(10-29-2019 09:48 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 08:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 08:21 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 05:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So perhaps the reports of the death of cable have been greatly exaggerated.

Playstation Vue is going down. Plenty of rumors out there about AT&T wanting to discontinue their streaming product as well.

Cable is dying a slow death, but the way we consume content is changing. These streaming services are just like cable, bundled channels that you are forced to get so you can get the channels you actually want. Until the cable and satellite companies go "A la carte", you will see this. I want ESPN, but I don't want to get Freeform with it. Give me the channels I actually want and you will get my money.

The dilemma for any sports fan, though, is that all of the non-sports fan subscribers are subsidizing us as opposed to the other way around. You can have 20 Freeform-like channels and they won’t add up to the price of just ESPN and your regional sports network. *We* (as sports fans) are the ones that get the best deal under the cable bundle because we watch the most expensive channel by FAR (and it’s not even close). A la carte pricing would be AWFUL for sports fans.

Any sports fan? Maybe if you have broad likes and deem it must see TV. If you don’t like the NHL and EPL, no need for NBCSN and NHL Network. Don’t like the NBA, no need for NBATV or TNT. Don’t care about the SEC or ACC, no need for those networks.

Only if you love anything and everything would it be expensive, but even then, you’re getting the most bang for your buck. ESPN and other channels would have to make smarter choices with the programming fees and they would have to adjust. It’s not the consumer’s fault, ESPN decided to give big dollars to leagues so someone else couldn’t have it.

My baseline minimum requirement is that I need to have access to all of the games for all 5 Chicago sports teams plus the Illini. I’m not unusual in that regard - it’s simply access to all of my local market teams, which is the most common sports fan request. For any market with 4 pro teams, that requires ESPN, TNT, FS1, NBCSN and the applicable regional sports network at a minimum. For any P5 sports fan outside of the Big 12, that also requires at least one conference network. That’s going to add up pretty quickly for a fairly typical sports fan.

On the flip side, you have to look at the economics of the content providers. We can just do the math for ESPN alone: they’re charging over $7 per month per subscriber at around 100 million subscribers. That’s around $700 million in revenue per month simply from subscriber revenue. ESPN also gets to sell ads based on a potential 100 million viewers. Disney essentially makes the domestic gross from an Avengers or Star Wars movie every *month* from just ESPN subscriber fees and even more when including ad revenue (which is inherently high since sports networks can charge premiums as viewers generally watch sports live as opposed to via DVR).

It’s simply impossible to replicate that type of revenue in an a la carte world. Even if it could somehow recoup the subscriber revenue (such as 25 million subscribers at $30 per month), their ad revenue would be greatly reduced with fewer potential eyeballs and their marketing expenses would skyrocket (as they have to actively obtain and retain those 25 million subscribers as opposed to just passively cashing checks every month).

Don’t get me wrong: Disney has been working for years to launch Disney+ and streaming is going to be as important to that company for the foreseeable future as any of its other products and properties. However, we shouldn’t conflate with a desire to go to a la carte with its core ESPN product. Note that Disney also controls Hulu as a result of the Fox purchase, so they’re directly invested in continuing the cable bundle via streaming.