(05-28-2022 12:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 07:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 10:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 09:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2022 06:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Consider all the TV sports properties that moved from network TV to ESPN in the 1990s and early 2000s. That's not because of the value of sports--it's pretty much the same event, the same eyeballs and advertisements on CBS as on ESPN. But ESPN was able to leverage the sports fans to tax the grannies. (And how Fox News uses the Fox News fans to tax the rest of the cable audience)

I don't know much about the structure of European cable. I know--well I think I know--that Sky Sports in Britain is a pay channel

About the bolded, the problem I have with that logic is IIRC that everyone else - CBS, NBC, FOX Sports, TNT - is paying a lot more for sports rights than they were 10-15 years ago too, and they aren't funded by grannies like ESPN, right?

I get that if you have 'excess cash' thanks to some kind of favorable rent situation, like ESPN taxing grannies on cable, that you have to do something with it, like invest it. But you don't necessarily have to pay a lot for what you buy. How much you pay depends on its value.

All of those channels are taxing John's granny. It's not just ESPN. All the networks bidding on college sports own multiple cable channels in addition to broadcast networks, and all have warchests made fat by cable subscriber fees.

ESPN gets more per subscriber revenue from cable, but the others get plenty. Even broadcast networks charge cable now -- as of 2020, CBS was getting an average of $1.59 per subscriber per month, NBC $1.40, Fox $1.39, ABC $1.29. And that's just their broadcast properties; all of those networks own other cable channels that also reap per subscriber fees every month. Fox News ($1.72) gets more from the grannies than Fox OTA does. TNT was at $2.20 in 2020, and other channels now owned by Discovery (including CNN, TBS, Discovery, etc.) collectively get hefty fees. CBS owns Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, and many other cable channels. NBC/Comcast owns several, and obviously Disney does as well.

Eh, ESPN is getting $10, not $1.79 like CBS or whatever. That's a big difference, IMO.

CBS OTA is getting $1.79, but as I mentioned, CBS also owns several other "cable" channels that get a per-month "tax" on every subscriber.

The major Viacom cable networks are Nickelodeon, $0.78, MTV $0.54, and PAramount $0.53. Total $1.85 per month. ESPN's sister networks (ESPN2 $1.04, SEC $0.93, ACC $0.670 bring in more than that. ($2.64, ESPN at $7.64)

Using this Variety article from 2020 for the channel prices.

Quote:So they have plenty of revenue from cable/satellite/etc. They have plenty of cash to spend if they want to spend.

Not really. The money has to come from somewhere. The Vice PResident of RKO Sports has to present some kind of a business case to the higher-ups at RKO Global Communications as to why it makes sense to pay a bazillion dollars to pay for The League's TV rights. (In the case of the NFL, that business case may be "we pay the cost of doing business, or the network ceases to exist--without the NFL Fox or NBC or CBS is pretty much the CW")

Quote:What ESPN/ABC does have, more than any competitor for sports rights, is the ability to utilize a big, expensive sports property over many different channels and spread the cost out.

IF you're saying they have a lot of channels plus ESPN+, that's true. But so does NBC Universal Comcast--the Olympics end up spread across NBC, USA, CNBC, MSNBC, Peacock+, who knows what else. Turner has TBS, TNT, TruTV at NCAA tournament time, and sooner or later games on HBO Max.

CBS and Fox are more limited--CBS-SN is irrelevant, and the attempt to build FS1 into a baby ESPN didn't really succeed. But Fox bought up a lot of sports rights in the attempt to build FS1, and made decent money putting them on big Fox.

I'm pretty sure what ESPN has that its competitors don't is a big pile of money.

Quote:Others are trying that with streaming services, but none of Peacock or Paramount or anything on Discovery is sports-only like ESPN+ is, and their "cable" sports channels like FS1, CBSSN, and the now-defunct NBCSN are weak competitors to the ESPN channels.

Much stronger competition for ESPN/ABC would exist if the same company owned both one of the OTA networks and TNT/TBS and all of their sports rights. But that hasn't happened yet.

I definitely see a case for a combination of Fox and Turner. (You'd have to separate either Fox News or CNN from the new "Fox Turner Warner" grouping.)

But that group is still a distant second behind ESPN.

Viacom/CBS and the "new" Fox are much smaller companies than Disney, each has less than $20 billion market cap. The new owner of TNT/TBS, Warner Bros Discovery, is about twice the size of CBS and still much smaller than Disney or Comcast.

Comcast/NBC has a market cap pretty much the same size as Disney -- as of today, Disney's market cap is $199 billion and Comcast's is $198 billion. They have money to spend. Apple and Amazon have even more. The difference is that Disney bosses, until now at least, have let ESPN spend more on sports. Comcast has let NBC spend big on sports only for NFL and Olympics.

And yes, those market caps suggest that either WBD should buy CBS or vice versa to create a stronger competitor not only in sports but also in streaming and overall content production.

(05-28-2022 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 12:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 07:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 10:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 09:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, the problem I have with that logic is IIRC that everyone else - CBS, NBC, FOX Sports, TNT - is paying a lot more for sports rights than they were 10-15 years ago too, and they aren't funded by grannies like ESPN, right?

I get that if you have 'excess cash' thanks to some kind of favorable rent situation, like ESPN taxing grannies on cable, that you have to do something with it, like invest it. But you don't necessarily have to pay a lot for what you buy. How much you pay depends on its value.

All of those channels are taxing John's granny. It's not just ESPN. All the networks bidding on college sports own multiple cable channels in addition to broadcast networks, and all have warchests made fat by cable subscriber fees.

ESPN gets more per subscriber revenue from cable, but the others get plenty. Even broadcast networks charge cable now -- as of 2020, CBS was getting an average of $1.59 per subscriber per month, NBC $1.40, Fox $1.39, ABC $1.29. And that's just their broadcast properties; all of those networks own other cable channels that also reap per subscriber fees every month. Fox News ($1.72) gets more from the grannies than Fox OTA does. TNT was at $2.20 in 2020, and other channels now owned by Discovery (including CNN, TBS, Discovery, etc.) collectively get hefty fees. CBS owns Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, and many other cable channels. NBC/Comcast owns several, and obviously Disney does as well.

Eh, ESPN is getting $10, not $1.79 like CBS or whatever. That's a big difference, IMO.

CBS OTA is getting $1.79, but as I mentioned, CBS also owns several other "cable" channels that get a per-month "tax" on every subscriber.

The major Viacom cable networks are Nickelodeon, $0.78, MTV $0.54, and PAramount $0.53. Total $1.85 per month. ESPN's sister networks (ESPN2 $1.04, SEC $0.93, ACC $0.670 bring in more than that. ($2.64, ESPN at $7.64)

Using this Variety article from 2020 for the channel prices.

Quote:So they have plenty of revenue from cable/satellite/etc. They have plenty of cash to spend if they want to spend.

Not really. The money has to come from somewhere. The Vice PResident of RKO Sports has to present some kind of a business case to the higher-ups at RKO Global Communications as to why it makes sense to pay a bazillion dollars to pay for The League's TV rights. (In the case of the NFL, that business case may be "we pay the cost of doing business, or the network ceases to exist--without the NFL Fox or NBC or CBS is pretty much the CW")

Quote:What ESPN/ABC does have, more than any competitor for sports rights, is the ability to utilize a big, expensive sports property over many different channels and spread the cost out.

IF you're saying they have a lot of channels plus ESPN+, that's true. But so does NBC Universal Comcast--the Olympics end up spread across NBC, USA, CNBC, MSNBC, Peacock+, who knows what else. Turner has TBS, TNT, TruTV at NCAA tournament time, and sooner or later games on HBO Max.

CBS and Fox are more limited--CBS-SN is irrelevant, and the attempt to build FS1 into a baby ESPN didn't really succeed. But Fox bought up a lot of sports rights in the attempt to build FS1, and made decent money putting them on big Fox.

I'm pretty sure what ESPN has that its competitors don't is a big pile of money.

Quote:Others are trying that with streaming services, but none of Peacock or Paramount or anything on Discovery is sports-only like ESPN+ is, and their "cable" sports channels like FS1, CBSSN, and the now-defunct NBCSN are weak competitors to the ESPN channels.

Much stronger competition for ESPN/ABC would exist if the same company owned both one of the OTA networks and TNT/TBS and all of their sports rights. But that hasn't happened yet.

I definitely see a case for a combination of Fox and Turner. (You'd have to separate either Fox News or CNN from the new "Fox Turner Warner" grouping.)

But that group is still a distant second behind ESPN.

Due to the nature of the Fox News/CNN rivalry, I can guarantee you that CNN would be separated from the Fox Turner Warner Discovery grouping. Fox News is Fox's bread and butter, so CNN would be out. On a side note, I am surprised that CNN didn't look at merging with PBS. Would have made sense to me, and would have substantially upgraded PBS news.

(05-29-2022 12:01 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 02:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 12:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-28-2022 07:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 10:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  All of those channels are taxing John's granny. It's not just ESPN. All the networks bidding on college sports own multiple cable channels in addition to broadcast networks, and all have warchests made fat by cable subscriber fees.

ESPN gets more per subscriber revenue from cable, but the others get plenty. Even broadcast networks charge cable now -- as of 2020, CBS was getting an average of $1.59 per subscriber per month, NBC $1.40, Fox $1.39, ABC $1.29. And that's just their broadcast properties; all of those networks own other cable channels that also reap per subscriber fees every month. Fox News ($1.72) gets more from the grannies than Fox OTA does. TNT was at $2.20 in 2020, and other channels now owned by Discovery (including CNN, TBS, Discovery, etc.) collectively get hefty fees. CBS owns Nickelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, and many other cable channels. NBC/Comcast owns several, and obviously Disney does as well.

Eh, ESPN is getting $10, not $1.79 like CBS or whatever. That's a big difference, IMO.

CBS OTA is getting $1.79, but as I mentioned, CBS also owns several other "cable" channels that get a per-month "tax" on every subscriber.

The major Viacom cable networks are Nickelodeon, $0.78, MTV $0.54, and PAramount $0.53. Total $1.85 per month. ESPN's sister networks (ESPN2 $1.04, SEC $0.93, ACC $0.670 bring in more than that. ($2.64, ESPN at $7.64)

Using this Variety article from 2020 for the channel prices.

Quote:So they have plenty of revenue from cable/satellite/etc. They have plenty of cash to spend if they want to spend.

Not really. The money has to come from somewhere. The Vice PResident of RKO Sports has to present some kind of a business case to the higher-ups at RKO Global Communications as to why it makes sense to pay a bazillion dollars to pay for The League's TV rights. (In the case of the NFL, that business case may be "we pay the cost of doing business, or the network ceases to exist--without the NFL Fox or NBC or CBS is pretty much the CW")

Quote:What ESPN/ABC does have, more than any competitor for sports rights, is the ability to utilize a big, expensive sports property over many different channels and spread the cost out.

IF you're saying they have a lot of channels plus ESPN+, that's true. But so does NBC Universal Comcast--the Olympics end up spread across NBC, USA, CNBC, MSNBC, Peacock+, who knows what else. Turner has TBS, TNT, TruTV at NCAA tournament time, and sooner or later games on HBO Max.

CBS and Fox are more limited--CBS-SN is irrelevant, and the attempt to build FS1 into a baby ESPN didn't really succeed. But Fox bought up a lot of sports rights in the attempt to build FS1, and made decent money putting them on big Fox.

I'm pretty sure what ESPN has that its competitors don't is a big pile of money.

Quote:Others are trying that with streaming services, but none of Peacock or Paramount or anything on Discovery is sports-only like ESPN+ is, and their "cable" sports channels like FS1, CBSSN, and the now-defunct NBCSN are weak competitors to the ESPN channels.

Much stronger competition for ESPN/ABC would exist if the same company owned both one of the OTA networks and TNT/TBS and all of their sports rights. But that hasn't happened yet.

I definitely see a case for a combination of Fox and Turner. (You'd have to separate either Fox News or CNN from the new "Fox Turner Warner" grouping.)

But that group is still a distant second behind ESPN.

Due to the nature of the Fox News/CNN rivalry, I can guarantee you that CNN would be separated from the Fox Turner Warner Discovery grouping. Fox News is Fox's bread and butter, so CNN would be out.

well, this would be WBD taking over the Fox assets. Warner Bros Discovery HBO Turner Max is 2x Fox's market cap, and more than that by revenue (WBD carries a lot of debt assumed in the merger).

my idea is that the Murdock continue the estate planning fire sale abd sell the TV and sports operations for cash or stock in WBD.

Fox News is their baby, generares the profts, and is hard
to sell anyway.

Rest-of-Fox (without Fox News) pretty much breaks even. but it would give WBD a complete OTA-cable network-streaming package.

Quote: On a side note, I am surprised that CNN didn't look at merging with PBS. Would have made sense to me, and would have substantially upgraded PBS news.

some complications in combing PBS which is some kind of noncommercial nonprofit with CNN, but it's probably doable if you want to do it.

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)johhbragg Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:57 AM)GTFLETCH Wrote:  Not sure where you have gotten your information, However the 75M figure(which is wrong by 1M at the end of 2021) does not include streaming.

To be specific: the 75M or so number includes things like your Direct TV Stream that you described. If it has an ESPN channel on it, you're paying for it--I believe that that's included in the 75M

You are correct, it seems that ESPN counts streams from other companies like Direct TV Stream, Hulu Live TV, Sling, and others in their 75M subscriptions. I was wrong. However they do count streaming subscriptions, they count ESPN+ by itself and then they also count their Bundle Subscriptions of Disney+ ESPN+, and Hulu.

So when you look at traditional subscriptions (cable and Streaming options like Sling, Direct TV Stream, and YouTube live TV) at 72M as of 2nd quarter 2022 and ESPN+ streaming subscriptions of 22.5M that gives them a total of 94.5M subscribers. Which we all can agreeis very close to the 100M record subscriptions they once had.

This does not even dive into the bundle subscription data of 174M.

Again we can agree that ESPN now has two revenue models, the legacy cable business and ESPN+ stream.

From the article below:

If you combine ESPN’s sports properties both cable/satellite and streaming revenue, it’s likely the company is doing somewhere around $13 billion in sports revenue a year. (That’s $9 billion a year in cable/satellite, $2.5 billion a year in advertising and $1.3 billion a year in streaming).

Some will say the ESPN sky is falling, I am not so sure! I am curious to see once the SEC leaves CBS and is all on ABC/ESPN/SECN if we do not see an uptick in traditional subscriptions to ESPN.

Link
https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-mill...iber-base/

(05-29-2022 10:56 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not sure where you have gotten your information, However the 75M figure(which is wrong by 1M at the end of 2021) does not include streaming.

To be specific: the 75M or so number includes things like your Direct TV Stream that you described. If it has an ESPN channel on it, you're paying for it--I believe that that's included in the 75M

You are correct, it seems that ESPN counts streams from other companies like Direct TV Stream, Hulu Live TV, Sling, and others in their 75M subscriptions. I was wrong. However they do count streaming subscriptions, they count ESPN+ by itself and then they also count their Bundle Subscriptions of Disney+ ESPN+, and Hulu.

So when you look at traditional subscriptions (cable and Streaming options like Sling, Direct TV Stream, and YouTube live TV) at 72M as of 2nd quarter 2022 and ESPN streaming subscriptions of 22.5M that gives them a total of 94.5M subscribers. Which we all can agree that is very close to the 100M record subscriptions they once had.

Again, not really. There are very few people who would pay for ESPN+, but are willing to do without ESPN--maybe some UFC diehards, or fans of other niche content that don't care about the NBA playoffs, college football, MLB playoffs, Monday Night Football etc.

Most of your ESPN+ subscribers are also ESPN subscribers. Subscriber numbers are usually looked at in terms of "reach". If ESPN and Toyota are negotiating an advertising package across all ESPN platforms, ESPN's total reach is the 72M number.
(That's even if ESPN+ started showing ads in some form, which apparently they don't do now) Same when ESPN and a sports league are negotiating a rights package--when the newborn-calf AAC signed with ESPN, much was made of the guarantees ESPN gave of (it's been 10 years, I'm making up the details) 90% of football games and 50% of basketball games being on basic-cable networks with 80M+ subscribers.

Quote:This does not even dive into the bundle subscription data of 174M.

Well, that number includes 50M+ subscribers in India--their money is as good as anyone's, but I don't know if they're a big audience for US sports content.

Quote:Again we can agree that ESPN now has two revenue models, the legacy cable business and ESPN+ stream.

From the article below:

If you combine ESPN’s sports properties both cable and satellite and streaming revenue, it’s likely the company is doing somewhere around $13 billion in sports revenue a year right now. (That’s $9 billion a year in cable and satellite, $2.5 billion a year in advertising and $1.3 billion a year in streaming).

Some will say the ESPN sky is falling, I am not so sure!

Link
https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-mill...iber-base/

(05-29-2022 11:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-29-2022 10:56 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not sure where you have gotten your information, However the 75M figure(which is wrong by 1M at the end of 2021) does not include streaming.

To be specific: the 75M or so number includes things like your Direct TV Stream that you described. If it has an ESPN channel on it, you're paying for it--I believe that that's included in the 75M

You are correct, it seems that ESPN counts streams from other companies like Direct TV Stream, Hulu Live TV, Sling, and others in their 75M subscriptions. I was wrong. However they do count streaming subscriptions, they count ESPN+ by itself and then they also count their Bundle Subscriptions of Disney+ ESPN+, and Hulu.

So when you look at traditional subscriptions (cable and Streaming options like Sling, Direct TV Stream, and YouTube live TV) at 72M as of 2nd quarter 2022 and ESPN streaming subscriptions of 22.5M that gives them a total of 94.5M subscribers. Which we all can agree that is very close to the 100M record subscriptions they once had.

Again, not really. There are very few people who would pay for ESPN+, but are willing to do without ESPN--maybe some UFC diehards, or fans of other niche content that don't care about the NBA playoffs, college football, MLB playoffs, Monday Night Football etc.

Most of your ESPN+ subscribers are also ESPN subscribers. Subscriber numbers are usually looked at in terms of "reach". If ESPN and Toyota are negotiating an advertising package across all ESPN platforms, ESPN's total reach is the 72M number.
(That's even if ESPN+ started showing ads in some form, which apparently they don't do now) Same when ESPN and a sports league are negotiating a rights package--when the newborn-calf AAC signed with ESPN, much was made of the guarantees ESPN gave of (it's been 10 years, I'm making up the details) 90% of football games and 50% of basketball games being on basic-cable networks with 80M+ subscribers.

Quote:This does not even dive into the bundle subscription data of 174M.

Well, that number includes 50M+ subscribers in India--their money is as good as anyone's, but I don't know if they're a big audience for US sports content.

Quote:Again we can agree that ESPN now has two revenue models, the legacy cable business and ESPN+ stream.

From the article below:

If you combine ESPN’s sports properties both cable and satellite and streaming revenue, it’s likely the company is doing somewhere around $13 billion in sports revenue a year right now. (That’s $9 billion a year in cable and satellite, $2.5 billion a year in advertising and $1.3 billion a year in streaming).

Some will say the ESPN sky is falling, I am not so sure!

Link
https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-mill...iber-base/

You can ignore the subscription data all you want. But the numbers are open to the public. ESPN does not have a subscription problem.

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 72.2M plus 22.3M ESPN has 94.5M total subscibers, which is not anywhere close from losing 8 Million, in fact they are closer today at getting back to 100 total subscribers that they had in 2011 then they were in 2018 when they launched ESPN+.

Not that it changes the numbers for ESPN, but I wonder how many people are like me and have ESPN through cable/satellite and also pay for ESPN+.

(05-29-2022 06:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 72.2M plus 22.3M ESPN has 94.5M total subscibers, which is not anywhere close from losing 8 Million, in fact they are closer today at getting back to 100 total subscribers that they had in 2011 then they were in 2018 when they launched ESPN+.

Not that it changes the numbers for ESPN, but I wonder how many people are like me and have ESPN through cable/satellite and also pay for ESPN+.

The vast majority of ESPN+ subscribers. Who is going to economize and dump ESPN and the NBA playoffs, the college football bowls and the SEC, but pay $7 a month to watch Toledo vs Eastern Michigan and App State vs Georgia Southern?

(I'm sure there are some niche corner cases where it makes sense--you're an exclusive fan of some obscure sport or competition which is ONLY on ESPN+ and NEVER on ESPN-cable. But very, very few)

(05-25-2022 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 06:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I enjoy that my ESPN sports viewing is currently subsidized by (a) cable subscribers who get charged for ESPN whether they want it or not and (b) streaming by Disney via their bundles. A total of about $15 a month to get all that cable + streaming ESPN content is awesome-sauce.

Will it last forever? Probably not, but I will enjoy it while it lasts.

That said, since I don't own Disney stock, I could care less whether ESPN thrives or survives or not. What would concern me is if I could no longer see the sports I want to see on ESPN and other networks, meaning that if ESPN goes away, the sports goes away from my TV, or if the price of viewing those things were to rise dramatically.

I don't foresee either happening, because IMO the fundamental of the sports broadcasting market is sound, namely that while cords are being cut and all that, the actual bedrock demand to watch sports on TV isn't declining.

I have said this before and will say it again. I think people misunderstand what Disney/ESPN may be doing. I think as cable dies ESPN intends to shift to being a college sports rights broker. I think they will sell the choicest games each week to the highest bidder and show all other contests via stream, cut their studio overhead and use college play by play guys to reach their own fans at a fraction of the cost.

Therefore other networks will buy their games each week to maximize ad revenue. It's more profitable for them to spend on just the games they want, pulling from any conference, than to buy all the B1G rights to land 8 must see games.

IMO, some (not you, btw) always seem to view ESPN with a "glass half empty" lens.

Five years ago, it was "Streaming is Taking Over, it's the Future! Cable is Dead and ESPN missed the Streaming Boat! They are a Doomed Dinosaur!"

Now, given that ESPN was able to very easily establish itself with streaming, it's "Streaming won't Save ESPN!"

It's always something, IMO. But ESPN remains very profitable.

QuoV, espn reminds me of Fran Tarkington scrambling around only to make it to the other side of trouble. And it works. You HAVE TO in this fast(er) changing world.

Which brings me to why I have an “out” scenario for MW and AAC should Big12 add Memphis, SMU, USF and Boise. That out scenario is MW and AAC merging to a Mega-coast-to-coast conference and retain a “better than the rest” tv contract.

This AAC would be a hybrid slotted between P5 and the rest of the ncaa. Including the (would be) G3. It would provide espn with filler content that their P5 can’t fill on espn, espn2, espnU…and put the rest of AACMega on espn+ where 21 to 30 fan bases of AAC members would watch an AACMega single game….including AACMega softball and baseball games.

(05-25-2022 10:01 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(05-25-2022 09:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  If ESPN is eventually turning into a streaming service, I am going to want to see the same options I get with Netflix, HBO or Hulu. Meaning...

1. An option to pay a higher price to get all content without ads and without commercial breaks. This also includes the option to start watching a game late, from the beginning.

2. Option to pay a cheaper price for content that does have ads. There are different ways to do this. You can cut away from live action to show commercials, then show replays when you get back. But mostly what you are watching is still live. Or another option is you watch the ads and resume watching where you left off, meaning you will be behind the live action. The streaming service should give you either choice.

For a live event, you just want a shot of midcourt instead of commercials? You don’t look at your phone already during commercials? How would ESPN make money to employ people if they can’t sell commercials to Bud Light and Pizza Hut?

Your higher price, would be astronomically high. What would you be willing to pay?

Since it is streamed, they could eliminate TV timeouts. They could insert longer commercial breaks on the sponsored stream since those viewing would have no way of knowing that they were actually getting a delayed version. They could then act as if they were coming in late to live action.

The live version could have actual content during breaks.

There are several things I am pretty sure of happening for the rest of my life.

Live sports will continue to dominate commercial programming regardless of the platforms that exist or evolve.

I will have zero influence or control over that evolution.

The B1G and the SEC will continue to dominate college football programming, regardless of how platforms evolve.

If cable goes away, replaced by streaming only, I will watch less sports than I do now.

Nobody -- content providers, advertisers or schools -- will care if I watch or not.

(05-29-2022 06:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 72.2M plus 22.3M ESPN has 94.5M total subscibers, which is not anywhere close from losing 8 Million, in fact they are closer today at getting back to 100 total subscribers that they had in 2011 then they were in 2018 when they launched ESPN+.

Not that it changes the numbers for ESPN, but I wonder how many people are like me and have ESPN through cable/satellite and also pay for ESPN+.

What is crazy is that no one is talking about the174M bundle subscriptions. So ESPN has 72M TV subscribers, 22.5M stand alone ESPN+ Subscribers, and another 174M in Bundle Subscriptions.

I do have ESPN+ through the bundle subscription that's paid for by Verizon as part of my cell phone package. So my guess is alot of people have ESPN+ and it is not that outlandish to think that most people with ESPN on their TV service also has a ESPN+ or the bundle package. Now wether they watch it or not is anyone's guess. I guess you can say it is about the power of the mouse.

I also think people are not viewing this accurately. If ESPN’s sports properties both cable and satellite and streaming revenue, it’s likely doing somewhere around $13 billion in sports revenue a year right now. (That’s $9 billion a year in cable and satellite, $2.5 billion a year in advertising and $1.3 billion a year in streaming).

As traditional TV subscribers fall to 50M, all ESPN has to do increase their Streaming revenue. I think for the foreseeable future ESPN will have all three funding sources. (That’s cable and satellite, advertising and streaming).

How can they do that? By increasing streaming accounts and by increasing streaming pricing. It will be interesting yes, are the doomed NO. IMHO it will come down to CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT! That is why you saw them offer the SEC so much for the game of the week package that CBS had.

(05-30-2022 09:27 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-29-2022 06:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 72.2M plus 22.3M ESPN has 94.5M total subscibers, which is not anywhere close from losing 8 Million, in fact they are closer today at getting back to 100 total subscribers that they had in 2011 then they were in 2018 when they launched ESPN+.

Not that it changes the numbers for ESPN, but I wonder how many people are like me and have ESPN through cable/satellite and also pay for ESPN+.

What is crazy is that no one is talking about the174M bundle subscriptions. So ESPN has 72M TV subscribers, 22.5M stand alone ESPN+ Subscribers, and another 174M in Bundle Subscriptions.

I do have ESPN+ through the bundle subscription that's paid for by Verizon as part of my cell phone package. So my guess is alot of people have ESPN+ and it is not that outlandish to think that most people with ESPN on their TV service also has a ESPN+ or the bundle package. Now wether they watch it or not is anyone's guess. I guess you can say it is about the power of the mouse.

Why would you assume that? I don't have it, don't want it, and have no idea how to get it. It just doesn't sound like anything I'd ever want to pay for.

(05-30-2022 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 09:27 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-29-2022 06:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 72.2M plus 22.3M ESPN has 94.5M total subscibers, which is not anywhere close from losing 8 Million, in fact they are closer today at getting back to 100 total subscribers that they had in 2011 then they were in 2018 when they launched ESPN+.

Not that it changes the numbers for ESPN, but I wonder how many people are like me and have ESPN through cable/satellite and also pay for ESPN+.

What is crazy is that no one is talking about the174M bundle subscriptions. So ESPN has 72M TV subscribers, 22.5M stand alone ESPN+ Subscribers, and another 174M in Bundle Subscriptions.

I do have ESPN+ through the bundle subscription that's paid for by Verizon as part of my cell phone package. So my guess is alot of people have ESPN+ and it is not that outlandish to think that most people with ESPN on their TV service also has a ESPN+ or the bundle package. Now wether they watch it or not is anyone's guess. I guess you can say it is about the power of the mouse.

Why would you assume that? I don't have it, don't want it, and have no idea how to get it. It just doesn't sound like anything I'd ever want to pay for.

That's kind of how I look at it too. If something is on a third tier service, it's no big deal if I don't see it. But maybe I am not the best example because I have cancel my basic cable TV package too.

(05-29-2022 12:01 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Due to the nature of the Fox News/CNN rivalry, I can guarantee you that CNN would be separated from the Fox Turner Warner Discovery grouping. Fox News is Fox's bread and butter, so CNN would be out. On a side note, I am surprised that CNN didn't look at merging with PBS. Would have made sense to me, and would have substantially upgraded PBS news.

PBS is not an entity the way CNN and Fox is. It's a collection of disparate member stations. What people see for "news" on PBS is often content from its wealthiest stations along the East Coast (WETA-Washington, WGBH-Boston, WNET-New York, etc.)

CNN has a much stronger brand (esp. internationally) than Fox.

(05-30-2022 12:36 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 09:27 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-29-2022 06:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-27-2022 06:06 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 72.2M plus 22.3M ESPN has 94.5M total subscibers, which is not anywhere close from losing 8 Million, in fact they are closer today at getting back to 100 total subscribers that they had in 2011 then they were in 2018 when they launched ESPN+.

Not that it changes the numbers for ESPN, but I wonder how many people are like me and have ESPN through cable/satellite and also pay for ESPN+.

What is crazy is that no one is talking about the174M bundle subscriptions. So ESPN has 72M TV subscribers, 22.5M stand alone ESPN+ Subscribers, and another 174M in Bundle Subscriptions.

I do have ESPN+ through the bundle subscription that's paid for by Verizon as part of my cell phone package. So my guess is alot of people have ESPN+ and it is not that outlandish to think that most people with ESPN on their TV service also has a ESPN+ or the bundle package. Now wether they watch it or not is anyone's guess. I guess you can say it is about the power of the mouse.

Why would you assume that? I don't have it, don't want it, and have no idea how to get it. It just doesn't sound like anything I'd ever want to pay for.

FWIW, when ESPN+ was announced 4-5 years ago, I absolutely SWORE that I would never buy it. Seemed like an attempt by ESPN, already getting $10 or so a month from me via my cable bill, to just tack $5 more on to that.

After ESPN+ launched, I held out for about two months. Then I saw what they had on there, and I signed up. I've never thought of dropping it since. IMO it is the best $7 (or whatever, I now have it bundled with the other Disney stuff) I spend a month.

I do not doubt that ESPN is losing tons of money on "+" as you get a huge amount of content for so little. I am a UFC fan, and just one Saturday's fight card would be well worth the $7 to me, and you get two or three of those a month. And a ton more.

Just my feelings about it.

(05-30-2022 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do not doubt that ESPN is losing tons of money on "+" as you get a huge amount of content for so little. I am a UFC fan, and just one Saturday's fight card would be well worth the $7 to me, and you get two or three of those a month. And a ton more.

Disney+ loses money because they are spending a lot to create more content. ESPN+ might not be losing money. The content they have there is relatively inexpensive, and the PPV UFC cards once a month get about a million subscriptions each at $75 per -- that's a gross of $75 million/month for PPV alone.

(05-30-2022 05:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I do not doubt that ESPN is losing tons of money on "+" as you get a huge amount of content for so little. I am a UFC fan, and just one Saturday's fight card would be well worth the $7 to me, and you get two or three of those a month. And a ton more.

Disney+ loses money because they are spending a lot to create more content. ESPN+ might not be losing money. The content they have there is relatively inexpensive, and the PPV UFC cards once a month get about a million subscriptions each at $75 per -- that's a gross of $75 million/month for PPV alone.

One cool thing about the PPV is that while I've only bought one PPV package, I still see plenty of UFC action even when the main card is PPV, because they almost always show the undercard, which can be several fights, on ESPN+. So you still get good viewing action even if you don't want to spring for the PPV.