56% of viewers would drop ESPN

[sam_gordon]

http://www.multichannel.com/news/networks/greenfield-56-pay-tv-subs-would-drop-espn/396510

According to BTIG, 56% of the respondents said they would drop the channels to save $8 per month (the equivalent of a Netflix subscription), with 60% of women and 49% of men saying they could do without the networks. Only 6% of respondents said they would subscriber to the standalone ESPN networks for $20 per month.

I am not surprised people would drop ESPN to save some money. I'm surprised THIS many people said they'd be willing to drop it.

 

[Yespage]

It is one thing to say you would verses actually doing it. I did drop ESPN back in the day when the EPL was available through Latino Dos. Not having ESPN made that package notably cheaper and a great deal. Losing ESPN hurt a little, but I got used to it. Sadly those days are over.

In general, however, ESPN isn't going anywhere, people need to accept it.

 

[ChadT41]

The hardest part is that Disney owns ESPN, and their Disney contracts are tied to the ESPN contracts giving Disney too much leverage. Disney channels are highly sought by parents of varying aged children, thanks to the suite of availability.

 

[darrengs]

$8/month I would drop it in a heartbeat.

 

[Cold Irons]

http://www.multichannel.com/news/networks/greenfield-56-pay-tv-subs-would-drop-espn/396510



I am not surprised people would drop ESPN to save some money. I'm surprised THIS many people said they'd be willing to drop it.

I never believe any poll numbers unless I can see:
1) the survey sample design
2) the actual question(s) asked.

Way too many nonsense polls being quoted where the survey itself it flawed, let alone the phrasing of the questions. And....ESPN is one of the only reasons I have pay TV.

 

[osu1991]

no surprise. i've always said only 25-30% of subs actually watch espn. If given the choice, I would only purchase it for about 4 months a year, otherwise I rarely find need to turn it on. We will see more broadcasts moving back to the OTA networks or being simulcast on multiple channels to make up for the lost subs with additional ad revenue, such as the NFL playoff game simulcast on both ESPN and ABC

 

[ChadT41]

Being a football fan, I can see the football fans crying in about how they have to pay extra for a "basic" channel. Little of them know they pay a premium price for their basic channel. They also do not care that it is subsidized by non sports fans, using other channels as justification, which is hard since ESPN is so expensive.

 

[Bobby]

Being a football fan, I can see the football fans crying in about how they have to pay extra for a "basic" channel. Little of them know they pay a premium price for their basic channel. They also do not care that it is subsidized by non sports fans, using other channels as justification, which is hard since ESPN is so expensive.

I know we've covered this in the past, but, I'm subsidizing other people's channels that I never look at as well. I know, ESPN is much more costly as a single channel but when you add up the cost of all the channels I don't watch, and pay for, I think there is at least a tie....

 

[AZ.]

I know we've covered this in the past, but, I'm subsidizing other people's channels that I never look at as well. I know, ESPN is much more costly as a single channel but when you add up the cost of all the channels I don't watch, and pay for, I think there is at least a tie....

Welcome to the real world.....It goes for nearly everything!....I dont like fighting a war for 14 years, yet I still pay my taxes...I dont drive a car, yet my local ,state and feds use my money for roads.....
For some reason people think this shared world just started a little while ago....

and PS...it will continue If you or I like it or not...kinda simple

 

[MikeD-C05]

If I could drop Espn and all sports channels to save money , I would do it yesterday. I don't watch sports and do not like subsidizing them with my satellite bill. I really would love it if they would all go ala cart and those who want them could pay for them at what ever price they want to charge.

 

[Troch77]

Agree, Sports should all be A la carte, Just the same as the Movie Channels.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[nelson61]

a few years back, Charlie talked about ESPN and the expense to the customer on one of the earnings calls.
They have excellent statistics from the feedback they get on the boxes.
He said something like 22 percent of subscribers looked at ESPN channels (at that time).
But, he was afraid to drop it because of unknown consequences (ABC/Disney, whatever).

I guess he would immediately lose 25 percent of his customers, but would gain x percent back from those jumping to the resulting lower cost plans he could provide.

I would think ESPN would be getting nervous after signing those big buck long term contracts and then seeing the viewer ship declining - as they have recently reported.

 

[ewindowman]

I can't say the last time I watched ESPN besides a occasional Thursday night football game..They didn't even bid for it this year . So dish please remove this from my package and reduce my bill by 8 dollars .

 

[Brussam]

ESPN is a big waste of money for me. I guess it is a shock for sports viewers that they are not the majority of the viewing audience.

 

[Tampa8]

No doubt there is a fair number of people who would rather save the money, and would not buy a standalone product. But I agree 1000000% saying it and doing it are two different things. In fact even doing it and not getting again is a different thing. As mentioned, polls can be set up to help get the answers you think you will get rather than actually trying to get the feeling of consumers.

 

[Radioguy41]

I'm a sports fan and I would drop it in the blink of an eye. ESPN has become a parody of itself. 20 years ago it was manned by professionals but look at the goofs on Sports Center today. Neil Everett and Stan Verrett are a couple of jerks, Jonathan Coachman's voice is to high and annoying. Kenny Mayne is totally worthless and talentless, and so on and so forth. As far as content goes ESPN has devolved into the lower reaches of yellow journalism. That started with Outside The Lines and has spread across the rest of ESPN like a virus. At least half of their reporting is now negative in emphasis. Then too their excessive self-promotion has grown to an extreme. Before ESPN signed a TV contract to carry soccer games did you ever see a soccer goal in the top 10? How about 7 of the top 10? This year they had the broadcast rights to the college football championship series. From Dec 6th when the four finalists were announced ESPN scrolled their schedule every 5 minutes on the bottom of the screen 24/7 every day until New Years, not to mention the promos that ran on screen every 10 minutes for a month. Now add to all this ESPN's over-the-top shilling for fantasy sports gambling. Imagine, in house on screen personalities telling you who you should bet your money on, based on their assessments, while at the same time people at the desk trying to tell you fantasy sports betting isn't gambling and all the while campaigning against Pete Rose because gambling is so terrible. Sadly the amateurs are in charge and I don't see things getting better in the near future. The only ray of sunshine is that Disney has put ESPN on notice to cut it's losses and even after all the firings last Fall ESPN is still in the soup. Don't hold your breath though.

I will make a bold prediction though, two years from now there will be about half of the ESPN channels being broadcast as there are today and there won't be a studio on each coast.

 

[ChadT41]

I know we've covered this in the past, but, I'm subsidizing other people's channels that I never look at as well. I know, ESPN is much more costly as a single channel but when you add up the cost of all the channels I don't watch, and pay for, I think there is at least a tie....

You are right, but those same people subsidizing the sports are also subsidizing a bunch of other stuff they don't want as well, just like the ESPN viewers who subsidize. Leaving the channel for channel subsidizing a little more accurate. I am not screaming for ala carte, as I like the current model, I am just pointing out that with the price tag for ESPN and the limited viewers, it is getting pretty bad.

I like SLINGTVs idea. Do bundle by type. I would even accept bundles by channel owners. That would be cool to see, and really show the channels what they are worth while still getting their money. Would create real competition between channels and force them to create better content, instead of law and order marsthons(yes I watch these as well and appreciate them, but not sure how many agree).

 

[sam_gordon]

I never believe any poll numbers unless I can see:
1) the survey sample design
2) the actual question(s) asked.

Way too many nonsense polls being quoted where the survey itself it flawed, let alone the phrasing of the questions. And....ESPN is one of the only reasons I have pay TV.

Did you try reading the article?

BTIG hired consumer marketing and intelligence company Civic Science, which surveyed 1,582 consumers last week, 87% of which were multichannel TV subscribers. The survey asked two questions: would consumers drop ESPN and ESPN 2 if they could save $8 per month on their cable bill; and if the channels were only available as a standalone, similar to Netflix, would they pay $20 per month to get them?

According to BTIG, 56% of the respondents said they would drop the channels to save $8 per month (the equivalent of a Netflix subscription), with 60% of women and 49% of men saying they could do without the networks. Only 6% of respondents said they would subscriber to the standalone ESPN networks for $20 per month.

 

[Chris Leer]

I don't like it at all and if Espn is dropped i will definitely go to a sports bar to watch the channel and i'd would say to put them with a la carte package with the movie channels.

 

[ChadT41]

I don't like it at all and if Espn is dropped i will definitely go to a sports bar to watch the channel and i'd would say to put them with a la carte package with the movie channels.

Or the MSP, where it truly belongs. Not "every basic package" as they currently require with all providers. That's why Verizon got in trouble, and I believe won, though.