(10-17-2020 12:53 PM)46566 Wrote:  I have a question how much overlap is there with people who have both Hulu and ESPN+?

I imagine quite a few, as they are both part of the $12.99 "Disney Bundle".

That's how I have both. You can also get the regular ESPN channels on Hulu via the "Hulu Live" subscription, which basically bundles Hulu with a bunch of cable channels for $55, similar to Youtube TV.

Hate the Mouse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-15-2020 06:31 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 05:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This doesn't make much sense to me. Far more important than the method of delivery is the ownership of valuable intellectual property, and ESPN owns a ton of valuable sports property. Plus, ESPN has proven to be a very adapt streaming platform. ESPN+ has done very well and can easily handle all of the current properties.

The only way this would make sense is if Disney just transferred all the ESPN sports properties to ABC, and then jettisoned the ESPN shell. Even then, the ESPN brand name has value.

ESPN is a money loser. It was profitable when it was bundled with basic cable packages and essentially subsidized by by
Cable owners. Cord cutting has really hurt that business model.

I am watching the Troy/EKU game on my phone...on ESPN app....so...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-15-2020 10:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 07:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 05:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's not a bad idea.

The combination made sense back when Disney needed sports content to put on ABC. ESPN on ABC was a textbook example of synergies.

But where are the synergies going forward? How do ESPN and Disney benefit each other in a world where the majority of revenue comes from streaming?

I think the synergy is still there because Hulu Live is a pillar of Disney’s strategy... and that platform is most highly dependent on live sports above all else.

The delivery method might be changing (cable to streaming), but it’s still substantively the same content. Sports are truly the only programming that’s worth anything for live TV outside of some awards shows and reality TV (AKA where people still watch commercials). Everything else can be time-shifted.

The vast majority of the people still get their TV from cable or OTA networks. The multi tiered ESPN Cable+ABC+ESPNPlus model will be the transitional model for some time. Frankly, Im not one who believes cable is going anywhere. Currently, the existing "cable bundle", though not what it used to be, still spins off so much revenue cable has not changed its model much at all. Until you regularly see skinny bundles, a-la-carte, and "pick your favorite 20" type deals---then cable hasnt even begun to really fight back against cord cutting in any serious way. Once cable does begin to fight back---that price difference will largely disappear. Heck, now that the streaming aggregators are being picked of much of their prime content by all the newer stand alone streaming platforms developed by major content originators---the price difference between cable and streaming is already approaching zero depending on your programming preferences/demands.

Agree AC. The streaming with Hulu, Youtube TV, ATT and others will require live sports. Actually streaming services are getting as expensive as cable. I remember when youtube tv started at 35 now it is over 60.

(10-16-2020 04:39 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 04:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 08:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-16-2020 08:16 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Given immediate financial problems at Disney, I could see this being in the cards. It is extremely profitable, but maybe not as core as it used to be. Meanwhile you have a company which just completed a string of buyouts, launched a major streaming service at great cost, and then all of a sudden shut down its parks (and attendance isn't back even where open), stop putting out movies to theaters, and is unsure what the future holds. It might make some sense to sell off ESPN now to get an immediate influx of cash and focus on your other areas.

That analysis implies the existence of other firms that are not struggling as much as Disney is. But except for the pure-tech companies, like Apple and Google or Microsoft that conduct most of their business online, there really are no such companies, everyone is suffering over covid.

It would be a very short-sighted move, IMO.

Your point is taken, but a large tech company could actually be the perfect buyer. They would have the capital and the knowhow to maximize ESPN's value into the next generation.

Not that I expect that to happen...I don't think Disney will sell ESPN, but the tech company that lands ESPN is in a really good position competitively.

I don't see ESPN as being attractive to a tech company. ESPN's primarily business is as the owner of cable channels, a declining industry. If a tech company wants to own sports rights, it can bid for them. It wouldn't need to overpay for ESPN to get those rights, all of which expire at some point.

I would see a more likely potential acquirer to be a financial buyer, possibly a hedge fund or privately held company, that would use a highly leveraged capital structure to buy the company. The use of debt would allow it to lever up its equity return. This has been used in other declining industries.

Interestingly, this appears to be the exact strategy that Sinclair used to purchase the former Fox RSNs from Disney. It used debt to fund $8 billion of the $9.6 billion purchase price. https://www.nexttv.com/blogs/sinclair-rs...everything

Disney needs content for its streaming service. Selling ESPN would ring in cash but would eliminate a tremendous content source. Live events are critical to survival of these platforms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk