Of course, it is a mistake to extrapolate the numbers about people dropping linear TV (and these are not reported, as the number that simply cord-switched from cable or satellite to a streaming linear service are not reported, but are certainly substantial) as some sort of trend.
The numbers are reported with the exception of DirecTV stream, Hulu Live has 4 Million, 5 Million for YTTV, 2 Million for Sling and a few hundred thousand for Fubo, so maybe 13 million ( guessing over a million for Stream) vs 32 million leaving Traditional Providers.
Also we, at the end of last quarter with the loss of another 2.1 million gone ( and they think it could be more because of DirecTV not reporting anymore), Traditional TV subs were at 68 million, now 2nd Quarter numbers are starting to come out, with just 3 companies reporting, already over 800,000 lost, looking at least another 2 million gone.
Rather, a new choice was available, and those who want that choice, which, more than anything is to save $$ and do that because the do not like sports, which an outsized cost on linear TV. Those who want that choice have mostly all moved. We are very near to peak streaming.
We are nowhere near peak, as more and more leave Traditional Live TV, they usually will pick up more services.
For example, here in the U.S., 40 million subscribe to Paramount+, that leaves 90 Million more Households that do not yet, so plenty of customers they can attract.
The churn issue with streaming is also, certainly, a thing. The nature of the product makes it so that it is easy to go from one to the next to the next, Bingeing whatever you want and then moving on. It is the nature of the technology.
Please prove your churn issue, I believe it is just another talking point, the evidence is every streaming company went up in subscribers last quarter, gaining millions of subs, except Netflix, Sling and Fubo, and the totals of those losses is still less then the losses of Traditional TV in the same quarter.
As to what alternative ESPN has, lots of people at Disney are working on that. Same at its imitators. As with any marketing question, there is not always an answer. ESPN can never sell the service a la carte. Doing so undoes all of its linear contracts.
New contracts every 3-5 years, ESPN can go and say we will not ask for a increase in the per sub fees, but we want the rights to put the content on our app.
How do I know that could work, someone already did it, Discovery, that is what they did with every new contract, took about 3 years to plan out, now they have a streaming service only 2 years old, all it does show content that was already on their Cable Channels, it has about 25 million subs and gaining more, so that is, at least, $1.5 Billion a year for a bunch of reruns.
It also means they still get the per sub fees from Traditional Providers.
Which, since it can never be sold a la carte, and those who do not wish to pay are no longer doing so, we are at the point where the bids for sports rights, and thus sports salaries, start to go down. Breaks my heart.
Rights will not go down, that is why sports leagues are looking into streaming services, MLB got a extra $85 million a year just for one game a week, NFL got a billion dollars a year for TNF, NHL got $450 million from ESPN.
As more rights come available, Apple, Amazon and rest will keep bidding more $$$$ then what Traditional TV will pay, the Sports Leagues will just be happy to take more.
As to the unique thing that is ST, different rules apply. It is unprofitable on a cash basis, and will continue to be. The only question that remains is which of these two streamers will buy it and predicate access upon buying their general streamers, which many people, and most all public houses, have no use for.
Again, we have no idea what Apple or Amazon has planned for NFLST, but these are two com that have shown they know what they are doing, no one has said this new version of ST will be like the old.
s), DVR, etc, etc.
