Effect of cord cutting on ESPN...very interesting article.

Search

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
Yeah chord cutting should accelerate with netflix/hulu/internet and people becoming more and more tech savvy. Some of the cable stations should be screwed.

I'd think ESPN can pivot to a web-based subscriber plan of between $5-10 a month easily though, similar to what HBO is rolling out and what the WWE network already rolled out. They might have to take a little financial hit but the weaker stations are in worse shape, they could just be gone.

Or if the cable companies realize their business model is F'd they could just go to smaller, more customized plans.
 

Active member
Handicapper
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
91,038
Tokens
ESPN is the biggest scam in media. Every cable subscriber pays for it -- usually to the tune of about $4 a month -- and yet research shows only 4% of viewers watch it. That's absurd. Of course ESPN is going to sue as they hoodwinked the cable companies years ago into thinking they were essential. Cable could drop them tomorrow, keep 96% of their viewers happy and never look back.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
ESPN is the biggest scam in media. Every cable subscriber pays for it -- usually to the tune of about $4 a month -- and yet research shows only 4% of viewers watch it. That's absurd. Of course ESPN is going to sue as they hoodwinked the cable companies years ago into thinking they were essential. Cable could drop them tomorrow, keep 96% of their viewers happy and never look back.

Hmm, maybe they aren't quite as bulletproof as I thought but I do think with some cost cutting that they will still be essential in sports bundle plans. They just might have to stop paying an asshole like Skip Bayless 4 million a year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-serious-cost-cutting-going-142652796.html
 

New member
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
2,131
Tokens
Yeah chord cutting should accelerate with netflix/hulu/internet and people becoming more and more tech savvy. Some of the cable stations should be screwed.

I'd think ESPN can pivot to a web-based subscriber plan of between $5-10 a month easily though, similar to what HBO is rolling out and what the WWE network already rolled out. They might have to take a little financial hit but the weaker stations are in worse shape, they could just be gone.

Or if the cable companies realize their business model is F'd they could just go to smaller, more customized plans.


The price would have to be substantially more than that. They're currently getting $6.61 per subscriber (and that's just for ESpN, not 2, or U, etc.). The $6.61 is low because everyone is paying it (i.e., the non sports watchers are subsidizing it for us guys who live on ESPN).

So any new a la carte subscription model would have to make up for the loss of revenue from the non-sports fans who were subsidizing the channel.

ESPN can't afford to have lower revenue because they are contractually obligated to pay NFL, NBA, MLB, college playoffs, SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, etc about $6 billion a year for the foreseeable future.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,391
Tokens
Not sure how those who cut cords watch sports, but it's happening somehow (maybe pirate streaming sites, which are a lot harder to find today than a few years ago). All the streaming technology is already in place with ESPN3 for them to make it available directly through them...although I wouldn't be surprised if contracts with their cable companies may prevent them from doing so for the time being. I'll watch ESPN through Roku sometimes on our TV in the bedroom...even though I have the highest speed Internet, the picture can look a bit choppy at times. Not nearly as smooth as a cable/satellite provider.

Really believe, as mentioned above, you'll start seeing a shift towards more a la carte subscriptions. Paying north of $100/month to DTV blows when my wife and I might regularly watch 20 of the 300 channels we get.

Sling TV is a start...basically a stripped down version of cable TV for about $20/month. It has ESPN, TNT, etc...but is missing a lot of others (Fox Sports, NBC Sports just to name a few). It'll get there eventually...just not an easy transition when you're talking about such a huge paradigm shift in the industry.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
19,478
Tokens
Yeah chord cutting should accelerate with netflix/hulu/internet and people becoming more and more tech savvy. Some of the cable stations should be screwed.

yeah this is probably not going slow down
 

Active member
Handicapper
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
91,038
Tokens
Disney`s living large
 

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
13,268
Tokens
Good article.....been a long time coming.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
Not sure how those who cut cords watch sports, but it's happening somehow (maybe pirate streaming sites, which are a lot harder to find today than a few years ago). All the streaming technology is already in place with ESPN3 for them to make it available directly through them...although I wouldn't be surprised if contracts with their cable companies may prevent them from doing so for the time being. I'll watch ESPN through Roku sometimes on our TV in the bedroom...even though I have the highest speed Internet, the picture can look a bit choppy at times. Not nearly as smooth as a cable/satellite provider.

Really believe, as mentioned above, you'll start seeing a shift towards more a la carte subscriptions. Paying north of $100/month to DTV blows when my wife and I might regularly watch 20 of the 300 channels we get.

Sling TV is a start...basically a stripped down version of cable TV for about $20/month. It has ESPN, TNT, etc...but is missing a lot of others (Fox Sports, NBC Sports just to name a few). It'll get there eventually...just not an easy transition when you're talking about such a huge paradigm shift in the industry.

Well yeah, the chord cutters probably aren't likely to be the sports watchers.

It is possible to cut it and watch sports though. NFL is mostly on network TV, NBA I know a 60/yr web package that has every game in HD. NHL I believe the same product exists, etc...
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
The price would have to be substantially more than that. They're currently getting $6.61 per subscriber (and that's just for ESpN, not 2, or U, etc.). The $6.61 is low because everyone is paying it (i.e., the non sports watchers are subsidizing it for us guys who live on ESPN).

So any new a la carte subscription model would have to make up for the loss of revenue from the non-sports fans who were subsidizing the channel.

ESPN can't afford to have lower revenue because they are contractually obligated to pay NFL, NBA, MLB, college playoffs, SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, etc about $6 billion a year for the foreseeable future.

Yeah I don't think anyone is paying $20-30 a month for ESPN. How much of a jam they are in probably depends on how fast chord cutting accelerates.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
19,478
Tokens
Well yeah, the chord cutters probably aren't likely to be the sports watchers.

It is possible to cut it and watch sports though. NFL is mostly on network TV, NBA I know a 60/yr web package that has every game in HD. NHL I believe the same product exists, etc...

yeah you can get NHL Gamecenter or MLB TV but they still blackout your local home team that sucks so you need the local fox root ect but if your not a fan of your local then it works out great
 

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
12,563
Tokens
dont buy the hype.

even doing an ala carte of the channels you want will end up costing more then comcast unless you want like one channel and nothing else.

can get a starter triple play with 50 gig internet, home phone, and 140 channels including hbo locked in for a year at 100.00, after year 1 it bumps up to 125.00 which is still a solid deal.

people forget when you cut the cord you still need the internet connection.

so the internet and say hbo will cost you at minimum 65-70 a month. add on your netflix streaming, another 10, your sitting at 80. be an idiot not to stick with cable paying 20 bucks more a month for an extra 139 channels, even if you don't want most of them.

with comcast you also have the x1 system, which renders netflix useless as it has most of the same content.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
1,946
Tokens
Looks like ESPN is losing chord cutters, and viewers to other sports networks. Mainly, NBC Sports and Fox Sports1.



Losing Millions Of Subscribers, ESPN Now Facing Tough Decisions

No matter your opinion of the "sports leader," ESPN has been the one constant around the sports world for well over a quarter century. Now, with unprecedented competition and some pretty ugly public relations issues, ESPN is seeing its biggest downturn since its inception during the Jimmy Carter Administration.

According to Nielsen, the network has lost 3.2 million television subscribers in a little over the past year (via Wall Street Journal, subscription required).

With Fox Sports 1 debuting and a trend towards fans getting their news from the Internet, this isn’t a huge surprise. Long considered divisive in the minds of many within the general public, ESPN’s reputation has also taken a hit during this span. From enigmatic personalities such as Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith to other enigmatic personalities clashing on our airwaves, it seems that the network has gone away from simply providing viewers the news—a philosophy that made it the sports leader in the first place.

Just over the past two months, it’s been announced that Keith Olbermann and Bill Simmons will soon be departing the ESPN airwaves. Clearly divorces based on creative differences rather than tightening its financial belt, ESPN made the decision to part ways with these two big-time players while still airing what some would call the hogwash that Bayless, Smith and company convey on a near-daily basis.

Some analysis points to consumers looking to cut costs by going to more slimmed-down versions of cable/satellite subscriptions, but the drop of ESPN subscribers is an outlier of sorts around the sports world. The first quarter of 2015 saw Fox Sports 1′s viewership increase by 73 percent from the prior year. And while ESPN’s primary station is still leading all cable sports networks in ratings, Fox Sports 1 and NBC Sports Network just surpassed ESPN2. It’s a minor gain for rival networks, but it also represents a changing of the tide.

Heck, if you look at the total prime-time ratings for ESPN in comparison to Fox Sports 1 in the week ending on July 5th, a trend away from the powerhouse in Bristol is becoming increasingly evident. ESPN saw 593,000 viewers compared to 405,000 for Fox Sports 1.

This is also coming at a time when ESPN’s mother company, Walt Disney, is looking to cut costs based on the station’s lack of growth in recent years. ESPN contributes about 25 percent of the company’s operating profit on an annual basis. Its costs are also sky-high, as the annual fee to air NBA games jumped from $485 million to about $1.47 billion under the renewal of the contract.

With this comes the necessity to add revenue while keeping the network’s spending cost effective. Some industry insiders have floated the idea of ESPN offering a standalone online streaming service, much like HBO and other cable stations offer. However, those same insiders believe that ESPN would be forced to charge about $30 per month for subscriptions—something that wouldn’t necessarily go over well with consumers.

The primary issues here are competition and a lack of appealing content. Viewers will still tune to ESPN for Monday Night Football, college football and other live sporting events. Where it is losing traction is in the nightly news programs and the daily sports-talk sector.

Instead of looking to re-brand itself, ESPN might want to actually go back to its roots. After all, that’s why most of us tuned in to begin with. Until then, people will continue tuning the network out in large numbers—further forcing Bristol’s hands. ESPN’s next move could either lead to renewed growth or narrow the gap between itself and its top competitors in what has quickly become a market full of options for consumers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/vincentfrank/2015/07/12/losing-millions-of-subscribers-espn-now-facing-tough-decisions/

 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,506
Tokens
I had no idea FS1 was that close to ESPNs market share .

That is big news considering that FS1 is not on nearly as many basic cable packages as ESPN and their live broadcast rights are not nearly as appealing .

Of course those ratings were June and July.

They had the U.S. Open and a lot of high profile soccer matches including the women's World Cup.

But still that is a great accomplishment in such a short time.


Im sure ESPN will far surpasses them in a few months though when NFL starts.
 

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
9,660
Tokens
Can't believe all the hate here for espn.....especially at a sports betting forum.
 

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
9,660
Tokens
Also....streaming is a pain in the ass imo. It will have to become easier like the guide on my uverse.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
I hope ESPN's bubble does pop. This is also an interesting article on the failure of ESPN & Jason Whitlock to start 'Black Grantland'
While Vlad will be happy to know it failed, note that ESPN's President says that "Blacks feel ESPN is their network" so he may have to stop watching!

Other than live sporting events, I do not watch ESPN at all. I do watch the 30 for 30's that seem interesting, but otherwise I think they suck.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
23,902
Tokens
Hmm, maybe they aren't quite as bulletproof as I thought but I do think with some cost cutting that they will still be essential in sports bundle plans. They just might have to stop paying an asshole like Skip Bayless 4 million a year.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-serious-cost-cutting-going-142652796.html

Trying to cut $250 million from a single year budget is a pretty damn painful process. All the money they sunk into building a studio in LA and paying $1.9 billion just for Monday Night Football is crazy.

They don't have the right leadership in place to do this effectively. 2017 will be a very bad year for ESPN.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
dont buy the hype.

even doing an ala carte of the channels you want will end up costing more then comcast unless you want like one channel and nothing else.

can get a starter triple play with 50 gig internet, home phone, and 140 channels including hbo locked in for a year at 100.00, after year 1 it bumps up to 125.00 which is still a solid deal.

people forget when you cut the cord you still need the internet connection.

so the internet and say hbo will cost you at minimum 65-70 a month. add on your netflix streaming, another 10, your sitting at 80. be an idiot not to stick with cable paying 20 bucks more a month for an extra 139 channels, even if you don't want most of them.

with comcast you also have the x1 system, which renders netflix useless as it has most of the same content.

Yeah it's possible they just lost some people on the fringes and it won't accelerate.

ESPN gets about $6.50 per user now, but it expected to go up to $8.50 in the next few years. Combined that with the 4 billion in advertising revenue and they should be fine.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,945
Messages
13,575,470
Members
100,884
Latest member
68gamebaitools
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com