(05-03-2023 03:27 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 02:36 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  Once the next great depression hits cable will make a comeback. Streaming will die out.

I don't see that. Streaming is cheaper and through streaming there's no contract to lock you in. So if I see I'm not watching Netflix as much as I used to, I can drop it. Same with Hulu and pick it back up when I want to. Also OTA channels are still free.

Just watch it will happen

(05-03-2023 04:29 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 03:27 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 02:36 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  Once the next great depression hits cable will make a comeback. Streaming will die out.

I don't see that. Streaming is cheaper and through streaming there's no contract to lock you in. So if I see I'm not watching Netflix as much as I used to, I can drop it. Same with Hulu and pick it back up when I want to. Also OTA channels are still free.

Just watch it will happen

A depression favors the cheaper option, not the more expensive one.

(05-03-2023 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 10:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 08:59 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  PRetty much. ESPN is the main selling point cable and the non-cable-bundles have.

I agree with this, and yet we pretty regularly hear, from network executives and sports teams, that the reason cable is so good for companies like Disney and for sports teams revenue is that non-sports viewers "subsidize" sports viewers via their cable subscriptions.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in that, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Maybe with cable, sports viewers who sign up mostly for ESPN are subsidizing the non-sports viewers too?

The old model was, everybody has cable. Everybody paid for cable. Not everyone watches sports (ESPN, RSNs). But everyone pays for sports (ESPN, RSN). And since sports fans will throw a fit if you take away their sports, ESPN and the RSNs (and Fox NEws) had leverage to make everyone who bought cable pay them. Let's say half of Americans watch ESPN. That means half of Americans don't. In 2000, half of Americans were watching ESPN, but only half were watching.

Cord cutting is happening but it's a process, not an event. Most cable customers have been cable customers for 20-30-40 years. Cord-cutters have dropped traditional cable over the last 20 years. It's a lot easier to cut the cord if you don't care much about sports. You drop a $100 a month cable bill (or whatever), and you watch Netflix for $10.

If you care about sports, and you want to drop traditional cable, you need to get a bundle -- YoutubeTV or Hulu With Live TV or whatever gets you ESPN for I don't know, $50 a month.

"Sports fans are subsidized by the cable bundle" gets less true every year, as more non-sports-fans drop the bundle and just watch (relatively) cheap streamers.

So let's say in 2023, half of Americans were still watching ESPN, but half of the Americans who don't watch ESPN have dropped out of the cable bundle ecosystem. (Including internet TV that gets you ESPN. That's a bundle). So you've gone from 100% paying for 50% to 75% paying for 50%.

There is some number X of customers who would buy an ESPN streamer for the price Disney is imagining, but aren't buying a bundle today.
There is some number Y of customers buying a bundle today who wouldn't pay for an ESPN streamer.


At some point the graphs cross, but when is the question.

If you make ESPN available outside the bundle, the half of Americans who are watching ESPN now start cutting the cord, like their non-sports-fan neighbors did 10 years ago, for the same reasons. And the cable bundle collapses into a dozen different streamers.

Good explanation.

I wonder, though, if it really is easier to cut the cord if you don't like sports. Presumably, people who don't watch sports do like a lot of other things that are on cable - news channels like FOX or CNN, the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, TNT (for non-sports content), etc.

You can't get those by just signing up for Netflix or the Disney bundle. So that means something like YouTube TV or Hulu Live, in other words, a $60 bundle, like the sports fans buy. And the motivation to do that is that it is cheaper than paying $120 for a cable package to get the same things.

Except for sports and Fox News, everything else is pretty fungible. No History Channel on Netflix? They have the Smithsonian Channel. No TLC? They do have the HGTV library. No Disney Jr? They have the Nick Jr libary. TNT? You're not watching TNT, you're watching Law and Order. And Netflix doesn't have Law and Order, but they have CSI and NCIS. You don't have CNN's live feed, but if something happens you can watch CNN clips on youtube.

Netflix doesn't have The Office or Friends anymore, but they have a dozen other shows they hope you'll like that they'll suggest if you search for The Office or Friends.

Sports is different. NHL is not really a substitute for NBA and vice versa. Red Sox games are not a substitute for Yankee games. Ohio State games are not interchangeable with Georgia games.

Even if you're part of the default casual ESPN audience, and Ohio State - Penn State and Georgia - Texas A&M are pretty much equivalent (because you're an Oregon fan), a G5 game isn't a substitute for a top ten game.

Quote:IIRC, since 2016 cable subscriptions have declined by about 26 million, from around 98 million to around 72 million today. I would love to see data on who those cutters are - people for whom sports is a priority, people for whom it isn't, etc.

And maybe I am an outlier, but IMO the hard-core unbundled streaming isn't cheap. It's expensive. I pay $17 a month for Netflix, $15 a month for the Disney bundle, $8 for Britbox and $9 for Prime Video. I like all of those, but that's $49 a month for just those six services (three for the bundle). With the exception of the ESPN+ stuff on Hulu, I get very little sports for that $50. Not cheap, IMO.

It could easily be cheaper if you bought less of it.

Quote:Eh, looking back on this, I'm not sure what my point is, LOL.

Maybe it is this - I think there is still value in a socialistic, we all subsidize each other model. Netflix augments cable to me, doesn't replace it.

So unlike, apparently, Disney, I do not think streaming alone, in the programmatic sense, not the technical delivery sense, is necessarily the future. I think the cord-cutting will reach an equilibrium, it will not just keep going until cable melts entirely away.

RAdio is still around, so there's probably a floor somewhere for cable, or cable-equivalents. But it's looking like that floor is below the point where ESPN is comfortable existing.

A couple of things.

1) I'm not sure about fungibility. If you watch the History channel for "Curse of Oak Island", then you need that channel, not a Netflix mirror. If you watch TLC for "90 Day Fiance", ditto. And I think people watch those channels for those specific shows.

2) Yes, I could lower my streaming tab by reducing my subscriptions, but I could do that with cable by reducing "tiers", I think.

Thing is, IMO streaming costs are rising, and getting worse as the model develops. Good content is being "siloed" on different platforms, and each platform wants its $9 a month to see that content. I am not convinced that if streaming takes over, I won't be paying more than I was with cable for equal overall entertainment value.

(05-03-2023 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 10:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this, and yet we pretty regularly hear, from network executives and sports teams, that the reason cable is so good for companies like Disney and for sports teams revenue is that non-sports viewers "subsidize" sports viewers via their cable subscriptions.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in that, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Maybe with cable, sports viewers who sign up mostly for ESPN are subsidizing the non-sports viewers too?

The old model was, everybody has cable. Everybody paid for cable. Not everyone watches sports (ESPN, RSNs). But everyone pays for sports (ESPN, RSN). And since sports fans will throw a fit if you take away their sports, ESPN and the RSNs (and Fox NEws) had leverage to make everyone who bought cable pay them. Let's say half of Americans watch ESPN. That means half of Americans don't. In 2000, half of Americans were watching ESPN, but only half were watching.

Cord cutting is happening but it's a process, not an event. Most cable customers have been cable customers for 20-30-40 years. Cord-cutters have dropped traditional cable over the last 20 years. It's a lot easier to cut the cord if you don't care much about sports. You drop a $100 a month cable bill (or whatever), and you watch Netflix for $10.

If you care about sports, and you want to drop traditional cable, you need to get a bundle -- YoutubeTV or Hulu With Live TV or whatever gets you ESPN for I don't know, $50 a month.

"Sports fans are subsidized by the cable bundle" gets less true every year, as more non-sports-fans drop the bundle and just watch (relatively) cheap streamers.

So let's say in 2023, half of Americans were still watching ESPN, but half of the Americans who don't watch ESPN have dropped out of the cable bundle ecosystem. (Including internet TV that gets you ESPN. That's a bundle). So you've gone from 100% paying for 50% to 75% paying for 50%.

There is some number X of customers who would buy an ESPN streamer for the price Disney is imagining, but aren't buying a bundle today.
There is some number Y of customers buying a bundle today who wouldn't pay for an ESPN streamer.


At some point the graphs cross, but when is the question.

If you make ESPN available outside the bundle, the half of Americans who are watching ESPN now start cutting the cord, like their non-sports-fan neighbors did 10 years ago, for the same reasons. And the cable bundle collapses into a dozen different streamers.

Good explanation.

I wonder, though, if it really is easier to cut the cord if you don't like sports. Presumably, people who don't watch sports do like a lot of other things that are on cable - news channels like FOX or CNN, the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, TNT (for non-sports content), etc.

You can't get those by just signing up for Netflix or the Disney bundle. So that means something like YouTube TV or Hulu Live, in other words, a $60 bundle, like the sports fans buy. And the motivation to do that is that it is cheaper than paying $120 for a cable package to get the same things.

Except for sports and Fox News, everything else is pretty fungible. No History Channel on Netflix? They have the Smithsonian Channel. No TLC? They do have the HGTV library. No Disney Jr? They have the Nick Jr libary. TNT? You're not watching TNT, you're watching Law and Order. And Netflix doesn't have Law and Order, but they have CSI and NCIS. You don't have CNN's live feed, but if something happens you can watch CNN clips on youtube.

Netflix doesn't have The Office or Friends anymore, but they have a dozen other shows they hope you'll like that they'll suggest if you search for The Office or Friends.

Sports is different. NHL is not really a substitute for NBA and vice versa. Red Sox games are not a substitute for Yankee games. Ohio State games are not interchangeable with Georgia games.

Even if you're part of the default casual ESPN audience, and Ohio State - Penn State and Georgia - Texas A&M are pretty much equivalent (because you're an Oregon fan), a G5 game isn't a substitute for a top ten game.

Quote:IIRC, since 2016 cable subscriptions have declined by about 26 million, from around 98 million to around 72 million today. I would love to see data on who those cutters are - people for whom sports is a priority, people for whom it isn't, etc.

And maybe I am an outlier, but IMO the hard-core unbundled streaming isn't cheap. It's expensive. I pay $17 a month for Netflix, $15 a month for the Disney bundle, $8 for Britbox and $9 for Prime Video. I like all of those, but that's $49 a month for just those six services (three for the bundle). With the exception of the ESPN+ stuff on Hulu, I get very little sports for that $50. Not cheap, IMO.

It could easily be cheaper if you bought less of it.

Quote:Eh, looking back on this, I'm not sure what my point is, LOL.

Maybe it is this - I think there is still value in a socialistic, we all subsidize each other model. Netflix augments cable to me, doesn't replace it.

So unlike, apparently, Disney, I do not think streaming alone, in the programmatic sense, not the technical delivery sense, is necessarily the future. I think the cord-cutting will reach an equilibrium, it will not just keep going until cable melts entirely away.

RAdio is still around, so there's probably a floor somewhere for cable, or cable-equivalents. But it's looking like that floor is below the point where ESPN is comfortable existing.

A couple of things.

1) I'm not sure about fungibility. If you watch the History channel for "Curse of Oak Island", then you need that channel, not a Netflix mirror. If you watch TLC for "90 Day Fiance", ditto. And I think people watch those channels for those specific shows.

This is why you have the deluxe cable package and subscribe to a half dozen different streamers. You are pretty insensitive to cost.

I'm guessing your wife watches other awful reality dating shows between seasons of 90 Day Fiance, right? She doesn't just queue up the last season and rewatch it over and over?

Quote:2) Yes, I could lower my streaming tab by reducing my subscriptions, but I could do that with cable by reducing "tiers", I think.

Yes, you could.

Quote:Thing is, IMO streaming costs are rising, and getting worse as the model develops. Good content is being "siloed" on different platforms, and each platform wants its $9 a month to see that content. I am not convinced that if streaming takes over, I won't be paying more than I was with cable for equal overall entertainment value.

It seems like the bundle was great for you -- based on what you're paying for now, you were getting tremendous entertainment value out of basic cable and not much more 5 or 10 years ago.

As streaming gets more expensive, people are going to churn more, carrying fewer streamers.

As churn increases, some of the platforms are going to get the axe from their corporate parents, who will decide to stop losing money on trying to compete with the more successful platforms, and start making money by leasing their content to those more successful platforms.

Your purchases reveal your preferences. You're pretty particular about your entertainment, and not terribly price sensitive. So yeah, the streaming ecosystem sees you as a big fat easy mark. :biggrin:

Customers who are more price-sensitive are able to pay a lot less, and there's only so many hours of TV they can watch in a week anyway.

(05-03-2023 07:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 10:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The old model was, everybody has cable. Everybody paid for cable. Not everyone watches sports (ESPN, RSNs). But everyone pays for sports (ESPN, RSN). And since sports fans will throw a fit if you take away their sports, ESPN and the RSNs (and Fox NEws) had leverage to make everyone who bought cable pay them. Let's say half of Americans watch ESPN. That means half of Americans don't. In 2000, half of Americans were watching ESPN, but only half were watching.

Cord cutting is happening but it's a process, not an event. Most cable customers have been cable customers for 20-30-40 years. Cord-cutters have dropped traditional cable over the last 20 years. It's a lot easier to cut the cord if you don't care much about sports. You drop a $100 a month cable bill (or whatever), and you watch Netflix for $10.

If you care about sports, and you want to drop traditional cable, you need to get a bundle -- YoutubeTV or Hulu With Live TV or whatever gets you ESPN for I don't know, $50 a month.

"Sports fans are subsidized by the cable bundle" gets less true every year, as more non-sports-fans drop the bundle and just watch (relatively) cheap streamers.

So let's say in 2023, half of Americans were still watching ESPN, but half of the Americans who don't watch ESPN have dropped out of the cable bundle ecosystem. (Including internet TV that gets you ESPN. That's a bundle). So you've gone from 100% paying for 50% to 75% paying for 50%.

There is some number X of customers who would buy an ESPN streamer for the price Disney is imagining, but aren't buying a bundle today.
There is some number Y of customers buying a bundle today who wouldn't pay for an ESPN streamer.


At some point the graphs cross, but when is the question.

If you make ESPN available outside the bundle, the half of Americans who are watching ESPN now start cutting the cord, like their non-sports-fan neighbors did 10 years ago, for the same reasons. And the cable bundle collapses into a dozen different streamers.

Good explanation.

I wonder, though, if it really is easier to cut the cord if you don't like sports. Presumably, people who don't watch sports do like a lot of other things that are on cable - news channels like FOX or CNN, the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, TNT (for non-sports content), etc.

You can't get those by just signing up for Netflix or the Disney bundle. So that means something like YouTube TV or Hulu Live, in other words, a $60 bundle, like the sports fans buy. And the motivation to do that is that it is cheaper than paying $120 for a cable package to get the same things.

Except for sports and Fox News, everything else is pretty fungible. No History Channel on Netflix? They have the Smithsonian Channel. No TLC? They do have the HGTV library. No Disney Jr? They have the Nick Jr libary. TNT? You're not watching TNT, you're watching Law and Order. And Netflix doesn't have Law and Order, but they have CSI and NCIS. You don't have CNN's live feed, but if something happens you can watch CNN clips on youtube.

Netflix doesn't have The Office or Friends anymore, but they have a dozen other shows they hope you'll like that they'll suggest if you search for The Office or Friends.

Sports is different. NHL is not really a substitute for NBA and vice versa. Red Sox games are not a substitute for Yankee games. Ohio State games are not interchangeable with Georgia games.

Even if you're part of the default casual ESPN audience, and Ohio State - Penn State and Georgia - Texas A&M are pretty much equivalent (because you're an Oregon fan), a G5 game isn't a substitute for a top ten game.

Quote:IIRC, since 2016 cable subscriptions have declined by about 26 million, from around 98 million to around 72 million today. I would love to see data on who those cutters are - people for whom sports is a priority, people for whom it isn't, etc.

And maybe I am an outlier, but IMO the hard-core unbundled streaming isn't cheap. It's expensive. I pay $17 a month for Netflix, $15 a month for the Disney bundle, $8 for Britbox and $9 for Prime Video. I like all of those, but that's $49 a month for just those six services (three for the bundle). With the exception of the ESPN+ stuff on Hulu, I get very little sports for that $50. Not cheap, IMO.

It could easily be cheaper if you bought less of it.

Quote:Eh, looking back on this, I'm not sure what my point is, LOL.

Maybe it is this - I think there is still value in a socialistic, we all subsidize each other model. Netflix augments cable to me, doesn't replace it.

So unlike, apparently, Disney, I do not think streaming alone, in the programmatic sense, not the technical delivery sense, is necessarily the future. I think the cord-cutting will reach an equilibrium, it will not just keep going until cable melts entirely away.

RAdio is still around, so there's probably a floor somewhere for cable, or cable-equivalents. But it's looking like that floor is below the point where ESPN is comfortable existing.

A couple of things.

1) I'm not sure about fungibility. If you watch the History channel for "Curse of Oak Island", then you need that channel, not a Netflix mirror. If you watch TLC for "90 Day Fiance", ditto. And I think people watch those channels for those specific shows.

This is why you have the deluxe cable package and subscribe to a half dozen different streamers. You are pretty insensitive to cost.

I'm guessing your wife watches other awful reality dating shows between seasons of 90 Day Fiance, right? She doesn't just queue up the last season and rewatch it over and over?

Quote:2) Yes, I could lower my streaming tab by reducing my subscriptions, but I could do that with cable by reducing "tiers", I think.

Yes, you could.

Quote:Thing is, IMO streaming costs are rising, and getting worse as the model develops. Good content is being "siloed" on different platforms, and each platform wants its $9 a month to see that content. I am not convinced that if streaming takes over, I won't be paying more than I was with cable for equal overall entertainment value.

It seems like the bundle was great for you -- based on what you're paying for now, you were getting tremendous entertainment value out of basic cable and not much more 5 or 10 years ago.

As streaming gets more expensive, people are going to churn more, carrying fewer streamers.

As churn increases, some of the platforms are going to get the axe from their corporate parents, who will decide to stop losing money on trying to compete with the more successful platforms, and start making money by leasing their content to those more successful platforms.

Your purchases reveal your preferences. You're pretty particular about your entertainment, and not terribly price sensitive. So yeah, the streaming ecosystem sees you as a big fat easy mark. :biggrin:

Customers who are more price-sensitive are able to pay a lot less, and there's only so many hours of TV they can watch in a week anyway.

About TLC - they have a whole "90 day" franchise going on, several shows, such that when one ends its run another picks up. And my wife likes all of them, LOL. Right now it is something called "90 Day Fiance - The Other Way" or something. No need to re-watch an old season because the new content just never seems to end.

About price - I am not that insensitive. E.g., I have refused to buy Paramount+ and Peacock and some other streamers. Won't even chip in an extra $5 a month to get the full "Amazon Prime" experience, I just stick to the Video part, LOL.

That raises a question - I missed those Amazon Thursday night NFL games last season because I didn't have Prime Video then. Will PV alone allow me to see the NFL games this fall, or will I be excluded because I don't have the full Amazon Prime service? I hope not.

I do have tons of time to watch TV. My wife is retired, and I am a tenured academic, which is basically like being retired, LOL.

But no question, I could save money by just buying less TV, be it via cable or streaming. Nobody is forcing me to buy this stuff, but I am willing to pay for what I and she want. So the issue for me is how much I have to pay to see what I want. If I was single, I would probably cut my TV bill dramatically by eliminating cable and getting YouTube TV, Netflix, and the Disney bundle. But happily, I am not.

With streaming, that price seems to be rising, for me at least. I know others have different experiences, but I suspect they are going to find this to be true for them too. I think right now, or really the last 5 years, many cord-cutters have been enjoying a "sweet spot" of getting a real bargain when they cut the cord caused by the overall transition away from cable, and as streaming comes to dominate more, prices for them will rise too and that era of joy for them will end, LOL.

We'll see.

(05-03-2023 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 12:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 10:33 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 09:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this, and yet we pretty regularly hear, from network executives and sports teams, that the reason cable is so good for companies like Disney and for sports teams revenue is that non-sports viewers "subsidize" sports viewers via their cable subscriptions.

There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in that, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Maybe with cable, sports viewers who sign up mostly for ESPN are subsidizing the non-sports viewers too?

The old model was, everybody has cable. Everybody paid for cable. Not everyone watches sports (ESPN, RSNs). But everyone pays for sports (ESPN, RSN). And since sports fans will throw a fit if you take away their sports, ESPN and the RSNs (and Fox NEws) had leverage to make everyone who bought cable pay them. Let's say half of Americans watch ESPN. That means half of Americans don't. In 2000, half of Americans were watching ESPN, but only half were watching.

Cord cutting is happening but it's a process, not an event. Most cable customers have been cable customers for 20-30-40 years. Cord-cutters have dropped traditional cable over the last 20 years. It's a lot easier to cut the cord if you don't care much about sports. You drop a $100 a month cable bill (or whatever), and you watch Netflix for $10.

If you care about sports, and you want to drop traditional cable, you need to get a bundle -- YoutubeTV or Hulu With Live TV or whatever gets you ESPN for I don't know, $50 a month.

"Sports fans are subsidized by the cable bundle" gets less true every year, as more non-sports-fans drop the bundle and just watch (relatively) cheap streamers.

So let's say in 2023, half of Americans were still watching ESPN, but half of the Americans who don't watch ESPN have dropped out of the cable bundle ecosystem. (Including internet TV that gets you ESPN. That's a bundle). So you've gone from 100% paying for 50% to 75% paying for 50%.

There is some number X of customers who would buy an ESPN streamer for the price Disney is imagining, but aren't buying a bundle today.
There is some number Y of customers buying a bundle today who wouldn't pay for an ESPN streamer.


At some point the graphs cross, but when is the question.

If you make ESPN available outside the bundle, the half of Americans who are watching ESPN now start cutting the cord, like their non-sports-fan neighbors did 10 years ago, for the same reasons. And the cable bundle collapses into a dozen different streamers.

Good explanation.

I wonder, though, if it really is easier to cut the cord if you don't like sports. Presumably, people who don't watch sports do like a lot of other things that are on cable - news channels like FOX or CNN, the History Channel, TLC, Bravo, TNT (for non-sports content), etc.

You can't get those by just signing up for Netflix or the Disney bundle. So that means something like YouTube TV or Hulu Live, in other words, a $60 bundle, like the sports fans buy. And the motivation to do that is that it is cheaper than paying $120 for a cable package to get the same things.

Except for sports and Fox News, everything else is pretty fungible. No History Channel on Netflix? They have the Smithsonian Channel. No TLC? They do have the HGTV library. No Disney Jr? They have the Nick Jr libary. TNT? You're not watching TNT, you're watching Law and Order. And Netflix doesn't have Law and Order, but they have CSI and NCIS. You don't have CNN's live feed, but if something happens you can watch CNN clips on youtube.

Netflix doesn't have The Office or Friends anymore, but they have a dozen other shows they hope you'll like that they'll suggest if you search for The Office or Friends.

Sports is different. NHL is not really a substitute for NBA and vice versa. Red Sox games are not a substitute for Yankee games. Ohio State games are not interchangeable with Georgia games.

Even if you're part of the default casual ESPN audience, and Ohio State - Penn State and Georgia - Texas A&M are pretty much equivalent (because you're an Oregon fan), a G5 game isn't a substitute for a top ten game.

Quote:IIRC, since 2016 cable subscriptions have declined by about 26 million, from around 98 million to around 72 million today. I would love to see data on who those cutters are - people for whom sports is a priority, people for whom it isn't, etc.

And maybe I am an outlier, but IMO the hard-core unbundled streaming isn't cheap. It's expensive. I pay $17 a month for Netflix, $15 a month for the Disney bundle, $8 for Britbox and $9 for Prime Video. I like all of those, but that's $49 a month for just those six services (three for the bundle). With the exception of the ESPN+ stuff on Hulu, I get very little sports for that $50. Not cheap, IMO.

It could easily be cheaper if you bought less of it.

Quote:Eh, looking back on this, I'm not sure what my point is, LOL.

Maybe it is this - I think there is still value in a socialistic, we all subsidize each other model. Netflix augments cable to me, doesn't replace it.

So unlike, apparently, Disney, I do not think streaming alone, in the programmatic sense, not the technical delivery sense, is necessarily the future. I think the cord-cutting will reach an equilibrium, it will not just keep going until cable melts entirely away.

RAdio is still around, so there's probably a floor somewhere for cable, or cable-equivalents. But it's looking like that floor is below the point where ESPN is comfortable existing.

A couple of things.

1) I'm not sure about fungibility. If you watch the History channel for "Curse of Oak Island", then you need that channel, not a Netflix mirror. If you watch TLC for "90 Day Fiance", ditto. And I think people watch those channels for those specific shows.

2) Yes, I could lower my streaming tab by reducing my subscriptions, but I could do that with cable by reducing "tiers", I think.

Thing is, IMO streaming costs are rising, and getting worse as the model develops. Good content is being "siloed" on different platforms, and each platform wants its $9 a month to see that content. I am not convinced that if streaming takes over, I won't be paying more than I was with cable for equal overall entertainment value.

For Hollywood entertainment I only myself invest in a few shows. Fortunately for me they are all on Paramount+ and I get that with a 24/7 subscription. I also get Prime and have YoutubeTV. I've adjusted...not that much stuff I have to watch

College sports...however

(05-02-2023 10:15 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  15%of men 18-34 don’t watch sports.

http://amp.awfulannouncing.com/2014/just...ports.html

A lot of people watch some big event sports, but probably wouldn’t pay for the opportunity.

And that article is describing the situation nine years ago.

I suspect the number of people who can take a pass on sports went up during the height of the Covid pandemic. People around the world kept each other company with videos of sea shanties, dance practices, and stitched-together choral sessions—at a time when team sports activities were curtailed. Podcasts proliferated. Netflix stock soared.

Many people, through that stretch, didn't miss daily sports chatter as much as they expected. That kind of discovery changes things going forward.

It's like women working in factories in WW2. The crisis passed and things seemed to snap back to the way they were before. But a realisation had occurred. It was being absorbed. Things were not as they were before.

The last 2 years I have paused our Dish Network. Keep the equipment, all the movies recorded, that we never get around to watching due to sports, and still can DVR OTA channels. Cost is a little over $5 per month. Once football starts back up in September, un-pause and use until the last college BB game. The 5 months of savings in my mind justifies keeping Dish.

Use MLB.TV for free under T-Mobile sign up in summer and ESPN+ shared with family for college Baseball.

If you think the switch from cable to streaming will send shockwaves through the sports media-rights landscape, just wait until the Boomers move on and this younger generation moves into the target demo. They're not watching live sports in anywhere close to the numbers as prior generations.