Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
Author Message
insomniaisevil Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 108
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UC and NKU
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #21
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-09-2018 07:12 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Personally, I know of two people who want to sign up but haven't because ESPN+ is not currently available for Xbox One.

Also, Bob Iger has mentioned that there might be a discounted bundle of Hulu/ESPN+/DisFlix soon after DisFlix goes live.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/08/disney...g-service/

Add me to that list. It's infuriating that it isn't on the ESPN app for Xbox.
08-09-2018 08:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-09-2018 06:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 04:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't believe that number at all.
Take 100% of the $45 million that ESPN is paying MLS (and it isn't all online, there is a game a week on ESPN or ESPN2 plus USMNT games on ESPN) take the estimated $8 million to Sun Belt (which got increased linear coverage and allocate all that to ESPN+ and then double that to guess at $106 million for all rights fees and you would need 1.7 million subscribers to cover the rights fees.

Except the reality is unless ESPN is using ESPN+ to offload rights fees from other ESPN properties or allocating all the BAM Tech acquisition to ESPN+ the real rights fees being allocated to ESPN+ are probably closer to $1 million a month and they probably need around a half million subscribers to cover all true costs at this point.

Honestly---the vast majority of ESPN-Plus content was already owned and represented current fixed costs. Yeah, they added a little content that actually cost them money---but it seems to me they have largely figured out a way to create a new revenue stream using stuff they largely already had that wasnt really bringing in any money. For instance---the MAC content---they already had that. Since no CUSA AD's are crowing about the deal, I think we can safely assume ESPN isnt paying much (if anything at all) for the leftover CUSA content they acquired. The Sunbelt content cost them a little more than before---but the price on that 7 year old deal was going to cost them more anyway. They will make more off this existing content on ESPN-Plus than they did on ESPN-3.

It may very well be if you allocated every cost in any way connected to ESPN-Plus into the ESPN+ expense bucket (all rights for anything that might ever appear on it plus the cost of BAM-tech (and other rights and technology connected with getting the ESPN+ up and running)---then yeah--it might require 7 million subscribers to break even. My guess is the idea for the time being is to just offset some costs that were going to be there anyway while testing for the best way to set up a future ESPN OTT platform.

It doesn't seem that Rich Greenfield is taking the logarithmic nature of sports rights contracts into account--most of the value of the contract is concentrated in the top tier of events. If ESPN is paying a league $50M a year, something like 50% of that value is contained in something like 10% of that content. ESPN+ is getting the rest of the content. (Numbers are made up, sorry.)
08-09-2018 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.
08-10-2018 01:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppfanInCAAland Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,539
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 112
I Root For: App State
Location: Midlothian, VA
Post: #24
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-09-2018 07:12 PM)Renandpat Wrote:  Also, Bob Iger has mentioned that there might be a discounted bundle of Hulu/ESPN+/DisFlix soon after DisFlix goes live.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/08/disney...g-service/

When this happens, for my family anyway, its bye-bye Netflix.
08-10-2018 06:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 01:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.

For the time being—it would seem to me that this would be a hidden plus for the conferences with lots of ESPN-Plus content. With no ads—-there are no TV time outs—meaning the in stadium experience will flow much more naturally and quickly than it does for any stadium with a game on linear TV. Frankly, the games should play out much quicker and the fan experience should be much improved without all the dead time. We already know that ESPN-Plus comes with the advantage of being able to set the start time for games that optimize the “in stadium” fan experience. I’m curious to see if FBS conferences with tv deals heavy on ESPN-Plus exposure don’t end up with substantial increases in ticket sales.
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2018 09:45 AM by Attackcoog.)
08-10-2018 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #26
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-09-2018 08:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It doesn't seem that Rich Greenfield is taking the logarithmic nature of sports rights contracts into account--most of the value of the contract is concentrated in the top tier of events. If ESPN is paying a league $50M a year, something like 50% of that value is contained in something like 10% of that content. ESPN+ is getting the rest of the content. (Numbers are made up, sorry.)

This is a very good point. None of this is proportional. A 2.0 rating game isn't merely worth 2 times more than a 1.0 rating game, but many multiples more than that 1.0 rating game and it increases even further as the ratings go up. There are lots of 1.0 rating shows on TV - that's basically a "replacement level" program. However, there aren't very many 6.0 rating shows on TV in this day in age by comparison, so that's why a conference like the Big Ten or SEC that has several of those massive ratings games per year in their packages get exponentially more in rights fees. Similarly, the value of the rights fees is tilted toward the most highly-rated games that would be reserved for ABC/ESPN, while the "replacement level" games are on the lower tier networks or ESPN+. So, it's would be a complete misnomer to simply divide the total rights fees that ESPN is paying for a league by the total number of games to arrive at the average cost of such games. The reality is that the top tier games are worth significantly more and those shouldn't be counted in the ESPN+ calculation.
08-10-2018 09:51 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 01:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.

For the time being—it would seem to me that this would be a hidden plus for the conferences with lots of ESPN-Plus content. With no ads—-there are no TV time outs—meaning the in stadium experience will flow much more naturally and quickly than it does for any stadium with a game on linear TV. Frankly, the games should play out much quicker and the fan experience should be much improved without all the dead time. We already know that ESPN-Plus comes with the advantage of being able to set the start time for games that optimize the “in stadium” fan experience. I’m curious to see if FBS conferences with tv deals heavy on ESPN-Plus exposure don’t end up with substantial increases in ticket sales.

You still have media timeouts. Radio still needs to make money.
08-10-2018 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 08:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It doesn't seem that Rich Greenfield is taking the logarithmic nature of sports rights contracts into account--most of the value of the contract is concentrated in the top tier of events. If ESPN is paying a league $50M a year, something like 50% of that value is contained in something like 10% of that content. ESPN+ is getting the rest of the content. (Numbers are made up, sorry.)

This is a very good point. None of this is proportional. A 2.0 rating game isn't merely worth 2 times more than a 1.0 rating game, but many multiples more than that 1.0 rating game and it increases even further as the ratings go up. There are lots of 1.0 rating shows on TV - that's basically a "replacement level" program. However, there aren't very many 6.0 rating shows on TV in this day in age by comparison, so that's why a conference like the Big Ten or SEC that has several of those massive ratings games per year in their packages get exponentially more in rights fees. Similarly, the value of the rights fees is tilted toward the most highly-rated games that would be reserved for ABC/ESPN, while the "replacement level" games are on the lower tier networks or ESPN+. So, it's would be a complete misnomer to simply divide the total rights fees that ESPN is paying for a league by the total number of games to arrive at the average cost of such games. The reality is that the top tier games are worth significantly more and those shouldn't be counted in the ESPN+ calculation.

Our picture of this is a little bit distorted, because for a generation or so a lot of leagues entered negotiations with a dual purpose--not just maximizing revenue, but increasing revenue and exposure. You want to get a truckload of money, but you also want to make sure your product is in front of lots of eyeballs. So a network like College Sports TV / CBS-SN or even NBC-SN or FoxSports1 would have to bid more than ESPN to get the same reaction from the league.

The conference crowed in its press release in the 1990s about getting $30M a year from ESPN and getting 30 games a year on ESPN, when ESPN would have paid just $20M for the best 10 games.
08-10-2018 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,240
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #29
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-09-2018 04:20 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 03:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Rich Greenfield

Verified account

@RichBTIG
Follow Follow @RichBTIG
More
"ESPN+ needs to maintain over 7 million subscribers just to break-even compared to today’s estimated 100,00 subscribers"
@ESPN $DIS

Why the G5 can't have nice things. 05-stirthepot

It'd be different if you just had to subscribe to ESPN to watch your games. Now you have to subscribe to whatever package has ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNclassic, ESPN+, ESPNU - can't even keep them straight anymore. And every time they add another ESPN channel they have many hours of airtime to fill up with so-called experts giving opinions about every little thing.
08-10-2018 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
Every network doesn't need their own streaming service.

Both Netflix and ESPN/Disney would benefit from from offering their content on Netflix's platform in exchange for a price increase. Most people are comfortable using Netflix already but when you start juggling 3-4 different apps it becomes burdensome.
08-10-2018 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 10:45 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Every network doesn't need their own streaming service.

Both Netflix and ESPN/Disney would benefit from from offering their content on Netflix's platform in exchange for a price increase. Most people are comfortable using Netflix already but when you start juggling 3-4 different apps it becomes burdensome.

Which is why consumers may eventually end up paying more for less in a Balkanized TV future where most content providers opt to cut out middle men and just sell direct to consumers on their own proprietary streaming apps.
08-10-2018 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 01:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.

For the time being—it would seem to me that this would be a hidden plus for the conferences with lots of ESPN-Plus content. With no ads—-there are no TV time outs—meaning the in stadium experience will flow much more naturally and quickly than it does for any stadium with a game on linear TV. Frankly, the games should play out much quicker and the fan experience should be much improved without all the dead time. We already know that ESPN-Plus comes with the advantage of being able to set the start time for games that optimize the “in stadium” fan experience. I’m curious to see if FBS conferences with tv deals heavy on ESPN-Plus exposure don’t end up with substantial increases in ticket sales.
Nope full media timeouts. You never know when they will randomly throw an ad in and some schools are starting to use part of the ad inventory to insert ads.
08-10-2018 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 01:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.

For the time being—it would seem to me that this would be a hidden plus for the conferences with lots of ESPN-Plus content. With no ads—-there are no TV time outs—meaning the in stadium experience will flow much more naturally and quickly than it does for any stadium with a game on linear TV. Frankly, the games should play out much quicker and the fan experience should be much improved without all the dead time. We already know that ESPN-Plus comes with the advantage of being able to set the start time for games that optimize the “in stadium” fan experience. I’m curious to see if FBS conferences with tv deals heavy on ESPN-Plus exposure don’t end up with substantial increases in ticket sales.
Nope full media timeouts. You never know when they will randomly throw an ad in and some schools are starting to use part of the ad inventory to insert ads.

Well that sucks. I had sugar plum visions of sub-3 hour games.
08-10-2018 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,356
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 10:45 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Every network doesn't need their own streaming service.

Both Netflix and ESPN/Disney would benefit from from offering their content on Netflix's platform in exchange for a price increase. Most people are comfortable using Netflix already but when you start juggling 3-4 different apps it becomes burdensome.

That would be true for a smaller media conglomerate than Disney. Disney has ESPN, Disney (Mouse), Star Wars, Marvel, ABC-TV, and now the Fox catalog. From the Disney offices, what does Netflix really have? Eleventy million subscribers--based, in part, on access to a lot of that Disney content. (Netflix also has an enormous pile of cash in the form of stock price right now.)

Frankly, I was surprised that Disney isn't making Hulu (which they'll now own 60% of) the base of their streaming empire-to-come. The fact that they didn't tells me they don't think that building a streaming service with 100 million US subscribers is that big a lift--it's not worth letting NBC (30%) and Time Warner (10%) have a piece of the pie.
08-10-2018 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 10:45 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Every network doesn't need their own streaming service.

Both Netflix and ESPN/Disney would benefit from from offering their content on Netflix's platform in exchange for a price increase. Most people are comfortable using Netflix already but when you start juggling 3-4 different apps it becomes burdensome.

That would be true for a smaller media conglomerate than Disney. Disney has ESPN, Disney (Mouse), Star Wars, Marvel, ABC-TV, and now the Fox catalog. From the Disney offices, what does Netflix really have? Eleventy million subscribers--based, in part, on access to a lot of that Disney content. (Netflix also has an enormous pile of cash in the form of stock price right now.)

Frankly, I was surprised that Disney isn't making Hulu (which they'll now own 60% of) the base of their streaming empire-to-come. The fact that they didn't tells me they don't think that building a streaming service with 100 million US subscribers is that big a lift--it's not worth letting NBC (30%) and Time Warner (10%) have a piece of the pie.

My crystal ball says that we are going to see a mad dash to be the new Netflix (didn't I read that Discovery is looking at bundling their content with content from some other small networks for a subscription service).

Disney ain't gonna lose in the streaming field because they own so much content people want.

But the CBS All Access thing is going to be the norm.

Some won't ever generate enough to make it worthwhile and some will get bought out simply because their installed base of X users getting debited every month coupled with their library will make them worth the trouble of someone else.

3-5 years from now people will complain that you have to have too many subscriptions to see everything they want.

10 years from now people will complain that three companies have bought everything interesting up and your only choice is to either pay them or figure out what you are willing to give up.

My guess is Hulu and Amazon have figured out a critical piece of the pie. The tack-on subscription but Hulu isn't going to offer ESPN+ or DisneyFlix as a tack-on because Disney would have to share.

ESPN+ is offering tack-ons for MLB and NHL but not pushing them yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't pursue similar eventually with NFL and NBA as well as with LHN, ACC and SEC.
08-10-2018 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,735
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 11:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 10:45 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Every network doesn't need their own streaming service.

Both Netflix and ESPN/Disney would benefit from from offering their content on Netflix's platform in exchange for a price increase. Most people are comfortable using Netflix already but when you start juggling 3-4 different apps it becomes burdensome.

That would be true for a smaller media conglomerate than Disney. Disney has ESPN, Disney (Mouse), Star Wars, Marvel, ABC-TV, and now the Fox catalog. From the Disney offices, what does Netflix really have? Eleventy million subscribers--based, in part, on access to a lot of that Disney content. (Netflix also has an enormous pile of cash in the form of stock price right now.)

Frankly, I was surprised that Disney isn't making Hulu (which they'll now own 60% of) the base of their streaming empire-to-come. The fact that they didn't tells me they don't think that building a streaming service with 100 million US subscribers is that big a lift--it's not worth letting NBC (30%) and Time Warner (10%) have a piece of the pie.

My crystal ball says that we are going to see a mad dash to be the new Netflix (didn't I read that Discovery is looking at bundling their content with content from some other small networks for a subscription service).

Disney ain't gonna lose in the streaming field because they own so much content people want.

But the CBS All Access thing is going to be the norm.

Some won't ever generate enough to make it worthwhile and some will get bought out simply because their installed base of X users getting debited every month coupled with their library will make them worth the trouble of someone else.

3-5 years from now people will complain that you have to have too many subscriptions to see everything they want.

10 years from now people will complain that three companies have bought everything interesting up and your only choice is to either pay them or figure out what you are willing to give up.

My guess is Hulu and Amazon have figured out a critical piece of the pie. The tack-on subscription but Hulu isn't going to offer ESPN+ or DisneyFlix as a tack-on because Disney would have to share.

ESPN+ is offering tack-ons for MLB and NHL but not pushing them yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't pursue similar eventually with NFL and NBA as well as with LHN, ACC and SEC.

Yup. Its going to be a cycle.

Cable bundles cost too much and are controlled by a jsut a few companies. Im cutting the cord!

I have too spend too much on individual streaming memberships to get all I want---and I still find myself missing stuff I want to see. I wish there was some sort of bundle where you could pay one price and get everything I want.


I like that I can finally see anything I want---but Streaming bundles cost too much and are controlled by just a few big companies. I wish I could get just buy want I want to see at a reasonable price.

Over and over again....
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2018 12:46 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-10-2018 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 11:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 11:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 01:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.

For the time being—it would seem to me that this would be a hidden plus for the conferences with lots of ESPN-Plus content. With no ads—-there are no TV time outs—meaning the in stadium experience will flow much more naturally and quickly than it does for any stadium with a game on linear TV. Frankly, the games should play out much quicker and the fan experience should be much improved without all the dead time. We already know that ESPN-Plus comes with the advantage of being able to set the start time for games that optimize the “in stadium” fan experience. I’m curious to see if FBS conferences with tv deals heavy on ESPN-Plus exposure don’t end up with substantial increases in ticket sales.
Nope full media timeouts. You never know when they will randomly throw an ad in and some schools are starting to use part of the ad inventory to insert ads.

Well that sucks. I had sugar plum visions of sub-3 hour games.

So far I've really only watched MLS games, but I've noticed that ads at halftime are pretty much non-existent.

It's soccer so you don't have ads during the game anyway.

How that ends up translating to other sports, I'm not sure, but it doesn't feel like they've made advertising a priority yet.
08-10-2018 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #38
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN+ is offering tack-ons for MLB and NHL but not pushing them yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't pursue similar eventually with NFL and NBA as well as with LHN, ACC and SEC.

Turner Sports operates NBA League Pass, and will be offering it through Turner's own new streaming sports service starting this fall. (It will still be available through the NBA's apps.)

Quote:Available to all fans via the NBA App and NBA.com, as well as B/R Live, the new NBA League Pass offering will provide fans with real-time access to live NBA action including pivotal matchups, record-setting performances and incredible comebacks. Additional details on the new product feature and pricing will be announced at a later date.

NBA League Pass, the out-of-market live game service, currently offers fans a full array of options including a traditional, comprehensive full season package, along with NBA League Pass Premium, Team Pass and Single Game.

Additionally, Turner Sports today announced its new B/R Live streaming service will distribute NBA League Pass – single games and the new offering – beginning with the 2018-19 regular season. Fans will have access to nearly 1,000 live out-of-market NBA games through Turner’s new direct-to-consumer platform.
http://www.nba.com/article/2018/03/27/nb...ext-season
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2018 01:52 PM by Wedge.)
08-10-2018 01:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #39
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 09:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(08-10-2018 01:25 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ESPN+ barely takes advantage of advertising. When their content value goes up then they'll start using ads to supplement revenue. For now, I imagine they want the service to be as hassle free as possible so that people get used to paying for it.

That and you barely see any promotion for ESPN+ at this stage. They're not really pushing it because it's more of an experiment than a cornerstone offering.

That and as others have noted, right now I'm sure they're just trying to support some of their existing contracts with minimal additional cost.

For the time being—it would seem to me that this would be a hidden plus for the conferences with lots of ESPN-Plus content. With no ads—-there are no TV time outs—meaning the in stadium experience will flow much more naturally and quickly than it does for any stadium with a game on linear TV. Frankly, the games should play out much quicker and the fan experience should be much improved without all the dead time. We already know that ESPN-Plus comes with the advantage of being able to set the start time for games that optimize the “in stadium” fan experience. I’m curious to see if FBS conferences with tv deals heavy on ESPN-Plus exposure don’t end up with substantial increases in ticket sales.

I have ESPN plus because I’m a boxing fan.
There are ads.
I repeat, there ARE ADS on Espin plus
08-10-2018 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sctvman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,097
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 46
I Root For: C of Charleston
Location: Charleston, SC
Post: #40
RE: Interesting Tweet On ESPN-Plus
(08-10-2018 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(08-09-2018 08:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It doesn't seem that Rich Greenfield is taking the logarithmic nature of sports rights contracts into account--most of the value of the contract is concentrated in the top tier of events. If ESPN is paying a league $50M a year, something like 50% of that value is contained in something like 10% of that content. ESPN+ is getting the rest of the content. (Numbers are made up, sorry.)

This is a very good point. None of this is proportional. A 2.0 rating game isn't merely worth 2 times more than a 1.0 rating game, but many multiples more than that 1.0 rating game and it increases even further as the ratings go up. There are lots of 1.0 rating shows on TV - that's basically a "replacement level" program. However, there aren't very many 6.0 rating shows on TV in this day in age by comparison, so that's why a conference like the Big Ten or SEC that has several of those massive ratings games per year in their packages get exponentially more in rights fees. Similarly, the value of the rights fees is tilted toward the most highly-rated games that would be reserved for ABC/ESPN, while the "replacement level" games are on the lower tier networks or ESPN+. So, it's would be a complete misnomer to simply divide the total rights fees that ESPN is paying for a league by the total number of games to arrive at the average cost of such games. The reality is that the top tier games are worth significantly more and those shouldn't be counted in the ESPN+ calculation.

And it is completely different between cable TV and OTA TV. Anything under a 1.0 primetime show on the Big 4 nets probably gets cancelled. A 1.0 show on CW is a good rating.

18-49 is the most important rating for these networks now, especially on cable.

The reason why Fox News shows rate so high is because they do so well with 50+ viewers (and 65+). I read where the average age of Fox News and MSNBC viewers is.... 65.

An example of this is Hannity. Last night for example, the show was 23rd rated in 18-49, but #1 in total viewers because of the 50+.

I wonder what the highest rated game so far on ESPN+ has been. Probably an MLS game or maybe a Yankees MLB exclusive.
08-10-2018 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.