ESPN Closer to Going Away for Good?

Submitted by xtramelanin on

Mates,

Article just out about how Disney is dealing with its new reality.   Along with the earlier reported bit about Netflix, the shift to streaming content has affected ESPN too.  They report 'a mass subscriber exodus' starting in 2015 and added, "One reason Disney took so long to take ESPN direct to consumers is because the bundle was great business for the network. ESPN has the highest affiliate fees in the industry."

The article ends with what most of us probably think is a confirming opinion on where the industry is headed:" If Disney’s direct-to-consumer platforms are successful, Greenfield anticipates that will accelerate ESPN’s demise.

“The more content that consumers can obtain without a multichannel video subscription, not to mention more and more content without advertising, the less interest they will have in subscribing to the big multichannel video bundle."

Full article link here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/disneys-plan-for-espn-is-shrouded-in-u…

The only reason we have TV for a few months a year is because of football, and if ESPN goes bye-bye, the TV will too.   

Your thoughts?

XM

 

** On a completely unrelated note, what happened to everyone's avatar?  No more 'Naughty Dentist' for LSA, 'former KGB' for Putin, and no explanation for why Everyone Murders is a murderer.   What happened? **

 

MGoBoard
Other

M-Dog

August 10th, 2017 at 8:23 PM ^

Because I am part of a family.  It's not just about what I want.  

Kids will still want their stuff.  Wife will want her stuff.  Some stuff is for the whole family.

You add it all up and it is a lot more than what I am paying now.

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257569

ska4punkkid

August 10th, 2017 at 8:51 PM ^

Exactly. I love my directv subscription because I get all the channels I want and need for everyone's taste. It's Hd, we can Dvr and fast forward all commercials, I can order NFL Sunday Ticket to watch my out of network fav NFL team, I have all the major sports whenever I want them. It's so easy and for $70-$90 a month I think it's well, well worth it

Joined: 07/09/2015

MGoPoints: 11928

Chris S

August 10th, 2017 at 8:44 PM ^

I'm with you. Although I do understand the attitude of being annoyed with ESPN. It's everything besides the sports - the more I watch NBA TV, the more I wonder why I ever liked any announcers/analysts that weren't former players.

Maybe ESPN would have a chance by going to all live-sports or replays. And like two SportsCenters - one in the morning and one in the evening.

Joined: 11/16/2013

MGoPoints: 2647

OwenGoBlue

August 10th, 2017 at 9:30 PM ^

You wouldn't want slimmed down cable where you lose 200 channels nobody watches and save $30+/month? Because that's going to be one of the things cable companies will eventually have to do and you'll still get the sports. There's plenty of room in the market between 500 channel cable and everyone taking products direct to consumers. 

I'm sick of the idea being circulated that ESPN will charge us $30/month (whether that be direct to consumer or increased subscriber fees). It's straight cable provider/ESPN PR and isn't rooted in reality. That's not a price point they can go to market with and the idea "ESPN can only operate if they make as much money as they did in their best years forever" is fundamentally flawed. 

ESPN will make less money. Conferences will make less money on TV deals. College football will still be all over your TV every Saturday.

Joined: 04/03/2016

MGoPoints: 31529

xtramelanin

August 10th, 2017 at 10:53 PM ^

not sure how it all works out, but a very valid comment. 

EDIT:  this was in response to mdog's comment above ending with, "Mark my words, the current environment and setup will go down as the golden age of college football.  

I'm not in a hurry to get rid of it. "

 

how it ended up here, dropped a mile below his, i do not know...

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15439

WNY in Savannah

August 10th, 2017 at 10:05 PM ^

I'll chime in to agree with this.  To paraphrase a famous quote, ESPN is the worst sports network--except for all the others.  There are things about ESPN that irritate me, but I still find them to be head and shoulders above anyone else.

I also watch a lot of college football games that I would not if I had to pay for them all individually.  I'd never be able to justify the cost in my head for that Nevada/Wyoming game, so I can't believe I'd pay for it on its own.  But I love being able to see it with the current system.  It may not be logical if the money evens out, but...

Joined: 09/18/2013

MGoPoints: 638

maquih

August 11th, 2017 at 9:03 AM ^

"I don't know why everyone is so gleeful for the demise of ESPN.

They cover college football better than anybody else."

 

Because I don't need college football to be "covered."   I just want to see the games, everything else besides the game footage and stadium sounds is extra stuff I don't want to pay for.

 

"I watch college football all through the week on many different netwroks / outlets."

Exactly, so why do you care whether it's espn or b1g or foxsports carrying the game?

 

"f they are not making it from grandma paying extra cable bundling fees for ESPN that she never watches, they will need to make it up elsewhere."

Yeah, from disney's shareholders.

Joined: 11/04/2010

MGoPoints: 1859

Lou MacAdoo

August 10th, 2017 at 6:42 PM ^

I'm intrigued to see what they're going to offer the consumer and what the price is going to be. I would be very interested in a Disney and espn streaming subscription, if it's reasonable. If it's going to cost the same as a cable bill not so much. Also, I wonder if Fox would be able to outbid ESPN when some of these contracts start expiring. In my opinion Fox hasn't done too bad of a job offering a quality alternative to ESPN.

Joined: 10/16/2011

MGoPoints: 6399

jblaze

August 10th, 2017 at 6:49 PM ^

One of 2 things will happen: 1) Disney bundles a bunch of their stuff together including ESPN. 2) ESPN carries CFB and charges like $25/ month for it. They own the rights to brodcast the sports. They paid for those rights and that is very valuable. At the end of the day, you the consumer will not save anything.

Joined: 08/29/2008

MGoPoints: 19389

Jeff09

August 10th, 2017 at 7:39 PM ^

It's a market sounding exercise that I don't have the data for, but I'd be pretty surprised if ESPN could manage to charge customers $25/per without hurting their bottom line. I would think it would deter too many people who would be turned off by the price tag. Maybe I'm wrong

Joined: 06/25/2011

MGoPoints: 8460

maquih

August 11th, 2017 at 9:05 AM ^

"At the end of the day, you the consumer will not save anything."

 

That's ignorant of microeconomics.  Monopolies (or even oligopolies) raise prices on consumers while delivering less quantity and/or quality of product.  When competition is increased, the consumer gets better prices and better products.

Joined: 11/04/2010

MGoPoints: 1859

Toasted Yosties

August 10th, 2017 at 6:57 PM ^

ESPN isn't going anywhere, it'll just change form. It's like Hershey's or AT&T in regards to name recognition. The format and ways to access it will change but there will be an ESPN in some form for the foreseeable future. The name itself is too valuable.

Joined: 06/05/2013

MGoPoints: 9261

SeattleWolverine

August 10th, 2017 at 8:08 PM ^

Yep. The consequences aren't really to ESPN as a network. It'll still exist and broadcast sports. The losers would be potentially Disney shareholdres, the highly paid "personalities" ESPN employs who are now longer highly paid and/or employed, the leagues who are the recipients of insane broadcast fees as those scale down at renewal, and some lesser cable channels that can't support themselves on their own but can survive in the bundled world. 

 

The real threat to ESPN would be that lower subscriber #s and ad revenue don't translate into enough cash flow to be as competitive in bidding for the actual sports broadcast content. But the other cable networks are subject to the same cord cutting effects. I'd say the real risk is if someone else with the platform, technical capabilities and funding tried to outbid them for those contracts in which case we'd also subscribe to them instead. The only obvious candidate to me is Amazon, but who knows.  

Joined: 11/07/2012

MGoPoints: 4047

TESOE

August 10th, 2017 at 10:48 PM ^

1.5 million for an OC / DC is stupid.  If it weren't a monopoly... it wouldn't be a reality.

Chicago and the Ivy League got it right.

I cut the cord many years back.  I huddle with Huskers, Hawkeyes, Ducks  and even Bucks to watch games and I'm better for it (I have more in common with Buckeyes on the West Coast than I do with Pac 12 alums - who frankly don't understand the importance of football.)  

I might even be better without football all together if the money continues to go OOC.  It has nothing to do with football.  In fact it's killing the game... but I digress.

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 8532

MIGHTYMOJO91

August 10th, 2017 at 7:08 PM ^

Outside of college football I give the garbage of a network less than 2 seconds of my time the rest of the year. This is good news!

Joined: 11/28/2015

MGoPoints: 4532

zh2oson

August 10th, 2017 at 7:14 PM ^

Someone should bundle all of the streaming services in one place so that people can watch everything they want under one umbrella.  Maybe even offer some sort of "guide" that lists what is on each of the services?

I might actually pay for this level of conveninece. 

Joined: 06/30/2011

MGoPoints: 4836

Papa Koz

August 10th, 2017 at 7:24 PM ^

Fox 1 or some other network will benifit. ESPN still wants/needs there slice of the pie, just struggeling at maximizing there profits outside of the football season.

Joined: 01/15/2011

MGoPoints: 202

UM Griff

August 10th, 2017 at 7:26 PM ^

College football and college basketball are my go-to TV choices from August through early April. I am old enough to remember the pre-ESPN days of very little college sports coverage. The contrast of the enthusiasm surrounding college sports with the corporate "product" exhibited by professional sports. There is nothing else quite like it, and I will financially support the traditional methods of delivery, as they are the most reliable at present (current DirecTV subscriber). I do confess to utilizing the mute button during annoying commercials - no sense in letting all that drivel inside my head :)

Joined: 12/03/2016

MGoPoints: 9833

Adrian

August 10th, 2017 at 7:56 PM ^

I have a question regarding michigan football games thats sort of on topic. I cant remember if all games on ABC are also streamed on ESPN3? I used to have Playstation Vue last year but when i looked back it doesnt have ABC, I cant remember if the way around that was watching it on ESPN3. 

Joined: 08/12/2009

MGoPoints: 5829

SeattleWolverine

August 10th, 2017 at 8:20 PM ^

I watch all of the ABC stuff just on the network itself but I guess that's not possible if you live really far out and can't get a digital TV signal. 

 

My recollection is that all of the ABC broadcasts are available on ESPN3 with the exception of blackouts, which presumably would not be an issue. But it could be different this year. 

 

 

 

Joined: 11/07/2012

MGoPoints: 4047

UM Fan from Sydney

August 10th, 2017 at 8:02 PM ^

College football fans better hope ESPN doesn't go anywhere. They cover the sport better than any other network.

Joined: 09/17/2015

MGoPoints: 58076

LSAClassOf2000

August 10th, 2017 at 8:06 PM ^

I am in the same boat as others - sports is the only thing that keeps me paying for Xfinity cable at this point, and even at that, the sports channels that are available elsewhere through other means are quickly beginning erode even that justification. If sports became totally unbundled, I would be on the phone within the hour basically. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130669

StephenRKass

August 10th, 2017 at 8:15 PM ^

I got married in 1990. If cable ONLY cost $100 a month, that's $32k plus saved in that time frame. The reality is that it is probably more like $50k saved, especially since the only reason to have cable TV is sports. I don't know what the future looks like, but it doesn't look like cable TV.

Joined: 07/15/2008

MGoPoints: 23107

UMxWolverines

August 10th, 2017 at 8:21 PM ^

TV is leveling out due to consumers. The episodes on cable TV got shorter and shorter while they shoved more commercials down our throats. Then they decided to up the bill every year, and poof people finally had enough when something else came along. Cable companies have two choices--shrink back down or die.

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65473

Yeoman

August 11th, 2017 at 1:01 AM ^

...BBC America is using 80-minute timeslots to air uncut original Trek episodes that fit into a 60-minute network slot 50 years ago.

Here's a missive from that other world:

LIMITS ON DURATION AND FREQUENCY OF TV COMMERCIALS ARE DROPPED

8 1/2 minutes per hour. No expectation that eliminating the restrictions would mean any increase in advertising time. But maybe, just maybe, some "small stations" might start accepting ads for liquor or condoms.

From this distance it's hard to tell, or remember, if this was naivete or cynicism.

Joined: 06/08/2011

MGoPoints: 21390

andidklein

August 10th, 2017 at 8:32 PM ^

to migrate back to over the air broadcast. The Mouse took a big gamble putting all their bowl games on ESPN, and it failed. It's bullshit that the Rose Bowl isn't on ABC, or any of the other NY6 games. It's their own arrogance that will cause their demise.

Joined: 11/18/2015

MGoPoints: 10599

KennyHiggins

August 10th, 2017 at 8:52 PM ^

calling for ESPN's demise.  It's absurd - we've never had it better - yep, you get to choose which Michigan football, basketball, hockey etc games you want to watch.  I'm guessing the stream-only crown is the same that wants everything on the menu at their favorite restaurants eliminated except for kale salad and tofu, because that's all they have ordered for the last 2 years.  Have a burger and fries and enjoy yourself.  

Joined: 12/03/2016

MGoPoints: 12497

BernardC

August 10th, 2017 at 9:45 PM ^

About 12 years ago I worked at Comcast in Ft. Wayne, In. At that point basic digital was @ $55/Mo. Of that basic digital (maybe 50 real channels and another 50 music channels if I remember correctly), ESPN had 4 or 5. I think there was ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPNU, ESPN Deportes had just come online and maybe one more. Anyhow, we were told that we paid @ $17/month back to ESPN for every subscriber we had on that package. So if Mildred down the street who only watched HGTV and locals had that basic digital, 25-30% of her payment each month went to ESPN even though she probably didn't know the difference between a QB and a Left Fielder. That's how F'in expense and how much power ESPN had. We also asked about ala carte offerings because we got asked all the time. We were told if every channel went ala carte then fringe channels like Oprah's network would go out of business because they only got like .50 per subscriber.

Joined: 03/17/2010

MGoPoints: 2539