Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Pirates' contract with Root expires after the 2019 season. It's one of the next local baseball deals that comes up for bid. It'll be interesting to see whether the rights fees continue to escalate because the economics of the sport relies on this.
And even that's not what it used to be on Saturdays. Most of the marquee games are back on the broadcast networks.
It will be interesting. Given ROOT is the only game in town and the Pirates are meh in terms of local interest right now, I wonder if this would be the true test case.
Maybe not. I haven't ever seen any good data on all of the major networks cable rev/sub over time.
I can't vouch for accuracy but here are some numbers. ESPN's carriage fees dwarf those of their competitors.
Yeah, I meant time series data, not snapshot.
Not yet. But I read somewhere yesterday that the carriers are gonna start offering entertainment (non-sports) skinny bundles.
You may not get a lot of "political" stuff - but you sure get a healthy dose of Jesus
the worst is the NFL mobile App - every single time it has a new update that takes forever to update - just to read a stupid alert or article
Its the middle of the day at like 12.30. what else is on any channel that time of day? (I kinda like that show actually)
Well said.
Massive technological shifts can kill monopolies.
From this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3
ESPN is be trapped in a vicious cycle that is far from over.
The rate of inflation in Cable and Sat TV overall for that time period is just under 20%. So there is no question ESPN has been a big contributor to it, but again, I don't think it is the whole story.
And they will respond by increasing pricing for those who actually use/want the service, and cutting deals with more of the skinny bundle services. Will it net out? Of course not. But my point was people are acting like ESPN is about to die. They are still a behemoth printing a ton of money, with a media giant backing them up.
Well, ESPN certainly isn't going anywhere. But their financial results are likely to remain under pressure for quite a while.
ESPN isn't just facing a problem with their business model of bundling.
I don't see any option for ESPN not to continue to pay market rates for live sports broadcast rights. Without live sports as its tent pole, there's nothing to retain their audience, particularly in a post-bundle market. Their only hope is that the rights fees stabilize or decline.Politician Spock said:
Right. This is the obvious correct answer.Eephus said:
Agree, but right now those companies are bidding on/acquiring the rights to provide the secondary distribution of the content. Taking what ESPN, NBC, etc is already distributing and just pushing it across their channel also. Even Amazon's new deal isn't anything exclusive.Politician Spock said:
timschochet said:
Hence why ESPN is in a "stuck between a rock and a hard place" scenario, perhaps on a historic level. It's impossible for them to keep their existing revenue with people who have been paying for ESPN but never watching it finding ways to no longer pay for it. And on the other side, the market rates for live sports is going to significantly rise with so many new players able to deliver the game to viewers. Add the fact that those that own the content could just deliver it direct to consumers, and all I can say is owning ESPN would really suck right now.
I think, as we said earlier, it will be fair to say that ESPN will be losing revenue, but with ESPN in every base package on the various streaming services, I think when all is said and done in the next 5-10 years, they will have as many households as they do today when combining old and new technologies.RedmondLonghorn said:
Cord cutters that pay $20+ subscriptions to streaming services are a small subset of cord cutters. Most cord cutters spend $10 or less per month on content they watch. This is why, despite ESPN being in every streaming package, ESPN is still losing subscribers.
My theory is that they won't be small in the future. I believe that the amount of households using old technology still dominates the amount of households using new technology in large numbers. Many of those older technology households, when they eventually switch in the coming years, are going to be looking for like for like services to what they have now, just at a cheaper price, IMO.
A significant chunk of cord cutters are what are called "cord nevers". They never had something that they want "like for like" services in the future. If they never had ESPN, they won't want it in the future. ESPN's biggest problem is not appealing to cord nevers.
we are talking about two different sets of people. I am not talking about the current cord cutters. I am talking about the 90 milllion households that still have yet to switch. They are the group that will define the industry standard, not the group that is currently already cut/never had.
The ones that have yet to switch are current ESPN subscribers. They are made up of people who have watched it and want to continue watching it after the switch, have watched it but won't miss it after the switch, and people who never watched and won't miss it after the switch. How much of that group ESPN keeps as subscribers depends on how many of the games they are able to outbid from a growing number of providers. Their non-game content is pretty worthless.
ESPN.com used to be useful until they redesigned it about - what, a year or so ago now? 18 months? Since then it's effectively unusable.DA RAIDERS said:
In a debundled, a la carte world ESPN revenues would be much lower than they are, even now.
That's why I like Sling's route of offering two different packages. They are finding out just how much their customers are willing to pay for ESPN.
ESPN (and the NFL is heading down this path) are obsessed with getting new viewers/fans...locally these people are labeled pink hats...they tend to not be your "real" sports fans and usually are the type that jump on and off a bandwagon very quickly...as they tilt their content to get them I feel they are losing the hardcore fan...there is so much schtick on some of these shows it is ridiculous...I have felt for awhile there is an opening in the sports entertainment world for a channel that goes back to the roots of what made ESPN great in its early days...
I'd still watch if they had good programming like some saucy videos or MTV spring break, but they really don't
I guess I'm in the minority. I'm 40. I would happily watch an actual sportscenter (or the MLB network equivalent) to have highlights curated for me so I don't have to go and search them all out. With, you know, highlights and maybe a little analysis of the actual games. WithOUT any Stephen A type segments stuck in the middle of the show.
