I remember when myspace and Netscape were pillars on the internet
DIRECTV unlikely to keep NFL Sunday Ticket
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4K
- Views 376K
- Status
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,966
- 20,522
Again, everyone is different, if I only watch Netflix there is enough on there to keep me busy for a year.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 15,966
- 20,522
Enough trying to pull me into your Rabbit Hole, if you do not like Netflix, fine, but they have 220 million members, pretty good for a company that, as you claim, do not have much on.
In the US alone, they have 73 million subscribers, that is about 5 million more then the Traditional Providers here.
Netflix Statistics (Q3, 2024) — New Paid Subscribers & Revenue
Get the latest Q3 2024 Netflix statistics. Learn how many subscribers Netflix has, its revenue, growth, and more inside.
www.demandsage.com
I just said its cheap and popular..once that stop account sharing they will shrink abitEnough trying to pull me into your Rabbit Hole, if you do not like Netflix, fine, but they have 220 million members, pretty good for a company that, as you claim, do not have much on.
In the US alone, they have 73 million subscribers, that is about 5 million more then the Traditional Providers here.
Netflix Statistics (Q3, 2024) — New Paid Subscribers & Revenue
Get the latest Q3 2024 Netflix statistics. Learn how many subscribers Netflix has, its revenue, growth, and more inside.
The Title of this thread should have been changed a years ago or so it seems, seeing D* is NOT going to Keep ST (except for bars).
I have been hearing D* get slammed left and right about issues with the ST the first few weeks of the season ...
There has to be some definition, but people don't care ...
D* Sat service has been strong working just like it always has, they typically have some issue the first week, but then they open it up to everyone that week as well.
The issue D* is having is on the STREAMING side, Not the Sat side .... BVIG Difference, but no one seams to realize that.
I did have issue when streaming these last few weeks (first week was good iirc), but the Sat side has been solid.
Now that D* has become for better or worse a Sat And a Streaming company, people need to express which side is haveing an issue when it happens.
This is beyond those who just HATE D* regardless .... I have a feeling that many of the comments are from those that hate them, not just those that had issues .... as Social media is TERRIBLE for people jumping on an opinion and running with it, instead of looking into the actual issue.
I have been hearing D* get slammed left and right about issues with the ST the first few weeks of the season ...
There has to be some definition, but people don't care ...
D* Sat service has been strong working just like it always has, they typically have some issue the first week, but then they open it up to everyone that week as well.
The issue D* is having is on the STREAMING side, Not the Sat side .... BVIG Difference, but no one seams to realize that.
I did have issue when streaming these last few weeks (first week was good iirc), but the Sat side has been solid.
Now that D* has become for better or worse a Sat And a Streaming company, people need to express which side is haveing an issue when it happens.
This is beyond those who just HATE D* regardless .... I have a feeling that many of the comments are from those that hate them, not just those that had issues .... as Social media is TERRIBLE for people jumping on an opinion and running with it, instead of looking into the actual issue.
Then why did you bring up cricket?
Which made your reference to cricket peculiar. Especially when it represents such a tiny fraction of ESPN content, except during the IPL, where it gets a tad bit higher.
Kind of wandering into the weeds there.
People want the sports... whether the sports become streamed or are on linear programming, the demand for sports will be there. I'm uncertain why you are so angry about streaming.
Umm, because it is on ESPN+, in the USA. I just used it as an example of the type of off-beat, unpopular, niche content that the money losing ESPN+ service is based upon.
OK, lets go with 5th choice MAC football, “power 5” schools non-revenue sports like women’s softball or track, I-AA football, early morning back marker golf, whatever niche content you want to go with. That is what ESPN+ is. Niche content.
I’m not angry about streaming at all. As to the main topic of this thread, a lot of really dumb things have been posted (NFL, which gets about 30M people to watch it “free” is gong to sell 30M subscriptions to ST; not understanding how Nielsen works; dismissing the MASSIVE problems that streaming causes for most businesses and millions of people as “needs to upgrade”; etc). I just reacted to the uninformed with correct information.
Because I understand this business, I understand that DirecTV will certainly be a commercial side reseller, meaning it will still have its signature content without paying for it, which is just simply put a masterstroke.
As to to the tangents we have gone off on come down mainly to looking at the initial adopters of something as somehow “trend setters”. Of course they are nothing of the kind. They are mostly people who don’t like sports, or at least don’t like them enough to pay for them. Basic marketing. Really very simple. And the fundamentally silly idea that if one just holds one breath long enough they will sell you all the linear goodness. You show em. Life is too short. And understanding just how anti-consumer a la carte is.
And the numbers are in.
This weekend saw Fox get 26.3M for its 4:25 slot. CBS got 14.6M for its combined single header slot (about 90% of the country got a game a 1 on CBS, 10% or so got the 4 game). NBC got 17.8M for Sunday night, Fox got 13.8M for its 1 PM game.
MNF is always included in next weeks ratings (Nielsen weeks are Mon-Sun) so the off-set DH last week got 7.9M and 12.8M.
Note that none came close to getting the 120M mark, nor will any ever do that. Clickbait websites and knowledge of Nielsen are two different things.
But SBJ (paywalled) has some significant about Amazon’s second week. Given a solid game, featuring a team with, IMHO, the second most bandwagon don’t live there never did fans (Pittsburgh) it got a solid rating, 5.4 for 11.05M. Of which 1.18M watched on OTA TV in the two cities involved, leaving 9.85M watching on Amazon.
Which is not bad, actually beat the crap game in week 3 last year (Panthers-Texans) which was on NFL Network ONLY. The games on Fox last year averaged 8.0 rating or 14M people.
Looks like Amazon is going to get about 90% of what Fox was. As predicted.
This weekend saw Fox get 26.3M for its 4:25 slot. CBS got 14.6M for its combined single header slot (about 90% of the country got a game a 1 on CBS, 10% or so got the 4 game). NBC got 17.8M for Sunday night, Fox got 13.8M for its 1 PM game.
MNF is always included in next weeks ratings (Nielsen weeks are Mon-Sun) so the off-set DH last week got 7.9M and 12.8M.
Note that none came close to getting the 120M mark, nor will any ever do that. Clickbait websites and knowledge of Nielsen are two different things.
But SBJ (paywalled) has some significant about Amazon’s second week. Given a solid game, featuring a team with, IMHO, the second most bandwagon don’t live there never did fans (Pittsburgh) it got a solid rating, 5.4 for 11.05M. Of which 1.18M watched on OTA TV in the two cities involved, leaving 9.85M watching on Amazon.
Which is not bad, actually beat the crap game in week 3 last year (Panthers-Texans) which was on NFL Network ONLY. The games on Fox last year averaged 8.0 rating or 14M people.
Looks like Amazon is going to get about 90% of what Fox was. As predicted.
stop talking like that you make me feel old LOL. yep netscape was my first browser and myspace was the FB of the 90's
I'm not a huge fan of Netflix these days either. But that's neither here nor there, really. They have a ton of subs around the world, a number that's growing, and more importantly, they're the only major streaming service that's actually profitable. Netflix is a great example of "first mover advantage." They imagined before anyone else who television could move to the internet. And since they had no traditional TV business, they were unafraid to disrupt the status quo.
A la carte isn't anti-consumer if you're not a big sports fan, like me. It's just shifting the cost of sports more squarely onto the folks who actually watch it the most. Which is fair.
What you're failing to factor in is that the number of folks who choose to keep paying for the ever-increasing cost of cable TV, including ESPN, keeps falling. Disney isn't going to keep ESPN forever chained to a TV package that typically costs $70/mo or more as we approach the point in the next few years when 50% of US households don't subscribe to such a package. Would some of those households buy ESPN if they could get it for substantially less than the cost of a cable TV package? Sure, some would.
DTC ESPN won't need to cost 4-5 times as much as they charge cable operators. As the number of cable subs dwindles, we can surmise that a growing % of them are sports fans who actually care about ESPN. If half of them watch ESPN enough that they would pay for it alone once the cable bundle is gone, then a DTC ESPN would likely be priced at about 2 times what they charge cable operators for it. I think that amount is probably around $12-13/mo. So maybe the entirety of ESPN as a DTC product would cost $25/mo., with a discount for bundling it in with Disney+. Admittedly, $25/mo sounds like a lot. Which is why I think they might break ESPN up into two DTC products, maybe $15/mo each or $22.50 for both (i.e. second one half-off). Who knows.
In the end, no, I don't think DTC ESPN will be as profitable overall as cable ESPN. But then cable ESPN is also becoming less and less profitable over time as more and more households, even those who are sports fans, leave cable TV behind. As regional sports networks become available DTC, and we see more major sports available on general DTC streamers like Peacock and Apple TV+, some portion of ESPN viewers will decide they can live without it if it means they can drop a $70-$100/mo cable TV package.
If Disney had foresight, they shouldn't sold off ESPN a few years ago when it could've fetched a higher price. At this point, it's a declining asset that they're stuck with.
Yes, it's dipped a bit this year, largely attributable to the service going dark in Russia after the start of the war. But, as I say, Netflix continues to be way out in front of other streamers in terms of active users and profitability. A whole generation is growing up thinking of Netflix in the way that my generation thought of the main broadcast networks. Netflix's place in the global streaming race is secure for many years to come.
Just because you may Live outside of the 2 cities playing last Thursday, does NOT make you a Bandwagon Fan .....
I personally have followed the Steelers since 1970. Maybe a few years earlier ...
Ya, its done a great deal of shrinking because of Password sharing being stopped ..... Not
- Status
