Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
Author Message
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #21
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-23-2022 11:07 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  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?

It's a LOT less money. That's basically turning back the clock to 1980 with PPV.

The entire name of the game is recurring revenue, whether it's monthly cable subscriber fees and/or streaming subscriber fees. The last thing that any of these entities want is uneven game-by-game revenue that can change drastically week-to-week.

At the same time, the whole reason why sports have such high value compared to other TV programs is that they're truly the only type of program that people watch live anymore en masse. As a result, the highest and best use for a sports program is to provide it to a wide audience and maximize ad revenue. PPV severely limits any real ad revenue value.

Therefore, absolutely no one wants anything to do with PPV except as a complete and total last resort without any other option.
05-24-2022 11:14 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #22
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-23-2022 11:07 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  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?

It's a LOT less money. That's basically turning back the clock to 1980 with PPV.

The entire name of the game is recurring revenue, whether it's monthly cable subscriber fees and/or streaming subscriber fees. The last thing that any of these entities want is uneven game-by-game revenue that can change drastically week-to-week.

At the same time, the whole reason why sports have such high value compared to other TV programs is that they're truly the only type of program that people watch live anymore en masse. As a result, the highest and best use for a sports program is to provide it to a wide audience and maximize ad revenue. PPV severely limits any real ad revenue value.

Therefore, absolutely no one wants anything to do with PPV except as a complete and total last resort without any other option.

Yes, for example, as recently as 2013, LSU had an in-house PPV service called "TigerVision" which broadcast games that were not covered by the conference contract. There were typically one or two football games a year on this service, which cost $35 per game.

LSU was happy to dump that for the deal that moved such content to the SEC Network. They have zero interest in going back to that.
05-24-2022 11:21 AM
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: #23
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 11:05 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN / Disney has already started diversifying. You can get the ESPN, Disney, ESPN+ bundle on Premium Hulu at an additional cost.

Subscribers to "Hulu + Live TV", Hulu's streaming TV competitor to YouTube TV, get the "Disney Bundle" including ESPN+ at no additional cost. https://www.hulu.com/Live-tv
05-24-2022 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,652
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 422
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #24
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-23-2022 08:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(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.


Makes it more likely, but those aren't moving from OTA (in most cases) or main line cable, since they need the casual fan to build the audience.
05-24-2022 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #25
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 11:44 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(05-23-2022 08:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(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.


Makes it more likely, but those aren't moving from OTA (in most cases) or main line cable, since they need the casual fan to build the audience.

Yes, those high profile games are what have such high value to a linear OTA or cable network compared to streaming as of now.

It will be interesting to see the streaming numbers for Amazon's NFL Thursday Night package later this year. That will provide some more insight about what the ceiling is for streaming higher profile sporting events.

The thing is that it's pretty clear that streaming is superior to linear TV for (a) non-live TV shows and movies on-demand and (b) access to more niche audience programs (which could include niche sports fan audiences). I'm at the point where I don't think I've watched anything other than sporting events or news programs live in the past couple of years. Everything else that I watch is on-demand.

In contrast, linear TV *is* still good at one thing: showing a specific program across a wide audience at a specific time... which is exactly what a sporting event entails. There's really no advantage to moving a high profile sporting event to streaming in terms of the platform itself (and if anything, it's a disadvantage compared to linear TV). The advantages of streaming for sports are more for the non-high profile sporting events with niche audiences that otherwise wouldn't be shown anywhere else.
(This post was last modified: 05-24-2022 12:05 PM by Frank the Tank.)
05-24-2022 12:02 PM
Visit this user's website 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: #26
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It will be interesting to see the streaming numbers for Amazon's NFL Thursday Night package later this year. That will provide some more insight about what the ceiling is for streaming higher profile sporting events.

No doubt they will brag about it if the audience size is large -- but Amazon won't measure success of their NFL package by audience size. They'll measure success by the number of new subscribers to Prime and also by whether the retention rate of current subscribers increases.
05-24-2022 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #27
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 12:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It will be interesting to see the streaming numbers for Amazon's NFL Thursday Night package later this year. That will provide some more insight about what the ceiling is for streaming higher profile sporting events.

No doubt they will brag about it if the audience size is large -- but Amazon won't measure success of their NFL package by audience size. They'll measure success by the number of new subscribers to Prime and also by whether the retention rate of current subscribers increases.

Yes and I think it's even beyond that since Amazon is really using streaming as a side benefit to getting subscribers to order more products through Prime. They have a totally different business model for streaming compared to Netflix or Disney. Apple is sort of in the same category as Amazon - it's really about pushing their core products more than the streaming product itself. This makes Apple and Amazon particularly dangerous to other streamers since they (a) have so much cash to spend on programming if they really want to expand streaming and (b) aren't having to bet their entire businesses on streaming in the same way as the traditional media companies.
05-24-2022 12:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,652
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 559
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #28
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There's really no advantage to moving a high profile sporting event to streaming in terms of the platform itself (and if anything, it's a disadvantage compared to linear TV). The advantages of streaming for sports are more for the non-high profile sporting events with niche audiences that otherwise wouldn't be shown anywhere else.

There is one advantage. And I don't know if it balances out the loss of cable subscriber revenue.

Even if Frank and I and my next-door-neighbor and his neighbor are streaming the same Thursday night NFL game on Amazon Prime, Frank and I are seeing completely different ad streams, based on our Amazon purchase histories.

I *think* that's the pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow for Amazon.

Remember the South Park Underwear Gnomes?
STep 1, collect underpants, Step 2, Shrug, Step 3: Profit?

Step 1 is collecting sports rights.
Step 2 is selling advertising at a much higher cost-per-eyeball because it's un-skip-able live TV and it's highly targeted.
Step 3. Profit.
05-24-2022 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #29
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 12:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 12:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There's really no advantage to moving a high profile sporting event to streaming in terms of the platform itself (and if anything, it's a disadvantage compared to linear TV). The advantages of streaming for sports are more for the non-high profile sporting events with niche audiences that otherwise wouldn't be shown anywhere else.

There is one advantage. And I don't know if it balances out the loss of cable subscriber revenue.

Even if Frank and I and my next-door-neighbor and his neighbor are streaming the same Thursday night NFL game on Amazon Prime, Frank and I are seeing completely different ad streams, based on our Amazon purchase histories.

I *think* that's the pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow for Amazon.

Remember the South Park Underwear Gnomes?
STep 1, collect underpants, Step 2, Shrug, Step 3: Profit?

Step 1 is collecting sports rights.
Step 2 is selling advertising at a much higher cost-per-eyeball because it's un-skip-able live TV and it's highly targeted.
Step 3. Profit.

That's a good point, although I've seen some discussions about the goals of certain ads, particularly where it's about brand awareness (e.g. the typical Nike ad) as opposed to a targeted search (e.g. "I'm searching the Internet to buy a new pair of shoes"). The big question is how much brand awareness ads matter going forward as that's really what linear TV is depending upon here.

Targeted ads are generally more backwards-looking: they're based on your search history and various algorithms on other data that firms have about you. That's why as soon as I search for a pair of new shoes, pretty much every site that I go to has a shoe ad pop up for the next few days.

Brand awareness ads are more forward-looking: they want to place a seed in your head that *when* you want to buy a certain product in the future, then you'll think of that particular brand and be more likely to buy that brand. It's the subconscious prompt in my brain that when I search for a new pair of shoes, I will search specifically for a new pair of *Nike* shoes (not just any type of shoes).

A marketer would likely state that you need both types of ads for anything that isn't simply a commodity.

Now, you could argue that a streamer could potentially offer both targeted ads and brand awareness ads, whereas a linear provider might have only the ability to offer brand awareness ads. Hulu Live clearly has some targeted ads when watching live channels on their streaming service, although they've generally more along of the lines of local commercial spots as opposed to true micro-targeted ads.
05-24-2022 12:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
whittx Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,777
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 60
I Root For: FSU, Bport,Corn
Location:
Post: #30
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-23-2022 11:07 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  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?

It's a LOT less money. That's basically turning back the clock to 1980 with PPV.

The entire name of the game is recurring revenue, whether it's monthly cable subscriber fees and/or streaming subscriber fees. The last thing that any of these entities want is uneven game-by-game revenue that can change drastically week-to-week.

At the same time, the whole reason why sports have such high value compared to other TV programs is that they're truly the only type of program that people watch live anymore en masse. As a result, the highest and best use for a sports program is to provide it to a wide audience and maximize ad revenue. PPV severely limits any real ad revenue value.

Therefore, absolutely no one wants anything to do with PPV except as a complete and total last resort without any other option.

Yes, for example, as recently as 2013, LSU had an in-house PPV service called "TigerVision" which broadcast games that were not covered by the conference contract. There were typically one or two football games a year on this service, which cost $35 per game.

LSU was happy to dump that for the deal that moved such content to the SEC Network. They have zero interest in going back to that.

FSU had something similar that was typically used for the FCS game. Other than bars, I can't imagine folks paid for it.
05-24-2022 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 13,457
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Fairdale, KY
Post: #31
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 11:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 11:05 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  ESPN / Disney has already started diversifying. You can get the ESPN, Disney, ESPN+ bundle on Premium Hulu at an additional cost.

Subscribers to "Hulu + Live TV", Hulu's streaming TV competitor to YouTube TV, get the "Disney Bundle" including ESPN+ at no additional cost. https://www.hulu.com/Live-tv

That’s what I meant about Premium. I don’t have the +Live TV
05-24-2022 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 13,457
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Fairdale, KY
Post: #32
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
I read recently you have to pay an additional fee at Disney if you want to use the Express Lane.

Why couldn’t Disney / ESPN charge an additional fee for viewing certain live sporting events. CFP and Championship, Last game of the Stanley Cup. NFL playoffs, Conference Championship games…

With the fee you get to watch coverage live. Without it you have to wait for tape delay.

An additional fee for certain live sports could be another revenue stream for Disney/ ESPN.
05-24-2022 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #33
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 07:04 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I read recently you have to pay an additional fee at Disney if you want to use the Express Lane.

Why couldn’t Disney / ESPN charge an additional fee for viewing certain live sporting events. CFP and Championship, Last game of the Stanley Cup. NFL playoffs, Conference Championship games…

With the fee you get to watch coverage live. Without it you have to wait for tape delay.

An additional fee for certain live sports could be another revenue stream for Disney/ ESPN.

As someone that experienced a giant sucking sound from my wallet for those Lightning Lane passes at Disney World a couple of months ago, don’t give them any ideas!
05-24-2022 11:20 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,652
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 559
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #34
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 07:04 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I read recently you have to pay an additional fee at Disney if you want to use the Express Lane.

Why couldn’t Disney / ESPN charge an additional fee for viewing certain live sporting events. CFP and Championship, Last game of the Stanley Cup. NFL playoffs, Conference Championship games…

With the fee you get to watch coverage live. Without it you have to wait for tape delay.

An additional fee for certain live sports could be another revenue stream for Disney/ ESPN.
so, you're putting the games on pay per view.
(next to nobody is going to watch on tape delay.)
that shrinks your business long term, the leagues would hate it.

and in tge short term, the cable providers would throw a fit--part og the contract for ESPN to cost $10 a month per subscriber is to carry those events on ESPN live.
05-25-2022 04:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 13,457
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Fairdale, KY
Post: #35
ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-25-2022 04:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 07:04 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I read recently you have to pay an additional fee at Disney if you want to use the Express Lane.

Why couldn’t Disney / ESPN charge an additional fee for viewing certain live sporting events. CFP and Championship, Last game of the Stanley Cup. NFL playoffs, Conference Championship games…

With the fee you get to watch coverage live. Without it you have to wait for tape delay.

An additional fee for certain live sports could be another revenue stream for Disney/ ESPN.
so, you're putting the games on pay per view.
(next to nobody is going to watch on tape delay.)
that shrinks your business long term, the leagues would hate it.

and in tge short term, the cable providers would throw a fit--part og the contract for ESPN to cost $10 a month per subscriber is to carry those events on ESPN live.

Costs are rising everywhere as we near double digit inflation. Why should college athletics be any different? I would pay another $10 a month to see ACC and SEC games live. It’s going to happen. It has to with costs rising so rapidly. While you are right cable providers would be upset they will be more upset when thousands keep dropping their services.

Over time ESPN is going to start going around cable companies directly to consumers in order to maximize profits. Costs will force them too.

At its peak Netflix had 222 million subscribers. ESPN has 150 million viewers per month. There is too much potential for ESPN to not cut out the cable providers. ESPN and its family of networks will become a streaming app. No different from Hulu, Paramount, or Netflix. Every home that wants to watch sports will have the app.

It’s worth another $120 a year for me to enjoy quality live football, baseball, basketball, soccer and volleyball.
05-25-2022 05:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 13,457
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 1973
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Fairdale, KY
Post: #36
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-24-2022 11:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 07:04 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I read recently you have to pay an additional fee at Disney if you want to use the Express Lane.

Why couldn’t Disney / ESPN charge an additional fee for viewing certain live sporting events. CFP and Championship, Last game of the Stanley Cup. NFL playoffs, Conference Championship games…

With the fee you get to watch coverage live. Without it you have to wait for tape delay.

An additional fee for certain live sports could be another revenue stream for Disney/ ESPN.

As someone that experienced a giant sucking sound from my wallet for those Lightning Lane passes at Disney World a couple of months ago, don’t give them any ideas!

They are about to price themselves out of the reach of many middle class families. I went in ‘89 with my daughters and in ‘96 with sons. I didn’t see much difference except you could no longer buy or sell unused park days.

In 2017 I took my 4 granddaughters.

Planning the trip we experienced sticker shock with the prices. The operation of the park has changed so much it felt almost like work to visit the park.

If you don’t want to pay for lightning lane passes, take an elderly person with you. My Mother in law who was 75 at the time needed a wheelchair because of all the walking. When we went to a ride they moved us to the front of the line.

My granddaughters called it “The Grandma Fast Pass”
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2022 07:16 AM by CardinalJim.)
05-25-2022 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,987
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
Post: #37
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
Ok so ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021, but how many streaming subscribers did ESPN gain. For example my house cut the cord, but we subscribe to Direct TV Stream to get ESPN/Fox/RSN/CBSN networks. I wonder how many cord cutters subscribe to streaming spoting content. My guess is alot.

By cutting the cord I only pay $150 for internet and Streaming Services and my sons who attend college can also watch Direct TV stream with no increase cost. If I pay for cable or satellite I would spend over $200 per month for my house and then have to pay for cable at both universities. I believe streaming saves families money.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2022 07:39 AM by GTFletch.)
05-25-2022 07:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,652
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 559
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #38
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-25-2022 05:58 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  
(05-25-2022 04:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-24-2022 07:04 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I read recently you have to pay an additional fee at Disney if you want to use the Express Lane.

Why couldn’t Disney / ESPN charge an additional fee for viewing certain live sporting events. CFP and Championship, Last game of the Stanley Cup. NFL playoffs, Conference Championship games…

With the fee you get to watch coverage live. Without it you have to wait for tape delay.

An additional fee for certain live sports could be another revenue stream for Disney/ ESPN.
so, you're putting the games on pay per view.
(next to nobody is going to watch on tape delay.)
that shrinks your business long term, the leagues would hate it.

and in tge short term, the cable providers would throw a fit--part og the contract for ESPN to cost $10 a month per subscriber is to carry those events on ESPN live.

Costs are rising everywhere as we near double digit inflation. Why should college athletics be any different? I would pay another $10 a month to see ACC and SEC games live.

$10 a month lol. Try $10 a game, to make the numbers work.

Quote:It’s going to happen. It has to with costs rising so rapidly. While you are right cable providers would be upset they will be more upset when thousands keep dropping their services.

More people will drop the service if it doesn't include good content.

Quote:Over time ESPN is going to start going around cable companies directly to consumers in order to maximize profits. Costs will force them too.

At its peak Netflix had 222 million subscribers. ESPN has 150 million viewers per month. There is too much potential for ESPN to not cut out the cable providers. ESPN and its family of networks will become a streaming app. No different from Hulu, Paramount, or Netflix. Every home that wants to watch sports will have the app.

Except that ESPN *already* gets $10 a month from each of it's 75 million subscribers, including the little old ladies who mostly watch the HAllmark Channel, the Fox News obsessive who doesn't really care about sports, the family with kids who mostly watch the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon (I don't know if that segment still exists, that market is all Disney+ now).

The company that's road-testing this premise *right now* is Sinclair, through Diamond Sports Group (Bally's Sports Networks). They're launching a streaming service that carried their RSNs. The price? About $20 a month. For the ordinary local MLB, NBA, NHL in-market games. Not the playoffs, all-star game, national TV games etc.

And they're probably going to go broke because not enough people will buy it at that price.

You want the ESPN you get now as a streaming app, without the cable bundle? For $10 a month? LOL. I repeat, LOL.

You're looking at something more like NFL Sunday Ticket, which is $300 a year, which is around $50 a month. That;s the price point for the least attractive games, what's left over after your local Fox and CBS station and national Fox and CBS and NBC and ESPN and Amazon Thursday Night Football pick their games.

If you had to have Sunday Ticket to watch the Cowboys and Packers and Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes? $100 a month maybe?

Quote:It’s worth another $120 a year for me to enjoy quality live football, baseball, basketball, soccer and volleyball.

That's nice. how do you feel about $100 a month?

Pro wrestling used to run on monthly pay-per-views, $30 then $40 a month. Like you said, inflation. So how do you feel about $100 a month? Maybe $200 a month, because as big as Wrestlemania is, it ain't the Superbowl.
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2022 08:02 AM by johnbragg.)
05-25-2022 07:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,652
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 559
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #39
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-25-2022 07:37 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  Ok so ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021, but how many streaming subscribers did ESPN gain. For example my house cut the cord, but we subscribe to Direct TV Stream to get ESPN/Fox/RSN/CBSN networks. I wonder how many cord cutters subscribe to streaming spoting content. My guess is alot.

That's counted in the 75 million, I think.

Quote: By cutting the cord I only pay $150 for internet and Streaming Services and my sons who attend college can also watch Direct TV stream with no increase cost. If I pay for cable or satellite I would spend over $200 per month for my house and then have to pay for cable at both universities. I believe streaming saves families money.

You worked the angles and shaved a few dollars off the bill. But you still pay up, because they have the content you want (ESPN, Fox, RSN, CSBN). ESPN only works (and Fox News) because they can compel everyone who watches cable to pay (and pay a lot) for their channel. Because of ESPN or Fox News goes dark on a cable system, that cable system is going to lose a LOT of subscribers in a hurry.

It's not switching from cable to a high-priced stream that's ESPN's problem. You're still paying ESPN their $10 a month. It's the people who just get internet for say half the price of the cable & internet package. Then they get a streaming service for $10 a month.

My offspring, 17, 14 and 14 do not watch "television." That's not about us being good parents and limiting their screen time. They get TONS of screen time, as much as us Gen X latchkey kids ever did. But all the 14 year olds watch is stuff on youtube. (Exception: my 17 year old watches Criminal Minds on Netflix and movies, usually on Disney+).
(This post was last modified: 05-25-2022 07:59 AM by johnbragg.)
05-25-2022 07:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Scoochpooch1 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 66
I Root For: P4
Location:
Post: #40
RE: ESPN loses eight million cable and satellite subscribers in 2021 - CFB implications
(05-23-2022 08:13 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  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.

Way overpaid for MLB, an admittedly dying sport.
05-25-2022 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2022 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, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.