The sports bubble is in full collapse. This will affect everything about sports.
ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History
Things got a ton worse for ESPN this month.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
Yesterday Nielsen announced its subscriber numbers for November 2016 and those numbers were the worst in the history of ESPN's existence as a cable company -- the worldwide leader in sports lost 621,000 cable subscribers. That's the most subscribers ESPN has ever lost in a month according to Nielsen estimates and it represents a terrifying and troubling trend for the company, an acceleration of subscriber loss that represents a doubling of the average losses over the past couple of years, when ESPN has been losing in the neighborhood of 300,000 subscribers a month.
-----------------
ESPN has lost 15 million subscribers in the last 5 years
@badgate
In 2017 ESPN to spend $7.3 billion on content more than any source; then Netflix ($6bn), NBC (4.3bn), CBS ($4bn) & Amazon ($3.2bn)@badgate
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on October 31, 2016, 02:06:51 PM
The sports bubble is in full collapse. This will affect everything about sports.
ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History
Things got a ton worse for ESPN this month.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-621-000-subscribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916
Yesterday Nielsen announced its subscriber numbers for November 2016 and those numbers were the worst in the history of ESPN's existence as a cable company -- the worldwide leader in sports lost 621,000 cable subscribers. That's the most subscribers ESPN has ever lost in a month according to Nielsen estimates and it represents a terrifying and troubling trend for the company, an acceleration of subscriber loss that represents a doubling of the average losses over the past couple of years, when ESPN has been losing in the neighborhood of 300,000 subscribers a month.
-----------------
ESPN has lost 15 million subscribers in the last 5 years
@badgate
In 2017 ESPN to spend $7.3 billion on content more than any source; then Netflix ($6bn), NBC (4.3bn), CBS ($4bn) & Amazon ($3.2bn)@badgate
Don't pretend this says anything specific about ESPN. It is much broader than that.
The driving force to all of this is that people are getting rid of cable. That is where
ALLof the lost subscribers are coming from. There are too many options out there now. (As a matter of fact, I am ditching cable for Vue)
The headline could just as easily have been "
<pick your channel> Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History".
Things aren't going to get better without change. Hence, the reason that ESPN announced a couple months back that they will be starting a streaming service. It is very limited starting out, but just getting it started is the big news. Once it is up and running, I expect it will expand quickly and language will be added as new contracts are signed.
Quote from: brandx on October 31, 2016, 06:44:26 PM
Don't pretend this says anything specific about ESPN. It is much broader than that.
The driving force to all of this is that people are getting rid of cable. That is where ALLof the lost subscribers are coming from. There are too many options out there now. (As a matter of fact, I am ditching cable for Vue)
The headline could just as easily have been "<pick your channel> Loses 621,000 Subscribers; Worst Month In Company History".
Things aren't going to get better without change. Hence, the reason that ESPN announced a couple months back that they will be starting a streaming service. It is very limited starting out, but just getting it started is the big news. Once it is up and running, I expect it will expand quickly and language will be added as new contracts are signed.
I agree with you. But the thing that was holding cable (sat TV) was live sports. People subscribed to cable because they wanted ESPN. That has changed.
And regarding streaming .... see the tweet above. ESPN is shelling out $7.4 billion for broadcasting rights. The assumption was 100 million paying $9/Month for the ESPN suite of channels, or $900 million/month. Streaming is a business of 20 to 30 million at $20/month, or $400 to $600/month. If this repeated for all sports channels, this spells the end of the current economics of college and professional sports. (Note I said economics, not the end of sports)
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on October 31, 2016, 07:15:30 PM
I agree with you. But the thing that was holding cable (sat TV) was live sports. People subscribed to cable because they wanted ESPN. That has changed.
I think the minority of people who have had cable are ESPN viewers.
Quote from: brandx on October 31, 2016, 07:25:19 PM
I think the minority of people who have had cable are ESPN viewers.
Probably but it is also the most expensive channel on a cable bill. That is because it is, and now was, the must have channel. Disney knew that which is why they could charge more for it than any other channel.
Fact is sports have became so lucrative because 100 million cable subscribers were will to pay $9/month out of their cable bill for all the ESPN channels (versus 75 cents/month for CNN). Now it's 85 million and falling by 600 thousand a month.
So in about a month we're going to get the typical thread about nobody is showing up at Marquette games. That's Should be expanded to nobody showing up at organize sporting events anymore nor watching them on TV. And the economics of sports needs to radically change.
My wife and I went to see Sully a month ago at our local AMC 24. Tickets were $13 each (senior discount) and 2 hot dogs and 2 cokes cost $22. So 48 bucks for a matinee. Next time we'll stay home and wait for it on cable. People are paying thousands to see the Cubs in the World series. I guess my point is most folks will pay for whatever floats their boat and for some that is not cable.
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on November 01, 2016, 05:59:54 AM
Probably but it is also the most expensive channel on a cable bill. That is because it is, and now was, the must have channel. Disney knew that which is why they could charge more for it than any other channel.
Fact is sports have became so lucrative because 100 million cable subscribers were will to pay $9/month out of their cable bill for all the ESPN channels (versus 75 cents/month for CNN). Now it's 85 million and falling by 600 thousand a month.
See, this is where I think you are wrong. The majority do not want ESPN for $9/mo. They are just stuck with it as part of the package. It certainly is part of the reason that is driving cable prices past the tipping point, but people are not shedding cable strictly because of ESPN.
Also, a lot of the people dropping cable would get ESPN if it was available as a standalone product.
Quote from: brandx on November 01, 2016, 08:07:27 AM
See, this is where I think you are wrong. The majority do not want ESPN for $9/mo. They are just stuck with it as part of the package. It certainly is part of the reason that is driving cable prices past the tipping point, but people are not shedding cable strictly because of ESPN.
Also, a lot of the people dropping cable would get ESPN if it was available as a standalone product.
Disagree. That cost, as a standalone product, would be ridiculously high.
I see this more as the people that don't care about ESPN and don't watch sports are ditching cable. ESPN is one of the few things causing people to keep their cable.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 01, 2016, 08:28:21 AM
Disagree. That cost, as a standalone product, would be ridiculously high.
I disagree, Jes.
People are dropping cable because of the overall price for hundreds of channels they never, ever view. Add in the rental of a couple cable boxes and prices are pushing $200 a month. I think a lot of these people would be happy to pay $15 - $20 a month for ESPN if it wasn't coupled with a huge cable bill.
The only live TV shows that I watch are either Sports or News. Why should I purchase 200+ channels just for the privilege to watch a dozen at most?
Smaller streaming packages with 50 - 100 channels - including ESPN and FS1 and NBCSN can be had in the $40 - $50 range. Add in a one-time cost for an antenna for local stations (for NFL and other live sports on the networks) and subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, plus Internet service and you are looking at a price point that is just over 50% of the cost of cable - for much more content that is geared much more specifically to how you actually consume it.
And the Amazon cost is really $0 - since I more than get my money back in free shipping and lower online pricing.
I give Heisey a lot of crap because, by his own admission, he is a smug SOB (hence his nickname, Smuggles) who often plays loose with facts and then disappears when proven wrong.
Having said that, he's been on this ESPN-in-decline thing for quite some time and he was one of several voices who helped me decide to hold off on buying DIS stock.
There is a price at which DIS could become attractive, but we're not very close to that yet. And ESPN is, in fact, bleeding subscribers to the point where it is materially significant.
Smuggles likes to talk in absolutes and loves to exaggerate, but that doesn't mean his general themes are always incorrect.
How's that for a ringing endorsement, Smuggles?
Quote from: brandx on November 01, 2016, 09:02:22 AM
I disagree, Jes.
People are dropping cable because of the overall price for hundreds of channels they never, ever view. Add in the rental of a couple cable boxes and prices are pushing $200 a month. I think a lot of these people would be happy to pay $15 - $20 a month for ESPN if it wasn't coupled with a huge cable bill.
The only live TV shows that I watch are either Sports or News. Why should I purchase 200+ channels just for the privilege to watch a dozen at most?
Smaller streaming packages with 50 - 100 channels - including ESPN and FS1 and NBCSN can be had in the $40 - $50 range. Add in a one-time cost for an antenna for local stations (for NFL and other live sports on the networks) and subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, plus Internet service and you are looking at a price point that is just over 50% of the cost of cable - for much more content that is geared much more specifically to how you actually consume it.
And the Amazon cost is really $0 - since I more than get my money back in free shipping and lower online pricing.
I still marvel at how many channels I filter out when I customize my guide (was UVerse now DirectTV). I have a package with 250 channels and I narrow it down to less than 100 and that includes all the variations of the Sunday Ticket package (RedZone, Mixes, individual games, etc). I'd say 50 of the channels are sports related (Fox Sports, ESPN, and NFL network/Ticket).
I'm about as heavy as a television viewer as you'll find and I think there has to be a culling of a lot of the content because there is just too much out there.
Quote from: brandx on November 01, 2016, 09:02:22 AM
I disagree, Jes.
People are dropping cable because of the overall price for hundreds of channels they never, ever view. Add in the rental of a couple cable boxes and prices are pushing $200 a month. I think a lot of these people would be happy to pay $15 - $20 a month for ESPN if it wasn't coupled with a huge cable bill.
The only live TV shows that I watch are either Sports or News. Why should I purchase 200+ channels just for the privilege to watch a dozen at most?
Smaller streaming packages with 50 - 100 channels - including ESPN and FS1 and NBCSN can be had in the $40 - $50 range. Add in a one-time cost for an antenna for local stations (for NFL and other live sports on the networks) and subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, plus Internet service and you are looking at a price point that is just over 50% of the cost of cable - for much more content that is geared much more specifically to how you actually consume it.
And the Amazon cost is really $0 - since I more than get my money back in free shipping and lower online pricing.
But right now the cost of ESPN is spread out over 90 million subscribers. What if cable and sattelite moved more into ala carte or smaller bundles? ESPN would be lucky to get half if its subscribers. Maybe a third. The vast majority of the cable channels you are talking about have minimal subscription cost.
Here is an article from a year ago that estimates what a current bundled versus an estimated unbundled cost would look like. ESPN would be very expensive.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html
Quote from: MU82 on November 01, 2016, 09:07:12 AM
I give Heisey a lot of crap because, by his own admission, he is a smug SOB (hence his nickname, Smuggles) who often plays loose with facts and then disappears when proven wrong.
Having said that, he's been on this ESPN-in-decline thing for quite some time and he was one of several voices who helped me decide to hold off on buying DIS stock.
There is a price at which DIS could become attractive, but we're not very close to that yet. And ESPN is, in fact, bleeding subscribers to the point where it is materially significant.
Smuggles likes to talk in absolutes and loves to exaggerate, but that doesn't mean his general themes are always incorrect.
How's that for a ringing endorsement, Smuggles?
I do wonder if at some point ESPN becomes an albatross that Disney has to look to jettison. DIS is close to losing money when they have the two largest media franchises in history (Marvel and Star Wars) thanks to ESPN.
Now, I think ESPN can figure it out as it's more of a cost related issue than a revenue related issue. The short term problem, and why the focus on subscribers, is that ESPN made a big bet a couple of years ago that subscribers would go up for all the content and wizardry they were buying. The subscribers are actually going down, so they need to rework their cost side to fit the market.
I think the thing to keep in mind that sports content is still the dominant monster on the TV landscape, even NFL with flagging ratings blows away anything else so it's not catastrophe in my opinion, it's a matter of recalibrating expectations.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 01, 2016, 09:10:58 AM
But right now the cost of ESPN is spread out over 90 million subscribers. What if cable and sattelite moved more into ala carte or smaller bundles? ESPN would be lucky to get half if its subscribers. Maybe a third. The vast majority of the cable channels you are talking about have minimal subscription cost.
Here is an article from a year ago that estimates what a current bundled versus an estimated unbundled cost would look like. ESPN would be very expensive.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html
I think that analysis might be flawed, ESPN Classic shouldn't be the most expensive channel ala carte. The content for Classic is not that expensive so it's all about the low viewership so clearly ESPN is baring some cost in Classic as opposed to ESPN or ESPN2, etc.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 01, 2016, 09:15:47 AM
I do wonder if at some point ESPN becomes an albatross that Disney has to look to jettison. DIS is close to losing money when they have the two largest media franchises in history (Marvel and Star Wars) thanks to ESPN.
Now, I think ESPN can figure it out as it's more of a cost related issue than a revenue related issue. The short term problem, and why the focus on subscribers, is that ESPN made a big bet a couple of years ago that subscribers would go up for all the content and wizardry they were buying. The subscribers are actually going down, so they need to rework their cost side to fit the market.
I think the thing to keep in mind that sports content is still the dominant monster on the TV landscape, even NFL with flagging ratings blows away anything else so it's not catastrophe in my opinion, it's a matter of recalibrating expectations.
But if you look at the article, the vast majority of their costs are fixed. They are paying $7 billion in 2017 in media rights. It projects that they will lose money if subscribers ditch at the current rate within five years.
Now eventually they will get out from under the contracts and will adjust accordingly. It's the sports leagues that may have to make the long-term adjustments. If you are an NFL legacy owner, it might be a grand time to look at selling your franchise because I doubt it will be worth as much in a decade.
Dropped cable 6 months ago and love it. I purchased a digital antenna that gives me free HD network channels ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. That covers most football games, the local news, and my wife can watch Dancing with the Stars and The Bachelor on ABC so she's happy. In addition to this we use Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Go. All 3 of those accounts are shared by several parties so there's low (if any) cost involved. Maybe they will eventually stop us from doing that. We have more than enough to watch at this point and for the occasional $1.50 we can rent a new Redbox movie. I currently spend ~$40 a month for internet compared to ~$110 I was spending before for internet + cable. Saved over $400 in these 6 months and I haven't missed cable.
Quote from: Stronghold on November 01, 2016, 09:29:02 AM
Dropped cable 6 months ago and love it. I purchased a digital antenna that gives me free HD network channels ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. That covers most football games, the local news, and my wife can watch Dancing with the Stars and The Bachelor on ABC so she's happy. In addition to this we use Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Go. All 3 of those accounts are shared by several parties so there's low (if any) cost involved. Maybe they will eventually stop us from doing that. We have more than enough to watch at this point and for the occasional $1.50 we can rent a new Redbox movie. I currently spend ~$40 a month for internet compared to ~$110 I was spending before for internet + cable. Saved over $400 in these 6 months and I haven't missed cable.
Sounds great, but how will you (legally) watch Marquette basketball, which is almost exclusively on FS1, ESPN, and CBS Sports Network?
Quote from: MU82 on November 01, 2016, 09:07:12 AM
I give Heisey a lot of crap because, by his own admission, he is a smug SOB (hence his nickname, Smuggles) who often plays loose with facts and then disappears when proven wrong.
Having said that, he's been on this ESPN-in-decline thing for quite some time and he was one of several voices who helped me decide to hold off on buying DIS stock.
There is a price at which DIS could become attractive, but we're not very close to that yet. And ESPN is, in fact, bleeding subscribers to the point where it is materially significant.
Smuggles likes to talk in absolutes and loves to exaggerate, but that doesn't mean his general themes are always incorrect.
How's that for a ringing endorsement, Smuggles?
Wow! I'm honored
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 01, 2016, 09:10:58 AM
But right now the cost of ESPN is spread out over 90 million subscribers. What if cable and sattelite moved more into ala carte or smaller bundles? ESPN would be lucky to get half if its subscribers. Maybe a third. The vast majority of the cable channels you are talking about have minimal subscription cost.
Here is an article from a year ago that estimates what a current bundled versus an estimated unbundled cost would look like. ESPN would be very expensive.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html
Bingo!
This is a story about the massive broadcasting rights they have paid (costs) and if they continue to lose subscribers, this is flowing back to the sports leagues (and college conferences) and they will have to learn to do with less.
To use a phrase often said around here, ESPN will be fine as they will eventually adjust their costs (but stop being the money machine for DIS). But if this continues the sports leagues (and college conferences) will
not be fine. They have never had to do with less.
My guess is Players Associations will not be as understanding and we could see more players strikes over reduced contracts (lower leagues minimums, lower salary caps, etc).
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on November 01, 2016, 10:09:12 AM
Bingo!
This is a story about the massive broadcasting rights they have paid (costs) and if they continue to lose subscribers, this is flowing back to the sports leagues (and college conferences) and they will have to learn to do with less.
To use a phrase often said around here, ESPN will be fine as they will eventually adjust their costs (but stop being the money machine for DIS). But if this continues the sports leagues (and college conferences) will not be fine. They have never had to do with less.
My guess is Players Associations will not be as understanding and we could see more players strikes over reduced contracts (lower leagues minimums, lower salary caps, etc).
The leagues may not need to do with less....they just may not get the avalanche of future revenue all expect. Also, keep in mind a lot of ESPN's cost are in non-live sports content like SportsCenter, technology, non-core activity, and personnel.
I don't think contracts keep going up but I heavily doubt the NFL, NBA and Div 1 football/basketball are in for some sort of austerity the next round of negotiations.
Something for the Milwaukee crowd ... what did the city do right at the sports bubble peak? Commit to building an unbelievably expensive basketball arena.
If the sports bubble is in full collapse, and the Bucks and MU do not generate the revenues they think they will, are you ready for more tax hikes to pay it?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 01, 2016, 10:17:40 AM
The leagues may not need to do with less....they just may not get the avalanche of future revenue all expect. Also, keep in mind a lot of ESPN's cost are in non-live sports content like SportsCenter, technology, non-core activity, and personnel.
I don't think contracts keep going up but I heavily doubt the NFL, NBA and Div 1 football/basketball are in for some sort of austerity the next round of negotiations.
$7.4 billion are broadcasting rights. All of the highlighted parts are not that much of their cost base.
Yes, for the next few years the leagues are ok as they have contracts, but when they come up for renewal, that is when the world changes for them.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 01, 2016, 09:22:01 AM
But if you look at the article, the vast majority of their costs are fixed. They are paying $7 billion in 2017 in media rights. It projects that they will lose money if subscribers ditch at the current rate within five years.
Now eventually they will get out from under the contracts and will adjust accordingly. It's the sports leagues that may have to make the long-term adjustments. If you are an NFL legacy owner, it might be a grand time to look at selling your franchise because I doubt it will be worth as much in a decade.
You are right to a certain extent. But, it is not that simple.
Your link says it would cost $25/mo. for those who only wanted ESPN. But that would be if cable completely disappeared and the only option was standalone. Cable IS going to continue to bleed consumers, yet in 5 years, I would still expect 50 - 60 million people will still have cable for the convenience of having one company meet all their needs. So, with much of the expense still subsidized by these consumers, the price would not have to be near $25/mo. I would think we would see something more in the $15 - $18 range.
We also need to keep in mind that services like Sling, Vue, Amazon, and the new DirectTV slim package will see great growth over the next 5 years and will pickup a good percentage of the consumers who leave cable.
Finally, as new contracts for major sports come up for re-negotiation, we will see streaming services becoming a bigger and bigger player.
Quote from: ChuckyChip on November 01, 2016, 09:46:47 AM
Sounds great, but how will you (legally) watch Marquette basketball, which is almost exclusively on FS1, ESPN, and CBS Sports Network?
Unfortunately it's one of the drawbacks of cutting cable. I assume I will end up watching big games I'm interested in at a friends or a bar, and then hope I can stream some of the lower priority games or just have to bite the bullet and miss some of the games.
Quote from: Stronghold on November 01, 2016, 11:11:17 AM
Unfortunately it's one of the drawbacks of cutting cable. I assume I will end up watching big games I'm interested in at a friends or a bar, and then hope I can stream some of the lower priority games or just have to bite the bullet and miss some of the games.
Get Sling TV, Blue package. It gets you FS1 & FS2.
You may miss a few games, but the vast majority are on FS1.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 01, 2016, 06:19:30 AM
My wife and I went to see Sully a month ago at our local AMC 24. Tickets were $13 each (senior discount) and 2 hot dogs and 2 cokes cost $22. So 48 bucks for a matinee. Next time we'll stay home and wait for it on cable. People are paying thousands to see the Cubs in the World series. I guess my point is most folks will pay for whatever floats their boat and for some that is not cable.
I only go to Marcus Cinemas. Early birds $5 (start time before 11 am). Tuesdays all movies are $5. Otherwise wait to rent it. The concessions are cheaper at my house and HDTV makes for a fine viewing experience.
Quote from: RJax55 on November 01, 2016, 11:15:56 AM
Get Sling TV, Blue package. It gets you FS1 & FS2.
You may miss a few games, but the vast majority are on FS1.
That makes sense, but at some point doesn't getting a combination of these smaller services (Netflix + Hulu + HBO Go + Sling) start to add up to just having cable?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 01, 2016, 09:08:18 AM
I still marvel at how many channels I filter out when I customize my guide (was UVerse now DirectTV). I have a package with 250 channels and I narrow it down to less than 100 and that includes all the variations of the Sunday Ticket package (RedZone, Mixes, individual games, etc). I'd say 50 of the channels are sports related (Fox Sports, ESPN, and NFL network/Ticket).
I'm about as heavy as a television viewer as you'll find and I think there has to be a culling of a lot of the content because there is just too much out there.
I had Frontier/U-Verse and I recently switched to Optimum Cable (Cablevision). My $160/month special deal ran out and was about $210/month thereafter. They refused to give me the same deal despite telling them I will switch if they don't. Multiple calls also. Optimum gave me a guaranteed price for for 3 years at $151/month for the same package of channels.
My customize guide on U-Verse was 100 channels like yours (plus I was able to categorize to find them easier.) I unfortunately can't set up a custom guide with Optimum. I can only select FAVORITES which lops everything into one unruly list.
Quote from: ChuckyChip on November 01, 2016, 12:38:33 PM
That makes sense, but at some point doesn't getting a combination of these smaller services (Netflix + Hulu + HBO Go + Sling) start to add up to just having cable?
It can, but you have far more control on what services to add and content you get. There's more flexibility. Flexibility that cable packages do not really offer at this time.
ummm, not so fast- this just in-
"Nielsen is investigating a larger than usual change in the November 2016 Cable Network Coverage Universe Estimates (versus the prior month). We take the accuracy of our data very seriously and are conducting a thorough analysis to determine whether or not there is an issue with these estimates. In the meantime, we have removed the November 2016 Cable Network Coverage Universe Estimates file from the Answers portal and ask clients not to use the numbers that were posted Friday. We are working closely with clients and will alert them on the findings of our internal review."
also, nielson isn't capturing subs from asking or AT&T's about to be launched direct tv's NOW product
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/nielsen-now-removes-its-november-cable-estimates-espn-networks-safe-for-now.html
my son is looking in to amazon's fire stick-anyone out there using that? time warner or whatever they are called now costs me over $225/month(tv and internet) and i watch maybe 10-15 different channels. haven't watched hbo in years, but it's there.
if i can't find a tv show that isn't (fake)reality tv, i'm going to cutting myself. those shows are the furthest from reality and people just sop it all up-unbelievable! my cousin was on one of those bachelorette shows a few years ago and the stories she has...very little food and lots of alcohol
on another note-
just watched espn's 30-30 on john daly-what a great story-stuff ya never knew about "long" johnny. at the end he sings this country song that is not only quite good, but shows an above average ability in that department as well-the show and the song is called "hit it hard". highly recommend watching. turns out he and holywood henderson got quite close, but not in a way you would at first guess.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 02, 2016, 05:13:20 AM
ummm, not so fast- this just in-
"Nielsen is investigating a larger than usual change in the November 2016 Cable Network Coverage Universe Estimates (versus the prior month). We take the accuracy of our data very seriously and are conducting a thorough analysis to determine whether or not there is an issue with these estimates. In the meantime, we have removed the November 2016 Cable Network Coverage Universe Estimates file from the Answers portal and ask clients not to use the numbers that were posted Friday. We are working closely with clients and will alert them on the findings of our internal review."
also, nielson isn't capturing subs from asking or AT&T's about to be launched direct tv's NOW product
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/nielsen-now-removes-its-november-cable-estimates-espn-networks-safe-for-now.html
my son is looking in to amazon's fire stick-anyone out there using that? time warner or whatever they are called now costs me over $225/month(tv and internet) and i watch maybe 10-15 different channels. haven't watched hbo in years, but it's there.
if i can't find a tv show that isn't (fake)reality tv, i'm going to cutting myself. those shows are the furthest from reality and people just sop it all up-unbelievable! my cousin was on one of those bachelorette shows a few years ago and the stories she has...very little food and lots of alcohol
on another note-
just watched espn's 30-30 on john daly-what a great story-stuff ya never knew about "long" johnny. at the end he sings this country song that is not only quite good, but shows an above average ability in that department as well-the show and the song is called "hit it hard". highly recommend watching. turns out he and holywood henderson got quite close, but not in a way you would at first guess.
Dude, what are you watching then? That's like 75% of watchable tv the past 5 years
Quote from: Jesse Livermore on November 01, 2016, 10:19:17 AM
Something for the Milwaukee crowd ... what did the city do right at the sports bubble peak? Commit to building an unbelievably expensive basketball arena.
If the sports bubble is in full collapse, and the Bucks and MU do not generate the revenues they think they will, are you ready for more tax hikes to pay it?
Not in the Milwaukee crowd, but no one has seen a decline in NBA or NCAA attendance yet. Any local decline would be directly correlated to product quality.
Basketball is still a very good in-person event.
Quote from: PTM on November 02, 2016, 07:30:44 AM
Not in the Milwaukee crowd, but no one has seen a decline in NBA or NCAA attendance yet. Any local decline would be directly correlated to product quality.
Basketball is still a very good in-person event.
+1
Not saying NCAA or NBA basketball is immune to the sports bubble but it's a better valuation than the NFL or NCAA football simply because in-person is at least comparable to at home for basketball vs football, logistics are better getting to and from games, and cost is not terrible.
Having said all of that, the stadium only makes sense because you have 3 revenue streams: NBA, NCAA, and others(concerts, musicals, performances, etc). The NFL and NCAA football stadiums are largely single purpose facilities that are used at most 20 times a year.
I'm comfortable with the choices Milwaukee made.
Quote from: Ellenson Family Reunion on November 02, 2016, 06:56:57 AM
Dude, what are you watching then? That's like 75% of watchable tv the past 5 years
netflix, ID tv, history channel, and news of course. may have to check out hbo's new orgie show though. heard it's getting a lot of flack, so it must be worth seeing then, eyna?
Since this thread was started, Nielsen first retracted its claim that ESPN lost 621,000. The number was so big and so shocking that many thought it must have been wrong.
Today Nielsen came out and "un-retracted" their retraction and affirmed that ESPN had indeed lost 621,000 subscribers.
Disney falls to session lows as Nielsen reaffirms ESPN subscriber loss data
31 Mins Ago
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/disney-falls-to-session-lows-as-nielsen-reaffirms-espn-subscriber-loss-data.html
Shares of Walt Disney fell to session lows after Nielsen reaffirmed data that said ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers in a month.
The stock fell as much as 1 percent, and was last seen trading about 0.7 percent lower.
On Friday, Nielsen said it has now finished an "extensive" review of its data and confirmed that the figures were "accurate as originally released."
Disney said in a statement to CNBC that the data is a "historic anomaly for the industry and inconsistent with much more moderated trends observed by other respected third party analysts." The company added that the data does not measure new distribution methods and that it hopes to "work with Nielsen to capture this growing market in future reports."
On Sunday, the data measurement company temporarily pulled the numbers in its November 2016 Cable Network Coverage Area Universe Estimates. Nielsen said it wanted to "investigate a larger than usual change as compared to the prior month."
In response to the initial report, ESPN said in a statement to CNBC that "Nielsen numbers represent a dramatic, unexplrightble variation over prior months' reporting, affecting all cable networks." The network said it raised the issue with Nielsen "in light of their demonstrated failures over the years to accurately provide subscriber data."
Disney shares have declined 11 percent so far this year.
ESPN has become unwatchable outside of live sports programming. Sportscenter is so much more talk and hype than highlights now. Who can stand to watch their talking heads like Stephen Smith, Kellerman, Kornheiser and Wilbon etc. not only shout and yell at one another, but shout bad opinions at viewers? How old has Berman's schtick got? He's just a fat old blowhard everyone's tired of and hasn't been funny in over 20 years. Or how about Ray Lewis getting on his high horse about the Ray Rice situation? Or the non stop political correctness. They couldn't fire Curt Schilling fast enough because of his comments, or apologize fast enough for Musberger's comments on McCarron's girlfriend that only the perpetually offended were offended by.
They are the sports version of MSNBC or CNN, that's why they are hemorrhaging subscribers, bad programs and obnoxious, stupid, completely full of themselves and talentless personalities.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on November 05, 2016, 06:04:56 PM
ESPN has become unwatchable outside of live sports programming. Sportscenter is so much more talk and hype than highlights now. Who can stand to watch their talking heads like Stephen Smith, Kellerman, Kornheiser and Wilbon etc. not only shout and yell at one another, but shout bad opinions at viewers? How old has Berman's schtick got? He's just a fat old blowhard everyone's tired of and hasn't been funny in over 20 years. Or how about Ray Lewis getting on his high horse about the Ray Rice situation? Or the non stop political correctness. They couldn't fire Curt Schilling fast enough because of his comments, or apologize fast enough for Musberger's comments on McCarron's girlfriend that only the perpetually offended were offended by.
They are the sports version of MSNBC or CNN, that's why they are hemorrhaging subscribers, bad programs and obnoxious, stupid, completely full of themselves and talentless personalities.
I agree with this analysis.
I quit watching ESPN's non-live programming and all of their football when they hired Limbaugh and I have never gone back.
Quote from: tower912 on November 06, 2016, 08:03:54 PM
I quit watching ESPN's non-live programming and all of their football when they hired Limbaugh and I have never gone back.
you know he's been gone now for, oh....13 years now? with all due respect tower, if some of us who hit from the other side of the political plate took this attitude, there would literally be nothing we could watch...sometimes ya just got to bite your lip and get through it. you'll be ok and maybe even a better man for it ;)
When I quit watching college football for a year due to conference realignment, I realized I didn't miss it. Same thing. I quit watching ESPN and realized I didn't miss it.
Quote from: HutchwasClutch on November 05, 2016, 06:04:56 PM
ESPN has become unwatchable outside of live sports programming. Sportscenter is so much more talk and hype than highlights now. Who can stand to watch their talking heads like Stephen Smith, Kellerman, Kornheiser and Wilbon etc. not only shout and yell at one another, but shout bad opinions at viewers? How old has Berman's schtick got? He's just a fat old blowhard everyone's tired of and hasn't been funny in over 20 years. Or how about Ray Lewis getting on his high horse about the Ray Rice situation? Or the non stop political correctness. They couldn't fire Curt Schilling fast enough because of his comments, or apologize fast enough for Musberger's comments on McCarron's girlfriend that only the perpetually offended were offended by.
They are the sports version of MSNBC or CNN, that's why they are hemorrhaging subscribers, bad programs and obnoxious, stupid, completely full of themselves and talentless personalities.
Then you're missing out.
ESPN does air lots of trash - I suspect it would be impossible not to when you're airing 24 hours a day across 5 (or more?) networks.
But the 30 for 30 series, Outside the Lines and their other documentaries (the OJ series, SEC stories, etc.) is some of the best programming on television.
Political correctness has zero to do with their problems.
Quote from: PTM on November 02, 2016, 07:30:44 AM
Not in the Milwaukee crowd, but no one has seen a decline in NBA or NCAA attendance yet. Any local decline would be directly correlated to product quality.
Basketball is still a very good in-person event.
Basketball is, and always will be, the most exciting sport to watch in person (of the major sports, anyway). No other sport has as many lead changes in an entire game that basketball can have in one minute. No other sport (maybe hockey) has the intimacy (read: fan proximity to the field of play) of basketball. No other sport has as many wacky-waving-inflatable-arm-flailing-tube-men and laser light shows. And while baseball offers the terror of wooden bats flying into the fan seating areas, basketball offers the terror of real bats flying over the fan seating areas.
IOW, basketball has something for everyone.
Quote from: tower912 on November 06, 2016, 08:03:54 PM
I quit watching ESPN's football when they hired Limbaugh and I have never gone back.
They could hire Hitler as a color commentator and I would tune in if Michigan is playing.
Quote from: Benny B on November 07, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
Basketball is, and always will be, the most exciting sport to watch in person (of the major sports, anyway). No other sport has as many lead changes in an entire game that basketball can have in one minute. No other sport (maybe hockey) has the intimacy (read: fan proximity to the field of play) of basketball. No other sport has as many wacky-waving-inflatable-arm-flailing-tube-men and laser light shows. And while baseball offers the terror of wooden bats flying into the fan seating areas, basketball offers the terror of real bats flying over the fan seating areas.
IOW, basketball has something for everyone.
With the exception of timeouts or fouls there is no dead time in basketball as the ball is essentially in play all the time (i.e. while the clock is running). Can't say that about football.
I keep seeing the thread title and have sound effects in my head going "whahhhhhhhhh..........!"
back on topic-i really have no skin or not a real lot in this game. i'm sure my eddy jones guy has some disney et.al in some of my funds-that being said, there are a few things i've learned about nielsen-
according to a wall street news journal piece, leichtman research groups bruce leichtman, president and priciple analyst notes the nielsen numbers make NO sense and Q3 is shaping up to be "ok"
variety's oriana schwindt says the nielsen ratings do not affect subscriber fees. they are paid on the number of subscribers or a wholesale sum
ok, carry on
So do any of you see the day where all live sports will be pay per view. By that I mean if you want to watch a game on any particular day you pay....and of course you will still be exposed to all the adds.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 08, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
So do any of you see the day where all live sports will be pay per view. By that I mean if you want to watch a game on any particular day you pay....and of course you will still be exposed to all the adds.
I would pay MU a yearly/seasonal fee if they showed all the games streaming online. I would be MUCH more likely to do that then buy FS1/ESPN/whatever as an individual channel.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 08, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
So do any of you see the day where all live sports will be pay per view. By that I mean if you want to watch a game on any particular day you pay....and of course you will still be exposed to all the adds.
Not any of the major sports in the near future, for sure. They would lose too many viewers, advertising rates would drop and the networks wouldn't be able to fulfill their contracts.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 08, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
So do any of you see the day where all live sports will be pay per view. By that I mean if you want to watch a game on any particular day you pay....and of course you will still be exposed to all the adds.
No. Look at what PPV did to the popularity of boxing. I remember watching boxing on basic cable back in the day. Even when fights were moved to HBO, there was still a decent following. But as soon as everything was moved to PPV, things went downhill.
None of the other sports - given current payrolls - could ever survive a drop to PPV. What effect on NFL ratings decline has to do with the fact that TNF and MNF are no longer on basic cable. Could the popularity of the NFL relative to MLB, NBA and NHL have something to do with the fact that the latter have virtually no games available outside a cable subscription while most NFL games are still OTA?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 08, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
So do any of you see the day where all live sports will be pay per view. By that I mean if you want to watch a game on any particular day you pay....and of course you will still be exposed to all the adds.
The White Sox tried this in the early 80s with a subscription-based service called SportsVision, in which fans who wanted to see their games had to buy a box to descramble a signal
It was a disaster, and played a big role in balance of fandom in this city tilting so heavily toward the Cubs (along with WGN becoming a superstation and Harry Caray heading to the North Side). Up until then, the Sox regularly outdrew the Cubs.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 08, 2016, 03:43:48 PM
The White Sox tried this in the early 80s with a subscription-based service called SportsVision, in which fans who wanted to see their games had to buy a box to descramble a signal
It was a disaster, and played a big role in balance of fandom in this city tilting so heavily toward the Cubs (along with WGN becoming a superstation and Harry Caray heading to the North Side). Up until then, the Sox regularly outdrew the Cubs.
Exactly correct
Prior to 1984 the city was probably skewed toward the Soxs (Cubs manager Lee Elia famous rant that "85% of the city works for a living, the other 15% come out here and boo" was May 1983). In the 1950s and 1960s the Soxs were dominate over the Cubs, the opposite of now.
Post 1984 it has been all Cubs and growing.
Listed above are all the reasons. I would also add the conceptual idea that the early 1980s was rise of the urban Yuppie as their chose of places to live was the north-side of Chicago.
DIS up 3% today after upbeat guidance in yesterday's earnings call. Approaching $100 again.
Still haven't bought.