Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
Author Message
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,788
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 207
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-26-2020 02:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 01:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 11:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Streaming is the future.

I’m curious as to how the Big Ten and BTN will adapt. Will the Big Ten continue on it’s own or are we likely to see Big Ten T3 content wrapped up in a Fox Sports streaming service?

To my knowledge, FOX has no comprehensive streaming product.

I think you can probably replay their shows online if you have a cable sub, but everybody does that. They have FOXSports2Go, but its content is even more limited than ESPN+ I think. I literally don't know anyone who has it and they obviously don't promote it very much.

I often wonder about the future of the FOX network. They've got some good products, but they've streamlined in a way that forgoes most of their scripted content...a traditional staple of any streaming service. They literally sold their studios to Disney. Combine that with their lack of entry into the streaming market in any serious way, and I'm really not sure what their plan is anymore.

Wouldn't be shocked to see the network get sold off to some other conglomerate.

It's difficult to sell all of "New Fox" to another conglomerate because of what those conglomerates already own. Might be easier to sell it off in pieces.

Might be able to sell off Fox Sports to a sort-of ESPN competitor, like Comcast (NBCSN) or AT&T (TBS/TNT) because the combination would still have much less content than ESPN. IMO the combination of the broadcast rights of Fox Sports and TBS/TNT would make the best competitor to ESPN, and probably the government would also let them sell the Fox broadcast network to AT&T.

I would tend to agree on your take for AT&T to be the best competitor, but they had some regulatory trouble with acquiring Time Warner recently. Makes me wonder if they would be pushing their luck trying to acquire much of anything else of consequence. The Fox broadcast network and Fox Sports properties would be ideal, but they already own CNN so I'm sure they wouldn't be interested in the news division.

There was a thought some time back that Amazon might be a buyer for the remaining Fox properties. I think that or another major tech company would be the best bet simply because it would be an opportunity to broaden their reach beyond internet-only audiences.
06-26-2020 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke4 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,824
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-26-2020 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

Its one the things UConn was reportedly up in arms about with the latest media deal. All the Big East fans on the board and the "In Your Face AAC" crowd that support other schools, were right there with them. We had people suggesting it was going to cost each AAC school $2-3M a year for production costs. Now they are saying it is the future and everyone is going there.

Figures.

Well it appears that the AAC has positioned itself to not only survive but to actually thrive in the new coming reality of sports media. Could all of those detractors have been wrong about the AAC contract,,,,,well it seems likely. Should the NBE start plotting a path back to ESPN,,,,,well it seems likely. Would ESPN be willing to over pay for their rights like FOX has done,,,,, I highly doubt it due to their underperforming tv ratings. I could very well be wrong and if I am I'm positive that the known AAC detractors will coming running to dispute my statements asap and I'll respectfully be open to it.04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2020 08:04 PM by Tigersmoke4.)
06-26-2020 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke4 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,824
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-25-2020 08:17 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  So the ACC will see an uptick when Comcast reups with Disney in 2022 and then the ACCN/ESPN "look-in" to consider moving ACCN subscriptions to streaming direct-to-consumers.

Who on this board said the ACC Network would never work?????

The ACC along with the big12 and the AAC appear to have correctly read the tea leaves on this situation. The future is coming quickly and any conference that doesn't have a working relationship with ESPN is going to be in jeopardy. 04-cheers
06-28-2020 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,415
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 941
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #24
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-26-2020 08:02 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

Its one the things UConn was reportedly up in arms about with the latest media deal. All the Big East fans on the board and the "In Your Face AAC" crowd that support other schools, were right there with them. We had people suggesting it was going to cost each AAC school $2-3M a year for production costs. Now they are saying it is the future and everyone is going there.

Figures.

Well it appears that the AAC has positioned itself to not only survive but to actually thrive in the new coming reality of sports media. Could all of those detractors have been wrong about the AAC contract,,,,,well it seems likely. Should the NBE start plotting a path back to ESPN,,,,,well it seems likely. Would ESPN be willing to over pay for their rights like FOX has done,,,,, I highly doubt it due to their underperforming tv ratings. I could very well be wrong and if I am I'm positive that the known AAC detractors will coming running to dispute my statements asap and I'll respectfully be open to it.04-cheers

Nobody I know ever said the AAC was wrong to sign with ESPN. Lots of sports entities have made money doing business with ESPN.

The problem with the new 2020 AAC deal is that it is basically a thud-dud deal given the previous six years of hype. For six years, it was explained to us that the AAC's 2012 peanut deal that "traded dollars for exposure" would pay off big-time if the football teams played well and got good ratings. A year before the deal, Aresco himself said it would be a "ballpark P5" deal or something similar.

And then the football teams played well, and got better ratings than just about anyone expected them to, and off that Aresco delivered ...... $7 million a year per school, and for 12 long years? Starting at $6m in 2020 and then creeping up to all of $8m over 12 long years, when the costs of athletics will surely be rising much faster than that over that time?

This was a deal that you or I could have signed. In fact, most posters figured on a deal of around $8m to $10m a year per team, and Aresco missed that mark.

It's not who the deal was with that was criticized, it was the dollars involved that were blah.
06-28-2020 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 707
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 22
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #25
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-28-2020 05:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody I know ever said the AAC was wrong to sign with ESPN.

UConn did. If they were happy with their contract, they probably don't leave.
06-28-2020 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tigersmoke4 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,824
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-28-2020 05:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 08:02 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

Its one the things UConn was reportedly up in arms about with the latest media deal. All the Big East fans on the board and the "In Your Face AAC" crowd that support other schools, were right there with them. We had people suggesting it was going to cost each AAC school $2-3M a year for production costs. Now they are saying it is the future and everyone is going there.

Figures.

Well it appears that the AAC has positioned itself to not only survive but to actually thrive in the new coming reality of sports media. Could all of those detractors have been wrong about the AAC contract,,,,,well it seems likely. Should the NBE start plotting a path back to ESPN,,,,,well it seems likely. Would ESPN be willing to over pay for their rights like FOX has done,,,,, I highly doubt it due to their underperforming tv ratings. I could very well be wrong and if I am I'm positive that the known AAC detractors will coming running to dispute my statements asap and I'll respectfully be open to it.04-cheers

Nobody I know ever said the AAC was wrong to sign with ESPN. Lots of sports entities have made money doing business with ESPN.

The problem with the new 2020 AAC deal is that it is basically a thud-dud deal given the previous six years of hype. For six years, it was explained to us that the AAC's 2012 peanut deal that "traded dollars for exposure" would pay off big-time if the football teams played well and got good ratings. A year before the deal, Aresco himself said it would be a "ballpark P5" deal or something similar.

And then the football teams played well, and got better ratings than just about anyone expected them to, and off that Aresco delivered ...... $7 million a year per school, and for 12 long years? Starting at $6m in 2020 and then creeping up to all of $8m over 12 long years, when the costs of athletics will surely be rising much faster than that over that time?

This was a deal that you or I could have signed. In fact, most posters figured on a deal of around $8m to $10m a year per team, and Aresco missed that mark.

It's not who the deal was with that was criticized, it was the dollars involved that were blah.

Well since you cherry picked one comment out of context,I guess you didn't understand the point was that the conferences that have a good working relationship with ESPN appear to be in a safe position as far as the very different future of sports media are concerned. 07-coffee3
06-28-2020 06:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,415
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 941
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #27
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-28-2020 05:54 PM)schmolik Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 05:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody I know ever said the AAC was wrong to sign with ESPN.

UConn did. If they were happy with their contract, they probably don't leave.

Right, but the problem wasn't "ESPN", it was the terms of the deal that bothered UConn. UConn would have felt the same about CBS, NBC, FOX or anyone else had the terms been the same.
06-28-2020 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,415
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 941
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #28
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-28-2020 06:00 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(06-28-2020 05:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 08:02 PM)Tigersmoke4 Wrote:  
(06-26-2020 01:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

Its one the things UConn was reportedly up in arms about with the latest media deal. All the Big East fans on the board and the "In Your Face AAC" crowd that support other schools, were right there with them. We had people suggesting it was going to cost each AAC school $2-3M a year for production costs. Now they are saying it is the future and everyone is going there.

Figures.

Well it appears that the AAC has positioned itself to not only survive but to actually thrive in the new coming reality of sports media. Could all of those detractors have been wrong about the AAC contract,,,,,well it seems likely. Should the NBE start plotting a path back to ESPN,,,,,well it seems likely. Would ESPN be willing to over pay for their rights like FOX has done,,,,, I highly doubt it due to their underperforming tv ratings. I could very well be wrong and if I am I'm positive that the known AAC detractors will coming running to dispute my statements asap and I'll respectfully be open to it.04-cheers

Nobody I know ever said the AAC was wrong to sign with ESPN. Lots of sports entities have made money doing business with ESPN.

The problem with the new 2020 AAC deal is that it is basically a thud-dud deal given the previous six years of hype. For six years, it was explained to us that the AAC's 2012 peanut deal that "traded dollars for exposure" would pay off big-time if the football teams played well and got good ratings. A year before the deal, Aresco himself said it would be a "ballpark P5" deal or something similar.

And then the football teams played well, and got better ratings than just about anyone expected them to, and off that Aresco delivered ...... $7 million a year per school, and for 12 long years? Starting at $6m in 2020 and then creeping up to all of $8m over 12 long years, when the costs of athletics will surely be rising much faster than that over that time?

This was a deal that you or I could have signed. In fact, most posters figured on a deal of around $8m to $10m a year per team, and Aresco missed that mark.

It's not who the deal was with that was criticized, it was the dollars involved that were blah.

Well since you cherry picked one comment out of context,I guess you didn't understand the point was that the conferences that have a good working relationship with ESPN appear to be in a safe position as far as the very different future of sports media are concerned. 07-coffee3

Safe position in what sense? Does anyone think that NBC or FOX or CBS is going away or something? Heck even if they do, value is value. If Lebron James has a deal with Nike and they go under, well Adidas will be happy to sign him. Same with sports leagues if their media partner collapses.

As for Disney, I'm a huge fan. But don't believe the positive hype any more than the negative hype. Remember just 2-3 years ago when the "smart" analysts were saying Disney and ESPN were in peril because cable was suddenly dead and they had been too slow to catch the streaming bus? Turns out they caught that bus pretty easily, right?

Same thing with the positive spin. Disney still exists in a very competitive environment. It faces a lot of threats, not just from traditional media competitors like CBS and FOX, Universal, Warner's, and Sony, but also newer entrants like Netflix, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google, some of which have greater market capitalization. I like Disney's long run prospects because of their underlying brand value, but the notion that they will be the last streamer standing is just as silly as the notion that they would be run over by the streaming express was. Take a second look at those competitors I mentioned. That's a formidable lineup of competitors.
(This post was last modified: 06-28-2020 06:17 PM by quo vadis.)
06-28-2020 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,404
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 153
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-25-2020 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

One can only hope so...

USFFan

I think the G5 would very much be a part of this. Imagine if you could buy a total college football stream in which you could watch any games live you wished to watch and watch games during the week you missed. Let's say you pay $350 for that privilege and it covered September, October, November, December and January and you paid 75 a month from September through December and 50 for January. For that you get every regular season game all conference championships, all bowls and the Playoffs. If you have a basic TV package to stream and Hulu and the ESPN/Disney+ you would be paying about $130 for four months and about 110 for January and the total cost is still cheaper than an average P5 season ticket book. You don't like hoops and baseball so the rest of the year you pay $55 a month for TV. Or even if you like hoops you get basketball season for $20 bucks a month. Maybe 10 bucks for baseball season per month and they toss in softball as well. That's still a great deal.

Only now there is no middle man (cable network) so ad revenue is split between ESPN and the conference and the revenue from the games themselves are as well.

Let's say the average P5 prime time game can draw 5 million viewers. If those are single time viewers they pay 10 bucks for the game. If they are package buyers they are buying their conference for 30 bucks a month or buying the P5 bundle for 50 which pays 15 bucks a month to their conference (half of the 30) and pays the other 4 conferences an additional $2.50 per subscription. So each P5 gets $15 bucks a month for their own subscribers and $2.50 from every other conference fan who subscribes to the bundle.. Now figure the G5 at the total bundle level of $75 per month where they are getting $15 per month for their subscribers and $2.50 from all of the other G5 and P5 subscribers who buy the total college football package.

Now add 50% of the advertising value for all games watched live or recorded.

It would kill the current deals. The SECN had 70 million subscribers when it opened. 70 million x 15 x 4 = 4.2 billion for the regular season and December bowls and that's just their half and doesn't include the numbers x 2.50 for other conference's bundle buyers. That's 280 million per SEC school including the Conference share for the 14 current schools. Adding schools adds audience. And remember that doesn't include New Year's day bowls or the CFP.

The difference here is that you aren't permitting the Cable Channel to take its cut too.

This has, if shared as a partnership with say ESPN, the potential to more than cover all costs of stipends and image rights and insurance for the players and still leave the schools a tidy sum to be reinvested in the non revenue sports. And all by cutting out the middle man and charging a rate less than 1 season ticket book for the whole shebang.

Now think about it that way and we should not only let cable die, but should put it out of it's misery.

And what's more is the money sports stand on their own and the schools can offer streams of all sports as part of the Conference, P5, or Total College Sports Bundle. All they need do is to provide the stream which most are set up to do, and use their own local announcers for the feed.

And that total revenue I covered above was just for football. Remember you buy basketball separately and baseball as well. I do think however to go this route Basketball needs to start after January 15th if it seeks to make the most it can make. Baseball/Softball wouldn't cost you that much but they would be great Summertime filler.

$350 seems extremely high - you basically already get all of this with traditional cable for about $65 a month (plus obviously every other channel)
06-29-2020 06:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,591
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2533
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-29-2020 06:58 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 10:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  
(06-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

One can only hope so...

USFFan

I think the G5 would very much be a part of this. Imagine if you could buy a total college football stream in which you could watch any games live you wished to watch and watch games during the week you missed. Let's say you pay $350 for that privilege and it covered September, October, November, December and January and you paid 75 a month from September through December and 50 for January. For that you get every regular season game all conference championships, all bowls and the Playoffs. If you have a basic TV package to stream and Hulu and the ESPN/Disney+ you would be paying about $130 for four months and about 110 for January and the total cost is still cheaper than an average P5 season ticket book. You don't like hoops and baseball so the rest of the year you pay $55 a month for TV. Or even if you like hoops you get basketball season for $20 bucks a month. Maybe 10 bucks for baseball season per month and they toss in softball as well. That's still a great deal.

Only now there is no middle man (cable network) so ad revenue is split between ESPN and the conference and the revenue from the games themselves are as well.

Let's say the average P5 prime time game can draw 5 million viewers. If those are single time viewers they pay 10 bucks for the game. If they are package buyers they are buying their conference for 30 bucks a month or buying the P5 bundle for 50 which pays 15 bucks a month to their conference (half of the 30) and pays the other 4 conferences an additional $2.50 per subscription. So each P5 gets $15 bucks a month for their own subscribers and $2.50 from every other conference fan who subscribes to the bundle.. Now figure the G5 at the total bundle level of $75 per month where they are getting $15 per month for their subscribers and $2.50 from all of the other G5 and P5 subscribers who buy the total college football package.

Now add 50% of the advertising value for all games watched live or recorded.

It would kill the current deals. The SECN had 70 million subscribers when it opened. 70 million x 15 x 4 = 4.2 billion for the regular season and December bowls and that's just their half and doesn't include the numbers x 2.50 for other conference's bundle buyers. That's 280 million per SEC school including the Conference share for the 14 current schools. Adding schools adds audience. And remember that doesn't include New Year's day bowls or the CFP.

The difference here is that you aren't permitting the Cable Channel to take its cut too.

This has, if shared as a partnership with say ESPN, the potential to more than cover all costs of stipends and image rights and insurance for the players and still leave the schools a tidy sum to be reinvested in the non revenue sports. And all by cutting out the middle man and charging a rate less than 1 season ticket book for the whole shebang.

Now think about it that way and we should not only let cable die, but should put it out of it's misery.

And what's more is the money sports stand on their own and the schools can offer streams of all sports as part of the Conference, P5, or Total College Sports Bundle. All they need do is to provide the stream which most are set up to do, and use their own local announcers for the feed.

And that total revenue I covered above was just for football. Remember you buy basketball separately and baseball as well. I do think however to go this route Basketball needs to start after January 15th if it seeks to make the most it can make. Baseball/Softball wouldn't cost you that much but they would be great Summertime filler.

$350 seems extremely high - you basically already get all of this with traditional cable for about $65 a month (plus obviously every other channel)

$65 a month with a 1 year contract. If you want the upper tier to get all of the college sports channels it is more. The $350 is for 5 months so 70 bucks for 5 months and you get it all. The 10 conferences of the FBS but you are still essentially buying your conference for ~250 and getting the rest for the other 100. And for that you can watch any game you wish live and watch all of the games recorded if you wish.

It's specific and it makes you much more money because you are getting a flat rate for each bundle subscription beyond the base cost of your own conference. So it multiplies the number of people you collect revenue from without damaging your base revenue.
06-29-2020 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,404
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 153
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  $65 a month with a 1 year contract. If you want the upper tier to get all of the college sports channels it is more. The $350 is for 5 months so 70 bucks for 5 months and you get it all. The 10 conferences of the FBS but you are still essentially buying your conference for ~250 and getting the rest for the other 100. And for that you can watch any game you wish live and watch all of the games recorded if you wish.

It's specific and it makes you much more money because you are getting a flat rate for each bundle subscription beyond the base cost of your own conference. So it multiplies the number of people you collect revenue from without damaging your base revenue.

I get that, but I think they'll have a hard time marketing it - there are several streaming options already that include ESPN (like Playstation TV or Hulu) that are month to month as it is. I pay $65/mo for a whole year because I choose to, but if I wanted I could easily just do September - November and then cancel. The basic package doesn't get my everything but you still have tons and tons of options.
06-29-2020 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,591
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2533
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-29-2020 01:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  $65 a month with a 1 year contract. If you want the upper tier to get all of the college sports channels it is more. The $350 is for 5 months so 70 bucks for 5 months and you get it all. The 10 conferences of the FBS but you are still essentially buying your conference for ~250 and getting the rest for the other 100. And for that you can watch any game you wish live and watch all of the games recorded if you wish.

It's specific and it makes you much more money because you are getting a flat rate for each bundle subscription beyond the base cost of your own conference. So it multiplies the number of people you collect revenue from without damaging your base revenue.

I get that, but I think they'll have a hard time marketing it - there are several streaming options already that include ESPN (like Playstation TV or Hulu) that are month to month as it is. I pay $65/mo for a whole year because I choose to, but if I wanted I could easily just do September - November and then cancel. The basic package doesn't get my everything but you still have tons and tons of options.

You are missing he concept. And to get college football you pay in Sept through January. And yes you could drop at that point if you don't want basketball. So for 5 dollars a month more you don't just get the ACCN, BTN, SECN, PACN & LHN but rather you get the live stream or recorded stream to every game played in each of those conferences whether they are on a network or not. It is the future And quite frankly if conferences want to truly cash in they would handle it themselves without ESPN or some other streaming service. And if they pooled their resources it wouldn't even have too tremendous of an initial overhead. They already have campus production facilities and their local announcers. And if they did that not only would they split 100% of the profits, but they would have all of the advertising revenue as well without the annoyance of ESPN/FOX/CBS announcers. At that point it would quite literally be a 7 to 8 billion dollar industry per year.
06-29-2020 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,404
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 153
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-29-2020 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 01:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  $65 a month with a 1 year contract. If you want the upper tier to get all of the college sports channels it is more. The $350 is for 5 months so 70 bucks for 5 months and you get it all. The 10 conferences of the FBS but you are still essentially buying your conference for ~250 and getting the rest for the other 100. And for that you can watch any game you wish live and watch all of the games recorded if you wish.

It's specific and it makes you much more money because you are getting a flat rate for each bundle subscription beyond the base cost of your own conference. So it multiplies the number of people you collect revenue from without damaging your base revenue.

I get that, but I think they'll have a hard time marketing it - there are several streaming options already that include ESPN (like Playstation TV or Hulu) that are month to month as it is. I pay $65/mo for a whole year because I choose to, but if I wanted I could easily just do September - November and then cancel. The basic package doesn't get my everything but you still have tons and tons of options.

You are missing he concept. And to get college football you pay in Sept through January. And yes you could drop at that point if you don't want basketball. So for 5 dollars a month more you don't just get the ACCN, BTN, SECN, PACN & LHN but rather you get the live stream or recorded stream to every game played in each of those conferences whether they are on a network or not. It is the future And quite frankly if conferences want to truly cash in they would handle it themselves without ESPN or some other streaming service. And if they pooled their resources it wouldn't even have too tremendous of an initial overhead. They already have campus production facilities and their local announcers. And if they did that not only would they split 100% of the profits, but they would have all of the advertising revenue as well without the annoyance of ESPN/FOX/CBS announcers. At that point it would quite literally be a 7 to 8 billion dollar industry per year.

But how many people are going to do it though? I know I wouldn't. I'd just keep paying for a version of what I get know and I think most people would do the same. Even Sunday ticket is less than $300 and that is with many games nationwide that are unavailable. But with football 95% of the games you want to watch are available with a normal TV package.

I'm sure there are some people that hate TV or are degenerate gamblers that would go for it but I don't think there's a huge push for that.
06-30-2020 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,788
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 207
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
(06-30-2020 12:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 01:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(06-29-2020 11:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  $65 a month with a 1 year contract. If you want the upper tier to get all of the college sports channels it is more. The $350 is for 5 months so 70 bucks for 5 months and you get it all. The 10 conferences of the FBS but you are still essentially buying your conference for ~250 and getting the rest for the other 100. And for that you can watch any game you wish live and watch all of the games recorded if you wish.

It's specific and it makes you much more money because you are getting a flat rate for each bundle subscription beyond the base cost of your own conference. So it multiplies the number of people you collect revenue from without damaging your base revenue.

I get that, but I think they'll have a hard time marketing it - there are several streaming options already that include ESPN (like Playstation TV or Hulu) that are month to month as it is. I pay $65/mo for a whole year because I choose to, but if I wanted I could easily just do September - November and then cancel. The basic package doesn't get my everything but you still have tons and tons of options.

You are missing he concept. And to get college football you pay in Sept through January. And yes you could drop at that point if you don't want basketball. So for 5 dollars a month more you don't just get the ACCN, BTN, SECN, PACN & LHN but rather you get the live stream or recorded stream to every game played in each of those conferences whether they are on a network or not. It is the future And quite frankly if conferences want to truly cash in they would handle it themselves without ESPN or some other streaming service. And if they pooled their resources it wouldn't even have too tremendous of an initial overhead. They already have campus production facilities and their local announcers. And if they did that not only would they split 100% of the profits, but they would have all of the advertising revenue as well without the annoyance of ESPN/FOX/CBS announcers. At that point it would quite literally be a 7 to 8 billion dollar industry per year.

But how many people are going to do it though? I know I wouldn't. I'd just keep paying for a version of what I get know and I think most people would do the same. Even Sunday ticket is less than $300 and that is with many games nationwide that are unavailable. But with football 95% of the games you want to watch are available with a normal TV package.

I'm sure there are some people that hate TV or are degenerate gamblers that would go for it but I don't think there's a huge push for that.

That assumes the slate of games would be available through other means.

It depends on how the technology shakes out, but the proposal would be that most if not all these games would be on a streaming service.

Now obviously, that transition won't happen immediately, but the value will be in exclusive content rather than simulcasting.
06-30-2020 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,722
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 223
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Disney And ESPN “Uniquely Positioned” To Move Sports Fully Into Streaming – Analyst
The stronger ESPN's position, the more it encourages Fox, CBS and NBC to work together on a sports streaming platform.

Of course, consideration by all parties of the checkered history of Hulu might put the brakes on that ... but in the often exponential distributions of audiences in streaming platforms, if there's anything you want to avoid more than ending up second in a genre it is ending up third or fourth in a genre. So the lovely perfume of expected future revenues might lead them to overlook the battles of the past and hammer out a workable platform.
06-30-2020 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.