... but no other sports channels should celebrate, because they're all still behind ESPN.
Noteworthy for recent discussions is that FS2 is nowhere near being an acceptable "second option" like ESPN2; FS2 is in more homes than it was before being rebranded as FS2, but it's not even close to having ESPNU's % of homes.
This is from Nielsen. h/t to
http://sportstvratings.com/how-many-more...tion/4451/
Estimated 116.4 million TV homes in the United States
Code:
..............Feb 2016 Jul 2015
# of homes % of # of homes
(thousands) homes (thousands) % change
BEIN SPORT 25,161 21.6 18,161 +38.5%
ESPN 90,988 78.2 92,940 -2.1%
ESPN2 90,879 78.1 92,855 -2.1%
ESPNU 70,733 60.8 73,091 -3.2%
FOX DEPORTES 22,099 19.0 21,534 +2.6%
FS1 84,166 72.3 84,309 -0.2%
FS2 50,801 43.6 46,659 +8.9%
GOLF CHANNEL 76,477 65.7 78,299 -2.3%
MLB NETWORK 66,018 56.7 68,342 -3.4%
NBA-TV 53,384 45.9 55,785 -4.3%
NBCSN 83,022 71.3 83,874 -1.0%
NFL NETWORK 69,634 59.8 70,466 -1.2%
UNIVISION DEP 47,093 40.5 44,221 +6.5%
For comparison, TNT is slightly ahead of ESPN, in 92.681 million homes (79.6% of U.S. homes with TVs).
Who are the hundred thousand saps that pay to have ESPN but not ESPN 2??
Including my household. I have basic cable, no sports channels at all. I get all the locals, all the news channels, (Fox news, CNN, MSNBC) plus AMC, TNT, FX etc. No ESPN, no FS2, no bogus conference networks and it feels great! I have Netflix and an Amazon fire stick and any game I want to watch I stream to my TV. I encourage others to try it. I'm so disgusted by the way 65 college football schools have destroyed college athletics and this is the way Im protesting. It feels liberating. Cheers!
Not really a shock as people cut expenses (see consumer spending the past few years).
The most watched ESPN event ever drew just over 33 million viewers. That means roughly two-thirds of the people with ESPN watched something else. The seven most watched ESPN telecasts were all college football.
Marist Poll (in 2010) says 54% of Americans claim to be fans of college football
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/101-majorit...lege-ball/
That's pretty much in line with a 2001 poll by Gallup where 44% said yes a fan and 9% said somewhat a fan.
A Harris poll asking FAVORITE sport (ie you gotta pick only one) placed college football as the favorite among 11% of people.
ESPN being in 80% of homes means it is still reaching its audience for the most part and those of us in that 11% (CFB is #1) or the 54% (like CFB) are still being subsidized by many people who don't care at all.
Billy, what you have is likely a breach of contract, unless your cable provider doesn't carry ESPN at all.
ESPN always mandates that it must be carried on ALL non-basic tiers, as part of the carriage agreement. Verizon recently found this out the hard way.
I get most of them and I don't watch most of them either.
HOD, but you could. Access is the name of the game!
(02-03-2016 04:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]HOD, but you could. Access is the name of the game!
True
Still, the Golf Channel is where you go if you want to learn more about Viagra.
(02-03-2016 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Who are the hundred thousand saps that pay to have ESPN but not ESPN 2??
Do hotels count? I have stayed at a few in the past 15 years that have only had ESPN but not ESPN2.
(02-03-2016 05:03 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2016 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Who are the hundred thousand saps that pay to have ESPN but not ESPN 2??
Do hotels count? I have stayed at a few in the past 15 years that have only had ESPN but not ESPN2.
Pretty common until the last couple years. Now I find most have ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, and NBC Sports at the minimum along with the local RSN. Here in Arkansas pretty common to have all that plus SECN and ESPNU. I spend 30+ nights in hotels so I'm a pro at finding the sports channels.
(02-03-2016 04:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Billy, what you have is likely a breach of contract, unless your cable provider doesn't carry ESPN at all.
ESPN always mandates that it must be carried on ALL non-basic tiers, as part of the carriage agreement. Verizon recently found this out the hard way.
Bison, no not all at all. I have a basic plus package with direct tv that allows me to get the news channels plus a few standard cable channels like AMC but with 0 sports channels. The wars between Comcrap and Direct TV are heating up so much that you'd be surprised what you can do if you simply ask for it. I'm living proof that you do not have to pay for sports programming and still have a good tv line up. Cheers!
at first I thought 80% sounded high. But then I realized that is % of homes that already have cable or satellite?
I am more interested in % of homes that are dropping cable. I am one of those that used to have cable TV and now I don't.
(02-03-2016 05:33 PM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]at first I thought 80% sounded high. But then I realized that is % of homes that already have cable or satellite?
It's 80% of the homes that have at least one TV. The total number of homes with a TV is an estimate that Nielsen makes, as they describe here:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/ne...eason.html
Why do people even pay for ESPNU?
(02-03-2016 04:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Billy, what you have is likely a breach of contract, unless your cable provider doesn't carry ESPN at all.
ESPN always mandates that it must be carried on ALL non-basic tiers, as part of the carriage agreement. Verizon recently found this out the hard way.
This is still up to the courts as Verizon is still offering packages without sports.
That's mind blowing. 80%?
(02-03-2016 04:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Who are the hundred thousand saps that pay to have ESPN but not ESPN 2??
Some of the older cable systems, like as mentioned above hotels, universities, schools, etc, will have ESPN but not ESPN2
(02-03-2016 04:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Billy, what you have is likely a breach of contract, unless your cable provider doesn't carry ESPN at all.
ESPN always mandates that it must be carried on ALL non-basic tiers, as part of the carriage agreement. Verizon recently found this out the hard way.
This is the way it used to be, but one reason their numbers are dropping was that in many of their last round of negotiations, in order to get that higher price for ESPN, which is now over $6.00 on most systems, they had to allow for the cable systems to offer limited. packages that don't have them. The problem Verizon has is they had a package they were marketing as the basic package, that did not have ESPN, which was a violation of their contract, or ESPN claimed.
That is why there are several networks such as TBS, TNT, FX, Disney, CNN, Nik, etc that have more subscribers than ESPN.
(02-03-2016 06:00 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote: [ -> ]Why do people even pay for ESPNU?
ESPNU is actually a very cheap channel. The subscriber fee for it is less than $0.25 per month. now the package you order to get it will cost more, but overall it is not expensive.
I had dropped cable and then just had internet through Comcast. During sports season I did month-to-month subscriptions for SlingTV--their standard subscription has ESPN and ESPN2--and add the sports tier if I needed something else like CBS Sports. Comcast internet alone was really cheap on an intro rate--but then that expired. At that point they had no promotions available--and it was more expensive for me to keep my internet (need it for work from home arrangements) than it was to have internet + a TV package. So I've reluctantly added back in the basic TV package and cancelled my Sling TV subscription. I'm hopeful that at some point some other viable option for high-speed wired internet is available in my area and I'd give Comcast the boot for good. They are very manipulative about making offers to their customers they can't refuse to take services they don't need. Long story short--I had dropped the cable packages for ESPN--but have it back now.
(02-03-2016 06:13 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]That's mind blowing. 80%?
The percentage of homes overall that have ESPN (or any other cable channel) is even smaller.
Nielsen estimates (per the link above) that 116.4 million U.S. homes have cable and that this is 95.2% of total U.S. homes, which means that there about 122.3 million U.S. homes total. Nielsen says that ESPN is in 90.9 million homes, which works out to 74.3% of all U.S. homes.
Even the channels in slightly more homes than ESPN (like TNT) are not in significantly more homes, so Nielsen's numbers lead us to this:
About a quarter of all homes in the U.S. don't have any kind of cable or satellite TV subscription.
There's your big "cord cutting" number, really it's the total percentage of homes that either cut the cable cord or never had it.