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

Toggle sidebar
Juan said:
The writers strike effects streamers to
Click to expand...

I remember Larry Linville talking about M*A*S*H back in the day. It was up against Wonderful World of Disney and FBI. It got abused in the fall, but in reruns, instead of people that watched either show going to the other, they went to M*A*S*H. Big ratings followed.

This is where streaming will be… without new shows, people will go to streaming for content they heard about but hadn’t watched. Live TV will be irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bilbo1 said:
I remember Larry Linville talking about M*A*S*H back in the day. It was up against Wonderful World of Disney and FBI. It got abused in the fall, but in reruns, instead of people that watched either show going to the other, they went to M*A*S*H. Big ratings followed.

This is where streaming will be… without new shows, people will go to streaming for content they heard about but hadn’t watched. Live TV will be irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Streaming wont have ( good) new shows either
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs
Juan said:
Streaming wont have ( good) new shows either
Click to expand...
Why do you keep posting that over and over, specially since I proved you incorrect and you even quoted me on the subject.
 
Juan said:
Streaming wont have ( good) new shows either
Click to expand...

Plenty of good content out there that I haven’t watched, that’s, um, ‘new to me.’ A couple of friends recently decided to watch every Best Picture Oscar winner. They were very complimentary of ‘Wings.’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bilbo1 said:
Plenty of good content out there that I haven’t watched, that’s, um, ‘new to me.’ A couple of friends recently decided to watch every Best Picture Oscar winner. They were very complimentary of ‘Wings.’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I just happen to have every one of them on DVD/Blu-ray with the exception of CODA which is not yet available. :)
 
Nispel ... pointed to survey data that showed a "low willingness to pay."

In a note published on June 29, the analyst wrote, "Who's going to pay $30+/month for ESPN? Not many."
Click to expand...
I do not know how he came up with $30. I agree that not many people will pay $30 for it, but I disagree that $30 is a profitable price.

If you look at the ratings ESPN actually gets, and assume that every single one of those people would pay for ESPN a la carte (they won't, obviously, but this is just for purposes of illustration) and take what ESPN now gets from "everybody" (everybody that has provider linear television) and want a profit margin close to what Disney is now (or was a few years ago) getting, you are right at $100/month, not $30.

The whole "well, make it up with targeted ads" is whistling past the graveyard.
 
SamCdbs said:
I do not know how he came up with $30. I agree that not many people will pay $30 for it, but I disagree that $30 is a profitable price.

If you look at the ratings ESPN actually gets, and assume that every single one of those people would pay for ESPN a la carte (they won't, obviously, but this is just for purposes of illustration) and take what ESPN now gets from "everybody" (everybody that has provider linear television) and want a profit margin close to what Disney is now (or was a few years ago) getting, you are right at $100/month, not $30.

The whole "well, make it up with targeted ads" is whistling past the graveyard.
Click to expand...
Even Disney says $50
 
  • Wow
Reactions: MikeD-C05
Juan said:
Even Disney says $50
Click to expand...
That is only if it was offered as a Netflix type service with no revenue from Paid Live TV and Disney did not say it.

but if ESPN offered its cable channels à la carte, it would most likely have to charge an astonishingly high fee for the streaming service, perhaps $40 or $50 per month, just to maintain its current revenue.

When it goes live, it should have per sub fees from about 50 million subscribers.

As the article says, it gets about $12 per customers with 71 million of them.

So $12 x 71 million is $852 million a month they are taking in.

So if there are 50 Million Live TV Subscribers when the streaming version goes live, 12 x 50 million, that is 600 million a month, then if they can get 20 million at $20 a month streaming, that is $400 million, $148 million more then what they are getting now.

You make it too much, no one will subscribe, $20 seems to be the limit most will pay for a service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
Bruce said:
That is only if it was offered as a Netflix type service with no revenue from Paid Live TV and Disney did not say it.

but if ESPN offered its cable channels à la carte, it would most likely have to charge an astonishingly high fee for the streaming service, perhaps $40 or $50 per month, just to maintain its current revenue.

When it goes live, it should have per sub fees from about 50 million subscribers.

As the article says, it gets about $12 per customers with 71 million of them.

So $12 x 71 million is $852 million a month they are taking in.

So if there are 50 Million Live TV Subscribers when the streaming version goes live, 12 x 50 million, that is 600 million a month, then if they can get 20 million at $20 a month streaming, that is $400 million, $148 million more then what they are getting now.

You make it too much, no one will subscribe, $20 seems to be the limit most will pay for a service.
Click to expand...
You forgot to factor in the loss of advertising revenue

Fewer eyeballs =less advertising purchased
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
Juan said:
You forgot to factor in the loss of advertising revenue

Fewer eyeballs =less advertising purchased
Click to expand...
They will have advertising on it, Live TV, ESPN+ has ads also.
 
Of course, if they offered ESPN, or any desirable content a la carte, the number of people stupid enough to keep paying for linear television is zero. It kills the model that made Disney, et al, fantastically rich, while protecting the consumer. The idea that "well, they just HAVE to sell it to me for $10 or $12, because they will make all that money from dumb people that keep paying for cable" is truly laughable.

Nope. Basic math. Outside the consumer protecting bundle, ESPN is the most toxic asset in the history of the media business. No one (well, not many) will, or even can, pay the $100/month or so that it needs to cover its content costs. Iger is finally figuring this out, after years of mismanaging that horrid company, and thus is trying to off-load what will soon be a burden that could take down the whole DIS company, of which none of its other parts are doing well either.

Hulu was a mistake. ESPN a la carte is a blunder that will be studied in business history long after any of the students were alive to remember what ESPN was.

Enjoy the reruns.
 
SamCdbs said:
while protecting the consumer.
Click to expand...
Henceforth, I am going to refer to this assertion as "the big fail." While linear TV distribution could have protected consumers with package bundling, it completely failed to do so. Linear channel owners like Disney dug their own graves by forcing channels no one watched on cable and satellite companies, causing everyone to pay more than was necessary and extorting more than their worth from customers. They essentially committed 3-4 deadly sins (greed, gluttony, vanity, and pride, depending on your perspective), and now they are struggling to stay alive.

The market responded with a collective "no thanks." Netflix as a disruptor was just the catalyst. Once the legacy media companies saw what Netflix was doing to them, they tried to copy it, with limited success at best, and it has cost them tons of money. Much like the overpriced cable bundle, customers don't want to overpay for a dozen streaming services with tons of content they'll never watch. The media companies will need to adjust again to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
ncted said:
Henceforth, I am going to refer to this assertion as "the big fail." While linear TV distribution could have protected consumers with package bundling, it completely failed to do so. Linear channel owners like Disney dug their own graves by forcing channels no one watched on cable and satellite companies, causing everyone to pay more than was necessary and extorting more than their worth from customers. They essentially committed 3-4 deadly sins (greed, gluttony, vanity, and pride, depending on your perspective), and now they are struggling to stay alive.

The market responded with a collective "no thanks." Netflix as a disruptor was just the catalyst. Once the legacy media companies saw what Netflix was doing to them, they tried to copy it, with limited success at best, and it has cost them tons of money. Much like the overpriced cable bundle, customers don't want to overpay for a dozen streaming services with tons of content they'll never watch. The media companies will need to adjust again to survive.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Streaming lives off the profits of linear tv...Streaming ( in its present form) is extremly unprofitable. Why?.. its on demand...with cable/ satellite you paid for EVERYTHING every month every year

With streaming ..you turn on a service for a month or so ..then turn it off and chose another service and so on..

Streaming is great for the consumer but terrible for the fat greedy content providers

That is why streaming is the Napster of the video world
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeD-C05
Juan said:
Huh?

Streaming lives off the profits of linear tv...Streaming ( in its present form) is extremly unprofitable. Why?.. it’s on demand...with cable/ satellite you paid for EVERYTHING every month every year
Click to expand...
This is all you and your cohort ( remember he named you as a co-conspirator in his admitted trolling attempts on this site) bring up, but you leave out any context.

Once again, Cable and Satellite were unprofitable when they started up, for example, it took DirecTV 6 years to become profitable, Dish Network 9 years.

And the profits are shrinking, DirecTV at the pace of a billion a year lost, as confirmed by AT&T COO, which gives them 4 years at the most until they are un-profitable.

Dish Network also, 10% down in profits every year for the last few years.

Comcast, has lost 7 Million subs in the last 7 years, now losing broadband subscribers and profits are down.

Etc, etc.

Paramount+ and Disney+ is set to be profitable next year, both within the same timeframe that it took DirecTV/Dish to become profitable.

Then of course you ignore the facts of Netflix and Hulu are profitable .

And the digital movie sites like Vudu are profitable, do tons more business then PPV on Traditional Providers.

But does not mean all streaming will make it, as I posted before, Warner/Discovery is a mess and in desperate need to be bought/merged with someone, AMC+ should just sell content, Peacock has no idea what kind of service to become.

Live TV has it’s problems as well, only 55 Million have Cable/Satellite (down from 100 Million in 2016), Live TV streaming has only 13 Million, so out of 130 Million Households here, 62 million do not have a Live TV Service.

By the middle of next year , more households will not have a Paid Live TV Service then do.

And if you wish to talk about unprofitable and Paid Live TV, we can bring up the RSNs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meStevo and MikeD-C05

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 160) Show all

Share this page

Share this page
Top