ESPN: Heading into November ...

[HurdyGurdyEer]

ESPN is set to lose 621,000 subscribers.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...cribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

Consider these statements:

These 621,000 lost subscribers in the past month alone lead to a drop in revenue of over $52 million and continue the alarming subscriber decline at ESPN. Couple these subscriber declines with a 24% drop in Monday Night Football ratings this fall, the crown jewel of ESPN programming, and it's fair to call October of 2016 the worst month in ESPN's history.

Concerning the trend of losing subscribers: It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.

Anyone still want to argue that ESPN has not actively been looking into how to generate new income streams? Anyone still want to argue that if it could, that ESPN wouldn't try to facilitate a new/different conference out of the Big 12 in a few years built on a model of income from streaming games for pay?

Not saying it will happen .... but the talk from about a month ago about ESPN exploring such things makes perfect sense.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

ESPN is set to lose 621,000 subscribers.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...cribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

Consider these statements:

These 621,000 lost subscribers in the past month alone lead to a drop in revenue of over $52 million and continue the alarming subscriber decline at ESPN. Couple these subscriber declines with a 24% drop in Monday Night Football ratings this fall, the crown jewel of ESPN programming, and it's fair to call October of 2016 the worst month in ESPN's history.

Concerning the trend of losing subscribers: It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.

Anyone still want to argue that ESPN has not actively been looking into how to generate new income streams? Anyone still want to argue that if it could, that ESPN wouldn't try to facilitate a new/different conference out of the Big 12 in a few years built on a model of income from streaming games for pay?

Not saying it will happen .... but the talk from about a month ago about ESPN exploring such things makes perfect sense.

The other problem is the dramatic decline in new customers. You have people cutting the cord, but then you have younger people, say 20-25 who will never sign up for cable and become customers.

Over the summer I was talking to some of my wife's younger cousins, who are in college or graduated in the last 4-5 years. None of them have cable or satellite.

There's definitely a change coming.

 

[HugoStiglitz]

What did they expect to happen when they shove this liberal agenda down their viewers throats? The cherry on top was giving bruce jenner a heros award for dressing in drag. I refuse to watch espn unless our games on.

 

[Orlaco]

Every single cable network is impacted by cord-cutters.

People still want to see the content though. It's easily stolen online...and that's a huge problem. It'll eventually be figured out but there's no denying that the days of forcing customers to pay for channels they don't want is close to it's final days. ....so the ESPN's of the world will have less income so payouts to conferences will become lower.

....same for the Big10/SEC Networks.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I think the NFL has an ESPN problem.

They've turned all the discussion about the sport into political conversations, and doubled-downed on annoying yellers....Bayless, Smith, ect.

Instead of football being enjoyable, and fun, they've turned into a stressful experience.

 

[bEER_Nation13]

Reasons why I hate ESPN.

1) They barely to never cover the NHL

2) They seem to now care more about politics than sports. If I want to read or watch politics, I'll go to CNN, Fox News, etc. Even their home page has numerous political articles.

Darth also brought up a great point about their screaming idiots who scream idiotic and controversial stuff. Skip Bayless left ESPN but he wasn't the only screaming idiot on ESPN. Guys who rarely provide factual statements, just guys who shout their opinions and consider them as facts.

 

[CAJUNEER]

The other problem is the dramatic decline in new customers. You have people cutting the cord, but then you have younger people, say 20-25 who will never sign up for cable and become customers.

Over the summer I was talking to some of my wife's younger cousins, who are in college or graduated in the last 4-5 years. None of them have cable or satellite.

There's definitely a change coming.

A much lower percentage are interested in sports than in previous generations. Sports in general are declining.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Reasons why I hate ESPN.

1) They barely to never cover the NHL

2) They seem to now care more about politics than sports. If I want to read or watch politics, I'll go to CNN, Fox News, etc. Even their home page has numerous political articles.

Darth also brought up a great point about their screaming idiots who scream idiotic and controversial stuff. Skip Bayless left ESPN but he wasn't the only screaming idiot on ESPN. Guys who rarely provide factual statements, just guys who shout their opinions and consider them as facts.

That's it. If I want political debate, there are places I can go for that...Cable news, facebook, ect.

I don't want it in my sports.

Politic talk is everywhere, I don't need it in sports. I use sports to avoid that crap.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

A much lower percentage are interested in sports than in previous generations. Sports in general are declining.

Probably right. More viewing options too. I'd rather watch mindless crap like Ancient Aliens and Finding Bigfoot than listen to Stephen Smith yell and spit.

 

[coalcountry52]

ESPN is set to lose 621,000 subscribers.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...cribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

Consider these statements:

These 621,000 lost subscribers in the past month alone lead to a drop in revenue of over $52 million and continue the alarming subscriber decline at ESPN. Couple these subscriber declines with a 24% drop in Monday Night Football ratings this fall, the crown jewel of ESPN programming, and it's fair to call October of 2016 the worst month in ESPN's history.

Concerning the trend of losing subscribers: It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.

Anyone still want to argue that ESPN has not actively been looking into how to generate new income streams? Anyone still want to argue that if it could, that ESPN wouldn't try to facilitate a new/different conference out of the Big 12 in a few years built on a model of income from streaming games for pay?

Not saying it will happen .... but the talk from about a month ago about ESPN exploring such things makes perfect sense.

Watch ESPN for 5 minutes and you'll see why they're losing subscribers. Half the shit they show barely has anything to do with sports anymore. They're more focused on what athletes tweeted than what they did in a game. They honestly deserve to fold for doing the same shit that History, TLC, Weather Channel, and others have done - focus more on money than their original intent.

 

[atlksnwvu]

All that is really happening is that people are dropping the large packages & buying what they want to watch. This will continue. Most people that live in large cities don't love sports the way we do & will not pay for it

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

What did they expect to happen when they shove this liberal agenda down their viewers throats? The cherry on top was giving bruce jenner a heros award for dressing in drag. I refuse to watch espn unless our games on.

I understand what you are saying. But it's not ESPN alone who is losing money. It's just that they are losing a lot of revenue and if the trend continues they will not be able to pay for the programming they have contracted to pay for.

 

[torontoeers]

Watch ESPN for 5 minutes and you'll see why they're losing subscribers. Half the shit they show barely has anything to do with sports anymore. They're more focused on what athletes tweeted than what they did in a game. They honestly deserve to fold for doing the same shit that History, TLC, Weather Channel, and others have done - focus more on money than their original intent.

Excellent analogy with those once fantastic and now completely useless channels....TLC...not interested in the 'learning' that happens there one lick...

 

[torontoeers]

All that is really happening is that people are dropping the large packages & buying what they want to watch. This will continue. Most people that live in large cities don't love sports the way we do & will not pay for it

Agreed more people are buying what they want or just simply not buying...but as for the big city and sports fans....don't quite follow you there....

 

[xWVU2010x]

Their programming or website has nothing to do with people tuning out.

From its inception to up until probably the late 2000s they had a monopoly on sports programming. There was nothing special or proprietary about the way ESPN did things other than they were the first to capitalize on sports broadcasting. Now given today's landscape, Fox/NBC/NFLN/MLBN/NBAN/NHLN/the conference networks have all opened up ways to do what made ESPN important to viewers. On top of this you have deadspin/TMZ/bleacher report/twitter all out there as outlets able to break sports tabloid news. Finally the lone bargaining chip they had left which made them necessary, live content, has been compromised over the past few years.

Their days are numbered, they will be scaling back very soon even more so than they already have.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

The reality is that more people live in and near urban areas. And in those areas you can get 20-30-40-50+ High Definition TV channels with an antenna.

Check out this website and plug in an urban, or suburban, address or zip code and see how many channels you can get in a certain area.
https://www.antennaweb.org

I plugged in 15215, a Pittsburgh zip code not far from the Zoo and that website says that up to 43 channels are available there.

People are tired of paying big cables bills (from which, if you read the article, ESPN gets $7.00 from every subscriber). People are cutting their cable, hooking up an antenna, streaming other content, and, as it has already been pointed out, more and more people coming of age are simply not getting on cable in the first place.

If the trend continues ESPN will not be able to sustain it's programming in the future.

Think about it .... for every person who watches ESPN (even for just 1 game a week) there has to be more than 1 household in which no one watches ESPN or sports in general. These people are cutting the cord as they can watch TV on their antennas and stream everything else (including channels like HBO) online. AND ESPN no longer gets its $7.00 which it uses to pay college conferences and other entities for the right to broadcast their games.

People have cut their media bills in half, or more, by cutting the cord, and using an internet phone service in their homes if they want something like a traditional landline.

Who knows what the future will hold .... but I guarantee you there was some kind substance to the talk about ESPN exploring a different kind of arrangement with the Big 12 in the future.

Maybe the XII presidents understand that the landscape is changing and that is why they decided to slow things down expansionwise.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Agreed more people are buying what they want or just simply not buying...but as for the big city and sports fans....don't quite follow you there....

Most people who live in cities can watch most of the games of their local NFL team on a local channel via an antenna.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Every single cable network is impacted by cord-cutters.

People still want to see the content though. It's easily stolen online...and that's a huge problem. It'll eventually be figured out but there's no denying that the days of forcing customers to pay for channels they don't want is close to it's final days. ....so the ESPN's of the world will have less income so payouts to conferences will become lower.

....same for the Big10/SEC Networks.

Or certain conferences will be the only ones to have a TV contract. Or certain other programming will disappear as it will no longer be paid for.

It's really hard to know what will happen.

But you know what would be funny ..... ESPN bringing back Australian Rules Football to fill in the emerging holes in their schedule.

Actually ... I do suspect that in the not too distant future (1-2-3 years) .... ESPN will be cutting the cord on some their channels like ESPNnews or ESPNU or ESPN2. You get my drift. When you lose revenue ,,,, you cut costs.

 

[torontoeers]

Most people who live in cities can watch most of the games of their local NFL team on a local channel via an antenna.

Oh for sure Hurdy....but to state 'Most people that live in large cities don't love sports the way we do' in the previous post seems...well...odd...

 

[atlksnwvu]

Agreed more people are buying what they want or just simply not buying...but as for the big city and sports fans....don't quite follow you there....

I live in ATL where 1/4 of the population doesn't speak English & where many women could care less about sports. When you add it up ESPN gets paid on7 million cable subscribers today when in reality maybe 4million actually watch ESPN & college sports

 

[torontoeers]

I live in ATL where 1/4 of the population doesn't speak English & where many women could care less about sports. When you add it up ESPN gets paid on7 million cable subscribers today when in reality maybe 4million actually watch ESPN & college sports

Oh i'd certainly agree re: the college sports...Toronto seems rather similar to Atlanta in that case with the English speaking...you could literally spend your entire life in some neighborhood's here and never have the need to know English. I am actually about an hour and half north of town in lake country, but work in the city every day....Pro sport is king here, although i myself enjoy the 'amateur' sport much more... Atlanta has always seemed a bit of a fickle market to me, win or else (which I don't necessarily disagree or agree with), perhaps I am wrong ...you would know better than I there.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Oh i'd certainly agree re: the college sports...Toronto seems rather similar to Atlanta in that case with the English speaking...you could literally spend your entire life in some neighborhood's here and never have the need to know English. I am actually about an hour and half north of town in lake country, but work in the city every day....Pro sport is king here, although i myself enjoy the 'amateur' sport much more... Atlanta has always seemed a bit of a fickle market to me, win or else (which I don't necessarily disagree or agree with), perhaps I am wrong ...you would know better than I there.

What? I thought that you worked on a pickle farm!

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I understand what you are saying. But it's not ESPN alone who is losing money. It's just that they are losing a lot of revenue and if the trend continues they will not be able to pay for the programming they have contracted to pay for.

No, but I assume they have the most to lose. What other channels carry the long term liabilities and obligations ESPN does?

Other cable channels are subsidized by ESPN, so everyone's fate is tied. I do think ESPN is partially responsible for the declining NFL ratings. They've really made that league difficult to enjoy.

Right now I don't care for ESPN, but I don't have any grudge against them, or any cable channel. I do personally dislike cable companies and hope they take this on the chin.

 

[MacMountie]

What did they expect to happen when they shove this liberal agenda down their viewers throats? The cherry on top was giving bruce jenner a heros award for dressing in drag. I refuse to watch espn unless our games on.

It's less about ESPN trying to shove an agenda but more about the changing dynamic of how people access their information

 

[Pitt4Life34]

ESPN is set to lose 621,000 subscribers.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...cribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

Consider these statements:

These 621,000 lost subscribers in the past month alone lead to a drop in revenue of over $52 million and continue the alarming subscriber decline at ESPN. Couple these subscriber declines with a 24% drop in Monday Night Football ratings this fall, the crown jewel of ESPN programming, and it's fair to call October of 2016 the worst month in ESPN's history.

Concerning the trend of losing subscribers: It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.

Anyone still want to argue that ESPN has not actively been looking into how to generate new income streams? Anyone still want to argue that if it could, that ESPN wouldn't try to facilitate a new/different conference out of the Big 12 in a few years built on a model of income from streaming games for pay?

Not saying it will happen .... but the talk from about a month ago about ESPN exploring such things makes perfect sense.

Sure I'll argue with you. Your post assumes ESPN is looking at parenting and managing a new conference. I can see where this would help schools like the WVUs and ISUs of the Big 12 but how would propping up WVU help ESPN add subscribers or inventory revenue. Here's my main argument that is supported by TV footprint and subscriber data. No one outside of some prideful Big 12 alums and low level marketplaces in irrelavent states(outside of Texas) give a damn about Big 12 territory. You may want to ask Buckhead what he thinks. He's never correct about anything but he loves to post releases and act like he knows what's going on within Big12 leadership. Nice talking with you.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

Watch ESPN for 5 minutes and you'll see why they're losing subscribers. Half the shit they show barely has anything to do with sports anymore. They're more focused on what athletes tweeted than what they did in a game. They honestly deserve to fold for doing the same shit that History, TLC, Weather Channel, and others have done - focus more on money than their original intent.

I only watch ESPN for live games - I don't care what else they televise. Live college football and basketball. Zero Pro Basketball, Zero Pro Baseball, Zero Hockey, Very seldom NFL. Live football and basketball for college only.

 

[WVU_98]

Actually ... I do suspect that in the not too distant future (1-2-3 years) .... ESPN will be cutting the cord on some their channels like ESPNnews or ESPNU or ESPN2. You get my drift. When you lose revenue ,,,, you cut costs.

It's already a fact that ESPNU is going away.
Also, people are cutting cords...however, people are coming back to cable or IP tv. They are realizing that when they pay for broadband, HBO Go, every other channel they want to watch that they are paying more then what they were bring charged to begin with.

You need high speed broadband to stream. Guess what is more profitable for companies, yep...broadband.

ESPN will make money until companies drop them. Guess what, companies don't drop them for obvious reasons.

 

[WVUFanForever]

Never mind the outrageous amount of money ESPN paid for the NBA... 1.47 Billion per year?

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

It's already a fact that ESPNU is going away.
Also, people are cutting cords...however, people are coming back to cable or IP tv. They are realizing that when they pay for broadband, HBO Go, every other channel they want to watch that they are paying more then what they were bring charged to begin with.

You need high speed broadband to stream. Guess what is more profitable for companies, yep...broadband.

ESPN will make money until companies drop them. Guess what, companies don't drop them for obvious reasons.

1) I just did a search and I can find no evidence of the "fact" that ESPNU is going away. Unless you can produce the evidence you are imagining something.

2) I think that your description of people "coming back" to "cable or IP tv" conflates the issue. People are leaving traditional cable and some are turning to IP tv (which is streaming). But the net effect is that ESPN has been losing subscribers and now it has lost more than ever.

3) If the trend continues for ESPN they are headed for big financial trouble

FURTHER: My whole point in starting this thread was to point to the plausibility of the report a month or so ago that ESPN was exploring the possibility of a reconfigured Big XII that would produce an income stream from subscribers paying for an online XII broadcast package. The article I have linked in this thread only underscores that it is indeed very plausible that ESPN has/is exploring such options.

And Lastly: Despite the few that may actually pay more after cutting their cable, most people have saved a lot of money by cutting their cable. You can produce a model in which someone signs up for EVERY streaming service out there and the cost comes to more than their cable bill. But most people don't do that.

You are long on conjecture and short on facts.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

It's already a fact that ESPNU is going away.
Also, people are cutting cords...however, people are coming back to cable or IP tv. They are realizing that when they pay for broadband, HBO Go, every other channel they want to watch that they are paying more then what they were bring charged to begin with.

You need high speed broadband to stream. Guess what is more profitable for companies, yep...broadband.

ESPN will make money until companies drop them. Guess what, companies don't drop them for obvious reasons.

5G is on its way. Everything will be on a stream.

 

[WVURobinHood]

Espn jumped the shark when they had Stan Everett interviewing Obama town hall like about black men in sports.

They took a very left stance long ago and really forgot or didn't care about their audience.

For myself, I watch sports and sports center to escape the other shit in the world. I don't want social issues or PC bullshit in my daily dose. ABC bought espn and its been down hill from there.

Don't even get me started about Bob Costas and NBC.

No, I'm not a republican either, I'm a democrat.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

Espn jumped the shark when they had Stan Everett interviewing Obama town hall like about black men in sports.

They took a very left stance long ago and really forgot or didn't care about their audience.

For myself, I watch sports and sports center to escape the other shit in the world. I don't want social issues or PC bullshit in my daily dose. ABC bought espn and its been down hill from there.

Don't even get me started about Bob Costas and NBC.

No, I'm not a republican either, I'm a democrat.

Exactly. I don't want them to be left or right. I understand politics and social issues are occasionally part of sports, but they've turned the channel into political cable news...there are plenty of options for that already.

 

[VaultHunter]

ESPN used to be the only place you could get your sports news. The newspaper would provide some news about your local teams also. Now I can click a link and not have to listen to some bobblehead with a "big personally" and a nickname put a fresh spin on it. The availability of getting stuff on a phone or tablet is killing ESPN. If WVU isn't on ESPN I don't watch it.

Sometimes, sometimes I watch Around the Horn and PTI because I do enjoy those shows.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I have Dish Network out here in the mountains, no cable. DN just came out with this Skinny Bundle package where the sports package is totally separate from all the other pacakges, which used to be one bundle.

Now if you're not a sports fan you don't have to get ESPN, NBC, CBS or Fox Sports channels at all. Subscribers for all sports channels will continue to drop.

 

[Darth_VadEER]

I have Dish Network out here in the mountains, no cable. DN just came out with this Skinny Bundle package where the sports package is totally separate from all the other pacakges, which used to be one bundle.

Now if you're not a sports fan you don't have to get ESPN, NBC, CBS or Fox Sports channels at all. Subscribers for all sports channels will continue to drop.

That will be a major driver in their decline. Bundle options that do not include sports.

My mother cut the cord last year, but wants local channels. Her provider is offering a basic package without sports for minimal cost....she might do it.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Darth and ExPat get it. The future will be all about options. And a whole lot of people won't pay for the sports option.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

And... because those sports bundles also include the Big Ten Network, the SEC Network, The Longhorn Network, the PAC12 Network, etc, the next round of contracts with ESPN or whoever hosts those networks will be less and less $$$.

Not sure what the $$$ in the new ACC Network look like, but if ESPN paid big bucks they are fools. It may be that 3rd tier rights and/or streaming rights are more valuable in the future.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

If you can find which games/programming get the lowest ratings on ESPN you'll be able to figure out which conferences will first get the shaft.

I foresee a lot of small schools and lesser conferences not getting on TV. No more AAC games or Macneese St and such.

The glut of ESPN made for TV bowl games will begin to shrink.
ESPN is solely responsible for there being 6,000 bowl games.

And ESPNU or such will go away.

There may be less money for big conferences. But I suspect they will be touched less than some of these other entities.

Worst case scenario ..... we go back to the days of WV being on "TV" 2-3 times a season.
But if that happens someone will be streaming the games.

Should be interesting.

 

[COOL MAN]

I only watch ESPN for live games - I don't care what else they televise. Live college football and basketball. Zero Pro Basketball, Zero Pro Baseball, Zero Hockey, Very seldom NFL. Live football and basketball for college only.

In other words, you have no use for ESPN......that is, until such time as you, well, have a use for what they're programming.

The point I'm trying to make; I don't understand why you (or anyone else) makes what appears to be a dismissive post about a cable channel for which you absolutely have a purpose to view. And the WWL knows live sports remains the most compelling aspect of what they provide their viewers.

For that reason, they'll keep upping their bids.....to the extent it's financially possible.....to provide their viewers exclusive live programming, as its the only programming which has never (and probably never will) gain traction with time shifters.

For the record, I myself don't use ESPN for much beyond live game action anymore, either; if my life depended on it, I couldn't tell you the last time I watched Sportscenter. And that's because I don't need it; like everyone else, I get every score I desire.....as well as stats and virtually every recorded highlight......online and on demand.

Said another way, I'm not sure who really needs Sportscenter (or much else on the WWL) anymore.....

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

For the record, I myself don't use ESPN for much beyond live game action

Exactly, I would wager most people don't unless there is a compelling reason to watch. And this is why the Steven A. Smiths of the world exist. Other than tennis and the Cubs (or another MLB game), what other sport is on in the middle of a weekday? So you've got to have a chief pot-stirrer who you can count on saying something absolutely stupid once in a while to draw people in to see what the dumb-ass will say next.