My guess is that ESPN is not making the same 7 dollars a subscriber from YouTube that they make off cable though so they're still taking a hit here. That doesn't mean they don't have the data to justify rate hikes on their advertisers to offset those loses but ESPN is losing base subscriber money in the new era of streaming.

I do like this line-up except I don't want to pay for the SEC or the BTN.

(03-01-2017 09:25 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:21 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 08:02 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 07:58 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 07:54 PM)Miami Pirate Wrote:  It cannot be good for ESPN. The bulk of their money comes from cable subscribers. Unless I misunderstood the article, they are losing more and more subscribers every month.

If it wasn't good for ESPN, they wouldn't have signed up to be broadcast by youtube.

Youtube isn't the content creator, they are the transport. With youtube, ESPN will reach more eyeballs, not less.

Correct.

This way ESPN can still track higher viewership which will help them secure more $$$ from advertisers.

ESPN doesn't obviously get viewership ratings from pirated sites via Europe and Youtube is still paying a FEE to all of those channels, including ESPN, plus, can provide easy tracking info for ad use.

ESPN knows they have lost millions of "subscribers" from the old cable/satellite model so this is just another way for ESPN to continue the revenue stream in a different way.

Eyeballs are one thing, but money is another. They may be staying ahead of things, but it remains to be seen whether it ultimately benefits them, and us in turn.

Like it's been said before, ESPN is losing cable subscribers. They may pick some of those back up from Youtube, but will it be the same $7 per household?

I think that the best outcome is that the Youtibe option is more palatable for people, and that even at a lower price, they end up reaching more people, potentially enough to break even or gain. Only time will tell if this will happen.

Best thing is that ESPN no longer has to rely on Neilson to tell them who's watching. If you end up with the Youtube option, be sure to have AAC games on all the time. I don't care if it's Cincy-Uconn (Tune in Saturday November 25th!).

What will be ironic is some will view this as a $35 sports pack...on top of some other services they are paying for on a monthly basis (sling, hulu, netflix, etc...), where some basic cable/sat packages with a $10-15 sports packs would still be cheaper (many cases much cheaper) in the end.

I'd have to see it to believe it. The logic may hold true for introductory "teaser" rates, but I was paying TWC about $160 per month before I cancelled. At that time, I wasn't paying for any premium channels or sports packages.

Right now, I pay $40 per month for internet, and $10 a month for Netflix. An extra $35 per month for a Youtube package still has me around half what I was paying before.

(03-01-2017 09:32 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  My guess is that ESPN is not making the same 7 dollars a subscriber from YouTube that they make off cable though so they're still taking a hit here. That doesn't mean they don't have the data to justify rate hikes on their advertisers to offset those loses but ESPN is losing base subscriber money in the new era of streaming.

I do like this line-up except I don't want to pay for the SEC or the BTN.

I read an article that said the opposite was likely true. That ESPN was demanding a premium to be included in these packages, so more than the $7 or whatever they get per cable subscriber. Everyone wants ESPN on their package if it's going to have any sort of emphasis on sports so they'll pay it. ESPN knows these online packages are likely pulling current subscribers away from cable so as someone said earlier it's better for them to be on it than not. Cord cutting is not good for ESPN. Cable bundling was the cash cow but they can't do anything but try to adapt.

These packages just give more options to sports fans. That is not ESPN's problem. Their problem is people cutting their cable subscriptions who don't watch sports at all. People who are now only watching Youtube, Hulu, Netflix and free broadcast TV exclusively. Those people which is the majority of the population, have been subsidizing all of these massive TV deals in sports. The NBA deal is insane.

Notice you don't see a lot of streaming options that DO NOT Include ESPN. The only thing close to it is the Sling TV Blue which has no ESPN or Disney but offers the Fox Sports Channels for $25 a month.

(03-01-2017 10:06 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  These packages just give more options to sports fans. That is not ESPN's problem. Their problem is people cutting their cable subscriptions who don't watch sports at all. People who are now only watching Youtube, Hulu, Netflix and free broadcast TV exclusively. Those people which is the majority of the population, have been subsidizing all of these massive TV deals in sports. The NBA deal is insane.

Notice you don't see a lot of streaming options that DO NOT Include ESPN. The only thing close to it is the Sling TV Blue which has no ESPN or Disney but offers the Fox Sports Channels for $25 a month.

Exactly but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't start seeing some packaged for different interests including some with no sports at all. ESPN (or Disney actually) might have some leverage in preventing this due to Disney owning the Disney Channel and ABC/ABC Family as well as ESPN.

(03-01-2017 09:25 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:21 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 08:02 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 07:58 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 07:54 PM)Miami Pirate Wrote:  It cannot be good for ESPN. The bulk of their money comes from cable subscribers. Unless I misunderstood the article, they are losing more and more subscribers every month.

If it wasn't good for ESPN, they wouldn't have signed up to be broadcast by youtube.

Youtube isn't the content creator, they are the transport. With youtube, ESPN will reach more eyeballs, not less.

Correct.

This way ESPN can still track higher viewership which will help them secure more $$$ from advertisers.

ESPN doesn't obviously get viewership ratings from pirated sites via Europe and Youtube is still paying a FEE to all of those channels, including ESPN, plus, can provide easy tracking info for ad use.

ESPN knows they have lost millions of "subscribers" from the old cable/satellite model so this is just another way for ESPN to continue the revenue stream in a different way.

Eyeballs are one thing, but money is another. They may be staying ahead of things, but it remains to be seen whether it ultimately benefits them, and us in turn.

Like it's been said before, ESPN is losing cable subscribers. They may pick some of those back up from Youtube, but will it be the same $7 per household?

I think that the best outcome is that the Youtibe option is more palatable for people, and that even at a lower price, they end up reaching more people, potentially enough to break even or gain. Only time will tell if this will happen.

Best thing is that ESPN no longer has to rely on Neilson to tell them who's watching. If you end up with the Youtube option, be sure to have AAC games on all the time. I don't care if it's Cincy-Uconn (Tune in Saturday November 25th!).

What will be ironic is some will view this as a $35 sports pack...on top of some other services they are paying for on a monthly basis (sling, hulu, netflix, etc...), where some basic cable/sat packages with a $10-15 sports packs would still be cheaper (many cases much cheaper) in the end.

This more for people who have dropped cable altogether. I'm in if I can figure a way to to get all my programming I now have with Uverse from a streaming source of some sort. I can save a lot of $$ by going with the YouTube route and Netflix combo.

This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

I love that cable is getting a lot of competition, with SlingTv, Playstation Vue, YouTubeTV, Hulu, DirectTV Now, etc. It seems that no service is going to satisfy everyone. YouTubeTV doesn't have the manadatory Hallmark and Lifetime for my wife for example. Of course, there is the Feeln app that provides those two networks for as little as $1.99 a month. Nice to have options.

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

I'm old and somewhat technology savvy but when it comes to this stuff I'm lost. I do have a 22 year old son who could help though. Only thing I don't like is no Animal Planet. How am I going to find out if they find bigfoot?

They're really missing a lot for $35 versus PS Vue. No CNN/TBS (basically no timewarner) and no Animal Planet/HGTV/DIY which I think is the same content producer.

Viacom is the one that's taking a beating (MTV, comedy central, etc). I don't know what they're demanding, but everyone seems to be dropping them.

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

Good call, thanks. I think I messed around with a chromcast awhile back but never used it much... I will have to dust it off and try again.

(03-01-2017 02:56 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

Good call, thanks. I think I messed around with a chromcast awhile back but never used it much... I will have to dust it off and try again.

Chromecast is amazing. I love streaming music or online only UCF games on my tablet directly onto my tv

(03-01-2017 12:53 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

I'm old and somewhat technology savvy but when it comes to this stuff I'm lost. I do have a 22 year old son who could help though. Only thing I don't like is no Animal Planet. How am I going to find out if they find bigfoot?

Bigfoot has Been found a long time ago in Cincinnati, looks a lot like a bearcat just a lot bigger and goes by the name BC1, scientist think it's the missing link...

(03-01-2017 03:46 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:53 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

I'm old and somewhat technology savvy but when it comes to this stuff I'm lost. I do have a 22 year old son who could help though. Only thing I don't like is no Animal Planet. How am I going to find out if they find bigfoot?

Bigfoot has Been found a long time ago in Cincinnati, looks a lot like a bearcat just a lot bigger answers too BC1

BC#1 weighs maybe a buck forty and stands all of 5'3"

My view ESPN is just getting ahead of the curve before it happens. Sooner rather then later Streaming will be the way we watch TV in the future. Right now, ESPN is still getting a lot of money from cable subscribers and the streaming movement is not fully there. So if ESPN can get "some" money from streaming services instead of none from cord cutters this is a win win. With YoutubeTV having ESPN please believe ESPN will use this as an advantage if/when streaming takes off. My hope is Aresco wont sign over all our rights to ESPN and get creative with these new avenues.

Questions I have is where will this leave PAC12, ACC and B12?

(02-28-2017 07:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This the first streaming package that would work for AAC fans as it includes all the networks we appear on INCLUDING CBS-Sports Network. Its the first one Ive seen offering CBS-Sports Network.

Doesn't PS Vue offer it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

the screens I own that aren't "smart" have smart Blu-ray players attached. Netflix, YouTube, ESPN3 ect are played off the apps on Blu-Ray.

(03-01-2017 12:53 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

I'm old and somewhat technology savvy but when it comes to this stuff I'm lost. I do have a 22 year old son who could help though. Only thing I don't like is no Animal Planet. How am I going to find out if they find bigfoot?

I get Animal Planet and about 50 other useful stations in Channel Pear app (both Fire TV and Roku) for $25 a year.

https://channelpear.com/

(03-01-2017 03:46 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:53 PM)PirateJim Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:16 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:10 AM)Bull Wrote:  This sounds promising, but how do you get youtube on your TV set if you don't want to watch a computer screen? I stream Netflix and Amazon, and ESPN channels through Roku. It works fantastic, but the Youtube app on Roku absolutely stinks. It's slow and the search function barely works.

I personally use a chromecast. I connect to the same wireless network that the chromecast is on, and the youtube app has a built in function to cast your videos to the tv the chromecast is plugged into.

It turns your phone or tablet into a remote. You search for content the same way you would as if through your phone, but it is viewed on the tv.

Smart TV's have this functionality too.

I'm old and somewhat technology savvy but when it comes to this stuff I'm lost. I do have a 22 year old son who could help though. Only thing I don't like is no Animal Planet. How am I going to find out if they find bigfoot?

Bigfoot has Been found a long time ago in Cincinnati, looks a lot like a bearcat just a lot bigger and goes by the name BC1, scientist think it's the missing link...

I thought I heard an Ohio Howl on this board once.