OT - The Future of Televising Live Sports
Mates,
I came across this article tonight and it appears very relevant to the recurring discussions that we have about cord-cutting, as well as the love-hate relationship many have with ESPN and what the future might be for ESPN.
Of note would a few takes, some more obvious than others:
1. The money in the TV contracts has peaked
2. ESPN did not anticipate the steady stream of subscribers leaving
3. Despite numerous mistakes the main protagonist says ESPN has made, he also says they will be financially fine. In fact, he had this quote: I think the issue for them is that their cable deals are so good that there’s no way they will ever replicate that. Everybody in here five years ago was paying $7, $6 for ESPN whether they watched it or not. And now people have flipped the equation. They’re like ‘I’m going to pay for Netflix, I don’t want cable.'” He’s right there that they’ll never get revenue from everyone who’s abandoned cable, but it’s worth pointing out that ESPN has said their digital deals are just as lucrative for them, so if you sign up for a streaming service that includes ESPN, you’re providing the company just as much revenue as you would as a cable subscriber.
4. He makes the prediction that the tech companies will be the ones to own sports broadcasts just like they have taken the market in some other areas of TV.
Anyway, full article at this link: http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/bill-simmons-criticizes-espn-john-skipp…
XM
Cutting the cord is cheaper now because lots of people are offering options at a discount to attract people and break up the cable monopoly. Like, I know YouTube is losing somewhere in the $5-10 range for every subscriber that signs up for their streaming service. They do it because they can, and because they think they'll be able to raise prices down the line and make up for it.
Once the cable model is fuly broken, they'll raise the prices and we'll be right back to where we were years ago. And instead of paying $200/month for a cable and internet bundle, you'll be paying $120/mo for just internet access and like $150+ for a multitude of different channel/streaming services. And then people will complain and wish there was just a way to bundle it all together in one cheaper service.
social drama. They need to realize that sports is its own drama. I truly think that their problem has more to do with defects in their particular product, rather than a shift in the broader entertainment culture.
But here's the thing: they do A LOT of reporting. Far more than any other sports outlet. Fox Sports doesn't even have a fucking newsroom. Meanwhile, ESPN has Sportscenter on with newsbreakers, as well as their NFL shows that have a ton of reporting, and things like E:60 and Outside the Lines that is nothing but reporting and breaking news. Yet, all of those programs are amongst the lowest rated ones they have. They report the news, but people just don't care. Same thing goes for breaking down why something is happening. Metrics show people just aren't interested. That's just a reflection of the news environment we're in. People as a whole are just drawn to hot takes and things of that nature. So when your audience cares more about that...what are you supposed to do?