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

[Bruce]

Double edged sword as cable/sat provider's will not pay any premium (anything at all?) for ESPN if it goes streaming. It will kill their business model too. They would need to cut their price.

I doubt they will cut the per sub fee if they go streaming, by that time, there should be still 50 Million Live TV Subscribersn and some will still want ESPN.

Also, other channels have gone streaming and not effected the per sub fee.

CBS gets the highest per sub fees of all the Broadcast Networks, yet they have Paramount+ which is still growing ( 14 Million last year, 4 Million so far this year).

P+ shows Live CBS and on demand, yet Live TV Providers keep paying them.

I have no idea how ESPN will work. They need to adapt but their business model isn't remotely compatible with the changing landscape of media distribution. They want to get back the subs they lost, but that risks losing more conventional subs and fight back from sat/cable.

Cable/Sat is not exactly helping to keep subscribers, with the high prices and, for some.crappy service, for example Comcast just announced their second price increase of the year with Broadcast and RSN fees going up, with those fees plus box charges and those extra fees ( like Franchise), you are looking at around $60-70 in fees alone.

Charter just announced their Broadcast fees are going up also, I already posted it here in the forum.

 

[dishdude]

ESPN needs to scale down, let all these contracts expire and go back to their roots of sports news and sports analysis shows.

 

[SamCdbs]

ESPN, and Disney, have a vacancy of leadership, and have had such for decades. ESPN was a great idea and, even though everyone who runs the place has made horrid decision after horrid decision, the sheer genius of ESPN's core idea has let it be profitable. Same can be said about the entire Disney company.

Now, times have changed. And they can no longer just toss ESPN up to "everyone" and expect "everyone" to pay. So, these geniuses have done, as one should expect, exactly the wrong thing. Selling it a la carte. The correct move, of course, is to make it clear that to get ESPN, you need provider TV. Now and forever.

Sadly, as the network based streaming services all lose money, it may be too late to get back to requiring provider TV to get the network shows. But it is worth a try.

 

[Juan]

ESPN, and Disney, have a vacancy of leadership, and have had such for decades. ESPN was a great idea and, even though everyone who runs the place has made horrid decision after horrid decision, the sheer genius of ESPN's core idea has let it be profitable. Same can be said about the entire Disney company.

Now, times have changed. And they can no longer just toss ESPN up to "everyone" and expect "everyone" to pay. So, these geniuses have done, as one should expect, exactly the wrong thing. Selling it a la carte. The correct move, of course, is to make it clear that to get ESPN, you need provider TV. Now and forever.

Sadly, as the network based streaming services all lose money, it may be too late to get back to requiring provider TV to get the network shows. But it is worth a try.

Looks like ESPN for sale

https://fortune.com/2023/07/13/disney-traditional-tv-bob-iger-abc-espn-sale/

 

[Bruce]

Now, times have changed. And they can no longer just toss ESPN up to "everyone" and expect "everyone" to pay. So, these geniuses have done, as one should expect, exactly the wrong thing. Selling it a la carte. The correct move, of course, is to make it clear that to get ESPN, you need provider TV. Now and forever.

In just 8 years, ESPN has lost 30 million subscribers paying per sub fees, by the end of 2025, it is estimated they will lose 30 million more.

The goal of offering it via streaming is to make some of that lost $$$ back, it will still be offered to those that get paid Live TV.

Sadly, as the network based streaming services all lose money, it may be too late to get back to requiring provider TV to get the network shows. But it is worth a try.

Then Traditional Providers need to change how they are doing business.

They are still doing the same thing that has resulted in driving customers away.

For example, Comcast just announced their second price increase of the year with the upping of Broadcast and RSN fees, now with fees alone, looking at $70 a month even before the programing charges.

All that for less and less new content, now with the actor/writer’s strike, it will be even worse.

Luckily with streaming, since they film so far ahead, we will have new content from them, Paramount and Disney+ have already announced they are set until next summer, Netflix until the end of 2025.

 

[dishdude]

Then Traditional Providers need to change how they are doing business.

They are still doing the same thing that has resulted in driving customers away.

For example, Comcast just announced their second price increase of the year with the upping of Broadcast and RSN fees, now with fees alone, looking at $70 a month even before the programing charges.

All that for less and less new content, now with the actor/writer’s strike, it will be even worse.

The problem is the providers and local networks are trying to make up for the drop in revenue from less subscribers by raising fees and socking the subs that are left. This is not sustainable and something will change dramatically in the next few years.

I am curious to see how the strike accelerates this change.

 

[Bruce]

I am curious to see how the strike accelerates this change.

Based on the Fall TV Schedule, quite quickly.

Everything on the 4 Networks in the evening is going to be Reality or Game Shows, people are going to be wondering why they are paying for that ****.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I read yesterday that the strike could last till the end of the year. IF that happens there will be no more new streaming shows or on linear tv to watch. New Theater Movie releases will dry up eventually. Reruns baby.

 

[Bruce]

I read yesterday that the strike could last till the end of the year. IF that happens there will be no more new streaming shows or on linear tv to watch . Reruns baby.

Like I wrote, Disney/Paramount+ have enough new shows to last until next summer, Netflix until the end of 2024.

For example, 2 Marvel shows and the two Star Wars shows set for 2024 are already filmed and in Post Production, Star Trek Discovery will on in 2024, etc, etc.

For a example of Netflix, the Witcher season 3 just premiered, already filmed Season 4 and 5.

 

[Juan]

I read yesterday that the strike could last till the end of the year. IF that happens there will be no more new streaming shows or on linear tv to watch. New Theater Movie releases will dry up eventually. Reruns baby.

AI..aka Max Headroom here we come

 

[ncted]

ESPN, and Disney, have a vacancy of leadership, and have had such for decades. ESPN was a great idea and, even though everyone who runs the place has made horrid decision after horrid decision, the sheer genius of ESPN's core idea has let it be profitable. Same can be said about the entire Disney company.

Now, times have changed. And they can no longer just toss ESPN up to "everyone" and expect "everyone" to pay. So, these geniuses have done, as one should expect, exactly the wrong thing. Selling it a la carte. The correct move, of course, is to make it clear that to get ESPN, you need provider TV. Now and forever.

Sadly, as the network based streaming services all lose money, it may be too late to get back to requiring provider TV to get the network shows. But it is worth a try.

Well, it hasn't just been ESPN making these decisions, right? CBS, NBC, TBS, etc. have all been guilty of overpaying for sports for decades at this point. Disney way overpaid for FOX as well. These so-called business people overvalued their products and ignored obvious market forces which were eating away at their revenue streams. We've been talking about the coming reckoning for sports on this site for as long as I've been a member here, and it seems to finally be happening. There are other factors as well, but the primary reason this is a problem is simply companies collectively agreeing that sports are worth more than they are in reality. The RSNs were the canary in the coal mine, but the gas pocket is now starting to asphyxiate the miners.

 

[KAB]

Reruns baby.

Or Reality. OK, reruns it is!

 

[SamCdbs]

In just 8 years, ESPN has lost 30 million subscribers paying per sub fees, by the end of 2025, it is estimated they will lose 30 million more.

The goal of offering it via streaming is to make some of that lost $$$ back, it will still be offered to those that get paid Live TV.

You might want to read up on profit and loss.

The idea that if one just holds one's breath long enough, "they" will sell you ESPN for some price you made up out of thin air, is just wrong. Why would Disney sell you ESPN at a loss?

They won't. And the price that they would have to charge is beyond affordability for average people. Because the bundle protected the consumer, you paid a little for content I liked, and v-v. Writ large across the entire country, oceans of content at an affordable price.

ESPN is in the same boat the RSNs are in, just not a far along. Given the option, most people would not pay one cent for ESPN. And Disney is stupid enough to actually give people that option. Horrid company.

Then Traditional Providers need to change how they are doing business.

Absolutely. They need to pull the plug on the money losing streaming services. If you want to watch NBC shows, you should have cable, etc (or an antenna). It is beyond foolish to sell access to network shows outside of the bundle, which enriched Big Media so much. At a loss.

 

[Bruce]

You might want to read up on profit and loss.

You might want to read up on if they charge too much, no one will subscribe anyways.

The idea that if one just holds one's breath long enough, "they" will sell you ESPN for some price you made up out of thin air, is just wrong. Why would Disney sell you ESPN at a loss?

They won't. And the price that they would have to charge is beyond affordability for average people. Because the bundle protected the consumer, you paid a little for content I liked, and v-v. Writ large across the entire country, oceans of content at an affordable price.

The price they charge in 2025 ( when it is expected to start), my guess is $20, while they will still be getting per sub fees from about 50 million subscribers to Live TV.

If it was a only streaming version like Netflix, you are correct, based on all those way too expensive rights fees ESPN has, it would have to be a lot more, and then, again, no one will subscribe.

Absolutely. They need to pull the plug on the money losing streaming services. If you want to watch NBC shows, you should have cable, etc (or an antenna). It is beyond foolish to sell access to network shows outside of the bundle, which enriched Big Media so much. At a loss.

Once again, you are ignoring the streaming services that are profitable.

Both Disney+ and Paramount+ are due to go profitable in 2024, certain other services might not and should go out of business, namely Peacock and AMC+.

Do not forget, it took DirecTV 6 years to become profitable, Dish Network 9 years, and now those companies’ profits are shrinking, for example, DirecTV by a billion less a year, at that current rate, they will be unprofitable in 4 years.

 

[Juan]

You might want to read up on if they charge too much, no one will subscribe anyways.

The price they charge in 2025 ( when it is expected to start), my guess is $20, while they will still be getting per sub fees from about 50 million subscribers to Live TV.

If it was a only streaming version like Netflix, you are correct, based on all those way too expensive rights fees ESPN has, it would have to be a lot more, and then, again, no one will subscribe.

Once again, you are ignoring the streaming services that are profitable.

Both Disney+ and Paramount+ are due to go profitable in 2024, certain other services might not and should go out of business, namely Peacock and AMC+.

Do not forget, it took DirecTV 6 years to become profitable, Dish Network 9 years, and now those companies’ profits are shrinking, for example, DirecTV by a billion less a year, at that current rate, they will be unprofitable in 4 years.

Due to be profitable and profitable are 2 different things...and making things profitable with billions of dollars in cuts is not sustainable

https://variety.com/2023/biz/news/disney-hulu-content-bob-iger-1235609313/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/paramount-recent-content-cuts-mean-195614041.html

 

[SamCdbs]

You might want to read up on if they charge too much, no one will subscribe anyways.

OK?

So, if you just hold your breath long enough, they will sell it to you, at a loss. Got it.

The price they charge in 2025 ( when it is expected to start), my guess is $20, while they will still be getting per sub fees from about 50 million subscribers to Live TV.

Any you got $20 from?

Clue. Businesses are in business to MAKE MONEY. No to sell you something at a price you pulled out of your ***. Show the math.

And, of course, besides the fact that you cannot have it both ways (you are on record as saying provider TV will not exist in a few years) the number of people who would pay for bundled ESPN is, well, zero.

Because the bundle protected the consumer.

If it was a only streaming version like Netflix, you are correct, based on all those way too expensive rights fees ESPN has, it would have to be a lot more, and then, again, no one will subscribe.

That is right. ESPN outside of the consumer protecting bundle, is almost certainly unaffordable. But, hey, you saved darn near $40 back during the short transition period from the consumer friendly bundle to the anti-consumer system to come. You showed 'em.

Once again, you are ignoring the streaming services that are profitable.

Service. Singular. Netflix.

Every other loses money.

But, in ______ year, __________ will be different and they will make money. Feal free to fill in the blanks.

Both Disney+ and Paramount+ are due to go profitable in 2024, certain other services might not and should go out of business, namely Peacock and AMC+.

Right. Because in 24, more people will want those services than do not, because ________ will be different.

But, yes Peacock, and all the rest, should go out of business. Bad ideas. Big Media's biggest blunder in 50 years. What a dead end streaming is.

Do not forget, it took DirecTV 6 years to become profitable, Dish Network 9 years, and now those companies’ profits are shrinking, for example, DirecTV by a billion less a year, at that current rate, they will be unprofitable in 4 years.

This has been explained. DirecTV, et al, had BILLIONS in infrastructure costs. Streaming has, at the point of knitpicking, NONE. It has one cost. Content.

Content that less people want to pay for than it costs to make.

And that isn't changing.

 

[Bruce]

This has been explained. DirecTV, et al, had BILLIONS in infrastructure costs. Streaming has, at the point of knitpicking, NONE. It has one cost. Content.

Content that less people want to pay for than it costs to make.

And that isn't changing.

Disney had to pay $3.8 Billion for Bamtech, the video streaming tech they use, I would believe that would be considered infrastructure cost in your world.

Second, content costs are a lot, for example an episode of Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, Yellowstone spin offs, ets are anywhere from $20-30 Million per .

Lastly, here is a simplified story of the costs involved with streaming-

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...d-that-might-be-a-good-thing/?sh=49873a281104

 

[Bruce]

OK?

So, if you just hold your breath long enough, they will sell it to you, at a loss. Got it.


Any you got $20 from?

Clue. Businesses are in business to MAKE MONEY. No to sell you something at a price you pulled out of your ***. Show the math.

Ok, in the bundle, ESPN gets, roughly $9 per sub fee, ESPN 2 gets $2 a month.

So $11.

So if they charge $20, that means they are making $9 more from cord cutters then they would from Live TV Subscribers.

And they will still get per sub fees from about 50 million Live TV subscribers by the time it launches.

So today, ESPN gets $11 a month in per sub fees from 68 million, so $748 million a month.

By the end of 2025, estimates are anywhere from 45-50 Live TV subscribers.

So, using 50 million, ESPN will be taking in $550 million a month in per sub fees.

By the end of 2025, 80 million will not longer sub to Live TV Providers.

If ESPN can get 20 million out of 80 million Cord Cutters/Nevers to sub at $15 a month, that is $300 million in addition to the $550 million they get from Live TV per sub fees, that is $850 Million, $102 million more then what they are getting today.

or

If ESPN can get 20 million out of 80 million Cord Cutters/Nevers to sub at $20 a month, that is $400 million in addition to the $550 million they get from Live TV per sub fees, that is $950 Million, $202 million more then what they are getting today.

Then if ESPN goes streaming only sometime in the future, at $15 a month, they will need 50 million subs to make as much as they get from Live TV subs today, at $20, they will need , roughly, a tad under 40 million subs.

Is that good enough math for you?

 

[Juan]

Ok, in the bundle, ESPN gets, roughly $9 per sub fee, ESPN 2 gets $2 a month.

So $11.

So if they charge $20, that means they are making $9 more from cord cutters then they would from Live TV Subscribers.

And they will still get per sub fees from about 50 million Live TV subscribers by the time it launches.

So today, ESPN gets $11 a month in per sub fees from 68 million, so $748 million a month.

By the end of 2025, estimates are anywhere from 45-50 Live TV subscribers.

So, using 50 million, ESPN will be taking in $550 million a month in per sub fees.

By the end of 2025, 80 million will not longer sub to Live TV Providers.

If ESPN can get 20 million out of 80 million Cord Cutters/Nevers to sub at $15 a month, that is $300 million in addition to the $550 million they get from Live TV per sub fees, that is $850 Million, $102 million more then what they are getting today.

or

If ESPN can get 20 million out of 80 million Cord Cutters/Nevers to sub at $20 a month, that is $400 million in addition to the $550 million they get from Live TV per sub fees, that is $950 Million, $202 million more then what they are getting today.

Then if ESPN goes streaming only sometime in the future, at $15 a month, they will need 50 million subs to make as much as they get from Live TV subs today, at $20, they will need , roughly, a tad under 40 million subs.

Is that good enough math for you?

Subtract off what ESPN pays in sports fees and then you will see its really not good enough...ESPN needs 80 million subs to stay afloat...what you didn't take into account was loss of advertising revenue....streaming has a much much smaller potential audience...for example...if ESPN were to carry a womens soccer championship...a large portion of those 80 million would tune in...streaming you are stuck atc20 million

 

[Bruce]

Subtract off what ESPN pays in sports fees and then you will see its really not good enough...ESPN needs 80 million subs to stay afloat

Show your math then.

At what amount should they charge?