The end for Traditional TV is closer then ever

“Disney's direct-to-consumer division, which also includes Hulu and ESPN+, on Tuesday reported an operating loss of nearly $1.5 billion, more than doubling its loss of $630 million during the same quarter a year earlier.Nov 8, 2022”
ESPN+ is its own quandary. The original formula seemed OK. Disney has lots of excess rights, mainly with colleges, where it buys the rights to everything the conference does. Thus it had hundreds of thousands of game of “mid-major” conferences in football and basketball, and yet more rights to “non-revenue” sports at larger schools. Add in sports produced in English for other markets, like cricket or soccer, where the US rights are not expensive, and on-demand of its documentaries and there you go.

But the world didn’t beat a path to its door. Turns out that mid-major football and basketball and true major women’s whatever, baseball, and track, don’t really matter to very many people.

So Disney reversed course. Now spending big money to get what are really third tier and below rights to larger sports. Early rounds of the PGA, an on-the-cheap version of NHL center ice (less games), original documentaries, etc. And tossing up the occasional thing from real ESPN which it cannot do that much of, as it would void the deals with big cable, et al.

And it just cannot make any money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navychop
It doesn’t matter. THIS is THE number that the industry has agreed upon.
Except it's changing. A different company, Comscore I believe the name is, is making in roads and claiming to give a more accurate representation of who's watching what when. Stations will use those results for their selling points.
 
Found this-

Currently, 83% of US internet households subscribe to at least one streaming video service. In contrast, only 45% subscribe to traditional pay-TV services like AT&T or Comcast — a dramatic drop from almost 10 years ago in 2012 when this figure was at 87%

Amazing ... :eeek

Who'da thunk ...

Streaming 1 app is way different than Traditional TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs
Amazing ... :eeek

Who'da thunk ...

Streaming 1 app is way different than Traditional TV.
That is what you get from that article, streaming a app is different then Traditional Live TV…duh.

How about the fact that 55% of Households do not get TV the Traditional way( Pay via Cable or Satellite).

Now that the pace has picked up, imagine what the next 5 years for Traditional Pay Live TV will be like…………it will not be good.
 
Found this-

Currently, 83% of US internet households subscribe to at least one streaming video service. In contrast, only 45% subscribe to traditional pay-TV services like AT&T or Comcast — a dramatic drop from almost 10 years ago in 2012 when this figure was at 87%

Ive said it before, dont believe those numbers! I have Direct, with that I get HBO,NHL,NFL,MLB all come with a streaming service, if you have Prime you get a streaming service. One customer has 5 streaming services. I bet those number are very far off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs
Ive said it before, dont believe those numbers! I have Direct, with that I get HBO,NHL,NFL,MLB all come with a streaming service, if you have Prime you get a streaming service. One customer has 5 streaming services. I bet those number are very far off.
Quite doubtful numbers are off that much because the Providers put out how many subscribers they have every quarter, since they are reported, it is quite easy to do the math.
 
Quite doubtful numbers are off that much because the Providers put out how many subscribers they have every quarter, since they are reported, it is quite easy to do the math.
How does HBO, know what MLB knows? Now each provider knows how I subscribe because its part of Direct. I dont see why they would care about anybody bet themselves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs
How does HBO, know what MLB knows? Now each provider knows how I subscribe because it’s part of Direct. I dont see why they would care about anybody bet themselves?
You do not think Traditional and Streaming Providers do not share data, of course they do, make money by doing so.

But what that article explains is less people get Traditional Pay Live TV, all these numbers, subscribers, come out every 3 months.

For example, as of now, there are about 70 Million that sub to Live TV, both OTT and Traditional.

Then you minus 5 Million for YTTV, 4 Million for Hulu Live, 2 Million for Sling, 1 Million for Fubo and Philio each, that is 13 million taken away from the 70 Million, =57 million.

Now there are 129 Million Households in the US, so 57 million is, roughly, 44.5% of Household’s Population.

My math is not perfect since I do not have total numbers in front of me, but they are close since the article said 45% subscribe to a Traditional Provider.

Also this, Traditional Providers had 100.5 million subs in 2014, just 8 years ago, before the likes of YTTV, that mean they have lost 43 million, while OTT Live TV has only pick up 13 million of them, so 30 Million gone total.
 
Last edited:
Just one data point, but my recently divorced, 56 year-old sister dropped cable and switched to just doing one streaming service at a time (Netflix, Hulu, HBOmax, etc.) She'll watch until she runs out of things of interest, and then she'll cancel and subscribe to something else. Her kids do the same thing, so I think that is where she got the idea. Not sure how many other people do that, but if you combine that behavior with password sharing within family and friend groups, and you are going to see a lot of households that look like they only subscribe to a single service where many of them had traditional cable packages previously.
 
Just one data point, but my recently divorced, 56 year-old sister dropped cable and switched to just doing one streaming service at a time (Netflix, Hulu, HBOmax, etc.) She'll watch until she runs out of things of interest, and then she'll cancel and subscribe to something else. Her kids do the same thing, so I think that is where she got the idea. Not sure how many other people do that, but if you combine that behavior with password sharing within family and friend groups, and you are going to see a lot of households that look like they only subscribe to a single service where many of them had traditional cable packages previously.
If I did not get Streaming Services‘ Gift Cards with my Credit Card Points, then get the discounted Annual Charge, I might do the same thing.

Mostly because there is so much Content between all of them, makes it hard to decide what to watch, right now I am focusing on Netflix, there is so much I am behind on.
 
That is what you get from that article, streaming a app is different then Traditional Live TV…duh.

How about the fact that 55% of Households do not get TV the Traditional way( Pay via Cable or Satellite).

Now that the pace has picked up, imagine what the next 5 years for Traditional Pay Live TV will be like…………it will not be good.
Local broadcast are going No where.
Your Big 4 will be fine, now the other channels, maybe no so much.

This is basically Ala Carte now, you buy the channel you want .... hope people enjoy the high cost of what these will be in 5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs and AZ.
Local broadcast are going No where.
Your Big 4 will be fine, now the other channels, maybe no so much.

This is basically Ala Carte now, you buy the channel you want .... hope people enjoy the high cost of what these will be in 5 years.
Amazed you wrote that, is not your average DirecTV bill with the box charges, RSN fees, all those extra fees and the price increase around the $200 range.

If not, how much is it?

And if there was no streaming, imagine what Traditional Providers bills would be now and in 5 years.

At least streaming allows people to save money now, who knows what will happen in the future.

And I prefer Ala Carte, that way I am not paying for things I do not want, for example the Florida RSN, so no extra fee on top of my bill for something I will never watch, but I do pay for MLB (Tigers) and ESPN+(Red Wings).
 
  • Like
Reactions: osu1991
First off, most of those channels barely get ratings.

It is not that the channel needs to stream, but the content.

Much of those reruns stream on Content Providers Streaming Services, like Paramount, then of course, services like Pluto, Tubi, even Hulu.

Much like how you cannot purchase just ABC as a streaming service, all of it’s current content is on Hulu.

If you are thinking why they are not on services like YTTV, Hulu Live, etc, maybe as something something simple like cannot come to a agreement, maybe they do not have rights to stream the content because others do or they only have rights to show the content OTA.

A lot of those channels are not on Traditional Providers either.
I figured a lot of it has to do with licensing.
 
Your Big 4 will be fine, now the other channels, maybe no so much.

I’m not too sure about Fox, particularly post-Disney. They don’t have in house content production.

I’m not sure someone would start OTA broadcasts today, but I can see it surviving for some time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheKrell
Amazed you wrote that, is not your average DirecTV bill with the box charges, RSN fees, all those extra fees and the price increase around the $200 range.

If not, how much is it?

And if there was no streaming, imagine what Traditional Providers bills would be now and in 5 years.

At least streaming allows people to save money now, who knows what will happen in the future.

And I prefer Ala Carte, that way I am not paying for things I do not want, for example the Florida RSN, so no extra fee on top of my bill for something I will never watch, but I do pay for MLB (Tigers) and ESPN+(Red Wings).
So far your in a good place, but it won't stay that way .

When I started with D*, it cost $40 p/m, now its about $140

Ala Carte, was basically C-Band, you could buy the stations you wanted or get a package.
Back in the early 90's , late 80's people were clamoring for Ala Carte ... ya know what, it cost $12 for JUST ESPN back then and they only had ESPN, maybe espn2.

Thats WAY more than people would pay for a channel now.
 
Last edited:
Ala Carte, was basically C-Band, you could buy the stations you wanted or get a package.
Back in the early 90's , late 80's people were clamoring for Ala Carte ... ya know what, it cost $12 for JUST ESPN back then and they only had ESPN, maybe espn2.

Thats WAY more than people would pay for a channel now.
nice try. Actually in 1999 it was 4.30 a month for ESPN/ESPN News or 5.50 for those + ESPN2 + Golf
This is from NPS (the spreadsheet I have actually says prices effective Jan 1 2003 but the top says 1999)

Untitled.jpg


Back in 1997 Superstar programming you could get ESPN & ESPN2 for 1.50 a month
ESPN & ESPN2 for $25 a YEAR?????? Hell yeah!

You could get 13 channels on G5 for 10.50 a month (19.48 in todays $$$)
A&E; EntertainmentCNBCCNNDiscovery
ESPN*ESPN2*Family ChannelHeadline News
The Nashville NetworkTNT*USA NetworkWGN
WTBS
 
nice try. Actually in 1999 it was 4.30 a month for ESPN/ESPN News or 5.50 for those + ESPN2 + Golf
This is from NPS (the spreadsheet I have actually says prices effective Jan 1 2003 but the top says 1999)

View attachment 160123

Back in 1997 Superstar programming you could get ESPN & ESPN2 for 1.50 a month
ESPN & ESPN2 for $25 a YEAR?????? Hell yeah!

You could get 13 channels on G5 for 10.50 a month (19.48 in todays $$$)
A&E; EntertainmentCNBCCNNDiscovery
ESPN*ESPN2*Family ChannelHeadline News
The Nashville NetworkTNT*USA NetworkWGN
WTBS
Maybe I was thinking wrong,, maybe that was for a year ????
Doesn't sound right, but seeing I paid my TV package by the year, not the month... could be.

I had Turner Vision (can't seem to find anything about them on line at the moment) ....
I know EVERYTHING i got, including the Sunday Ticket was about $800 for the YEAR.