ESPN - within 5 years cant cover existing contracts owed

44,532 Views | 249 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by 45-70Ag
Cynical_Texan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

sips won't have to worry about their channel when GOR expires, money expiring first.
DifferenceMaker Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like MLB is about to get the ax.
Madman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Yesterday Nielsen announced its subscriber numbers for November 2016 and those numbers were the worst in the history of ESPN's existence as a cable company -- the worldwide leader in sports lost 621,000 cable subscribers. That's the most subscribers ESPN has ever lost in a month according to Nielsen estimates and it represents a terrifying and troubling trend for the company, an acceleration of subscriber loss that represents a doubling of the average losses over the past couple of years, when ESPN has been losing in the neighborhood of 300,000 subscribers a month.


Maybe if they didn't try to be social justice warriors, give awards to trannies, and **** up every broadcast with human interest stories some of this wouldn't be happening.
APHIS AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see ESPN going the way of MTV. Bring on the Kardashians!!!!!
MSU/SECALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So if ESPN lost 621,000 did FOX also lose the same amount? Doesn't FOX have lower rated games than ESPN? What about ad revenue...it would be interesting to see how much ESPN charges vs FOX.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MSU/SECALUM said:

So if ESPN lost 621,000 did FOX also lose the same amount? Doesn't FOX have lower rated games than ESPN? What about ad revenue...it would be interesting to see how much ESPN charges vs FOX.
Fox has their OTA channel that helps. But yes, FS1 lost subscribers as well. Not as many because they had much fewer to begin with, but still significant.

It's not that millennials are eschewing watching football on TVs, it's that they don't watch sports, period.
FrickinFracker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe if Disney would get their head out of their ass and allow online subscription directly to ESPN, instead of having to pay a **** cable company with a bunch of extra **** cable channels, they would be alright
FrickinFracker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FrickinFracker said:

Maybe if Disney would get their head out of their ass and allow online subscription directly to ESPN, instead of having to pay a **** cable company with a bunch of extra **** cable channels, they would be alright
oh and stop paying a certain **** team so they can lose a **** load of money with their own channel
hockeyag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That LHN investment looks more and more like a luxury. Certainly not creating value.
MSU/SECALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FrickinFracker said:

Maybe if Disney would get their head out of their ass and allow online subscription directly to ESPN, instead of having to pay a **** cable company with a bunch of extra **** cable channels, they would be alright
I believe that is what Raycom will become in 2019. I said a couple of years ago that Swofford's son that works for Raycom would eventually work for ESPN and that is what's happening.
MSU/SECALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FrickinFracker said:

FrickinFracker said:

Maybe if Disney would get their head out of their ass and allow online subscription directly to ESPN, instead of having to pay a **** cable company with a bunch of extra **** cable channels, they would be alright
oh and stop paying a certain **** team so they can lose a **** load of money with their own channel
ESPN has cut back at the LHN and they more or less just told the Big 12 to shove it. That money will eventually be put in to the SEC & ACC because we chose the correct media partner. How much will our next deal with CBS garner? Maybe ABC takes CBS' place?
Nixter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ESPN needs more talking heads and political activism. Maybe produce a few film length documentaries on the bravery of Colin Kapaernick and a women's rights show hosted by Jim Brown and Art Briles. That will do the trick.
Fizban
How long do you want to ignore this user?


F ESPN

bonfarr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FrickinFracker said:

Maybe if Disney would get their head out of their ass and allow online subscription directly to ESPN, instead of having to pay a **** cable company with a bunch of extra **** cable channels, they would be alright


Doing that would kill their business, not enough people would subscribe. Without the subsidies from people that pay for but don't watch ESPN they couldn't pay for the live sports contracts.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tu is like the super bug bacteria that has no known vaccine or cure. They've killed 2 leagues and now the premier sports network on the planet.

Is there a more toxic entity?
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sports networks need to disassemble themselves from cable. Cable is obsolete. Internet streaming is the future, and it must be embraced.

Cable is just plain not worth the charge paid for it. At best, a la carte options like SlingTV are better options.
Cynical_Texan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

MSU/S said:

It's not that millennials are eschewing watching football on TVs, it's that they don't watch sports, period.

Agree 100%. See plenty examples of this at the university where I work (and around nation for that matter).
Reservoir Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I hate to get political but I think the issue is bigger than ESPNs social justice warrior agenda. Disney, as a lot of companies are doing, are laying off workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign labor (H1-B visas) Manufacturers are moving operations over seas and to Mexico. Cable is the first thing to go and most expendable.
Cynical_Texan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reservoir Dog said:

I hate to get political but I think the issue is bigger than ESPNs social justice warrior agenda. Disney, as a lot of companies are doing, are laying off workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign labor (H1-B visas) Manufacturers are moving operations over seas and to Mexico. Cable is the first thing to go and most expendable.
I think it relates more to what Aggiehawg was stating. The new generation of subscribers aren't big sports fans and have many more distractions than did our older generations.
DifferenceMaker Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would shut off the electricity before getting rid of cable.
Reservoir Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cynical_Texan said:

Reservoir Dog said:

I hate to get political but I think the issue is bigger than ESPNs social justice warrior agenda. Disney, as a lot of companies are doing, are laying off workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign labor (H1-B visas) Manufacturers are moving operations over seas and to Mexico. Cable is the first thing to go and most expendable.
I think it relates more to what Aggiehawg was stating. The new generation of subscribers aren't big sports fans and have many more distractions than did our older generations.

I agree and think that's a good point... But did millennials have cable to begin with and then drop it? I'd bet most millennials never subscribe to cable and simply get Netflix. Either way it will be interesting to see how college sports TV rights will be paid for in the future. I believe Travis mentioned that the future wont be about number of eyeballs as much as it will be about content. Either way, we are nicely positioned in the SEC!
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Look at how many on this very site talk about cutting the cord. None of us want to pay for 500 music and shopping channels we never tune to. Add in those that never watch sports and can meet all their needs on Netflix and Hulu.

Under the current model, it doesnt look good.
brainman5000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IMO, the biggest issue for ESPN is that they've made sports into reality shows. It's not enough to show genuine competition. Now, you need off-field stories, coaches' challenges, controversies, in-game interviews... in short, you need artificial drama. I've always enjoyed sports but detested reality shows. How many reality shows depict true professionals at work? Not many, because professionals make their job look boring and easy.
Squadron7
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
brainman5000 said:

IMO, the biggest issue for ESPN is that they've made sports into reality shows. It's not enough to show genuine competition. Now, you need off-field stories, coaches' challenges, controversies, in-game interviews... in short, you need artificial drama. I've always enjoyed sports but detested reality shows. How many reality shows depict true professionals at work? Not many, because professionals make their job look boring and easy.

I think that they may be discovering that not only do we not need the off-field stuff, we don't want the off-field stuff. Sports needs to be viewed as a sanctuary spot....or....God I hate to use this phrase, but a "Safe Space" that is separate from non-sports stuff. A place where D's and R's and any other polar opposites in our continually Balkanized society can drop all that crap and come together for three damned hours to watch something devoid of anything save the competition itself.

The new, socially conscious ESPN is crapping on the sports themselves. I guess it's all part of the "long march through the institutions".

As usual, iowahawk nails it:

jja79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the SEC and member schools better be saving money like crazy because it's about to run out is what you're saying.
The Collective
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yea, it seems like the sports TV bubble popping is right around the corner.
ATM9000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jja79 said:

So the SEC and member schools better be saving money like crazy because it's about to run out is what you're saying.


Yup... It's fun to laugh at the Longhorns misfortune with the LHN, etc. but if you want to know what's going to happen here look no further the oil industry and what the producers declining revenues have done to service companies. Those stats no doubt extend to basically every network in some way and the writing on the wall is EVERY college and professional program is likely ****ed in the coming years to an extent.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So will this make tickets more expensive.
JDL 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bottom line: we may not keep getting more sports than we pay for. Cable TV forced non-sports fans into subsidizing sports. New technology means people don't have to pay for as much that they don't want. ESPN, media deals, player salaries, stadiums, and owner profits, and maybe even youth sports will all shrink.

CAVEAT: gambling and sports betting may have a bigger role.
Reservoir Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
An interesting discussion that is congenial on TexAgs? Very nice!
Kenneth_2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JDL 96 said:

Bottom line: we may not keep getting more sports than we pay for. Cable TV forced non-sports fans into subsidizing sports. New technology means people don't have to pay for as much that they don't want. ESPN, media deals, player salaries, stadiums, and owner profits, and maybe even youth sports will all shrink.

CAVEAT: gambling and sports betting may have a bigger role.
That will be interesting, but might not pan out. If we see cable and satellite (already happening to an extent) go to a true a-la-carte model like you could see with purely online content, the price might not have to shift too much.

Your TV bill stays about the same, but you no longer have 300+ channels you never tune to. I think we can all safely say there are probably less than 15 channels we actually tune into on a monthly basis. Now, what I'm not certain of is how much those channels I never tune into actually costs my cable provider compared to the channels I tune into regularly.

The cable and satellite companies are going to have to learn one VERY hard lesson though. We as consumers are tiring of added features and so called value for our billed dollar. What we want, is a lower bill. We want the programming that interests us, and nothing more. I called seeking to lower my bill a while back. Apparently they couldn't lower my bill, but they gave me a year of free Showtime. I didn't even know until a tech (water got into the outside box) pointed it out. I've still never tuned into it. I don't want it! I want a lower monthly bill!!!
Bunkhouse96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JDL 96 said:

Bottom line: we may not keep getting more sports than we pay for. Cable TV forced non-sports fans into subsidizing sports. New technology means people don't have to pay for as much that they don't want.


But that also goes for subsidizing sports we don't watch. I would gladly pay for a College Football only channel. I don't want to pay for the NFL, MLB, NBA out Olympic sports. We are all subsidizing channels and content we don't watch, when we can choose and pay only for those we want we will get less from people who bought don't watch football but more of my money will go to College Football.
Nonregdrummer09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
More efficient models will develop and that's what will make the difference. I use PS Vue for my TV now and it's perfect for what I want and costs less than half of DirecTV, more and more companies will start to use that model, and people will switch to it. ESPN won't have as many subscribers but the more households use exclusive internet streaming the more the subscriber base will grow because ESPN will be part of those packages. Everything is just stuck in this in between stage where we have a generation who wants cheaper internet streaming packages vs a generation who still uses traditional cable. It will probably take ten years to transition to internet streaming being the majority but I think it will happen.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dirctv has it's own streaming service launching next month that will get you 100 channels for $35 per month. Considering we have AT&Ts gigabyte internet I'm highly intrigued with this. If it just has the 10 channels we watch I will probably go for it since we are paying $160 per month right now for regular DTV.

Its already reported to have ESPN and HBO. I just need bravo for my wife's horrid tv habits and I'll be covered.
TAZ99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Was just thinking yesterday that its only a matter of time before we see WWF on ESPN. Makes sense for the network that gives their "analysts" one side of a matter to argue.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.