83.6% of pay TV customers would drop 68.2% of their channels to save money per month.
SOURCE: Scherrman
SOURCE: Scherrman
56% of viewers would drop ESPN
- Thread starter sam_gordon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 241
- Views 14K
And the situational comedy channels, and the educational channels, and the reality TV channels.................. The fact is, I subsidized over 200 channels that I don't even have listed in my Favorites group. It's just the way it works.
That's why they make different colored cars, we all have different tastes. It's a good thing too, there's a lot of fat girls out there who would go unloved otherwise.
I'll keep my ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPNEWS, ESPN U, FS1, FS2, NBCSN, CBSSN, MSG, YES, SNY, NFL Network, NHL Network, MLB Network, NFL RedZone, MLB StrikeZone. Just give me a credit on my taxes for PBS and NPR. I'm sick of subsidizing them!
Years ago I dropped to Welcome Pack, that means I dropped ESPN and I haven't missed it.
I don't watch ESPN and don't like paying for it. Dish America has gone from $30 to $50 in the past few years.
Two weeks ago, I switched to the Welcome Pack which has HD locals and now has HD versions of many of the channels in the package. I also added the Dish Movie package. I lost some channels I liked, but gained some movie channels I like that I didn't have before. I only watch HD channels and get about as many HD channels now as I did before the change.
So far I am satisfied with the new channel lineup and the $20/month savings. So, if you aren't an ESPN sports fan, you don't have to pay for it and you can save more than $8/month.
Two weeks ago, I switched to the Welcome Pack which has HD locals and now has HD versions of many of the channels in the package. I also added the Dish Movie package. I lost some channels I liked, but gained some movie channels I like that I didn't have before. I only watch HD channels and get about as many HD channels now as I did before the change.
So far I am satisfied with the new channel lineup and the $20/month savings. So, if you aren't an ESPN sports fan, you don't have to pay for it and you can save more than $8/month.
The way it works is broken, and people continue to defend it.
Sports prices are out of control.
Premiums have basically been stationary for the past 15 years.
Sports is so bad, company's are forced to add addtional fees just to pay for it.
So Yes I believe sports is more of the problem then all the other programming options out there.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/04/27/espn-sues-verizon-over-bundle/26455305/
This was what I was referring to.
Well, the tone of your post sounded like "it's just the way it is, deal with it"
Just curious, for those of you that say you could do without the sports channels, why do you stay with Dish? For me, live sports programming is a primary reason I keep Dish. Not just ESPN, but NFL, SEC Network, TNT, etc are all a big part why I keep it. If not for them, I feel I could easily go the cord cutting route and fill my viewing needs much cheaper with options from Netflix, Hulu, etc.
I watch too many things to want to jump app to app. Plus, I love the equipment, and I have Netflix on my Hopper so I can enjoy both. My kids and gf enjoy everything they could want as well. That and Dish has never failed to take care of me, they have my loyalty, until they screw up and manage to "offend" me some way. Also, for the amount of tv I watch, it's cheaper to have AEP and Netflix.
If I cared about sports I would be with Directv, since I don't that's why I'm with Dish.
And Dish pricing is better.
Dish isn't that great with its pro sports coverage .
Which is my guess why Dish is cheaper.
Sports is a Huge money racket.
Sure I like sports, But those people that will pay anything to get it are the Suckers that Jack the rates and demand up.
Well those same people finally can't afford it as much as they could before, and now they are finally doing without, but in the meantime the Prices are still peaked. And the Sports Networks are losing ground.
You wait, these sports Networks don't want to be a la carte ,because they are scared to find out what the real demand will be when they try and wack you $10 or $15 for ESPN suite.
More and more people are watching their free sports OTA.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
For me, there is still a lot of channels/content that isn't available with streaming/purchasing options. I do watch local sports mostly on my RSN. But this thread is about ESPN and its jacked up price, which I could do without.
If I could purchase my individual teams from the NFL, MLB, NHL packages (instead of the entire bundled leagues), I would. But even that is subject to forced bundling.
There are always going to be people willing to pay the going rate for sports. Sports fans are die hard and go extra lengths to watch their favorite teams and sports. The majority of other channels out there offer nothing that other channels don't offer which means no one is going to pay a lot for them. These other channels have to keep prices very cheap because no one would pay much more for them. It's just a fact that the sports channels offer something that no other channels can offer. Most people prefer to watch sports live or at least within a couple hours of when the event started. Any other shows people will wait days or weeks to watch.
If it came down to having to pick between two packages, one with just sports channels for $50 a month or one with all the other channels for $60, I think a lot of people here would be willing to pay $10 more a month to have the hundreds of other channels without sports. I wouldn't and here's why. I can pay $50 to get all my live sports and for $10 to $20 more I can watch almost all the other content those hundreds of other channels offer online. So for just about the same price I could watch everything, including sports. This is just hypothetical of course.
I truly think all the other channels out there would struggle greatly financially without being bundled with sports.
If it came down to having to pick between two packages, one with just sports channels for $50 a month or one with all the other channels for $60, I think a lot of people here would be willing to pay $10 more a month to have the hundreds of other channels without sports. I wouldn't and here's why. I can pay $50 to get all my live sports and for $10 to $20 more I can watch almost all the other content those hundreds of other channels offer online. So for just about the same price I could watch everything, including sports. This is just hypothetical of course.
I truly think all the other channels out there would struggle greatly financially without being bundled with sports.
If you have the internet to handle it, and if cord cutting is an option one assumes you do, then there are even cheaper options for most live sports. SlingTv for example would give you all of those except NFL network.
Live sports has kept me with one service or the other for a while, but since thats basically the only reason, that time is coming to an end.
