|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1858
|
Oculus Spirit [44555]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11686
Joined: 2015
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [86044]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 38873
Joined: 2003
|
If I were ESPN, I would let the NBA go and not even think
3
Sep 8, 2023, 12:55 PM
|
|
twice about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiger Spirit [9298]
TigerPulse: 100%
44
|
Re: Great read and insight on ESPN
3
Sep 8, 2023, 12:56 PM
|
|
Thanks for posting!
Rather than purchasing You Tube last weekend as a stop gap til Spectrum and Disney come to terms, this article makes it clear I need to go ahead and cut the cord for good.
Greed is what destroyed college sports. I hope ESPN and Disney go down with the ship for their part in destroying a great institution.
Message was edited by: raider12®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solid Orange [1374]
TigerPulse: 95%
28
|
Re: Great read and insight on ESPN
2
Sep 8, 2023, 1:07 PM
|
|
I'd like to see ESPN fold and sports go to a per-event streaming model. Maybe $1 per college football game. You shouldn't have to pay in your TV bundle for sports you don't watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [33254]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 15115
Joined: 2011
|
Except - if you believe what Clay is saying here - IF that
1
Sep 8, 2023, 1:25 PM
|
|
one game is available to you, you would pay $100 to watch just that one game.
IF it is available to you. If I read the words written here as well as the words in between the lines . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5493]
TigerPulse: 89%
38
Posts: 11946
Joined: 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [86044]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 38873
Joined: 2003
|
I don't really get how ESPN is "losing customers" so much.
1
Sep 8, 2023, 1:12 PM
|
|
They might be losing higher paying CABLE customers, but I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of those are doing just what I just did. They are going to a streaming service that, guess what, includes ESPN and other Disney channels in their package, but costs the customer much less than cable.
So, either one of two things is happening. Disney is figuring they can get by on a reduced charge per channel on those streaming services, and is gouging cable customers to make up the difference. Or, they are charging the streaming services the same prices per channel as they charge cable, and CABLE is gouging its customers above and beyond.
I would not be surprised if, as Forrest Gump would say, "I think it's both, both happeningg at the same time."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14593]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23665
Joined: 2004
|
A lot of people that ditch cable don't sign up
1
Sep 8, 2023, 1:52 PM
|
|
for an alternative live TV service. Live TV is mostly valuable at this point for live sports. If you're not into live sports, it's alot cheaper to pick up a handful of streaming services for shows and movies.
Also, I only subscribe to YTTV from September-January/February now that its so expensive. When it launched for $40/mo I had it all year. I believe it's $65 or $70 now so I only keep it for football season and do without the rest of the year to save $400ish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [215]
TigerPulse: 100%
13
|
Re: A lot of people that ditch cable don't sign up
1
Sep 8, 2023, 1:57 PM
|
|
Same here. I subscribe on September 1st and cancel the night of the championship game. Last year was a little earlier. I only watch college football on cable and like not having to pay for it when not using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [44555]
TigerPulse: 100%
57
Posts: 11686
Joined: 2015
|
Re: I don't really get how ESPN is "losing customers" so much.
1
Sep 8, 2023, 5:46 PM
[ in reply to I don't really get how ESPN is "losing customers" so much. ] |
|
It’s just that there are more folks streaming on something that does not include ESPN.
ESPN, at our cable company, comes with the lowest package you can get so everyone that has Catv is paying for ESPN. That would include many older folks or people that’s not even interested in sports. So when these folks decide to subscribe to channels like Paramout Plus, Apple or Netflix and do not have anything carrying ESPN they are losing customers.
If Spectrum has 100 subscribers then ESPN charges Spectrum like, just guessing because it’s not the same for every provider, $8 for every subscriber that they have. Regardless of whether they watch it or not. They had it whipped for a while but the more that decide to ditch main Catv providers and start paying for what they want to watch then ESPN will continue to lose these subscribers.
In the end it will be you and I paying a lot more if we want to continue watching. Someone has to fund these outrageous dollar figures ESPN pays these conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4083]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
Youre right. Very interesting read. TFP.***
1
Sep 8, 2023, 2:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14755]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Holy cow - brevity and getting to the point ain't this
1
Sep 8, 2023, 2:24 PM
|
|
author's strong suit. I found the article painful to read because of his "dallying" around the issue...
Here's the bottom line - there is money to be made in broadcasting live sporting events over whatever media method that large numbers of sports fans use. The fact that the manner and method of viewing those sporting events will change as time moves on and require new ways of structuring how that content is delivered is of no surprise.
As long as the Government stays out of it, the free market will eventually figure out how best to provide the desired product at a price consumers are willing to pay. Will it ultimately cost more or less?? Who knows but let the free market figure it out because there are lots of things to yet enter this fight (advertiser input, changes to ratings/total viewer numbers and it's affect on sports broadcast contracts, further competition in the sports broadcasting space etc...). There are lots of other interested parties than just a cable giant and Disney that have the ability to shape things beyond what those two fat cats are currently arguing over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14593]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
Posts: 23665
Joined: 2004
|
I think the major change here is that they will no longer be
Sep 8, 2023, 6:51 PM
|
|
able to make tons of money off "customers" that didn't even want their product. Imagine if everyone that bought any streaming service was forced to also bundle it with ESPN streaming for an additional $10 per month whether they wanted it or not. That's what ESPN had for decades with cable bundles.
Now they will be forced to only generate revenue from actual customers that want their product. And they might not even get that 12 months out of the year unless streaming platforms start requiring 1 year contracts.
My hunch on where this will ultimately go is a reduction in the amount of money being paid for these live sports rights which will ultimately trickle down and result in smaller contracts for professional athletes and less money being paid out to CFB conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Phenom [14755]
TigerPulse: 100%
49
|
Yep - that's what I was implying by the changes to
1
Sep 8, 2023, 7:56 PM
|
|
viewership. Changes in the amount of eyeballs watching sporting events will affecting how much broadcasters can charge for advertising which in turn affects how much money ultimately gets put into broadcast rights contracts. The downstream affects of all this may very well to put the brakes on what has been skyrocketing TV contracts for college football.
I'm all for natural market forces to bring college football back from the ever skyrocketing costs. If this whole sports broadcasting realignment ends up reducing the money flowing all through the college football ecosystem (everything from TV contracts to NIL to coaches salaries) then so be it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [575]
TigerPulse: 99%
20
|
Re: I think the major change here is that they will no longer be
1
Sep 8, 2023, 8:03 PM
[ in reply to I think the major change here is that they will no longer be ] |
|
Agree. Been saying this a while.
The days of say the NBA contract going up and up are coming to an end. Ultimately this will trickle down. Not that players and coaches won’t get paid, but there will be a tightening of belts to a degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1858
|
|
|
50
