Will there be a day when I can just order ESPN? (1 Viewer)

[Joe T]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

I thought the cable companies only paid ESPN like $10-12 per month per subscriber. <----------- not sure if that number is correct, but how did you come up with the 80-90 buck figure?

Because what you want and the model they have in place now are two totally different things. ESPN for 10 bucks a month now props up ESPN2, U, News and likely some Disney channels. Are you also going to pay for those other Disney-owned channels as well? Will all 75-million? Otherwise your model fails.

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

 

[culdeus]

Look, there is one group of people getting bent over by ESPN and it isn't sports fans. It's the Honey Boo Boo watchers.

Be careful what you wish for fellas.

 

[CBusAlex]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

 

[Politician Spock]

Maybe. And when that day comes, your internet access will cost you $300 a month.

Not sure about this, but paying for ESPN only would cost likely 80-90 bucks a month.

So no you'll never ever ever be able to just order ESPN for 6 bucks a month.

I thought the cable companies only paid ESPN like $10-12 per month per subscriber. <----------- not sure if that number is correct, but how did you come up with the 80-90 buck figure?

Because if only those who actually watch ESPN were the only paying customers of ESPN, they'd have to pay a lot more a month for ESPN.

Not sure if the math above is right, but today ESPN is collecting money from people who don't watch ESPN because part of the contract ESPN negotiated with cable/satellite companies says ESPN gets paid for EVERY subscriber.

So ESPN can't sell through the (A) cable companies AND separately to someone like me through something like (B) WatchESPN for $20 per month?

Your scenario is A or B only and excludes A and B. I suggest that one day ESPN with be both in cable packages and available to individual subscribers which is no where near what you are suggesting above.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN made a live streaming channel avialable to non-cable/satallite customers, and $20 would be a good price for it.

If however, all current ESPN content available on cable/satellite today was made available via streaming, it would create a huge disruption to the cable/satellite industry. ESPN is cable/satellite's most popular content. It would be like cutting open the jugular. We could all speculate how it would unfold, but there would be a ton of evasive action going on, so it's hard to predict where it all would land.

If however there existed a world where only ESPN viewers paid for all the content ESPN provides today, they would pay significantly more for it in that world than their viewers do in this world.

 

[Joe T]

Netflix has 50M subscribers paying $8 a month at a grand total of $4.8B per year. The question is how many subscribers would ESPN have and at what dollar amount? My guess is 50M subscribers and $8 per month would be a low estimate for ESPN, but I could be wrong.

 

[Joe T]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

 

[GoFishTN]

This article says ESPN has 100 million subscribers and the average price per person is $5.06. If we assume that is correct, and that other reports stating ESPN has around 75 million viewers are also correct, the cost would be about $7 to maintain that same revenue level, if all 75 million subscribed.

That's just for ESPN. How much for ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPNClassic, ESPNDeportes, ESPN360, ESPNKids, ESPNLite, ESPNOcho, and ESPNOMGWTFBBQ?

If ESPN packaged all these channels together, they'd need to maintain the revenue level for all of them. If they sold them separately, they'd need to raise the price on ESPN and ESPN2 to make up for the lost revenue on the less popular ones.

I would say that figure probably includes ESPN2. Not sure about the rest.

 

[Deepster]

Can't you just download the free Watch ESPN app and stream it through Google Chromecast?

 

[pollardsvision]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

 

[culdeus]

Can't you just download the free Watch ESPN app and stream it through Google Chromecast?

And watch college volleyball. Have fun.

 

[culdeus]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

bingo

 

[Joe T]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

bingo

Maybe. But my guess is the sports market is better with aggregation (not the cable companies, but a sports network). People don't want individual networks - at least that is what the Longhorn Network and their 6 subscribers told me.

 

[Josie Maran]

Can't you just download the free Watch ESPN app and stream it through Google Chromecast?

And watch college volleyball. Have fun.

 

[culdeus]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

bingo

Maybe. But my guess is the sports market is better with aggregation (not the cable companies, but a sports network). People don't want individual networks - at least that is what the Longhorn Network and their 6 subscribers told me.

The longhorn network is a great test case.

Here's a channel which has a national audience in the hundreds. And ESPN wanted to charge the nation initially $1 per sub to recoup $300MM in rights fees.

Ultimately they agreed to, if reports are correct, to put it on for free as "Part of a wider agreement" for Dish/UVerse and others.

There is just no demand for parting up cable like this. Especially sports.

 

[Premier]

Well the LHN also doesn't have any games people care about. Nobody is shelling out money to watch them play BYU annually.

Would be different if they had the rights to all 12 games.

 

[Brady Marino]

Can't you just download the free Watch ESPN app and stream it through Google Chromecast?

Need to have a cable TV subscription. Same with NBC Sports Network.

 

[Politician Spock]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

bingo

Maybe. But my guess is the sports market is better with aggregation (not the cable companies, but a sports network). People don't want individual networks - at least that is what the Longhorn Network and their 6 subscribers told me.

The longhorn network is a great test case.

Here's a channel which has a national audience in the hundreds. And ESPN wanted to charge the nation initially $1 per sub to recoup $300MM in rights fees.

Ultimately they agreed to, if reports are correct, to put it on for free as "Part of a wider agreement" for Dish/UVerse and others.

There is just no demand for parting up cable like this. Especially sports.

Not yet....

...but the future isn't just about sports. It's about all video content.

As people begin to see Netflix deliver its own shows (House of Cards, Orange is the New Black), and Amazon deliver its own shows (Alpha House, Betas) then people will begin to see streaming companies as content providers, no different than NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN, Foot Network, HGTV, Travel Channel, AMC, etc, etc... except that they aren't available on cable/satellite. In fact, if you are the executive of a cable channel or broadcast network and aren't already adopting to the future of streaming your content yourself, instead of handing it out to Netflix/Amazon to stream it for you, then you aren't very far off from being outbid on Hollywood's next latest and greatest TV show by the very company streaming your current content for you.

And thus, streaming sports companies like MLB.TV, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, etc, etc... are to ESPN, Fox Sports, et al.... as Netflix/Amazon are to NBC, ABC, CBS, et al....

And if you are the a major NCAA conference, you have to keep your eye on how all of this unfolds. Because the SEC isn't all that different of an organization than the NFL is, except that their talent is free (for now).

I wish I had crystal balls and knew how all this will unfold. Could make a killing on the stock market with it.

 

[culdeus]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

bingo

Maybe. But my guess is the sports market is better with aggregation (not the cable companies, but a sports network). People don't want individual networks - at least that is what the Longhorn Network and their 6 subscribers told me.

The longhorn network is a great test case.

Here's a channel which has a national audience in the hundreds. And ESPN wanted to charge the nation initially $1 per sub to recoup $300MM in rights fees.

Ultimately they agreed to, if reports are correct, to put it on for free as "Part of a wider agreement" for Dish/UVerse and others.

There is just no demand for parting up cable like this. Especially sports.

Not yet....

...but the future isn't just about sports. It's about all video content.

As people begin to see Netflix deliver its own shows (House of Cards, Orange is the New Black), and Amazon deliver its own shows (Alpha House, Betas) then people will begin to see streaming companies as content providers, no different than NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN, Foot Network, HGTV, Travel Channel, AMC, etc, etc... except that they aren't available on cable/satellite. In fact, if you are the executive of a cable channel or broadcast network and aren't already adopting to the future of streaming your content yourself, instead of handing it out to Netflix/Amazon to stream it for you, then you aren't very far off from being outbid on Hollywood's next latest and greatest TV show by the very company streaming your current content for you.

And thus, streaming sports companies like MLB.TV, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, etc, etc... are to ESPN, Fox Sports, et al.... as Netflix/Amazon are to NBC, ABC, CBS, et al....

And if you are the a major NCAA conference, you have to keep your eye on how all of this unfolds. Because the SEC isn't all that different of an organization than the NFL is, except that their talent is free (for now).

I wish I had crystal balls and knew how all this will unfold. Could make a killing on the stock market with it.

Nobody is going to make a killing.

Just look at musicians and record companies now compared to where they were 20 years ago. That's where this is heading.

 

[Politician Spock]

Thanks for at least understanding the model.

I'm suggesting there is a market for cable subscribers that continue to pay for ESPN now through some sort of package. Then ESPN can actually broaden their market by adding a package for someone like me (and presumably others) who do not want cable, but are willing to pay more for ESPN directly at say $20 per month.

So ESPN still continues to get billion dollar checks from the cable companies and opens up a wider market (actually growing a market that is shrinking) by offering a direct service to customers.

If ESPN offered direct subscriptions, they wouldn't be able to charge the cable companies as much. They would no longer be an essential channel that companies need to have to survive in the cable business if customers could just get access elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is true. The cable companies would be dead without ESPN.

It would hurt, but they've got plenty of leverage themselves. In a stream-only model, ESPN couldn't dream of paying for the NFL/College Football/NBA contracts that make them so necessary.

And if enough people were really ready stream to everything and ditch the cable model, the NFL/NBA and College football conferences would probably rather just sell the games themselves.

ESPN and the cable companies both would like to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

bingo

Maybe. But my guess is the sports market is better with aggregation (not the cable companies, but a sports network). People don't want individual networks - at least that is what the Longhorn Network and their 6 subscribers told me.

The longhorn network is a great test case.

Here's a channel which has a national audience in the hundreds. And ESPN wanted to charge the nation initially $1 per sub to recoup $300MM in rights fees.

Ultimately they agreed to, if reports are correct, to put it on for free as "Part of a wider agreement" for Dish/UVerse and others.

There is just no demand for parting up cable like this. Especially sports.

Not yet....

...but the future isn't just about sports. It's about all video content.

As people begin to see Netflix deliver its own shows (House of Cards, Orange is the New Black), and Amazon deliver its own shows (Alpha House, Betas) then people will begin to see streaming companies as content providers, no different than NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN, Foot Network, HGTV, Travel Channel, AMC, etc, etc... except that they aren't available on cable/satellite. In fact, if you are the executive of a cable channel or broadcast network and aren't already adopting to the future of streaming your content yourself, instead of handing it out to Netflix/Amazon to stream it for you, then you aren't very far off from being outbid on Hollywood's next latest and greatest TV show by the very company streaming your current content for you.

And thus, streaming sports companies like MLB.TV, NBA League Pass, NHL Center Ice, etc, etc... are to ESPN, Fox Sports, et al.... as Netflix/Amazon are to NBC, ABC, CBS, et al....

And if you are the a major NCAA conference, you have to keep your eye on how all of this unfolds. Because the SEC isn't all that different of an organization than the NFL is, except that their talent is free (for now).

I wish I had crystal balls and knew how all this will unfold. Could make a killing on the stock market with it.

Nobody is going to make a killing.

Just look at musicians and record companies now compared to where they were 20 years ago. That's where this is heading.

Lots of money to be made shorting the losers.