How "cord cutting" could be disastrous for sports fans
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
1- At $20/mo they wouldn't cover the complete difference. Around $30/month would do it. I'll bet they could find a way to make the numbers work somewhere in between.
2- No contract is forever, and no contract is unbreakable. Just ask Fred Hoiberg.
Actually, the article pointed out how ESPN goes 1.25 billion in the hole on sports rights alone, from only 30% cord cutters. Not 100%.
And it doesn't matter, the second ESPN offers WatchESPN for 20 bucks, cable/satellite can dump them from basic and put them on their own ESPN package, which would be the same effect. Their cable/sat deal contractually falls apart if ESPN offers anything like that.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,578
- 33,374
- 113
but if more people are cutting the cord and using ESPN's streaming service, that lessens ESPN's bargaining power with the cable companies, and those subscription fees come down, which causes them to have to find the money in other places. The two options there are charging more for the subscription service, or paying out less for broadcast rights to different leagues. Each one angers their customers which keeps the cycle going.
Sports is really the only reason to have cable (and I still wouldn't). If people who don't watch sports just spent money on Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime (and Amazon episodes the day after) they could save a ton of money and still get great shows. If you like shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men, you can subscribe to them on Amazon, get them the next day for $1.67 each. It adds up if you have a ton of shows you watch, but if not, it's way more economical.
Plus, if you have a university connection, you can get a lot of free ESPN3 stuff too. Cable is not worth it for most people.
When my bill came and it was $170 for cable and internet and I realized that we watch local channels, some sports and occasionally HGTV or Food Network it made the decision to cancel pretty easy.
Went to Mediacom and the lady set me up with a deal for internet only since Mediacom is the only game in town, dropped my bill over $120. Pull down locals with an antenna, Netflix/Hulu that we already had for all the other content.
The stuff that I do end up missing is no where near important enough to be worth $120/month.
What am I supposed to be worried about as a sports fan? CyclonesTV would surely be more than happy to pick up ISU games if no one is going to show them. I can live with missing out on the other games that don't rate well enough to be picked up by anyone.
Odd to think in an era where sports entertainment is at an all-time high and growing that...
ESPN might be feeling itself on the chopping block.
With ESPN, down goes the TV money to the professional networks and the collegiate conferences.
Everybody is badmouthing the live experience (cold, rainy, crowded, expensive, traffic, etc.) relative to the in-home experience (HD, space, cheaper refreshments, flexibility, etc.) for the TV one... yet, the TV one is feeling a bit of an earthquake under its business model.
This content is going to come to us somehow, though, right? The demand is too high.
ESPN might be feeling itself on the chopping block.
With ESPN, down goes the TV money to the professional networks and the collegiate conferences.
Everybody is badmouthing the live experience (cold, rainy, crowded, expensive, traffic, etc.) relative to the in-home experience (HD, space, cheaper refreshments, flexibility, etc.) for the TV one... yet, the TV one is feeling a bit of an earthquake under its business model.
This content is going to come to us somehow, though, right? The demand is too high.
Of course it's not sustainable. Really, it's mind-blowing that so many allegedly smart people that the current sports TV rights environment would keep trending this way forever.
It's why I've basically stopped worrying about whether or not ISU would theoretically end up in a super-conference some day. It's a fun thought exercise, but I'm pretty sure tthat before any of these leagues actually organized to that point, the comination of ametuerisum lawsuits and a collapse of TV money is going to eliminate any attractiveness that concept had.
It's why I've basically stopped worrying about whether or not ISU would theoretically end up in a super-conference some day. It's a fun thought exercise, but I'm pretty sure tthat before any of these leagues actually organized to that point, the comination of ametuerisum lawsuits and a collapse of TV money is going to eliminate any attractiveness that concept had.
Rise of the broadcast networks - yes please!
http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/07/how-broadcast-tv-networks-could-reclaim-sports/
http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/07/how-broadcast-tv-networks-could-reclaim-sports/
Well, sure, if they're not offering an OTT service at 3x what they get from the cable bundles.
Again, the article is not examining the possibilities. If I quit my job right now, I'd probably be broke. You know, unless I quit to start another job that paid me 3x as much.
This. Disney is pure evil and will have no problem sucking the last Dollar out of the public.
Is cord cutting happening due to the cost of cable (I'm at $170/mo with Internet) or because of pirated content available? Both?
1) $30/month actually doesn't make it up, the article touched on it. It makes up the subscriber fees, but it doesn't account from the humongous drop in ad revenue from audience shrinkage of 70 to 80%.
2. Doesn't make any sense. A clause is a clause, and if you're arguing that they'll just tear up the agreement and make a new one, that's my point.
Once cable/satellite has a way to make more money off ESPN, and have a way to cut basic package sub rates to fight cord cutters yet still increase profits, they're going to do it.
Last edited:
[h=1]Is ESPN A Giant Bubble About To Burst? - Simple answer is Yes.[/h]But don't look at Disney stock right now because that has been on a one way track upwards. I'll even put a date on when this bubble becomes obvious and probably tops. 2017 with the renewal of the BIG X TV contracts.
The writers question is correct as it is ESPN's financing / business model that is in a bubble. This isn't going to hurt consumers of TV services nearly as much as it will hurt the industry. Expect those giant TV contracts and AD departments to be the ones that go through hard times. Ones that are most prepared and not reliant on the huge sums of money (cough Cyclones.TV with great fans). Most game will still get televised as their is huge demand from the fans (remember there are two factors - demand and supply that ultimately determine a free market price) and I don't see the prices of a "stand alone" ESPN sports network with be all that much. Prices are heading towards huge deflation - all due to the internet.
The writers question is correct as it is ESPN's financing / business model that is in a bubble. This isn't going to hurt consumers of TV services nearly as much as it will hurt the industry. Expect those giant TV contracts and AD departments to be the ones that go through hard times. Ones that are most prepared and not reliant on the huge sums of money (cough Cyclones.TV with great fans). Most game will still get televised as their is huge demand from the fans (remember there are two factors - demand and supply that ultimately determine a free market price) and I don't see the prices of a "stand alone" ESPN sports network with be all that much. Prices are heading towards huge deflation - all due to the internet.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,578
- 33,374
- 113
Are we going to make this a Riki Lindhome thread? Because I would be just fine with that.
Precisely...you get this nice, big bundle of channels, but you have to discard 99%+ of what you are paying for because there just physically isn't time in the day to watch/consume it all.
You have a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and you're wearing sunglasses.
Another timely article on this topic
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/as-cord-cutters-grow-espn-reaches-a-crossroads-on-costs.html
Highlights:
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/as-cord-cutters-grow-espn-reaches-a-crossroads-on-costs.html
Highlights:
It’s been reported that ESPN President John Skipper has been ordered by his Disney bosses to slash costs in a big way over the next two years:
ESPN pres John Skipper given a mandate to cut $100M from network's budget next yr & to cut $250M in 2017 via @THR
Darren HeitnerVerified account
