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

[SamCdbs]

So explain the drop in traditional broadcast ratings. They pump money into shows just as much. If networks can’t survive who can.

Easy.

Who says anything must automatically "survive"? Who says that the amount of entertainment options available to you, and everyone else, must automatically be the same as today?

Without the bundle, the consumer is unprotected. The money losing streaming business is in acquisition mode right now, someday it is going to shift towards trying to make a profit (it will fail, the model doesn't work, it is incapable of being a profitable industry) and that means less programming. Streaming's ONLY significant cost is content. And, less people wish to pay for the content than it costs to make. That simple. That is not changing. The content isn't going to magically cost less to make in a year or five years. Everybody who wants streaming HAS IT.

So the content goes away. That simple. Estrogen soaked Hallmark style movies (the cheapest type to make), reruns, cheaply acquired foreign content, trashsports, reruns, reruns, and more reruns.

The game? Not televised today. Any good shows on? Nope, when was the last time they actually made a good show. Maybe a mini-series? Well there is this South Korean deal about a guy that kills vagrants for sport on a goofy island, subtitled.

These are the good ole days. Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

 

[Don in CT]

Easy.

Who says anything must automatically "survive"? Who says that the amount of entertainment options available to you, and everyone else, must automatically be the same as today?

Without the bundle, the consumer is unprotected. The money losing streaming business is in acquisition mode right now, someday it is going to shift towards trying to make a profit (it will fail, the model doesn't work, it is incapable of being a profitable industry) and that means less programming. Streaming's ONLY significant cost is content. And, less people wish to pay for the content than it costs to make. That simple. That is not changing. The content isn't going to magically cost less to make in a year or five years. Everybody who wants streaming HAS IT.

So the content goes away. That simple. Estrogen soaked Hallmark style movies (the cheapest type to make), reruns, cheaply acquired foreign content, trashsports, reruns, reruns, and more reruns.

The game? Not televised today. Any good shows on? Nope, when was the last time they actually made a good show. Maybe a mini-series? Well there is this South Korean deal about a guy that kills vagrants for sport on a goofy island, subtitled.

These are the good ole days. Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

So what you are saying is that the industry will collapse in on itself and we are left with nothing but the bachelor and weight loss reality shows.

If people are cutting cable the bundle ends anyways. If they don’t want streaming the money dries up. So who pays for any content going forward.

 

[Bruce]

So what you are saying is that the industry will collapse in on itself and we are left with nothing but the bachelor and weight loss reality shows.

Isn’t that what is on Paid Live TV now.

 

[Don in CT]

Isn’t that what is on Paid Live TV now.

Yes, the argument that nobody wants streaming or good content is preposterous

That might be the first time I’ve typed out preposterous.

 

[Bruce]

Good article about ESPN going streaming-

ESPN Is Crowned Jewel But Disney Faces Earnings Pressure, Analyst Says

Needham analyst Laura Martin reiterated a Hold rating on Walt Disney Co (NYSE: DIS).

markets.businessinsider.com

Highlights-

ESPN+ streaming revenue was $1.3 billion in FY21, $1.6 billion in FY22 (+23% Y/Y), and $1.5 billion YTD in FY23 (+15% Y/Y). ESPN+ losses were $427 million in FY21, $591 million in FY22, and $148 million YTD FY23.

So, as predicted, looks to go profitable in 2024, just 4 years after starting, faster then the 6 years it took DirecTV and Netflix to turn a profit.

That is good news for when ESPN+ turns into regular ESPN late next year/early 2025.

Of ESPN's $13.2 billion revenue YTD FY23, affiliate fees were 61% ($8 billion), advertising was 24% ($3 billion), streaming revenue was 8% ($1 billion), and other was 6%.

Cord cutting is killing them, from now to the end of next year, at least another 10 Million will leave paid Live TV, that we be, at least, over $1 Billion lost in per sub fees, then advertising will go down more because of less eyes watching.

 

[Bruce]

Yes, the argument that nobody wants streaming or good content is preposterous

That might be the first time I’ve typed out preposterous.

And you did it in the proper way, congrats.

 

[ncted]

These are the good ole days. Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

What is your problem with Hogan's Heroes? That is an awesome show!

 

[Bruce]

What is your problem with Hogan's Heroes? That is an awesome show!

And it is on DirecTV so he can watch it.

 

[dishdude]

Easy.

Who says anything must automatically "survive"? Who says that the amount of entertainment options available to you, and everyone else, must automatically be the same as today?

Without the bundle, the consumer is unprotected. The money losing streaming business is in acquisition mode right now, someday it is going to shift towards trying to make a profit (it will fail, the model doesn't work, it is incapable of being a profitable industry) and that means less programming. Streaming's ONLY significant cost is content. And, less people wish to pay for the content than it costs to make. That simple. That is not changing. The content isn't going to magically cost less to make in a year or five years. Everybody who wants streaming HAS IT.

So the content goes away. That simple. Estrogen soaked Hallmark style movies (the cheapest type to make), reruns, cheaply acquired foreign content, trashsports, reruns, reruns, and more reruns.

The game? Not televised today. Any good shows on? Nope, when was the last time they actually made a good show. Maybe a mini-series? Well there is this South Korean deal about a guy that kills vagrants for sport on a goofy island, subtitled.

These are the good ole days. Enjoy Hogan's Heroes.

The bundle is exactly what is killing traditional linear TV. People are unwilling to spend $150 a month on 100+ channels that show low quality content and a ton of commercials. When that was the only option, people sucked it up. Now that there are options, people are wisely moving on.

 

[Bobby]

And it is on DirecTV so he can watch it.

And for the price of $37 I can own the entire series and not pay DirecTV a dime!

Amazon product ASIN B07YTDDKSH
View: https://www.amazon.com/Hogans-Heroes-The-Complete-Series/dp/B07YTDDKSH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=33CNUCY7THOZ8&keywords=hogan%27s+heroes+complete+series&qid=1698247606&sprefix=hogan%27s+hero%2Caps%2C137&sr=8-1

 

[Bruce]

And for the price of $37 I can own the entire series and not pay DirecTV a dime!

Amazon product ASIN B07YTDDKSH
View: https://www.amazon.com/Hogans-Heroes-The-Complete-Series/dp/B07YTDDKSH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=33CNUCY7THOZ8&keywords=hogan%27s+heroes+complete+series&qid=1698247606&sprefix=hogan%27s+hero%2Caps%2C137&sr=8-1

That is a great idea, he should do that.

It was on sale for the Blu-Ray set during Prime Day for $20, bought that, the Blu-Rays of six Million Dollar Man for $40, Bionic Woman for $35, BR of V for $5 and V the Final Battle also for $5.

All still in their wrappers since July.

 

[Don in CT]

That is a great idea, he should do that.

It was on sale for the Blu-Ray set during Prime Day for $20, bought that, the Blu-Rays of six Million Dollar Man for $40, Bionic Woman for $35, BR of V for $5 and V the Final Battle also for $5.

All still in their wrappers since July.

If you hold on to them in their original packaging maybe they will go up in value.

 

[Bruce]

If you hold on to them in their original packaging maybe they will go up in value.

That is preposterous that you would think that.

 

[Don in CT]

That is preposterous that you would think that.

Suffering succotash!

 

[Bruce]

I have been alluding in this thread that everyone who is posting they know what ESPN‘s plans for the future are, were totally wrong, this story just broke to give you some idea-

Disney's ESPN could be valued at $24 bln, likely buyers include Apple, Verizon - BofA

Walt Disney's ESPN sports network could secure an enterprise value of $24 billion and attract investment interest from sports leagues, tech firms like Apple and telecom majors including Verizon, according to BofA Global Research.

www.reuters.com

As I have also said, ESPN will be having major trouble signing new deals because of the money involved and the loss of per sub fees-

Rising cord-cutting has hit the linear television business, and acquiring sports rights has become an increasingly expensive affair, with future sports rights expected to be north of $69 billion.

So they need someone with deep pockets that wants to get into sports programming in a big way, or make some kind of deal with the leagues ( less likely).

 

[Yespage]

Rising cord-cutting has hit the linear television business, and acquiring sports rights has become an increasingly expensive affair, with future sports rights expected to be north of $69 billion.

I find this quite silly, as the bidders are responsible for the expensive bidding.

So they need someone with deep pockets that wants to get into sports programming in a big way, or make some kind of deal with the leagues ( less likely).

Sports are very popular, but sports kind of drove away subscribers. ESPN has an intrinsic value right now, but it doesn't have to in the future. Look at HBO. That was Premium and now its own service uses some other name. I think the big trouble with ESPN is the cost and the relatively high overhead regarding programming. What can Netflix or Amazon or Warner Bros do with what Disney paid the NFL for MNF? Is one MNF game one or two 10+ episode sereies?

There is a demand for ESPN, but making money with it is going to be harder and harder, especially if it does go mostly streaming. The price will be high. $500 a year? And with all the B's, it'll be very hard to cover that cost as an add-on to something else with a discount.

 

[Bruce]

I find this quite silly, as the bidders are responsible for the expensive bidding.

Yes, and now they are losing the content to streamers because the leagues want that higher price, the price Broadcast/Cable can no longer give because of the loss of per sub fees.

ESPN lost the Big Ten because it could no longer afford that increase they used to give.

Now they are going to have issues, there is no way they can afford what the NBA wants, but they cannot lose them either, what else are they going to have on, only the NHL and College Basketball after Football is over, College Basketball basically ends on ESPN right at the start of March Madness.

So in March, without the NBA, the only thing on is the NHL, which is death for the ratings.

Then we have the contract coming up for the College Football Playoffs, then MLB.

Plus the continued loss of per sub fees due to cord cutting, expected to be 7-9 million next year, 8-10 the following year.

ESPN is going to have big issues without a daddy warbucks coming in.

Sports are very popular, but sports kind of drove away subscribers.

Sports are not that popular, that is a myth, a devoted audience yes, but still a minority audience.

For example, the just concluded World Series averaged 8 Million Households, that is out of 131 Million Households in the United States.

Even the Super Bowl, only 45 Million Households, that means 86 Million Households did not watch it.

ESPN has an intrinsic value right now, but it doesn't have to in the future.

Why they need to get a deal now, with 4.7 Million cord cutters in 2021, 5.9 in 2022, about 7 Million this year, say 8-9 in 2024, 9-10 in 2025, that is 34-36 Million per sub fees lost in just 5 years.

The RSNs waited too long, Ballys cannot get out of Bankruptcy, Warner/ATT did not get any buyers, so gave them away or shut them down, Comcast tried to sell theirs (NBC Sports RSNs), no buyers either, then they said they would put them on Peacock, which will not help at all.

By the end of 2025, the rest will be gone, even NY and LA, they are affected by per sub loss also and have bigger bills/costs.

Look at HBO. That was Premium and now its own service uses some other name.

And it sucks.

I think the big trouble with ESPN is the cost and the relatively high overhead regarding programming.

As I posted above.

What can Netflix or Amazon or Warner Bros do with what Disney paid the NFL for MNF? Is one MNF game one or two 10+ episode sereies?

Advertising plays into that, do they get higher rates then for certain series on the with Ads plans, I would say yes, because again, sports gets a very devoted audience.

The other plus is, if you pay for no ads (me) , you will still get ads with live sports.

Beyond that, you posted Netflix, no way, while the service is doing great, it does not have the extra cash on hand like Google, Amazon and Apple does, each over $100 Billion.

There is a demand for ESPN, but making money with it is going to be harder and harder, especially if it does go mostly streaming. The price will be high. $500 a year?

At first no, but as time goes on as they lose more and more per sub fees…yes.

When ESPN goes streaming, they still expect to get per sub fees from about 50 Million who still sub to Live TV.

That is why they are thinking $20 ( which is still $9 more then those per sub fees), maybe $25.

Disney knows if they make it too high, no one will subscribe.

But as time goes on and if people keep leaving Traditional Providers, then you are correct, gotta raise the price.

I keep believing that Cord Cutting will slow down once it hits about 40 Million left, but then we have the cord never getting older and the cord dying, where the cord never not replacing the older customers.

 

[SamCdbs]

So, as predicted, looks to go profitable in 2024,

Not real good at math, huh?

Losing less billions than you lost last time does not make something on a road to profitablity.

The market has spoken on ESPN+. Less people want it than it costs to make.

Much like all streaming.

 

[Bruce]

Not real good at math, huh?

Losing less billions than you lost last time does not make something on a road to profitablity.

The market has spoken on ESPN+. Less people want it than it costs to make.

Much like all streaming.

I have put you on ignore, please do the same with me.

You have no desire to debate, never post links to back up what you post.

Just rant and rant because you do not like where TV Programming is going.

You obviously enjoy this type of antagonistic/combative/cantankerous type of behavior when you post here, I do not.

So, have a nice day.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I have put you on ignore, please do the same with me.

You have no desire to debate, never post links to back up what you post.

Just rant and rant because you do not like where TV Programming is going.

Why you obviously enjoy this type of antagonistic/combative/cantankerous type of behavior when you post here, I do not.

So, have a nice day.

I have had to do that a few times myself on this site. I don't want to argue with people who waste my time. It might be I am getting older, but my time is more important to me at 61 then when I was younger.