56% of viewers would drop ESPN

[osu1991]

Most of those games can go right back on OTA where they were for years and have more viewers and higher ratings. The only reason Disney moved them to espn was to justify the retransmission fee and create more networks to jack the rates higher and sell 2x, 3x, 4x times as much ad time

 

[Yespage]

Yes, that is true. But, I personally watched 16 of them and they were really good games for the most part....

Fine, if you like them so much, you can singlehandedly pay the $15 million it costs Disney in broadcasting rights.

 

[Ronnie-]

Most of these drops in rating studies I have seen do not include people that watched on their digital platform, or in the case of new years eve playoff games, those that watched in sports bars or at large gatherings at other peoples homes.

 

[sam_gordon]

Most of those games can go right back on OTA where they were for years and have more viewers and higher ratings. The only reason Disney moved them to espn was to justify the retransmission fee and create more networks to jack the rates higher and sell 2x, 3x, 4x times as much ad time

If the games that are on ESPN or ESPN go back to OTA, what about all the smaller tier (mid major, etc) games? OTA usually has multiple games each weekend. You can't deny the availability of ESPN gives more teams (and therefore more fans) time to be on TV.

 

[ChadT41]

If the games that are on ESPN or ESPN go back to OTA, what about all the smaller tier (mid major, etc) games? OTA usually has multiple games each weekend. You can't deny the availability of ESPN gives more teams (and therefore more fans) time to be on TV.

Then people might decide that paying billions to athletes is ridiculous, and our kids may stop thinking they have a chance to go pro, and actually work on getting educated first. Was it the NBA that requires a minimum amount of college before going pro? 1 year maybe....

 

[osu1991]

Espn barely pays a pittance for all the small conference games and they barely get a 0.1 or less ratings. Those games would be better served in syndication or online. Up until recently many of those games were online espn3 only and many still are.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[navychop]

Be interesting to see what Disney does if ESPN can't cut costs and generate profits.

 

[sam_gordon]

Then people might decide that paying billions to athletes is ridiculous, and our kids may stop thinking they have a chance to go pro, and actually work on getting educated first. Was it the NBA that requires a minimum amount of college before going pro? 1 year maybe....

Except I'm not talking pro games. I'm talking about college. The billions that are being paid for those rights aren't going to the athletes.

I think it's easy for anyone to say "they don't need to show this game or this show, it's not important". Just another example of everyone looking out for THEIR best interest. But when someone else (or a business) does what's best for them, it's bad.

 

[Scherrman]

Except I'm not talking pro games. I'm talking about college. The billions that are being paid for those rights aren't going to the athletes.

I think it's easy for anyone to say "they don't need to show this game or this show, it's not important". Just another example of everyone looking out for THEIR best interest. But when someone else (or a business) does what's best for them, it's bad.

I agree. Most people don't think about the "Big Picture." They generally just think about their own interest or their social group's interest. Everyone is simplifying sports way too much. It's not just pro football even though they are the biggest. There is college football and baseball and basketball. Heck, even the Little League World Series. So many different sports with schools, team owners and many other factors. It's not just athletes getting paid a lot.

I use to be one of the people who complained about athletes and their salaries until I actually got to know someone that went to the NFL. The very best players do make a lot and have more than enough to get by for the rest of their lives but the majority of professional athletes don't make as much as you would think. They have to pay taxes in what ever state they are playing in. They have agents to pay. They put more hours into their jobs in the few years they play than most of us will in our whole lives. There's a reason you see athletes on TV or on the radio after they retire from sports, they still need income.

Big Picture here folks. Have to look at all the details before judging.

 

[Troch77]

I agree. Most people don't think about the "Big Picture." They generally just think about their own interest or their social group's interest. Everyone is simplifying sports way too much. It's not just pro football even though they are the biggest. There is college football and baseball and basketball. Heck, even the Little League World Series. So many different sports with schools, team owners and many other factors. It's not just athletes getting paid a lot.

I use to be one of the people who complained about athletes and their salaries until I actually got to know someone that went to the NFL. The very best players do make a lot and have more than enough to get by for the rest of their lives but the majority of professional athletes don't make as much as you would think. They have to pay taxes in what ever state they are playing in. They have agents to pay. They put more hours into their jobs in the few years they play than most of us will in our whole lives. There's a reason you see athletes on TV or on the radio after they retire from sports, they still need income.

Big Picture here folks. Have to look at all the details before judging.

If you are being forced to accept a channel that cost over $6 , then they might as well add HBO to the top 120 pack.
What's the difference?

 

[Scherrman]

If you are being forced to accept a channel that cost over $6 , then they might as well add HBO to the top 120 pack.
What's the difference?

You really don't know the difference? This is a terrible comparison. Dish can't carry ESPN at all unless it's put in the lower package, it's a contract deal put in place by Disney. HBO is a premium movie channel that has always been a la carte. I suppose Dish could add HBO into a package and force people to pay it if they wanted to but that would be stupid, wouldn't it.

 

[Troch77]

You really don't know the difference? This is a terrible comparison. Dish can't carry ESPN at all unless it's put in the lower package, it's a contract deal put in place by Disney. HBO is a premium movie channel that has always been a la carte. I suppose Dish could add HBO into a package and force people to pay it if they wanted to but that would be stupid, wouldn't it.

No more stupid then the status quo.

 

[Scherrman]

No more stupid then the status quo.

There's a big difference.

 

[sam_gordon]

If you are being forced to accept a channel that cost over $6 , then they might as well add HBO to the top 120 pack.
What's the difference?

The difference is more people EXPECT ESPN as part of their package. If they want sports and someone doesn't offer ESPN, they'll go elsewhere. Most people EXPECT HBO to be a la carte. A MVPD could promote 'FREE HBO' and up the monthly charge $10.

 

[dare2be]

The difference is more people EXPECT ESPN as part of their package. If they want sports and someone doesn't offer ESPN, they'll go elsewhere. Most people EXPECT HBO to be a la carte. A MVPD could promote 'FREE HBO' and up the monthly charge $10.

So, it's about changing expectations. Most people EXPECT to pay out the wazoo for a PPV big fight. Why is that? Because it's the status quo. What we are talking about is changing the status quo and expectations.

 

[Troch77]

So, it's about changing expectations. Most people EXPECT to pay out the wazoo for a PPV big fight. Why is that? Because it's the status quo. What we are talking about is changing the status quo and expectations.

Exactly

 

[Scherrman]

So, it's about changing expectations. Most people EXPECT to pay out the wazoo for a PPV big fight. Why is that? Because it's the status quo. What we are talking about is changing the status quo and expectations.

Do you believe they charge that much for a fight because they can or because they need to in order to make enough money? I'm just curious because I really don't know. I also don't rent them very often. If I recall they really haven't changed in price in the last 20 years have they? I thought they've always been $60-$70.

 

[Troch77]

Do you believe they charge that much for a fight because they can or because they need to in order to make enough money? I'm just curious because I really don't know. I also don't rent them very often. If I recall they really haven't changed in price in the last 20 years have they? I thought they've always been $60-$70.

I think there is a set price to carry the fight.
I don't think the provider has a say.
They probably just get a % to broadcast it.
They might throw in an incentive like a Movie Coupon, But again that's mostly for advertising purposes I'm sure.

I've never seen an event yet that wasn't the same price from Dish ,Directv, and my local cable company.

 

[ChadT41]

They were $20 and made their way up over the last 20 years.

 

[dare2be]

I'm sure PPV is a combination of "because they can" and what the market will bear. Sports and entertainment are pretty much recession-proof. People will pay whatever is asked, and prices will continue to rise regardless of the market because the model is built that way. Something has to give.