channel/2 that'll be different...that isn't the case.

FY 2016 Revenues and Profits by Division


Media Networks
Revenues: $23.7 billion
Operating Inc: $7.8 billion

Parks and Resorts
Revenues: $17 billion
Operating Inc: $3.3 billion

Studio Entertainment
Revenues: $9.4 billion
Operating Inc: $2.7 billion

Consumer Products & Interactive Media
Revenues: $5.5 billion
Operating Inc: $2 billion

Total Company
Revenues: $55.6 billion
Operating Inc: $15.7 billion

Cable networks is a subset of Media Networks. Broken out, its revenues and profits are as follows:

Cable Networks
Revenues: $16.6 billion
Operating Inc: $6.7 billion

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/...q4x10k.htm

(12-10-2016 10:32 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Doesn't ESPN generate the bulk of Disney revenue?

Nope. About $4 billion of Disney's $13+ billion per quarter comes from media networks, but that includes all radio, plus Disney channels, and their 10 or so co-owned channels like A&E. Disney gets about $4.4 billion per quarter from its parks and resorts and the rest comes from other operations (movies, cruise ships, etc.)

(12-11-2016 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN lost NHRA, NASCAR and USAC midget racing.They dropped rodeo except for college rodeo on ESPNU. They lost a lot of sports programs. They even lost hunting and fishing shows, and I remember they had a scuba diving program at one time.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. You're comparing these properties to NFL Monday Night Football, expanded NBA and MLB coverage and full football and basketball lineups from all 5 power conferences that ESPN currently has. You're questioning why ESPN would drop USAC midget racing???!!!

(12-12-2016 01:39 PM)orangefan Wrote:  FY 2016 Revenues and Profits by Division
Media Networks
Revenues: $23.7 billion
Operating Inc: $7.8 billion

Parks and Resorts
Revenues: $17 billion
Operating Inc: $3.3 billion

Studio Entertainment
Revenues: $9.4 billion
Operating Inc: $2.7 billion

Consumer Products & Interactive Media
Revenues: $5.5 billion
Operating Inc: $2 billion

Total Company
Revenues: $55.6 billion
Operating Inc: $15.7 billion

Cable networks is a subset of Media Networks. Broken out, its revenues and profits are as follows:

Cable Networks
Revenues: $16.6 billion
Operating Inc: $6.7 billion

Great info. This puts everything into context. Here's the operating margin (based on the operating profit) of each unit:

Media Networks (overall): 32.9%
Media Networks (excluding cable): 15.5%
Cable Networks: 40.4%
Parks and Resorts: 19.4%
Studio Entertainment: 28.7%
Consumer Products and Interactive Media: 36.4%
Total Company: 28.2%

Note that the Studio Entertainment division just had the most successful fiscal year of ANY movie studio in HISTORY (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Captain America: Civil War, Zootopia, Finding Dory and Jungle Book were all released during that period)... and it still doesn't even come close the operating margin of the cable network business that's slowing down. Look at how the media networks that don't include cable (essentially ABC) performs in comparison to the cable network division. When it comes to overall numbers, the cable network division is delivering 43% of the operating profit of the entire Walt Disney Company (and once again, that's including the single greatest fiscal year in the history of any Hollywood movie studio).

So, investors aren't spooked that they think ESPN is actually going to lose money. Instead, investors are spooked that the absolutely bats**t drug dealer monopoly profit margins that ESPN is delivering that's propping up the entire Walt Disney Company is slowing down. The slowdown might a legitimate worry, but thinking that ESPN is going to actually LOSE money is very unrealistic. The amount that they would have to fall in order to start losing money is a financial Mount Everest. Now, anything is possible (to other's points about General Motors), but once again, I think people really need to see the numbers to understand the absolutely INSANE profits that ESPN has been making. ESPN's subscriber base could be cut in half and it would still be the most profitable media company out there.

Actually, if you want to talk Disney and insane margins, check out Disney's cruise business. A family of four taking a 7-Night Western Caribbean cruise in September 2017 from Port Canaveral (Orlando) would pay $5,700 for a balcony stateroom, and it would only be $1,500 on Royal Caribbean.

Even with the cruise industry booming right now, Disney will have difficulty getting away with this forever, which could be bad news since Disney has two ships on order that should run from $1.5 to $2 Billion.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note7 using Tapatalk. Hey, do you smell anything burning?

(12-12-2016 06:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 01:39 PM)orangefan Wrote:  FY 2016 Revenues and Profits by Division
Media Networks
Revenues: $23.7 billion
Operating Inc: $7.8 billion

Parks and Resorts
Revenues: $17 billion
Operating Inc: $3.3 billion

Studio Entertainment
Revenues: $9.4 billion
Operating Inc: $2.7 billion

Consumer Products & Interactive Media
Revenues: $5.5 billion
Operating Inc: $2 billion

Total Company
Revenues: $55.6 billion
Operating Inc: $15.7 billion

Cable networks is a subset of Media Networks. Broken out, its revenues and profits are as follows:

Cable Networks
Revenues: $16.6 billion
Operating Inc: $6.7 billion

Great info. This puts everything into context. Here's the operating margin (based on the operating profit) of each unit:

Media Networks (overall): 32.9%
Media Networks (excluding cable): 15.5%
Cable Networks: 40.4%
Parks and Resorts: 19.4%
Studio Entertainment: 28.7%
Consumer Products and Interactive Media: 36.4%
Total Company: 28.2%

Note that the Studio Entertainment division just had the most successful fiscal year of ANY movie studio in HISTORY (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Captain America: Civil War, Zootopia, Finding Dory and Jungle Book were all released during that period)... and it still doesn't even come close the operating margin of the cable network business that's slowing down. Look at how the media networks that don't include cable (essentially ABC) performs in comparison to the cable network division. When it comes to overall numbers, the cable network division is delivering 43% of the operating profit of the entire Walt Disney Company (and once again, that's including the single greatest fiscal year in the history of any Hollywood movie studio).

So, investors aren't spooked that they think ESPN is actually going to lose money. Instead, investors are spooked that the absolutely bats**t drug dealer monopoly profit margins that ESPN is delivering that's propping up the entire Walt Disney Company is slowing down. The slowdown might a legitimate worry, but thinking that ESPN is going to actually LOSE money is very unrealistic. The amount that they would have to fall in order to start losing money is a financial Mount Everest. Now, anything is possible (to other's points about General Motors), but once again, I think people really need to see the numbers to understand the absolutely INSANE profits that ESPN has been making. ESPN's subscriber base could be cut in half and it would still be the most profitable media company out there.

once again ESPN does not represent near 100% of the cable networks that is all the Disney networks and probably the partially owned A&E and History and Lifetime as well

and again you do not sell when it is CLEAR you are not willing or able to turn it around you sell before that

who knows if they are able or if they are willing and who knows if they are smart enough to decide if they want to try or will try or if they will be able to....but they need to start deciding something sooner than later and it is ESPN that is looking to save $250 over the next few years NOT all the cable channels....so it is clear that Disney knows that ESPN has an issue

(12-12-2016 05:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 01:03 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN lost NHRA, NASCAR and USAC midget racing.They dropped rodeo except for college rodeo on ESPNU. They lost a lot of sports programs. They even lost hunting and fishing shows, and I remember they had a scuba diving program at one time.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this go. You're comparing these properties to NFL Monday Night Football, expanded NBA and MLB coverage and full football and basketball lineups from all 5 power conferences that ESPN currently has. You're questioning why ESPN would drop USAC midget racing???!!!

Sometimes it's best just to shake your head and keep scrolling.

(12-12-2016 06:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  "General Motors ain't going anywhere. They'll figure it out." --MplsBison in 2005

All you have is subs going from 10x million peak to what 8x million now?

That's all you have. Easy to sit back and "predict" doom by pulling it out of your rear end!

(12-12-2016 06:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN's subscriber base could be cut in half and it would still be the most profitable media company out there.

And it's not going to fall that far.

Cut cutting fad will end up taking a chunk of that peak number, but a lot of these streaming services are essentially "skinny bundles" that have say 30+ channels for $30-40/mo, and a lot of them will include ESPN -- because that's one of the most popular cable channels!

Only people who won't be paying for ESPN in a pay TV service, will be those bitter few who go well out of their way or just give up pay TV altogether.

(12-12-2016 10:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 06:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  "General Motors ain't going anywhere. They'll figure it out." --MplsBison in 2005

All you have is subs going from 10x million peak to what 8x million now?

That's all you have. Easy to sit back and "predict" doom by pulling it out of your rear end!

(12-12-2016 06:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN's subscriber base could be cut in half and it would still be the most profitable media company out there.

And it's not going to fall that far.

Cut cutting fad will end up taking a chunk of that peak number, but a lot of these streaming services are essentially "skinny bundles" that have say 30+ channels for $30-40/mo, and a lot of them will include ESPN -- because that's one of the most popular cable channels!

Only people who won't be paying for ESPN in a pay TV service, will be those bitter few who go well out of their way or just give up pay TV altogether.

ESPN might still have the largest amount of revenue if their subscriber numbers were cut in half (and that is questionable), but it is highly doubtful they would still be the most profitable

there is a difference between profits and revenues and high revenues do not always make for high profits

this is something that college sports fans especially seem to have difficulty grasping

(12-12-2016 11:02 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ESPN might still have the largest amount of revenue if their subscriber numbers were cut in half (and that is questionable), but it is highly doubtful they would still be the most profitable

Obviously, assuming no change in expenses, and no increase in revenues per subscriber or from other sources, profits would go down.

It's kind of a catch 22 for the cable companies. As some subscribers move to other options, do you double down by raising fees on existing subscribers or does ESPN reduce the rights fees that it's paying the NFL, NBA, MLB and CFP? Likely a little bit of both.

One thing lost in the discussion of ESPN's subscriber losses is the fact that ESPN implemented a major rights fee increase a little over a years ago. In addition, its total subscriptions across all networks are up due to the launch of the SEC Network. The drop in gross margin from 50%, a couple of years ago, to 40% (which is still unbelievably impressive) is due mostly to the increase in rights fees, primarily the NFL and NBA, not the loss in revenues.

As ESPN approaches renewal on those contracts, which is still several years away, it will have a better handle on subscriber trends, the cable and satellite companies' need to offer ESPN's programming for their own survival, and the potential value of alternative distribution methods. Based on these factors, it can adjust what it offers to pay for that programming.

(12-13-2016 09:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  As ESPN approaches renewal on those contracts, which is still several years away, it will have a better handle on subscriber trends, the cable and satellite companies' need to offer ESPN's programming for their own survival, and the potential value of alternative distribution methods. Based on these factors, it can adjust what it offers to pay for that programming.

And what competitors can offer will be driven by the same factors.

(12-11-2016 03:20 PM)Realignment Wrote:  I honestly think ESPN is going to let Monday Night Football go, may try to snag Sunday instead. They way overpaid for MNf and they don't even get marquee match-up's along with the NFL bullying them from doing the concussion stories etc. They could save a ton of money letting MNF go and investing more into College Football which has been a better product the last few years.

If ESPN let Monday Night Football go, every single one of their carriage deals would go up in smoke and they'd have to renegotiate them. They are expressly contingent on ESPN airing prime time NFL football. That was why ESPN moved it off of ABC in the first place after they lost SNF to NBC.

(12-13-2016 02:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If ESPN let Monday Night Football go, every single one of their carriage deals would go up in smoke and they'd have to renegotiate them. They are expressly contingent on ESPN airing prime time NFL football. That was why ESPN moved it off of ABC in the first place after they lost SNF to NBC.

To play the other hand and Devil's Advocate: I wonder, in this scenario, if ESPN would try to play the following card with traditional pay TV services. "Look, people are running over to the new streaming pay TV services in droves. Having a clean, dependable ESPN signal is one of the few things keeping your type of services attractive to people! That's why we're raising our carriage fee 10% ..."

Note: that assumes ESPN would maintain NFL games. If not MNF, then Sunday NF.

(12-11-2016 05:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 05:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  We should all be so lucky to own something that generates the gross revenue of The Force Awakens in subscription revenue (before a single ad is even sold) EVERY SINGLE MONTH. The people here that think ESPN is going to be less powerful in the future are going to be sorely mistaken.

The whole point is that this is true now, but won't be true for long. ESPN (and cable as a whole) is losing subscribers. Therefore they are losing subscriber revenue. At current rates, there will be a point where they will not be able to pay their rights fees out of subscriber fees (and advertising revenue, but that's less of a factor.)

There are a number of different ways to handle that. But the reality is that ESPN, sometime in the next ten years, is going to be losing money rather than making money.

That is not necessarily true. Part of the reason they are losing subscribers at a more massive pace then people are just eliminating cable, is as part of the last rights increase, they had to allow some cable companies to offer skinny bundles that do not include ESPN. So they likely allowed for 5% of cable subscribers to not have ESPN, in exchange for the latest 15-20% increase in subscriber fees for the rest. People just looking at the subscriber numbers, and not the other numbers, are simply missing the boat.

(12-13-2016 02:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  People just looking at the subscriber numbers, and not the other numbers, are simply missing the boat.

That's what these cord-cutters care about.

Chipping away at ESPN's sub base is symbolic for the movement itself and all those who support the ala carte pay TV dream.

(12-13-2016 02:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 02:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If ESPN let Monday Night Football go, every single one of their carriage deals would go up in smoke and they'd have to renegotiate them. They are expressly contingent on ESPN airing prime time NFL football. That was why ESPN moved it off of ABC in the first place after they lost SNF to NBC.

To play the other hand and Devil's Advocate: I wonder, in this scenario, if ESPN would try to play the following card with traditional pay TV services. "Look, people are running over to the new streaming pay TV services in droves. Having a clean, dependable ESPN signal is one of the few things keeping your type of services attractive to people! That's why we're raising our carriage fee 10% ..."

Note: that assumes ESPN would maintain NFL games. If not MNF, then Sunday NF.

I am not sure I understand what you mean? That is more or less exactly what they just did. The only difference is, they allowed something they previously balked at: cablers can now offer packages without ESPN. They just cannot call it "basic" cable. They have to highlight that it is "less" than basic.

I was talking about in the scenario where something significant happens now, that would force them to renegotiate all their carriage contracts now.

(12-12-2016 01:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The "sorely mistaken" reference is to some people's misguided beliefs that there will suddenly be a bunch of schadenfreude for the P5 conferences "when" ESPN collapses. The reality is that the Big Ten and SEC were the richest conferences long before ESPN rose to power and they'll continue to be the richest conferences even if ESPN loses power. If I'm wrong, the biggest losers will actually be the G5 and smaller leagues that lose both their revenue and exposure that came from the ESPN platform. The Big Tens and SECs of the world can continue to make money on in a over-the-top world if ESPN actually died (as you seem to hope). The smaller leagues are the ones that would get completely crushed since they have almost no value in that type of over-the-top-world.

If Arkansas State loses 100% of its $140,000 in Sun Belt media rights, AState is still making its bond payments, coaches are still on salary, life goes on.

If Washington State loses 25% of its media rights of roughly $20 million they have a new $5 million hole in the budget to plug at a time when they are burning $13 million more than they earn.

CUSA is already making its budget adjustments to their dramatic drop in revenue.

Sweat not for the G5 few are leveraged up on media income but the P5's not at the top of their leagues and aspirational to compete at that level are often carrying some serious debt.

Remember before the B1G bailout, Maryland was in dire financial straits. Imagine if media rights had collapsed at that point.