Just a quick update on the ESPN-Plus front. Disney announced that ESPN+ is now reached 12.1 million subscribers as of Feb 2021. Thats up nearly 2 million subscribers since just November of 2020 (10.3 million at that time). If I remember correctly, ESPN+ only had 2 or 3 million subscribers when the AAC signed their deal in 2019, but the streaming service has seen steady growth since that time.
(02-15-2021 03:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: Just a quick update on the ESPN-Plus front. Disney announced that ESPN+ is now reached 12.1 million subscribers as of Feb 2021. Thats up nearly 2 million subscribers since just November of 2020 (10.3 million at that time). If I remember correctly, ESPN+ only had 2 or 3 million subscribers when the AAC signed their deal in 2019, but the streaming service has seen steady growth since that time.
ESPN needs to do a deal with Dish or Direct TV to carry ESPN+ over satellite for the millions of folks who can't stream but would pay to subscribe thru satellite. Both satellite companies are setup to handle multiple alternative channels for such a setup & it would benefit both ESPN/Disney & the satellite companies. I'm like many who would pay to stream but can't due to internet limitations. I think the streamers are missing out on a substantial revenue stream by assuming the logic that all of the potential market can stream.
(02-15-2021 03:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: Just a quick update on the ESPN-Plus front. Disney announced that ESPN+ is now reached 12.1 million subscribers as of Feb 2021. Thats up nearly 2 million subscribers since just November of 2020 (10.3 million at that time). If I remember correctly, ESPN+ only had 2 or 3 million subscribers when the AAC signed their deal in 2019, but the streaming service has seen steady growth since that time.
ESPN+ is part of the Disney Bundle with Hulu and Disney+, which at $13 a month is just can't-miss if you are a streamer. That's probably a big part of it. That's what sold me on it after vowing in 2018 never to get ESPN+.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2021 11:20 AM by quo vadis.)
(02-15-2021 10:07 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: It came with Disney+
I think the independent demand for ESPN+ is limited
Not really. Disney+ has something like 95 million subscribers while ESPN+ has only 12.1 million. That said, the Pac12 Network only had about 19 million subscribers last time I looked. So, given the third tier/niche programming largely assigned to ESPN+, it’s subscriber growth is quite solid.
It’s also worth pointing out that with few exceptions, viewership of sports has been in decline during the pandemic. So, this rise in ESPN+ subscriptions is essentially swimming upstream against the trend. That makes it even more impressive.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2021 11:46 AM by Attackcoog.)
(02-15-2021 09:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote: ESPN needs to do a deal with Dish or Direct TV to carry ESPN+ over satellite for the millions of folks who can't stream but would pay to subscribe thru satellite. Both satellite companies are setup to handle multiple alternative channels for such a setup & it would benefit both ESPN/Disney & the satellite companies. I'm like many who would pay to stream but can't due to internet limitations. I think the streamers are missing out on a substantial revenue stream by assuming the logic that all of the potential market can stream.
Truthfully - I'd bet good money that that will never happen. The whole reason why streaming is thriving is the cord cutting, in part because of the lost revenue these companies give up to have their product distributed by cable and/or satellite. By cutting out the middle man, ABC/Disney/ESPN is able to keep all of the money they get from their streaming subscriptions as well as all of the money from advertising (as opposed to how the cable companies take a certain chunk of advertising time for themselves, which is how you get ads for local attorneys or jewelry stores on during national games).
Streaming is the future, and cable/satellite is rapidly going the way of the printed newspaper. Just in the last few weeks we've learned about Discovery+ (which bundles all of those HGTV/Food Network channels that are the equivalent to sports to a significant number of women) and Paramount+ (streaming a sh!tload of CBS content) coming. With Peacock having all the NBC content and HBOMax getting first run movies from the theater, it's the future. Netflix pretty much paved the way, and even 70+ year olds know how to access that.
TL;DR - ESPN+ is never going to be on satellite/cable.
(02-15-2021 09:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote: ESPN needs to do a deal with Dish or Direct TV to carry ESPN+ over satellite for the millions of folks who can't stream but would pay to subscribe thru satellite. Both satellite companies are setup to handle multiple alternative channels for such a setup & it would benefit both ESPN/Disney & the satellite companies. I'm like many who would pay to stream but can't due to internet limitations. I think the streamers are missing out on a substantial revenue stream by assuming the logic that all of the potential market can stream.
Truthfully - I'd bet good money that that will never happen. The whole reason why streaming is thriving is the cord cutting, in part because of the lost revenue these companies give up to have their product distributed by cable and/or satellite. By cutting out the middle man, ABC/Disney/ESPN is able to keep all of the money they get from their streaming subscriptions as well as all of the money from advertising (as opposed to how the cable companies take a certain chunk of advertising time for themselves, which is how you get ads for local attorneys or jewelry stores on during national games).
Streaming is the future, and cable/satellite is rapidly going the way of the printed newspaper. Just in the last few weeks we've learned about Discovery+ (which bundles all of those HGTV/Food Network channels that are the equivalent to sports to a significant number of women) and Paramount+ (streaming a sh!tload of CBS content) coming. With Peacock having all the NBC content and HBOMax getting first run movies from the theater, it's the future. Netflix pretty much paved the way, and even 70+ year olds know how to access that.
TL;DR - ESPN+ is never going to be on satellite/cable.
USFFan
I understand the trends, but they depends upon an ability to stream. There are still millions of American whose internet speeds are not fast enough now & likely will not be for the next decade in order to stream video. It's a segment of the market that satellite can address & potential customers are willing to pay for the service.
(02-15-2021 09:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote: ESPN needs to do a deal with Dish or Direct TV to carry ESPN+ over satellite for the millions of folks who can't stream but would pay to subscribe thru satellite. Both satellite companies are setup to handle multiple alternative channels for such a setup & it would benefit both ESPN/Disney & the satellite companies. I'm like many who would pay to stream but can't due to internet limitations. I think the streamers are missing out on a substantial revenue stream by assuming the logic that all of the potential market can stream.
Truthfully - I'd bet good money that that will never happen. The whole reason why streaming is thriving is the cord cutting, in part because of the lost revenue these companies give up to have their product distributed by cable and/or satellite. By cutting out the middle man, ABC/Disney/ESPN is able to keep all of the money they get from their streaming subscriptions as well as all of the money from advertising (as opposed to how the cable companies take a certain chunk of advertising time for themselves, which is how you get ads for local attorneys or jewelry stores on during national games).
Streaming is the future, and cable/satellite is rapidly going the way of the printed newspaper. Just in the last few weeks we've learned about Discovery+ (which bundles all of those HGTV/Food Network channels that are the equivalent to sports to a significant number of women) and Paramount+ (streaming a sh!tload of CBS content) coming. With Peacock having all the NBC content and HBOMax getting first run movies from the theater, it's the future. Netflix pretty much paved the way, and even 70+ year olds know how to access that.
TL;DR - ESPN+ is never going to be on satellite/cable.
USFFan
This. Disney is playing the long game. In the short run they could increase revenues by partnering with cable companies. But they are looking to replace them in the long run as cable continues to regress as the dinosaur model.
I had Hulu live TV first, then ESPN+, then added Disney+ and made it one package. It was not a smooth transition. Took over an hour with customer service to get it set up.
I think it doesn't matter how many subscribers ESPN+ has from the standpoint of attracting casual viewers to the AAC. . It is highly fragmented viewing platform with multiple same time interests. Someone who has a kid on the wrestling team at Oklahoma State is not likely to switch over to one of our games after their kid is done wrestling. Same goes for a kid playing ice hockey for Boston U. Those subscriptions are specific niches. Our games are a specific niche for AAC fans. It is not the same as a single program content is being offered at a specific time on ESPN, ESPNU or ESPN2 where the subscriber is somewhat captive to the game that is on at the time. AAC schools have to bring their own interests to view. Those numbers may mean something to ESPN and Disney.
(02-15-2021 09:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote: ESPN needs to do a deal with Dish or Direct TV to carry ESPN+ over satellite for the millions of folks who can't stream but would pay to subscribe thru satellite. Both satellite companies are setup to handle multiple alternative channels for such a setup & it would benefit both ESPN/Disney & the satellite companies. I'm like many who would pay to stream but can't due to internet limitations. I think the streamers are missing out on a substantial revenue stream by assuming the logic that all of the potential market can stream.
Truthfully - I'd bet good money that that will never happen. The whole reason why streaming is thriving is the cord cutting, in part because of the lost revenue these companies give up to have their product distributed by cable and/or satellite. By cutting out the middle man, ABC/Disney/ESPN is able to keep all of the money they get from their streaming subscriptions as well as all of the money from advertising (as opposed to how the cable companies take a certain chunk of advertising time for themselves, which is how you get ads for local attorneys or jewelry stores on during national games).
Streaming is the future, and cable/satellite is rapidly going the way of the printed newspaper. Just in the last few weeks we've learned about Discovery+ (which bundles all of those HGTV/Food Network channels that are the equivalent to sports to a significant number of women) and Paramount+ (streaming a sh!tload of CBS content) coming. With Peacock having all the NBC content and HBOMax getting first run movies from the theater, it's the future. Netflix pretty much paved the way, and even 70+ year olds know how to access that.
TL;DR - ESPN+ is never going to be on satellite/cable.
USFFan
I understand the trends, but they depends upon an ability to stream. There are still millions of American whose internet speeds are not fast enough now & likely will not be for the next decade in order to stream video. It's a segment of the market that satellite can address & potential customers are willing to pay for the service.
At the speed of something like Starlink is being setup, access to faster internet may be available by 2022 for people in rural areas.
(02-15-2021 10:07 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: It came with Disney+
I think the independent demand for ESPN+ is limited
Not really. Disney+ has something like 95 million subscribers while ESPN+ has only 12.1 million. That said, the Pac12 Network only had about 19 million subscribers last time I looked. So, given the third tier/niche programming largely assigned to ESPN+, it’s subscriber growth is quite solid.
It’s also worth pointing out that with few exceptions, viewership of sports has been in decline during the pandemic. So, this rise in ESPN+ subscriptions is essentially swimming upstream against the trend. That makes it even more impressive.
Plus the fact you have to have ESPiN on some sort of platform already. Drop that and it is worth it.
(02-15-2021 09:24 AM)Atlanta Wrote: ESPN needs to do a deal with Dish or Direct TV to carry ESPN+ over satellite for the millions of folks who can't stream but would pay to subscribe thru satellite. Both satellite companies are setup to handle multiple alternative channels for such a setup & it would benefit both ESPN/Disney & the satellite companies. I'm like many who would pay to stream but can't due to internet limitations. I think the streamers are missing out on a substantial revenue stream by assuming the logic that all of the potential market can stream.
Truthfully - I'd bet good money that that will never happen. The whole reason why streaming is thriving is the cord cutting, in part because of the lost revenue these companies give up to have their product distributed by cable and/or satellite. By cutting out the middle man, ABC/Disney/ESPN is able to keep all of the money they get from their streaming subscriptions as well as all of the money from advertising (as opposed to how the cable companies take a certain chunk of advertising time for themselves, which is how you get ads for local attorneys or jewelry stores on during national games).
Streaming is the future, and cable/satellite is rapidly going the way of the printed newspaper. Just in the last few weeks we've learned about Discovery+ (which bundles all of those HGTV/Food Network channels that are the equivalent to sports to a significant number of women) and Paramount+ (streaming a sh!tload of CBS content) coming. With Peacock having all the NBC content and HBOMax getting first run movies from the theater, it's the future. Netflix pretty much paved the way, and even 70+ year olds know how to access that.
TL;DR - ESPN+ is never going to be on satellite/cable.
USFFan
I understand the trends, but they depends upon an ability to stream. There are still millions of American whose internet speeds are not fast enough now & likely will not be for the next decade in order to stream video. It's a segment of the market that satellite can address & potential customers are willing to pay for the service.
At the speed of something like Starlink is being setup, access to faster internet may be available by 2022 for people in rural areas.
Starlink won't replace fiber-optic for everyone, but it will change internet access around the world. SpaceX already has over 1,000 satellites in orbit with FCC approval for 11,000 more. They're the largest satellite operator in the world and using vertical integration, i.e., building their own satellites, building their own reusable rockets to launch 60 at a time (for now), and creating their own high-speed ISP. It's this service and not the rockets themselves or electric cars that propelled Elon Musk's net worth over $100 billion dollars in just the last year, making him neck and neck with Jeff Bezos for the title of richest man in the world. Amazon is designing their own satellite internet system that may potentially be better. But for now, SpaceX Starlink is way out in front.
Setting up the antenna ain't like your grandma's satellite TV. It uses a phased array self-pointing dish and the setup is stupid easy.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2021 10:40 PM by mikeinoki.)
Although it doesn't explicitly say there will be NHL games on ESPN+ here, you can pretty much guarantee there will be some games on there as well.
In the end, just about everybody needs to kiss the ring in Bristol...
USFFan
Yeah---if it is a "no ESPN+" deal---it will be the first deal they have signed since ESPN+ was announced that does not have a significant ESPN+ component. Given that the NHL already has 68 games on ESPN+ during just the first 2 months of this season, I think its safe to assume the NHL will continue to be a significant presence on ESPN+.
I'm for everything being on ESPN +. If I can get the majority of my sports for $5/month, I'm all in. It's way better than buying whatever BS packages need to watch CBSSN and ESPN Classic. Although, I'm guessing that price will start getting jacked up pretty quickly.
(03-10-2021 12:33 PM)Z-Fly Wrote: I'm for everything being on ESPN +. If I can get the majority of my sports for $5/month, I'm all in. It's way better than buying whatever BS packages need to watch CBSSN and ESPN Classic. Although, I'm guessing that price will start getting jacked up pretty quickly.
Yes, I think we are looking at $5.00 a month as the 'introductory offer.' I remember when all ATM's were free. It was to get you hooked on them.
