ESPN, Dead Channel Walking? LINK!!

[ThePanthers]

Maybe but you can pretty much guarantee that your sports fanatic is going to end up paying a lot more to watch games. If the ESPN cable model dies your going to end up paying espn to watch these games online, what that cost will be up to what people are willing to pay but I would bet its going to be more than the 6 dollars a month it cost currently with cable.

Also the person who doesn't watch sports maybe likes to watch HGTV. HGTV is subsidized by sports fanatics as well since they are paying say 1 dollar month for a channel they will never watch. Whats going to happen is some of these channels will die off. They won't make it, the ones that do will have to be able to charge more for their private channel. So instead of the current 1 dollar they will charge 5 dollars. What could end up happening is the industry will move away from the cable model and the consumer will end up paying similar money to what they do now but without as many channels. I think more likely you will end up bundling through someone like sling. Consumers will end up paying similar amounts to what they do currently its just the provider won't be cable/satellite it will be a online company(probably the same company just through a different access)

This. No one ever talks about this. And the sports fanatics will be paying the most IMO. I'd probably pay because I love sports, but they are going to get their money somewhere. We'll be paying say $25 for ESPN instead of $6 (I'm making that number up), and like you said, people that want to watch TV w/o sports will probably be paying more for their channels, or they will just go away.

Time will tell, but what is cheap now won't be in the future once that is the way to generate higher revenue. Right now is a transition time.

 

[revampedpanthers]

It will be once the conference networks cease being subsidized by Aunt Ethel and Grandma Agnus. The conferences are bringing in WAY TOO much money for their real value. Once a service like Netflix can compete (which might only be a couple years away) then it will be over for the days of ESPN dominance.

Can't wait.

YOu really think it will be netflix running it? It will be sportsflix owned by espn. They control the content and have the money. They will just switch how they deliver it to you. Same with cable company. You have to have internet. They already provide that internet to you. Whats to stop them from raising their rates to stop the bleeding? The DSL companies(phone company) no longer get nearly as many land lines, they won't lose money they will just charge more for internet etc etc etc.

Basically most of the big players ESPN(disney), Big cable and Phone companies are going to find a way to get their money. The SEC and B10 will still make more than the pac12. They aren't going to sit around like idiots with their head in the sand until its to late. They will adapt. It may mean we end up paying more for sports(could see a PPV model where if you want to watch Pitt vs NC you log into sportsflix(by espn) and pay 10 dollars to watch the game in that situation a OSU game might get 1 million people to pay 10 bucks a pac12 usc game might get 500k the difference in interest will still be there. I do agree that at some point the revenue for sports will drop, because the sports industry currently is subsidized by cable viewers who aren't interested. But the change won't be the way many are predicting.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Maybe but you can pretty much guarantee that your sports fanatic is going to end up paying a lot more to watch games. If the ESPN cable model dies your going to end up paying espn to watch these games online, what that cost will be up to what people are willing to pay but I would bet its going to be more than the 6 dollars a month it cost currently with cable.

Also the person who doesn't watch sports maybe likes to watch HGTV. HGTV is subsidized by sports fanatics as well since they are paying say 1 dollar month for a channel they will never watch. Whats going to happen is some of these channels will die off. They won't make it, the ones that do will have to be able to charge more for their private channel. So instead of the current 1 dollar they will charge 5 dollars. What could end up happening is the industry will move away from the cable model and the consumer will end up paying similar money to what they do now but without as many channels. I think more likely you will end up bundling through someone like sling. Consumers will end up paying similar amounts to what they do currently its just the provider won't be cable/satellite it will be a online company(probably the same company just through a different access)

I understand this is what the cable companies and networks want people to think, but I don't buy it. In the case of ESPN, Aunt Ethel's monthly $5 subsidization of ESPN doesn't just make sports programming more accessible for fans as the network would want people to believe, it also increases salaries of coaches, builds soccer bubbles on campuses, helps pay for inflated pro athlete salaries, etc. When the national championship game in on pay tv instead of free over the air, that's a problem.

 

[HailtoPitt]

This. No one ever talks about this. And the sports fanatics will be paying the most IMO. I'd probably pay because I love sports, but they are going to get their money somewhere. We'll be paying say $25 for ESPN instead of $6 (I'm making that number up), and like you said, people that want to watch TV w/o sports will probably be paying more for their channels, or they will just go away.

Time will tell, but what is cheap now won't be in the future once that is the way to generate higher revenue. Right now is a transition time.

I don't agree. Instead of the Big XYC conference getting $100M in free, subsidized revenue per year (or whatever the totals are), they might get $20M. Too bad. If ending the subsidization of sports leads to fewer televised games, then too bad. Let the market work it out.

It amazes me how people can be so against subsidization of something like healthcare so that everyone can have access to the services they require, but when it's something like their sports programming 24/7, all of the sudden it's perfectly ok for one person to pay more and use less.

 

[revampedpanthers]

This. No one ever talks about this. And the sports fanatics will be paying the most IMO. I'd probably pay because I love sports, but they are going to get their money somewhere. We'll be paying say $25 for ESPN instead of $6 (I'm making that number up), and like you said, people that want to watch TV w/o sports will probably be paying more for their channels, or they will just go away.

Time will tell, but what is cheap now won't be in the future once that is the way to generate higher revenue. Right now is a transition time.

yep. maybe you made my point better than I did. At some point these channels will either go away or end up charging a lot more. You might be able to get these channels cheaper on slingtv than what you can on cable right now but eventually your going to pay similar money for less. You want a sports package with a add on of history channel and some kids programming your going to pay. We might end up talking about the good old days where we got 200 bundled channels on cable for 100 bucks because we will be paying 80 for 15 channels!

 

[revampedpanthers]

I understand this is what the cable companies and networks want people to think, but I don't buy it. In the case of ESPN, Aunt Ethel's monthly $5 subsidization of ESPN doesn't just make sports programming more accessible for fans as the network would want people to believe, it also increases salaries of coaches, builds soccer bubbles on campuses, helps pay for inflated pro athlete salaries, etc. When the national championship game in on pay tv instead of free over the air, that's a problem.

I agree that at some point espn will lose some revenue. People who want to watch sports will pay 5x as much for those channels(if you only watch sports and say the history channel you may save money but you will spend close to what you spend now for many more channels) but at some point the money pot is going to shrink. The b10 and sec might go from 500 million a year to 250 but they will still be the top dogs. And programs like OSU will still spend double to triple what Pitt or wvu does. Actually if it works out the way you think it will, programs like OSU,bama etc will pull further away from programs like Pitt. If it goes that way you could see a FBS with 32 teams or something similar.

 

[revampedpanthers]

I don't agree. Instead of the Big XYC conference getting $100M in free, subsidized revenue per year (or whatever the totals are), they might get $20M. Too bad. If ending the subsidization of sports leads to fewer televised games, then too bad. Let the market work it out.

It amazes me how people can be so against subsidization of something like healthcare so that everyone can have access to the services they require, but when it's something like their sports programming 24/7, all of the sudden it's perfectly ok for one person to pay more and use less.

No one said more choices were bad. Aunt ethel doesn't need to pay cable if she doesn't watch it, but chances are she watches golden girls on TVland and HGTV. Right now those channels exist partially because the cable tv model. If it ends tvland goes from 100 million subscribers to 1 million. They either fold up or they charge aunt ethel 12 bucks a month. HGTV then either folds up or charges aunt ethel 12 bucks a month. Eventually she will pay similar amount or will save a lot because none of her channels will exist. These channels aren't making huge amounts of money. ESPN makes more because their content is more valuable than HGTV to the cable companies. If they produced ratings similar to HGTV their monthly rate would be at that level.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

For us, $6.60/month for ESPN is an unbelievable bargain. For my mom, it is an absolute rip off. If the future is a la carte streaming, you may see it cost $30/month for ESPN but you'd only have to subscribe to a few other networks. Your bill will be roughly the same but wont have as many channels.

 

[PHATWOOD]

Sportsflix basically already exists for ESPN. They've been building the digital delivery model for quite some time, it's just that you log in and verify through your cable provider right now. How hard would it be for them to add the functionality for one off pay per views or over the top subscriptions? I'd bet they could do it tomorrow. But they're married to the cable model as long as they possibly can be with very good reason.

Those cheering the end of bundling, just be prepared for a future where you have to have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, WatchESPN, FoxSportsGo and whichever streaming site you need to find the content you want.

In the end, the content creators are going to get paid, because well, they own the content. Content that isn't valuable to the consume or advertisers will disappear. And whether you get your internet via cable or fiber, someone owns that too and once the entire country is just streaming their content expect the bills for that to climb as well.

This is as someone stated a transition period. In the future people will likely pay for what they want to see, not for all the crap they don't care about. But to act as if this means ESPN and Fox Sports are dead and buried is silly. This is not the end of bundling anyways, as that model has already been introduced via streaming. And much like Netflix, you can expect the price of those things to creep up over time as they realize they've got consumers over a barrel. You can also expect that in time you'll be sitting through commercials on Netflix, or any other streaming delivery site while they still charge you more per month. Meet the new boss.....

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

HAHAHAHAHAHA...sorry...HAHAHAHAHA

I had started to write why this is the most misinformed statement of the month, but then realized that an orange would understand the information about as much as the OP.



Really?? You predict a sellout at the stadium that averages more than 100,000 people per game and regularly sells out for any half-decent competitor??While you're on this amazing prophetic roll tell me next week's lotto numbers and who will win the 2025 Super Bowl.

Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and many more stadiums have had Games with Standing Room Attendance and over Capacity at times. Ignorance suits you!

Is this all you got and can write....HHAHHAHAHH! LOL!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

The articles you posted did not mention that the Pac 12 is better positioned because it is 100% owned by the conference. None of the articles you posted mentioned that. The articles you posted dealt with ESPN's financial troubles, and the problem with the cable industry in general. The one article about the Pac 12 only mentioned it owns 100% of its rights when next contract expires. It did not address how the Pac 12 would monetize those rights.

Again, I have raised a legitimate point, and you don't address it with data or analysis. You just say "quit crying," which is again a juvenile argument.

No you have not, you just doubt PAC-12 Scott that has 100% Ownership and can make deals easier than Conferences tied to Cable that is retrenching and have to figure out with ESPN what to do, the Article quoted I put up, PAC-12 is behind and why, you said nothing new and just accept it. Cable has some problems now and Conferences tied to ESPN Cable will have to deal with them. PAC-12, ACC and Big-12 are w ay behind too, as said in the Article Big-12 and ACC won't put out all numbers, but PAC-12 did and admitted they have problems abut still will a have some options when not tied to any one Sports Network & Cable and New Tech comes online.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

100,257 according to CBS and ESPN.

That is average and I said some games can and do go over capacity and i have been at them. OSU has done them too. Penn State has admitted Fans some games beyond 106,000. The scandal has reduced their average since it happen but they are coming back higher after going 11-2!
Although Michigan Stadium has a maximum capacity slightly larger than Ohio State's (107,501 to 101,568; although most game attendances exceed those numbers)
http://www.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/battleoftheblogs/archive/question-2/index.html

Rank Attendance Date Game result
1 110,753 Sept. 14, 2002 Penn State 40, Nebraska 7
2 110,134 Oct. 27, 2007 Penn State 17, Ohio State 37
3 110,078 Sept. 8, 2007 Penn State 31, Notre Dame 10
4 110,033 Nov. 7, 2009 Penn State 7, Ohio State 24
5 110,017 Oct. 18, 2008 Penn State 46, Michigan 17
6 110,007 Oct. 14, 2006 Penn State 10, Michigan 17
7 109,865 Nov. 5, 2005 Penn State 35, Wisconsin 14
8 109,845 Nov. 22, 2008 Penn State 49, Michigan State 18
9 109,839 Oct. 8, 2005 Penn State 17, Ohio State 10
10 109,754 Oct. 13, 2007 Penn State 38, Wisconsin 7
LINK FOR CJsE DINK THAT CAN'T THINK: LOL!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Stadium#Largest_crowds

In 2017, PSU fans will have Beaver Full against Pitt! They can't wait!

 

[topdecktiger]

No you have not, you just doubt PAC-12 Scott that has 100% Ownership and can make deals easier than Conferences tied to Cable that is retrenching and have to figure out with ESPN what to do, the Article quoted I put up, PAC-12 is behind and why, you said nothing new and just accept it. Cable has some problems now and Conferences tied to ESPN Cable will have to deal with them. PAC-12, ACC and Big-12 are w ay behind too, as said in the Article Big-12 and ACC won't put out all numbers, but PAC-12 did and admitted they have problems abut still will a have some options when not tied to any one Sports Network & Cable and New Tech comes online.

Yes, I absolutely have. First off, you are wrong about what I said. I do not doubt that the Pac 12 will have 100% ownership of their rights. Having 100% ownership of their rights doesn't put the Pac 12 in a better position. The reason is, having 100% ownership of your rights doesn't mean you will get more money for those rights. Somebody is going to have to pay the Pac 12 for those rights. Ok, well who is that going to be? Your articles point out that ESPN is losing money. Ok, well ESPN isn't going to be able to give the Pac 12 some blockbuster deal if they are losing money. FS1 is also losing money. They won't be able to give the Pac 12 a blockbuster deal. The Pac 12 is going to have to be tied to somebody when they sign their new deal.

 

[revampedpanthers]

For us, $6.60/month for ESPN is an unbelievable bargain. For my mom, it is an absolute rip off. If the future is a la carte streaming, you may see it cost $30/month for ESPN but you'd only have to subscribe to a few other networks. Your bill will be roughly the same but wont have as many channels.

Which will suck because I would rather pay 80 a month for 200 channels even if I only watch 25 of them than 60 for 8.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

This. No one ever talks about this. And the sports fanatics will be paying the most IMO. I'd probably pay because I love sports, but they are going to get their money somewhere. We'll be paying say $25 for ESPN instead of $6 (I'm making that number up), and like you said, people that want to watch TV w/o sports will probably be paying more for their channels, or they will just go away. Time will tell, but what is cheap now won't be in the future once that is the way to generate higher revenue. Right now is a transition time.

Good Post and adds to the discussion. I disagree a tad, what I learned at Silicon valley in my weeks at Stanford Institute was the dynamic changes happening at Apple, Amazon, Google, Intel, Verizon-Yahoo, VMWare, Intuitive Surgical, Microsoft, and a few more. They are moving in ways I could not understand but others told me how and they left Giant like IBM behind.

For example, Intel is key Profit Center is still the PC but they have come with a way to keep making a profit on Legacy Costs but are calling themselves a DATA Company now to work on Software for the Cloud and that is going dominate all future paths?

All I know is current ESPN Contracts are based on "CABLE TV SUBCRIBERS" and they are not the Future and will have a decline like Telephone Land Lines with legacy costs far less Profitable and those Conference & NFL Contracts with ESPN are 6 to 8 years.

I can give a one scenario and that may apply. A while ago, Baseball went through some tough years overpaying but adapted and adjusted and still is popular. So did the NBA but darker days ahead because sports rights are a bubble that's poised to pop. But it's not just ESPN, Fox, CBS, NBC going to lose a lot of money on sports rights as the cable and satellite industry bundle crumbles, it's players, coaches and athletic departments too.

Disney is now addressing ESPN and the NFL now is facing it and so will CFB on the loss of Subscribers sooner not later!

Hockey had this problem a number of years ago, overpaying Players and Coaches and said look we have to change we can't afford it anymore. Players balk and went on strike. Hockey ended the Hockey Season and none of them paid, and came back later taking Concessions and no longer overpaying but living in their means of Cash Flows, and still Popular.

Conferences more tied to "CABLE SUBSCRIBERS" will be going through what Hockey went through in my opinion.

The New Cloud Software Tech I am told is within High Tech and changing the Big Silicon Valley Companies already and Retail, Hardware, and Cable will be replaced with far cheaper means to produce far cheaper products for viewers, customers, and Cable won't gain more Profits by raising Football Games to $25 that will just decrease more Subscribers. The New Tech will make watching football far less.

The Article says it all, "DEAD CHANNEL WALKING" not NFL or CFB, they will adapt but maybe like Hockey did it, by lowering their costs. I say I disagreed a tad, because I myself have no idea how it wail all play out and why I put up the article to learn from others like you and not saying you are wrong either.

Still, what is true is ESPN is Big Trouble with CABLE SUBSCRIBERS not growing and in fact dying and declining with 6 to 8 Year Contracts and unknown changes are on the way. If IBM that invented the PC could fall behind but may adjust.

The problem for ESPN System on Cable Subscribers & Conference Contracts is here problem is here today and not going away, they can't pay if the lose more Subscribers. There Plan was based on Expansion of Subscribers and many above added to this discussion like I wanted.

For example:
Old-school technology companies getting left behind in cloud disruption?
Larry Ellison fired a shot across the bow, saying traditional companies like IBM and SAP are no longer competition for Oracle. An expert discusses cloud disruption in this podcast.
LINK:
http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/info/news

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

I understand this is what the cable companies and networks want people to think, but I don't buy it. In the case of ESPN, Aunt Ethel's monthly $5 subsidization of ESPN doesn't just make sports programming more accessible for fans as the network would want people to believe, it also increases salaries of coaches, builds soccer bubbles on campuses, helps pay for inflated pro athlete salaries, etc. When the national championship game in on pay tv instead of free over the air, that's a problem.

Good Post and that game was horribly broadcasted making me wanting to quit watching. The 5-7 minute commercials, broadcasters break away to themselves, and guest just ruined that Great Game, until the last 5 minutes when they must ran out of commercials and kept showing the game more, it also started too late.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

The Mid-Majors see problems too.

Group of Five football playoff idea is not going away despite myriad obstacles
Some truly believe in a Group of Five playoff, while others (including possibly TV) have no interest:
"All I'm saying is the directional schools like us, it's just a matter of time," said Frazier, a former Alabama walk-on. "I'm not Nostradamus, but shoot, I'm looking at the trends. ... My donor base is [maxed] out. ... If I don't find new ways to monetize ... one major [solution] is this potential playoff."
LINK:
http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...a-is-not-going-away-despite-myriad-obstacles/

 

[HailtoPitt]

No one said more choices were bad. Aunt ethel doesn't need to pay cable if she doesn't watch it, but chances are she watches golden girls on TVland and HGTV. Right now those channels exist partially because the cable tv model. If it ends tvland goes from 100 million subscribers to 1 million. They either fold up or they charge aunt ethel 12 bucks a month. HGTV then either folds up or charges aunt ethel 12 bucks a month. Eventually she will pay similar amount or will save a lot because none of her channels will exist. These channels aren't making huge amounts of money. ESPN makes more because their content is more valuable than HGTV to the cable companies. If they produced ratings similar to HGTV their monthly rate would be at that level.

I don't agree that people will be worse off. The reason ESPN has such a large percentage of the overall cable bill is because they've simply taken most of that revenue and purchased programming, flooding the sports industry with even more money, inflating salaries and costs of doing business, which makes it even more expensive. Once they have less subsidized revenue coming in, those costs will decrease and a la carte programming prices will be less than people think, or free, as it used to be in many cases.

And hopefully Aunt Ethel will realize that she used to watch the Golden Girls for free, and now she is expected to pay AND watch the commercials while watching that show. Come on.

 

[ThePanthers]

I don't agree that people will be worse off. The reason ESPN has such a large percentage of the overall cable bill is because they've simply taken most of that revenue and purchased programming, flooding the sports industry with even more money, inflating salaries and costs of doing business, which makes it even more expensive. Once they have less subsidized revenue coming in, those costs will decrease and a la carte programming prices will be less than people think, or free, as it used to be in many cases.

And hopefully Aunt Ethel will realize that she used to watch the Golden Girls for free, and now she is expected to pay AND watch the commercials while watching that show. Come on.

You live in a weird world.

 

[raleighpanther]

OK, I'll jump in here with something that hasn't been mentioned yet.

1) First,sports programming is in fact the MOST attractive form of programming out there from an advertisers perspective. Why? Because while we all may occasionally record a game when we're out, people generally prefer to watch sports live...which means we have to suffer through the commercials. I never, and I mean NEVER, watch a TV series live, because if I did, I wouldn't be able to fast-forward through the commercials. So, advertisers are willing to pay more to advertise during sports. This increases the value of sports programming, versus other types of programming for providers, beyond the simple subscriber fee.

2) One of the articles suggested that the big networks are best positioned to grab up the next set of sports contracts. This makes sense, at least in the near term. Sports is a small part, but an important part of the networks' content.
Sports fans will be willing to pay for CBS, regardless of how it is being delivered (cable, satellite, direct service like Netflix) if they have sports programming too, in addition to other programming. But non-sports fans will still buy it too. Basically, the networks are doing their own form of bundling -- their bundling different types of content, not channels. They are threatened too by the breakup of the cable provider model, but are better positioned to survive it in the near term. Department stores ain't what they used to be either, but many still survive, and have long after their model was pronounced dead.

3) This is all fascinating stuff, but my fear is that we as sports fans will be worse off. It's not so much the cost, which may not be that much more for us paying under new models, its the loss of the diversity of content. Currently, we can surf our way across many, many college games on a Saturday afternoon, switching to the closer, more interesting games as the day goes on. But if everything is compartmentalized into numerous "services", we'll be cut off from much of it.
As an example, I live outside the Big Ten footprint, so I don't get the BTN. There are games on it that I would watch if I got it, but there is no way I'm going to pay for it (one, I'm that THAT interested, and two, I don't want the B10 bastards to get my money). And I'm afraid the future will see a lot of that.

 

[Panther Holla]

OCTOBER 2016
In the past five years ESPN has lost 11,346,000 subscribers according to Nielsen data. If you combine that with ESPN2 and ESPNU subscriber losses this means that ESPN has lost over a billion dollars in cable and satellite revenue just in the past five years, an average of $200 million each year. That total of a billion dollars hits ESPN in the pocketbook not just on a yearly basis, but for every year going forward. It's gone forever. That's not just bad, this is downright cataclysmic. And it's getting worse. In the past year ESPN lost 4.159 million subscribers, that's another $350 million in lost revenue across the ESPN family of networks..........................So where are all these subscribers going? A good theory posited by SportsTVRatings is that the loss is happening three ways, 1. death, 2. cord nevers and 3. cord cutters. Let me unpack those three: first, older people are dying off and they're more likely to subscribe to cable than younger people, second, many younger people don't subscribe to cable at all, hence they're cord nevers and third, many of you are also cutting the cord to save money. Combine all three of these factors and all are working against the cable and satellite bundle.

So let's talk about the ESPN business model. I've written a ton about this, but on its most basic level every channel has a cost in your cable bill. You don't realize it because your cable bill isn't broken down by individual channel cost, but ESPN is by far the most expensive channel on all our cable bills. (ESPN is the most expensive channel costing $6.60 a month. The second most expensive? TNT, which costs just $1.65 a month). Every single cable and satellite subscriber pays around $80 a year for ESPN. With 88.7 million subscribers, that means ESPN pockets around $7 billion a year just in cable and satellite subscription fees. So what makes sports on cable TV a bubble? The fact that ESPN uses the money it receives from cable and satellite subscribers to buy sports rights. And the vast majority of those cable and satellite subscribers never watch ESPN. Your Aunt Gladys, who hasn't watched a sporting event in a decade, pays the same amount for ESPN as you do. What does ESPN do with that money from you and Aunt Gladys and its other 88 million subscribers? It buys sports rights. Presently ESPN is on the hook for the following yearly 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 -- and potentially growing -- to the Big 12, $125 million a year to the PAC 12, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC. At an absolute minimum it would appear that ESPN presently pays out nearly $6 billion a year to sports leagues just in rights fees. At 73 million subscribers -- our projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees. Sure, advertising money and ESPN2 and ESPNU have to be factored in as well, but you'd also have to add in every other cost that ESPN has to run multiple networks, employee salaries, technology, everything that a major corporation with thousands of worldwide employees has to keep up. And, importantly, you also have to factor in this, ESPN's Monday Night Football contract expires at the end of 2021. Right when current projections would have them hitting just 73 million subscribers...............................

I'm not against ESPN -- or certainly FS1 or NBCSN or CBSSN or any other sports cable channel -- I just see the collapse of the cable and satellite bundle as a major story that most in the sports industry are ignoring. When the bubble officially pops -- and it may well have already popped without most realizing it -- it's going to change everything about sports -- team revenue and player salaries will plummet and the way that average fans consume sports will change rapidly. ESPN isn't going to be the only company hit by the popping of the sports bubble either, but it will be the most significantly impacted by far. Let me explain. Let's use FS1 as an example. FS1 brings in around $1 a month in cable and subscriber revenue. This past year FS1, like virtually all cable channels, lost subscribers. FS1 lost 1.6 million subscribers last year, roughly a third of ESPN's losses. That's not ideal, but that loss cost FS1 $19.2 million in overall revenue compared to ESPN's loss of $350 million. NBCSN and CBSSN lose much less money because they're much smaller businesses and, quite frankly, don't make that much off their cable networks.............cable and satellite bundle is collapsing?
Read The end Of ESPN At The Rest Of The Link...
LINK:
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-4-million-subscribers-in-past-year-080416

FEB 2017
ESPN again cited as factor in Disney revenue drop, while Bob Iger may stay on past 2018
Another Disney earnings call led to another miss on analysts' expectations (in revenue this time), and again led to ESPN being cited as a reason for the miss................Cable Networks revenues for the quarter decreased 2% to $4.4 billion and operating income decreased 11% to $0.9 billion. The decrease in operating income was due to a decrease at ESPN..........
LINK:
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-disney-revenue-drop-iger-stay-past-2018.html

I worked in cable for most of the 80s and 90s, and I dealt with the cable networks as we had to decide which networks to carry. Back then, cable operators had some options when filling open channel spots in a 40- or 60-channel lineup.

One fine day the ESPN rep comes in to pitch espn2 (lower case), which was intended to "feature alternative sports, lifestyle sports, cool hip stuff like snowboarding. Oh, and we might show a basketball game here and there, too."

With a largely rural Southern constituency of small townsfolk who loved football, God, NASCAR and ACC/SEC schools, we weren't all that interested in devoting a channel to hipster sports. Until the espn2 basketball schedule came out, and we read the words: Duke at North Carolina. We had to scramble to add "the Deuce" in a dozen systems across the Carolinas so we would not have a double blue mob storming our offices. ESPN smartly migrated a marquee game to force the hands of cable operators. They played hardball for as long as they could, take it or leave it. Disney Channel was equally ruthless when they announced they were converting from a pay channel like HBO to a basic cable channel. We lost all of the revenues but our fees, spread out across all of our customers, remained the same. The Mouse is a true capitalist. Now they are one in the same. I won't shed tears for ESPN or Mickey.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

I worked in cable for most of the 80s and 90s, and I dealt with the cable networks as we had to decide which networks to carry. Back then, cable operators had some options when filling open channel spots in a 40- or 60-channel lineup.

One fine day the ESPN rep comes in to pitch espn2 (lower case), which was intended to "feature alternative sports, lifestyle sports, cool hip stuff like snowboarding. Oh, and we might show a basketball game here and there, too."

With a largely rural Southern constituency of small townsfolk who loved football, God, NASCAR and ACC/SEC schools, we weren't all that interested in devoting a channel to hipster sports. Until the espn2 basketball schedule came out, and we read the words: Duke at North Carolina. We had to scramble to add "the Deuce" in a dozen systems across the Carolinas so we would not have a double blue mob storming our offices. ESPN smartly migrated a marquee game to force the hands of cable operators. They played hardball for as long as they could, take it or leave it. Disney Channel was equally ruthless when they announced they were converting from a pay channel like HBO to a basic cable channel. We lost all of the revenues but our fees, spread out across all of our customers, remained the same. The Mouse is a true capitalist. Now they are one in the same. I won't shed tears for ESPN or Mickey.

Thank you Panther Holla,
This is why I put the Topic Thread up to gather such reaction, engagement discussions, and solicit views from others on what they think or hear or know and have direct experience in Businesses. It Posters like you that make it a joy to share and learn on Lair together.

What I find odd is that ESPN was a BIG EAST CREATION, and when ABC bought them out and Disney, they changed to their own demise and when the Big Ten Channel came about because some young snide stupid 30 Year Old ESPN Executive they quickly moved to ACC and SEC, and still begged before Big Ten Door for Second Rights, unfortunately help create FOX SPORTS.

Now they are Dying A Dinosaur that has put out 6 & 8 Year Sports Right$ that is unsustainable since they went from 100 to 84 Million Subscribers in just one year and still dropping, and now facing New Cloud Technologies that are far cheaper to run.

The point is they are not going to grow their Subscriber Base Back at $6.50 biggest Cable Bills, and B1G Channel $1.10 with FOX and SEC-ESPN is adding more, and ACC-ESPN coming on in 2019, and PAC-12 on its own Free to pick any Partner in the future that can be an Alternative to Cable?

I don't pretend to know the future but I do know Corporate Structures like ESPN are tough to change now and DISNEY is not happy with their Bottom Lines. The Conferences tied to Cable Subscribers with Agreements Income Declining and Advertisers watching the NFL Ratings also dropping, is going to cause changes in the Conferences as ESPN has been making themselves Cash Cows must get leaner.

What few are not understanding is that American TV Consumers HATE CABLE now, and are looking for alternatives. It is a deep HATE that is going to be sustained and once off CABLE they not going back. I can tell you now, Silicon Valley is already ready to step in, replace, and make the changes too with a NEW FCC Charmian. Some say, it was going to take 10 years, I have been told far sooner. ESPN has been re-organizing all of last year and it is only going to get worse.

I never witness such poor CFB & NFL Broadcasting all my life like what I saw in 2016. The Announcers showing themselves, going to Sideline Reporters, adding Celebrities Guests, Political Correctness, Poor Ref Reviews going to Commercials, and then coming back and missing the plays on the field is NOT about the GAME anymore, they made it about ESPN and THEM. And I say, F-THEM and I am not alone!

Commercials lasting 5 Minutes Long and Constant 15 Second Advertising on Up Coming ESPN Hosts Shows that is the "New Studio Sports Verbal Wrestling", when Actual Playing Time from Hike to Whistle, is only 11-17 Minutes, but during a 3 Hour Game is no longer enjoyable and watchable and they have NO CLUE. They are missing those 11-17 minutes too with making it about them?

They are like the Big Dying Dinosaurs that never knew they were dying because they could not adapt and when they found out, it was too late and replaced.

Renegotiation are coming but unfortunately so are Competitors. Dinosaurs died, but the Smaller Mammal Rodents grew and replaced them and some say the Dinosaur turned into Birds?

I don't care, I just know I won't watch the next ESPN CABLE CFB GAME and especially the National Championship. I'll watch part of it, after it is over, and on an alternative means later, to save my time just to avoid the drips, dribbles and diatribes of Cable Broadcasters and many are following.

Great Post by you Thanks!

 

[Panther Holla]

Thank you Panther Holla,
This is why I put the Topic Thread up to gather such reaction, engagement discussions, and solicit views from others on what they think or hear or know and have direct experience in Businesses. It Posters like you that make it a joy to share and learn on Lair together.

What I find odd is that ESPN was a BIG EAST CREATION, and when ABC bought them out and Disney, they changed to their own demise and when the Big Ten Channel came about because some young snide stupid 30 Year Old ESPN Executive they quickly moved to ACC and SEC, and still begged before Big Ten Door for Second Rights, unfortunately help create FOX SPORTS.

Now they are Dying A Dinosaur that has put out 6 & 8 Year Sports Right$ that is unsustainable since they went from 100 to 84 Million Subscribers in just one year and still dropping, and now facing New Cloud Technologies that are far cheaper to run.

The point is they are not going to grow their Subscriber Base Back at $6.50 biggest Cable Bills, and B1G Channel $1.10 with FOX and SEC-ESPN is adding more, and ACC-ESPN coming on in 2019, and PAC-12 on its own Free to pick any Partner in the future that can be an Alternative to Cable?

I don't pretend to know the future but I do know Corporate Structures like ESPN are tough to change now and DISNEY is not happy with their Bottom Lines. The Conferences tied to Cable Subscribers with Agreements Income Declining and Advertisers watching the NFL Ratings also dropping, is going to cause changes in the Conferences as ESPN has been making themselves Cash Cows must get leaner.

What few are not understanding is that American TV Consumers HATE CABLE now, and are looking for alternatives. It is a deep HATE that is going to be sustained and once off CABLE they not going back. I can tell you now, Silicon Valley is already ready to step in, replace, and make the changes too with a NEW FCC Charmian. Some say, it was going to take 10 years, I have been told far sooner. ESPN has been re-organizing all of last year and it is only going to get worse.

I never witness such poor CFB & NFL Broadcasting all my life like what I saw in 2016. The Announcers showing themselves, going to Sideline Reporters, adding Celebrities Guests, Political Correctness, Poor Ref Reviews going to Commercials, and then coming back and missing the plays on the field is NOT about the GAME anymore, they made it about ESPN and THEM. And I say, F-THEM and I am not alone!

Commercials lasting 5 Minutes Long and Constant 15 Second Advertising on Up Coming ESPN Hosts Shows that is the "New Studio Sports Verbal Wrestling", when Actual Playing Time from Hike to Whistle, is only 11-17 Minutes, but during a 3 Hour Game is no longer enjoyable and watchable and they have NO CLUE. They are missing those 11-17 minutes too with making it about them?

They are like the Big Dying Dinosaurs that never knew they were dying because they could not adapt and when they found out, it was too late and replaced.

Renegotiation are coming but unfortunately so are Competitors. Dinosaurs died, but the Smaller Mammal Rodents grew and replaced them and some say the Dinosaur turned into Birds?

I don't care, I just know I won't watch the next ESPN CABLE CFB GAME and especially the National Championship. I'll watch part of it, after it is over, and on an alternative means later, to save my time just to avoid the drips, dribbles and diatribes of Cable Broadcasters and many are following.

Great Post by you Thanks!

Thank you, Sir. I have to say that just about all of my ESPN reps were great people and good fans and I loved to watch a Pirate or Pitt game with them. Lots of Syracuse and UConn grads with a smattering of what I call "the lacrosse schools" like CW Post. When it came down to business, they toed the Bristol party line.... without exception. The ESPN rate card grew to a dollar per sub faster than any other network that I can recall. For that era, it was hard to argue against the value.

 

[HailtoPitt]

You live in a weird world.

Maybe. But I'm right.

 

[ThePanthers]

Maybe. But I'm right.

Time will tell, but I doubt it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

For us, $6.60/month for ESPN is an unbelievable bargain. For my mom, it is an absolute rip off. If the future is a la carte streaming, you may see it cost $30/month for ESPN but you'd only have to subscribe to a few other networks. Your bill will be roughly the same but wont have as many channels.

Which will suck because I would rather pay 80 a month for 200 channels even if I only watch 25 of them than 60 for 8.

That is the future, my friend. Some idiots think that cable going away means they'll be able to stream the NBA, College Football, NCAA Tournament, baseball, etc and pay like $5/month.

Hahaha haha hahaha. Not happening!

 

[ncpittfan]

If I'm NOT mistaken, the Ohio state game WASN'T even SOLD OUT!!!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Thank you, Sir. I have to say that just about all of my ESPN reps were great people and good fans and I loved to watch a Pirate or Pitt game with them. Lots of Syracuse and UConn grads with a smattering of what I call "the lacrosse schools" like CW Post. When it came down to business, they toed the Bristol party line.... without exception. The ESPN rate card grew to a dollar per sub faster than any other network that I can recall. For that era, it was hard to argue against the value.

I don't Blame Employees, I Blame Management they put out Fires but seldom correct bad planning until it is upon them, and then they Parachutes Away leaving the Employees Unemployment Slips Away!

 

[LyleTuttle]

I honestly think giving a conference their own Network is a bad idea. I can understand the SEC, but where does ESPN benefit having the ACC Network. The big games in the ACC, whether they are Football or Basketball will be on ESPN or ABC (Football), or CBS (Basketball) anyway. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[topdecktiger]

I honestly think giving a conference their own Network is a bad idea. I can understand the SEC, but where does ESPN benefit having the ACC Network. The big games in the ACC, whether they are Football or Basketball will be on ESPN or ABC (Football), or CBS (Basketball) anyway. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

They benefit by generating money from subscribers, many of whom don't actually watch the network, but still receive it as part of a package.

That's sort of the whole point of the thread. Will this business model hold up long-term?

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

It will be once the conference networks cease being subsidized by Aunt Ethel and Grandma Agnus. The conferences are bringing in WAY TOO much money for their real value. Once a service like Netflix can compete (which might only be a couple years away) then it will be over for the days of ESPN dominance.

Can't wait.

It is partly what Sling TV is right now.

 

[revampedpanthers]

They benefit by generating money from subscribers, many of whom don't actually watch the network, but still receive it as part of a package.

That's sort of the whole point of the thread. Will this business model hold up long-term?

Well the OP specifically meant espn but I agree this current move to cut the cord will hurt the conference networks more than Espn. There simply isn't much content on the b10 network for instance that maybe 10 percent of the current subscribers would keep it and even then only at a slightly increased rate. If they tried to charge 10 bucks a month only the die hards would pay for it. So yes I would expect networks like the b10 to produce far less revenue than what they are currently producing.

 

[ThePanthers]

I honestly think giving a conference their own Network is a bad idea. I can understand the SEC, but where does ESPN benefit having the ACC Network. The big games in the ACC, whether they are Football or Basketball will be on ESPN or ABC (Football), or CBS (Basketball) anyway. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

They feel they will benefit or else they wouldn't go forward with it.

 

[Jpripper88]

Maybe but you can pretty much guarantee that your sports fanatic is going to end up paying a lot more to watch games. If the ESPN cable model dies your going to end up paying espn to watch these games online, what that cost will be up to what people are willing to pay but I would bet its going to be more than the 6 dollars a month it cost currently with cable.

Also the person who doesn't watch sports maybe likes to watch HGTV. HGTV is subsidized by sports fanatics as well since they are paying say 1 dollar month for a channel they will never watch. Whats going to happen is some of these channels will die off. They won't make it, the ones that do will have to be able to charge more for their private channel. So instead of the current 1 dollar they will charge 5 dollars. What could end up happening is the industry will move away from the cable model and the consumer will end up paying similar money to what they do now but without as many channels. I think more likely you will end up bundling through someone like sling. Consumers will end up paying similar amounts to what they do currently its just the provider won't be cable/satellite it will be a online company(probably the same company just through a different access)

Exactly. And most here are getting a great benefit, but don't realize that. If you like watching sports and have a family, you are by far the biggest beneficiary of the bundle.

The only hope I have is the leagues start selling on their own and put out local broadcasts for purchase, rather than ESPN. Basically Sunday Ticket goes to everyone and for every sport and slightly less if you want just one team or a pay by game PPV system.

 

[topdecktiger]

Well the OP specifically meant espn

ESPN is the ACC network. ESPN owns it. Even if you try to pigeonhole the OP's comments about specifically ESPN the channel, rather than ESPN the corporation, the effect is still the same either way.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I honestly think giving a conference their own Network is a bad idea. I can understand the SEC, but where does ESPN benefit having the ACC Network. The big games in the ACC, whether they are Football or Basketball will be on ESPN or ABC (Football), or CBS (Basketball) anyway. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

They feel they will benefit or else they wouldn't go forward with it.

Yes and John Swofford said in the opening press conference that ACC Network Extra would be able to "live on its own" referring to future stream-only ESPN versions. Inotherwords, maybe it costs you $20 per month for ESPN, $10 per month for ACCN, SECN, LHN, or ESPNU....or say $25 for the entire ESPN college sports package.