DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket

[Yespage]

Your link is what said it-The league's viewership for the 2021 regular season was up roughly 10% overall from the year prior, bringing in an average of 17.1 million viewers per game on TV and digital.

You are correct, some games might of had 20 million watching, some 15 million, that is how averages work

Amazed, you were so happy to post this link to push back against meStevo, but now you know what it really says, you have disavowed it.

By the way, anyone watching MNF on ESPN+, looks amazing in real 1080P.
View attachment 158413

I wish all streaming looked as good as ESPN+. It truly is very high quality. And it doesn't matter where the game is coming from. India Premier League cricket looks as sharp as the West Indies Cricket as does the MNF.

Its amazing you guys are still arguing ......

Is that what this is called?

This thread has dragged on more than the ESPN Dish Network thread did way back in the day.

 

[Bruce]

there are only 2 million people willing to buy sunday ticket..thats it..just not that popular

Only 2 million of DirecTV subscribers, a number that was 21 million, now down to 10 million.

A service that would cost me $4000 over 2 years just to be able to pay another $300 or so to get ST.

Or pay $1560 for 2 years for YTTV ( which I get for free buying Google Play Cards with my CC points).

Number of Households in the United States is 128 million, 85% of them get broadband, that is 108 million potential subscribers, DirecTV Satellite has 8% of the Households ( and shrinking) in the United States.

Which number is better.

 

[SamCdbs]

The league's viewership for the 2021 regular season was up roughly 10% overall from the year prior, bringing in an average of 17.1 million viewers per game on TV and digital.
So to be fair, knocked it down to 10 million watched each game ( to compansate for those who watched more then one game), so out of 15 games played yesterday, that is still 150 million.

Umm no, not is isn’t. The ratings, which I posted are a COMPOSITE for each time slot. For example if CBS got at 10 rating for 1:00, that is for whichever game CBS is showing in that slot in each town. They don’t add together.

You just don’t understand enough about this business to comment.
.

I still think it will be closer to 10 million that will subscribe, which still makes it profitable.

17 M people watched the “free” game. But 10M are going to pay for other games.

Voodoo economics 101.

But now, at least, I understand your position. You simply do not understand how TV ratings work. You think 100M people watch the NFL this weekend, when 17M did. Because you are uninformed. Nothing wrong with that. Just understand those of us who get it don’t have a different “side”, we just know how this business works and you do not.

Also, tonight’s game ( which will be on ESPN+, that you posted would never happen) will affect the average a little.

No, the Mannings were on, so watching people watching a game was on.

What I said was ESPN will NEVER be on streaming. And it still isn’t and NEVER will be. I based this on my understanding of this business. You cannot even read a basic ratings chart.

BTW, Disney announced a major move in to gambling in order to drive more subscriptions to linear ESPN. Not available on steaming. But you can watch the Mannings, Eastern Michigan-Ball State, cricket, and other things not good enough for the luxury of linear TV.

 

[Bruce]

No, the Mannings were on, so watching people watching a game was on.

What I said was ESPN will NEVER be on streaming. And it still isn’t and NEVER will be. I based this on my understanding of this business. You cannot even read a basic ratings chart.

Obviously you did not watch it and prove once again how wrong you are, ESPN+ had 3 ways to view, one was how everyone else gets it, the same feed as ESPN, one was with the Mannings and the last was the in Spanish feed.

Also in 1080P and DD+ sound, you only get it in 720P via DirecTV.

Also, remember, you said MNF would never be on ESPN+.

 

[Bruce]

BTW, Disney announced a major move in to gambling in order to drive more subscriptions to linear ESPN. Not available on steaming.

How would that drive more people to get ESPN?

It is part of a cable package that more and more do not want ( 30 million gone, 2 million more every quarter).

The only way to get more subscribers is to offer it online also.

But you can watch the Mannings, Eastern Michigan-Ball State, cricket, and other things not good enough for the luxury of linear TV.

Again, did not watch the Mannings, also ESPN+ has a MLB game on every night, soon every NHL Game when the season starts, NFL MNF, etc.

This weekend, they have the #8 OKLAHOMA STATE Game on, #10 ARKANSAS Game on, #15 TENNESSEE Game on

 

[Yespage]

Umm no, not is isn’t. The ratings, which I posted are a COMPOSITE for each time slot. For example if CBS got at 10 rating for 1:00, that is for whichever game CBS is showing in that slot in each town. They don’t add together.

You just don’t understand enough about this business to comment.
.


17 M people watched the “free” game. But 10M are going to pay for other games.

Voodoo economics 101.

But now, at least, I understand your position. You simply do not understand how TV ratings work. You think 100M people watch the NFL this weekend, when 17M did. Because you are uninformed. Nothing wrong with that. Just understand those of us who get it don’t have a different “side”, we just know how this business works and you do not.

link

The league’s viewership for the 2021 regular season was up roughly 10% overall from the year prior, bringing in an average of 17.1 million viewers per game on TV and digital. That is the highest regular season average since 2015, according to the league.

link

Earlier in the day, CBS drew a 7.5 (+1%) and 13.93 million (+3%) for coverage featuring Steelers-Bills and FOX a 6.0 (-17%) and 11.18 million (-17%) for coverage featuring Eagles-Falcons. The latter ranks as the lowest rated and least-watched Week 1 window on broadcast TV since 2008.

This indicates, the x.x million viewers is per game. It is important to remember that 1 PM and 4 PM games don't mean all viewers are exclusive to those time slots.

 

[Mr Tony]

Its amazing you guys are still arguing ......

Yup they're still arguing whose girlfriend is fatter

 

[Juan]

Only 2 million of DirecTV subscribers, a number that was 21 million, now down to 10 million. A service that would cost me $4000 over 2 years just to be able to pay another $300 or so to get ST. Or pay $1560 for 2 years for YTTV ( which I get for free buying Google Play Cards with my CC points). Number of Households in the United States is 128 million, 85% of them get broadband, that is 108 million potential subscribers, DirecTV Satellite has 8% of the Households ( and shrinking) in the United States. Which number is better.

Nj

link



link
This indicates, the x.x million viewers is per game. It is important to remember that 1 PM and 4 PM games don't mean all viewers are exclusive to those time slots.

It does on a national level

 

[SamCdbs]

That is also incorrect. You, as a linear TV subscriber, get linear ESPN on the app, as does everyone. ESPN+ only subscribers only get SOME Manning games.

Missed your explanation on why you don’t understand how to read a basic TV ratings chart, like those of us who understand this business do.

So here is a link (you love links) to one from a random week last season:

SKEDBALL: Weekly Sports TV Ratings 11.15-11.21.2021 | Showbuzz Daily

showbuzzdaily.com

Note the words in the box “various teams and times”. That is because, umm, the time slots are rated. You just don’t know enough about this business to comment. The TOTAL number, which is in this case 28M is for ALL the games in the slot, not multiplied by 16 as you incorrectly did.

That is why we have the opinion we do, because we understand the broadcasting business.

 

[Mr Tony]

What I said was ESPN will NEVER be on streaming. And it still isn’t and NEVER will be.

technically it is via streaming services. So as example on my Sling service I can get ESPN & ESPN2 in a package for $35 a month. If I feel like adding the extra ESPN "owned" channels like ESPN News, ESPN U, SEC Net, Longhorn and ACC Net I can for $11 more. Now while on Sling its only limited to one stream at a time (due to the contract Sling signed with Disney) I could record every football game being played on those networks.

I know you are referring to it as a stand alone service. But it is available to folks who stream their programming. Just saying........

(btw: I do not have the package with ESPN in it. I have Sling Blue which has FS1 and USA for my NASCAR and the sports pack with FS2 and BTN since I watch a lot of Big Ten sports)

 

[Mr Tony]

ESPN+ only subscribers only get SOME Manning games.

I watched the actual game via my ESPN+ subscription. I do not have an ABC in my market and I don't sub to ESPN on Sling but ESPN+ had the game available.

 

[Bruce]

That is also incorrect. You, as a linear TV subscriber, get linear ESPN on the app, as does everyone. ESPN+ only subscribers only get SOME Manning games.

I am only signed in to ESPN+, with a different email address @comcast.net then what I have with YTTV, @gmail.com.

I am not signed in with WatchESPN at all, have not since I retired 3 years ago and no longer needed to use the TV Everywhere app it at work anymore.

 

[Bruce]

I watched the actual game via my ESPN+ subscription. I do not have an ABC in my market and I don't sub to ESPN on Sling but ESPN+ had the game available.

same, but our eyes must be lying to us since according to him only the Manning feed was on.

 

[Bruce]

BTW, Disney announced a major move in to gambling in order to drive more subscriptions to linear ESPN. Not available on steaming. But you can watch the Mannings, Eastern Michigan-Ball State, cricket, and other things not good enough for the luxury of linear TV.

Found the story on this, here is what it actually says-

What it will add, Schwartz said, is eyeballs to ESPN and its ESPN Plus counterpart, which saw considerable growth during the pandemic -- paid subscribers were up by one million to a total of 14.9 million, compared to 116 million paid Disney Plus subscriptions.

Which reads to me that they will be pushing more content from regular ESPN to ESPN+ ( content will be on both) to get more subscribers, which they started to do with Monday Night Football.

Why Disney is Betting on an Expansion into Sports Gambling

Both fans and league partners are "really interested in sports betting," Disney chief Bob Chapek says.

dot.la

 

[meStevo]

That is also incorrect. You, as a linear TV subscriber, get linear ESPN on the app, as does everyone. ESPN+ only subscribers only get SOME Manning games.

Missed your explanation on why you don’t understand how to read a basic TV ratings chart, like those of us who understand this business do.

So here is a link (you love links) to one from a random week last season:

SKEDBALL: Weekly Sports TV Ratings 11.15-11.21.2021 | Showbuzz Daily

showbuzzdaily.com

Note the words in the box “various teams and times”. That is because, umm, the time slots are rated. You just don’t know enough about this business to comment. The TOTAL number, which is in this case 28M is for ALL the games in the slot, not multiplied by 16 as you incorrectly did.

That is why we have the opinion we do, because we understand the broadcasting business.

... doesn't that add up to 111 million viewers?

 

[Yespage]

This indicates, the x.x million viewers is per game. It is important to remember that 1 PM and 4 PM games don't mean all viewers are exclusive to those time slots.

I recant. The language is fuzzy, but "featuring" seems to actually imply an option to view, not the game itself.

"Earlier in the day, CBS drew a 7.5 (+1%) and 13.93 million (+3%) for coverage featuring Steelers-Bills and FOX a 6.0 (-17%) and 11.18 million (-17%) for coverage featuring Eagles-Falcons."

Would mean CBS drew 14 million for the 1 PM game set and Fox had 11 million, for a total of 25 million tuning in at 1 PM for NFL football.

 

[Juan]

I recant. The language is fuzzy, but "featuring" seems to actually imply an option to view, not the game itself.

"Earlier in the day, CBS drew a 7.5 (+1%) and 13.93 million (+3%) for coverage featuring Steelers-Bills and FOX a 6.0 (-17%) and 11.18 million (-17%) for coverage featuring Eagles-Falcons."

Would mean CBS drew 14 million for the 1 PM game set and Fox had 11 million, for a total of 25 million tuning in at 1 PM for NFL football.

Stick to your day job

 

[SamCdbs]

I recant. The language is fuzzy, but "featuring" seems to actually imply an option to view, not the game itself.

"Earlier in the day, CBS drew a 7.5 (+1%) and 13.93 million (+3%) for coverage featuring Steelers-Bills and FOX a 6.0 (-17%) and 11.18 million (-17%) for coverage featuring Eagles-Falcons."

Would mean CBS drew 14 million for the 1 PM game set and Fox had 11 million, for a total of 25 million tuning in at 1 PM for NFL football.

That is how to read the ratings, which is an important first step to commenting up the broadcasting business.

Now, hopefully, you understand why ST will never be profitable on a cash basis, is a niche product, and will be predicated upon first purchasing something else.

 

[Yespage]

That is how to read the ratings, which is an important first step to commenting up the broadcasting business.

I'm just trying to make sense of the stuff, as some of the numbers appear on some level, ambiguous.

And this thread is getting way too chippy, especially for the subject matter.

Now, hopefully, you understand why ST will never be profitable on a cash basis, is a niche product, and will be predicated upon first purchasing something else.

It is very likely that Apple or Amazon wouldn't be able to break even on it. However, I think you are looking too much at the dollars and cents to appreciate the bigger picture. The value to the corporation is that it makes their streaming service viable and matter. In that case, it makes it more valuable to Apple than Amazon. Amazon is already an online monster. Apple is trying to be something bigger.

Personally, I don't have a horse in it. I'm paying $9.99 a month for four months to watch condensed, commercial free coverage of the Patriots. Game is over in an hour.

 

[Juan]

I'm just trying to make sense of the stuff, as some of the numbers appear on some level, ambiguous.

And this thread is getting way too chippy, especially for the subject matter.

It is very likely that Apple or Amazon wouldn't be able to break even on it. However, I think you are looking too much at the dollars and cents to appreciate the bigger picture. The value to the corporation is that it makes their streaming service viable and matter. In that case, it makes it more valuable to Apple than Amazon. Amazon is already an online monster. Apple is trying to be something bigger.

Personally, I don't have a horse in it. I'm paying $9.99 a month for four months to watch condensed, commercial free coverage of the Patriots. Game is over in an hour.

Would you pay $99.00 a month