(03-20-2023 05:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe they will dump some of their more controversial “talent” and stick to reporting on sports rather than inundating viewers with political editorials.

More likely it will be the other way around.

(03-20-2023 05:38 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:31 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  “ESPN is still a money cow for Disney”

“Iger recently said that it is ‘inevitable’ that the entirety of ESPN will go direct-to-consumer.”

They are making loads of money, whether in a cable bundle or streaming. Ratings are up 8% year over year, 14% in prime time.

They're harmed by streaming. Even aside from that, sports rights (which used to be undervalued) have increased to the point where they're overvalued.

One of the issues with ESPN is that they get a very high price for their product to be included in cable packages so when those subscriptions decrease, and ESPN has seen a 25% decrease in cable users over the last 12 years, it hits ESPN harder than other producers.

Also likely is that as the big conference deals are ironed out, the take-it-leave-it deals to conferences like the MAC, SBC, MWC, C-USA etc. will see their annual revenues frozen or offer very small increases. Many of these put being on TV over local attendance and need to be seen more than ESPN et al need them to fill with live content. FCS football isn't all that far away from the lower-tier FBS programs anyway, and there are 360 or so basketball teams.

Also, in some cases already, the local team provides the talent including camera work and ESPN just provides the platform. I see that expanding too.

(03-21-2023 11:30 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 05:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe they will dump some of their more controversial “talent” and stick to reporting on sports rather than inundating viewers with political editorials.

More likely it will be the other way around.

I'm told this is off-limits conversational turf.

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:28 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:17 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

Makes $18M and $15M per year respectively.

I've never understood the gigantic broadcaster deals. I'm watching the teams I care about no matter who is calling the game. Seems like the definition of easily replaceable. $15M a year for Troy Aikman? Come on.

Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

(03-21-2023 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:28 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I've never understood the gigantic broadcaster deals. I'm watching the teams I care about no matter who is calling the game. Seems like the definition of easily replaceable. $15M a year for Troy Aikman? Come on.

Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

(03-21-2023 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

that's true, ESPN Classic cost roughly $0 because the programming was already sitting on the shelf gathering dust. But ESPN Classic also never brought in the kind of revenu that hte ACC NEtwork does.

Quote:I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey.

Well, they just signed the NHL to a deal. And all of the rumors in the press are that ESPN is planning to put up big money when the NBA rights come up. The rest, they probably won't go all-out to win an auction if someone else is offering big increases--ESPN has started to be more cost conscious.

Quote:They may keep MNF.

...........................
They're going to keep their most valuable piece of programming, I think that's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network.

What? Most of those leagues are already shown on those networks, you lunatic.

Quote:Roll the ACC and SEC into one network.

Why would you cut the subscription revenues you get for the ACC and SEC NEtworks in half, by having one network instead of 2? Where do you show those games if you only have one network? Dump them on ESPN+?

This makes no sense.

My litmus test for whether someone understands the sports media landscape of today is whether they either (a) understand that the NBA is going to be the highest-paid sports entity in America (and maybe the world) besides the NFL with their next TV deal or (b) rely on total personal anecdotes (e.g. “I can’t stand the NBA and/or don’t know anyone that watches the NBA”). Virtually everyone in the business - ESPN, Turner, Amazon, Apple, NBC, Fox, etc. - building up a warchest in order to bid on the NBA rights. It’s a primary upstream reason why the money for the Pac-12 dried up - budgets are getting cut, so they’re saving their bullets for the higher priority NBA negotiations. ESPN might pull back on costs in a bunch of places, but definitely not on the NBA. You don’t get Bob Iger in his very first earnings call after being reinstated as the Disney CEO talking directly about the NBA rights for ESPN if it’s not the very highest priority for that segment of the business.

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

Well, the average CSNbbs poster would at least be likely to remember the names of the two schools playing in front of them for the full 3 hours. Some at ESPN have a tough time doing that much. I'd take Stever and Bullet for keeping up with stats, both relevant and obscure. Frank can wax as poetically about the Rose Bowl as Keith Jackson. It's Beth Mowins that would be hard to replace. Nobody around here hits that level of annoying without getting banned.

I miss Frank, Dandy Don, and Howard. They were as much fun as the game. I miss Pee Wee and Curt too! And Dizzy, well he was his own show and his own color. Those guys knew what they were talking about because they played the game, knew the people, or grew up loving it before they became journalists, and it was like listening to people who loved it as much as I did.

IMO the only team of announcers that comes close today only get together for the NCAA tourney and I enjoy them as much as the games.

Does ESPN make money off of ESPN+? I wonder if more money could be made by combining ESPN+ and Hulu together. I know Disney pretty much is running 3 streaming services and by combining Hulu and ESPN+ under the Hulu banner would be a better option? Basically sell this new Hulu as the adult alternative to Disney+. Basically moving it's fox owned content and touchstone movies on Hulu. Since Disney has some sort of deal with Sony for spiderman maybe try to convince Sony to make a deal to put their movies and shows on Hulu.

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

You’re missing my point. Even if we (the sports fans) don’t care, Roger Goodell and the NFL offices have shown that they very much care to the point that it impacts the quality of games on a network. One extra game featuring the Cowboys versus a random contending team per year would legitimately be worth $200 million or more (not an exaggeration - each of those games dwarf the audience of the CFP title game), which makes the amounts that ESPN is paying to Buck and Aikman worth several times more in ROI if it gets the league to give the network even just one or two extra better games per year.

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2023 08:40 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Exactly right. Now, I do like Doris Burke for NBA games but she doesn't make that level of coin. BTW, Aikman makes the higher of the two [$18M] but Buck at least handles other sporting events year-round. Aikman is getting the preferential Dallas Cowboys treatment LOL. I say cut these overpaid announcers salaries.

1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

Agreed. Especially with the conference media deals. Fans wanting to watch their favorite team for the most part have to tune into ESPN/ABC to watch (unless its shared content). Its not as if Florida State football fan is going to say the guy calling the game on ESPN stinks so he is going to watch a BXII game on Fox because they have a better announcer. Its a captive audience. ESPN doesn't need to pay anymore 8 digits anymore.

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

Quote: When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

I've shortened what Frank said, and I'll restate it. It's not about goosing ratings, it's about stroking egos in the NFL league offices.

If Roger Goodell's nephew thinks the CBS Nickelodeon game graphics are cool, CBS is going to give us more of that, too.

(03-21-2023 12:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

You’re missing my point. Even if we (the sports fans) don’t care, Roger Goodell and the NFL offices have shown that they very much care to the point that it impacts the quality of games on a network. One extra game featuring the Cowboys versus a random contending team per year would legitimately be worth $200 million or more (not an exaggeration - each of those games dwarf the audience of the CFP title game), which makes the amounts that ESPN is paying to Buck and Aikman worth several times more in ROI if it gets the league to give the network even just one or two extra better games per year.

You're probably correct to an extent. But I think the NFL will look at announcer fame before they sign with a new entity like Amazon more than they'd look at the announcers before they sign with an established entity like ESPN.

(03-21-2023 12:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

Quote: When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

I've shortened what Frank said, and I'll restate it. It's not about goosing ratings, it's about stroking egos in the NFL league offices.

If Roger Goodell's nephew thinks the CBS Nickelodeon game graphics are cool, CBS is going to give us more of that, too.

I love the Nick "Slime" games. Never miss them. :)

(03-21-2023 12:44 PM)46566 Wrote:  Does ESPN make money off of ESPN+?

Probably not yet. But it's hard to say, partially because how do you split up the costs of the rights fees between ABC, ESPN, 2, U, and ESPN+.

But nobody is making money on streaming at this point.

Quote:I wonder if more money could be made by combining ESPN+ and Hulu together. I know Disney pretty much is running 3 streaming services and by combining Hulu and ESPN+ under the Hulu banner would be a better option? Basically sell this new Hulu as the adult alternative to Disney+. Basically moving it's fox owned content and touchstone movies on Hulu. Since Disney has some sort of deal with Sony for spiderman maybe try to convince Sony to make a deal to put their movies and shows on Hulu.

Disney isn't sure what they're going to do with Hulu at this point. Sell to Comcast maybe. It's not super clear how Hulu (A Disney Streaming Service) is really different from Disney+. Adult oriented is a possible way to go, much like Touchstone Pictures. But they're showing Deadpool on Disney+ instead of Hulu, so I don't know what they're going for there.

(03-21-2023 12:44 PM)46566 Wrote:  Does ESPN make money off of ESPN+? I wonder if more money could be made by combining ESPN+ and Hulu together. I know Disney pretty much is running 3 streaming services and by combining Hulu and ESPN+ under the Hulu banner would be a better option? Basically sell this new Hulu as the adult alternative to Disney+. Basically moving it's fox owned content and touchstone movies on Hulu. Since Disney has some sort of deal with Sony for spiderman maybe try to convince Sony to make a deal to put their movies and shows on Hulu.

https://frontofficesports.com/espn-prove...hallenges/

“ESPN+ Plus

Disney saw its linear networks slip 5% to $7.3 billion in revenue, with operating income falling $244 million to $1.3 billion. Streaming revenue rose 13% to $5.3 billion, but losses climbed to just over $1 billion.

ESPN+ ticked up to 24.9 million subscribers from 24.3 million the previous quarter and saw a 14% jump in monthly revenue per subscriber in that time to $5.53.”

ESPN+ subscriptions have also almost completely leveled off. If your media contract is ESPN+ heavy, the odds of it being re-upped in the future seem low.

(03-21-2023 12:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:10 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 10:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  1000%

No one is going to quit watching MNF or NFL on FOX because an announcer leaves.

And by the same token, no one is going to watch a MNF game because they just gotta hear Buck and Aikman breakdown the riveting Tennessee vs Indianapolis matchup. My friend group seems to have a major affinity for the Manning Bros telecast, but I usually end up muting most NFL games while watching the game.

The escalation of NFL announcer salaries is less about the sports fan audience and much more about the audience at NFL headquarters. The new ESPN-NFL deal includes better games and late season flex-scheduling. In exchange, the expectation from the NFL is that the network is hiring premium announcers for a premium product. Note that the NFL had mandated that the #1 announcing crew needed to be used for Thursday Night Football games when they were on Fox, CBS and NBC previously. They wouldn’t even let Mike Tirico do the NBC TNF games instead of Al Michaels despite Tirico having had called Monday Night Football on ESPN previously.

In any event, Amazon got that message, too. They badly wanted to hire Aikman for Thursday Night Football (where he outright told Marchand and Ourand at the end of the 2021 season that he was expecting to do Fox Sunday games and Amazon Thursday games), but ESPN came over the top with their offer plus the continued ability to work with Buck.

Now, I definitely don’t believe that people watch or don’t watch games because of the announcers in any material numbers (notwithstanding the Twitter/Reddit/message board world claiming otherwise). However, the NFL has shown that the quality of the games granted to a network in the first place can be impacted by the quality (or perceived quality) of the announcing crew.

At the same time, each of the networks showing NFL games is paying over $2 billion per year and these games are the most watched programs on all of television by a massive margin. When you put it into the context of, “These are the hosts of the biggest shows on television by several multiples and we’re paying $2 billion per year to show them,” throwing $15-20 million per year to the announcers honestly is not very much in the scheme of things. Those announcer salaries are insurance against the risk of screwing up a $2 billion contract with 20 million people watching every week. When a network has the NFL, that drives almost the entire business for that network for half of the year, so it’s rational that they’re going to pay more for announcing talent in that situation (even if it’s more for CYA with the league office than actually drawing any more viewers).

But there really isn't any announcer in any sport other than Lee Corso (who I personally hate) who would bring any higher tv ratings to the game than just about any random CSNBBS poster would.

Well, the average CSNbbs poster would at least be likely to remember the names of the two schools playing in front of them for the full 3 hours. Some at ESPN have a tough time doing that much. I'd take Stever and Bullet for keeping up with stats, both relevant and obscure. Frank can wax as poetically about the Rose Bowl as Keith Jackson. It's Beth Mowins that would be hard to replace. Nobody around here hits that level of annoying without getting banned.

I miss Frank, Dandy Don, and Howard. They were as much fun as the game. I miss Pee Wee and Curt too! And Dizzy, well he was his own show and his own color. Those guys knew what they were talking about because they played the game, knew the people, or grew up loving it before they became journalists, and it was like listening to people who loved it as much as I did.

IMO the only team of announcers that comes close today only get together for the NCAA tourney and I enjoy them as much as the games.

Wahhhh, you didn't include me, JR!!

(03-21-2023 12:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

that's true, ESPN Classic cost roughly $0 because the programming was already sitting on the shelf gathering dust. But ESPN Classic also never brought in the kind of revenu that hte ACC NEtwork does.

Quote:I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey.

Well, they just signed the NHL to a deal. And all of the rumors in the press are that ESPN is planning to put up big money when the NBA rights come up. The rest, they probably won't go all-out to win an auction if someone else is offering big increases--ESPN has started to be more cost conscious.

Quote:They may keep MNF.

...........................
They're going to keep their most valuable piece of programming, I think that's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network.

What? Most of those leagues are already shown on those networks, you lunatic.

Quote:Roll the ACC and SEC into one network.

Why would you cut the subscription revenues you get for the ACC and SEC NEtworks in half, by having one network instead of 2? Where do you show those games if you only have one network? Dump them on ESPN+?

This makes no sense.

My litmus test for whether someone understands the sports media landscape of today is whether they either (a) understand that the NBA is going to be the highest-paid sports entity in America (and maybe the world) besides the NFL with their next TV deal or (b) rely on total personal anecdotes (e.g. “I can’t stand the NBA and/or don’t know anyone that watches the NBA”). Virtually everyone in the business - ESPN, Turner, Amazon, Apple, NBC, Fox, etc. - building up a warchest in order to bid on the NBA rights. It’s a primary upstream reason why the money for the Pac-12 dried up - budgets are getting cut, so they’re saving their bullets for the higher priority NBA negotiations. ESPN might pull back on costs in a bunch of places, but definitely not on the NBA. You don’t get Bob Iger in his very first earnings call after being reinstated as the Disney CEO talking directly about the NBA rights for ESPN if it’s not the very highest priority for that segment of the business.

This is also why I will be getting my sonics back... hopefully... maybe... Please!!!

(03-21-2023 12:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

that's true, ESPN Classic cost roughly $0 because the programming was already sitting on the shelf gathering dust. But ESPN Classic also never brought in the kind of revenu that hte ACC NEtwork does.

Quote:I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey.

Well, they just signed the NHL to a deal. And all of the rumors in the press are that ESPN is planning to put up big money when the NBA rights come up. The rest, they probably won't go all-out to win an auction if someone else is offering big increases--ESPN has started to be more cost conscious.

Quote:They may keep MNF.

...........................
They're going to keep their most valuable piece of programming, I think that's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network.

What? Most of those leagues are already shown on those networks, you lunatic.

Quote:Roll the ACC and SEC into one network.

Why would you cut the subscription revenues you get for the ACC and SEC NEtworks in half, by having one network instead of 2? Where do you show those games if you only have one network? Dump them on ESPN+?

This makes no sense.

My litmus test for whether someone understands the sports media landscape of today is whether they either (a) understand that the NBA is going to be the highest-paid sports entity in America (and maybe the world) besides the NFL with their next TV deal or (b) rely on total personal anecdotes (e.g. “I can’t stand the NBA and/or don’t know anyone that watches the NBA”). Virtually everyone in the business - ESPN, Turner, Amazon, Apple, NBC, Fox, etc. - building up a warchest in order to bid on the NBA rights. It’s a primary upstream reason why the money for the Pac-12 dried up - budgets are getting cut, so they’re saving their bullets for the higher priority NBA negotiations. ESPN might pull back on costs in a bunch of places, but definitely not on the NBA. You don’t get Bob Iger in his very first earnings call after being reinstated as the Disney CEO talking directly about the NBA rights for ESPN if it’s not the very highest priority for that segment of the business.

Okay, removing all anti- NBA biases aside, I don't see how the NBA is going to be the highest-paid sports entity in America when the NFL already has that honor. If any network dropped the NFL for the NBA Frank, wouldn't you doubt their sanity?? How much did the NBA Finals gross compared to the Super Bow grossl??
Now I can maybe see the NBA either slightly below or perhaps on par with the NFL. That I can see. I can see the NBA eclipsing MLB if they haven't done so already because MLB is very slow to adapt to change. If MLB clubs would do NFL/NBA style revenue sharing, I think that they would be a lot better off.

(03-21-2023 01:48 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 12:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2023 09:24 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN Classic was cheaper to produce than the ACC Network.

that's true, ESPN Classic cost roughly $0 because the programming was already sitting on the shelf gathering dust. But ESPN Classic also never brought in the kind of revenu that hte ACC NEtwork does.

Quote:I could see that ESPN could drop the sports rights to several pro-leagues that don't make them money like WNBA, tennis, golf, NBA and hockey.

Well, they just signed the NHL to a deal. And all of the rumors in the press are that ESPN is planning to put up big money when the NBA rights come up. The rest, they probably won't go all-out to win an auction if someone else is offering big increases--ESPN has started to be more cost conscious.

Quote:They may keep MNF.

...........................
They're going to keep their most valuable piece of programming, I think that's a pretty safe bet.

Quote:I do think to save ESPN money? They could roll the ACC/SEC/AAC/Big 12/MAC/CUSA/PAC 12and offer them to be shown on ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U and SEC network.

What? Most of those leagues are already shown on those networks, you lunatic.

Quote:Roll the ACC and SEC into one network.

Why would you cut the subscription revenues you get for the ACC and SEC NEtworks in half, by having one network instead of 2? Where do you show those games if you only have one network? Dump them on ESPN+?

This makes no sense.

My litmus test for whether someone understands the sports media landscape of today is whether they either (a) understand that the NBA is going to be the highest-paid sports entity in America (and maybe the world) besides the NFL with their next TV deal or (b) rely on total personal anecdotes (e.g. “I can’t stand the NBA and/or don’t know anyone that watches the NBA”). Virtually everyone in the business - ESPN, Turner, Amazon, Apple, NBC, Fox, etc. - building up a warchest in order to bid on the NBA rights. It’s a primary upstream reason why the money for the Pac-12 dried up - budgets are getting cut, so they’re saving their bullets for the higher priority NBA negotiations. ESPN might pull back on costs in a bunch of places, but definitely not on the NBA. You don’t get Bob Iger in his very first earnings call after being reinstated as the Disney CEO talking directly about the NBA rights for ESPN if it’s not the very highest priority for that segment of the business.

This is also why I will be getting my sonics back... hopefully... maybe... Please!!!

You never know. Charlotte got the Hornets back, New Orleans got the Pelicans basically to replace the Jazz, so I could see Seattle getting the Sonics back.