Prepare for another price increase thx to ESPN

[HanoverPretzel]

This isn't about Dish. It is about ESPN making ridiculous bids to be an exclusive broadcaster of certain sporting events. When ESPN bids this high, they aren't bidding with their money. They are bidding with our money because they have to raise rates. You can whine all you want about Dish being capable of taking it in the butt and making less money themselves, but the source isn't Dish's desire to be profitable enough to exist, but with ESPN making ridiculous bids.

I'm not competely disagreeing with you. The point I was trying to get across, though, is that ESPN may be making these bids because they feel they have to. In other words, if they didn't make the bids, they may feel someone else would, and diminish ESPN's brand and revenues substantially. We know that NBC Sports Channel, in it's bid to be the new ESPN, would love to have a touchstone product like Monday Night Football, or summer programming like major league baseball, to make them almost a "must carry" right alongside ESPN with good tier placement across the spectrum. The NHL gets them halfway, but they need another big product, and they are likely ready to overpay to do it. Plus, there are the usually other possibilities- TNT, TBS, USA. Also, some of these leagues if they don't get the bids they want may just shift the products to the networks they own.

So, it's not like ESPN is just saying out of the blue "We're going to pay MLB double" (or whatever). They likely feel like if they don't, someone else will, and they'll go down a road that leads towards irrelevance as a channel and fewer advertising dollars, and fewer dollars from the cable companies.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

They aren't the only ones. Look at NBC. They bid very high for the Olympics. What did we get? Very staggered Prime Time coverage with no live coverage of important events. Why? Because they need the advertising revenue to pay for their ridiculous bidding price. So our viewing ability is hampered because NBC wanted to be the broadcaster and felt that it was more important to ensure being the broadcaster by forcing such a high bid and then needing to mess up the coverage of what they bid to broadcast in order to make money.

Actually, the real reason there was no live prime time coverage was due to the fact that there was absolutely no chance that events, especially medal events, would be held between 01:00 and 05:00 am London time. NBC was able to convince those responsible in 2008 in Beijing to hold them in the late morning Beijing-time, which allowed us to see Phelps' medal races live in EDT prime-time. But, the athletes supposedly weren't too thrilled...

 

[Yespage]

Actually, the real reason there was no live prime time coverage was due to the fact that there was absolutely no chance that events, especially medal events, would be held between 01:00 and 05:00 am London time. NBC was able to convince those responsible in 2008 in Beijing to hold them in the late morning Beijing-time, which allowed us to see Phelps' medal races live in EDT prime-time. But, the athletes supposedly weren't too thrilled...

I understand why there was no live prime-time coverage. What I meant was that the prime-time coverage wasn't shown live... ie... they didn't show the 100 m or 200 m events live during the afternoon... they held them for Prime-time Coverage via tape delay because that would get them more advertising dollars.

 

[Yespage]

I'm not competely disagreeing with you. The point I was trying to get across, though, is that ESPN may be making these bids because they feel they have to. In other words, if they didn't make the bids, they may feel someone else would, and diminish ESPN's brand and revenues substantially. We know that NBC Sports Channel, in it's bid to be the new ESPN, would love to have a touchstone product like Monday Night Football, or summer programming like major league baseball, to make them almost a "must carry" right alongside ESPN with good tier placement across the spectrum.

Yeah, and they may be in a bidding war with our money. If they get MNF, that means they know the Dish's and Directv's will have to pay for it. So these huge corporations put our money up for bid, whether we want to pay that much for it or not. They'll get their's in the end.

So, it's not like ESPN is just saying out of the blue "We're going to pay MLB double" (or whatever). They likely feel like if they don't, someone else will, and they'll go down a road that leads towards irrelevance as a channel and fewer advertising dollars, and fewer dollars from the cable companies.

What I find incredible is that companies are paying for these things at levels that even they can't afford... yet we, the proles, are expected to make up the difference. If a company can't afford it, they shouldn't be bidding that high for it.

 

[JAF]

Good article on the power of ESPN

Next round of negotiations with Dish should be fun!

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-30/espn-everywhere-sports-profit-network

 

[voripteth]

I would give up every ESPN channel in an instant in exchange for getting AMC back.

 

[Scherrman]

I would give up every ESPN channel in an instant in exchange for getting AMC back.

Other than the cost savings that is a terrible deal. I know that's my opinion but I'm willing to bet it's the majority opinion.

 

[Mochuf]

Other than the cost savings that is a terrible deal. I know that's my opinion but I'm willing to bet it's the majority opinion.

There probably is a good number of people who don't care about sports at all though and would welcome some sort of price relief by removing the ESPN suite. Just look at the the Dish customers who live in the NYC RSNs area. They don't get any local sports at all, yet still subscribe (although they don't get any price relief).

 

[Scherrman]

Just saying there will be more of an outrage over losing the ESPN channels than losing the AMC channels. We barely had any customers talking about losing AMC but my phones would ring off the hook if the ESPN channels were gone.

 

[david_jr]

There probably is a good number of people who don't care about sports at all though and would welcome some sort of price relief by removing the ESPN suite. Just look at the the Dish customers who live in the NYC RSNs area. They don't get any local sports at all, yet still subscribe (although they don't get any price relief).

Maybe someone should start a 100% sports free sat service. Only problem is ABC/Di$ney, FOX and NBC Universal would flex their muscles and it would not get off the ground. They certainly would not sell anyone non sports only for all packages and I don't see them allowing ala carte unless forced to do so at gunpoint. I'd be curious to see how the agreement reads that allows E* to not have ESPN in their lowest package.

 

[dangue]

Next round of negotiations with Dish should be fun!

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-30/espn-everywhere-sports-profit-network

Wow, $9 Billion in estimated revenue in 2013? And they still want more. Sigh.

 

[voripteth]

Other than the cost savings that is a terrible deal. I know that's my opinion but I'm willing to bet it's the majority opinion.

My point was to emphasize how little I care about ESPN. I truly wish sports was a separate package I could opt out of.

 

[navychop]

Me too. I'd gladly have no sports and no AMC.

 

[king3pj]

My point was to emphasize how little I care about ESPN. I truly wish sports was a separate package I could opt out of.

That works both ways. Some people, like myself, subscribe to Dish almost exclusively for sports. Without live sports I could get everything I need from Netflix and Amazon.

Yes, ESPN costs more than the other cable channels but there are far more cable channels that don't show sports than the ones that do. People say they want to stop subsidizing sports fans. I argue that sports fans are subsidizing non sports fans just as much if not more.

 

[Claude Greiner]

I watch my regional sports channel more than I watch ESPN. A matter of fact, I rarely watch ESPN.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

I watch my regional sports channel more than I watch ESPN.

That's true of me as well, but what happens if my favorite baseball team, the Orioles, make the playoffs, and those games are on ESPN? After the relatively successful season they've had this year, assuming they finish reasonably strong, they'll also probably be on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball some during the regular season in 2013, and those games are exclusive to ESPN (unlike the weekday regular season games that can be simulcast by the local RSN).

The Ravens appear on Monday Night Football every year these days, and those games are exclusive to ESPN (And I watch every Ravens game in it's entirety), plus invariably they'll be a few other MNF games I want to at least watch part of. Sometimes a buddy will call me and say "You need to turn on this game, it's tied up with 5 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Sometimes some of my fantasy football players are participating in a Monday Night Football game that will decide the outcome of my fantasy game for the week. Sometimes I just feel like watching or at least having MNF on in the background because it's iconic or there's a good match-up.

I'm not big into the NBA, but if you follow the NBA, your favorite team may be on ESPN sometimes.

And ESPN is *big time* into college sports. Seems like the University of Maryland football and basketball, even though the programs are relatively "down" right now, are on the ESPN family of networks (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3 online, etc..) almost all the time.

Also, if I'm just looking for sports and nothing is on either of the RSNs, of course ESPN is the place I check.

ESPN may not be one of my most watched channels the way the RSNs are in-season, but it's definitely a channel that is important to have there.

Sometimes having the option to watch when you want to or when the right game is on is just as important as volume watching.

A lot of people will pay Netflix $8 a month just to have a queue set up and a disc to watch whenever, and let it sit there for a while instead of watching-returning-watching really rapidly. Arguably, they don't get as much for their money that way, but they know it's going to be there if they are in the mood for a movie that they've hand selected in advance, and that it's already paid for, and they can kick up watching them and sending them back in if they get on a roll watching a show or watching various movies; and that sort of gives them peace of mind.

A lot of sports fans may not watch ESPN a ton, but knowing it's there means a lot to them. Wanting to watch the big MNF game one day and then finding it not there can be a big blow if you feel like you've been paying to have the option to do that.

 

[CK SatGuy]

I'm pretty sure that if your local NFL team is on MNF, the local ABC station can broadcast that game as well. That's what my local ABC does when the Lions are on MNF (and they'll be on there twice this year)

 

[inazsully]

A article in this morning paper reads speaking of the new LA Dodger ownership, "The new anticipated regional and local television package, which reportedly could generate $8.5 b-b-billion over 20 years if the Dodgers form their own network. Yikes!". The current deal expires in 2013. Consider that LA is the second largest television market in the US (and they don't have an NFL team). This article drives home two major points often discussed here on this and other forums. 1. Sports is expensive and 2. Sports is really really popular with the vast majority of subs.

 

[HanoverPretzel]

I'm pretty sure that if your local NFL team is on MNF, the local ABC station can broadcast that game as well. That's what my local ABC does when the Lions are on MNF (and they'll be on there twice this year)

Well, kind of. One OTA station in a team's primary market simulcasts the home team's "cable" games. However, I'm in a secondary market for my team (the Ravens)- different OTA stations, and by rule secondary markets can't pick up games that are "native" to ESPN or the NFL Network on an OTA station, even if they want to. Our local CBS usually picks up all, or all but one or two, of our over the air games that are native to CBS (The NFL mandates they put on the road games, though unfortunately they'll sometimes take a Steelers home game over a Ravens home game- which I've e-mailed the station complaining about several times). Since the Ravens play in the AFC, FOX only gets a maximum of two games a year (sometimes just one), which we seem to get on our local affiliate unless they conflict with the Eagles (I've also written that station a few times to complain about carrying the Eagles over the Ravens).

Anyhow, bottom line, you have to literally get the exact affiliates from the city the team is from to get the NFL cable games over the air. I could drive to the stadium in 60-70 minutes, and I drive like an old man, but I'm just across that Pennsylvania state line and thus gets the Harrisburg stations. Same would apply to a Redskins fans who gets Richmond channels, or anything like that. The NFL games that are over the air period you can get in most cases, though (But not all).

I've actually considered doing that Dish Network "moving" stuff and listing an address over the Maryland state line to get around the crap with the local OTA affiliates putting on the odd Steelers or Eagles game over the Ravens game and that kind of stuff. But I'm a play it by the rules kind of guy, and doing something like that cuts against the grain for me. Plus, my Dish has already twice needed realignment, and if "move", I'm worried that getting the thing fixed could be a hassle.

One thing that would help would be if Dish could pick up significantly watched locals from a secondary DMA. When I had cable, they gave me the Baltimore CBS. They couldn't give me the Baltimore FOX, though- I actually called and they explained it to me, but I think it had something to do with the local FOX affiliate being too close for them to be able to get away with airing two of them. York-Harrisburg-Lancaster (and at least a halfhour westward) is one DMA, but sometimes the stations are in York and sometimes in Harrisburg, which apparently makes a difference in terms of what secondaries from Baltimore can be picked up by cable companies.