Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
Author Message
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,269
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 500
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Upstate SC
Post: #31
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  If ECU played 3 football games on the road and all 3 were on ACC network, I wouldn't get it. I don't know why Florida or Penn St fans would buy it either.

03-lmfao

So you say now... when it happens, you'll pay $1/month for it without batting an eye and be glad you got it.

You'll buy it even if ECU is never on the ACCN just so you can root against UNC and NC State.

03-shhhh
05-16-2017 01:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,775
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 579
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-16-2017 07:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-15-2017 07:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  These conference networks are toast if more cord cutting happens. Nobody in the south gives a crap about the Big 10. Nobody in the Pac-12 area cares about the SEC. You basically only watch your team and your conference for most people. The amount of time devoted to binge watching college football isn't done by that many.

BTN and SECN make some money "out-of-footprint", but the big money is in $1-a-month subscription fees in your market.

(05-15-2017 10:06 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  In the old days, Cord Cutting meant going straight to OTA. Now, it is actually Streaming Providers vs Cable Providers. How many cord cutters actually are not using their internet service to stream sports, movies and tv shows?

Snarkly answer: The ones that don't care about sports.
Real answer: The big issue isn't number of people watching, it's number of people paying. If Grandpa dies (one less cable household) and Junior graduates college and watches games religiously using Dad's ESPN password, ESPN is out $7 a month net.

(05-15-2017 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Based on those numbers you'd expect the ACC Network to generate only slightly more money than the Pac12 Network. I would have expected the ACC to have a substantially better ratings performance than the Pac12 due to its far more populated footprint--but that chart surprisingly says there isn't much difference.

It's not just footprint, or AAC and CUSA would be swimming in money from the Florida, Houston, DAllas etc markets. It's how intense the demand is, how many people will change cable/satellite providers over having the programming. I'm pretty sure the Bama fan with herringbone curtains in his doublewide will switch from cable to satellite to whatever to make sure he catches every Tide game. Not so sure about the Virginia Tech fan in NoVA.

(05-15-2017 02:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That 100% ownership sounds like it would be awesome when it comes to revenue. But, the problem is--without a well connected network partner that can apply leverage to cable carriers--its a lot harder to get carriage---which negatively affects the number of subscribers and ultimately---revenue. If they stick with it, I think the Pac-12 100% ownership model will outperform the others---its just going to take significantly more time to build the subscriber base.

Network has been online for what, five years now? Where is the big basket of PAC-12 fans who are going to wake up and decide that PACnet is a thing that they need to pay extra for?

Big 10 subscription fees in footprint are .90 cents. The SEC in footprint is 1.30 in most states and 1.20 for political reasons only in a couple of more. The SEC makes .25 cents per out of footprint subscription per month. Cable networks won't go away for quite some time. Too many areas have coverage issues with other modes. And people forget that if somebody wants the SECN or PACN they will buy it where it is available. So if ESPN or the PAC doesn't sell those rights to an Amazon then you won't be able to turn them for the product. The rabidness of the SEC fan base is a plus in that regard.

So while things are changing and streaming needs to be an option that we all capitalize, there is not really a monster at the door of cable waiting to devour that industry and by the time such a monster does appear, those networks will be streaming as well.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2017 01:21 PM by JRsec.)
05-16-2017 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 244
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #33
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
The thing is, I think you're going to find cable companies finding a way to regulate Junior using dad's ESPN logon.
05-16-2017 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,269
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 500
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Upstate SC
Post: #34
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-16-2017 01:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is, I think you're going to find cable companies finding a way to regulate Junior using dad's ESPN logon.

Well, first of all, Dad's ESPN subscription has to remain current... if he died (in the scenario), who's paying the cable bill?
05-16-2017 04:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
33laszlo99 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 117
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Bama
Location:
Post: #35
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-15-2017 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-15-2017 09:13 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(05-15-2017 08:36 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Interesting graphic from the article.

[Image: CoFo-TV-viewership-1.jpg?width=960]

This is based on two years' worth of data. If it had been three or four, Florida State would have done much better. They were a TV gold mine during the 2013 and 2014 seasons.

Based on those numbers you'd expect the ACC Network to generate only slightly more money than the Pac12 Network. I would have expected the ACC to have a substantially better ratings performance than the Pac12 due to its far more populated footprint--but that chart surprisingly says there isn't much difference.

Conference networks earn revenue from two sources: carriage fees and advertising. The carriage fees are negotiated in multiple year deals, but the ads are sold on shorter intervals, seasonal and week-by-week. The challenge for the ACC is that they share a big portion of their footprint with either the SEC or the B1G. Advertisiers can choose from those, and the ACC will struggle to keep up with their neighbors.
05-16-2017 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,025
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #36
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-15-2017 08:36 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Interesting graphic from the article.

[Image: CoFo-TV-viewership-1.jpg?width=960]

Where the buck is the big 12 numbers?!! 03-hissyfit
05-17-2017 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,044
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 40
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #37
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-15-2017 07:50 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  
(05-15-2017 07:46 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  From the article:

"The ACC clearly stacks up well against the Pac-12, so at the very least an ACC Network should live above the profitable, if disappointing, baseline set by the Pac-12 Network. And it looks far more likely that it could approach what the Big Ten has accomplished. So despite ESPN's apparent desire to cut costs, funding the ACC Network could be money well spent."



Forbes Article

These conference networks are toast if more cord cutting happens. Nobody in the south gives a crap about the Big 10. Nobody in the Pac-12 area cares about the SEC. You basically only watch your team and your conference for most people. The amount of time devoted to binge watching college football isn't done by that many.

Actually, that's not true. There are are sizable number of Big Ten snowbirds down south. And, there are people in the Pac12 area that do care about the SEC. It's one of the reasons why Auburn played USC awhile back.
05-17-2017 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 7,576
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 296
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #38
RE: ACC Network- Forbes Article Suggests ESPN Can Be Profitable With The ACCN
(05-16-2017 01:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-16-2017 12:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  If ECU played 3 football games on the road and all 3 were on ACC network, I wouldn't get it. I don't know why Florida or Penn St fans would buy it either.

03-lmfao

So you say now... when it happens, you'll pay $1/month for it without batting an eye and be glad you got it.

You'll buy it even if ECU is never on the ACCN just so you can root against UNC and NC State.

03-shhhh

Actually, indifference is the route I'm going. I never disliked NCSU enough to root against them. I do dislike UNC but not enough to root against them in sports. Meh..
05-17-2017 11:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.