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

[Juan]

Show your math then.

At what amount should they charge?

Probably atleast $30..
Yankees charge $25
I would expect closer to $40

 

[Jimbo]

At what point then, do you say at $40 p/m that your NOT making money ... then what, close shop ?

Your probably right on the amount, but who's gonna pay that ?

Now if your buying by the month, you could do during football season and decide its worth it, but most of the other months not so much.

Are they still charging $40 p/m for the Cornhole tournaments and WSP ???

 

[Juan]

At what point then, do you say at $40 p/m that your NOT making money ... then what, close shop ?

ESPN is for sale...Disney looking for a "strategic partner"

 

[Bruce]

Probably atleast $30..

no, too much

Yankees charge $25

and how many subscribe at that price?

I would expect closer to $40

Still too high.

If they make it that price, no one will subscribe, make it too little, then they of course will not make money.

So they have to find the middle ground with pricing.

Again, at first, this will be used to make up the per sub fees lost while still being on Paid Live TV, which is what my numbers show.

What happens after the demise of Traditional Providers and it goes streaming only, is anyone guess.

For me, $20 is too high, I would only subscribe during Football Season, if $15, I would probably sub to it all year, but the rumors are that they are looking at the $20 pricing, which is the same as the highest tier of Netflix and HBOMAX.

If they make it $15, I honestly believe they can get at least 30 million subs, mostly because ESPN+ has 25 million and it does not have a lot of the main sporting events regular ESPN has.

So 30 million x $15 ( which is $4 more then they get in per sub fees from Live TV ) is $450 million a month.

Then the per sub fees of about 50 Million Live TV Subscribers at $11 monthly( end of 2025) is $550 million.

So that is a billion a month, which is $250 million more then they are getting today in per sub fees from Traditional Live TV.

By the time it starts ( end of 2025. beginning of 2026), there will only be 50 Million Live TV subscribers, but 80 Million Cord Cutters/Nevers, that is a lot of potential customers .

 

[Jimbo]

no, too much

and how many subscribe at that price?

Still too high.

If they make it that price, no one will subscribe, make it too little, then they of course will not make money.

So they have to find the middle ground with pricing.

Again, at first, this will be used to make up the per sub fees lost while still being on Paid Live TV, which is what my numbers show.

What happens after the demise of Traditional Providers and it goes streaming only, is anyone guess.

For me, $20 is too high, I would only subscribe during Football Season, if $15, I would probably sub to it all year, but the rumors are that they are looking at the $20 pricing, which is the same as the highest tier of Netflix and HBOMAX.

If I am in this position where I Need ESPN, (Big Football Fan), I would probably look at the team schedule and turn it on for what ever month my team plays on it .... therefore ESPN would be LOSING Money from me.

With a Sat package they make money off me every month.

With all the issues with them, laying off what seems like 80% of thier talent (I know its not that much) then again ...

I really haven't watched espn outside of my game in several years.

 

[Bruce]

I really haven't watched espn outside of my game in several years.

What about College Football playoffs ( Bowl Games), you commented on them, so I assumed you watched them and they were on ESPN.

By the way, those playoffs/bowl games is one of the reasons they cannot offer a streaming version right now, do not have the rights to air those games on a paid streaming service, do not have the rights for the NBA either, they do for MLB, NHL and the NFL.

Both the NBA and Bowl Games contracts are up in the next 2 years, so ESPN wants to get new contracts in place by the time the streaming service starts.

But the NBA wants $4 Billion a year in the next contract ( they received $2 Billion from Warner and Disney last contract), Warner cannot afford it and it might be too much for ESPN.

The other rumor is a streaming service wants the College Football playoffs, do not know which one, so ESPN will have to overpay and unfortunately, they should do it.

 

[Juan]

What about College Football playoffs ( Bowl Games), you commented on them, so I assumed you watched them and they were on ESPN.

By the way, those playoffs/bowl games is one of the reasons they cannot offer a streaming version right now, do not have the rights to air those games on a paid streaming service, do not have the rights for the NBA either, they do for MLB, NHL and the NFL.

Both the NBA and Bowl Games contracts are up in the next 2 years, so ESPN wants to get new contracts in place by the time the streaming service starts.

But the NBA wants $4 Billion a year in the next contract ( they received $2 Billion from Warner and Disney last contract), Warner cannot afford it and it might be too much for ESPN.

The other rumor is a streaming service wants the College Football playoffs, do not know which one, so ESPN will have to overpay and unfortunately, they should do it.

So $20 is way way too cheap

 

[SamCdbs]

Ok, in the bundle, ESPN gets, roughly $9 per sub fee, ESPN 2 gets $2 a month.

So $11.

So if they charge $20, that means they are making $9 more from cord cutters then they would from Live TV Subscribers.

WRONG. There would be no live TV subscription. If you want ESPN, you would get ESPN a la carte. So $20 a month is what ESPN would charge the people who want it. More on that below.

And they will still get per sub fees from about 50 million Live TV subscribers by the time it launches.

No. Zero. Why would ANYONE pay for ESPN if they don't watch it? Which is what a la carte is all about. "Choice". AKA screwing over the consumer.

By the end of 2025, 80 million will not longer sub to Live TV Providers.

Also wrong. Because in 2025 _________ will be different and thus people who today have made the decision to stick with linear TV, where the good stuff is, will change their minds because ________.

Is that good enough math for you?

Nope. You just don't get it.

Lets look at the RATINGS. You remember those, from when I explained the basics to you last year. The highest rating thing on ESPN is MNF, which, you assure me is going to be on ESPN+. So, lets dig a little deeper.

ESPN gets about 2M people a night, depending on what it is showing. An NBA game, regular season, gets maybe a M, NHL half that, all the college football games on all the channels added (ESPN and others) together might be 10M on a good weekend. College basketball games might get 1M for the best game of a weekend, most get a few hundred thousand people. Its daytime woke politics shows might get 750K on a good day. Sunday night baseball (all ESPN has left) might get 2M, usually about 1.5M. There are a handful of major events, like the college football final (22M, and they already give that away on ESPN+).

Now, obviously, we cannot just take the highest number, since concentric circles of fandom. Some people would pay just for the NBA, others might pay just for the NHL, while watching the other's sport not at all. We have to use some science here. How about Gallop? 29% of people in the USA say they follow sports.

These are just saying you follow the sports. Which, probably, especially among men, is an over-estimate.

So lets go with 30%. Rounding up.

That is the MAXIMUM NUMBER of POTENTIAL customers a la carte ESPN has.

That is math.

Combined with a basic understanding of the entertainment business.

 

[Bruce]

WRONG. There would be no live TV subscription. If you want ESPN, you would get ESPN a la carte. So $20 a month is what ESPN would charge the people who want it. More on that below.

Not wrong, it will always be part of a Live TV Package, a streaming version is for the , roughly, 80 Million Households that do not by the time it starts up.

No. Zero. Why would ANYONE pay for ESPN if they don't watch it? Which is what a la carte is all about. "Choice". AKA screwing over the consumer.

Now you are just ranting.

Also wrong. Because in 2025 _________ will be different and thus people who today have made the decision to stick with linear TV, where the good stuff is, will change their minds because

What?

30 million have already left, every quarter reported, it gets worse.

Right now, 68-70 Million have a Paid Live TV Service, in 2016 100 million.

in 2023, estimated a another 8 Million will leave, so since 2.3 Million was reported gone in the first quarter, that leaves, roughly, 6 million to go yet this year, so 62 million at the end of the year.

In 2024, estimated 10 million will leave, so 52 Million left at the end of the year.

In 2025, estimated 12 million will leave, so 42 Million left at the end of the year.

I do not believe the number leaving will be that high, I believe the rate of loss will slow down, hence why I said 50 Million by the end of 2025.

Now, instead of ranting, give me a logical reason why the losses will not continue for Paid Live TV.

Nope. You just don't get it.

Lets look at the RATINGS. You remember those, from when I explained the basics to you last year. The highest rating thing on ESPN is MNF, which, you assure me is going to be on ESPN+. So, lets dig a little deeper.

ESPN gets about 2M people a night, depending on what it is showing. An NBA game, regular season, gets maybe a M, NHL half that, all the college football games on all the channels added (ESPN and others) together might be 10M on a good weekend. College basketball games might get 1M for the best game of a weekend, most get a few hundred thousand people. Its daytime woke politics shows might get 750K on a good day. Sunday night baseball (all ESPN has left) might get 2M, usually about 1.5M. There are a handful of major events, like the college football final (22M, and they already give that away on ESPN+).

Now, obviously, we cannot just take the highest number, since concentric circles of fandom. Some people would pay just for the NBA, others might pay just for the NHL, while watching the other's sport not at all. We have to use some science here. How about Gallop? 29% of people in the USA say they follow sports.

These are just saying you follow the sports. Which, probably, especially among men, is an over-estimate.

So lets go with 30%. Rounding up.

That is the MAXIMUM NUMBER of POTENTIAL customers a la carte ESPN has.

That is math.

Combined with a basic understanding of the entertainment business.

Ok, based on those so called ratings, why does ESPN+ have 25 Million subscribers if not that many people are watching?

 

[Jimbo]

What about College Football playoffs ( Bowl Games), you commented on them, so I assumed you watched them and they were on ESPN.

By the way, those playoffs/bowl games is one of the reasons they cannot offer a streaming version right now, do not have the rights to air those games on a paid streaming service, do not have the rights for the NBA either, they do for MLB, NHL and the NFL.

Both the NBA and Bowl Games contracts are up in the next 2 years, so ESPN wants to get new contracts in place by the time the streaming service starts.

But the NBA wants $4 Billion a year in the next contract ( they received $2 Billion from Warner and Disney last contract), Warner cannot afford it and it might be too much for ESPN.

The other rumor is a streaming service wants the College Football playoffs, do not know which one, so ESPN will have to overpay and unfortunately, they should do it.

I said My Games ....
Playoffs are included.

Playoffs are not on ESPN every year .... I will watch when I have to.

With the Big Ten moving away from espn, it even less likely that I need espn ....

 

[Bruce]

Playoffs are not on ESPN every year .... I will watch when I have to.

Actually they are-

It will be the tenth College Football Playoff National Championship and will determine the national champion of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) for the 2023 season. It will be televised nationally by ESPN.

ESPN owns the broadcasting rights for the final two years of the CFP contract in 2024 and '25 and controls the timeline on a future media rights deal (you've got to get '24–25 rights completed before moving to a new deal in '26).

https://www.si.com/college/2023/04/...wns the broadcasting rights,new deal in '26).

With the Big Ten moving away from espn, it even less likely that I need espn ....

Yep, instead of being on Fox, Fox Sports 1 and 2, BTN, ABC, ESPN 1 or 2.

Now Fox, Fox Sports, BTN, NBC, Peacock, CBS, Paramount+.

Damn confusing either way.

 

[Jimbo]

Actually they are-

It will be the tenth College Football Playoff National Championship and will determine the national champion of the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) for the 2023 season. It will be televised nationally by ESPN.

ESPN owns the broadcasting rights for the final two years of the CFP contract in 2024 and '25 and controls the timeline on a future media rights deal (you've got to get '24–25 rights completed before moving to a new deal in '26).

https://www.si.com/college/2023/04/...wns the broadcasting rights,new deal in '26).

Yep, instead of being on Fox, Fox Sports 1 and 2, BTN, ABC, ESPN 1 or 2.

Now Fox, Fox Sports, BTN, NBC, Peacock, CBS, Paramount+.

Damn confusing either way.

Too many different places to watch YOUR Team in my opinion.

At least I'll have espn on my Sat system .... provided they are still a channel at that time (which you know they will).

I don't see them moving the Playoffs to a Streaming Only channel.
Thinking, IF it Is on espn Streaming, it will also be on the Sat.

 

[glrush]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/21/espn-had-talks-with-nba-nfl-in-search-for-strategic-partner.html

 

[SamCdbs]

ESPN, and really the rest of Disney, is in trouble.

I think the leagues like the system of getting paid by an intermediary which produces the games (and takes all the financial risk, including losing money on the NFL deals) and have no interest in a "strategic partnership" with Disney. If they wanted to sell their games directly, they could just do that and keep all the money. What would Disney bring to the table?

Marchand and Ourand has some stock market analyst type on this week, and her opinion was a Comcast-Disney merger or Disney selling a huge chunk of ESPN to Comcast. I don't see the government allowing that, either.

Fact is math is power. When you take the actual ratings of ESPN and divide them by what they pay the content creators, the money just isn't there. ESPN is on the same path as the RSNs, and the result is the same.

 

[Bruce]

Fact is math is power. When you take the actual ratings of ESPN and divide them by what they pay the content creators, the money just isn't there. ESPN is on the same path as the RSNs, and the result is the same.

You are forgetting that ESPN+ has 25 Million Subscribers, much better then the ratings for ESPN.

If they can switchover that to regular ESPN, raise the price to $15, that is $375 Million a month, along with 50 Million Live TV subscribers, at $11 a month in per sub fees, that is $550 million a month.

Today, they are only making ($11 times 68 million Live TV subs), $748 Million a month, so a gain of $177 Million.

 

[Bilbo1]

Also wrong. Because in 2025 _________ will be different and thus people who today have made the decision to stick with linear TV, where the good stuff is, will change their minds because ________.

Dude, the writers/actors strikes will be the death knell for linear TV. The pandemic did some heavy lifting to make people aware of what streaming offers, but the lack of new content for linear providers resulting from a prolonged strike will drive people to archived content on the streamers.

Sports will be fine Apple and Amazon are looking at them for new compelling content. Look at their content budgets and what they pay per hour for scripted content, $10-100 million per hour. Sports are cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juan]

Dude, the writers/actors strikes will be the death knell for linear TV. The pandemic did some heavy lifting to make people aware of what streaming offers, but the lack of new content for linear providers resulting from a prolonged strike will drive people to archived content on the streamers.

Sports will be fine Apple and Amazon are looking at them for new compelling content. Look at their content budgets and what they pay per hour for scripted content, $10-100 million per hour. Sports are cheap.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The writers strike effects streamers to

 

[AZ.]

Streaming companies, and especially Netflix, is one of the key reason both are on strike! It will eventually affect every singe one, some just sooner than others.

 

[Bruce]

The writers strike effects streamers to

Like I posted before, Paramount+/Disney+ has enough new material until next summer, Netflix until the end of 2024-

For example
Disney+ has Star Wars-Bad Batch, Skeleton Crew and The Acolyte
Marvel-Echo, Ironheart and Agatha: Coven of Chaos
All filmed and in post production

Paramount+ has Season 5 of STiscovery and Lower Decks ( season 4 is this year), Halo Season 2, Evil Season 4 and a few others all in post production

Netflix-way too many to name

 

[Juan]

Like I posted before, Paramount+/Disney+ has enough new material until next summer, Netflix until the end of 2024-

For example
Disney+ has Star Wars-Bad Batch, Skeleton Crew and The Acolyte
Marvel-Echo, Ironheart and Agatha: Coven of Chaos
All filmed and in post production

Paramount+ has Season 5 of STiscovery and Lower Decks ( season 4 is this year), Halo Season 2, Evil Season 4 and a few others all in post production

Netflix-way too many to name

Good luck with that

https://deadline.com/2023/05/writers-strike-netflix-suspending-overall-first-look-deals-1235361240/