ESPN Looking for 70% Increase in 2012 Negotiatinos

[Stargazer]

I also think Dish would have a mass exodus but the question is how bad would it be? Dish would have to count on other providers doing the same thing as them to do any good otherwise they could see it as an advantage instead and try to take Dish's customers. That is what happens everytime someone has a contract issue and takes channels down. The companies would have to have a union of some sorts to prevent these types of things happening.

 

[Tampa8]

Losing ESPN or having to pay more just to have it would be far more destructive than you could ever realize. It would take Dish years to position themselves in the correct way to recover all of the lost subs they would have right away.

It would be less destructive than you realize. You are willing to pay whatever Disney/ESPN wants, my bet, especially in the present economic climate, most are defiantly not. It's their (and other's) escalating costs that will be destructive. At some point people will do without.

 

[QCK]

ESPN is huge for most sports fans, and there are a lot of them. Not to mention any new subs that want ESPN and considering Dish would be lost. It really would have a large negative impact for many years IMHO.

 

[Yespage]

I think people are forgetting something. Disney isn't doing all that well. To lose Dish Network would be a substantial hit to them. Dish Network has shown they will go without a channel, a popular channel, so Disney knows that Dish is willing to go the whole way and not bluff. That means Disney needs to take them seriously.

Certainly, losing ESPN would be a big hit to many viewers, however, there could be a way to deal with that with instant discounts to the Sat bill as Dish would no longer have to pay $5 to $8 per subscriber. Dish would also need to discuss with Comcast about NBC Sports moving to a lower tier to help offset the sports loss. I don't see how Disney can afford to lose the Dish Subscribers as it isn't like the Science Channel, ESPN is available on almost every package, so they would be losing tens of millions a month!

If Dish were to lower the bill on a short term loss of ESPN, that would make it harder for some to switch to an alternative, as Directv isn't cheap by a long shot, unless you have a good amount of equipment. And fighting to keep the price lower on ESPN is beneficial to almost every Dish subscriber, not merely the percentage that watch it. Disney is already getting a great deal of money just by forcing Providers to have to show the channel. They shouldn't be allowed to gouge us more simply because they over-bid on programming.

 

[chicagonettech]

This is starting to get interesting. Looks like all of the services are pushing back:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/pay-tv-companies-say-espn-fumbled-with-its-15b-nfl-deal/
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/pay-tv-companies-say-espn-fumbled-with-its-15b-nfl-deal/"ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report"

"Moffett figures that pay TV subscribers would have to pay an additional 67 cents a month just to cover ESPN’s additional new football costs. The price would rise to 78 cents if Dish Network drops the Disney-owned sports channel, something that the satellite company’s chairman Charlie Ergen has threatened to do."

Pay TV Companies Say ESPN Fumbled With Its $15B NFL Deal

See: Pay TV Companies Say ESPN Fumbled With Its $15B NFL Deal – Deadline.com

 

[jimdandyvi]

Many programming contracts contain "the most favored nation clause" so if ESPN gave Dish a special deal they probably would be obligated to extend the same deal to all 100 million subs. If ESPN leaves $.50 per subscriber per month on the table to retain Dish that is $600 million in annual revenue given up across their entire subscriber base.

 

[Tampa8]

This is starting to get interesting. Looks like all of the services are pushing back:
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/pay-tv-companies-say-espn-fumbled-with-its-15b-nfl-deal/
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/pay-tv-companies-say-espn-fumbled-with-its-15b-nfl-deal/"ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report"

"Moffett figures that pay TV subscribers would have to pay an additional 67 cents a month just to cover ESPN’s additional new football costs. The price would rise to 78 cents if Dish Network drops the Disney-owned sports channel, something that the satellite company’s chairman Charlie Ergen has threatened to do."

Pay TV Companies Say ESPN Fumbled With Its $15B NFL Deal

See: Pay TV Companies Say ESPN Fumbled With Its $15B NFL Deal – Deadline.com

Apparently this comes as a surprise to some, not all of us.

 

[Anony55]

ESPN already has too much say in sports...

That is the truth!

ESPN is huge for most sports fans, and there are a lot of them...

Unfortunately, that's true as well. ESPN pulls really dirty tricks, both with pricing & the dishonest way they spin things in college sports to shape outcomes to what benefits them most. But then again, your team is probably playing on one of their products.

So it's like... Let's teach ESPN a lesson & boycott them. Oh wait, not today... my team's playing on ESPN tonight!!!

..."ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report"

2.5%?? Really???

I don't know what Mr. Moffett is sighting as his basis for that number. But in my experience, when you hear an outlandish & unbelievable set of "facts" like that reported... there's usually a whopping big piece of the story left out.

One doesn't have to be an insider or spend endless hours doing research to know that 2.5% in that context just doesn't smell right.

Cheers

 

[HanoverPretzel]

It would be less destructive than you realize. You are willing to pay whatever Disney/ESPN wants, my bet, especially in the present economic climate, most are defiantly not. It's their (and other's) escalating costs that will be destructive. At some point people will do without.

I think there are also a good deal of people out there who both won't pay a dramatic cost increase for anything, but also won't pay for television without sports. I probably fall into that category- if the bills get much higher, I simply won't be able to pay them, but if the bills stay at their present cost or drop a little but don't include sports, I will choose not to pay them because it won't be a good value for me anymore. In short, a lot of sports fans when faced with an inability to pay for television that includes sports channels won't say "Eh, I'll take the package without sports", they'll instead say "Forget the whole thing, I don't need to pay for television at all if those are my only options.".

So, how can Dish keep sports without raising costs and accommodate those customers? Simple. Instead of making a billion a year in profits, they can reduce their profit margin to, say, a "measly" 500 million or something, and use the difference to pay higher rates for sports channels without raising rates for customers. They don't have a God-given right to make one billion a year in profit every year for all eternity. They might have to trim that figure down a little to keep their customers at rates they can afford with the programming they require to make it worthwhile to continue to subscribe.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

Oh wait, not today... my team's playing on ESPN tonight!!!

I resemble that remark! Let's go Maryland!

Tonight, 7:30 versus Florida International. ESPN.

 

[Stargazer]

I think Dish should drop ESPN/Disney but I also better see a $10+ drop in my bill as a result as well, not some cheesy $2 or $3 drop in price or the same price.

 

[jimdandyvi]

If Dish is paying the average price of $4.69 for ESPN how would they be able to afford a $10 rate reduction by dropping the channel(s)?

 

[dare2be]

If Dish is paying the average price of $4.69 for ESPN how would they be able to afford a $10 rate reduction by dropping the channel(s)?

Because most likely if Dish drops ESPN, then many if not all of the Disney-owned channels would be pulled as well.

 

[dishburgh]

Yeah, that "most favored nation clause" is not working out so well after all. See: Dish / ESPN lawsuit Threads...

Many programming contracts contain "the most favored nation clause" so if ESPN gave Dish a special deal they probably would be obligated to extend the same deal to all 100 million subs. If ESPN leaves $.50 per subscriber per month on the table to retain Dish that is $600 million in annual revenue given up across their entire subscriber base.

 

[Scherrman]

So if Dish were to drop ESPN, I would think they would also have to drop all of the channels that go along with it. That would be a lot of channels and some of those channels pertain to about everyone. I don't see how anyone here believes that Dish would survive after the amount of customers lost. I think they would lose half of their customers after only three years.

Also, knowing how a lot of people are not happy no matter if they get their way or not, some non sports people are going to quite also because they came up with another reason the don't like Dish. That or the programming is still to expensive for what they watch. Complainers are always going to find a way to complain. I'm afraid to see what would happen if Dish got rid of ESPN and everything that comes with it. I hope the rest of you would be right.