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

[glrush]

ESPN actively planning to sell linear feed direct to consumers

The long-anticipated idea of a direct-to-consumer feed of linear ESPN seems closer to reality, with the company actively working on it.

awfulannouncing.com

 

[Juan]

Wonder what the price will be

 

[Bruce]

Wonder what the price will be

I wonder who posted here this was in the works months ago and was told it was incorrect and did not know what he was posting about.

I do wonder.

 

[Bruce]

Whoever writes these stories needs to do better research-

Although the company currently has ESPN+, that service’s live offerings are limited to golf and the occasional MLB and NHL game. With the standalone ESPN service in the works, cord-cutters will have access to the full channel. That means programs like Monday Night Football and NBA on ESPN will be available via streaming for the first time.

Well considering that MNF was on ESPN+ for about 12 Games last season and is announced for this season for 12 games, it definitely is not the first time.

From here-

Combined with exclusive games and simulcasts, 20 games will be on ESPN, 11 games broadcast on ABC, and a dozen available on ESPN+

ESPN’s 25-Game 2023-24 NFL Schedule: More Monday Night Football Games, Multiple Playoff Games, Flex Scheduling, and More of the League’s Signature Matchups, Marquee Teams, Storylines than Ever Before

ESPN’s 25-Game 2023-24 NFL Schedule: More Monday Night Football Games, Multiple Playoff Games, Flex Scheduling, and More of the League’s Signature Matchups, Marquee Teams, Storylines than Ever Before

espnpressroom.com

 

[SamCdbs]

First, reading is fundamental.

"A version" of ESPN. Not ESPN, et al. But why quibble about that. "In talks". "Deals with two leagues" (out of several dozen). Etc. But why quibble about that. It is not necessary.

Math is power.

From the article. $9.42/month. This is the Disney side of the vaunted "sports tax".

The model, for ESPN, the RSNs, and ESPN's imitators, is really simple. Or was. "Everybody" had "cable" (and here I am using "cable" to mean paid linear television, people that pay for YTTV and call themselves "cord cutters" need a clue, you are not even a cord switcher, you pay for linear TV, the technology of its delivery is irrelevant.) Everybody with cable paid the "sports tax", because sports has two properties that, while they seem contradictory, are not. Sports are the most popular thing on TV. Most people don't like sports.

So now some (a minority) people have figured out how (for a brief moment in time, this is also changing as the unprofitable streaming channels add in sports) to avoid the "sports tax".

So what is the (truly evil, BTW) Disney corporation to do. Well it WANTS to have its cake, and eat it too.

Look up the ratings (I know some here don't really understand how ratings work, but try). Leaving out MNF, what is the MOST popular thing on ESPN? Late NBA playoffs, which might get 7% of the country watching. College football championship? Maybe 11%. And that is one game. Hockey playoffs might get a 3. And that is the top stuff. Regular season NBA is sub 1, as in the NHL. Sunday night baseball (the only rights ESPN has left) is maybe a 1. Regular season college football is maybe a 1.5 for the best game, maybe all the game on ESPN added together are a 4 or a 5. Regular season college basketball is well below a 1, and will get more obscure as ESPN foolishly pushes college football futher into basketball season. ESPN's filler programming, the constant woke argument shows, get 800K people on a good day.
So instead of "everyone" paying $10, they want those interested to pay _______.

One problem. Why would ANY cable (or alternative) linear provider carry ESPN, when it can offer a low, low "sports tax" free price without it? As they are now doing with the RSNs. They wouldn't.

In a la carte, it is a la carte. You pay for what you want.

Problem is no one thing is wanted by all that many people.

The price they HAVE to charge to cover all the mega-millions they pay the leagues, and through them the under-educated and over-tall, is beyond the level of affordability for average people.

All the sports on some form of TV, in an affordable manner for the middle class (and even below). Just another thing the bundle did, as it protected the consumer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, every streaming service, save the only one that makes money, add sports. And the "sports tax".

Enjoy.

 

[Bruce]

First, reading is fundamental.

"A version" of ESPN. Not ESPN, et al. But why quibble about that. "In talks". "Deals with two leagues" (out of several dozen). Etc. But why quibble about that. It is not necessary.

When it says deals with the leagues, those are just what they need, not what they have, they already have streaming rights with NFL, MLB, NHL, need NBA and properly some College Conferences

When it said version, it was a streaming version of the Live Cable Channel, not something new.

If Disney is leaking this information , it is a lot closer to happening then I knew, looks like maybe by Fall this year, I expected it more next year.

The model, for ESPN, the RSNs, and ESPN's imitators, is really simple. Or was. "Everybody" had "cable" (and here I am using "cable" to mean paid linear television, people that pay for YTTV and call themselves "cord cutters" need a clue, you are not even a cord switcher, you pay for linear TV, the technology of its delivery is irrelevant.) Everybody with cable paid the "sports tax", because sports has two properties that, while they seem contradictory, are not. Sports are the most popular thing on TV. Most people don't like sports.

Yes the great and powerful Traditional Providers bundle, where you had to pay at least $100 a month and the majority of content is reruns and forced to pay for channels you would never watch.

So now some (a minority) people have figured out how (for a brief moment in time, this is also changing as the unprofitable streaming channels add in sports) to avoid the "sports tax".

Streaming has a lot more content that I would never watch. but I am not forced to pay for it, unlike with the bundle, where I would be forced to pay for the channels I would never watch, like Food Network for one example, do not wish to subscribe to Discovery+, so I do not.

So what is the (truly evil, BTW) Disney corporation to do. Well it WANTS to have its cake, and eat it too.

Welcome to where all corporations want to do that.

And why is Disney evil and not Comcast, or AT&T, etc.

Look up the ratings (I know some here don't really understand how ratings work, but try). Leaving out MNF, what is the MOST popular thing on ESPN? Late NBA playoffs, which might get 7% of the country watching. College football championship? Maybe 11%. And that is one game. Hockey playoffs might get a 3. And that is the top stuff. Regular season NBA is sub 1, as in the NHL. Sunday night baseball (the only rights ESPN has left) is maybe a 1. Regular season college football is maybe a 1.5 for the best game, maybe all the game on ESPN added together are a 4 or a 5. Regular season college basketball is well below a 1, and will get more obscure as ESPN foolishly pushes college football futher into basketball season. ESPN's filler programming, the constant woke argument shows, get 800K people on a good day.
So instead of "everyone" paying $10, they want those interested to pay _______.

While I did post here months ago this was going to happen, I never said it was going to be successful, I do not believe it can get enough subscribers once Traditional Providers goes away.

And the plan right now is not to charge a high price, like they would have to if it was no longer on Paid Live TV.

Now they are just trying to recoup some of those lost per sub fees while it is still on Paid Live TV.

Just this quarter, they lost out on $11 per month per sub fee (ESPN is $9, ESPN is $2) for 2.3 Million subscribers, that is another $25 million a month they are losing, $300 million a year, just because of the first three months.

Now do the math for the 30 million that left over the last 8 years, if they never left, that is $330 million a month they still would be getting, $3.96 Billion for the year.

One problem. Why would ANY cable (or alternative) linear provider carry ESPN, when it can offer a low, low "sports tax" free price without it? As they are now doing with the RSNs. They wouldn't.

I keep expecting a ESPN fee, since the per sub fee is more then the RSNs.

In a la carte, it is a la carte. You pay for what you want.

Yes, it is wonderful.

Problem is no one thing is wanted by all that many people.

Or everything either, I subscribe to the services I want, do not for the services I do not want.

The price they HAVE to charge to cover all the mega-millions they pay the leagues, and through them the under-educated and over-tall, is beyond the level of affordability for average people.

Again, after the sub numbers drop so low on Paid Live TV, they would have no choice but to overcharge for it, but will not work.

All the sports on some form of TV, in an affordable manner for the middle class (and even below). Just another thing the bundle did, as it protected the consumer.

That is just it, the bundle is no longer avoidable for the middle class, especially in todays world when we have so many new expenses.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, every streaming service, save the only one that makes money, add sports. And the "sports tax".

If a service is not worth the price they are charging, then I will not subscribe or drop, two services this summer I am dropping, because they are not worth their price that is charged, HBO and AMC+

Enjoy.

I am.

 

[Juan]

When it says deals with the leagues, those are just what they need, not what they have, they already have streaming rights with NFL, MLB, NHL, need NBA and properly some College Conferences

When it said version, it was a streaming version of the Live Cable Channel, not something new.

If Disney is leaking this information , it is a lot closer to happening then I knew, looks like maybe by Fall this year, I expected it more next year.

Yes the great and powerful Traditional Providers bundle, where you had to pay at least $100 a month and the majority of content is reruns and forced to pay for channels you would never watch.

Streaming has a lot more content that I would never watch. but I am not forced to pay for it, unlike with the bundle, where I would be forced to pay for the channels I would never watch, like Food Network for one example, do not wish to subscribe to Discovery+, so I do not.

Welcome to where all corporations want to do that.

And why is Disney evil and not Comcast, or AT&T, etc.

While I did post here months ago this was going to happen, I never said it was going to be successful, I do not believe it can get enough subscribers once Traditional Providers goes away.

And the plan right now is not to charge a high price, like they would have to if it was no longer on Paid Live TV.

Now they are just trying to recoup some of those lost per sub fees while it is still on Paid Live TV.

Just this quarter, they lost out on $11 per month per sub fee (ESPN is $9, ESPN is $2) for 2.3 Million subscribers, that is another $25 million a month they are losing, $300 million a year, just because of the first three months.

Now do the math for the 30 million that left over the last 8 years, if they never left, that is $330 million a month they still would be getting, $3.96 Billion for the year.

I keep expecting a ESPN fee, since the per sub fee is more then the RSNs.

Yes, it is wonderful.

Or everything either, I subscribe to the services I want, do not for the services I do not want.

Again, after the sub numbers drop so low on Paid Live TV, they would have no choice but to overcharge for it, but will not work.

That is just it, the bundle is no longer avoidable for the middle class, especially in todays world when we have so many new expenses.

If a service is not worth the price they are charging, then I will not subscribe or drop, two services this summer I am dropping, because they are not worth their price that is charged, HBO and AMC+

I am.

No
They don't have those streaming rights for ESPN linear...you are wrong again( hint its in the article that they don't have those rights)

 

[Bruce]

No
They don't have those streaming rights for ESPN linear...you are wrong again

I know more about this then you, but I will make it easy, do you not believe that ESPN was smart enough to secure these rights when they signed the new contracts.

This is just like when you guys kept posting over and over all the incorrect stuff in the Sunday Ticket thread, like ESPN did not have the rights to have MNF on ESPN+.

That was wrong, how about when I posted that Doctor Who was leaving BBC America and going to Disney+, you kept going on and on that I was incorrect, how did that work out.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I hope they do go online and stop selling their channels to sat/cable. Then if you want sports you can pay for them and if you don't want sports you don't have to pay for them. IF they did remove their channels from sat/cable then the price should go down by like $10.00.

 

[Bruce]

No
They don't have those streaming rights for ESPN linear...you are wrong again( hint its in the article that they don't have those rights)

By the way, read it again, no where does it say that, here-

but already has deals to do so with at least two leagues, and has also started securing flexibility to do this in deals with MVPDs.

And here from the article-

ESPN has begun securing flexibility in its deals with cable providers to offer the channel directly to consumers, the people said. The financial terms of those deals couldn’t be learned. The company is having similar discussions with pro sports leagues as those rights deals come up and has secured the same flexibility from at least two major leagues, the people said.

Which confirms what I wrote, the rights were already secured, my guess with the NFL and NHL since new deals were just signed last year, MLB should agree, NBA might be a holdout since their deal is about to come up.

 

[Yespage]

I hope they do go online and stop selling their channels to sat/cable. Then if you want sports you can pay for them and if you don't want sports you don't have to pay for them. IF they did remove their channels from sat/cable then the price should go down by like $10.00.

I don't see that for a bit. There are people (old and rural) where sat/cable are the only real game in town still or the only game they want to mess with. You turn on TV, it is there at channel XYZ, no second device... or apps... or authentication. Simple, fewer moving parts.

Much to some people's chagrin, streaming is the future. No need to worry, they'll be streaming bundles in 5 to 10 years (hey, wouldn't it be cool if I could subscribe to most of the services and save a little coin?), guarantee that! ESPN standing on its own will be a gamble. ESPN/Disney has taken advantage of being the only premium cable channel on regular cable for decades. Without everyone paying, however, things get tricky. Heck, I love sports, but have learned to live without ESPN for the last 10+ years (Latino Dos, Welcome Pack, now Flex). I'm not even certain what I'm missing these days.

So if Disney expects to make the numbers work with presumably lower carriage rates in cable/sat, and fewer subs, in order to regain cutters (how many cutters watch sports?) and gain always cut ('dem young people), that'll be a tight needle to thread. But they have to try, they bleeding just as much as cable/sat providers are.

 

[NashGuy]

All the sports on some form of TV, in an affordable manner for the middle class (and even below). Just another thing the bundle did, as it protected the consumer.

The cost of the bundle kept going higher and higher, far outpacing inflation, largely due to the cost of all those sports (including on broadcast networks that many of us can get for free with an OTA antenna). Lots of US households -- including me -- watch little or no sports, so the bundle didn't "protect" us, it overcharged us. I now have access to far more quality programming, with far fewer ads, all of it on-demand with better picture quality, and for less money, than back when I subscribed to the bundle.

For people who are avid sports viewers, sure, the current situation is worse than it used to be. You have to spend more money, not only due to the ever-increasing cost of the bundle, but also to pick up this or that streaming service to catch those few games that aren't aired in the bundle. Being a die-hard sports fan who must watch every game their team plays is expensive. But that's your problem, not mine. In the pre-streaming era, casual/non-sports viewers were overpaying for entertainment while sports fans were underpaying. The situation we have now is fairer.

I only hope that the major general entertainment SVODs don't take on too much sports because they'll have to pass that cost on to subscribers and we'll end up back in the same situation as we had with the cable bundle in the pre-streaming era. But I don't think that will happen. I don't see all those local MLB, NBA and NHL games carried on the RSNs finding their way into any major SVOD. And for that matter, it's hard to see most of what ESPN carries finding its way into one (such as Disney+) either. But I could see the biggest events from ESPN, like championship games, shifting into Disney+ because they would appeal to the widest audience, including casual sports viewers.

 

[SamCdbs]

When it said version, it was a streaming version of the Live Cable Channel, not something new.

Reading is fundamental. Whatever they call it, ESPN Plus Max, will not be the same as the ESPN suite of linear channels.

If Disney is leaking this information , it is a lot closer to happening then I knew, looks like maybe by Fall this year, I expected it more next year.

How is that Star Wars hotel working out for the Mouse?

I have no doubt that Disney thinks this will work. As they thought that every other bad idea they have had for the last 40 years would.

None have.

Yes the great and powerful Traditional Providers bundle, where you had to pay at least $100 a month and the majority of content is reruns and forced to pay for channels you would never watch.

Streaming has a lot more content that I would never watch. but I am not forced to pay for it, unlike with the bundle, where I would be forced to pay for the channels I would never watch, like Food Network for one example, do not wish to subscribe to Discovery+, so I do not.

Ah, so cable has things you don't watch, and that is bad. But streaming has things you don't watch, which you are FORCED to pay for (unless you want to subsist on YouTube and old VHS tapes found at Goodwill) but its not the same thing.

Right. What color is the sky in your world?

Welcome to where all corporations want to do that.

And why is Disney evil and not Comcast, or AT&T, etc.

Politics. Pass.

While I did post here months ago this was going to happen, I never said it was going to be successful, I do not believe it can get enough subscribers once Traditional Providers goes away.

And you are correct. No one thing can. Except for the NFL, there is nothing that can garner enough fans to justify its creation. Thus it will not be created. The RSNs are at stage four, ESPN seems to be in stage two. Everything else is at stage one. But it is terminal for all of them.

Rerun wad vs. rerun wad. The future of TV. The bundle provided material for every taste. Yes, I paid a small amount for things I didn't like, and others paid for things I did. But it all got made. The bundle protected the consumer.

Welcome to a la carte. What channel is the game on? Maybe Ford should reconsider dropping AM radio. Because that is where most of the game will be on.

And the plan right now is not to charge a high price,

Profit. They have to make a profit. The profit level is a "high price". Basic business.

Now they are just trying to recoup some of those lost per sub fees while it is still on Paid Live TV.

No. They are trying to make a profit. They are NOT going to sell it to you at a loss. No matter how much you want them to.

And if they do, who would remain with cable?

Just this quarter, they lost out on $11 per month per sub fee (ESPN is $9, ESPN is $2) for 2.3 Million subscribers, that is another $25 million a month they are losing, $300 million a year, just because of the first three months.

Yet still profitable. Unlike streaming. But understand, please, basic business concepts.

Profit.

If you own a movie theatre and 1000 people a week come in, and you charge $10 and your fixed costs are $8000, and then, for whatever reason, only 400 people come in, you don't go out and let 400 more people in for $5. You sill owe $8000. You are not "recouping" some of the money you used to make in anything but the most literal sense. You are going broke more slowly.

They need to make a profit. Basic business.

Now do the math for the 30 million that left over the last 8 years, if they never left, that is $330 million a month they still would be getting, $3.96 Billion for the year.

Yep. But why, exactly are they going to lose money selling it a la carte?

Or everything either, I subscribe to the services I want, do not for the services I do not want.

Until they cease to exist. What time are the Beverly Hillbillies returns on? All that will be left.

But you save BIG MONEY back in 23.

The vast wasteland of TV in 5 years. Wads of reruns.

You showed 'em.

That is just it, the bundle is no longer avoidable for the middle class, especially in todays world when we have so many new expenses.

Basic cable, remains less expensive than paying for all the streaming services. So once, with the consumer protected, most people could afford "everything". Now they can't.

If a service is not worth the price they are charging, then I will not subscribe or drop, two services this summer I am dropping, because they are not worth their price that is charged, HBO and AMC+

Until they don't exist.

What time is Pettycoat Junction on?

 

[SamCdbs]

(how many cutters watch sports?)

THE POINT.

Most all cord switchers switched to avoid the "sports tax". They had to pay for sports channels they never watched, and pay dearly. Sports and the news-commentary channels are, by far, the two largest drivers of costs on linear TV. (Don't give me the ho-ha about only paying for what you want, unless you watch every single thing on a streaming service, you still are.)

Well that lasted a long time, didn't it? As the unprofitable streaming industry tries a last gasp at survival, it, save the one that actually makes money, are adding sports with a vengeance (and HBO Max, excuse me, that went OOB, just plain MAX is even adding in CNN news-commentaries). The sports tax is back. So now, dear cord switcher, your time of savings is about to end.

So, in the consumer protecting three-way era (cable, DISH, DirecTV) that was your choice for TV. One of those three. It costs 100s of millions to build out the infrastructure, and it really was illegal to start competition cable services in most places. Now it is a matter of a server room. How long until someone starts "all" the channels linear TV, sans sports and "news". And how many million subscribers do they get?

Meanwhile enjoy paying for such wonderful sports as euro soccer, NASCAR, Indy Car, Sunday MORNING baseball, etc. etc. etc. All on streaming. Whether you watch, or not.

 

[Yespage]

THE POINT.

Most all cord switchers switched to avoid the "sports tax". They had to pay for sports channels they never watched, and pay dearly. Sports and the news-commentary channels are, by far, the two largest drivers of costs on linear TV. (Don't give me the ho-ha about only paying for what you want, unless you watch every single thing on a streaming service, you still are.)

Well that lasted a long time, didn't it? As the unprofitable streaming industry tries a last gasp at survival, it, save the one that actually makes money, are adding sports with a vengeance (and HBO Max, excuse me, that went OOB, just plain MAX is even adding in CNN news-commentaries). The sports tax is back. So now, dear cord switcher, your time of savings is about to end.

Man, you need to stop taking this so seriously / personally? Maybe cut down on the caffeine.

There are two sides to the streaming thing. Netflix made streaming a thing and then owners thought they should get a bigger cut doing it themselves. Then there is the Online IP stuff which is sat/cable without the expensive boxes. And then there is the cable/sat sub drop, which continues to be huge. I don't know why you act as if this is a betrayal. Or that it is temporary. Younger people are not doing the cable/sat thing. The world they grew up in is much different than the one older people did.

This is a generational thing, where younger folks who grew up in a streaming entertainment sphere have different needs, desires for entertainment and what they are willing to (or can afford to) pay. A number of these companies are trying to reach that segment... these companies are not trying to piss you off. The economics are changing, as economics always do. It isn't like this is how sports coverage has been since the 19th century. You are acting like a couple decades is all of known human history.

So, in the consumer protecting three-way era (cable, DISH, DirecTV) that was your choice for TV. One of those three. It costs 100s of millions to build out the infrastructure, and it really was illegal to start competition cable services in most places. Now it is a matter of a server room. How long until someone starts "all" the channels linear TV, sans sports and "news". And how many million subscribers do they get?

Don't Sling, YTTV, etc... already exist? I think what you are missing is that more and more younger people don't want all that.

Meanwhile enjoy paying for such wonderful sports as euro soccer, NASCAR, Indy Car, Sunday MORNING baseball, etc. etc. etc. All on streaming. Whether you watch, or not.

NASCAR? Who is streaming that service? And seriously, putting NASCAR and IndyCar in the same sentence. One is antiquated bumper cars, and the other is open-ish cockpit racing. Yes,, the bumper cars get better ratings, but that doesn't legitimize them.

 

[SamCdbs]

Don't Sling, YTTV, etc... already exist? I think what you are missing is that more and more younger people don't want all that.

Yes. My point is, anybody with even middle class credit could create yet another linear cable substitute in a couple days. Many more will. Lots and lots of mixes of channels. Including "all" the linear channels sans sports and news, which could be the most popular of the many choices to come.

NASCAR? Who is streaming that service? And seriously, putting NASCAR and IndyCar in the same sentence. One is antiquated bumper cars, and the other is open-ish cockpit racing. Yes,, the bumper cars get better ratings, but that doesn't legitimize them.

Already on Peacock, just not exclusively. Next TV contract will move 100% of Xfinity series to Peacock, plus Amazon is most likely to pick up 6 to 8 Cup races.

I don't want to get into a NASCAR v. IndyCar (v F1) debate. I like them all, to a degree. Point is, I'm a minority. At BEST, leaving out Daytona and Indy, 3 or 4% of people watch either. But, in the new streaming world, EVERYONE pays, just like they did w/ cable/DBS. Except now you get to pay 6 to 8 to 10 bills, not just one lower one. The sports tax is back.

Welcome home.

 

[glrush]

ESPN expected to launch full DTC offering in 2025 or 2026

There's been lots of debate over when ESPN's launch of a full-linear over-the-top feed will come. Now, it seems set for 2025 or 2026.

awfulannouncing.com

 

[Yespage]

So, ATSC 3.0 an option? Could local ABC towers offer a transmission of ESPN on a subchannel (for a price)? Disney is going to need all distribution options on the table.

 

[Juan]

Good grief
$50/ month for ESPN streaming

It’s About to Get Incredibly Expensive to Watch Sports

Cable TV was the worst way to follow your favorite team, except for every other way.

nymag.com

This guy is a nut..from the article


that might be an underestimate, considering how much ESPN is paying in rights fees for all its big events. This is a network that might dish out $2.2 billion a year for the College Football Playoff, which consists of a total of 11 games. I bet they could charge 45, 50 bucks a month with no problem; I know I’d pay that much.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Yeah they can keep the sports. All they do is blow up your bundled price for cable /satellite. I like Sling Tv because you don't have to sub to those if you don't want. So I see why the new price for sports will be much higher, since most have either cut the cord or will be cutting the cord. They have less viewers or subs to get cash from.