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

[raoul5788]

Let's all back off from the discussion for a few days fellas. Nothing is getting solved this way. A little perspective is a good thing after all.

 

[Yespage]

I'm more interested in how this evolves and where things are headed. I only got upset when I lost access to content I was paying for and it was stripped from Cable/sat (see Champions League). I don't get why people get so worked up over whether ESPN goes a la carte or not. The emotion seems wasted.

Just because someone on the Internet has a website and posts an article, doesn't make it true.

I see Nothing has changed here, even though I rarely bother with these threads anymore .... everybody is still on the I'm right, No your Not agenda.

I move on with these threads, check back in a few months to see if anyone has quit trying to 1 up someone, but I doubt anything will change.

Likewise, but I do it better than you.

 

[Juan]

I'm more interested in how this evolves and where things are headed. I only got upset when I lost access to content I was paying for and it was stripped from Cable/sat (see Champions League). I don't get why people get so worked up over whether ESPN goes a la carte or not. The emotion seems wasted.

Likewise, but I do it better than you.

If ESPN goes alacart...they will lose a ton of advertising revenue...even at $35 a month..thats too much for most people..sports fanatics will buy it but the casual fan will pass. Fewer eyeballs means less advertising revenue..but the NFL still wants their billions

 

[Bruce]

If ESPN goes alacart...they will lose a ton of advertising revenue...

Why would they lose advertising revenue, there will still be ads on the streaming version.

Remember, ESPN streaming is meant for those who have left paid Live TV and the cord nevers ( the 35 and under group).

By offering ESPN to them, would actually increase viewership, which affects the ad rates, depending on the price of course.

But if ESPN+ can attract 25 Million subscribers, regular ESPN could do well, again, price point will affect it.

But it might be a moot point, Providers fought against a live feed of CNN being on HBOMAX, hence why they have to do a different news live feed, they are really going to fight against regular ESPN being available streaming.

 

[ncted]

Let's all back off from the discussion for a few days fellas. Nothing is getting solved this way. A little perspective is a good thing after all.

But how am I going to get my fix of strangers arguing? Go to a bar? I'm not a neanderthal.

 

[Yespage]

If ESPN goes alacart...they will lose a ton of advertising revenue...even at $35 a month..thats too much for most people..sports fanatics will buy it but the casual fan will pass. Fewer eyeballs means less advertising revenue..but the NFL still wants their billions

That is for ESPN to resolve. I have generally lived without ESPN, to save money, for over a decade (though thanks to Flex and those compromising photos Charlie has of Disney Execs... you know the ones), I can sub for a day and drop it. We all need to pick and choose, but why waste any emotion in it.

 

[Juan]

That is for ESPN to resolve. I have generally lived without ESPN, to save money, for over a decade (though thanks to Flex and those compromising photos Charlie has of Disney Execs... you know the ones), I can sub for a day and drop it. We all need to pick and choose, but why waste any emotion in it.

How do I get that package?

 

[Bruce]

How do I get that package?

Dish Network/Flex Pack.

 

[Juan]

Dish Network/Flex Pack.

Thanks

 

[Bruce]

Thanks

You are very welcome.

Peace, brother.

 

[Yespage]

Why would they lose advertising revenue, there will still be ads on the streaming version.

Remember, ESPN streaming is meant for those who have left paid Live TV and the cord nevers ( the 35 and under group).

By offering ESPN to them, would actually increase viewership, which affects the ad rates, depending on the price of course.

But if ESPN+ can attract 25 Million subscribers, regular ESPN could do well, again, price point will affect it.

But it might be a moot point, Providers fought against a live feed of CNN being on HBOMAX, hence why they have to do a different news live feed, they are really going to fight against regular ESPN being available streaming.

The issue is the channel rate from sat/cable. Those companies need ESPN to be limited access, otherwise they won't want to pay out what they are paying, even if at a discount. So a la carte increases subs but it would likely harm cable/sat revenue

 

[Bruce]

The issue is the channel rate from sat/cable. Those companies need ESPN to be limited access, otherwise they won't want to pay out what they are paying, even if at a discount. So a la carte increases subs but it would likely harm cable/sat revenue

I really do not think that many will leave Live TV just because ESPN is standalone , by the time it launches in 2025, Live TV Providers will be a estimated 50 Million Subs, all still paying the per sub fee.

There will always be Live TV Services ( will not be Satellite), I cannot imagine ESPN not being part of that.

My guess is when the exodus from Live TV slows down, there will be 30-40 Million that still subscribe, ESPN just has to make up the money lost with their streaming service.

Peace.

 

[Jimbo]

Outside of the Occasional Football game on ESPN, I don't know if I have watched ESPN for more than a few minutes a month ...

With the Big Ten now Not on ESPN, I will watch it even less.

 

[ncted]

Outside of the Occasional Football game on ESPN, I don't know if I have watched ESPN for more than a few minutes a month ...

With the Big Ten now Not on ESPN, I will watch it even less.

The only thing I watch is F1 races and some college basketball (not a lot). I am actually toying with the idea of trying the Channels DVR for OTA to see if it is any better than Tablo was, so I could cancel YTTV. It is nice to have, but not $70+ a month nice. F1TV is only $80/year, and I wouldn't miss those basketball games.

 

[Bruce]

Outside of the Occasional Football game on ESPN, I don't know if I have watched ESPN for more than a few minutes a month ...

With the Big Ten now Not on ESPN, I will watch it even less.

Only College Football playoffs since Big Ten is gone.

Last year, 16 Games of Monday Night Football were on ESPN+ ( they announced 12), this year also announced 12, so that is mostly covered.

Detroit Red Wings are on ESPN+, so I still want that.

Once ESPN goes streaming, (which is not a done deal, providers are a hard no so far, wants major discounts in the per sub fees to allow it, which is a hard no on Disney’s part), I expect ESPN+ to go away ( merged), so it looks like I still need it from September till the end of the NHL Season.

 

[Jimbo]

Only College Football playoffs since Big Ten is gone.

Last year, 16 Games of Monday Night Football were on ESPN+ ( they announced 12), this year also announced 12, so that is mostly covered.

Detroit Red Wings are on ESPN+, so I still want that.

Once ESPN goes streaming, (which is not a done deal, providers are a hard no so far, wants major discounts in the per sub fees to allow it, which is a hard no on Disney’s part), I expect ESPN+ to go away ( merged), so it looks like I still need it from September till the end of the NHL Season.

I forgot about MNF, I'll have to look at my Teams schedule for this year and see if any of those games are on Monday night .... then again, if it ever gets that far, you can always get it for a month or less, depending on what you need.

I pretty much quit watching the Red Wings once The Captain Retired.

Started watching then Seriously, when he started, (Mid 80's and followed religiously till he retired) ...

I watched a bit back in the 70's as well, but I was young then and was a Bobby Orr and Bruins fan.

 

[SamCdbs]

I have generally lived without ESPN, to save money, for over a decade

Exactly. This is the basic business principle that streaming-only advocates fail to understand.

It is really simple.

The analogy the streaming-only advocates make is to something like, say, a restaurant. XYZ restaurant is realy successful in New Mexico. Let's build some in Arizona and it will probably be successful there.

The failure of logic is pretty clear. Arizona is a new market. No logical person is going to move from one state to another to gain access to a particular restaurant. People do not self-select where they live at for something like that.

But this is not that. Every single person who wants ESPN, has ESPN. The people who don't have it, don't want it, or at least don't want it enough to pay for it. It is not some new market with new potential customers. It is a self-selected group of people. People who prefer money over life's enjoyment; people who simply do not like sports (AKA the majority of people); and people who really cannot afford it.

Which is why selling it a la carte is doubly foolish. It presumes that there is this great mass of people who, for some reason, quit paying for ESPN, but really want it. There is not. And it presumes that there likewise are people who will foolishly continue to pay for linear TV when they can get the channels they want a la carte, including ESPN for the fantastically low price of $35.

It is voodoo economics.

 

[Bruce]

People who prefer money over life's enjoyment

What about those who choose money and life’s enjoyments-

For example, I could easily afford DirecTV, but I choose not to waste my money and have YTTV ( until January, then I will resubscribe in September ), would services all my needs with having a Live TV Service.

Why waste my money and pay for a more expensive service that I find inferior with their not as good picture quality and outdated equipment to what I have now,

Which is why selling it a la carte is doubly foolish.

At first, it will be available to both Live TV Subscribers ( which by the beginning of 2025 is predicted to be 50-55 Million) and Cord Nevers/Cutters, it should do quite well, depending on the price.

But as time goes on, more leave Traditional Providers, I doubt ESPN can hold up, unless all those leaving Live TV Providers subscribe to ESPN, which I really doubt.

It presumes that there is this great mass of people who, for some reason, quit paying for ESPN, but really want it. There is not.

You are again ignoring that ESPN+ has 25 million subscribers, that shows there is a market for ESPN streaming, which , of course, will be affected by the price, which none of us know yet.

And it presumes that there likewise are people who will foolishly continue to pay for linear TV when they can get the channels they want a la carte, including ESPN for the fantastically low price of $35.

Some do it now, including yourself, you pay for CBS and the Viacom channels via DirecTV, yet you have Paramount+ which has the same content and the exclusive stuff.

I, personally, am tired of that, I am going to stick with what gives me the most value, that is streaming which gives me the vast majority of content from Live TV and the exclusive stuff, when Fall comes next year, I will subscribe to YTTV for 4 months, rinse and repeat.

But I 100% agree with you, the current version of ESPN with it’s way too high rights’ contracts, cannot survive as just a Netflix type service only.

 

[Yespage]

Exactly. This is the basic business principle that streaming-only advocates fail to understand.

It is really simple.

No it isn't. There are many types of customers out there. I think ESPN's trouble with a la carte isn't people not sub'ing, it is cable/sat balking. They might even drop it altogether. That would cost ESPN a fortune. And no one would sub to ESPN a la carte and Sat/Cable.

The analogy the streaming-only advocates make is to something like, say, a restaurant. XYZ restaurant is realy successful in New Mexico. Let's build some in Arizona and it will probably be successful there.

The failure of logic is pretty clear. Arizona is a new market. No logical person is going to move from one state to another to gain access to a particular restaurant. People do not self-select where they live at for something like that.

But this is not that. Every single person who wants ESPN, has ESPN. The people who don't have it, don't want it, or at least don't want it enough to pay for it. It is not some new market with new potential customers. It is a self-selected group of people. People who prefer money over life's enjoyment; people who simply do not like sports (AKA the majority of people); and people who really cannot afford it.

The trick with this is that there are very likely people that don't want to pay $100 a month to get ESPN (possibly with a contract!). So $30 a month with no contract would be notably cheaper.

Which is why selling it a la carte is doubly foolish. It presumes that there is this great mass of people who, for some reason, quit paying for ESPN, but really want it.

I'd like to have ESPN, but have prioritized. Your mistake is this absurd every person that wants ESPN has it concept.

 

[SamCdbs]

You are again ignoring that ESPN+ has 25 million subscribers, that shows there is a market for ESPN streaming, which , of course, will be affected by the price, which none of us know yet.

And loses money. ESPN+ is not ESPN. The original concept for ESPN+ was good. ESPN buys the rights to every game its college partners play in every sport. Much more material than it could ever show. So it tossed up those games, plus foreign material it obtains at low costs. Good idea. But a niche product. So Disney panicked and paid big money for a relative handful of MLB and NHL games and off-hour PGA time, plus showing the random thing from real ESPN.

And it loses money. As will streaming real ESPN.

Because, if you want ESPN, you call up whichever provider has it and you get it. Everyone who wants it, has done so.

But I 100% agree with you, the current version of ESPN with it’s way too high rights’ contracts, cannot survive as just a Netflix type service only.

Exactly. It cannot. And the "dual distribution" model is just silly. Why would I pay for all the garbage, if I could get all the sports carrying channels ? I wouldn't. No sports fan would. It won't work. ESPN a la carte is a recipe for bankruptcy.