WHY ESPN IS NOT DYING
"We're successfully navigating the evolution of consumer choice," said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN, which is majority-owned and controlled by Disney, in an interview with CNBC in April. "We believe we can be multiple things at the same time. As consumers continue to gravitate toward direct to consumer, we have the optionality that we need."

David Levy, the former president of WarnerMedia's Turner Broadcasting, who's now chairman of data firm Genius Sports, said he thinks Disney can get 30 million customers to pay $30 a month for streaming ESPN, or more than double the cost for a standard Netflix subscription. That would bring in $10.8 billion annually — more than Disney makes today from pay-TV affiliate revenue. "With sports, there's a guaranteed built-in audience," Levy said. "It's much different than entertainment. With entertainment, every show is hit or miss, and you always have to market content. You never know what will succeed and what won't. That's why sports is the best content to invest in, and it will be no matter what the distribution model is."

STREAMING & LINEAR TV Coexisting?
One potential model that could save Disney a lot of future heartburn is a new streaming bundle that effectively replicates pay TV but with more options. If that becomes the winning form of distribution, media companies may be in a familiar position, making money from their most-popular services even if not everyone is watching them. Dexter Goei, CEO of cable TV provider Altice USA, said in May that such a product offering could work well for the sustainability of the media industry. It "would allow us to focus primarily on our broadband product" and "be a partner for content on a direct-to-consumer basis as opposed to a partner on a linear basis," Goei said at JPMorgan's Technology, Media & Communications conference. It "will dramatically improve the economic trends of our business from a cash-flow standpoint," he said.

LINEAR TV DYING?
"We believe strongly that the traditional pay TV bundle will remain intact for a long time," said Sean McManus, chairman of ViacomCBS's CBS Sports. "I don't think it ever whittles away to zero. And while it's certainly possible the amount of subscribers will continue to decline, I don't think the decline ever reaches a point in the coming years that it won't support the current rights deals that we have, both for NFL football and our other sports." "The value of sports continues to be more and more important every single year,Advertisers are going to continue to want to reach the largest possible audiences. The way to do that is with sports. I don't see a cliff coming. Our roadways are clear."

Link
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/10/disney-s...-past.html

(05-31-2022 07:48 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  "We're successfully navigating the evolution of consumer choice," said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN, which is majority-owned and controlled by Disney, in an interview with CNBC in April. "We believe we can be multiple things at the same time. As consumers continue to gravitate toward direct to consumer, we have the optionality that we need."

(snip)

I think ESPN is taking the right approach to the whittling away of cable. Five years ago, they did face some danger because they didn't have a streaming platform. So they took quick action and developed a good one.

Since then, IMO the proper strategy is to muddle through, making adjustments as things evolve, because nobody knows what will happen next.

So IMO, those who criticize ESPN/Disney for not having a Grand 9-point Plan for navigating the cable/streaming/PPV universe are off base. Especially plans that involve selling off ESPN now.

We'll see.

(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.

I think “perceived” is being generous. When you want to watch sports, regardless of your bent, you’re not looking to be constantly hit with political narratives. ESPN has just become overrun with it.

(05-31-2022 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 07:48 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  "We're successfully navigating the evolution of consumer choice," said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN, which is majority-owned and controlled by Disney, in an interview with CNBC in April. "We believe we can be multiple things at the same time. As consumers continue to gravitate toward direct to consumer, we have the optionality that we need."

(snip)

I think ESPN is taking the right approach to the whittling away of cable. Five years ago, they did face some danger because they didn't have a streaming platform. So they took quick action and developed a good one.

Since then, IMO the proper strategy is to muddle through, making adjustments as things evolve, because nobody knows what will happen next.

So IMO, those who criticize ESPN/Disney for not having a Grand 9-point Plan for navigating the cable/streaming/PPV universe are off base. Especially plans that involve selling off ESPN now.

We'll see.

100% agree with you! BTW so do multiple leaders inside the industry!

(05-31-2022 07:56 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(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.

I think “perceived” is being generous. When you want to watch sports, regardless of your bent, you’re not looking to be constantly hit with political narratives. ESPN has just become overrun with it.

FWIW, I am a Trump-supporting Republican, very much "anti-woke". So I tune in to ESPN to watch the actual sports. I don't watch the talking-head shows, save for PTI, where I assume the commentators often spout politics.

For me, I've found it easy to view the sports I like on ESPN and ESPN+ while largely avoiding the politics.

Its officially better to have your game on ESPN+ than ESPNU.

Since I started streaming my channels, I only pay for ESPN from Sep 1 through the end of March madness, saving about 30 dollars a month through spring & summer.

(05-31-2022 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 07:48 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  "We're successfully navigating the evolution of consumer choice," said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN, which is majority-owned and controlled by Disney, in an interview with CNBC in April. "We believe we can be multiple things at the same time. As consumers continue to gravitate toward direct to consumer, we have the optionality that we need."

(snip)

I think ESPN is taking the right approach to the whittling away of cable. Five years ago, they did face some danger because they didn't have a streaming platform. So they took quick action and developed a good one.

Since then, IMO the proper strategy is to muddle through, making adjustments as things evolve, because nobody knows what will happen next.

So IMO, those who criticize ESPN/Disney for not having a Grand 9-point Plan for navigating the cable/streaming/PPV universe are off base. Especially plans that involve selling off ESPN now.

We'll see.

I think they're doing the best they can. Their problem is that they're never again going to see the margins that they saw 10-20 years ago. I think the 30M at $30 a month projection is rose-colored glasses--that percentage seems really high. But maybe that's the number from comparable European Sky Sports markets.

Selling off ESPN five years ago, for the price it would have fetched then, maybe brilliant. (Or not--Disney has made a lot of money of ESPN in the last five years.)
Selling off ESPN now would be a foolish move. ESPN is probably worth more than a buyer would pay for it right now, excepting as always Amazon if they decide to throw crazy money around.

I'm not saying that ESPN is dooomed. Any problem ESPN has, their traditional competitors have, starting from a less advantageous position. Even if there is a ceiling to the sports rights escalator, that just means that the leagues take a haircut when the deals expire. MLB, NHL and NBA expire in 2028. CFP, Big 12 expire in 2025.

Depending on the timing, some leagues will feel lucky (the last contracts signed before a correction), some leagues will feel unlucky.

(05-30-2022 09:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  If cable goes away, replaced by streaming only, I will watch less sports than I do now.

Why?

I will admit if you're trying to surf/watch several games, the experience is often somewhat clunkier than cable, but what real difference does the distribution platform matter to whether you watch or not?

(05-31-2022 09:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 07:48 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  "We're successfully navigating the evolution of consumer choice," said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN, which is majority-owned and controlled by Disney, in an interview with CNBC in April. "We believe we can be multiple things at the same time. As consumers continue to gravitate toward direct to consumer, we have the optionality that we need."

(snip)

I think ESPN is taking the right approach to the whittling away of cable. Five years ago, they did face some danger because they didn't have a streaming platform. So they took quick action and developed a good one.

Since then, IMO the proper strategy is to muddle through, making adjustments as things evolve, because nobody knows what will happen next.

So IMO, those who criticize ESPN/Disney for not having a Grand 9-point Plan for navigating the cable/streaming/PPV universe are off base. Especially plans that involve selling off ESPN now.

We'll see.

I think they're doing the best they can. Their problem is that they're never again going to see the margins that they saw 10-20 years ago. I think the 30M at $30 a month projection is rose-colored glasses--that percentage seems really high. But maybe that's the number from comparable European Sky Sports markets.

Selling off ESPN five years ago, for the price it would have fetched then, maybe brilliant. (Or not--Disney has made a lot of money of ESPN in the last five years.)
Selling off ESPN now would be a foolish move. ESPN is probably worth more than a buyer would pay for it right now, excepting as always Amazon if they decide to throw crazy money around.

I'm not saying that ESPN is dooomed. Any problem ESPN has, their traditional competitors have, starting from a less advantageous position. Even if there is a ceiling to the sports rights escalator, that just means that the leagues take a haircut when the deals expire. MLB, NHL and NBA expire in 2028. CFP, Big 12 expire in 2025.

Depending on the timing, some leagues will feel lucky (the last contracts signed before a correction), some leagues will feel unlucky.

FWIW, I do not regard the bolded as a problem. Few companies have those kinds of margins forever.

(05-31-2022 10:10 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 09:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  If cable goes away, replaced by streaming only, I will watch less sports than I do now.

Why?

I will admit if you're trying to surf/watch several games, the experience is often somewhat clunkier than cable, but what real difference does the distribution platform matter to whether you watch or not?

You have to have the distribution platform to watch. I won't. Chances are, if it's not OTA I won't see it.

(05-31-2022 01:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 10:10 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 09:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  If cable goes away, replaced by streaming only, I will watch less sports than I do now.

Why?

I will admit if you're trying to surf/watch several games, the experience is often somewhat clunkier than cable, but what real difference does the distribution platform matter to whether you watch or not?

You have to have the distribution platform to watch. I won't. Chances are, if it's not OTA I won't see it.

As long as you have a smartphone or other computer, wifi, and a TV with an HDMI port, you could watch a streaming service on your TV with one of the inexpensive "sticks" that plug into an HDMI port -- Google, Amazon, and Roku have those, and there might be others.

(05-31-2022 01:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 01:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 10:10 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 09:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  If cable goes away, replaced by streaming only, I will watch less sports than I do now.

Why?

I will admit if you're trying to surf/watch several games, the experience is often somewhat clunkier than cable, but what real difference does the distribution platform matter to whether you watch or not?

You have to have the distribution platform to watch. I won't. Chances are, if it's not OTA I won't see it.

As long as you have a smartphone or other computer, wifi, and a TV with an HDMI port, you could watch a streaming service on your TV with one of the inexpensive "sticks" that plug into an HDMI port -- Google, Amazon, and Roku have those, and there might be others.

I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wouldn't.

(05-31-2022 03:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wouldn't.

Yeah, the question is why? To yell at kids on the lawn?

(05-31-2022 03:50 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(05-31-2022 03:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wouldn't.

Yeah, the question is why? To yell at kids on the lawn?

My family got its first television in 1948. For the next 58 years I got along fine without cable. I didn't watch all that much television, so I could live with the lousy reception I had where I lived. As I neared retirement and awful reality shows and game shows were increasingly replacing quality programming on the OTA networks I finally broke down and got cable. While I did enjoy finally getting access to PBS and the occasional programs on the History Channel and Nat Geo, it wasn't really worth what it cost IMO, and I only kept it because one of my children moved back to the house when my wife passed away. Now that I'm living alone, the only reason I guess I still have it is inertia. If cable goes away (and I doubt that it will) I won't have inertia to blame any more.

(05-31-2022 10:10 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(05-30-2022 09:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  If cable goes away, replaced by streaming only, I will watch less sports than I do now.

Why?

I will admit if you're trying to surf/watch several games, the experience is often somewhat clunkier than cable, but what real difference does the distribution platform matter to whether you watch or not?

My solution to that is multiple TVs, LOL.

On a typical CFB Saturday, I will have three TVs set up in my man cave, with a fourth device, usually a 15" laptop, on a stand near me. That way I can use the one TV that is tuned to cable to flip if somehow there are more than four games I want to watch on at the same time, while the other three streamers stick with their games.

(05-31-2022 07:48 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  WHY ESPN IS NOT DYING
"We're successfully navigating the evolution of consumer choice," said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN, which is majority-owned and controlled by Disney, in an interview with CNBC in April. "We believe we can be multiple things at the same time. As consumers continue to gravitate toward direct to consumer, we have the optionality that we need."

David Levy, the former president of WarnerMedia's Turner Broadcasting, who's now chairman of data firm Genius Sports, said he thinks Disney can get 30 million customers to pay $30 a month for streaming ESPN, or more than double the cost for a standard Netflix subscription. That would bring in $10.8 billion annually — more than Disney makes today from pay-TV affiliate revenue. "With sports, there's a guaranteed built-in audience," Levy said. "It's much different than entertainment. With entertainment, every show is hit or miss, and you always have to market content. You never know what will succeed and what won't. That's why sports is the best content to invest in, and it will be no matter what the distribution model is."

STREAMING & LINEAR TV Coexisting?
One potential model that could save Disney a lot of future heartburn is a new streaming bundle that effectively replicates pay TV but with more options. If that becomes the winning form of distribution, media companies may be in a familiar position, making money from their most-popular services even if not everyone is watching them. Dexter Goei, CEO of cable TV provider Altice USA, said in May that such a product offering could work well for the sustainability of the media industry. It "would allow us to focus primarily on our broadband product" and "be a partner for content on a direct-to-consumer basis as opposed to a partner on a linear basis," Goei said at JPMorgan's Technology, Media & Communications conference. It "will dramatically improve the economic trends of our business from a cash-flow standpoint," he said.

LINEAR TV DYING?
"We believe strongly that the traditional pay TV bundle will remain intact for a long time," said Sean McManus, chairman of ViacomCBS's CBS Sports. "I don't think it ever whittles away to zero. And while it's certainly possible the amount of subscribers will continue to decline, I don't think the decline ever reaches a point in the coming years that it won't support the current rights deals that we have, both for NFL football and our other sports." "The value of sports continues to be more and more important every single year,Advertisers are going to continue to want to reach the largest possible audiences. The way to do that is with sports. I don't see a cliff coming. Our roadways are clear."

Link
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/10/disney-s...-past.html

NESN, the RSN co-owned by the Red Sox and Bruins, has just announced it will offer a DTC version for $30/month. Interestingly, it's the same price point cited for ESPN by Levy. NESN was a pioneer as an RSN in moving to basic cable and negotiating a premium per subscriber price from cable companies for all cable subscribers. RSNs have been hit hard, though, by their inability to reach deals with vMVPDs like Hulu and Youtube TV, which other cable networks have been able to use to slow subscriber losses.

It is also notable that Sling Orange is priced at $35/month and includes ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPN3 (which includes sports programming broadcast on ABC), as well as TBS and TNT. This is basically the cheapest option to obtain ESPN today.

I've done cable promotional packages in the past. They would throw in a couple of movie channels and I found myself watching more of the movie channels than the 90 channel cable package.

With the streaming I can practically get a full linear offering for a fraction of the cost.

Discovery+ $7.50
Paramount+& Showtime $9.99
ESPN+ $4.99
Amazon Prime (free)
Total: $22.48 a month.

-MMA/Boxing covered with Showtime/ESPN+.
-More MAC games on ESPN+ than anywhere else.
-Discovery+ has a ton of educational shows for homemakers.
-Paramount+ gives me OTA news.

I had paid $25 per month for IPTV third party streams with 800+ channels but the streaming was choppy and wasn't worth it. A cocktail of channels from a few streaming providers I feel can give me robust enough content.

Then if someone wants to come over with HBO Max I can watch what they have on there. I wouldn't necessarily try to get everything rather have some unique offerings others don't.

(05-31-2022 07:48 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  David Levy, the former president of WarnerMedia's Turner Broadcasting, who's now chairman of data firm Genius Sports, said he thinks Disney can get 30 million customers to pay $30 a month for streaming ESPN, or more than double the cost for a standard Netflix subscription. That would bring in $10.8 billion annually — more than Disney makes today from pay-TV affiliate revenue. "With sports, there's a guaranteed built-in audience," Levy said. "It's much different than entertainment. With entertainment, every show is hit or miss, and you always have to market content. You never know what will succeed and what won't. That's why sports is the best content to invest in, and it will be no matter what the distribution model is."

Why do they have ESPN+ at $5 a month then if they think people will pay $30 a month for ESPN? ESPN+ only has 22.3 million subscribers and that is juiced up by the Disney+ bundle.

When the prices go up for me I decide to take my eyeballs elsewhere.

(06-01-2022 10:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  NESN, the RSN co-owned by the Red Sox and Bruins, has just announced it will offer a DTC version for $30/month. Interestingly, it's the same price point cited for ESPN by Levy.

$30/month seems too high for any RSN. If the streaming price point for ESPN's group of channels would be $30, that's more value for sports fans than any RSN, even for the most diehard fan of one or two home teams.

The out-of-market packages for NBA and MLB also offer better value. NBA League Pass is $199/year for the local broadcasts of every team except your home team. MLB TV is $115/year, also for the local broadcasts of every team except your home team. So a Red Sox fan living in Miami would pay $115/year to watch every local Red Sox broadcast, plus the local broadcast of every team except the Marlins, while a Red Sox fan living in Boston would have to pay $180 just for the 6 months of the MLB regular season.

The future of all of this, when they eventually get the media rights straightened out, is for each pro league to offer an annual subscription that includes every team including the home team. But who knows how many years it will take the leagues to clean up the mess they've made with local media rights.