The problem is that advertises are not going to be willing to pay near as much as they are for a dying industry. At some point, that bubble will burst as well.
ESPN -- "Dead Channel Walking"
- Thread starter EatemupISU
- Start date
The problem is that advertises are not going to be willing to pay near as much as they are for a dying industry. At some point, that bubble will burst as well.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,014
- 34,525
- 113
You're correct, but not all of their additional channels are. I guess I assumed that would hit ESPN harder than other channels.
Not to mention, TBS has the ability to go OTT for their non-sports programing, while ESPN doesn't.
I got rid of my subscription awhile ago. I was so tired of the agendas, the blatant SEC/ACC bias, being force-fed Tebow and Manziel and the NFL.
Their content has gone so far downhill. They run stuff now like ranking columns to questions nobody was asking. Who are the top 10 small forwards under 30? Is LeBron better than Kobe? Who is the better center, Anthony Davis or Hakeem Olajuwon?
A lot of the cable and satellite companies are now offering packages with some of the better non sports channels (TBS/FX/AMC/Etc). Some of it is migration to these packages.
I'm curious to see to see what Q1 looks like next year. If they lost 1 million subs in Oct/Nov, what's going to happen when football season is over?
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,014
- 34,525
- 113
yeah, I just re-upped with Direct TV a few weeks ago, and I could swear they offered me a non-sports package that didn't include ESPN. I didn't pay much attention to it, because I do watch live sports, so I'm not sure what all the details were, but I am almost sure they said it had no ESPN.
I wonder what impact this has on the Big Ten Network payouts? I'm assuming there were assumptions made about subscription growth that might end up not being accurate.
It'd be great if, when all is said and done, the Rutgers addition ends up actually costing them money.
It'd be great if, when all is said and done, the Rutgers addition ends up actually costing them money.
ESPN is paying the biggest price for the cable companies using their customers to subsidize the NFL, MLB, and NBA Networks. Non sports fans are either selecting a non sports package or they are cutting the cord. As soon as my contract is up, I'm done with Direct TV. There are plenty of other options out there until the cable companies figure out that they need to offer an a la carte service.
The Big 12 was "proactive" in the sense that they didn't cave in to Boren's demands to make a cable network and add teams that bring no value. I guess take your victories where they come.
Sidetrack...speaking of Boren, he exhausted a huge amount of political capital to get his education funding tax initiative passed in OK. The measure was leading up until a few weeks before the election, but the tide changed and the initiative was soundly defeated. I was visiting the inlaws in OK over Thanksgiving, and it seems that OU supporters are starting to sour on Boren and his political motives.
Don't let B1G fans fool you, their network isn't immune to what is happening to the mothership. If the value of ESPN is tumbling then their will be a domino effect. Rutgers will end up being the addition they wish they never made because Bowlsby already over estimated the RU/NYC value, just think what will happen if the B1G Network goes to a subscription base only package.
If I'm honest I really think that this is beneficial for schools like Iowa State. We don't have the big metropolitan areas to dictate the tv discussion but we do have a large passionate fan base. I honestly think ESPNs biggest issue is their decision to cover the more popular things all the time. Even in the past few years it is really gone downhill. I never watch it anymore except for live sports. A couple years ago you could find select college programs. That isn't there anymore.
I tweeted this to Clay asking the same question. Because I assume networks aren't making as much per subscriber with Sling and PS Vue (maybe I'm wrong?).
People are still watching live sports in record numbers - they are just consuming it differently.
Sounds like a great time to add a program like Rutgers with virtually no hard core fans who will pay for direct content.
We'd go from bottom 10% to close to top third if this thing switches from "new cable market" to fans who will directly pay a premium for content. Our overall attendance across all sports has to be in the top 25 doesn't it?
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,014
- 34,525
- 113
To me, it's been their recent propensity to create news, rather than just report it. Whether it be non-stop Tim Tebow, Manziel Mania, or even something like this whole "kneeling for the anthem" crap, ESPN makes sure that their "pundits" give as hot of a take as possible, so as to insert themselves into the story. Or, the example from a few years ago, where ESPN's own Ron Jaworski made comments about Colin Kaepernick being a top 10 All Time quarterback. (How silly that sounds now) Basically, the entire network seized upon it and it became one of the lead stories of the day, prompting interviews, reactions, and alternate takes from their entire cadre of "experts." Completely manufactured news. People get tired of that crap, or at least some of them do.
Shows like First Take are another issue. I understand why people might watch them initially. Conflict is a big draw, but after a while, you notice that that's all they have; conflict for conflict's sake with very little substance other than that. It becomes almost insulting to the viewers intelligence.
