I know a lot of you don't like Travis but I can't find much fault in his analysis of the situation.

https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-mill...iber-base/

Quote:Streaming, in other words, was supposed to be the life raft that saved the cable and satellite business. The idea was that just as companies like ESPN were about to go under water, ESPN would just step from cable to streaming, which would be a new, reliable boat. The business would be fine.

But increasingly it’s looking like there are two sinking boats instead of one, both cable and streaming are taking on water. And all you’re doing as you attempt to step from one boat to the other is changing your view as you go down.

Worse than that, the shift to streaming may be hastening the decline in the cable business too because consumers only have so much money to spend on entertainment and in attempting to get them to sign up for streaming you are trading a profitable business for an unprofitable business. All the streaming services, instead of being life rafts for sinking cable businesses, are actually making both boats sink faster.

Huge tell on how he looks at the ESPN model from here forward. Here's the kicker:

Quote:So what does that mean? In the years ahead ESPN, at least if it isn’t purchased by someone like Amazon or Apple who can handle the losses thanks to offsets elsewhere, is going to have to give up top sports rights. (Why would Amazon or Apple buy ESPN when they can just buy the rights instead of ESPN? Maybe to get the existing rights ESPN already has? I think that’s probably the best case scenario for ESPN). Because otherwise at the same time that ESPN is going to become the most desperate to get the best sports rights, they’re going to have less and less money to be able to buy them with. Which means it’s going to be harder and harder to get people to subscribe to ESPN+.

The end result? From a business perspective ESPN is a dead, slow growth company that has begun its descent into oblivion. I suspect most intelligent Disney executives know this. But they are attempting to hide this fact by suggesting streaming will save the company somewhere in the future.

The problem is that just isn’t true. If anything, streaming is actually going to hasten the demise of ESPN, not save it. Because instead of just one company drowning, ESPN now has two, the legacy cable business and ESPN+.

We're going to see how much Travis is right when the details of the new Big Ten contract is released.

However, what I will also say is that this should be a warning to those who still worship the 4-letter network like a demigod of sports.

While he only focused on the financial aspects I should add that the political/social/cultural angles can't be overlooked. Why did E-Spin went all in on the SEC? Because it's much cheaper to reel 14 to now 16 different fanbases than try to cater to different tastes in different regions. But to gain the trust of those fanbases it was necessary to bring down the other conferences. Thus, the narrative construction, the attempt to give off the air of inevitability, the use of mindshare to influence casual viewers, etc..

What he did not cover is the fact that Disney still owns ABC, so they still have an over-the-air outlet in case they need to shift more games to where more people can view them. But Disney only owns one of 4 major networks and network television comes with considerable regulations.

The big question is what happens to the remaining college sports contracts as in the latter years of the new cycle.

The loses are giving SEC and ACC their own Networks. It is forced on people who do not want them. Plus the Longhorn Network is an utter failure giving one school it's own tv rights and that was shoved onto people who do not like the Longhorns as well.

I will stream movies, TV Shows, etc. But honestly when I want to watch sports, streaming is the last place I go.

I enjoy that my ESPN sports viewing is currently subsidized by (a) cable subscribers who get charged for ESPN whether they want it or not and (b) streaming by Disney via their bundles. A total of about $15 a month to get all that cable + streaming ESPN content is awesome-sauce.

Will it last forever? Probably not, but I will enjoy it while it lasts.

That said, since I don't own Disney stock, I could care less whether ESPN thrives or survives or not. What would concern me is if I could no longer see the sports I want to see on ESPN and other networks, meaning that if ESPN goes away, the sports goes away from my TV, or if the price of viewing those things were to rise dramatically.

I don't foresee either happening, because IMO the fundamental of the sports broadcasting market is sound, namely that while cords are being cut and all that, the actual bedrock demand to watch sports on TV isn't declining.

No worries, costs will just be passed along to the cable/satellite/OTT providers next time contracts are up for negotiation. After 2 day channel blackout with each blaming the other.

(05-23-2022 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I enjoy that my ESPN sports viewing is currently subsidized by (a) cable subscribers who get charged for ESPN whether they want it or not and (b) streaming by Disney via their bundles. A total of about $15 a month to get all that cable + streaming ESPN content is awesome-sauce.

Will it last forever? Probably not, but I will enjoy it while it lasts.

That said, since I don't own Disney stock, I could care less whether ESPN thrives or survives or not. What would concern me is if I could no longer see the sports I want to see on ESPN and other networks, meaning that if ESPN goes away, the sports goes away from my TV, or if the price of viewing those things were to rise dramatically.

I don't foresee either happening, because IMO the fundamental of the sports broadcasting market is sound, namely that while cords are being cut and all that, the actual bedrock demand to watch sports on TV isn't declining.

I have said this before and will say it again. I think people misunderstand what Disney/ESPN may be doing. I think as cable dies ESPN intends to shift to being a college sports rights broker. I think they will sell the choicest games each week to the highest bidder and show all other contests via stream, cut their studio overhead and use college play by play guys to reach their own fans at a fraction of the cost.

Therefore other networks will buy their games each week to maximize ad revenue. It's more profitable for them to spend on just the games they want, pulling from any conference, than to buy all the B1G rights to land 8 must see games.

If ESPN is losing subscribers, then other cable networks are too

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

(05-23-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  I will stream movies, TV Shows, etc. But honestly when I want to watch sports, streaming is the last place I go.

That's because the games you want to watch aren't on streaming.

(05-23-2022 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't foresee either happening, because IMO the fundamental of the sports broadcasting market is sound, namely that while cords are being cut and all that, the actual bedrock demand to watch sports on TV isn't declining.

A major piece of that bedrock, non-sports-fan cable subscribers subsidizing ESPN (and Fox News) *IS* going away, however.

(05-23-2022 05:35 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  No worries, costs will just be passed along to the cable/satellite/OTT providers next time contracts are up for negotiation. After 2 day channel blackout with each blaming the other.

That's hitting a limit though. Cable networks have weathered the storm of their audience shrinking from 100M to 75M by charging higher subscription fees.

Which drives more cable subscribers to drop cable.

(05-23-2022 06:32 PM)fsquid Wrote:  If ESPN is losing subscribers, then other cable networks are too

Absolutely. The universe of cable is contracting.

Clay has been beating this drum for years because he hates ESPN over perceived political issues. The business is fine, albeit one that produces smaller margins than it did a decade ago. They just dropped $500M+ on MLB rights, they're buying up almost all of the college IP they can find, and even as streaming numbers are smaller, the entity has been able to make up the difference in other revenue streams (like digital ads and events).

It's not 1999, but structurally, it's fine.

(05-23-2022 08:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  I will stream movies, TV Shows, etc. But honestly when I want to watch sports, streaming is the last place I go.

That's because the games you want to watch aren't on streaming.

(05-23-2022 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't foresee either happening, because IMO the fundamental of the sports broadcasting market is sound, namely that while cords are being cut and all that, the actual bedrock demand to watch sports on TV isn't declining.

A major piece of that bedrock, non-sports-fan cable subscribers subsidizing ESPN (and Fox News) *IS* going away, however.

(05-23-2022 05:35 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  No worries, costs will just be passed along to the cable/satellite/OTT providers next time contracts are up for negotiation. After 2 day channel blackout with each blaming the other.

That's hitting a limit though. Cable networks have weathered the storm of their audience shrinking from 100M to 75M by charging higher subscription fees.

Which drives more cable subscribers to drop cable.

(05-23-2022 06:32 PM)fsquid Wrote:  If ESPN is losing subscribers, then other cable networks are too

Absolutely. The universe of cable is contracting.

Some are, but not enough to bother finding it on ESPN+

But that is the point - the only people watching ESPN+ games are the diehard fans of those schools. While I will look at the DirecTv offerings and pick there.

(05-23-2022 06:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I enjoy that my ESPN sports viewing is currently subsidized by (a) cable subscribers who get charged for ESPN whether they want it or not and (b) streaming by Disney via their bundles. A total of about $15 a month to get all that cable + streaming ESPN content is awesome-sauce.

Will it last forever? Probably not, but I will enjoy it while it lasts.

That said, since I don't own Disney stock, I could care less whether ESPN thrives or survives or not. What would concern me is if I could no longer see the sports I want to see on ESPN and other networks, meaning that if ESPN goes away, the sports goes away from my TV, or if the price of viewing those things were to rise dramatically.

I don't foresee either happening, because IMO the fundamental of the sports broadcasting market is sound, namely that while cords are being cut and all that, the actual bedrock demand to watch sports on TV isn't declining.

I have said this before and will say it again. I think people misunderstand what Disney/ESPN may be doing. I think as cable dies ESPN intends to shift to being a college sports rights broker.

You're limiting your perspective to college sports.

Quote:I think they will sell the choicest games each week to the highest bidder and

But who are they going to sell them to? The OTA networks have limited budgets--events like the CFP etc are on ESPN instead of CBS or Fox because ESPN could tap both advertiser revenue AND subscription revenue. So who is ESPN going to sell these games to?

Quote:show all other contests via stream, cut their studio overhead and use college play by play guys to reach their own fans at a fraction of the cost.

I don't think the cost of producing the games moves the needle very much. The major cost is in the rights fees. They might save a few nickels by dumping the costs of showing games onto second-tier leagues like the MAC or Sun Belt or Major Lacrosse LEague, but that's trivial.

Quote:Therefore other networks will buy their games each week to maximize ad revenue. It's more profitable for them to spend on just the games they want, pulling from any conference, than to buy all the B1G rights to land 8 must see games.

There's a limit on how much CBS or NBC or Fox would be able to pay for even the best CFB game every week. And that limit is lower than what ESPN has been budgeting for those games.

(05-23-2022 08:16 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 08:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 04:56 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  I will stream movies, TV Shows, etc. But honestly when I want to watch sports, streaming is the last place I go.

That's because the games you want to watch aren't on streaming.

Some are, but not enough to bother finding it on ESPN+

But that is the point - the only people watching ESPN+ games are the diehard fans of those schools. While I will look at the DirecTv offerings and pick there.

I think we agree. Right now, what ESPN+ offers you is football like UAB vs Troy, SDSU-Ball STate, Bowling Green - EMU, and Duke-UNC lacrosse. If the Iron Bowl and USC-Notre Dame and Ohio State-Michigan and the Red River Shootout and Duke-UNC basketabll were on streaming, you'd watch sports on streaming.

(05-23-2022 08:13 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Clay has been beating this drum for years because he hates ESPN over perceived political issues.

Naah, he's been on this beat longer than that. He was pimping the SEC Network before he started riding the "Stick to Sports" bandwagon.

Quote:The business is fine, albeit one that produces smaller margins than it did a decade ago. They just dropped $500M+ on MLB rights, they're buying up almost all of the college IP they can find, and even as streaming numbers are smaller, the entity has been able to make up the difference in other revenue streams (like digital ads and events).

If you're a corporate executive, and you see what Travis is saying, and you can't see a way out of it? What do you do?

Do you tell your bosses, and, worse, the media, that the company is doomed and that you don't have any answers? Not if you're smart enough to get that corporate big-time job.

You act like it isn't happening, and you keep your job for a few more years. Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, nobody at ESPN is going to see their career suffer in 5 years because they spent too much money on big-time sports today.

So you sign the AAC and put a bunch of their games on your shiny new ESPN+. You do a deal with the Big 12 to put some of their football games on ESPN+.

It won't save the ESPN business, but it keeps you in your high-paying job for a few years.

Quote:It's not 1999, but structurally, it's fine.

What Travis doesn't mention is, Disney would have big problems selling ESPN. Who's buying?

Remember a couple of years ago, when Disney was forced to sell the Fox RSNs by the antitrust regulators? It was expected that the RSNs would fetch maybe $20B. Disney ended up getting just under $10B from Sinclair. And Sinclair has written down their value to half of that, as they try to avoid bankruptcy in a couple of years as subscriber numbers go down, while the rights fees go up.

ESPN would lose tremendous percieved value if word got out that Disney were trying to get rid of ESPN.

I think the large problem that so many of these articles on this subject have is that they’re looking solely the top line revenue decreases at ESPN and other cable networks but never acknowledge that they’re *still* extremely profitable. Even with everything that Disney owns, ESPN is still the single most profitable business in that entire company. That context can’t be emphasized enough. That alone answers Travis’ question about why Disney still holds onto ESPN. In fact, ESPN has been the biggest reason why Disney was able to get through the last 2.5 years of the pandemic ravaging pretty much every other business that it had outside of Disney+ (e.g. theme parks, movies, cruises, etc.).

Now, there can certainly be an inflection point where revenue decreases so much that it gets to the point where ESPN would outright lose money. However, even if the bottom is around 50 million subscribers (as Travis mentioned), I don’t know why Travis is critiquing a business that would still be generating $6 billion per year just on subscriber fees. Remember that sports also charge the highest ad rates out of any type of programming BY FAR, so ESPN is generating the highest ad sales in the industry on top of those subscriber fees. To put $6 billion per year in perspective, that’s still more in *only* subscriber fees every *month* than the domestic grosses of all but 16 movies in the entire history of cinema. Only one movie (the latest Spider-Man film) since the start of the pandemic has made as much as what even a 50 million subscriber base ESPN would make every single month *before* ads. We really need to understand the context of just how much money that is in order to properly compare it to anything else.

It’s not that I’m bullish on sports per se, but more that I’m bearish on the profitability of pretty much all other forms of mass market entertainment in general outside of a handful of marquee movie franchises (e.g. Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney Princesses, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park). When Travis asks why anyone would invest in sports when it doesn’t create a back catalog of programming like movies or TV shows, it’s because (1) the franchises are really what works for those types of programs, but there just aren’t that many of them and they’re expensive to do well and (2) we have no idea what TV shows that people will watch 10 years from now, but it’s still a good bet that people will still watch the NFL, NBA, MLB, college football and other major sports properties at a material level (even if it’s lower than today).

Finally, I just don’t think anyone can discount the value that sports are truly the only type of program that people watch live en masse anymore. 93 of the top 100 most watched programs last year were sporting events. Only 1 of that top 100 was a scripted TV show… and that was only because it was shown after the Super Bowl (the biggest sporting event of them all)!

So, as long as there’s an ad market where companies need to reach a large audience at the exact same time, then sports will also always have high value since it’s the only property that actually serves that market anymore.

(Note that the movie industry that Travis points to as where Disney could shift money to away from ESPN is super dependent on such live ad market. Every movie has a “time is of the essence” marketing campaign for a movie where they need to show the maximum number of ads in the last week or two before opening night. Nothing delivers that type of audience better than sports. See how the new Thor trailer is premiering tonight during the NBA Eastern Conference Finals on ESPN, which is a classic example of Disney corporate synergy.)

(05-23-2022 08:38 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  What Travis doesn't mention is, Disney would have big problems selling ESPN. Who's buying?

Remember a couple of years ago, when Disney was forced to sell the Fox RSNs by the antitrust regulators? It was expected that the RSNs would fetch maybe $20B. Disney ended up getting just under $10B from Sinclair. And Sinclair has written down their value to half of that, as they try to avoid bankruptcy in a couple of years as subscriber numbers go down, while the rights fees go up.

ESPN would lose tremendous percieved value if word got out that Disney were trying to get rid of ESPN.

It's still a huge money maker. The issue isn't systemic. The issue is demographics. Those born in '46 turn 76 this year. The largest blip of the Baby Boom is between '46 - 52 and while it generally is accepted to extend until '62 the tail end of the Boom was smaller in scope.

These people are avid college sports fans, have had the resources to donate, buy tickets, and attended college in large numbers. To put this in perspective in 2036 those born between '46-56 will be 80 - 90 years of age. Those born after 74-79.

Given Covid, and rising food and fuel costs, and the natural mortality of Boomers, and you can likely account for those 8% of lost subscribers fairly quickly.

Given the personal viewing habits of Millennials and Gen Z, and their decreased numbers and the lessened capital reserves of X'ers and you have a timebomb which will culminate in 2036 which will absolutely impact sports.

The moves you see now are all about milking as much as can be taken from Boomers and Xers and culling quantity for quality and looking at keeping all major brands tied to the regions where the sport is still culturally relevant, the SE, SW, Cali, Ohio, & Pennsylvania.

But nobody at Disney is sweating ESPN and they have 14 years to downsize and divest, and it won't just hit football. It's going to wallop team sports as a rule. Football will likely remain a viewing sport at the college level for another 20 years after 2036, but will draw its supply from the aforementioned areas.

And you do realize that what impacts CFB directly impacts the NFL? These are billion dollar industries which face uncertain futures. It will impact much more than ESPN.

Now all of that said, Clay Travis has exaggerated the scale of just about everything he has ever reported. Remember NC State and Va Tech to the SEC and how the SECN was going to make 70 million or some such ridiculous number? 8% doesn't cause panic at Disney. It's who is in that 8% and the inevitability of their loss and the event horizon of it that will impact them. T - 14 years and counting. Which by the way is the same reason the ACC contract is of imminent concern, not just the gap. The point is the existing contract leaves them no chance to cash in on the 10-12 golden years of team sports revenue.

(05-23-2022 08:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think the large problem that so many of these articles on this subject have is that they’re looking solely the top line revenue decreases at ESPN and other cable networks but never acknowledge that they’re *still* extremely profitable. Even with everything that Disney owns, ESPN is still the single most profitable business in that entire company. That context can’t be emphasized enough. That alone answers Travis’ question about why Disney still holds onto ESPN. In fact, ESPN has been the biggest reason why Disney was able to get through the last 2.5 years of the pandemic ravaging pretty much every other business that it had outside of Disney+ (e.g. theme parks, movies, cruises, etc.).

Now, there can certainly be an inflection point where revenue decreases so much that it gets to the point where ESPN would outright lose money. However, even if the bottom is around 50 million subscribers (as Travis mentioned), I don’t know why Travis is critiquing a business that would still be generating $6 billion per year just on subscriber fees. Remember that sports also charge the highest ad rates out of any type of programming BY FAR, so ESPN is generating the highest ad sales in the industry on top of those subscriber fees. To put $6 billion per year in perspective, that’s still more in *only* subscriber fees every *month* than the domestic grosses of all but 16 movies in the entire history of cinema. Only one movie (the latest Spider-Man film) since the start of the pandemic has made as much as what even a 50 million subscriber base ESPN would make every single month *before* ads. We really need to understand the context of just how much money that is in order to properly compare it to anything else.

It’s not that I’m bullish on sports per se, but more that I’m bearish on the profitability of pretty much all other forms of mass market entertainment in general outside of a handful of marquee movie franchises (e.g. Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney Princesses, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park). When Travis asks why anyone would invest in sports when it doesn’t create a back catalog of programming like movies or TV shows, it’s because (1) the franchises are really what works for those types of programs, but there just aren’t that many of them and they’re expensive to do well and (2) we have no idea what TV shows that people will watch 10 years from now, but it’s still a good bet that people will still watch the NFL, NBA, MLB, college football and other major sports properties at a material level (even if it’s lower than today).

Finally, I just don’t think anyone can discount the value that sports are truly the only type of program that people watch live en masse anymore. 93 of the top 100 most watched programs last year were sporting events. Only 1 of that top 100 was a scripted TV show… and that was only because it was shown after the Super Bowl (the biggest sporting event of them all)!

So, as long as there’s an ad market where companies need to reach a large audience at the exact same time, then sports will also always have high value since it’s the only property that actually serves that market anymore.

(Note that the movie industry that Travis points to as where Disney could shift money to away from ESPN is super dependent on such live ad market. Every movie has a “time is of the essence” marketing campaign for a movie where they need to show the maximum number of ads in the last week or two before opening night. Nothing delivers that type of audience better than sports. See how the new Thor trailer is premiering tonight during the NBA Eastern Conference Finals on ESPN, which is a classic example of Disney corporate synergy.)

Exactly. Wall Street is all about growth stories---but there are a lot of very successful very large companies that are in a mature profitable stage. Those become the stodgy boring widows and retirees dividend paying companies of the future. My guess is that cable, ESPN, and streaming services will all co-exist and will all be around for a long time to come.

How much could be made by single-game PPV?

If it is around $100/ticket for elite football teams that draw 80,000 to 100,000 (plus travel, food, and hotel costs) for what amounts to an all-day event, how many potential fans are priced out (unable or unwilling to pay a few $1000 for a couple of tickets?

Could you get 400,000 to 500,000 at $10/game for PPV for home and away?

Could the future be that each school makes their revenue from their own fans, in person or streaming?

I don't mind ESPN plus (got it from the beginning because of boxing) and I still carry cable because it's still a cheaper alternative than buying a la carte. Also I love live messaging with my FB group chat or live tweeting on twitter, and nothing is worse than having a streaming service that is lagging 15-25 seconds behind cable viewers.

I'm a sports junkie, let them raise the prices, I'll still be paying.. Going down with the ship lol

(05-23-2022 06:32 PM)fsquid Wrote:  If ESPN is losing subscribers, then other cable networks are too

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

^That’s the truth^

I have Spectrum here in Louisville. All channels are streamed. ESPN, ESPN, ACC Network, SEC Network and Big Ten Networks are all on basic cable.

If you get rid of any of the above networks with Spectrum, you have to get rid of cable, streaming or otherwise.

ESPN / Disney has already started diversifying. You can get the ESPN, Disney, ESPN+ bundle on Premium Hulu at an additional cost.

Personally I would like to see universities given the opportunity to push distribution of their sports programming within their fan base as a supplement to their conference agreements. For example, for every ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN+, SEC, ACC Network bundle the school sells the university is paid a percentage.

This would be another step toward letting the fans who want college athletics to pay for it.