MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on January 13, 2016, 04:30:41 PM
-
College football championship television ratings decrease
Despite a quality game between Alabama and Clemson, ESPN’s ratings for the College Football Playoff title game declined.
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/01/12/college-football-national-title-game-espn-megacast
What the network did not get was viewership numbers even close to those from last year. The national title game drew a 25.7 million viewers on ESPN, down 23% from the 2015 championship. (That game—Ohio State’s 42–20 win over Oregon—drew 33.8 million viewers.) If you factor in ESPN's complete Megacast coverage, the viewership was 26.182 million. Those are disappointing numbers given the quality of the game. The ’16 title game did not have nearly the buzz of last year’s contest, perhaps a byproduct of how badly the College Football Playoff executives bungled New Year’s Eve.
It was not just this national championship game that disappointed
CFP semifinals ratings are an epic flop
http://www.si.com/more-sports/2016/01/03/college-football-playoff-semifinals-ratings-colleen-dominguez-lawsuit
ESPN drew 15,640,000 viewers for its Orange Bowl matchup featuring Clemson’s 37–17 victory over Oklahoma, down 45% in viewership when compared to last year’s first Playoff semifinal (Oregon-Florida State). The primetime matchup featuring Alabama’s 38–0 win over Michigan State in the Cotton Bowl drew 18,552,000 viewers, a drop of 34% from last year’s equivalent (Ohio State-Alabama).
And not it is not just college football
The NHL Winter Classic ratings hits an all-time low (Canadiens v Bruins from Gillette Stadium)
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/five-reasons-winter-classic-ratings-hit-all-time-low-for-nbc-162025653.html
What’s Wrong With the NBA’s TV Ratings?
Despite the Golden State Warriors’ historic run, the league’s national cable ratings are down again
Dec. 21, 2015
http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-wrong-with-the-nbas-tv-ratings-1450744363
Now to be fair
NFL Ratings Spike 11% for Opening Weekend of Playoffs
January 11, 2016
http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/nfl-ratings-spike-opening-weekend-playoffs-1201677111/
Except for the NFL all other sports TV ratings (and attendance if you read these stories) seems to be crashing.
So you know what this means ... Chicos buddies at the nets will so completed overpay for the NFL so when it goes over the side they take maximum losses.
Thoughts?
-
Hmmmm.... College sports and NBA increasingly being put on second-tier cable channels.
NFL still broadcasts everything (in local market) OTA.
Who'd uh thunk.
-
The "sky is falling" again.
Fewer people with cable = fewer viewers. Simple math.
-
The CFP title game being down is a silly argument that ignores simple facts.
The South will always watch the CFP, always, no matter who is playing. Last year had a west coast team vs a midwest team. Plain as day to see less interest this year considering who was playing.
-
The CFP title game being down is a silly argument that ignores simple facts.
The South will always watch the CFP, always, no matter who is playing. Last year had a west coast team vs a midwest team. Plain as day to see less interest this year considering who was playing.
Yup.
-
The CFP title game being down is a silly argument that ignores simple facts.
The South will always watch the CFP, always, no matter who is playing. Last year had a west coast team vs a midwest team. Plain as day to see less interest this year considering who was playing.
isn't alabama and clemson considered to be south? dream teams would come from texas, florida, alabama, georgia, mississippi, louisiana, but this one was pretty close and a great game with a lot of action.
only thing missing was a.j. mccarren's girlfriend/wife-einer so brent? heyyyyoooooo!!
-
The CFP title game being down is a silly argument that ignores simple facts.
The South will always watch the CFP, always, no matter who is playing. Last year had a west coast team vs a midwest team. Plain as day to see less interest this year considering who was playing.
How does that depress Hockey and NBA ratings?
-
I'm at a conference with Mark Cuban and we spoke today in the subject. He was part of a panel withHreg Maffei and several analysts. Short answer....not even close.
No one else has the money or infrastructure todo it right now. One analyst said years. Another, 5 to 7 and that's if they even want to
-
I'm at a conference with Mark Cuban and we spoke today in the subject. He was part of a panel withHreg Maffei and several analysts. Short answer....not even close.
No one else has the money or infrastructure todo it right now. One analyst said years. Another, 5 to 7 and that's if they even want to
you bast...rubbin shoulders with some big dogs again-tell him rocket said hello :D i don't care what anyone says, that's pretty cool. i get all geeked up talking to frankie k
-
How does that depress Hockey and NBA ratings?
Hockey game had a Canadian market and the fad of outdoor hockey has faded.
NBA ratings are down because the Lakers are hot garbage, Knicks/Celts/Bulls are average, not spectacular.
-
I'm at a conference with Mark Cuban and we spoke today in the subject. He was part of a panel withHreg Maffei and several analysts. Short answer....not even close.
No one else has the money or infrastructure todo it right now. One analyst said years. Another, 5 to 7 and that's if they even want to
GOOGLE
-
The "sky is falling" again.
Fewer people with cable = fewer viewers. Simple math.
Count me in this population. I recently made the switch from having an HD box from TWC with a bazillion channels to just using a digital antenna and high speed internet. Saves me at least $60 a month and I still get ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX in HD with my digital antenna so I can watch the news, a few primetime shows, and NFL just fine. I stream nearly everything else I want to watch.
-
I'm at a conference with Mark Cuban and we spoke today in the subject. He was part of a panel withHreg Maffei and several analysts. Short answer....not even close.
No one else has the money or infrastructure todo it right now. One analyst said years. Another, 5 to 7 and that's if they even want to
Mark Cuban and Greg Maffei are saying the sports bubble is just fine and expanding.
Do you ask your barber if you need a haircut?
-
I will say this.....I do agree there is a sports content bubble that I think will pop within the next 5-10 years.
There were several very interesting articles around ads for ESPN's New Year's Eve games and in conjunction with the results of the NC its at least something to keep an eye on. Basically, ESPN charges a certain rate for a 30 second spot and in return they "guarantee" X amount of eye balls in the form of ratings. If they don't come through they have to make it up by "giving" advertising in a future instance, and often they will hold some ad time, in say the NC game, as make up. Well, the ratings were so bad that the amount of "make up" they had to do that they exceeded the held back ad time for the NC game plus a lot more....which means they aren't making money on that ad time. It's classic revenue erosion.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/media-buyers-espn-negotiating-20m-bowl-game-ad-makegoods/146777 (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/media-buyers-espn-negotiating-20m-bowl-game-ad-makegoods/146777)
By no means is this the end times, but there are definitely signs of stress as content rights costs go up and potential ad revenue gets tighter.
-
Count me in this population. I recently made the switch from having an HD box from TWC with a bazillion channels to just using a digital antenna and high speed internet. Saves me at least $60 a month and I still get ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX in HD with my digital antenna so I can watch the news, a few primetime shows, and NFL just fine. I stream nearly everything else I want to watch.
How do you stream MU games? FS1 for MU and FSN for the Brewers are the only reasons I keep cable now.
-
I will say this.....I do agree there is a sports content bubble that I think will pop within the next 5-10 years.
There were several very interesting articles around ads for ESPN's New Year's Eve games and in conjunction with the results of the NC its at least something to keep an eye on. Basically, ESPN charges a certain rate for a 30 second spot and in return they "guarantee" X amount of eye balls in the form of ratings. If they don't come through they have to make it up by "giving" advertising in a future instance, and often they will hold some ad time, in say the NC game, as make up. Well, the ratings were so bad that the amount of "make up" they had to do that they exceeded the held back ad time for the NC game plus a lot more....which means they aren't making money on that ad time. It's classic revenue erosion.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/media-buyers-espn-negotiating-20m-bowl-game-ad-makegoods/146777 (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/media-buyers-espn-negotiating-20m-bowl-game-ad-makegoods/146777)
By no means is this the end times, but there are definitely signs of stress as content rights costs go up and potential ad revenue gets tighter.
I will point out that this was 12 months after everyone was praising the ratings of the College Football Playoffs first year.
So did everything change that much in 12 months? Or was it the boneheaded decision to play the semifinals on New Years Eve followed by a championship game between two southern teams - a region that would watch the game regardless of who is playing but doesn't much interest the east, midwest or west coast.
-
How do you stream MU games? FS1 for MU and FSN for the Brewers are the only reasons I keep cable now.
First Row Sports website when I watch them from home. It isn't HD quality but at least it's there if I want it. For big games I go somewhere to watch it which is one of the downsides of not having cable.
-
I will point out that this was 12 months after everyone was praising the ratings of the College Football Playoffs first year.
So did everything change that much in 12 months? Or was it the boneheaded decision to play the semifinals on New Years Eve followed by a championship game between two southern teams - a region that would watch the game regardless of who is playing but doesn't much interest the east, midwest or west coast.
It's a combination of all of that, but I'm not really intending to focus on just the CFP, that's just one of the potential symptoms. I don't think the money being spent on the content is sustainable given the ratings they are likely to generate. Two things at work...ratings for some content just won't go up consistently and there will come a time when other methods of advertising will come in vogue, putting price pressure on ad revenue.
-
It's a combination of all of that, but I'm not really intending to focus on just the CFP, that's just one of the potential symptoms. I don't think the money being spent on the content is sustrightble given the ratings they are likely to generate. Two things at work...ratings for some content just won't go up consistently and there will come a time when other methods of advertising will come in vogue, putting price pressure on ad revenue.
Sustrightble strikes again!
-
The CFP title game being down is a silly argument that ignores simple facts.
The South will always watch the CFP, always, no matter who is playing. Last year had a west coast team vs a midwest team. Plain as day to see less interest this year considering who was playing.
That might explain the title game, but not the semifinals (Michigan State).
-
That might explain the title game, but not the semifinals (Michigan State).
New Year's Eve was a dumb time to hold the semifinals. They should have moved to Saturday the 2nd.
-
New Year's Eve was a dumb time to hold the semifinals. They should have moved to Saturday the 2nd.
would not have mattered. All the bowl game ratings and even attendance was terrible. No game or time slot was safe.
College football is over the top and on the downside of ratings. As I noted before, every sport is seeing sliding ratings except the NFL.
Bowl games take a TV ratings hit
January 11th, 2016 at 8:04pm
http://www.abqjournal.com/704444/sports/bowl-games-take-a-tv-ratings-hit.html
“The Granddaddy of Them All” — the Rose Bowl —in which Stanford pummelled Iowa 45-16 on Jan. 1, had its lowest TV viewership ever.
ESPN/ABC televised 38 bowl games this season. The games had a 2.8 rating and averaged 4,676,000 each.
That’s down from 2014-15, when there were 37 bowl games televised. They had a 3.2 rating with an average of 5,341,000 viewers each.
All bowls this season, except the NY6 (New Year’s Day’s six games), had a 2.1 rating and averaged 3,305,000 viewers.
In 2014-15, all bowls minus NY6 had a 2.2 rating and averaged 3,452,000 viewers each.
-
I'm not saying that sports ratings will see a long-term decline. But last year saw huge CFP ratings. The two semifinals were called at the time the two most watched cable television shows ever.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/1/2/7481649/rose-bowl-sugar-bowl-2015-tv-ratings
So I attribute this year's declines mostly to short-term issues: bad match-ups, blowouts and poor scheduling. Very little to the long-term issue of degradation of sports ratings.
-
would not have mattered. All the bowl game ratings and even attendance was terrible. No game or time slot was safe.
College football is over the top and on the downside of ratings. As I noted before, every sport is seeing sliding ratings except the NFL.
Bowl games take a TV ratings hit
January 11th, 2016 at 8:04pm
http://www.abqjournal.com/704444/sports/bowl-games-take-a-tv-ratings-hit.html
“The Granddaddy of Them All” — the Rose Bowl —in which Stanford pummelled Iowa 45-16 on Jan. 1, had its lowest TV viewership ever.
ESPN/ABC televised 38 bowl games this season. The games had a 2.8 rating and averaged 4,676,000 each.
That’s down from 2014-15, when there were 37 bowl games televised. They had a 3.2 rating with an average of 5,341,000 viewers each.
All bowls this season, except the NY6 (New Year’s Day’s six games), had a 2.1 rating and averaged 3,305,000 viewers.
In 2014-15, all bowls minus NY6 had a 2.2 rating and averaged 3,452,000 viewers each.
What about the NCAA Tournament?
-
Personally, the games being on the 31st made it so that I couldn't watch most of the games when I normally would have. I also now care even less about the regular bowl games now that there is a playoff.... I mean, they never meant anything before, but now that there are more games that do mean something exist, they seem somehow even less meaningful.
But I'm just one man.... one man can't change anything. Rock the vote!
-
What about the NCAA Tournament?
The CFP title game on Monday drew 25.7 million
The NCAA title game in August drew 28.2 million
Basketball's title game outdrew Football's title game!!
2015 NCAA tournament has highest average viewership in 22 years
Apr 7, 2015 14:32 EDT
http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2015-04-07/2015-ncaa-tournament-has-highest-average-viewership-22-years
The 2015 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball National Championship across TBS, CBS, TNT and truTV is the most-watched NCAA tournament in 22 years, according to Nielsen Fast Nationals. The 2015 NCAA tournament averaged 11.3 million total viewers, up 8 percent from last year (10.5 million viewers), and is the highest average viewership for the NCAA tournament in 22 years (12.7 million; 1993).
The National Championship game, which saw Duke defeat Wisconsin, averaged 28.3 million total viewers, up 33 percent from last year (21.3 million) and is the most-viewed NCAA title game in 18 years (28.4 million; Arizona/Kentucky in 1997). The Duke/Wisconsin game earned an average fast national household rating/share of 16.0/26, up 28 percent from last year’s 12.5/20 (Connecticut/Kentucky).
-
Personally, the games being on the 31st made it so that I couldn't watch most of the games when I normally would have. I also now care even less about the regular bowl games now that there is a playoff.... I mean, they never meant anything before, but now that there are more games that do mean something exist, they seem somehow even less meaningful.
But I'm just one man.... one man can't change anything. Rock the vote!
I'm with you on the non-championship bowl games. They seem lessened somehow. In the old days, usually at least 3 of New Year's Day Bowl games could potentially have championship ramifications when the day started. If this teams loses the Orange Bowl, and this teams wins a close one in the Sugar Bowl, then this other team could still be the champs with an impressive showing in the Rose Bowl. That sort of thing.
As it stands now, getting to those big non-championship bowls is the biggest thing. It basically doesn't matter who wins.
-
One of the analysts at the conference had an interesting slide showing the history of television and then leading into OTT. A couple of things:
1) He argued that ratings today should really be viewed in the context of what is truly available as an opportunity vs the lack of opportunity in the past. In other words, with continued fragmentation on television, the addition of OTT, etc, ratings of course are going to go down. You'll never in your life see crazy ratings again because of the selection available. His point was, that's ok and should be viewed in that lens.
2) Not sure why Berg said my cable buddies. I've worked on both sides of this, OTT streaming and on the cable \ MVPD side. I see the argument very clearly from both points of view.
3) The data shows about 92 million pay tv homes today, In 2022, the number is expected to be around 90 to 94 million. Now, the share will go down because population is growing, but the analysts point was that by 2022, television will still be the vast majority of video viewing. There will be a turning point, but it is still a long way off....coming...yes. For some, here today.
4) Sports, no one has the ability to monetize sports where it needs to be except for the current ecosystem. Now, could that means the rates for which sports are sold goes down? Sure, it could, but you still have hungry content companies like Fox and others trying to gain share, monetize with ads, etc, that are bidding up prices.
-
I'm fascinated to see the new Rams stadium in a few years. From what I'm reading, this will be the first venue to try to make the home experience in stadium (however that will work, no idea).
-
Had a twitter discussion semi-related to this in that a lot of this is dictated by ad revenue tied to ratings. However, as Chicos pointed out TV has fragmented as well as delivery of content has fragmented. What's interesting is each "fragment" seemingly has it's own measurement standard and those "standards" are not well capture/easily manipulated (page views, click throughs, etc).
Once the non-TV content delivery providers figure out a reliable and consistent way to compare viewership to TV then the fight really takes off. If OTT has a higher viewership, advertisers will start moving there, if not TV will continue to win.
-
Mark Cuban and Greg Maffei are saying the sports bubble is just fine and expanding.
Do you ask your barber if you need a haircut?
It must be expanding. Some guy is coughing up over 2 billion for a stadium and fee to relocate his football team to LA. Meanwhile the NFL is shelling out 200 million to 2 other teams to stay where they are at--with new stadiums. Lots of money being thrown about out there.
-
I'm fascinated to see the new Rams stadium in a few years. From what I'm reading, this will be the first venue to try to make the home experience in stadium (however that will work, no idea).
Should be awesome. Not sure they're gonna like me wandering around in boxer shorts and bare feet, though.
-
Should be awesome. Not sure they're gonna like me wandering around in boxer shorts and bare feet, though.
Yeah, and going to the bathroom with doors open and sounds to be heard.
-
would not have mattered. All the bowl game ratings and even attendance was terrible. No game or time slot was safe.
College football is over the top and on the downside of ratings. As I noted before, every sport is seeing sliding ratings except the NFL.
Bowl games take a TV ratings hit
January 11th, 2016 at 8:04pm
http://www.abqjournal.com/704444/sports/bowl-games-take-a-tv-ratings-hit.html
“The Granddaddy of Them All” — the Rose Bowl —in which Stanford pummelled Iowa 45-16 on Jan. 1, had its lowest TV viewership ever.
ESPN/ABC televised 38 bowl games this season. The games had a 2.8 rating and averaged 4,676,000 each.
That’s down from 2014-15, when there were 37 bowl games televised. They had a 3.2 rating with an average of 5,341,000 viewers each.
All bowls this season, except the NY6 (New Year’s Day’s six games), had a 2.1 rating and averaged 3,305,000 viewers.
In 2014-15, all bowls minus NY6 had a 2.2 rating and averaged 3,452,000 viewers each.
Bowl games have always been glorified exhibitions. Now, with an actual playoff in place, they have become all the more meaningless. Even the Rose Bowl has a fraction of the "meaning" it used to have (when it's not one of the playoff games or NC). Add in the fact that there are, I believe, 8,536 bowl games now, and who really gives a rat's rump.
The semifinals were on NYE, a ridiculous decision.
As for the title game, let's wait at least 2 years before calling anything a "trend," no?
-
It must be expanding. Some guy is coughing up over 2 billion for a stadium and fee to relocate his football team to LA. Meanwhile the NFL is shelling out 200 million to 2 other teams to stay where they are at--with new stadiums. Lots of money being thrown about out there.
For the NFL, yes. But not for anything else.
(Ballmer is an exception, he proved he doesn't understand money with all his stupis acquisitions at MSFT)
-
Bowl games have always been glorified exhibitions. Now, with an actual playoff in place, they have become all the more meaningless. Even the Rose Bowl has a fraction of the "meaning" it used to have (when it's not one of the playoff games or NC). Add in the fact that there are, I believe, 8,536 bowl games now, and who really gives a rat's rump.
The semifinals were on NYE, a ridiculous decision.
As for the title game, let's wait at least 2 years before calling anything a "trend," no?
I agree
But I started this thread about all sports and noted that while the NFL is doing well, nothing else is
Hockey - Winter classic, record low
NBA, Lousy ratings despite historic Golden State team
Rose Bowl, record low ratings
CFP, could not outdraw basketball.
-
None of this is surprising.
-
It must be surprising to ESPN because the link on the first post said they are paying a record $6 billion in broadcasting rights for a bunch of sports that are generating record low ratings. It also says they might have to refund $20 million in commercial fees because of the low ratings.
-
CFB has a clutter problem. They need to go to an eight or 16 game playoff and create an "event". These bowls are all on top of each other, with the Top 4 playing at the same time as the Weedwhacker Bowl.
March Madness creates an event. There is drama to get in. There is drama with upsets. There is engagement over weeks so fans get to know and get attached to all teams, not just their favorite. There are bracket pools to keep people interested after their team loses. There is sudden death. The brackets ladder up to something that matters. There is no other sports competition for attention as the outcomes in the regular season standings for the NBA and NHL have long been settled.
-
It must be surprising to ESPN because the link on the first post said they are paying a record $6 billion in broadcasting rights for a bunch of sports that are generating record low ratings. It also says they might have to refund $20 million in commercial fees because of the low ratings.
drop in the bucket.
-
drop in the bucket.
See Disney stock crashing .... It means no growth.
-
See Disney stock crashing .... It means no growth.
no it doesn't
-
Live sports programming is what every network craves since it's the most "DVR-proof". Sports is the only reason why I still have cable.
-
Live sports programming is what every network craves since it's the most "DVR-proof". Sports is the only reason why I still have cable.
no it doesn't
You both need to read the cord cutting thread.
-
You both need to read the cord cutting thread.
BTW, networks don't "refund commercial fees"...they make up the lack of delivery in other future programming...which they plan for and leave some portion of their commercial inventory available for just this situation. Routine.
-
Yeah, and going to the bathroom with doors open and sounds to be heard.
They're rebuilding Lambeau in LA?
-
BTW, networks don't "refund commercial fees"...they make up the lack of delivery in other future programming...which they plan for and leave some portion of their commercial inventory available for just this situation. Routine.
Irrelevant. Anyone that has to give back money or rebate commercials means they have no growth. And the chart is what happens when you have no growth, your stock falls 22% while the markets (S&P 500) falls 8%.
To better understand Disney's problem they should change their stock ticker symbol to ESPN. As explained in the cord cutting thread, Wall Street thinks ESPN is a no growth, over paid for rights, death star. That is why Disney stock is getting torched even through they took in $2 billion from Star Wars. One-quarter of Disney's value has evaporated in two months thanks to ESPN.
ESPN is that bad ... because everything but the NFL is seeing crappy ratings.
(http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=dis&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=1618&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&time=6&rand=444521283&compidx=&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1)
-
BTW, networks don't "refund commercial fees"...they make up the lack of delivery in other future programming...which they plan for and leave some portion of their commercial inventory available for just this situation. Routine.
True, but the CFP was not a routine volume. I posted an article previously in this thread.....the make-up far exceeds the saved ad space in future broadcasts.
So the next time ESPN goes looking to sell ads, the question is whether or not they can sell at a higher price point. I don't think it has a big impact, but if this happens a couple of more times the ad revenue won't be as robust at the same time that ESPNs content costs are going up....not a winning recipe.
-
True, but the CFP was not a routine volume. I posted an article previously in this thread.....the make-up far exceeds the saved ad space in future broadcasts.
So the next time ESPN goes looking to sell ads, the question is whether or not they can sell at a higher price point. I don't think it has a big impact, but if this happens a couple of more times the ad revenue won't be as robust at the same time that ESPNs content costs are going up....not a winning recipe.
See the chart of Disney's stock above, Wall Street thinks it's a big deal.
-
See the chart of Disney's stock above, Wall Street thinks it's a big deal.
Not so sure this chart reflects anything unique about the value of Disney's stake in ESPN. The 3-month graph of DIS looks pretty similar to the S&P 500 graph over the same period.
-
Not so sure this chart reflects anything unique about the value of Disney's stake in ESPN. The 3-month graph of DIS looks pretty similar to the S&P 500 graph over the same period.
Plus Disney's fundamentals are more than just ESPN. ABC is kind of a mess(all over the air TV is), if there is an economic downturn, those expensive vacations to Disneyland are one of the first things to go. It's an indicator of concern for sure, but I don't think the market is reacting to CFP at all.
-
Not so sure this chart reflects anything unique about the value of Disney's stake in ESPN. The 3-month graph of DIS looks pretty similar to the S&P 500 graph over the same period.
Disney stock is down 3x the stock market, it's being driven by wall Street downgrades about the prospects for ESPN.
The chart is all about ESPN
-
Disney stock is down 3x the stock market, it's being driven by wall Street downgrades about the prospects for ESPN.
The chart is all about ESPN
What time period are you talking about? For the 3-month period reflected in the graph you posted earlier, DIS tracks the S&P 500 very closely.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/dis/stock-chart?intraday=off&timeframe=3m&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=on&index=sp500&drilldown=off
-
What time period are you talking about? For the 3-month period reflected in the graph you posted earlier, DIS tracks the S&P 500 very closely.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/dis/stock-chart?intraday=off&timeframe=3m&splits=off&earnings=off&movingaverage=None&lowerstudy=volume&comparison=on&index=sp500&drilldown=off
Just about every stock in the S&P 500 has the same pattern as the index and Disney is no exception. What is key, and what is misleading about your chart, is Disney has declined 2x versus the stock market over the period shown. (3x since the release of Star Wars that was supposed to save Disney)
Disney stock is all about one thing right now ... ESPN (as explained in the other thread). It's nearly half their revenues and Wall Street thinks it is now a giant no growth death star. Not even a record star wars movie could save it.
The record low sports ratings and cable cutting are killing ESPN, and by extension Disney. The bubble of live sports because they are DVR-proof has popped. That game is now over.
Disney theme parks are only about 10% of revenues, they are not that big a deal.
-
Disney theme parks are only about 10% of revenues
Recheck your numbers. Media networks >> Parks & Resorts (revenue and especially operating income), but WDPR is more than 30% of revenues.
It will be interesting to see what impact Shanghai will have. Opens in June.
-
You're right. Parks & Resorts bring in $16 billion as opposed to Media Networks $21 Billion. Almost a third of their income (31%) as opposed to 43% by Espn, ABC, A&E, Disney Channel, etc.
Not like Heisy to fudge the numbers :-\
-
True, but the CFP was not a routine volume. I posted an article previously in this thread.....the make-up far exceeds the saved ad space in future broadcasts.
So the next time ESPN goes looking to sell ads, the question is whether or not they can sell at a higher price point. I don't think it has a big impact, but if this happens a couple of more times the ad revenue won't be as robust at the same time that ESPNs content costs are going up....not a winning recipe.
Absolutely agreed. We'll have to wait and see whether this was a one-time blip or a longer term trend. The advertiser demand for this type of content is not going away...my bet is that ESPN will be just fine.
-
Absolutely agreed. We'll have to wait and see whether this was a one-time blip or a longer term trend. The advertiser demand for this type of content is not going away...my bet is that ESPN will be just fine.
Again Wall Street disagrees. the average S&P 500 stock has 85% buy recommendations. Disney has 53% (40% "holds" which is Wall Street code for "sell"). Why? ESPN's prospects.
They don't think ESPN will be fine and it those that do have lost about a quarter of their money in the last few months. (see the chart above)
Again, cord cutting and crappy sports ratings for EVERYTHING but the NFL is why Disney is suffering. The CFP's crappy ratings is part of a larger whole.
Wall Street thinks you guys are arguing yesterday's story about sports programming. Wall street thinks tomorrow's story is different and not nearly as good.
-
I just got this from a hedge fund manager, this is what a lot on Wall Street think
----------------------------
Stock quotes in this article:
DIS
I first outlined The Many Peaks I See in June 2015, and have added "Peak Icahn," "Peak Trump" and others since then.
Now, I'm adding "Peak Sports Viewership" to the list, which is bad news for ESPN ownerWalt Disney Co. (DIS).
I outlined my bearish case for Disney in November, shorting the stock and adding it to my "Best Short Ideas" list at $116.25 a share. DIS has dropped some 20% since then, and I remain short.
Although I wouldn't be surprised to see Disney shares bounce over the next few weeks following their recent schmeissing, that doesn't change my view on Peak Sports Viewership.
Recent reports show that:
• The NCAA semifinal College Bowl Series saw nearly a one-third slippage in ratings.
• Viewership for the NHL's Winter Classic dropped by 20% from 2015 levels and 40% from 2014.
• Ratings for college football's national championship declined 15%.
Peak Sports Viewership apparently arrived a few years ago, but few investors have realized that it's occurred. There are a number of possible explanations for sports TV's declining popularity, including:
• Oversaturation of product.
• The quality of play, which has has arguably eroded.
• Poor refereeing and a lack of league discipline.
• Unsavory player behavior on and off of the field.
• Asinine commentators who all want to mimic ESPN's Chris Berman. (There's only one Chris Berman!)
• Numerous viewing alternatives and market segmentation. In a social-media-driven world, there's just so much time each day for sports TV.
• "Cord-cutting" among cable TV customers.
• Other important reasons that I'll discuss in greater depth later this week.
All of this spells trouble for Disney and its heavy reliance on ESPN for revenues and profits. As I've previously noted, I expect Disney's secular growth rate to fall far short of consensus forecasts.
So, I recommend not going long on Disney given the stock's still-elevated valuation, which I believe incorporates faster profit growth than the firm might ultimately see.
Position: Short DIS (small)
Douglas A. Kass
Seabreeze Partners Management Inc.
-
The record low sports ratings and cable cutting are killing ESPN, and by extension Disney. The bubble of live sports because they are DVR-proof has popped. That game is now over.
Was it actually a bubble because it was DVR-proof... because ESPN - whose bread and butter is subscription fees - proabably doesn't care whether or not you DVR their programming, or at least not as much as CBS, FOX or a cable channel with low subscription fees.
-
Peak Sports Viewership apparently arrived a few years ago, but few investors have realized that it's occurred. There are a number of possible explanations for sports TV's declining popularity, including:
• Oversaturation of product.
• The quality of play, which has has arguably eroded.
• Poor refereeing and a lack of league discipline.
• Unsavory player behavior on and off of the field.
• Asinine commentators who all want to mimic ESPN's Chris Berman. (There's only one Chris Berman!)
• Numerous viewing alternatives and market segmentation. In a social-media-driven world, there's just so much time each day for sports TV.
• "Cord-cutting" among cable TV customers.
• Other important reasons that I'll discuss in greater depth later this week.
While I agree with some of the reasons, any analyst who thinks the bolded are reasons why people are watching less sports probably should turn in their analyst license.
-
• Unsavory player behavior on and off of the field.
I'm guessing pro athletes do more good works than the average sports watcher.
-
I just got this from a hedge fund manager, this is what a lot on Wall Street think
----------------------------
Stock quotes in this article:
DIS
I first outlined The Many Peaks I See in June 2015, and have added "Peak Icahn," "Peak Trump" and others since then.
Now, I'm adding "Peak Sports Viewership" to the list, which is bad news for ESPN ownerWalt Disney Co. (DIS).
I outlined my bearish case for Disney in November, shorting the stock and adding it to my "Best Short Ideas" list at $116.25 a share. DIS has dropped some 20% since then, and I remain short.
Although I wouldn't be surprised to see Disney shares bounce over the next few weeks following their recent schmeissing, that doesn't change my view on Peak Sports Viewership.
Recent reports show that:
• The NCAA semifinal College Bowl Series saw nearly a one-third slippage in ratings.
• Viewership for the NHL's Winter Classic dropped by 20% from 2015 levels and 40% from 2014.
• Ratings for college football's national championship declined 15%.
Peak Sports Viewership apparently arrived a few years ago, but few investors have realized that it's occurred. There are a number of possible explanations for sports TV's declining popularity, including:
• Oversaturation of product.
• The quality of play, which has has arguably eroded.
• Poor refereeing and a lack of league discipline.
• Unsavory player behavior on and off of the field.
• Asinine commentators who all want to mimic ESPN's Chris Berman. (There's only one Chris Berman!)
• Numerous viewing alternatives and market segmentation. In a social-media-driven world, there's just so much time each day for sports TV.
• "Cord-cutting" among cable TV customers.
• Other important reasons that I'll discuss in greater depth later this week.
All of this spells trouble for Disney and its heavy reliance on ESPN for revenues and profits. As I've previously noted, I expect Disney's secular growth rate to fall far short of consensus forecasts.
So, I recommend not going long on Disney given the stock's still-elevated valuation, which I believe incorporates faster profit growth than the firm might ultimately see.
Position: Short DIS (small)
Douglas A. Kass
Seabreeze Partners Management Inc.
My only comment on this is:
Thank goodness there is only one Chris Berman. One is one too many!
-
I'd be a LOT more worried about FS1 right now, and in more ways than one....including how it impacts MU.
-
I'd be a LOT more worried about FS1 right now, and in more ways than one....including how it impacts MU.
Explain .... FS1 just put in a bid for Thursday Night Football. Sounds like they're perfectly happy losing more money. The difference is ESPNis not.
-
Explain .... FS1 just put in a bid for Thursday Night Football. Sounds like they're perfectly happy losing more money. The difference is ESPNis not.
FS1 is not going to win that bid.
-
I just got this from a hedge fund manager, this is what a lot on Wall Street think
----------------------------
Stock quotes in this article:
DIS
I first outlined The Many Peaks I See in June 2015, and have added "Peak Icahn," "Peak Trump" and others since then.
Now, I'm adding "Peak Sports Viewership" to the list, which is bad news for ESPN ownerWalt Disney Co. (DIS).
I outlined my bearish case for Disney in November, shorting the stock and adding it to my "Best Short Ideas" list at $116.25 a share. DIS has dropped some 20% since then, and I remain short.
Although I wouldn't be surprised to see Disney shares bounce over the next few weeks following their recent schmeissing, that doesn't change my view on Peak Sports Viewership.
Recent reports show that:
• The NCAA semifinal College Bowl Series saw nearly a one-third slippage in ratings.
• Viewership for the NHL's Winter Classic dropped by 20% from 2015 levels and 40% from 2014.
• Ratings for college football's national championship declined 15%.
Peak Sports Viewership apparently arrived a few years ago, but few investors have realized that it's occurred. There are a number of possible explanations for sports TV's declining popularity, including:
• Oversaturation of product.
• The quality of play, which has has arguably eroded.
• Poor refereeing and a lack of league discipline.
• Unsavory player behavior on and off of the field.
• Asinine commentators who all want to mimic ESPN's Chris Berman. (There's only one Chris Berman!)
• Numerous viewing alternatives and market segmentation. In a social-media-driven world, there's just so much time each day for sports TV.
• "Cord-cutting" among cable TV customers.
• Other important reasons that I'll discuss in greater depth later this week.
All of this spells trouble for Disney and its heavy reliance on ESPN for revenues and profits. As I've previously noted, I expect Disney's secular growth rate to fall far short of consensus forecasts.
So, I recommend not going long on Disney given the stock's still-elevated valuation, which I believe incorporates faster profit growth than the firm might ultimately see.
Position: Short DIS (small)
Douglas A. Kass
Seabreeze Partners Management Inc.
Serious question: Who is Douglas A. Kass and why should anybody care? Does he have a proven record of being right 90% of the time? 75%? 50%? 33%? 25%?
-
Serious question: Who is Douglas A. Kass and why should anybody care? Does he have a proven record of being right 90% of the time? 75%? 50%? 33%? 25%?
He is a successful hedge fund manager of some reputation. He is a "short seller" often betting on stocks that will go lower. He writes a column on thestreet.com. Finally, Warren Buffett is a big fan and has Dougie as his "resident bear" at his annual meeting so someone can provide "the other side."
If this matters, I've known Dougie for many years and have the utmost respect for him. I know, my endorsement probably buried him!
-
He is a successful hedge fund manager of some reputation. He is a "short seller" often betting on stocks that will go lower. He writes a column on thestreet.com. Finally, Warren Buffett is a big fan and has Doug as his "resident bear" at his annual meeting so someone can provide "the other side."
If this matters, I've known Dougie for many years and have the utmost respect for him. I know, my endorsement probably buried him!
Ditto on all counts.
-
Watching FS1 after the Creighton game. Monster Energy Supercross in a sold out Anaheim stadium. Production Values are excellent. I would say the Sports Bubble is alive and well in this corner of the sports world.
These guys have some serious ability by the way.
-
Watching FS1 after the Creighton game. Monster Energy Supercross in a sold out Anaheim stadium. Production Values are excellent. I would say the Sports Bubble is alive and well in this corner of the sports world.
These guys have some serious ability by the way.
But FS1 is not paying them hundreds of millions for broadcasting rights.
Definition of the sports bubble ... years of ever rising broadcasting rights has lead to ESPN now pay $6 billion a year for programming (and some number more for production). This was based on the fact that they had 100 million subscribers paying $6 month for ESPN ($8/month for ESPN and ESPN2) and this number would never go down and ESPN could raise their month fee anytime they wanted and by however much they wanted.
Now that the bubble has popped, they still have the $6 billion a year in rights, and will for years to come. Their 100 million subscribers is now 92 million and will continue to head south ... pretty much forever. Gone are the day of raising the month charge and that might have to start down too. So way too high fixed costs that will not change and falling revenue growth that will eventually turn negative is the definition of the sports bubble popping.
Bottom line, the popping of the sports bubble means that people that don't watch sports will stop paying for it.
-
But FS1 is not paying them hundreds of millions for broadcasting rights.
Definition of the sports bubble ... years of ever rising broadcasting rights has lead to ESPN now pay $6 billion a year for programming (and some number more for production). This was based on the fact that they had 100 million subscribers paying $6 month for ESPN ($8/month for ESPN and ESPN2) and this number would never go down and ESPN could raise their month fee anytime they wanted and by however much they wanted.
Now that the bubble has popped, they still have the $6 billion a year in rights, and will for years to come. Their 100 million subscribers is now 92 million and will continue to head south ... pretty much forever. Gone are the day of raising the month charge and that might have to start down too. So way too high fixed costs that will not change and falling revenue growth that will eventually turn negative is the definition of the sports bubble popping.
Bottom line, the popping of the sports bubble means that people that don't watch sports will stop paying for it.
In this case I am sure Monster Energy is writing a big ticket to sponsor this event. They agree to buy ads from FS1 etc. Probably a good deal for all the parties.
I agree that the next round of TV sports pricing may change dynamics. However, good quality product will still command top dollar.
Implication for MU is that the Big East as whole needs to be a damn good product and College Basketball has to be view positively. I think the way the conference is currently defined it will be. NBA will eventually go to two and done or something like baseball , either of which will enhance College basketball.
-
Watching FS1 after the Creighton game. Monster Energy Supercross in a sold out Anaheim stadium. Production Values are excellent. I would say the Sports Bubble is alive and well in this corner of the sports world.
These guys have some serious ability by the way.
I went two weeks ago to Anaheim Stadium for the motocross...put on by same production company. Passed on tonight.
Thing is, costs for this kind of stuff is cheap. It's filler. That being said, I don't think the bubble is over by any stretch, but FS1 has some issues right now....not on quality, in other areas. My former boss is the president of FS1. Very smart guy. He has a tough gig right now.
-
He is a successful hedge fund manager of some reputation. He is a "short seller" often betting on stocks that will go lower. He writes a column on thestreet.com. Finally, Warren Buffett is a big fan and has Dougie as his "resident bear" at his annual meeting so someone can provide "the other side."
If this matters, I've known Dougie for many years and have the utmost respect for him. I know, my endorsement probably buried him!
Thanks for the answer. Your endorsement is no indictment of him, nor is it a huge thumbs-up for him in my eyes.
Whenever I hear so-and-so "expert" says such-and-such, my immediate question is, "OK, what is his or her record on predictions of this kind?" You probably don't know, and that's fine. I'd rather you say what you did than make up a percentage. But it really doesn't prove anything about the gentleman's record.
-
Thanks for the answer. Your endorsement is no indictment of him, nor is it a huge thumbs-up for him in my eyes.
Whenever I hear so-and-so "expert" says such-and-such, my immediate question is, "OK, what is his or her record on predictions of this kind?" You probably don't know, and that's fine. I'd rather you say what you did than make up a percentage. But it really doesn't prove anything about the gentleman's record.
90% of all restaurants fail after a year. So when people ask how the restaurant down the block is doing, if it has been in business for more than a year, it's doing good!
Likewise, 90% of hedge fund struggle. Dougie is a hedge fund manager that positions exactly the way he writes. After years and years he still in business, so he's doing well.
-
I went two weeks ago to Anaheim Stadium for the motocross...put on by same production company. Passed on tonight.
Thing is, costs for this kind of stuff is cheap. It's filler. That being said, I don't think the bubble is over by any stretch, but FS1 has some issues right now....not on quality, in other areas. My former boss is the president of FS1. Very smart guy. He has a tough gig right now.
I'm defining the sports bubble as people that do not watch sports will stop paying for it. Cord cutting, skinny bundles and the end of "linear TV." is going to cause this to happen.
ESPN revealing that its subscribers went from 99 million to 92 million blow up Disney's stock in August from which is still has not recovered. Wall Street thinks this announcement marks the popping of the bubble.
Note what I'm not saying is people are growing uninterested in sports. What is happening is the market for buying sports programming (ie., paying for ESPN or not) is getting more efficient and ESPN and other sports programmers can no longer rely on getting a significant part of the revenues from people that do not use (watch) their product (subscribe to cable which has ESPN and ESPN2, which they have no interest in watching, and pay $8/month for them).
Is this your definition of the sports bubble? And why don't you think it's popping?
-
I'm defining the sports bubble as people that do not watch sports will stop paying for it. Cord cutting, skinny bundles and the end of "linear TV." is going to cause this to happen.
ESPN revealing that its subscribers went from 99 million to 92 million blow up Disney's stock in August from which is still has not recovered. Wall Street thinks this announcement marks the popping of the bubble.
Note what I'm not saying is people are growing uninterested in sports. What is happening is the market for buying sports programming (ie., paying for ESPN or not) is getting more efficient and ESPN and other sports programmers can no longer rely on getting a significant part of the revenues from people that do not use (watch) their product (subscribe to cable which has ESPN and ESPN2, which they have no interest in watching, and pay $8/month for them).
Is this your definition of the sports bubble? And why don't you think it's popping?
As stated earlier, the same analysts also predict the number of total linear pay tv subscribers will be above 90 million through the 2020's. Now, population grows, so cord cutting alternatives will also grow, thus market share will change, but linear tv will dominate for a long time. I work in both worlds, I see the data every day.
I thought you were implying that payment for sports rights was going to reverse. At some point, I actually think it will, but again believe this is way down the road. You will see it on fringe properties, but that is nothing new. The bigger properties, will continue to get their increases.
And yes, as people pull away from sports there will be cord cutting or downsizing to skinny packages. That is why when I was at DIRECTV we created the Select package and ESPN is pissed at this day about that, because of how many people moved down to Select (no ESPNs) meant lower costs. That being said, ESPN is making up the difference in other skinny packages like Sling from DISH.
-
90% of all restaurants fail after a year. So when people ask how the restaurant down the block is doing, if it has been in business for more than a year, it's doing good!
Likewise, 90% of hedge fund struggle. Dougie is a hedge fund manager that positions exactly the way he writes. After years and years he still in business, so he's doing well.
Fair enough. Very reasonable.
Hedge fund managers, like the rest of us, make plenty of mistakes. The good ones who can stay in business for years have proven something, as have the good investors who have beaten "the market" for years. Despite proclamations from the financial industry and the media, there are many such creatures.
-
Fair enough. Very reasonable.
Hedge fund managers, like the rest of us, make plenty of mistakes. The good ones who can stay in business for years have proven something, as have the good investors who have beaten "the market" for years. Despite proclamations from the financial industry and the media, there are many such creatures.
To complete the thought, a hedge fund manager like Dougie can have dozens and dozens of ideas a year. Many of them on the same stock (buy, then sell, then buy again). So it is analogous to the .300 hitter or a 80% FT shooter. If we are focusing on one specific idea (or at-bat, or FT) they can miss on anyone and still be good.
That said, I think Dougie has it right on Disney.
-
Numbers go high and low all the time.
NBA and the NCAA TOURNAMENT saw record rating last season.
KC and Houston in the MLB playoffs had a record rating on FS1 and Michigan at Utah had a record rating on FS1. UFC is strong on FS1.
The CFP in year 1 had record rating on ESPN.
-
As stated earlier, the same analysts also predict the number of total linear pay tv subscribers will be above 90 million through the 2020's. Now, population grows, so cord cutting alternatives will also grow, thus market share will change, but linear tv will dominate for a long time. I work in both worlds, I see the data every day.
I thought you were implying that payment for sports rights was going to reverse. At some point, I actually think it will, but again believe this is way down the road. You will see it on fringe properties, but that is nothing new. The bigger properties, will continue to get their increases.
And yes, as people pull away from sports there will be cord cutting or downsizing to skinny packages. That is why when I was at DIRECTV we created the Select package and ESPN is pissed at this day about that, because of how many people moved down to Select (no ESPNs) meant lower costs. That being said, ESPN is making up the difference in other skinny packages like Sling from DISH.
Seems you're making a good bearish case here.
ESPN had 99 million subscribers. It had saturated the market. Their was virtually no one left to sign up, everyone has it now. Now that we have cord cutters, skinny bundles and steaming. These are ways for ESPN to manage their decline, not increase their revenues.
-
To complete the thought, a hedge fund manager like Dougie can have dozens and dozens of ideas a year. Many of them on the same stock (buy, then sell, then buy again). So it is analogous to the .300 hitter or a 80% FT shooter. If we are focusing on one specific idea (or at-bat, or FT) they can miss on anyone and still be good.
That said, I think Dougie has it right on Disney.
I appreciate your perspective, and I admit it is one of the many things that has given me pause re DIS. I haven't bought yet, and I might never. I will easily reach my goals without taking major risks, so DIS might not be worth it for me.
And I happen to agree with your general point of your comment here. An investor need not be perfect to be successful.
-
And I happen to agree with your general point of your comment here. An investor need not be perfect to be successful.
Yeah, but it sure helps.
-
Seems you're making a good bearish case here.
ESPN had 99 million subscribers. It had saturated the market. Their was virtually no one left to sign up, everyone has it now. Now that we have cord cutters, skinny bundles and steaming. These are ways for ESPN to manage their decline, not increase their revenues.
That's through traditional Pay TV avenues, they'll make headway in skinny bundle OTT which is counted differently. They get the same rate from Sling (DISH) as they do Dish, Cox, Charter, etc, but the platform is different.