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

[Bruce]

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.

As I wrote, just separated them to have a close as possible accurate count.

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

Never posted that.

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.

If everyone has decided, how do you explain Live TV Providers subscriber numbers going down as reported every quarter?

For example, 2.6 Million reported loss in the first quarter/2023 until YTTV reported a gain of 300,000, so a total of 2.3 million gone.

Where did they go?

Yet every non live streaming service ( except AMC+) had gains in the same quarter, some major, for example, Paramount+ gained 4.1 million.

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

Quit making this about me and just debate the subject.

I love TV, after being retired for years and now work from home, the TV is on all day.

I just prefer the better quality of the streaming services.

 

[meStevo]

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

Where did he say this?

Sorry, everyone who wants to live on non-linear streaming has made their choice.

I don't understand how you claim to know so much, refuse to cite anything and continue to make such nonsensical statements. Your chosen medium is shrinking and the alternatives are growing. Choices are still being made and not for the side you invested in so you live out that denial here it seems while belittling anyone who disagrees with you.

See also: "everyone who wants Sunday Ticket has it" that you repeated over and over... to people who wanted Sunday Ticket but did not have it. Maybe stop talking past people and actually discuss the topics?

 

[Bruce]

Where did he say this?

I did not, the only thing I posted is that DirecTV will be unprofitable in 3-5 years.

Since it has been confirmed that profits are shrinking by a billion dollars year over year, confirmed here- AT&T CFO on the High Bar for a DirecTV-Dish Deal, and Why a Wireless Rumor Reminded Him of ‘Seinfeld’. , so I believe myself correct.

I don't understand how you claim to know so much, refuse to cite anything and continue to make such nonsensical statements. Your chosen medium is shrinking and the alternatives are growing. Choices are still being made and not for the side you invested in so you live out that denial here it seems while belittling anyone who disagrees with you.

Once again, streaming is the number one choice to watch Television, it continues to grow while Broadcast and Traditional .

Considering that 56-60 Million Households ( out of 130 Million) do not have a Pay Live TV Service shows why those are shrinking, they just find it is not worth it anymore.

https://www.nielsen.com/insights/20... in monthly usage reflected viewing behavior.

 

[SamCdbs]

Where did he say this?

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.

Cable (linear) TV will N E V E R come to an end. The experts are right, and the poster is, well, wrong. See you in 2 years.

When linear TV will still exist.

And be making a profit.

Unlike streaming.

 

[SamCdbs]

I did not, the only thing I posted is that DirecTV will be unprofitable in 3-5 years.

Since it has been confirmed that profits are shrinking by a billion dollars year over year, confirmed here- AT&T CFO on the High Bar for a DirecTV-Dish Deal, and Why a Wireless Rumor Reminded Him of ‘Seinfeld’. , so I believe myself correct.

Once again, streaming is the number one choice to watch Television, it continues to grow while Broadcast and Traditional .

Considering that 56-60 Million Households ( out of 130 Million) do not have a Pay Live TV Service shows why those are shrinking, they just find it is not worth it anymore.

View attachment 162944

https://www.nielsen.com/insights/20... in monthly usage reflected viewing behavior.

Fun with Google.

Let's translate, without an agenda, and with a basic understanding of TV.

Linear TV 53.8% (those with an agenda separate OTA TV from "cable" even though the vast majority of people get their local OTA profitable channels via "cable" (provider TV).

FAST and other free things c.17.6% depending on what "other streaming" is (poor folks and stuff just rattling in the background)

Paid (but unprofitable) streaming 16.5%.

And?

Well, dear reader, this is where Google is not a substitute for knowledge. These are ratings. Really, they don't answer the question the OP wants answered, at least not with the answer he wants.

If a person has unprofitable steaming service A and its cost $10 and he watches it 95% of the time, A makes $10. If his neighbor watches it 5% of the time, A makes $10. Thus ratings are not really relevant here.

What is?

Well there is a quote here that has real meaning to the industry:

Considering that 56-60 Million Households ( out of 130 Million) do not have a Pay Live TV Service

So, of course we have to reverse this to remove the agenda. 70M people have pay live TV service.

And, since there is no one sitting around waiting around for streaming to come to their town, everyone has decided. 70M have decided that they still want the (mega profitable) linear TV system.

So, dear reader, you are not some rube or chump. You are not backward. You, in fact, are in the majority. The majority that still wants linear TV. Where the good stuff is. The OP got to make a decision, for himself, and good for him. So do you, and I, and everyone. These will be different decisions. None are wrong. The only wrong thing is believing that your decision is a one-sized fits all for everyone.

 

[Bruce]

Linear TV 53.8% (those with an agenda separate OTA TV from "cable" even though the vast majority of people get their local OTA profitable channels via "cable" (provider TV).

You have no evidence of that, since 60 Million do not have a Paid Live TV Service, how do you think they are getting Broadcast Networks?

So, of course we have to reverse this to remove the agenda. 70M people have pay live TV service.

And, since there is no one sitting around waiting around for streaming to come to their town, everyone has decided. 70M have decided that they still want the (mega profitable) linear TV system.

Until the next reported quarter when it will be at least 2 million less.

Also, you never make note that it has lost 30 million subs in the last 7 years….and increasing.

So, dear reader, you are not some rube or chump. You are not backward. You, in fact, are in the majority. The majority that still wants linear TV.

And that majority is increasing leaving every year.

Here is a story about how many possible this year-

https://cordcuttersnews.com/cable-t...bscribe-in-2023-as-cord-cutting-accelerating/

Where the good stuff is.

This is your opinion.

I prefer to watch Broadcast/Cable/Sports on the streaming services, 1080P Video/ DD+ sound, some in 4K, not just sports but Broadcast/Cable Shows also, cannot get that with Cable/Satellite.

For example, watched MNF on ESPN+ in 1080P, looked so much better then the 720P picture on Live Pay TV.

Then we have all the exclusive stuff, which I am thankful for since this writer’s strike is going to make Fall TV awful, Netflix has already announced they have enough content to last them till the end of 2024 without delaying anything, Paramount+ until next summer, Disney+ has next year’s Marvel and Star Wars shows already filmed.

 

[Juan]

Nobody in their right mind will $30 + for ESPN

 

[Bruce]

Nobody in their right mind will $30 + for ESPN

That price estimate was only if ESPN became a streaming service only, like Netflix.

When it becomes a streaming service, it will still have revenue from about 55-60 Million Live Pay TV subscribers (estimated by 2025) , they are only trying to make back those per sub fees they have lost and they know if they price it too high, no one will subscribe.

Since per sub fees are $11 for ESPN 1 and 2, they are considering $20 a good safe number.

I think that is too much, the only time I watch it is during College/Professional Football season, so I would just sub then and drop it during the other months.

 

[meStevo]

Cable (linear) TV will N E V E R come to an end. The experts are right, and the poster is, well, wrong. See you in 2 years.

When linear TV will still exist.

And be making a profit.

Unlike streaming.

Except that he didn't say that. That's an excerpt from the article. Maybe you overlooked that in your overzealous attempts to make this personal and work in whatever insults you can over, and over, and over.

It's also not even the article predicting that. No wonder you don't like citing sources if you don't understand the words contained in them.

 

[ncted]

Cable (linear) TV will N E V E R come to an end.

 

[SamCdbs]

Except that he didn't say that.

Yes he did.

That's an excerpt from the article.

Which came up on his Google feed today and he chose to post.

Maybe you overlooked that in your overzealous attempts to make this personal and work in whatever insults you can over, and over, and over.

I've never insulted anyone, nor have I STARTED any post on this subject. The poster in question, almost daily, posts the SAME thing over and over.

- I saved $___________ with streaming.
- If you have linear TV you are a dope.
- The fact that, given a choice, a minority took to non-linear streaming only is an inevitable trend.
- All experts are wrong.

It is tiresome. This is a GOOD board. Lots of very knowledgeable people. Lots of learning. Over the years, because I keep an open mind, I have learned a lot.

Others might try that.

It's also not even the article predicting that. No wonder you don't like citing sources if you don't understand the words contained in them.

Personal insult much? Pot-kettle.

 

[Bruce]

Yes he did.

No I did not, find one post where I said 2 years.

Two things I did post, DirecTV will be unprofitable in 3-5 years.

That for the next two years, we are in a transitional period and by the end of 2024 we should know how things will work out with Traditional Providers and streaming providers.

What is new, the writer’s strike and the upcoming actor’s strike, that will not do Traditional Providers any favors, how streaming is helped is they have so many shows and movies already made, most of them have enough content to last till summer 2024 for some (Paramount+ and Disney+) or the end of 2024 (Netflix).

Which came up on his Google feed today and he chose to post.

Nope, popped up in my work email.

I've never insulted anyone, nor have I STARTED any post on this subject. The poster in question, almost daily, posts the SAME thing over and over.

I did not start this thread, yet what I posted concerned ESPN, this was the right area.

- I saved $___________ with streaming.

I do, save a lot and get tons more content, so much that if this strike goes on for two years, since I am so behind, it will take me that long to catch up.

And why is saving money a bad thing?

I get the same content that is on Traditional Providers, plus all the exclusive stuff for a less expensive price.

If you have linear TV you are a dope.

Never said that, I have posted streaming is much better quality, in content and Picture/sound.

- The fact that, given a choice, a minority took to non-linear streaming only is an inevitable trend.

Again, the math shows that minority is increasing, 30 million have left paid Live TV ( had 100 million subs in 2015)and is now growing by over 2 million leaving every reported quarter.

So right now, out of 130 Million households, 70 Million get paid Live TV, 60 Million do not.

By the end of the year, that number should be ( after 3 more quarters with 2 million gone each one), roughly, 64 Million with Paid Live TV, 66 without, that means the majority/minority will have flipped.

If not by the end of this year, definitely by the middle of next year

Show me where I am incorrect, math never lies.

- All experts are wrong.

You have never posted one expert that claims we are not switching to a streaming world.

It is tiresome. This is a GOOD board. Lots of very knowledgeable people. Lots of learning. Over the years, because I keep an open mind, I have learned a lot.

Others might try that.

I have a open mind, I have had DirecTV ( first back in the 90’s), Dish and Comcast ( they became awful when they started down converting video quality), now streaming, which is much better in my opinion.

In content, ease, picture , sound and convenience .

Personal insult much? Pot-kettle.

This is the part I will avoid.

 

[SamCdbs]

No I did not, find one post where I said 2 years.

Then pick a year.

I tell you my answer. Never. The public has made its decision. We will see it below.

Two things I did post, DirecTV will be unprofitable in 3-5 years.

Yep, Because in_____ things will be different because_______.

DirecTV, DISH, cable, local broadcast chains, networks, and Fox and Columbia, will remain profitable for, well, ever.

Unlike streaming.

That for the next two years, we are in a transitional period and by the end of 2024 we should know how things will work out with Traditional Providers and streaming providers.

And, no. The "transitional period" is O V E R. Everyone has chosen. Linear TV for most is the choice.

I did not start this thread, yet what I posted concerned ESPN, this was the right area.

You start dozens of threads per month, all on the same subject. All with the same wrong conclusion based on statistics you just don't understand.

And why is saving money a bad thing?

TELLING others, over and over and over and over and over is the bad thing. But, again, THIS IS A TV ENTHUSIAST'S WEBSITE. 40 opinions on a show, and one "I didn't see it, I saved 4 cents". Which one of these things doesn't belong?

I get the same content that is on Traditional Providers, plus all the exclusive stuff for a less expensive price.

Really? What channel was the Stanley Cup on? I could go on. Won't.

You get SOME content and do NOT get some content. You made YOUR decision. Others (the majority) made a different decision. Neither are wrong.

But posting, incorrectly, that you get the "same" content, is insulting to everyone else. Very insulting.

Again, the math shows that minority is increasing, 30 million have left paid Live TV ( had 100 million subs in 2015)and is now growing by over 2 million leaving every reported quarter.

No. Math doesn't predict the future. Math adds, subtracts, etc. The name of that science is, rather, economics. X people doing X in 2023 makes NO PREDICTION about 2024 or any other year. In fact, since streaming is at a 100% roll out right now, economics would show us that everyone who wants streaming, has streaming.

So right now, out of 130 Million households, 70 Million get paid Live TV, 60 Million do not.

Yep, that is the decision the Market has made. No evidence it will change.

By the end of the year, that number should be ( after 3 more quarters with 2 million gone each one), roughly, 64 Million with Paid Live TV, 66 without, that means the majority/minority will have flipped.

Why? What will change?

Show me where I am incorrect, math never lies.

Because that isn't "math".

This is really BASIC business stuff. Basic.

You have never posted one expert that claims we are not switching to a streaming world.

Only 100s. You just ignore things when you get called on them.

I have a open mind, I have had DirecTV ( first back in the 90’s), Dish and Comcast ( they became awful when they started down converting video quality), now streaming, which is much better in my opinion.

YOUR opinion. Yep.

The majority disagrees.

But that is not what I am talking about. This is a good board. Lots of experts. I have learned a LOT here. Because I don't use google and statistia and think I have proven a point. Rather I listen, and LEARN.

You might try it.

 

[Bruce]

Only 100s. You just ignore things when you get called on them.

Then put a link up.

Here is Price Waterhouse’s Global Entertainment & Media Outlook that would disagree-

By 2027, the U.S. television industry will see $30 billion less annually from traditional subscription and advertising revenue than it did a decade earlier amid ongoing cord cutting, according to a new forecast by PwC published today.

The rate of subscriber decline in the traditional TV bundle hit a milestone in the third quarter of 2022, when the number of pay-TV households fell below half the total number of U.S homes for the first time.

By 2027, the firm’s Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2023-2027 (which also broke U.S. numbers separately) predicted, millions more U.S. homes will have walked away, reducing total penetration to 49.9 million — down from almost 100 million as recently as 2016 — which means pay-TV will be present in just 38% of total U.S. homes.

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/tmt/media/outlook.html

Pay-TV Will Dip To 38% Of U.S. Homes By 2027 As Exodus Continues; Streamers Facing Saturated U.S. Market, “Tectonic” AVOD Shift – PwC Forecast

By 2027, the U.S. television industry will see $30 billion less annually from traditional subscription and advertising revenue than it did a decade earlier amid ongoing cord cutting, according to a…

deadline.com

 

[meStevo]

No. Math doesn't predict the future. Math adds, subtracts, etc. The name of that science is, rather, economics. X people doing X in 2023 makes NO PREDICTION about 2024 or any other year. In fact, since streaming is at a 100% roll out right now, economics would show us that everyone who wants streaming, has streaming.

Now back this up with actual data. Show us where streaming is not growing, and traditional providers are not contracting.

You insult people pretending to know more than everyone about business and then pretend trends don't exist or aren't relevant. It's embarrassing how smart you attempt to come across but then very consistently make nonsensical statements like this.

 

[Bruce]

Math doesn't predict the future. Math adds, subtracts, etc. The name of that science is, rather, economics.

Are you actually posting that math has nothing to do with economics?

X people doing X in 2023 makes NO PREDICTION about 2024 or any other year.

One year no, but since 2016, yes, since then those leaving Pay Live TV has increased every year, now expected to hit 8-9 million losses this year, up from 5.9 million last year, which was up from 2021, where 4.9 million left, etc, etc.

In fact, since streaming is at a 100% roll out right now, economics would show us that everyone who wants streaming, has streaming.

Ok, here is one example, say a DirecTV subscriber also has Netflix, then cancels DirecTV and pick up Paramount+ ( which gained 14 Million new subs in 2022 and 4 more million in 1st Quarter 2023) and Hulu, so yes, they already had streaming as you say, but they wanted more with the loss of their Live TV Service they were subscribing to.

And they liked it better.

That is what the math, trends and the quarterly reports have been telling us.

 

[glrush]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/disney-open-to-finding-espn-strategic-partner.html

 

[Bruce]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/disney-open-to-finding-espn-strategic-partner.html

Couple of points-

• Disney has held early conversations to find a new strategic partner for ESPN.

If they are going to sell, now is the time, they have a lot of contracts coming up ( NBA, College Football Playoffs are two examples) , with diminishing profits and ad revenue going down, value of ESPN will just get less and less.

• Disney is also open to selling or spinning out its legacy cable networks and ABC, its broadcast network, Iger suggested.

ABC will always have value since it is broadcast, cable channels have the same issues as every other cable channels, per sub fees becoming less and less every quarter and ad revenue continuing becoming less

The Fox Channels ( FX for example) might have some value ( content might be a issue), but who would buy the Disney Channel when the main company still owns the content and it will be on Disney+ first.

Just thinking about it, unless it is some incredible bargain, who would buy any cable channel, since they are predicted to lose over 30 million per sub fess by the end of 2025.

• Disney CEO Bob Iger said he has a good idea when ESPN will transition to a direct-to-consumer business but declined to say when.

Rumors are by the end of 2024 (doubtful) or 2025 ( more likely), since they will have lost about 18-20 million more ( along with the 30 million they have already lost) per subs fees by the end of 2024, they will need a new revenue source.

With the lost of 20 Million per sub fess by the end of 2024, that is 2.6 Billion Dollars yearly gone then.

By the time it launches, there will be more cord cutters/nevers then paid Live TV subscribers, so they will have to be careful with the pricing to attract from that 70 million that do not sub to Live TV by the end of 2024.

 

[Yespage]

Double edged sword as cable/sat provider's will not pay any premium (anything at all?) for ESPN if it goes streaming. It will kill their business model too. They would need to cut their price.

I have no idea how ESPN will work. They need to adapt but their business model isn't remotely compatible with the changing landscape of media distribution. They want to get back the subs they lost, but that risks losing more conventional subs and fight back from sat/cable.

 

[Bruce]

Here is another link which basically confirms what I posted above, getting rid of the formally owned by Fox Channels but keeping the Disney ones.

Also just watched a interview with Iger, reading between the lines, basically turning the Disney Channels into showing content that was on Disney+ first, that way they can share content costs.

Smart Plan.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/disney-ceo-iger-opens-door-to-unloading-tv-assets.html