CSNbbs

ESPN+ is the stick in Disney/ESPN negotiations with carriers. It's not the blatant "you don't want us going around" approach. It's the passive aggressive, "I'm not going to mention what we're doing but you've seen the news" approach. It's going to be interesting watch carriage discussions the next few months.
CJ

Odd the analysts that assigned all BAMTech costs to ESPN+. Note to self, ignore that company's work.

(10-30-2018 11:01 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: [ -> ]ESPN+ is the stick in Disney/ESPN negotiations with carriers. It's not the blatant "you don't want us going around" approach. It's the passive aggressive, "I'm not going to mention what we're doing but you've seen the news" approach. It's going to be interesting watch carriage discussions the next few months.
CJ

Might be a good thing for the 80% of customers who don’t watch cable sports. With ATT WatchTV and Philo offering nonSports packages with more coming online in the future.

(10-30-2018 11:11 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Odd the analysts that assigned all BAMTech costs to ESPN+. Note to self, ignore that company's work.

Exactly what I was thinking. BAMTech is basically a sunk cost and ESPN+ is a way to monetize a cost that was going to be there regardless of whether ESPN+ was started or not. Im guessing the actual real incremental costs for ESPN+ are pretty low because they were already on the hook for all the BamTech expenses and most of the inventory for ESPN+ was already existing inventory that was simply moved from ESPN3 to ESPN+. The new deals for UFC and WWF would be the only significant cost drivers I can think of right now.

(10-30-2018 11:11 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Odd the analysts that assigned all BAMTech costs to ESPN+. Note to self, ignore that company's work.

From the article:
[i]But it doesn’t make sense to count the entire costs of BAMTech toward ESPN+. While it is the most prominent Disney service on the platform, BAMTech also powers the digital services for the National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment, Time-Warner’s HBO Now and others.[/i]

A big problem with this is that it's very hard to untangle what the costs of the digital streaming rights fees are--they're mostly bundled with the costs of the TV rights. But it highlights the problems Disney is going to have in transitioning from the ESPN monthly-subscriber model to the ESPN+ subscriber model while not taking a huge monetary hit.

(If you're paying a billion dollars a year for the rights to the International Basketball Federation, it doesn't really matter to the bottom line how you allocate that billion-dollar cost between ESPN Cable NEtworks and ESPN+/BAMTech)

Ironically, the most interesting quote out of that article explains why companies that own cable networks still continue to avoid a true migration to over-the-top platforms and a la carte pricing:

"That’s a notable but affordable cost for Disney. Last quarter, the cable networks segment, which includes the entire ESPN business, BAMTech and A&E, earned $1.4 billion on revenue of $4.2 billion. Overall, Disney earned $2.9 billion on revenue of $15.2 billion."

Read that closely: the cable networks segment of Disney had $1.4 billion in profits last quarter, while Disney overall had $2.9 billion in profits overall... which means that cable networks like ESPN still deliver nearly 50% of the profits for the *entire* Walt Disney Company. This is a company that has the top 3 grossing movies of the year that also all rank among the top 10 grossing movies of all time, Disney theme parks, hotels and cruises, the dominant force in IP licensing with Disney/Star Wars/Marvel/Pixar products, and ABC Television... and it's STILL dependent upon cable networks for nearly half of its profits.

I'm not saying that companies dependent upon cable networks shouldn't change (as evidenced by Disney creating ESPN+ in the first place), but these figures show why they are playing that hand as sloooooooowly as possible. When you literally have the most successful year in the history of Hollywood with 3 movies that ranked among the top 10 of all time in a single year and you're STILL making way more from cable networks, that shows you how insanely profitable cable networks are compared to virtually every other type of media or entertainment property. Those companies are attempting to optimally come to the middle ground where bundled streaming subscription revenue from places like DirecTV Now and Sling largely replaces bundled cable/satellite subscription revenue with some supplemental over-the-top revenue as opposed to truly migrating to a full over-the-top a la carte model.

Hopeless CFB addict that I am, I added both Sling and ESPN+ for the season. Sling costs $45/mo with all sports bells, and E+is only $5 per. Both allow me to watch games on a 3rd den TV with Roku or Firestick.

Sling brings in P12 as well as all the E channels, SEC and FS1, and the reception is fine.

E+ in contrast has Ivy League, and some others, but the feed needs to reload every several minutes. Maybe my internet feed, but annoying. Doesn't happen with Sling, which uses the same equipment.
Even at $5/mo I doubt I'll continue with E+

Xbox and PS4 finally get ESPN+.

https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/30/18043...4-xbox-one

(10-30-2018 04:47 PM)westwolf Wrote: [ -> ]Hopeless CFB addict that I am, I added both Sling and ESPN+ for the season. Sling costs $45/mo with all sports bells, and E+is only $5 per. Both allow me to watch games on a 3rd den TV with Roku or Firestick.

Sling brings in P12 as well as all the E channels, SEC and FS1, and the reception is fine.

E+ in contrast has Ivy League, and some others, but the feed needs to reload every several minutes. Maybe my internet feed, but annoying. Doesn't happen with Sling, which uses the same equipment.
Even at $5/mo I doubt I'll continue with E+

ESPN+ is absolute garbage.

(10-31-2018 09:22 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2018 04:47 PM)westwolf Wrote: [ -> ]Hopeless CFB addict that I am, I added both Sling and ESPN+ for the season. Sling costs $45/mo with all sports bells, and E+is only $5 per. Both allow me to watch games on a 3rd den TV with Roku or Firestick.

Sling brings in P12 as well as all the E channels, SEC and FS1, and the reception is fine.

E+ in contrast has Ivy League, and some others, but the feed needs to reload every several minutes. Maybe my internet feed, but annoying. Doesn't happen with Sling, which uses the same equipment.
Even at $5/mo I doubt I'll continue with E+

ESPN+ is absolute garbage.

That is truly a matter of taste.

A year of ESPN+ costs less than I paid for MLS Live and I get the same content and a great deal more. I watch at least a couple NHL games on ESPN+ each week. I will get more AState hoops, women's hoops, and baseball thanks to ESPN+

If I'm bored I can watch a 30 for 30.

To me ESPN+ is an absolute bargain.

(10-31-2018 09:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]That is truly a matter of taste.

A year of ESPN+ costs less than I paid for MLS Live and I get the same content and a great deal more. I watch at least a couple NHL games on ESPN+ each week. I will get more AState hoops, women's hoops, and baseball thanks to ESPN+

If I'm bored I can watch a 30 for 30.

To me ESPN+ is an absolute bargain.

I just started a new job working from home. Love the background TV ESPN + provides. They will also have UNCWs season opener at Campbell on Tuesday night!

(10-30-2018 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically, the most interesting quote out of that article explains why companies that own cable networks still continue to avoid a true migration to over-the-top platforms and a la carte pricing:

"That’s a notable but affordable cost for Disney. Last quarter, the cable networks segment, which includes the entire ESPN business, BAMTech and A&E, earned $1.4 billion on revenue of $4.2 billion. Overall, Disney earned $2.9 billion on revenue of $15.2 billion."

Read that closely: the cable networks segment of Disney had $1.4 billion in profits last quarter, while Disney overall had $2.9 billion in profits overall... which means that cable networks like ESPN still deliver nearly 50% of the profits for the *entire* Walt Disney Company. This is a company that has the top 3 grossing movies of the year that also all rank among the top 10 grossing movies of all time, Disney theme parks, hotels and cruises, the dominant force in IP licensing with Disney/Star Wars/Marvel/Pixar products, and ABC Television... and it's STILL dependent upon cable networks for nearly half of its profits.

I'm not saying that companies dependent upon cable networks shouldn't change (as evidenced by Disney creating ESPN+ in the first place), but these figures show why they are playing that hand as sloooooooowly as possible. When you literally have the most successful year in the history of Hollywood with 3 movies that ranked among the top 10 of all time in a single year and you're STILL making way more from cable networks, that shows you how insanely profitable cable networks are compared to virtually every other type of media or entertainment property. Those companies are attempting to optimally come to the middle ground where bundled streaming subscription revenue from places like DirecTV Now and Sling largely replaces bundled cable/satellite subscription revenue with some supplemental over-the-top revenue as opposed to truly migrating to a full over-the-top a la carte model.

Cable TV for years had what was, essentially, a local monopoly - in the past, each neighborhood often had only one choice. So there was nothing to control price. I think what will see is an industry which goes from overpriced/wildly profitable to one which is reasonably priced/moderately profitable. It won't go away, but belts have only begun tightening, IMO.

How much that ultimately affects sports licensing is a matter up for debate; as long as SOMEONE (e.g. Amazon Prime) who is willing to pay big bucks for sports, it will continue to command high rights fees... but there IS a limit, of course. As fewer people sign up for it, the cost is spread over fewer customers and thus results in higher cost. Running contrary to that trend is the desire to keep college sports within reach of the masses, so...

(11-01-2018 08:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2018 02:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]Ironically, the most interesting quote out of that article explains why companies that own cable networks still continue to avoid a true migration to over-the-top platforms and a la carte pricing:

"That’s a notable but affordable cost for Disney. Last quarter, the cable networks segment, which includes the entire ESPN business, BAMTech and A&E, earned $1.4 billion on revenue of $4.2 billion. Overall, Disney earned $2.9 billion on revenue of $15.2 billion."

Read that closely: the cable networks segment of Disney had $1.4 billion in profits last quarter, while Disney overall had $2.9 billion in profits overall... which means that cable networks like ESPN still deliver nearly 50% of the profits for the *entire* Walt Disney Company. This is a company that has the top 3 grossing movies of the year that also all rank among the top 10 grossing movies of all time, Disney theme parks, hotels and cruises, the dominant force in IP licensing with Disney/Star Wars/Marvel/Pixar products, and ABC Television... and it's STILL dependent upon cable networks for nearly half of its profits.

I'm not saying that companies dependent upon cable networks shouldn't change (as evidenced by Disney creating ESPN+ in the first place), but these figures show why they are playing that hand as sloooooooowly as possible. When you literally have the most successful year in the history of Hollywood with 3 movies that ranked among the top 10 of all time in a single year and you're STILL making way more from cable networks, that shows you how insanely profitable cable networks are compared to virtually every other type of media or entertainment property. Those companies are attempting to optimally come to the middle ground where bundled streaming subscription revenue from places like DirecTV Now and Sling largely replaces bundled cable/satellite subscription revenue with some supplemental over-the-top revenue as opposed to truly migrating to a full over-the-top a la carte model.

Cable TV for years had what was, essentially, a local monopoly - in the past, each neighborhood often had only one choice. So there was nothing to control price. I think what will see is an industry which goes from overpriced/wildly profitable to one which is reasonably priced/moderately profitable. It won't go away, but belts have only begun tightening, IMO.

How much that ultimately affects sports licensing is a matter up for debate; as long as SOMEONE (e.g. Amazon Prime) who is willing to pay big bucks for sports, it will continue to command high rights fees... but there IS a limit, of course. As fewer people sign up for it, the cost is spread over fewer customers and thus results in higher cost. Running contrary to that trend is the desire to keep college sports within reach of the masses, so...

I suspect with the pace of technology cost of building/maintaining the delivery infrastructure will stay constant or fall.

I'm surprised more aren't taking a BYOB (bring your own box) approach a delivering via Roku or Fire (Apple little harder to work with.

Is there a source of revenue for ESPN+ other than subscriptions?

They say, "Revenue estimates are all over the map, but almost certainly $100 million this year."

But there's only 1 million subscribers paying $4.99/month, and it's only been around since May. Even if they've averaged 1 million customers each month (which they didn't), that's $5 * 1,000,000*8 = $40 million

With only 1 million subscribers, are they really getting $60 million in advertising revenue?