Agenda example #2. . . .Complete silence on the FBI reopening the investigation on Hillary Clinton's e-mails. . . . oh, wait, that that is CNN, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.
ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
ESPN became a big target with their carriage fees, which they used so they could overpay for live sports programming. People think, "ESPN is great, I can watch almost any game I want to." Yet, you're paying out the ass for it relative to every other channel in your cable bundle. And seeing more commercials as well.
I watched CNN report on it for a good portion of Friday afternoon.
Let me know when CFB live, Sportscenter, or OTL do the same.
Was watching Fox News this morning and they had on Maria Bartiriromo [thumb2][thumb2][thumb2], who was saying the weekend news shows were virtually silent on the issue. Maria wouldn't lie, would she?
I already conceded that major revenue streams dry up when an industry is disrupted. However, who gives a s**t about the absolute basis or the industry in general? For many, watching ESPN struggle will be schadenfruede.
We're in the B1G and we will be making tons of money.
I don't disagree that we will make a lot of money, but just not as much as we would in the current system - that's my point. If ESPN wasn't losing subscribers, the Big Ten would continue to be able to negotiate higher contracts along with applying leverage with BTN. That's at risk with ESPN losing subscribers. The NFL contracts are priced at such a premium that the networks don't make money on the actual games but they come out ahead after the carriage fee. Taylor Swift is making a ton of money now, but she'd be making even more in the old system.
I'm sorry but since when has ESPN been an option to subscribe too? Every cable package I've ever had incl ESPN & ESPN2, News in the extended basic package.
Bingo. This does NOT help Rutgers. If those fees don't do up we will never see the pot of gold we were hoping to see in 2022. If ESPN fees go down their may be likely downward pressure on other sport channel fees. Ironically, one thing driving fees downward may be waning interest in live sports from a generation of kids that can no longer attend live games and develop a life long affinity for the sport or its teams. Cost is a big factor, but so are more outside interests and activities as well as focus on health issues in games like football. In my neighborhood I have a park down the street and in over 15 years have never seen neighborhood kids play any pickup games there. I woulda loved to have had such a park and neighborhood kids gather to play when I was growing up.
Last edited:
Why are they booking revenue before it is earned & before the services are rendered?
That's not the way it works. Before downloading, artists were still making money from live concerts AND album sales. Now, they are basically just getting money from live concerts. There are a few artists, like Taylor Swift and Katy Perry, who are making extra money from endorsements.
It's exactly how it works. Ticket prices for concerts have multiplied under the new model. The top ten highest grossing tours had average ticket prices ranging from $72 to $216. The most popular artists are making much more from touring (adjusted for inflation) than they used to.
The ESPN business model will likely evolve. The major conferences will become the vendors of most of their content. The may be a part of basic services in certain areas but will be sold in other areas and prices will not be a good as $7/month. As far as ESPN is concerned they will become the producers of the content, the way they are currently with the SEC Network, Long Horn Network and future ACC network. Also like Fox with the BTN.
ESPN can also easily reduce costs, which are mostly rights fees. Ratings will drive future rights fees. That is why the NFL is so worried and the NBA should be too. Operating multiple channels out of Bristol does not cost ESPN much more than one channel. The infrastructure is there. Among the losers will be the high priced talent who will be replaced by the legions of wannabe sports broadcasters. Maybe they will try live sports broadcasts without announcers again. Same content as being at the game. It didn't work before, but now with better camera coverage and sound, who knows?
It seems obvious with attendance at the major college stadiums holding up that fan interest has not changed. Our problems are with the delivery system. I expect it to become much more direct with the big losers the middlemen, like ESPN, and the broadcast networks.
It will be an interesting ride.
ESPN can also easily reduce costs, which are mostly rights fees. Ratings will drive future rights fees. That is why the NFL is so worried and the NBA should be too. Operating multiple channels out of Bristol does not cost ESPN much more than one channel. The infrastructure is there. Among the losers will be the high priced talent who will be replaced by the legions of wannabe sports broadcasters. Maybe they will try live sports broadcasts without announcers again. Same content as being at the game. It didn't work before, but now with better camera coverage and sound, who knows?
It seems obvious with attendance at the major college stadiums holding up that fan interest has not changed. Our problems are with the delivery system. I expect it to become much more direct with the big losers the middlemen, like ESPN, and the broadcast networks.
It will be an interesting ride.
The lack of album sales is only a small part of why concert tickets are so expensive now. A big reason why concert tickets are so expensive is that the arenas, over the years, have tripled and quadrupled the cost to rent the venue to the artists, especially with consolidation under Live Nation and Clear Channel. If the artist wants to continue to make the same margin, prices have to go up.
And tours have also fallen victim to the ESPN model - the promoter makes an outrageous guarantee to the artist, and the promoter has to make that money back by upping the ticket price.
Led Zeppelin was reportedly offered $800 million to reunite by a promoter. What do you think tickets for THAT tour would have cost? It would have been $250 for the nosebleeds in a football or baseball stadium. It's no different than ESPN offering the NFL over a billion for broadcast rights. Someone in the middle makes a bad decision, everyone else has to pay for for the mistake, and people get disgruntled.
Go ala cart. I'd pay $5 to watch a B1G game (football, hoops, soccer, wrestling, etc.) I don't have E$PN because of all the other crap that comes with it.
Agree. I wonder if this is related to an overall drop in the number of cable subscribers?
It is exactly related to the drop in cable subscribers. If you go back to the source data, you see that ESPN is not losing subscribers; cable is losing subscribers. When people stop subscribing to cable, they automatically stop subscribing to the stuff they get on cable, whether it is ESPN or BTN.
One caveat about the source data, it is only estimates of subscribers through traditional cable/satellite services. It does not include streaming services such as direct streaming or PlayStation Vue.
Nielsen has withdrawn the November 2016 Cable Network Coverage Universe Estimates that it released last Friday, under concerns that the numbers are wrong. They are reviewing the data, and will re-release new estimates at a later date with any corrections to the original estimates.
If it wasn't for ESPN, the Big East would still be alive and we would be doing well. Regional rivalries would be flourishing instead of programs suffering (BC, CUSE - like I really care, but we'd still be playing Pitt, Cincy, Ville and beating WVU!)
I hate ESPN for what they did. Capitalism is tough sometimes. Some other station would have done it. It happened to be them.
We all have to figure out how to make money go forward.
I hate ESPN for what they did. Capitalism is tough sometimes. Some other station would have done it. It happened to be them.
We all have to figure out how to make money go forward.
This is exactly what I was saying that it's likely other networks are losing subscribers as well, just don't know how many. ESPN has one of the best reaches into the most households so it's likely they lose the most subscribers due to switching from traditional cable. They likely lose the most money and the most subscribers but that's because they sit on the high perch charging the most and having the greatest penetration. It doesn't mean the other guys aren't feeling the pinch to some extent as well.
I was wondering if the streaming services were measured. I've never really seen any metric for viewership on that for anyone really. ESPN is in SlingTV and suppose to be in the upcoming DirectTV now app (satellite service not required), don't know about Play Station Vue. While I doubt it offsets the full loss of traditional cable subscribers it's at least something.
In the end, ESPN isn't likely going the way of the dodo as long as they keep their hands on quality content. Disney/ESPN will adjust and adapt their business model to the new landscape. Letting go high paid on air personalities is part of that, bidding incrementally less for sports properties or partnering with others in the future may be part of that. Getting into streaming services and skinny bundles will be part of it. Things also will eventually trough how deep and how long that takes though we don't know.
This isn't anything to worry about, people are just getting their content in different ways.
Cable companies are going to move away from the old school boxes and move into offering their services like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, etc. Their cable boxes will soon be more like streaming devices like amazon fire, Apple TV, etc.
In fact soon you will be able to watch Netflix on your Comcast cable box. You can also stream all of the channels on-line.
The only thing that is changing is the platform not the money.
Live Sports will always be a premium because it is one of the few things you have to watch live and not later.
Cable companies are going to move away from the old school boxes and move into offering their services like Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, etc. Their cable boxes will soon be more like streaming devices like amazon fire, Apple TV, etc.
In fact soon you will be able to watch Netflix on your Comcast cable box. You can also stream all of the channels on-line.
The only thing that is changing is the platform not the money.
Live Sports will always be a premium because it is one of the few things you have to watch live and not later.
There are many football games on TV these days. If you have the cable sports package, on any given Fall Saturday you can watch as many as 10 games in the noon timeslot, then 10 more in the mid-afternoon timeslot, then 6 in the last afternoon timeslot and then 4 in primetime. Even Ivy league games are on national tv these days and also schools I've never even knew fielded a football team. NFL isn't quite as saturated as there are fewer teams but still too many games on that no one cares about. In college football, i watch only RU and then games between top 20 teams or B1G opponents.
There are many football games on TV these days. If you have the cable sports package, on any given Fall Saturday you can watch as many as 10 games in the noon timeslot, then 10 more in the mid-afternoon timeslot, then 6 in the last afternoon timeslot and then 4 in primetime. Even Ivy league games are on national tv these days and also schools I've never even knew fielded a football team. NFL isn't quite as saturated as there are fewer teams but still too many games on that no one cares about. In college football, i watch only RU and then games between top 20 teams or B1G opponents.
I do think quality live sports will be at a premium but on a relative basis. It's still the best avenue to capture a live audience. But will it be as much a premium as it has been, I'm not so sure.
Also kind of wonder if future generations have the same appetite for sports in general. I'm in my late 30s and I wonder if the generations coming up behind have the same appetite for it as mine and ones previous to mine. Of course there will always be sports fans but will there be any erosion over time with changing tastes of future generations?
After reading a few posts on that NFL thread even wonder if sports will be as dvr proof in the future as they have been in the past. Obviously very anecdotal and not even worthy of a sample size but just seeing people, of an older generation no less, talk about dvr and fast forwarding through quickly was surprising to me. Will it be less surprising in the future? So these kind of things make me think while there will be a premium for live sports it might not be like the premiums we've seen in the past past and definitely not like this last decade.
I am 39 and now its doesn't even bother me to not watch football on Saturday and Sunday's. Granted 3 kids keeps my away from the TV running around all weekend. I keep up with sports news and scores on my app - satisfying I guess. Yet, on a Monday and Thursday night, I may watch a set of downs and then just move on.
From the money, attitudes of the players in the Pros, to the cartel in College Football (only 8 to 10 teams have a real shot now. Conference expansion has hurt the Power 5 have-nots worse than ANYONE could have imagined), to Collin Kapernick. Who needs it?
Sports, for me, use to be an outlet to the real world. Now it seems sports is dirtier than the real world.
On the other hand, they are paying those conferences - even the American, which really is not a bad league at all - a pittance, so they're not really getting killed on those contracts.
for years they drove up prices on providers because of the content they delivered... so many avenues to get what you want.... some people don't want to pay for a pre-baked sports package.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...cribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
LONG article with lots of info. Here are highlights:
These 621,000 lost subscribers in the past month alone lead to a drop in revenue of over $52 million and continue the alarming subscriber decline at ESPN. Couple these subscriber declines with a 24% drop in Monday Night Football ratings this fall.
Presently ESPN is on the hook for the following yearly sports rights payments: $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League Baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, $225 million to the ACC, $190 million to the Big Ten, $120 million to the Big 12, $125 million a year to the PAC 12, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC.
It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.
Well when you decide to merge the politics of MSNBC into your sports programming some fans will leave. I don't watch sportscenter any more I will only watch a VERY attractive CFB matchup - otherwise dead to me, and many others it seems.
They aren't making more. As another poster pointed out, the expenses are higher as well.
You may miss the Big East. Most of us do not. It was a bball centered league run by idiots. Good riddance.
Last edited:
This, I do not disagree. But it should have survived and run like a football conference.
Basketball people?? SMH.
Wait, what? Big East FB was crippled from the start, shackled to the world views of provincial and parochial round ballers.
They don't pay the bills.
Maybe someday whoever replaces Delany will have to worry about that. But for us that's a lot easier answer within the B1G fold.
