Again, completely stupid post. Nothing I said is shilling for ESPN. What I did is refute inaccurate information. Several posters tried to claim ESPN is losing subscribers because they are too biased or political, and that's simply factually incorrect. Stating the truth isn't shilling.
ESPN "staggering subscriber losses"...
- Thread starter 1duluth1
- Start date
Again, completely stupid post. Nothing I said is shilling for ESPN. What I did is refute inaccurate information. Several posters tried to claim ESPN is losing subscribers because they are too biased or political, and that's simply factually incorrect. Stating the truth isn't shilling.
I was listening to Michael Smerconish radio show on Sirius... and he was talking about his fan experience vs. his children. He said - as a kid (he is 53 now), he would love to get go to a Philadelphia Eagles game. Now? He said neither of his 2 sons even care about sports. Anecdotal, yes. But maybe hard core fans was a product of a different era... when there were less entertainment choices... and the middle class (which is shrinking) - drove sports? -Winter Tim
Both actually, and one may very well follow the other. Viewership drops and eventually the former viewer questions why he/she is even paying in the first place. There is an intertwined relationship for sure.
Turn off Fox "news" and come back to reality. ESPN isn't losing anything because of "politics"--they are losing subscribers as people tire of overpaying for cable and lose interest in coverage of only certain sports and certain sports teams.
I disagree. ESPN is losing some viewers because of the politicization of the network.
I no longer watch ESPN shows for that reason. My father was just up for his annual trip, and it turns out he no longer watches ESPN for the same reason.
If you wish to believe we are the only two people in the world who have done so, I won't stand in your way but I think others just in this thread share my opinion.
I don't watch ESPN anymore because of the political discussions and yellers like Stephen A. Smith.
I guess I don't get this part of the discussion. Seriously, I'm not sure I get it. Can someone provide an example?
Is this about the Jenner thing? If it is, I doubt I've every watched the ESPYs except for the Valvano one.
Jenner, Kapernick, BLM, ect.
The biggest story they had last week was whether Phil Jackson was a racist because he used the term posse regarding LeBron James.
Well, I guess that makes me part of the other demographic of ESPN viewers, I don't watch enough of it to catch these pieces. Especially don't watch weekdays until the evenings. One thing I will say, the biggest racist on ESPN is Steven A. Smith. And if that makes me a racist, he entrapped/baited me, so I'm not guilty .
I would watch Around the Horn and PTI. I don't care for the current ATH line up of commentators so I no longer watch it. Smith is so bad, I basically gave up the whole network.
Their current day time shows are targeted for a different viewer.
So it's not a "political" thing, it's a racist thing.
If ESPN or anyone brings up any question about whether something was racist, or discusses someone protesting racist actions, some are going to turn off ESPN.
Sounds like a problem of certain viewers rather than the network.
Unless you are a Neilsen home, no one cares if you watch or don't watch. If you still have cable, you are paying for ESPN.
If ESPN or anyone brings up any question about whether something was racist, or discusses someone protesting racist actions, some are going to turn off ESPN.
Sounds like a problem of certain viewers rather than the network.
Unless you are a Neilsen home, no one cares if you watch or don't watch. If you still have cable, you are paying for ESPN.
No, they aren't losing subscribers for these other reasons. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You can't just cancel one channel or another. You have to cancel your entire package.
ESPN is mostly on basic packages. That means, most subscribers would have to cancel their entire cable package just to get rid of ESPN. It's simply unrealistic to believe people are doing that just because they are pissed at ESPN. If that's the case, they will simply not watch the channel.
The phenomenon of cord cutting is because many people (particularly younger ones), find it easier and cheaper to buy alternatives to cable or satellite.
Comcast has two basic levels that don't include ESPN or any sports channels at all. You have to be at the Digital 140+ level before it is included. Downgrading to eliminate ESPN or other sports packages is possible.
However, I would agree that it is a larger issue that drives cord cutting rather than disagreeing with the WWL.
You are the biggest racist on this message board. Time and time again, you've proven to be an intolerant racist.
Meanwhile, ratings for Monday Night Football and the NFL are down 25%, and ESPN can't sign up a customer under the age of 50.
Last edited:
Correct.
Most folks are going out for their way to find media options that do not include ESPN and other frivolous, seldom watched channels.
Yeah, I'm the biggest racist--because I call out racists like yourself instead just letting you spread your hate wherever you want whenever you want.
The ratings have nothing to do with ignorant hate mongers like yourself. Don't kid yourself. The only person you are hurting is yourself, despite your attempt.
honestly will never understand how bigots can be upset at someone like Kaepernick for stating and using his American rights to demonstrate that killing unarmed civilians is not ok--and then those same people that attack him want to denounce and attack anyone that even discusses this horrible situation, rather than addressing the situation itself.
May this happen to one of your family members, maybe then your bigotry will be silenced.
Around the Horn and PTI give me a freaking headache. I pretty much only watch ESPN if a game I want to see is on. Often I'll just turn the sound off and play the mandolin. I don't need Dan Dakich or some other talking head interpreting the game for me.
I haven't given my opinion on those topics, except that I don't enjoy ESPN's coverage.
It's obvious which person is filled with hate in this discussion and it is not me.
There are plenty of outlets dedicated to discussing those issues I can watch if I decide.
ESPN is losing customers every month and NFL viewership plummeted. I personally don't watch either product.
Buck, you are a racist and spread hate. You hate police officers and white people.
PTI has always been enjoyable. ESPN just went too far with their political commentary and lost me as a viewer.
I'll watch Seinfeld re-runs now during the evenings.
ESPN is losing customers each month and NFL numbers are in the basement.
Last edited:
Sports on tv have passed the over-saturated mark. People only think success comes if your team plays in the championship game of whatever...and wins. Time and attention has turned away from participation, and interest in win or lose, in sports...at least the traditional ones. Social media, video gaming and the rest of the couch-stuck modern activities have sucked the interest out of watching a "real game." Cable costs too much and delivers too little meaningful programming. Streaming is the way of the future. ESPN and other sports programming outfits are just plain stupid...paying way too much to a bunch of schools to play games...while at the same time destroying traditional rivalries. Bottom line is: a lot of schools and coaches are getting used to the gravy train but that train is about to derail.
Better understanding of the market in this article:
http://etfdailynews.com/2016/10/30/...ng-money-as-cable-bundling-model-breaks-down/
And the fix from ESPN:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/09/espn-streaming-service-coming-this-year/
http://etfdailynews.com/2016/10/30/...ng-money-as-cable-bundling-model-breaks-down/
And the fix from ESPN:
https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/09/espn-streaming-service-coming-this-year/
Not necessarily ... consumers may have the option of not including the ESPN/Disney channels in their cable package.
BUT ... to your point on FS1, etc. .... I bet none of them charge cable companies near as much as ESPN ... AND .... ESPN and Disney sell the majority of their channels in package deals to cable companies.
For example.... the cable companies can't pick and choose which ESPN/Disney channels they want. They gotta take almost all of them. Or if a consumer wants one they may have to subscribe to them all ... or they choose a package without them.
THUS ..... the ABC/Disney/ESPN media conglomerate is hurting the most because more and more people are not choosing to include them in their cable packages. AND that is in addition to cable cutters and the new non-starters with cable.
Bottom Line .... ESPN is by far losing the most money.
PS; It was you who attempted to rake me over the coals a few months ago when I was saying that it would make economic sense for ESPN to consider online streaming packages a future profit center. I wouldn't say that you are a shill for ESPN. But you really are behind the curve on this thing.
And further ... BELOWDECK .... none of those other networks came anywhere near the level of social engineering that ESPN engaged in order to create conferences and TV deals for themselves and the conferences. And if the market is imploding .... the entity who created it will be the entity to suffer the most from its implosion.
ESPN did this to themselves. I predict that within 5 years the number of bowl games will decrease by at least 30% because ESPN will have been forced out of the creating-sports-events-just-for-TV-market.
We may return to the days of getting any bowl bid as something that is to be cherished.
ESPN did this to themselves. I predict that within 5 years the number of bowl games will decrease by at least 30% because ESPN will have been forced out of the creating-sports-events-just-for-TV-market.
We may return to the days of getting any bowl bid as something that is to be cherished.
I am not going to predict that this will happen .... but the talk a few months ago about ESPN exploring the possibility of a reconfigured B12 conference with a streaming broadcast package has an even more plausible ring now that ESPN has announced their forthcoming subscriber service.
If my household could find a way to buy just the broadcasts of 2 schools sports programs, we would disconnect permanently from cable/satellite and just go with what we could get streaming and broadcast. TV is a wasteland of piss poor news, shopping channels, Jaysus shows, and a lot of other crap I don't pay attention to. I wouldn't miss any of it except for college football and basketball involving our two alma maters.
Yep .... advertisers know if certain shows are not drawing as many viewers as other things .... things like actual games. People initially began watching ESPN for the sports ... not political correctness.
ESPN is losing the cable cutters.
ESPN is losing people who do not want cable packages that include the Disney channels.
ESPN is losing money because many people are not using cable in the first place.
ESPN is losing money because advertisers won't pay top dollar to advertise during a show that less and less people are watching.
The cable model that ESPN "projected" their future on is crumbling.
Right now .... ESPN is just one big loser.
No. Cord cutting is people of all ages who have cable and then cut it off.
In addition to that there are the increasing number of younger people who have never had cable and use alternative media.
And .... are you ready for this?
Check the FIOS TV packages. They are offering more customization than ever.
Concerning the ESPN channels on the ESSENTIALS package you can opt out of the ESPN channels.
http://fios.verizon.com/fios-tv.html
Time for you to get below deck and stay there.
Yes, it does matter. Your argument is that ESPN is losing subscribers because people are unhappy with the network. That's simply not true. It's because people are dropping their cable packages for more economical alternatives. This is happing to everyone, not just ESPN.
No, consumers don't have this option. Consumers of cable are presented with various pre-arranged packages. (They can't create their own packages.) Most of these packages have Disney/ESPN included. There are a few that don't. However, these are bare-bones packages. The typical cable package includes Disney/ESPN channels.
FS1 doesn't charge anywhere as much as ESPN. ESPN charges $7 per month, vs. 99¢ for FS1. Here's the point. All this bluster of your is not answering the OP's question. He was asking if ESPN's content would just get spread out over other networks like FS1. Well, the answer is clearly no. At just 99¢ per subscriber, FS1 has nowhere near enough money to take over those rights from ESPN. The only way it would be possible is for the conferences to take a gigantic pay cut. That goes to the OP's other question, which was will this development affect large conferences? The answer is, it's certainly possible.
For some reason, you and a couple of other posters can't seem to get it through your heads that my responses on this topic are in the context of the OP's question.
None of that has anything to do with my point. You making this out to be more than it is. It's very simple. Many customers are switching to internet-based mediums, rather that traditional cable delivery. That's what's causing ESPN and other networks to lose subscribers. It's really that simple.
No, the reconfigured Big 12 has no ring of plausibility. Taking the same teams ESPN already has under contract, and repackaging them into a different conference does nothing to solve the problem of losing subscribers. If ESPN goes to streaming, they could just do that now with the conferences as they already are.
I said, "the phenomenon of cord cutting is because many people (particularly younger ones), find it easier and cheaper to buy alternatives to cable or satellite." This is entirely correct. (You just restated the same thing I said.) Young people who have never had cable before aren't part of the lost subscribers for ESPN. The lost subscribers are only people who used to have cable/ESPN, but then dropped it. People who have never had cable are not figured into the lost subscriber statistics that have been posted.
FIOS isn't cable. The same type of packages aren't available for cable subscribers, which is the actual topic of discussion.
Two points on this. 1) Every article that has been posted on this thread indicated the drop in subscribers is due to cord cutting, not customers simply downgrading their cable package. 2) You would still have to give up other channels if you downgraded. People aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face. Plus, you said the Comcast packages don't contain any sports channels. So, it makes zero sense for someone to downgrade to a package where they get ZERO sports just to spite ESPN.
I understand what you are getting at, but that's really just trying to prove a point for the sake of argument, rather than seriously addressing the original topic of the thread.
Wrong again Belowdeck, I said ESPN was losing viewers because they are unhappy with the network...viewers and subscribers aren't he same thing.
If that's the case, then it was stupid for you to start arguing with me, because I've been talking about subscribers the whole time, not viewers.
