Peak ESPN - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Peak ESPN (/thread-13578.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Peak ESPN (/thread-13578.html)
Peak ESPN - BostonCard - 03-11-2017
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
Actually, peak ESPN occurred in 2011 and it has been hemorrhagic subscribers since then. That will have knock-on effects on TV deals for college sports... which in turn will have knock-on effects on leagues and schools and coaches salaries. It also means that if you are a very indebted school (hi Cal!) you are going to have a tough go of it as TV contract revenue starts to fall.
BC
Re: Peak ESPN - OutsiderFan - 03-11-2017
Perhaps you posted the link, BC, in hopes you might see some intelligent responses to the issues raised in the story? My gawd, what pitiful display of replies. Not any of them focused on the business issues, just a bunch of ranting and raving over ESPN being too political, errr, I'm sorry, too liberal. Yes, the anthem protest is why ESPN is hurting, SMH...
Anyway, this has been predictable for a long time. Like I used to say when Garvin was around and would post on this topic, the reality is the value of being a distributor is not high anymore. The value is owning the content people want to see, and today anyone can be a distributor. ESPN is not needed. But there is a tradeoff. As the cable TV distribution model goes the way of the newspaper business, rights holders will be in a better position than distributors like ESPN, because they have content to directly sell to end consumers - like me who want to get the Pac-12 Network without a cable subscription. However, it is also a fact that revenues will fall for rights holder as those guaranteed subscriber fees from ESPN evaporate.
Many have lamented the Pac-12 Networks not delivering the same revenue for schools as the Big Ten in particular. But as you see this slow motion train wreck happening to the cable rights market, the Pac-12 won't be in a place where it has become dependent and made financial commitments based on exorbitant cable rights fees that are going to evaporate. The Big Ten is going to be in a world of hurt, as will other leagues and their teams.
This is a classic bubble situation and the victims will be many, as the chain reaction of the cable TV model breaking down impacts first ESPN, then leagues, then teams, then coaches, administrators and athletes. But at the end of the day, I think it's justified. I mean I wonder how many professional athletes realize how much of their salary is being paid by people who don't even know who they are, let alone if given a choice wouldn't be paying them for what they do? My guess is a lot, and when that's the case the market isn't equitable. Pro athletes are not getting paid what the market says they are worth, really. They are getting paid what a rigged market says they are worth. Only when cord cutting has ended the cable TV model, will sports properties and athletes be paid their true market value; whatever they can earn based on what people actually are willing to voluntarily pay to consume their product
Re: Peak ESPN - Phogge - 03-11-2017
Not much fun working for them. They ruined poker when they dumped producer Matt Marantz. Outside the Lines still decent but only because of field producer Willie Weinbaum.
Re: Peak ESPN - wallendar - 03-11-2017
Fortunately for all the P12 members, the current TV contracts are in place for another 7 years. Much will change between now and then. Good luck to anyone who tries to predict what that change will look like....
Re: Peak ESPN - Spike - 03-12-2017
I guess I don't get it.
Why are such brobdingnagian numbers dumping ESPN and others?
Re: Peak ESPN - DC 86 - 03-12-2017
(03-12-2017, 08:04 AM)Spike link Wrote:I guess I don't get it.Because the same content is available over streaming services without having to pay for a cable subscription.
Why are such of exceedingly large proportions numbers dumping ESPN and others?
Re: Peak ESPN - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 03-12-2017
(03-12-2017, 11:37 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=Spike link=topic=16673.msg189872#msg189872 date=1489331047]Because the same content is available over streaming services without having to pay for a cable subscription.
I guess I don't get it.
Why are such of exceedingly large proportions numbers dumping ESPN and others?
[/quote]
Right. As for live sports, leagues are starting to explore Facebook, Youtube, and the like as broadcast partners.
Re: Peak ESPN - stupac2 - 03-13-2017
(03-12-2017, 08:04 AM)Spike link Wrote:I guess I don't get it.
Why are such brobdingnagian numbers dumping ESPN and others?
Because why pay $80/month (or more) for it? Especially if you're like most younger people and getting your entertainment on demand or online. I haven't had cable for over four years and have never, ever missed it. Comcast can go do things this board would censor to itself.
Re: Peak ESPN - 2006alum - 03-13-2017
I wonder whether services like DirectTV's Sling count toward ESPN subscribers? For $20/month I get HD streaming of ESPN and ESPN2 plus ESPN3/Watch ESPN content (and a bunch of basic cable channels I don't care about). I add the Sports Package for another $5/month during college football and basketball seasons so I can get the Pac-12 channels, and then drop it from April until September when the college sports I care about are on hiatus. Perfect for someone who watches live sports but otherwise has no interest in having a television, let alone a million cable channels.