ESPN actively planning to offer linear feed directly to consumers, has deals with two leagues

[Juan]

If you pay your car payment and still have a remaining balance due at the end of the month, but you make enough to cover all your bills and more, does that mean you didn't make money (i.e. profit)?

No..that means you have liquidity

liquid assets; cash.
"a firm may be unable to pay unless it has spare liquidity"

 

[meStevo]

No..that means you have liquidity

liquid assets; cash.
"a firm may be unable to pay unless it has spare liquidity"

The term you should look up if anything is net profit.

Has nothing to do with debt. Revenue/income in excess of your obligations (including debt service) is net profit, regardless of how much outstanding debt you have.

 

[Juan]

The term you should look up if anything is net profit.

Has nothing to do with debt. Revenue/income in excess of your obligations (including debt service) is net profit, regardless of how much outstanding debt you have.

But they still owe 15b..what they are doing is equivalent to paying a minimum payment on a credit card..if they lose a ton of customers..game over

 

[Bruce]

But you still owe 15b

So if someone keeps saying that certain cable/satellite companies are extremely profitable but they have a high debt, are they then no longer profitable?

Namely-
Dish-$21 Billion in debt
Comcast-$98 Billion in debt
Charter-$97 Billion in debt
DirecTV-$7.25 Billion in debt

 

[Juan]

So if someone keeps saying that certain cable/satellite companies are extremely profitable but they have a high debt, are they then no longer profitable?

Namely-
Dish-$21 Billion in debt
Comcast-$98 Billion in debt
Charter-$97 Billion in debt
DirecTV-$7.25 Billion in debt

They are

 

[Bruce]

They are

Well then, I guess a lot more streaming companies are profitable then, like Warner/Discovery with Max and Discovery+.

 

[Juan]

Well then, I guess a lot more streaming companies are profitable then, like Warner/Discovery with Max and Discovery+.

They pay more for programming than they bring in revenue...someone ( not I) mentioned netflix borrowed a lot of money to make progamming and have to pay it back ..thats all was said..other traditional companies dont need to borrow money to make programming..

 

[SamCdbs]

This is a silly conversation. Netflix is in debt up to its a**, but makes a profit which is to say it takes in more than it spends which said spending would include the debt service. That may, or may not, continue. This is mostly dependent on how quickly other streamers, none of which have ever made a cent, go bankrupt.

Because, for the vast majority of people, streaming in a supplemental service to linear TV, Netflix is really occupying then niche that HBO and Showtime did 20 years ago. It is a nice supplement, but extrapolating the future from its roll out is borne of basic lack of understanding of the media business.

The basic question for Netflix is as the giant furnace consumes more and more and more content, can it ever really make enough money to sustain itself. The other streamers? Unprofitable. But in ______ year _______ will be different and it will all be OK.

 

[ncted]

This is a silly conversation. Netflix is in debt up to its a**, but makes a profit which is to say it takes in more than it spends which said spending would include the debt service. That may, or may not, continue. This is mostly dependent on how quickly other streamers, none of which have ever made a cent, go bankrupt.

Because, for the vast majority of people, streaming in a supplemental service to linear TV, Netflix is really occupying then niche that HBO and Showtime did 20 years ago. It is a nice supplement, but extrapolating the future from its roll out is borne of basic lack of understanding of the media business.

The basic question for Netflix is as the giant furnace consumes more and more and more content, can it ever really make enough money to sustain itself. The other streamers? Unprofitable. But in ______ year _______ will be different and it will all be OK.

Agree this is a silly conversation. Specifically, it is silly to think that most people consider streaming an add-on when streaming accounts for more hours of viewing than linear TV these days. Now, most linear TV subscribers may think about streaming in those terms, but that is a rapidly shrinking pool of people. That doesn't mean linear is dead, but it needs to evolve to survive.

Slowly but surely, streaming is surpassing linear TV viewership

New data from Nielsen and Samba TV highlight the extent of the shift.

www.marketingbrew.com

No, Linear TV Isn’t Dead, and Streaming Isn’t Here to Kill It

Recent numbers show traditional TV viewing hours are dropping, but don’t eulogize anything just yet.

www.primetimer.com

Linear TV Viewers Still Include Gen Z and Millennials, For Now

Despite the overall decline in linear TV viewership, Gen Z and millennials are still finding some reasons to tune in to the legacy medium.

pro.morningconsult.com

FWIW: In talking to Gen Z and Millennials who don't sub to linear TV, they typically say they would if it was worth it, but it just isn't. Instead, they watch pirated broadcasts of sports on Reddit streams and the like to watch what they can't get without cable.

I don't know the perfect answer to how to make streaming more profitable for media companies, but I suspect it includes controlling costs (which they've been doing poorly), increasing subscriber numbers (which the smaller, unprofitable players are still doing), and creating must-see content (always hit or miss in this space). Prices do probably need to go up some. I still pay less for YTTV, Ad-free Paramount+, AppleTV+, Ad-free Peacock, Ad-free Hulu & Disney+, Netflix, and YouTube Premium than my parents pay for just regular old cable TV.

 

[Bruce]

FWIW: In talking to Gen Z and Millennials who don't sub to linear TV, they typically say they would if it was worth it, but it just isn't. Instead, they watch pirated broadcasts of sports on Reddit streams and the like to watch what they can't get without cable.

Both of my kids fit in the Millennials rage (33 and 28 this year).

Each actually watches shows from Broadcast/Cable Channels,but neither of my kids have a Live TV Provider since the shows are on the Streaming Services also, why should they and basically pay for the programming twice, then if they had a Live TV instead, miss out on the exclusive stuff.

Both of my kids are well off, so they could afford Live TV and the streaming services, but why waste money and they just do not care about it.

As far as sports go, daughter no way, son has the Hulu package, so used the ESPN+ app for the Red Wings and MNF, Peacock and Paramount+ for the upcoming Big Ten Season and NFL ( also gets Fox with a Antenna), properly will come over to my House for ST to watch the Lions.

He is bored by Baseball (I am also now), so does not have the MLB service, cares nothing about Basketball.

Thinking about this, the amount they pay for streaming services is about the same I paid for Live TV at the same age range, when I was 33, it was 2000, I had DirecTV then, it was roughly $40 a month.

 

[SamCdbs]

Agree this is a silly conversation. Specifically, it is silly to think that most people consider streaming an add-on when streaming accounts for more hours of viewing than linear TV these days.

That, of course, is not the metric. Again the analogy to HBO/Showtime of the past is apt. When HBO came out, or any channel beyond the "big three" did the older channels viewing go down? Yes. More choice = less people watching any one thing. But the big three remained.

The only difference is that Big Media (in a move that future generations will understand to be idiotic) allowed people to bypass first paying for the basic package, unlike HBO et al, of the past. So we see the cord switchers, paying (a lot, and more to come) for streaming and not linear. And telling us, over and over, how much money they supposedly saved by getting some, but not all, hockey games and how Indiana-Minnesota is really good enough and they don't need Ohio State-Penn State, and so on.

The main question is, if you don't really care about TV, why are you on a TV enthusiasts website?

 

[ncted]

That, of course, is not the metric. Again the analogy to HBO/Showtime of the past is apt. When HBO came out, or any channel beyond the "big three" did the older channels viewing go down? Yes. More choice = less people watching any one thing. But the big three remained.

The only difference is that Big Media (in a move that future generations will understand to be idiotic) allowed people to bypass first paying for the basic package, unlike HBO et al, of the past. So we see the cord switchers, paying (a lot, and more to come) for streaming and not linear. And telling us, over and over, how much money they supposedly saved by getting some, but not all, hockey games and how Indiana-Minnesota is really good enough and they don't need Ohio State-Penn State, and so on.

The main question is, if you don't really care about TV, why are you on a TV enthusiasts website?

Which metric matters to the media companies that are investing heavily in the growth of streaming seems clear: eyeballs. That has always been the metric and will be until someone figures out how to successfully monetize people not watching TV. I consider the explosion of extra channels no one watched on linear TV to be the first attempt to monetize people not watching TV, and they had some temporary success, until people refused to pay any more which is how cord-cutting began. Hours watched seems like a good match for eyeballs, but if you have a better one, I'd be interested in hearing more.

I am unsure what I posted which led you to the conclusion I don't care about TV, but I do. I am here to engage is respectful, positive discussions about the state of TV in whatever form that currently is. I may disagree with you or others here about what that is or have a different perspective, and that is ok. I am used to people thinking I am wrong about various topics; I take no offense, and I don't think anyone else should either as long as there is no personal malice intended.

As for linear vs. on-demand, I think we agree in some ways. Things were definitely simpler when all you had to do was subscribe to a cable or satellite package. Other than a movie rental or maybe PPV, all your content is in one place at one price, and, depending on your package, you can pretty much get everything available in that one place if you are willing to pay for it. I miss that simplicity for sure. For better or worse, Netflix came along with their streaming service right around the same time cable packages were going up in cost about 5x faster than inflation. The market was ripe for disruption, so that is what happened. Would I be happier if I could get all my content through something like YTTV and pay one price that is the same or less than what I am paying now, even if I am paying for stuff I won't ever watch? Sure, there are a lot of things on every service I subscribe to that I will never watch, and I like the flexibility of IPTV. My problem was never with that generically. It was with the endless slate of new channels that no one watched which jacked up my cable bill at an alarming rate -- many channels that no longer exist because effectively no one watched them, by the way. They were they just to increase profits for Big Media, to you use your term, not to satisfy a niche. Either way, it doesn't seem like we are going to see a packaged solution like can be had with cable that gets us everything we want any time soon. The world has changed.

 

[Yespage]

Meanwhile in 'the Internet isn't ready for this' sphere.

Reliance's JioCinema breaks world record with free cricket streaming

India's JioCinema broke the global record for the most concurrent views to a livestreamed event on Monday, eclipsing a long-standing milestone set by Disney's Hotstar, as the Asian tycoon Mukesh Ambani spares no expense in expanding his digital empire. The Indian streaming platform, which...

news.yahoo.com

India's JioCinema broke the global record for the most concurrent views to a live streamed event on Monday, eclipsing a long-standing milestone set by Disney's Hotstar, as the Asian tycoon Mukesh Ambani spares no expense in expanding his digital empire.

the Indian streaming platform, whose investor includes James Murdoch's Bodhi Tree-backed Viacom18, drew over 32 million simultaneous viewers for the finale of the 16th edition of the Indian Premier League cricket tournament, featuring Chennai Super Kings versus Gujarat Titans.

The IPL is India's NFL of sorts. It reminds me how pathetic our Internet and Cable is. Watching the F1 Monaco event and they had live streams for cable viewers of each in car camera!

Regardless, if India can manage 32 million concurrent live streams of a major sporting event... if we can't, that is a pathetic!

 

[Bruce]

More news-

Now insiders are telling the New York Post that ESPN’s streaming service may not happen until 2025 or even 2026. A lot can change that may make Disney rush out the ESPN streaming service earlier, but for now, sources say 2025 is the likely target day.

Even though Disney may be looking at 2025 for the release date, it is reported that they are already building the service. The project is called “Flagship” and is part of Disney’s plan to be ready for the day cable TV comes to an end.

https://cordcuttersnews.com/disneys...ers-is-coming-here-is-when-you-can-expect-it/

 

[SamCdbs]

Laughable, of course.

Cable (linear) TV, the primary form of TV that MOST people (but not the tiny streaming only niche) want is gong to end in 2 or 3 years.

Funny.

 

[Juan]

Meanwhile in 'the Internet isn't ready for this' sphere.

Reliance's JioCinema breaks world record with free cricket streaming

India's JioCinema broke the global record for the most concurrent views to a livestreamed event on Monday, eclipsing a long-standing milestone set by Disney's Hotstar, as the Asian tycoon Mukesh Ambani spares no expense in expanding his digital empire. The Indian streaming platform, which...

news.yahoo.com

The IPL is India's NFL of sorts. It reminds me how pathetic our Internet and Cable is. Watching the F1 Monaco event and they had live streams for cable viewers of each in car camera!

Regardless, if India can manage 32 million concurrent live streams of a major sporting event... if we can't, that is a pathetic!

India has state run television..we don't..its all private enterprise

 

[Bruce]

Laughable, of course.

Cable (linear) TV, the primary form of TV that MOST people (but not the tiny streaming only niche) want is gong to end in 2 or 3 years.

Funny.

Out of 130 Million Households, Linear Live TV ( no streaming, just Cable/Satellite) has only, roughly, 60 Million vs 100 million back in 2015.

Then you add in the 12-14 million for services like YTTV, Sling, that is still 26-28 million that no longer subscribe and then the 30 million that never had a live TV service.

Then we have the prediction of 56 Million Live TV Subscribers ( all services) by the end of 2024, that means more households will not have a Live TV Service then do.

That shows people are leaving or dying off and the younger people are not signing up, so no growth, ESPN needs to make up for who has left and to have growth ( new subs), so hence why the new streaming service.

Will it work, at first , maybe, as long as they get the per sub fees from the 50 million that still has a Live TV Service and revenue from the streaming service, but as Live TV Subs keeps shrinking, it becomes harder over time, they really need to get rights fees down and advertising revenue up.

But with all the streaming services tossing money at sports leagues, it will be hard for ESPN to get those fees down, they already lost the Big Ten because they could not come close to what the streaming companies were offering.

Number of pay TV households in the U.S. 2028 | Statista

The number of traditional U.S. pay-TV households, including cable subscribers, was 58 million in 2023. A forecast suggests a drop to 41 million by 2028.

www.statista.com

 

[AZ.]

India has state run television..we don't..its all private enterprise

I would disagree with this....Wrong section here.

 

[Juan]

I would disagree with this....Wrong section here.

Not poltical..no different than the BBC being state run or CBC.. the closest we have is PBS..but thats a non profit foundation...our commercial networks run on private cash...state run networks are pubically funded...they do better streaming

 

[SamCdbs]

Out of 130 Million Households, Linear Live TV ( no streaming, just Cable/Satellite) has only, roughly, 60 Million vs 100 million back in 2015.

And?

Again, the basic lack of understanding how this business works. Google is not a substitute for knowledge.

60M people (actually more, as YTTV, DirecTV stream et al are linear TV) have linear TV.

Yet you believe it will "not exist" in 18 months.

Sorry, everyone who wants to live on non-linear streaming has made their choice. The vast majority remain wanting linear TV. The decisions have been made, and this is what has been decided.

YOU made your choice, others made theirs.

Again, you don't like TV, and you don't know much about the business.

Move on.