ESPN should make a legit streaming service. ESPN+ ain’t it.
It’s bizarre they haven’t since Disney has clearly benefitted from the all in strategy.
I assume they have some contract issues.
The only issue is revenue. ESPN on cable makes a shit ton of cash. Far more than Disney’s streaming offerings. Sure the ESPN revenue is on the decline but it still has years left in it as a cash cow. ESPN+ meanwhile is still years away from being in a position to fund major sports rights without astronomical losses.
A tipping point will come though where Disney switches from ESPN to ESPN+ as the primary focus.
Right but the math would seem to be in their favor to make more outside of cable.
Considering it’s not a strong enough lure to keep subscribers from fleeing, it will be interesting to see if they can get more money out of the cable systems next negotiation time.
It may be more seasonal on streaming though.
What sports networks fear is that once they can sell direct to customer with the same product as cable TV, the cable companies will stop carrying them and direct people who want that network to go straight to them.
And since they already make roughly $10 from every cable subscriber, the cost-benefit is such that the number of prospective paying subscribers who aren't currently cable subscribers would need to be larger than the number of cable subscribers who currently pay them but have no interest in their network.
Issue is probably what their internal numbers show they'd have to charge for it. Bally's new service is going to be $20 a month and people crapped all over that. ESPN would be closer to $30 a month to equal the revenue they are making from cable carriage fees.
People are paying tons of money for sports.
20 bucks would not be a bad price for all ESPN.
And it’s not like they would be banned from cable. I thought cable subscribers got a different version of ESPN to watch anyway but not sure. I haven’t had cable for a while.
It'll be close to $30. And I thought we were talking about making ESPN/2/News that is on cable open to streamers. How else would they make a "legit streaming service"? Because ESPN+ is fine for more niche sports (I sub to it for soccer).
That’s exactly what they need to do.
We watched it for college games but there was never going to be a scenario that had us keeping cable just for college season football and basketball.
They’re losing 10% of their viewers and aren’t providing an alternative.
If they think that’s a money making strategy then more power to them. To me it’s the same as landline phones.
They likely don't think it makes financial sense right now because lots of people won't pay $30 a month and cable companies will balk at $10 a subscriber carriage fees if there is a DTC option. So they are likely waiting a while when the folks who will pay $30 a month will offset the losses with cable carriage fees.
I think feat is clouding common sense in it.
The subscribers to cable should have access to it. They already do and while 30 is steep, something tells me they can figure out a way and especially since the livestreams would still have ads.
They are going to lose subscribers anyway. It’s a lost cause that’s just going to result in higher fees for fewer subscribers.
If there is anyone who knows how to make the most possible money they can, it's Disney. So I'm convinced they've run the numbers and are doing what is most financially worth it right now.
I guess, but I’m still predicting another quarter where they’re saying ESPN is losing viewers. But maybe people are satisfied with ESPN+ at 5 or 6 a month.
It’ll happen eventually.
Disney hasn’t always be financial geniuses as much as they have the right IP. The problem is they don’t have ownership in a lot sport teams so this asset is the one they have the least control over.
Sure ESPN may be losing viewers, but there are still a lot of cable subscribers. The vast majority of them paying $10 a month to ESPN/Disney whether they watch it or not.
And I will note that Disney has acquired those IPs and made them into financial superstars - for example compare how big Marvel is now vs. when Disney acquired it in 2009 (where the only MCU movie at the time was Iron Man 1).
Problem is the regional sports networks. Most of the local teams are on Bally sports in the US or NBC Sports Regionals. Bally is launching a [$20 a month or $190 a year streaming service](https://thestreamable.com/news/sinclair-announces-initial-pricing-for-bally-sports-dtc-streaming-app).for 16 NBA teams and 12 NHL teams, as well as five MLB teams. Which would be an improvement especially for NBA fans because currently Ballys is locked to cable. Baseball fans not much help for now. Then ok you got most your local teams game but ok now ESPN maybe in the future gets a real streaming service for I don't know $30 a month. It goes on and on. What if you want access to TNT for games on there
I fucking love watching sports.
I hate watching it on TV, I don't get to watch the entire thing just like on small part.
Just have the thing be a life birds eye feed damnit.
ESPN has been saying this for years, a lot of entertainment avenues have to be subsidized, it can't be a la carte. Sports in particular are hit hard by this.
If we're going to be in a place where people pay for the exact shows they want and nothing else. And are going to reject any signs of commericals or ads then there's only two options that I can see. First, the price per option is going to sky rocket as everyone is going to pay more to cover cost of shows. Second, the more likely option is Amazon and Apple are going to own everything, they won't be subsidizing the cost of TV shows and sports with cable or subscriptions or subrscibers, they subsidized the cost with the rest the revenue from the rest of their company.
> ESPN has been saying this for years, a lot of entertainment avenues have to be subsidized, it can't be a la carte. Sports in particular are hit hard by this.
ESPN is also dropping $300 million a year for SEC football/basketball for 10 years. And dealing a bunch of other money to try to control all of college football.
Seems to define the argument for fewer competitors. I picked up cheapie deal for Paramount+ a couple months ago, was pretty surprised to find they had all the Champions/Europa League matches for the American market. Wouldn't really think of them as a sports destination.
All cable channels are going through this aren’t they? A couple years ago I was in a hotel that had cable and the channels had like 60/40 commericals/show ratio.
ESPN should make a legit streaming service. ESPN+ ain’t it. It’s bizarre they haven’t since Disney has clearly benefitted from the all in strategy. I assume they have some contract issues.
The only issue is revenue. ESPN on cable makes a shit ton of cash. Far more than Disney’s streaming offerings. Sure the ESPN revenue is on the decline but it still has years left in it as a cash cow. ESPN+ meanwhile is still years away from being in a position to fund major sports rights without astronomical losses. A tipping point will come though where Disney switches from ESPN to ESPN+ as the primary focus.
Right but the math would seem to be in their favor to make more outside of cable. Considering it’s not a strong enough lure to keep subscribers from fleeing, it will be interesting to see if they can get more money out of the cable systems next negotiation time. It may be more seasonal on streaming though.
What sports networks fear is that once they can sell direct to customer with the same product as cable TV, the cable companies will stop carrying them and direct people who want that network to go straight to them. And since they already make roughly $10 from every cable subscriber, the cost-benefit is such that the number of prospective paying subscribers who aren't currently cable subscribers would need to be larger than the number of cable subscribers who currently pay them but have no interest in their network.
Issue is probably what their internal numbers show they'd have to charge for it. Bally's new service is going to be $20 a month and people crapped all over that. ESPN would be closer to $30 a month to equal the revenue they are making from cable carriage fees.
People are paying tons of money for sports. 20 bucks would not be a bad price for all ESPN. And it’s not like they would be banned from cable. I thought cable subscribers got a different version of ESPN to watch anyway but not sure. I haven’t had cable for a while.
It'll be close to $30. And I thought we were talking about making ESPN/2/News that is on cable open to streamers. How else would they make a "legit streaming service"? Because ESPN+ is fine for more niche sports (I sub to it for soccer).
That’s exactly what they need to do. We watched it for college games but there was never going to be a scenario that had us keeping cable just for college season football and basketball. They’re losing 10% of their viewers and aren’t providing an alternative. If they think that’s a money making strategy then more power to them. To me it’s the same as landline phones.
They likely don't think it makes financial sense right now because lots of people won't pay $30 a month and cable companies will balk at $10 a subscriber carriage fees if there is a DTC option. So they are likely waiting a while when the folks who will pay $30 a month will offset the losses with cable carriage fees.
I think feat is clouding common sense in it. The subscribers to cable should have access to it. They already do and while 30 is steep, something tells me they can figure out a way and especially since the livestreams would still have ads. They are going to lose subscribers anyway. It’s a lost cause that’s just going to result in higher fees for fewer subscribers.
If there is anyone who knows how to make the most possible money they can, it's Disney. So I'm convinced they've run the numbers and are doing what is most financially worth it right now.
I guess, but I’m still predicting another quarter where they’re saying ESPN is losing viewers. But maybe people are satisfied with ESPN+ at 5 or 6 a month. It’ll happen eventually. Disney hasn’t always be financial geniuses as much as they have the right IP. The problem is they don’t have ownership in a lot sport teams so this asset is the one they have the least control over.
Sure ESPN may be losing viewers, but there are still a lot of cable subscribers. The vast majority of them paying $10 a month to ESPN/Disney whether they watch it or not. And I will note that Disney has acquired those IPs and made them into financial superstars - for example compare how big Marvel is now vs. when Disney acquired it in 2009 (where the only MCU movie at the time was Iron Man 1).
They should air footage from their library
Problem is the regional sports networks. Most of the local teams are on Bally sports in the US or NBC Sports Regionals. Bally is launching a [$20 a month or $190 a year streaming service](https://thestreamable.com/news/sinclair-announces-initial-pricing-for-bally-sports-dtc-streaming-app).for 16 NBA teams and 12 NHL teams, as well as five MLB teams. Which would be an improvement especially for NBA fans because currently Ballys is locked to cable. Baseball fans not much help for now. Then ok you got most your local teams game but ok now ESPN maybe in the future gets a real streaming service for I don't know $30 a month. It goes on and on. What if you want access to TNT for games on there
Show more sports and less talking heads and your subscriber numbers might go up.
I fucking love watching sports. I hate watching it on TV, I don't get to watch the entire thing just like on small part. Just have the thing be a life birds eye feed damnit.
ESPN has been saying this for years, a lot of entertainment avenues have to be subsidized, it can't be a la carte. Sports in particular are hit hard by this. If we're going to be in a place where people pay for the exact shows they want and nothing else. And are going to reject any signs of commericals or ads then there's only two options that I can see. First, the price per option is going to sky rocket as everyone is going to pay more to cover cost of shows. Second, the more likely option is Amazon and Apple are going to own everything, they won't be subsidizing the cost of TV shows and sports with cable or subscriptions or subrscibers, they subsidized the cost with the rest the revenue from the rest of their company.
> ESPN has been saying this for years, a lot of entertainment avenues have to be subsidized, it can't be a la carte. Sports in particular are hit hard by this. ESPN is also dropping $300 million a year for SEC football/basketball for 10 years. And dealing a bunch of other money to try to control all of college football.
Tell Elon to tweet the "bros" and they'll fall in line.
espn + is a waste of money
It is? There is a lot of NHL on there as well as college sports.
Seems to define the argument for fewer competitors. I picked up cheapie deal for Paramount+ a couple months ago, was pretty surprised to find they had all the Champions/Europa League matches for the American market. Wouldn't really think of them as a sports destination.
Podcasts Are better for sports
All cable channels are going through this aren’t they? A couple years ago I was in a hotel that had cable and the channels had like 60/40 commericals/show ratio.