MUScoop

ESPN held talks with NBA, NFL, MLB in search for strategic partner, sources say

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/21/espn-had-talks-with-nba-nfl-in-search-for-strategic-partner.html

Effectively ESPN is trying to sell itself to the NBA and the NFL. It's an act of desperation because their business model isn't working anymore.

And it's a signal that they've actually over paid for NBA and NFL games.

But why would the NBA in the NFL buy into ESPN? They know it's a bad business model, cord-cutting is already lost half their subscribers any outlook is not getting better.

—————

from the story

ESPN is trying to forge a new path as a digital-first, streaming entity. Disney realizes ESPN won't be able to make money like it previously has in a traditional TV model.

Selling a minority stake in ESPN to the leagues could mitigate future rights payments, allowing Disney to better compete with the big balance sheets of Apple, Google and Amazon. It would also guarantee ESPN a steady flow of premium content from the leagues.

Until last quarter, Disney's bundle of linear TV networks still had revenue growth because affiliate fee increases to pay-TV providers — largely driven by ESPN — made up for the millions of Americans who cancel cable each year. That trend finally ended last quarter, according to people familiar with the matter. Accelerating cancellations have now overwhelmed fee increases, and linear TV revenue outside of advertising has begun to decline.

Professional sports leagues could face conflicts of interest if they take a minority stake in ESPN. Owning a stake in ESPN may irritate Disney's competitors, such as Comcast's NBCUniversal, Fox, Amazon, Paramount Global and Apple, who help make the leagues billions of dollars by participating in bidding wars for sports rights. Taking an ownership stake in ESPN could give leagues the incentive to boost the value of that entity rather than striking deals with competitors.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 23, 2023, 09:33:50 PM
ESPN held talks with NBA, NFL, MLB in search for strategic partner, sources say

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/21/espn-had-talks-with-nba-nfl-in-search-for-strategic-partner.html

Effectively ESPN is trying to sell itself to the NBA and the NFL. It's an act of desperation because their business model isn't working anymore.

And it's a signal that they've actually over paid for NBA and NFL games.

But why would the NBA in the NFL buy into ESPN? They know it's a bad business model, cord-cutting is already lost have their subscribers any outlook is not getting better.

—————

from the story

ESPN is trying to forge a new path as a digital-first, streaming entity. Disney realizes ESPN won't be able to make money like it previously has in a traditional TV model.

Selling a minority stake in ESPN to the leagues could mitigate future rights payments, allowing Disney to better compete with the big balance sheets of Apple, Google and Amazon. It would also guarantee ESPN a steady flow of premium content from the leagues.

Until last quarter, Disney's bundle of linear TV networks still had revenue growth because affiliate fee increases to pay-TV providers — largely driven by ESPN — made up for the millions of Americans who cancel cable each year. That trend finally ended last quarter, according to people familiar with the matter. Accelerating cancellations have now overwhelmed fee increases, and linear TV revenue outside of advertising has begun to decline.

Professional sports leagues could face conflicts of interest if they take a minority stake in ESPN. Owning a stake in ESPN may irritate Disney's competitors, such as Comcast's NBCUniversal, Fox, Amazon, Paramount Global and Apple, who help make the leagues billions of dollars by participating in bidding wars for sports rights. Taking an ownership stake in ESPN could give leagues the incentive to boost the value of that entity rather than striking deals with competitors.

I think they could be in serious trouble. 

I see a pattern with Heisy. If anything can be even remotely connected to a lib cause, Heisy posts this kind of trash.

Quote from: Jockey on July 23, 2023, 09:57:09 PM
I see a pattern with Heisy. If anything can be even remotely connected to a lib cause, Heisy posts this kind of trash.

you're telling us about your psychosis. you see conspracies everywhere

jockey is doomed

ESPN is like religion: lots of bad takes

One could argue that Jesus has the first take

Most of the content on ESPN is complete trash.  Filler, at best.  They have had some great personalities over the years, and some great successes, but I've done without them for many years now... streaming the games I want to stream from the providers that make them available.  I'm not sure ESPN deserves to survive in its current form. 

nb:  I don't watch baseball, which seems to be all they show 10 months of the year. 

I believe it was 2014 when ESPN smuggly did a famous special titled "Requiem for the Big East". Perhaps Val Ackerman can get the 10 or 11 conference teams together and produce a piece titled "Requiem for an all sports network that keeps shooting itself in the foot".

"Keeps shooting itself in the foot??"

It's been almost nothing but an incredible success story since its creation. No doubt they have had missteps but they have made a significant impact not only on how we consume sports, but culturally as well.

Time for a rebrand.

ESPN has already done the X-Games, so that would feel redundant and derivative.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 24, 2023, 05:53:43 AM
"Keeps shooting itself in the foot??"

It's been almost nothing but an incredible success story since its creation. No doubt they have had missteps but they have made a significant impact not only on how we consume sports, but culturally as well.

Reads like a description of the Catholic church

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 24, 2023, 06:20:37 AM
Reads like a description of the Catholic church

Not really. Look I am hardly saying their future is bright as rosy, because if I look at the disinterest with with Gen Z follows sports, it's worrisome. But ESPN has undoubtedly been quite successful.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 24, 2023, 07:01:16 AM
Not really. Look I am hardly saying their future is bright as rosy, because if I look at the disinterest with with Gen Z follows sports, it's worrisome. But ESPN has undoubtedly been quite successful.

ESPN hasn't caused death and destruction, either.  As far as we know, they haven't covered up decades of sex abuse of minors as well.

They halcyon days of ESPN are over.  It'll be up to the parent company where ESPN goes.

ESPN has one thing doing for them, too.  They're a convenient boogeyman for sports fans who think they control the strings of outcomes and getting matchups they want to broadcast.  Their are Big Ten and Big East fans who think espn is actively working against them

There's no need to go political here. Their programming outside of live sports is really bad.  It's as simple as that.  And no one is really buying their streaming services separately.   

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 24, 2023, 08:52:38 AM
There's no need to go political here. Their programming outside of live sports is really bad.  It's as simple as that.  And no one is really buying their streaming services separately.   

You must be new here.

What is ESPN?  They are the very best, by an incredible margin, all sports network.  They have no peer in their industry.

Their trouble?  With the cable bundle fading they have gone from 110 million subs to 80 some and will probably bottom out at 55 million.  Their problem is FS1 and everyone elses best day. 

What they are doing now is trying to right size. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 24, 2023, 08:52:38 AM
And no one is really buying their streaming services separately.   

No one?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1054451/espn-plus-subscriber-us/

Quote from: Pakuni on July 24, 2023, 09:13:32 AM
No one?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1054451/espn-plus-subscriber-us/

Their not live sports stuff is abysmal Pakumi.  I think we can all agree here. 

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 24, 2023, 09:15:51 AM
Their not live sports stuff is abysmal Pakumi.  I think we can all agree here.

The Last Dance?  30 for 30?

Their sports docs did the impossible and supplanted HBO Sports for best documentary content.

And you don't like SportsCenter, Get Up or First Take?  Which of their competitor shows do you like in their place? 

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 09:18:55 AM
The Last Dance?  30 for 30?

Their sports docs did the impossible and supplanted HBO Sports for best documentary content.

And you don't like SportsCenter, Get Up or First Take?  Which of their competitor shows do you like in their place?

Gameday remains the gold standard for pregame shows

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 24, 2023, 09:15:51 AM
Their not live sports stuff is abysmal Pakumi.  I think we can all agree here.

I don't agree.
The "30 for 30" films are consistently great. E60 can be hit and miss, but is good more often than not. "Outside the Lines" (RIP) was outstanding.
The "hot take" universe is trash, but no, not all of the not live sports stuff is abysmal.

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 09:18:55 AM
The Last Dance?  30 for 30?

Their sports docs did the impossible and supplanted HBO Sports for best documentary content.

And you don't like SportsCenter, Get Up or First Take?  Which of their competitor shows do you like in their place?

My apologies.  They have had some good 30 for 30's.  But for the most part they have terrible entertainment.  Van Pelt is good but other than him the formulaic programs are excrement and have been for a long time.  Their competitors shows are also awful. 

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 09:18:55 AM
The Last Dance?  30 for 30?

Their sports docs did the impossible and supplanted HBO Sports for best documentary content.

And you don't like SportsCenter, Get Up or First Take?  Which of their competitor shows do you like in their place?

They have had some excellent documentaries, including most recently the one on Bill Walton.

I usually watch at least some Sportscenter every night, as do most of the sports fans I know. I watch just about none of their "personalities" shows (such as the two you mentioned), though I do occasionally tune into PTI.

Like every network that has jumped into streaming (which is just about every network), Disney is trying to figure out how to best make money off its platform. ESPN might fail -- indeed, it might be doomed -- but I wouldn't bet on it happening real soon.

What's happening to ESPN is nothing more than what's happening to most media outlets. Technology has changed and either they adapt to the new technology or they die the death of a thousand cuts.

Rights are expensive. Staffing and programming isn't cheap. Traditional cable systems are dying as viewers decide what they want to watch and program accordingly. The old question of, "Why do I have to get... QVC ..." is being addressed through streaming. There's no turning back.

As recently as 20 years ago, the four major television networks still were the dominant means of communicating with America. I wonder how much longer any of them can continue to exist in their current form. If ESPN is in trouble, what's next?

Quote from: Pakuni on July 24, 2023, 09:13:32 AM
No one?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1054451/espn-plus-subscriber-us/

Worth noting that ESPN has two streaming services.

One is "regular" ESPN. One needs a bundle subscription like cable to get this. ESPN has "all the good stuff," like NBA, NFL, CBB, etc.

The other is ESPN+ This can be as low as $2/month if you buy the Disney Bundle (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+)

ESPN+ is "the Ocho." It has an endless supply of secondary and tertiary level sports (like college tennis, to name one of many). But ESPN+ does not have what is shown on bundle/cable. For this, you need a second "regular" ESPN subscription.

ESPN now gets ~$7/month from every cable subscriber. Cable subscriptions peaked at around 110 million in 2011. Now it is down to 60 million subscribers.

If ESPN goes streaming only, it is estimated it would have to charge $25 to $35 per month to pay for the broadcast rights.

How many will pay for ESPN?

NFL Sunday Ticket is the gold standard of premium sports streaming. In 2023 they will charge $350/year (or ~$30/month)
https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/youtube-nfl-sunday-ticket-pricing-2023-season-1235578319/

NFL Sunday ticket has ~2 million subscribers. ESPN cannot pay the broadcast rights even with 5 million subscribers @ $30/month (which assumes none cannibalize Sunday Ticket).

So I agree with Sultan; over the last 40 years, ESPN has been a cultural force. But today, it is a bad money-losing business model dragging Disney under, and they are desperate to either fix it or get rid of it.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 24, 2023, 09:36:04 AM
Worth noting that ESPN has two streaming services.

One is "regular" ESPN. One needs a bundle subscription like cable to get this. ESPN has "all the good stuff," like NBA, NFL, CBB, etc.

The other is ESPN+ This can be as low as $2/month if you buy the Disney Bundle (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+)

ESPN+ is "the Ocho." It has an endless supply of secondary and tertiary level sports (like college tennis, to name one of many). But ESPN+ does not have what is shown on bundle/cable. For this, you need a second "regular" ESPN subscription.

ESPN now gets ~$7/month from every cable subscriber. Cable subscriptions peaked at around 110 million in 2011. Now it is down to 60 million subscribers.

If ESPN goes streaming only, it is estimated it would have to charge $25 to $35 per month to pay for the broadcast rights.

How many will pay for ESPN?

NFL Sunday Ticket is the gold standard of premium sports streaming. In 2023 they will charge $350/year (or ~$30/month)
https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/youtube-nfl-sunday-ticket-pricing-2023-season-1235578319/

NFL Sunday ticket has 2 million subscribers. ESPN cannot pay the broadcast rights even with 5 million subscribers (and that assumes none of them cannibalize Sunday Ticket).

So I agree with Sultan; over the last 40 years, ESPN has been a cultural force. But today, it is a bad money-losing business model dragging Disney under, and they are desperate to either fix it or get rid of it.

You're like Clay Travis sitting around waiting for ESPN to fail. 

Meanwhile what has failed...

NBCSports
VS
Univeral Sports
Speed
Fuel
Fox Soccer
CNN / SI

Not to mention Sinclair's dabble in RSNs

Espn remains #1 in its industry.  So while many cheer its demise, what it really means is more and more competitors are going under while what is happening to ESPN is they are not as valuable as they used to be BUT they are still #1.

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 09:42:11 AM
You're like Clay Travis sitting around waiting for ESPN to fail. 

Meanwhile what has failed...

NBCSports
Univeral Sports
Speed
Fuel
Fox Soccer
CNN / SI

Not to mention Sinclair's dabble in RSNs

Espn remains #1 in its industry.  So while many cheer its demise, what it really means is more and more competors are going under while what is happening to ESPN is they are not as valuable as they used to be BUT they are still #1.
VS

It depends on what "failed" (aka doomed) means.

It has already failed if you define it as being a money maker. ESPN is a money-losing operation, and Bob Iger (CEO of Dinsey) has openly admitted it and admitted it cannot continue in its current form. Things have to radically change, like selling it to the NBA nd NFL (if they want their broadcast rights, that can take the entire thing and make it work!).

If failed means, it will go dark, like NBCsports. No, it will not. They will switch to streaming first and charge $30/month. And instead of 110 million having access to it (circa 2011), only a few million will get have it.

Has Twitter failed? Is it still failing?

Quote from: MU82 on July 24, 2023, 09:49:12 AM
Has Twitter failed? Is it still failing?

Twitter never succeeded in the first place. It has lost money in nine of the last 10 years (and the year it made money, it was small and wiped out the following year).

So, yes, it was never a good business model.

But will it disappear?  It did yesterday! It is now called "X"

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 24, 2023, 09:47:48 AM
It depends on what "failed" (aka doomed) means.

It has already failed if you define it as being a money maker. ESPN is a money-losing operation and Bob Iger (CEO of Dinsey) has openly admitted it and openly admitted it cannot continue in its current form, and things have to radically change, like selling ti tot he NBA nd NFL (if they want to their broadcast rights, that can take the entire thing and make it work!).

If failed means, it will go dark, like NBCsports. No, it will not. They will switch to streaming first and charge $30/month. And instead of 110 million having access to it (circa 2011), only a few million will get have it.

You're intimating that cable TV is going completely away.  That is something I absolutely disagree with.  I think you're going to see something like 40-50 million households sticking with the cable bundle (wired cable, YTTV, DISH etc).  Americans have realized that the cable bundle is actually a decent deal compared to buying 6-7 streaming services. 

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 09:52:27 AM
You're intimating that cable TV is going completely away.  That is something I absolutely disagree with.  I think you're going to see something like 40-50 million households sticking with the cable bundle (wired cable, YTTV, DISH etc).  Americans have realized that the cable bundle is actually a decent deal compared to buying 6-7 streaming services.

Yes, cable will still exist, and so does the over the air broadcasters. And so does AM radio!

Remind me of the point of your post.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 24, 2023, 09:59:33 AM
Yes, cable will still exist, and so does the over the air broadcasters. And so does AM radio!

Remind me of the point of your post.

You said ESPN will go from 110MM to a few million.  I'm saying it will be 40-50MM cable subs plus 25-30MM ESPN+ subs.

It's not doomed, it is right sizing based on the market.

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 10:11:17 AM
You said ESPN will go from 110MM to a few million.  I'm saying it will be 40-50MM cable subs plus 25-30MM ESPN+ subs.

It's not doomed, it is right sizing based on the market.

Is that enough to pay for the broadcast rights they have signed up for?

--------

ADDED

Is that also enough for ESPN to effectively compete with Amazon, Apple, and Google for future broadcast rights?  If they cannot not, and start losing the NFL, NBA. MLB and CBB to these deeper pockets, what's the point of ESPN?

Yes, if mostly bad things happen to ESPN, it would be very bad for ESPN. That we can all agree on.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 24, 2023, 09:47:48 AM
It depends on what "failed" (aka doomed) means.

It has already failed if you define it as being a money maker. ESPN is a money-losing operation, and Bob Iger (CEO of Dinsey) has openly admitted it and admitted it cannot continue in its current form. Things have to radically change, like selling it to the NBA nd NFL (if they want their broadcast rights, that can take the entire thing and make it work!).

If failed means, it will go dark, like NBCsports. No, it will not. They will switch to streaming first and charge $30/month. And instead of 110 million having access to it (circa 2011), only a few million will get have it.

Meh. There's nothing unusual about companies losing money some years.
By your standard, GM, Apple, American Airlines and Marvel Entertainment are all failures.

Do people still watch SportsCenter? Used to be must see TV for me but I have not watched in 6-7 years.

Full Disclosure: I just found out a few weeks ago that Rolling Stone is still a thing. Who knew

Quote from: WhiteTrash on July 24, 2023, 12:08:52 PM
Do people still watch SportsCenter? Used to be must see TV for me but I have not watched in 6-7 years.

Full Disclosure: I just found out a few weeks ago that Rolling Stone is still a thing. Who knew

SportsCenter with Van Pelt is fantastic.

Quote from: WhiteTrash on July 24, 2023, 12:08:52 PM
Do people still watch SportsCenter? Used to be must see TV for me but I have not watched in 6-7 years.

903K a night, on average.

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/viewership-for-sportscenter-with-scott-van-pelt-up-45-in-2023-so-far.html

Quote from: MuggsyB on July 24, 2023, 09:25:33 AM
My apologies.  They have had some good 30 for 30's.  But for the most part they have terrible entertainment.  Van Pelt is good but other than him the formulaic programs are excrement and have been for a long time.  Their competitors shows are also awful.

If you don't like ESPN's programming and you don't like their competitor's programming...is it possible you just don't like that style of programming?

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 24, 2023, 05:53:43 AM
"Keeps shooting itself in the foot??"

It's been almost nothing but an incredible success story since its creation. No doubt they have had missteps but they have made a significant impact not only on how we consume sports, but culturally as well.

  in other words-the rise and the fall of espn then eyn'a?

Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 25, 2023, 04:56:01 AM

  in other words-the rise and the fall of espn then eyn'a?

I doubt it falls.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 25, 2023, 06:54:51 AM
I doubt it falls.

Defined "falls."

It has already lost ~50% of its subscribers, is no longer making money, and is not expected to make money with its current business model, so Bob Iger says significant changes must happen.

It seems like "falls" is now a statement of fact and no longer an opinion.

If "falls" mean it will still exist? As I noted earlier, so does AM radio, walkie-talkies, and Morse code. Does that mean they are still relevant?  And this is the risk with ESPN.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 07:21:34 AM
Defined "falls."

It has already lost ~50% of its subscribers, is no longer making money, and is not expected to make money with its current business model, so Bob Iger says significant changes must happen.

It seems like "falls" is now a statement of fact and no longer an opinion.

If "falls" mean it will still exist? As I noted earlier, so does AM radio, walkie-talkies, and Morse code. Does that mean they are still relevant?  And this is the risk with ESPN.

You've created a definition of business failure - adapting to changing circumstances in the marketplace - that no serious person would consider failure, in order to prop up a false narrative that ESPN has failed 

Again, by this definition, there are many wildly successesful businesses that you would have defined as failures.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 25, 2023, 07:29:10 AM
You've created a definition of business failure - adapting to changing circumstances in the marketplace - that no serious person would consider failure, in order to prop up a false narrative that ESPN has failed 

Again, by this definition, there are many wildly successesful businesses that you would have defined as failures.

Yep.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 25, 2023, 07:29:10 AM
You've created a definition of business failure - adapting to changing circumstances in the marketplace - that no serious person would consider failure, in order to prop up a false narrative that ESPN has failed 

Again, by this definition, there are many wildly successesful businesses that you would have defined as failures.

Let's miss the point and argue semantics. We even have a self-named leader for this role.

So, diving right on ... When Bob Iger questions the future of linear TV

https://www.nbcnews.com/media/disney-ceo-iger-opens-door-unloading-tv-assets-linear-business-struggl-rcna94040

He is saying from this moment forward, linear TV, meaning ABC and ESPN are not viable as they are currently operated.

As is often the case, you're offering a history lesson. ESPN was significant in the past. It is no longer today. And in the future, it will be very different than what we see today.

So, yes, it is currently a failed business. Now, it can "un-fail," but Iger, who is probably more capable than any human alive to make it "un-fail," is saying he wants to dump it instead. And he is talking to the NFL and NBA to take it. As I said before, Iger is telling the sports leagues "You want to get paid all those broadcast rights we promised, here you take this steaming pile of losses called ESPN and make it work, I'm out."

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 08:46:05 AM
Let's miss the point and argue semantics. We even have a self-named leader for this role.

So, diving right on ... When Bob Iger questions the future of linear TV

https://www.nbcnews.com/media/disney-ceo-iger-opens-door-unloading-tv-assets-linear-business-struggl-rcna94040

He is saying from this moment forward, linear TV, meaning ABC and ESPN are not viable as they are currently operated.

As is often the case, you're offering a history lesson. ESPN was significant in the past. It is no longer today. And in the future, it will be very different than what we see today.

So, yes, it is currently a failed business. Now, it can "un-fail," but Iger, who is probably more capable than any human alive to make it "un-fail," is saying he wants to dump it instead. And he is talking to the NFL and NBA to take it. As I said before, Iger is telling the sports leagues "You want to get paid all those broadcast rights we promised, here you take this steaming pile of losses called ESPN and make it work, I'm out."

I think you mean "un-doomed"

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 08:46:05 AM
Let's miss the point and argue semantics. We even have a self-named leader for this role.

So, diving right on ... When Bob Iger questions the future of linear TV

(https://www.idioms4you.com/img/angif-move-the-goalposts-def.gif)

Quote from: Pakuni on July 24, 2023, 12:53:21 PM
903K a night, on average.

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/viewership-for-sportscenter-with-scott-van-pelt-up-45-in-2023-so-far.html

Serious question. Does SVP need ESPN?

Could he leave and start a YoutTube channel (and maybe a Twitter channel) and make enough to make it worth his while?

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 09:18:55 AM
The Last Dance?  30 for 30?

Their sports docs did the impossible and supplanted HBO Sports for best documentary content.

I agree that Last Dance and 30 for 30 were excellent series. But do they need ESPN? Or even HBO?

They could make these and sell them to one of several streaming services.

One example, see the Netflix catalog of Sports Documentaries... Pointbreak, Tour De France Unchained, Full Swing, McGregor Forever, Formula 1: Drive to Survive, etc etc.

There is an audience for well-made sports documentaries. But ESPN holds no special advantage in this area. Independent Documentary producers have plenty of outlets for their genre, they will pay, and the audiences will find them.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 09:29:21 AM
I agree that Last Dance and 30 for 30 were excellent series. But do they need ESPN? Or even HBO?

They could make these and sell them to one of several streaming services.

One example, see the Netflix catalog of Sports Documentaries... Pointbreak, Tour De France Unchained, Full Swing, McGregor Forever, Formula 1: Drive to Survive, etc etc.

There is an audience for well-made sports documentaries. But ESPN holds no special advantage in this area. Independent Documentary producers have plenty of outlets for their genre, they will pay, and the audiences will find them.

You've gone from:
ESPN is doomed
to
ESPN is a failure
to
ESPN is failing at this moment
to
Bob Iger is questioning the future of linear TV
to
There are other platforms for sports documentaries.
(Which, I'll note, has been the case for basically the entirety of ESPN's existence, i.e. HBO, Showtime, PBS, etc.)

What a ride.

ESPN has the brand name. Just like Fox News does. Which means that they can cycle through people like SVP, just like Fox can cycle through the Tucker Carlson's of the world and still have an advantage.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 09:22:42 AM
Serious question. Does SVP need ESPN?

Could he leave and start a YoutTube channel (and maybe a Twitter channel) and make enough to make it worth his while?

ESPN needs SVP more than he needs them.  Thats why they built him a studio and let him move his show to DC so he could be back home and do things the way he wanted.  He's got a really good and really comfortable gig, and short of ESPN completely imploding, he's got no real reason to depart.  He's got tons of negotiating power.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 25, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
You've gone from:
ESPN is doomed
to
ESPN is a failure
to
ESPN is failing at this moment
to
Bob Iger is questioning the future of linear TV
to
There are other platforms for sports documentaries.
(Which, I'll note, has been the case for basically the entirety of ESPN's existence, i.e. HBO, Showtime, PBS, etc.)

What a ride.

Or they all essentially mean the same thing.

And any deviation is you looking for a way to engage in a mind-numbing precise ANAL debate about your personal meanings of words, including your gaslighting of changing the goal posts and posting memes about others doing the same. 

Now watch the circle jerk make you "feel ok" in 3 - 2 - 1 ...

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 25, 2023, 10:02:51 AM
ESPN has the brand name. Just like Fox News does. Which means that they can cycle through people like SVP, just like Fox can cycle through the Tucker Carlson's of the world and still have an advantage.

Quote from: JWags85 on July 25, 2023, 10:06:12 AM
ESPN needs SVP more than he needs them.  Thats why they built him a studio and let him move his show to DC so he could be back home and do things the way he wanted.  He's got a really good and really comfortable gig, and short of ESPN completely imploding, he's got no real reason to depart.  He's got tons of negotiating power.

It seems we have a  debate!

But I will add that Fox's rating has taken a tremendous hit since they fired Tucker.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 10:14:09 AM
Or they all essentially mean the same thing.

And any deviation is you looking for a way to engage in a mind-numbing precise ANAL debate about your personal definition meanings of words, including your gaslighting of changing the goal posts and posting memes about others doing the same. 

Now watch the circle jerk make you "feel ok" in 3 - 2 - 1 ...

Whenever you break out the "circle jerk" reference, you know you have lost the argument.

Anyway, Pak is right. You have changed your definition of "doomed" repeatedly throughout this topic. This will look as good as your NFL and Apple prediction a few years from now.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 10:16:54 AM
It seems we have a  debate!

But I will add that Fox's rating has taken a tremendous hit since they fired Tucker.

Fox will be fine. Taking short term hits for the sake of long term strategy is something that good brands do all the time. It amazes me you have yet to figure this out.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 10:14:09 AM
Now watch the circle jerk make you "feel ok" in 3 - 2 - 1 ...

This is relatively new for you, Smugs, only in the last year or so. Anytime you've either lost a debate, or you just get tired of it, you whip out "circle jerk." I get it. It's kind of your version of "case closed," but it's also lazy. And it's really just another version of name-calling, which you always claim you're against.

On top of that, you think a lot about circle jerks. A real lot. But who's to judge how a person entertains oneself in the privacy of one's own home? So have at it.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on July 25, 2023, 10:18:23 AM

Whenever you break out the "circle jerk" reference, you know you have lost the argument.

Anyway, Pak is right. You have changed your definition of "doomed" repeatedly throughout this topic. This will look as good as your NFL and Apple prediction a few years from now.

Ok you're the Sultan of Smematics ...

What does doomed mean?

What does failed mean? And how does it differ from doomed?

And how does doomed and failed with the qualifier "at this moment" change the definition of the two above? Isn't that always implied as they are forward-looking statements, which is what "at this moment" mean?

And why does bringing up other issues like Linear TV and other platforms change anything said above. They are tangentially topics.

"Pak" wild ride is accusing me of saying the same thing five times.

Quote from: MU82 on July 25, 2023, 10:22:28 AM
This is relatively new for you, Smugs, only in the last year or so. Anytime you've either lost a debate, or you just get tired of it, you whip out "circle jerk." I get it. It's kind of your version of "case closed," but it's also lazy. And it's really just another version of name-calling, which you always claim you're against.

On top of that, you think a lot about circle jerks. A real lot. But who's to judge how a person entertains oneself in the privacy of one's own home? So have at it.

Accuse me of name calling and end by calling me a name.

But hey, stay on that moral high horse.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 10:28:57 AM
Accuse me of name calling and end by calling me a name.

But hey, stay on that moral high horse.

You gave that name to yourself - even made it your screen name for a spell IIRC.

It would be like me saying, "How dare you call me MU82?"

Hope you don't fall off your horse, as I seriously wouldn't want you to be doomed. These conversations are too fun!

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 10:27:08 AM
"Pak" wild ride is accusing me of saying the same thing five times.

ESPN is doomed is the same as Bob Iger questioning linear TV is the same as Netflix has sports shows?
This is the most circular jerk that ever jerked.

Quote from: Pakuni on July 25, 2023, 11:09:21 AM
ESPN is doomed is the same as Bob Iger questioning linear TV is the same as Netflix has sports shows?
This is the most circular jerk that ever jerked.

Have you read how Iger is questioning linear TV?  He is saying it cannot survive in its current form, and it is so unrepairable that he does not even want to try and fix it. He wants to get rid of it.

Iger is probably the best person in America to fix Linear TV, and he wants to wash his hands of it.

DISNEY'S IGER MULLS ESPN STAKE SALE AMID TV'S 'BROKEN MODEL'
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2023/disneys-iger-mulls-espn-stake-sale-1234730748/

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 25, 2023, 02:47:10 PM
Have you read how Iger is questioning linear TV?  He is saying it cannot survive in its current form, and it is so unrepairable that he does not even want to try and fix it. He wants to get rid of it.

Iger is probably the best person in America to fix Linear TV, and he wants to wash his hands of it.

DISNEY'S IGER MULLS ESPN STAKE SALE AMID TV'S 'BROKEN MODEL'
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2023/disneys-iger-mulls-espn-stake-sale-1234730748/

It's been 20 years since Limbaugh was fired at ESPN. Holding a grudge forever is unhealthy.

Quote from: The Lens on July 24, 2023, 10:11:17 AM
You said ESPN will go from 110MM to a few million.  I'm saying it will be 40-50MM cable subs plus 25-30MM ESPN+ subs.

It's not doomed, it is right sizing based on the market.

Iger is openly talking about ESPN ditching cable for streaming-only delivery. If so, estimates are it would have to charge $ 25/ $ 35 per month and hope that, maybe, 10 million sign up over time (again, this is ambitious as an NFL Sunday ticket charges $30/month and has two million subscribers).

So if ESPN goes this route, cable subscribers go to zero, and sports shift to a narrower pay-per-view audience.

The point is the widespread distribution via cable (or over-the-air broadcasts) is not generating the revenue to meet the broadcast rights. So, they are going to go for a narrow audience of hardcore fans and expect them to pay more.

This is the model that secondary sports live with. I'm a cycling fan, paying for GCN (Global Cycling Network), Flobikes, and Peacock specifically for cycling. All told, I pay about $150/year. Yes, the audience is far smaller, but fanatics like me pay enough that they survive and maybe thrive with this business model.  Golf, Tennis, and Track & Field use a similar business model.

So, what is being argued here is top-tier sports adopt this business model. So, only 10 million or so would pay for Basketball, Football, Baseball, and College sports but pay enough that they thrive. The vast majority of the country would be shut out. But they don't care as they never watched it anyway. 

Now they don't have to pay for it.

----------------

https://www.businessinsider.com/espn-layoffs-streaming-disney-bob-iger-cable-bundle-sports-analysts-2023-7

Ten years ago, over 100 million US households paid for TV, and ESPN made money from each — whether they watched sports religiously or never tuned in. Since then, about 40% of pay TV customers have canceled in favor of streaming services.

At the same time, ESPN is grappling with the skyrocketing costs of broadcasting games. The average annual value of the NFL's latest media deal rose nearly 77% from the prior deal, according to Bank of America, which estimates ESPN will face a similarly painful 71% increase when it renews its NBA rights next year.

To stop the inevitable bleeding, Disney has telegraphed that it will soon sidestep cable entirely with a direct-to-consumer (DTC) offering for ESPN. But that plan carries serious risk, as it would jeopardize still-sizable cable revenue without guaranteeing that enough sports fans would support such a product. (Disney already offers ESPN+, a streaming service that shows some sporting events but doesn't have major games or shows like "SportsCenter" and "First Take.")

Frequent CNBC guest Michael Nathanson, a media analyst, had this to say when asked by The Athletic if Netflix would get involved in live sports despite their management saying they wouldn't:

I have learned to watch what Netflix does and not what they say. I used to interview (co-CEO) Ted Sarandos 10-12 years ago when I was at another firm, and he was like, "I'm not going into original content, that's a risky business. We're not going to make movies, that's a tough business."

I think the issue that Netflix is going to have is there's an upper band on their ability to price. There's a point at which I say to my family — for, say, $25 a month — "I'm sorry, but it's maybe an hour and a half of our day." It's a ton of money. But if you add sports, the history of sports pricing is pretty powerful, right? Look at the price of tickets to baseball games these days for 81 games a year. I think it will drive pricing, and I think it would also be better ROI than the films they're making. Films are really expensive. We'll see what happens. The NBA deal is coming up, so let's see what happens. The NBA, given it is international, would be a win-win for both sides.

He later was asked to talk about sports rights in general, and said:

I think with the return on investment, you have to be a lot more judicious about the decision-making. The NFL pulls the rest of your business along with it. To me, you have to basically break it down between streaming and linear, national and local, and within national, the hierarchy of rights. So it's a complicated answer. What I have come to believe is I think streaming services have to bring sports in more and more because of the recurring viewership. The churn reduction during the NBA season and the NFL season is very valuable. We spend all this money making original content, and that's literally a roll of the dice. So the sports rights have to be in that top upper funnel of quality. I think that the strong will survive and use streaming as a way to offset the weakness of linear.

Interesting stuff about an interesting topic.

Personally, I just want to be able to watch what I want to watch. If it's on ESPN and Fox Sports and Apple+, great. If it's on Netflix and Amazon Prime, cool. Like the rest of us here - and even like the analyst above who has closely followed the industry for years - I don't know what will happen and who, in the end, will be doomed. We'll see!

Quote from: MU82 on July 26, 2023, 01:14:24 PM
Frequent CNBC guest Michael Nathanson, a media analyst, had this to say when asked by The Athletic if Netflix would get involved in live sports despite their management saying they wouldn't:

I have learned to watch what Netflix does and not what they say. I used to interview (co-CEO) Ted Sarandos 10-12 years ago when I was at another firm, and he was like, "I'm not going into original content, that's a risky business. We're not going to make movies, that's a tough business."

I think the issue that Netflix is going to have is there's an upper band on their ability to price. There's a point at which I say to my family — for, say, $25 a month — "I'm sorry, but it's maybe an hour and a half of our day." It's a ton of money. But if you add sports, the history of sports pricing is pretty powerful, right? Look at the price of tickets to baseball games these days for 81 games a year. I think it will drive pricing, and I think it would also be better ROI than the films they're making. Films are really expensive. We'll see what happens. The NBA deal is coming up, so let's see what happens. The NBA, given it is international, would be a win-win for both sides.

He later was asked to talk about sports rights in general, and said:

I think with the return on investment, you have to be a lot more judicious about the decision-making. The NFL pulls the rest of your business along with it. To me, you have to basically break it down between streaming and linear, national and local, and within national, the hierarchy of rights. So it's a complicated answer. What I have come to believe is I think streaming services have to bring sports in more and more because of the recurring viewership. The churn reduction during the NBA season and the NFL season is very valuable. We spend all this money making original content, and that's literally a roll of the dice. So the sports rights have to be in that top upper funnel of quality. I think that the strong will survive and use streaming as a way to offset the weakness of linear.

Interesting stuff about an interesting topic.

Personally, I just want to be able to watch what I want to watch. If it's on ESPN and Fox Sports and Apple+, great. If it's on Netflix and Amazon Prime, cool. Like the rest of us here - and even like the analyst above who has closely followed the industry for years - I don't know what will happen and who, in the end, will be doomed. We'll see!

Good post

I would only add to look at how the leagues break up their broadcasting rights to maximize revenue. 

Take the NFL. Thursday night is Amazon Prime. Sunday Night is on NBC. Monday is ESPN, and Sunday afternoon is Fox and CBS. That is potentially five streaming services in the future to watch the NFL. Five monthly bills to watch the NFL.

We assume/hope that the streaming services that get these broadcasting rights are going to be the ones we already subscribe to (Netflix, Amazon, Apple + etc.) But what if start-up streaming or secondary services bid on these games to break through?

For example, Thursday is Amazon, Sunday Night is, say, AMC+, Monday is YouTube, Sunday afternoon is on Peacock (and a special "premium" Peacock, which is more money), and CBS Stream (not Paramount). That is five more streaming services you have to subscribe to to watch the NFL.

Add to this; baseball is on ESPN, TBS, and local streams. That is three more to pay for. Marquette/Big East is on Fox Sports. NBA, maybe two other streaming services (ABC and another trying to break through)

And your family, which does not care about sports, demands Netflix, HBO Paramount+, and maybe one or two others.

Our monthly bill is going back to $200/month!

This is the basis of the Hollywood strike. As Nathanson notes, streaming services cannot expect everyone to pay $10/month for endless services. They have to get the cost way down so they can charge $2 to $4/month. Then we can subscribe to 10 to 15 services instead of 2 to 5.

So as we move to streaming, a big shakeout is coming.

Yes.

Interesting graphic from a survey asking respondents: "How much would you spend on sports-only streaming service?

(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emailimagecdnuyi.com%2F7qm5i91ah3%2Fen_us%2Fimages%2F64c825ae80601-1690838446.5258.jpg&t=1690905280&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1c0f-d200ae01f600&sig=Lj.nmrOGu2BoqGC1vCOECg--~D)

If numbers are combined, it looks like about 53% would be willing to spend $10 or more a month, and  74% would be willing to spend something. Only 26% say they'd be willing to spend $20/month or more.

Disney reported earnings after the bell yesterday, and they weren't very good. Initial investor reaction wasn't great, and DIS was down about 2%.

But after Iger held his earnings call, things flipped around and the stock price reversed to go up 2%. Here's what the NYT's DealBook wrote:

Even if Bob Iger, Disney's C.E.O., didn't have much to reveal about big-ticket M.&A. yesterday — other than continuing to suggest he may sell its legacy TV businesses — he did make news with the company's quarterly earnings report.

Streaming is Disney's future, Iger said, but the era of pursuing breakneck growth in the business is over. The strategy now is to extract more money from subscribers via hefty price increases for Disney+, and hoping that those efforts don't drive them away.

Disney can't afford to keep losing billions on streaming. The division lost $512 million in the most recent quarter, bringing its total losses since 2019 to over $11 billion. While the latest figure was less than analysts had expected, that performance is still untenable in the long term, leading Iger to follow Netflix's example and raise prices for Disney+ and Hulu.

The increases were largely in the ad-free tiers: Starting in October, the monthly cost of Disney+ will go up to $14, double the service's initial $7 price. (That's in part because the ad-supported tiers actually make more money per user; Iger said the price increases were meant to nudge more subscribers to that tier, where prices will stay flat.) "We grew this business really fast, really before we even understood what our pricing strategy should be or could be," he told analysts yesterday.

(Another area where Disney is following Netflix is a crackdown on password sharing, presumably after the rival service said it saw no real downside to the practice.)

The results also underscored the need for change at ESPN, which is under pressure from cable cord-cutting and the rising cost of sports broadcast rights. Iger touted the sports network's new online-betting venture with Penn Gaming as a way to increase subscriber engagement.

But when asked about how efforts were going to find a "strategic partner" for the sports network, Iger said only that the process was continuing — and that Disney wasn't looking for cash so much as "either content or distribution and marketing support or both" to help ESPN become a streaming business.

Iger had less to say about other potential deals, including a sale of Disney's legacy TV businesses like ABC, which reported another drop in operating income — an idea he flagged in a CNBC interview last month. "As I've stated before, we are thinking expansively and considering a variety of strategic options," he told analysts, though he said Disney intended to hold onto its TV production studios to keep pumping out content for streaming.

And on speculation that Disney as a whole could be sold to, say, Apple, Iger said only that those who would imagine such things "would have to immediately consider the global regulatory environment."

Investors appeared pleased, with Disney shares rising nearly 1.7 percent in after-hours trading after the earnings call. But they're likely anxious to see what Iger's endgame looks like.

So, how much do you love to watch sports? It seems like we are about to find out.
Remember, ESPN is one service. You also have to pay for Fox Sports (For MU), Peacock, Paramount, ABC, etc. etc.

And your family, which does not care about sports, is not expecting any cut in Netflix, Apple, Prime, HBO Max, Disney+ etc, etc

What's the old joke now ...someone could make a lot of money bundling all these services. They can call it "cable."

August 28, 2023
ESPN standalone streaming service: What we know so far
Could Amazon partner with Disney to offer ESPN on Prime Video as a standalone streaming service? Here's what we know.

https://www.techhive.com/article/1955592/espn-standalone-streaming-service-launch-date.html


Early word has it that an all-streaming ESPN won't happen this year or even next, with insiders telling the New York Post that a standalone streaming ESPN might not happen until 2025, at the earliest.

And while Disney's Iger appears certain that a streaming ESPN will happen sooner or later, he may be leaning in the direction of "later," with Iger telling investors earlier this year that "we have to do it, obviously, at a time that really makes sense for the bottom line...[a]nd we're just not there yet."

If Disney does, indeed, strike up a partnership with Amazon, an eventual ESPN channel on Prime Video could cost anywhere between $20 and $35 a month, according to anonymous sources.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-09-02/disney-iger-espn-streaming-cable-charter

September 2, 2013
Can ESPN survive while cable TV dies?

ESPN commanded fee increases every time it negotiated new deals with pay-TV providers. The dollars pulled in helped fund the growth of Disney over the years as it became an entertainment behemoth, acquiring Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm.

But the TV game has changed over the last decade — and now Disney is scrambling to come up with a new playbook.

———

"The future of the pay-TV bundle is at a critical moment with ESPN playing the starring role," is how media analysts at MoffettNathanson described the situation in a report issued Friday.

if disney and espn would stay out of politics, create more children to adult oriented movies, i.e. lion king, toy story, etc and stop trying to virtue signal.  go back to what got you there-sports center, 30 for 30's...

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on July 26, 2023, 09:13:39 PM
Good post

I would only add to look at how the leagues break up their broadcasting rights to maximize revenue. 

Take the NFL. Thursday night is Amazon Prime. Sunday Night is on NBC. Monday is ESPN, and Sunday afternoon is Fox and CBS. That is potentially five streaming services in the future to watch the NFL. Five monthly bills to watch the NFL.

We assume/hope that the streaming services that get these broadcasting rights are going to be the ones we already subscribe to (Netflix, Amazon, Apple + etc.) But what if start-up streaming or secondary services bid on these games to break through?

For example, Thursday is Amazon, Sunday Night is, say, AMC+, Monday is YouTube, Sunday afternoon is on Peacock (and a special "premium" Peacock, which is more money), and CBS Stream (not Paramount). That is five more streaming services you have to subscribe to to watch the NFL.

Add to this; baseball is on ESPN, TBS, and local streams. That is three more to pay for. Marquette/Big East is on Fox Sports. NBA, maybe two other streaming services (ABC and another trying to break through)

And your family, which does not care about sports, demands Netflix, HBO Paramount+, and maybe one or two others.

Our monthly bill is going back to $200/month!

This is the basis of the Hollywood strike. As Nathanson notes, streaming services cannot expect everyone to pay $10/month for endless services. They have to get the cost way down so they can charge $2 to $4/month. Then we can subscribe to 10 to 15 services instead of 2 to 5.

So as we move to streaming, a big shakeout is coming.

Youtube has Sunday Ticket. It will be interesting to see the sales data on how many signed up.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 02, 2023, 09:40:14 AM
if disney and espn would stay out of politics, create more children to adult oriented movies, i.e. lion king, toy story, etc and stop trying to virtue signal.  go back to what got you there-sports center, 30 for 30's...

Ok boomer

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 02, 2023, 10:39:40 AM
Ok boomer

  no, it's homer

Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 02, 2023, 11:05:17 AM
  no, it's homer

Not surprising.

As you read this note that Disney's stock broke below its March 2020 COVID panic low. It is now at a 9 year low and anyone that has owned it over the last 35 years (Warren Buffett) is underperforming the S&P 500.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/business/charter-disney-cable-fight.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

September 2, 2023
One of the Biggest Cable Companies Says Cable TV Isn't Working

Charter Communications told investors Friday that its fraught negotiation with Disney was a sign of a larger problem with the traditional cable-TV business model.

Cable TV has become too expensive for consumers and providers, Charter Communications said in an 11-page presentation to investors on Friday, adding that cord-cutters and rising fees are contributing to a "vicious video cycle."

The presentation comes amid negotiations between Charter and the Walt Disney Company, owner of popular cable channels including ESPN and FX, which will not be available to Charter's nearly 15 million pay-TV subscribers until both sides agree on how much Charter will pay Disney to carry its channels. Subscribers to Charter's Spectrum TV service will be without access to the U.S. Open tennis tournament and college football games during a holiday weekend.
—————
But in trying to negotiate with Disney for a better deal, Charter's presentation goes a step further, delivering a scathing indictment of the cable television industry, which has generated billions of dollars for companies like itself and Disney for decades. It's a notable acknowledgment from Charter, one of the companies that propelled much of that growth.

"Customers are leaving the traditional video ecosystem, and losses have accelerated," according to Charter's presentation.

"Has the traditional TV ecosystem reached its proverbial tipping point?" said Richard Greenfield, a media analyst for LightShed Partners. "If ESPN is permanently gone from Charter, there will be a massive snowball effect that is catastrophic for traditional TV companies."

The Heisy misleading shot at Buffett. Those poor Berkshire investors.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/fe/1d/VIkClqo9_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/VIkClqo9)

Buffett is a liberal. Heisy attacks.

Night follows day. Ho hum.

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on September 03, 2023, 01:51:29 PM
The Heisy misleading shot at Buffett. Those poor Berkshire investors.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/fe/1d/VIkClqo9_o.png) (https://imgbox.com/VIkClqo9)

Is there a reason your chart ended 12 years ago? 

Could it be to hide that Buffett has been "very average" for the last 12 years? I'm being charitable because he has underperformed in the period shown above (the red line up less than the blue line).

Kinda of like MJ on the Wizards.

Buffett was the greatest ever., But he has not been that since the financial crisis, especially for the period you do not show above.

And any performance he has had comes from Ajit Jain, who actually runs Bersksire's portfolio now and bails out the old man of his series of bad investments (post-2008).

(https://i.imgur.com/AfP1t9N.png)

Quote from: Jockey on September 03, 2023, 02:19:27 PM
Buffett is a liberal. Heisy attacks.

Night follows day. Ho hum.

God, it must suck to be you. Always angry and looking for political conspiracies where none not only exist but are not even considered.

I picked Buffett because he has owned Disney continuously since 1966. DIS has performed so badly in recent years that it is lagging behind the S&P 500 over the last 35 years.

But if you want another example. How about Chicos Bail Bonds/Hoopaloop?

He famously bragged that every stock mentioned here he bought long ago and had a 300% profit in it. Given how he bragged about his investing prowess on an anonymous basketball site, he should have been a billionaire many times over.

When he left us, he said he worked for DIS and had a big chunk of his net worth in it. I'm sure if he is out there, he will regal with tales of how he turned a collapsing stock into big bucks ... even though in the original ESPN posts, he insisted I did not know what I was talking about and it was going to be a money-making juggernaut for all time.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 04, 2023, 09:34:07 PM
Is there a reason your chart ended 12 years ago? 

Could it be to hide that Buffett has been "very average" for the last 12 years?

Actually, BRK has outperformed SPY the last 12 years, with a 423% total return to SPY's 381%.

I know that the chart you presented actually went back about 15 years, because cherry-picking dates helps folks win arguments; I only mentioned 12 years because you did.

But why are we even talking about ancient history of 15 or 12 years, anyway? Berkshire also has outperformed SPY over the past 5, 3 and 1 years.

Probably the biggest reason for that more recent outperformance? Buffett loaded up on AAPL, which is now by far Berkshire's largest holding.

https://dailytradealert.com/warren-buffett-tracker/

AAPL's total return is about 800% since Buffett started buying it in 2016 - which, if memory serves, is about when at least one expert was calling it dead money.

Look, you're far from the only one who says Buffett has "lost his fastball," and I'd agree that the 93-year-old has made far fewer great calls in recent years than he used to. (And, as you said, other Berkshire stock-pickers, led by Jain, have made most of the real good calls in recent years.)

But it was Buffett who pushed for Berkshire to invest big in AAPL because he loves the company's business model and admires Tim Cook, and he also foresaw the turnaround in the energy sector to load up on CVX and OXY. All to the benefit of BRK shareholders.

Oh, and I could be wrong (and I know you'll let me know if I am), but based on the real quick look I took, it appears BRK hasn't owned DIS for quite some time.

Quote from: MU82 on September 04, 2023, 10:47:09 PM
Actually, BRK has outperformed SPY the last 12 years, with a 423% total return to SPY's 381%.

I know that the chart you presented actually went back about 15 years, because cherry-picking dates helps folks win arguments; I only mentioned 12 years because you did.

But why are we even talking about ancient history of 15 or 12 years, anyway? Berkshire also has outperformed SPY over the past 5, 3 and 1 years.

Probably the biggest reason for that more recent outperformance? Buffett loaded up on AAPL, which is now by far Berkshire's largest holding.

https://dailytradealert.com/warren-buffett-tracker/

AAPL's total return is about 800% since Buffett started buying it in 2016 - which, if memory serves, is about when at least one expert was calling it dead money.

Look, you're far from the only one who says Buffett has "lost his fastball," and I'd agree that the 93-year-old has made far fewer great calls in recent years than he used to. (And, as you said, other Berkshire stock-pickers, led by Jain, have made most of the real good calls in recent years.)

But it was Buffett who pushed for Berkshire to invest big in AAPL because he loves the company's business model and admires Tim Cook, and he also foresaw the turnaround in the energy sector to load up on CVX and OXY. All to the benefit of BRK shareholders.

Oh, and I could be wrong (and I know you'll let me know if I am), but based on the real quick look I took, it appears BRK hasn't owned DIS for quite some time.

No, I showed the missing 12 years from TSmith's chart. It shows Buffett was very average.

And what part of the red line is lower than the blue line, don't you understand?  You, of all people, know what that means.

And you make the precise argument of why he has been very average the last 15 years, because "cherry-picking" the periods matter. It should not, and it did not prior to 2008; he flat-out beat everything, no matter the period, until the financial crisis.

If we want to get into cherry-picking periods, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of managers that are equal to him or better.

Can MJ be the best player in history if he is the 15th-highest score in the NBA? That's what we are arguing with Buffett since 2008.

And let's talk about "loading up" on energy (S&P 500 Energy is only up 3% YTD versus 17% for the S&P 500)

OXY has sucked, up 2.5% (again, the benchmark is the S&P 500, which is up 17%)
CVX is DOWN 6% YTD. Crappily-run banks are doing better than this.

But this is what Buffett idolatry does. If a mere mortal held OXY and CVX and had that 12-year track record, he would not only be out of a job, but they would bought up on charges. But when Buffett lays these turds, we all walk around talking about how great they smell.

Correct on AAPL. But that was Ajit Jain, not Buffett. His job is to "cover" for the old man.

(Again, he was the greatest ever, but he is way past his sell-by date and has not been pretty average since, and index funds have been better.)
-------------

But I will give Buffett significant props for his honesty. He knows he is past his sell-by date and tries to tell everyone, but we all want to think his crap does not smell.

He tells everyone not to buy Index funds and, by implication, not BRK.

Billionaire Warren Buffett swears by this inexpensive investing strategy that anyone can try
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/billionaire-warren-buffett-swears-by-this-inexpensive-investing-strategy-that-anyone-can-try.html

He knows what happened to him in the financial crisis. He was effectively wiped out and then bailed out by taxpayers so he could remain the second richest man (at the time, behind Gates).

He even wrote a "thank you letter" to the public for keeping him a billionaire. Anyone else would have been derided for this. But good old Uncle Warren deserves the tax payer to ensure he is always worth $100 billion.

November 17, 2010
Pretty Good for Government Work
By Warren E. Buffett

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&

DEAR Uncle Sam,

My mother told me to send thank-you notes promptly. I've been remiss.

Let me remind you why I'm writing. Just over two years ago, in September 2008, our country faced an economic meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pillars that supported our mortgage system, had been forced into conservatorship. Several of our largest commercial banks were teetering. One of Wall Street's giant investment banks had gone bankrupt, and the remaining three were poised to follow. A.I.G., the world's most famous insurer, was at death's door.

Many of our largest industrial companies, dependent on commercial paper financing that had disappeared, were weeks away from exhausting their cash resources. Indeed, all of corporate America's dominoes were lined up, ready to topple at lightning speed. My own company, Berkshire Hathaway, might have been the last to fall, but that distinction provided little solace.

I cannot help but think that years from now, we will look back at the latest conference realignment, with the elimination of the PAC-12 as a catastrophic mistake.

They are all chasing massive broadcasting rights fees when the broadcasters are showing they cannot make the economics work.

Or maybe they hope the tech firms (Amazon, Apple) are stupid and will grossly overpay into perpetuity. 

Hope is not a strategy.

----

September 5, 2023
ESPN's 'melting iceberg' is yet another challenge for Disney, analyst says
ESPN's outlook is negative and overinflated by the consensus view, according to KeyBanc

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/espns-melting-iceberg-is-yet-another-challenge-for-disney-analyst-says-47377bcc

Looking at the big picture, Nispel calls ESPN "a melting iceberg" that faces a difficult transition to the streaming landscape. Disney already offers the ESPN+ streaming service, but it doesn't include live access to ESPN's flagship programming. The company will ultimately have to transition the core ESPN service into a direct-to-consumer proposition.

By Nispel's math, ESPN+ delivers average revenue per user of $5.45 a month inclusive of advertising, while linear ESPN drives $16 to $17 a month on the metric.

"In other words, ESPN+ ARPUs are going to need to more than triple to match that of linear," he wrote.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 05, 2023, 09:10:24 AM
I cannot help but think that years from now, we will look back at the latest conference realignment, with the elimination of the PAC-12 as a catastrophic mistake.

They are all chasing massive broadcasting rights fees when the broadcasters are showing they cannot make the economics work.

Or maybe they hope the tech firms (Amazon, Apple) are stupid and will grossly overpay into perpetuity. 

Hope is not a strategy.

----

September 5, 2023
ESPN's 'melting iceberg' is yet another challenge for Disney, analyst says
ESPN's outlook is negative and overinflated by the consensus view, according to KeyBanc

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/espns-melting-iceberg-is-yet-another-challenge-for-disney-analyst-says-47377bcc

Looking at the big picture, Nispel calls ESPN "a melting iceberg" that faces a difficult transition to the streaming landscape. Disney already offers the ESPN+ streaming service, but it doesn't include live access to ESPN's flagship programming. The company will ultimately have to transition the core ESPN service into a direct-to-consumer proposition.

By Nispel's math, ESPN+ delivers average revenue per user of $5.45 a month inclusive of advertising, while linear ESPN drives $16 to $17 a month on the metric.

"In other words, ESPN+ ARPUs are going to need to more than triple to match that of linear," he wrote.

Rights fees have been and will be a bubble that is going to burst for all involved at some point, except the NFL.  Those rights fees will never implode. 

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 04, 2023, 11:36:14 PM
No, I showed the missing 12 years from TSmith's chart. It shows Buffett was very average.

And what part of the red line is lower than the blue line, don't you understand?  You, of all people, know what that means.

And you make the precise argument of why he has been very average the last 15 years, because "cherry-picking" the periods matter. It should not, and it did not prior to 2008; he flat-out beat everything, no matter the period, until the financial crisis.

If we want to get into cherry-picking periods, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of managers that are equal to him or better.

Can MJ be the best player in history if he is the 15th-highest score in the NBA? That's what we are arguing with Buffett since 2008.

And let's talk about "loading up" on energy (S&P 500 Energy is only up 3% YTD versus 17% for the S&P 500)

OXY has sucked, up 2.5% (again, the benchmark is the S&P 500, which is up 17%)
CVX is DOWN 6% YTD. Crappily-run banks are doing better than this.

But this is what Buffett idolatry does. If a mere mortal held OXY and CVX and had that 12-year track record, he would not only be out of a job, but they would bought up on charges. But when Buffett lays these turds, we all walk around talking about how great they smell.

Correct on AAPL. But that was Ajit Jain, not Buffett. His job is to "cover" for the old man.

(Again, he was the greatest ever, but he is way past his sell-by date and has not been pretty average since, and index funds have been better.)
-------------

But I will give Buffett significant props for his honesty. He knows he is past his sell-by date and tries to tell everyone, but we all want to think his crap does not smell.

He tells everyone not to buy Index funds and, by implication, not BRK.

Billionaire Warren Buffett swears by this inexpensive investing strategy that anyone can try
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/03/billionaire-warren-buffett-swears-by-this-inexpensive-investing-strategy-that-anyone-can-try.html

He knows what happened to him in the financial crisis. He was effectively wiped out and then bailed out by taxpayers so he could remain the second richest man (at the time, behind Gates).

He even wrote a "thank you letter" to the public for keeping him a billionaire. Anyone else would have been derided for this. But good old Uncle Warren deserves the tax payer to ensure he is always worth $100 billion.

November 17, 2010
Pretty Good for Government Work
By Warren E. Buffett

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&

DEAR Uncle Sam,

My mother told me to send thank-you notes promptly. I've been remiss.

Let me remind you why I'm writing. Just over two years ago, in September 2008, our country faced an economic meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pillars that supported our mortgage system, had been forced into conservatorship. Several of our largest commercial banks were teetering. One of Wall Street's giant investment banks had gone bankrupt, and the remaining three were poised to follow. A.I.G., the world's most famous insurer, was at death's door.

Many of our largest industrial companies, dependent on commercial paper financing that had disappeared, were weeks away from exhausting their cash resources. Indeed, all of corporate America's dominoes were lined up, ready to topple at lightning speed. My own company, Berkshire Hathaway, might have been the last to fall, but that distinction provided little solace.

You have some misinformation there, including about total return over the last 12 years, but that's OK. I'm in a good mood today, so I'll let it go.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 04, 2023, 09:34:07 PM
Is there a reason your chart ended 12 years ago? 

Could it be to hide that Buffett has been "very average" for the last 12 years? I'm being charitable because he has underperformed in the period shown above (the red line up less than the blue line).

No, not intentional. User error in that I copied the chart poorly.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2023, 09:11:59 AM
Rights fees have been and will be a bubble that is going to burst for all involved at some point, except the NFL.  Those rights fees will never implode.

I agree NFL broadcast rights may not implode. But broadcasters can still grotesquely overpay and wind up losing a ton of money,

Consider this tweet. If true, then the NFLPA will demand a huge increase in rookie salaries.  The richest league in the world cannot have its top rookies take a pay cut when moving to the next level.

The NFLPA will strike over this.

And the league will need grotesque overpaying of broadcast fees to make their economics work.
----

https://x.com/nflrookiewatxh/status/1699131616252002326?s=12&t=uSnZlSLOtzvp-jqg6eHG4Q

Shedeur Sanders is now projected to make $3.8M through NIL this season.

That is up $2.5M dollars from before his breakout game against TCU.

Sanders' projected NIL earnings is over $2M more than Dak Prescott's base salary this season ($1,700,000).

Nearly $3M more than Joe Burrow's base salary this season ($1,010,000).

And also nearly $3M more than both Justin Herbert and Trevor Lawrence's base salaries this season ($1,010,000 and $940,000).

The Sanders name PRINTS money

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 05, 2023, 07:18:43 PM
I agree NFL broadcast rights may not implode. But broadcasters can still grotesquely overpay and wind up losing a ton of money,

Consider this tweet. If true, then the NFLPA will demand a huge increase in rookie salaries.  The richest league in the world cannot have its top rookies take a pay cut when moving to the next level.

The NFLPA will strike over this.

And the league will need grotesque overpaying of broadcast fees to make their economics work.
----

https://x.com/nflrookiewatxh/status/1699131616252002326?s=12&t=uSnZlSLOtzvp-jqg6eHG4Q

Shedeur Sanders is now projected to make $3.8M through NIL this season.

That is up $2.5M dollars from before his breakout game against TCU.

Sanders' projected NIL earnings is over $2M more than Dak Prescott's base salary this season ($1,700,000).

Nearly $3M more than Joe Burrow's base salary this season ($1,010,000).

And also nearly $3M more than both Justin Herbert and Trevor Lawrence's base salaries this season ($1,010,000 and $940,000).

The Sanders name PRINTS money

NFLPA isn't going to strike over this.  The current deal runs through 2030.  The NFLPA always caves. 

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2023, 07:38:19 PM
NFLPA isn't going to strike over this.  The current deal runs through 2030.  The NFLPA always caves. 

Not only that, but Sanders or any other rookie, has the ability to earn unlimited endorsement dollars once they enter the league already.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 05, 2023, 07:49:02 PM
Not only that, but Sanders or any other rookie, has the ability to earn unlimited endorsement dollars once they enter the league already.

That, too.  Also, what option does he have?  Canada?  Using his degree to get another job?

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 05, 2023, 07:49:02 PM
Not only that, but Sanders or any other rookie, has the ability to earn unlimited endorsement dollars once they enter the league already.

Can't they now sign unlimited endorsement deals in college with NIL?

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 05, 2023, 07:38:19 PM
NFLPA isn't going to strike over this.  The current deal runs through 2030.  The NFLPA always caves.

Well that and the "base salary" of Dak Prescott isn't a very informative comparison.

"In 2023, Prescott will earn a base salary of $1,700,000 and a restructure bonus of $29,300,000"

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/dak-prescott-19089/

Quote from: forgetful on September 05, 2023, 10:03:53 PM
Can't they now sign unlimited endorsement deals in college with NIL?

Right. Heisey is claiming that the NFLPA will strike because players are going to be taking a compensation cut when going from NIL-funded college careers to a rookie wage scale. He's comparing apples to oranges because the rookie wage scale has nothing to do with earning endorsement income - like NIL.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 06, 2023, 10:29:28 AM
Right. Heisey is claiming that the NFLPA will strike because players are going to be taking a compensation cut when going from NIL-funded college careers to a rookie wage scale. He's comparing apples to oranges because the rookie wage scale has nothing to do with earning endorsement income - like NIL.

I agree with this.

The funny aside is that much/most of NIL payments have nothing to do with endorsements; it is pure pay for play. 

Quote from: WhiteTrash on September 06, 2023, 10:44:51 AM
I agree with this.

The funny aside is that much/most of NIL payments have nothing to do with endorsements; it is pure pay for play. 

Yep. Which is why this entire set up is nonsense. I know they don't want to have the players have employee status, so you have now set up this byzantine system to get money to them.

And then they complain about lack of control and want the federal government to do something about it.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 06, 2023, 10:53:43 AM
Yep. Which is why this entire set up is nonsense. I know they don't want to have the players have employee status, so you have now set up this byzantine system to get money to them.

And then they complain about lack of control and want the federal government to do something about it.

It's almost the end of another summer. I am sure the NCAA is ready to throw the hammer down on Bill Self for his past transgressions (which look like small potatoes now).

Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on September 06, 2023, 11:14:59 AM
It's almost the end of another summer. I am sure the NCAA is ready to throw the hammer down on Bill Self for his past transgressions (which look like small potatoes now).

Chicos promised the hammer would drop

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 06, 2023, 10:29:28 AM
Right. Heisey is claiming that the NFLPA will strike because players are going to be taking a compensation cut when going from NIL-funded college careers to a rookie wage scale. He's comparing apples to oranges because the rookie wage scale has nothing to do with earning endorsement income - like NIL.

Got it. My brain is struggling a bit, and had a hard time following what Heisey is up in arms about this time and thought you were implying something different.

Quote from: jficke13 on September 06, 2023, 10:27:02 AM
Well that and the "base salary" of Dak Prescott isn't a very informative comparison.

"In 2023, Prescott will earn a base salary of $1,700,000 and a restructure bonus of $29,300,000"

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/dak-prescott-19089/

Yeah, that was just plain silly. Like talking about a CEO's "base salary."

NIL is going to change the NFL

If Caleb Williams does like not the team that will draft him next spring (presumably at #1), he will return to USC and his nearly $3 million in NIL money.

The Chicago Bears might have gotten lucky having the first pick this year rather than next year.  This year, they did not have to negotiate with Bryce Young about who gets the pick. Next year, Williams will demand a hand in who gets that pick.

——

QB Caleb Williams' father says that Caleb could stay in school another year if he doesn't like the situation he'd be in with the team picking #1 overall, he told GQ Magazine

"The funky thing about the NFL draft process is, he'd almost be better off not being drafted than being drafted first. The system is completely backwards. The way the system is constructed, you go to the worst possible situation. The worst possible team, the worst organization in the league — because of their desire for parity — gets the first pick. So it's the gift and the curse."

"So if there's not a good situation, the truth is, he can come back to school."

https://www.gq.com/story/caleb-williams-profile

               

                             disney stock down approx. 30% over the last 5 years

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 07, 2023, 02:14:10 AM
NIL is going to change the NFL

If Caleb Williams does like not the team that will draft him next spring (presumably at #1), he will return to USC and his nearly $3 million in NIL money.

The Chicago Bears might have gotten lucky having the first pick this year rather than next year.  This year, they did not have to negotiate with Bryce Young about who gets the pick. Next year, Williams will demand a hand in who gets that pick.

——

QB Caleb Williams' father says that Caleb could stay in school another year if he doesn't like the situation he'd be in with the team picking #1 overall, he told GQ Magazine

"The funky thing about the NFL draft process is, he'd almost be better off not being drafted than being drafted first. The system is completely backwards. The way the system is constructed, you go to the worst possible situation. The worst possible team, the worst organization in the league — because of their desire for parity — gets the first pick. So it's the gift and the curse."

"So if there's not a good situation, the truth is, he can come back to school."

https://www.gq.com/story/caleb-williams-profile

Double edged sword.  If he stays in college he could get hurt, or have a down year.  Then instead of going as the top pick he might fall a couple of rounds.  Is that a better situation?  Nope.

Caleb Williams father hasn't thought this all the way through.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on September 07, 2023, 05:33:28 AM
               

                             disney stock down approx. 30% over the last 5 years

That's what happens when a company throws too much money at their streaming service.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 07, 2023, 06:10:57 AM
Double edged sword.  If he stays in college he could get hurt, or have a down year.  Then instead of going as the top pick he might fall a couple of rounds.  Is that a better situation?  Nope.

Caleb Williams father hasn't thought this all the way through.

And I'm not sure if he couldn't pull a John Elway and leverage himself elsewhere anyway.

It's smart for Caleb Williams to use whatever leverage he has, and NIL very well might have changed some things in this realm.

What he (or his father, lawyer or other intermediaries) say now is pretty meaningless, though.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 07, 2023, 07:00:35 AM

And I'm not sure if he couldn't pull a John Elway and leverage himself elsewhere anyway.

Don't even have to go that far.  Eli Manning says hi

Quote from: JWags85 on September 07, 2023, 07:52:02 AM
Don't even have to go that far.  Eli Manning says hi

Good point.

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 07, 2023, 06:11:39 AM
That's what happens when a company throws too much money at their streaming service.

  money in...money out...when they are out of balance, ya lose money, eyn'a? 

Quote from: Hards Alumni on September 07, 2023, 06:10:57 AM
Double edged sword.  If he stays in college he could get hurt, or have a down year.  Then instead of going as the top pick he might fall a couple of rounds.  Is that a better situation?  Nope.

Caleb Williams father hasn't thought this all the way through.

Caleb's Father thinks if Caleb wins a second Heisman this year, the comparison goes from Caleb being the next Patrick Mahamos to Mahaomas being a slower version of Caleb Williams (again this is what Caleb's father thinking).

The article says Caleb originally committed to Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma. Then moved with Riley to USC.

Caleb and his father are close to Kyler Murray, another Lincoln Riley Heiman winner and #1 pick.

Williams thinks Murray is not a superstar is more the fault of the AZ Cardinals being a crappy organization and not Murray underperforming. He might not be wrong about AZ retarding Kyler Murray.

So Caleb and his father do not want to repeat the Kyler Murray situation.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 07, 2023, 10:11:39 AM
Caleb's Father thinks if Caleb wins a second Heisman this year, the comparison goes from Caleb being the next Patrick Mahamos to Mahaomas being a slower version of Caleb Williams (again this is what Caleb's father thinking).

The article says Caleb originally committed to Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma. Then moved with Riley to USC.

Caleb and his father are close to Kyler Murray, another Lincoln Riley Heiman winner and #1 pick.

Williams thinks Murray is not a superstar is more the fault of the AZ Cardinals being a crappy organization and not Murray underperforming. He might not be wrong about AZ retarding Kyler Murray.

So Caleb and his father do not want to repeat the Kyler Murray situation.

Cool. But this has happened before and will happen again.  This isn't new.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 07, 2023, 10:52:49 AM

Cool. But this has happened before and will happen again.  This isn't new.

Caleb Williams can certainly go back to school for his senior season.  Then he'll have no choice but to go pro, so 🤷🏼‍♂️.  His maximum earning ability isn't at USC.

The NFL will go on, with or without him in 2024.

Right. This isn't the NBA. If Caleb Williams doesn't play a down in the league, no one is really going to care.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 07, 2023, 10:11:39 AM
Caleb's Father thinks if Caleb wins a second Heisman this year, the comparison goes from Caleb being the next Patrick Mahamos to Mahaomas being a slower version of Caleb Williams (again this is what Caleb's father thinking).

The article says Caleb originally committed to Lincoln Riley at Oklahoma. Then moved with Riley to USC.

Caleb and his father are close to Kyler Murray, another Lincoln Riley Heiman winner and #1 pick.

Williams thinks Murray is not a superstar is more the fault of the AZ Cardinals being a crappy organization and not Murray underperforming. He might not be wrong about AZ retarding Kyler Murray.

So Caleb and his father do not want to repeat the Kyler Murray situation.

Caleb's father = Lavar Ball?

It's astounding that these experts aren't professional head coaches.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 07, 2023, 10:58:26 AM
Right. This isn't the NBA. If Caleb Williams doesn't play a down in the league, no one is really going to care.

Let's extrapolate this out as well.  Let's say an inordinate number of op players stay longer in school.  That makes the college football property more valuable and rights fees not as burdensome.

The NFL and NFLPA wins, too.  The NFL gets more polished and mature players.  The NFLPA has less competition for roster spots.  The product at both levels is theoretically better. 

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 11:01:40 AM

Caleb's father = Lavar Ball?

It's astounding that these experts aren't professional head coaches.

We probably should stop using Lavar Ball as an example of a bad sport parent.

Two top 3 picks and $100MM worth of NBA earnings before any of his kids turned 26. And by the time Melo is 25, he'll have added another $80MM to that total.

He is far from Marv Marinovich even if he is bombastic

Quote from: JWags85 on September 07, 2023, 11:42:01 AM
We probably should stop using Lavar Ball as an example of a bad sport parent.

Two top 3 picks and $100MM worth of NBA earnings before any of his kids turned 26. And by the time Melo is 25, he'll have added another $80MM to that total.

He is far from Marv Marinovich even if he is bombastic

Well he did ruin one of his kids careers by making him wear shoddy shoes to promote his brand. I think that ranks pretty highly on the bad sports parent scale.

Quote from: JWags85 on September 07, 2023, 11:42:01 AM
We probably should stop using Lavar Ball as an example of a bad sport parent.

Two top 3 picks and $100MM worth of NBA earnings before any of his kids turned 26. And by the time Melo is 25, he'll have added another $80MM to that total.

He is far from Marv Marinovich even if he is bombastic

It's unknown if their kids are where they are because of their fathers or in spite of them.  I certainly think it helps kids growth and development by having a two parent home. But the simple fact is that these kids are elite athletes who probably would have been great anyway.

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 12:23:09 PM
It's unknown if their kids are where they are because of their fathers or in spite of them. 

If it's "unknown," why did you make the assertion in the first place?

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 07, 2023, 12:31:15 PM
If it's "unknown," why did you make the assertion in the first place?

Wow. You really had to stretch to get that from what I said.

A+ for effort, though.

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 12:47:59 PM
Wow. You really had to stretch to get that from what I said.

A+ for effort, though.

So when you sarcastically said this...

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 11:01:40 AM
It's astounding that these experts aren't professional head coaches.

...what did you mean exactly?

Don't be dishonest. You know you were criticizing both Ball and Williams' father. Now when you are called on it, you claim their impact is "unknown."

It's not really much of a stretch.

First of all - props for recognizing sarcasm. Many here are unable to do so.


As far as my meaning, I was referencing their public personas. Think Mr. Maymon. It refers more to Mr. Ball, but I think Mr. Williams' comments are meant to maybe pressure which team might draft his son.

Some comments here about making about making just as much money staying in college are way off. Maybe he would make as much money next year but that is also one less year in the NFL for that $50 mil.

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 02:49:36 PM
First of all - props for recognizing sarcasm. Many here are unable to do so.


As far as my meaning, I was referencing their public personas. Think Mr. Maymon. It refers more to Mr. Ball, but I think Mr. Williams' comments are meant to maybe pressure which team might draft his son.

Some comments here about making about making just as much money staying in college are way off. Maybe he would make as much money next year but that is also one less year in the NFL for that $50 mil.

If Williams is the next big QB, he'll get $70+ million on his second deal in the NFL. 

You're correct, each year in college exposes him to injury and/or delays that deal

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 02:49:36 PM
First of all - props for recognizing sarcasm. Many here are unable to do so.


As far as my meaning, I was referencing their public personas. Think Mr. Maymon. It refers more to Mr. Ball, but I think Mr. Williams' comments are meant to maybe pressure which team might draft his son.

Some comments here about making about making just as much money staying in college are way off. Maybe he would make as much money next year but that is also one less year in the NFL for that $50 mil.

1.  Pull something out your ass.
2.  When called out, claim sarcasm.
3.  Profit

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on September 07, 2023, 04:14:39 PM
1.  Pull something out your ass.
2.  When called out, claim sarcasm.
3.  Profit

You are one of the ones I was thinking about when I said some scoopers can't recognize sarcasm.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 07, 2023, 02:52:16 PM
If Williams is the next big QB, he'll get $70+ million on his second deal in the NFL. 

You're correct, each year in college exposes him to injury and/or delays that deal

Agree on injury.

But his father has a point that some organizations are so bad at developing QBs that going there will prevent you from getting that second contract at all.

Think the Bears, Lions Jets, Broncos, Raiders, and Cardinals.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 07, 2023, 05:44:27 PM
Agree on injury.

But his father has a point that some organizations are so bad at developing QBs that going there will prevent you from getting that second contract at all.

Think the Bears, Lions Jets, Broncos, Raiders, and Cardinals.

That part is correct, to an extent.  Being drafted by some of those teams listed has been a career killer.

We could have said that about the Bengals pre-Joe Burrow and the Lions did fine developing Stafford, they just failed him roster building.

Before 2000, one could argue the Patriots were not a good organization.  They weren't!  Things can change and the QB often has a lot to do with that

https://sports.yahoo.com/were-at-a-tipping-point-disney-vs-charter-standoff-could-have-seismic-implications-for-entire-cable-tv-model-193455175.html

Correctly points out that Monday, with MNF's debut on ESPN, is a big deal. If there is no deal by Monday, there may be no deal for awhile and 20% of the country won't get to see the product that ESPN pays the most for.

September 8, 2013
Disney Fight Marks Cable TV's Last Stand
Dispute with Charter has left millions without access to football and the U.S. Open—and could mean a permanent change to the business as customers flee to streaming at an accelerated pace
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/disney-spectrum-espn-charter-dispute-9147744b


The endgame for cable TV has arrived.

The decadeslong alliance between programmers and distributors that has been the foundation of the roughly $200 billion TV industry is starting to crumble as each side looks to protect its interests in a media landscape centered on streaming.

Those tensions have burst into the open with a fight between Disney and the nation's No. 2 pay-TV provider, Charter Communications. The feud has left some 15 million customers of Charter's Spectrum cable service without access to Disney's ESPN and other channels, with Charter hinting it may exit the pay-TV business altogether.

The entertainment companies say they are trying to find ways to include their longtime pay-TV partners in the shift to streaming. In the Charter fight, a central issue is Charter's demand that Disney's streaming apps—including Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+—be made available at no extra cost to its pay-TV customers. Disney wants to be paid more for those services, while Charter believes the fees it pays to carry Disney's channels in its lineup should cover streaming apps as well.

"We had to say, enough is enough," Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey said Thursday at a Goldman Sachs investor conference. Winfrey said Disney's negotiating stance amounts to letting its "linear programming house burn to the ground."

"It's unfortunate that Charter decided to abandon their consumers by denying them access to our great programming," Disney said in a statement Thursday.

Charter, which has almost as many pay-TV subscribers as No. 1 Comcast, faces the risk that its customers around the country—with a big portion in New York and Los Angeles—will walk away during the Disney standoff and not come back. ESPN is currently carrying tennis's U.S. Open and its season of "Monday Night Football" starts Sept. 11, with a highly anticipated game featuring quarterback Aaron Rodgers's debut for the New York Jets.

----

The cable-TV bundle has been bleeding subscribers for the better part of a decade. Customers were turned off by the ever-growing cost of traditional television and were drawn to cheaper streaming options.

The number of U.S. pay-TV subscribers is shrinking at an annual pace of nearly 7%, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of MoffettNathanson data, a significant acceleration from a few years ago, when the rate of decline was under 2%.

"The video ecosystem is broken," Charter's Winfrey told investors last week. "We're either moving forward with a new collaborative video model, or we're moving on."

Over the past decade, about 42 million U.S. households have abandoned their traditional pay-TV plan—and most of them didn't replace it with a web-based alternative such as Fubo TV, Sling TV or others, which have about 17 million subscribers combined. Instead, most of these households gave up on live television altogether.


-----

Live sports have long remained the main selling point for the traditional cable-TV package. But even sports is beginning to move out of the cable bundle and into streaming apps. Both ESPN+ and Peacock will have exclusive NFL games on their platforms this season, something that DirecTV's Thun said is particularly infuriating.

"You have this wonderful business, known as pay-TV bundling, where everyone won," said Michael Nathanson, an analyst with MoffettNathanson. "And it's being unintelligently competed away by leaking more and more sports content" to streaming. 

ESPN is also exploring plans to offer a separate direct-to-consumer app with all of its TV content. And many regional sports networks—which carry the majority of professional basketball, baseball and hockey games—have launched stand-alone streaming options.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 02:00:43 PM
September 8, 2013
Disney Fight Marks Cable TV's Last Stand
Dispute with Charter has left millions without access to football and the U.S. Open—and could mean a permanent change to the business as customers flee to streaming at an accelerated pace
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/disney-spectrum-espn-charter-dispute-9147744b


The endgame for cable TV has arrived.

The decadeslong alliance between programmers and distributors that has been the foundation of the roughly $200 billion TV industry is starting to crumble as each side looks to protect its interests in a media landscape centered on streaming.

Those tensions have burst into the open with a fight between Disney and the nation's No. 2 pay-TV provider, Charter Communications. The feud has left some 15 million customers of Charter's Spectrum cable service without access to Disney's ESPN and other channels, with Charter hinting it may exit the pay-TV business altogether.

The entertainment companies say they are trying to find ways to include their longtime pay-TV partners in the shift to streaming. In the Charter fight, a central issue is Charter's demand that Disney's streaming apps—including Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+—be made available at no extra cost to its pay-TV customers. Disney wants to be paid more for those services, while Charter believes the fees it pays to carry Disney's channels in its lineup should cover streaming apps as well.

"We had to say, enough is enough," Charter Chief Executive Chris Winfrey said Thursday at a Goldman Sachs investor conference. Winfrey said Disney's negotiating stance amounts to letting its "linear programming house burn to the ground."

"It's unfortunate that Charter decided to abandon their consumers by denying them access to our great programming," Disney said in a statement Thursday.

Charter, which has almost as many pay-TV subscribers as No. 1 Comcast, faces the risk that its customers around the country—with a big portion in New York and Los Angeles—will walk away during the Disney standoff and not come back. ESPN is currently carrying tennis's U.S. Open and its season of "Monday Night Football" starts Sept. 11, with a highly anticipated game featuring quarterback Aaron Rodgers's debut for the New York Jets.

----

The cable-TV bundle has been bleeding subscribers for the better part of a decade. Customers were turned off by the ever-growing cost of traditional television and were drawn to cheaper streaming options.

The number of U.S. pay-TV subscribers is shrinking at an annual pace of nearly 7%, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of MoffettNathanson data, a significant acceleration from a few years ago, when the rate of decline was under 2%.

"The video ecosystem is broken," Charter's Winfrey told investors last week. "We're either moving forward with a new collaborative video model, or we're moving on."

Over the past decade, about 42 million U.S. households have abandoned their traditional pay-TV plan—and most of them didn't replace it with a web-based alternative such as Fubo TV, Sling TV or others, which have about 17 million subscribers combined. Instead, most of these households gave up on live television altogether.


-----

Live sports have long remained the main selling point for the traditional cable-TV package. But even sports is beginning to move out of the cable bundle and into streaming apps. Both ESPN+ and Peacock will have exclusive NFL games on their platforms this season, something that DirecTV's Thun said is particularly infuriating.

"You have this wonderful business, known as pay-TV bundling, where everyone won," said Michael Nathanson, an analyst with MoffettNathanson. "And it's being unintelligently competed away by leaking more and more sports content" to streaming. 

ESPN is also exploring plans to offer a separate direct-to-consumer app with all of its TV content. And many regional sports networks—which carry the majority of professional basketball, baseball and hockey games—have launched stand-alone streaming options.

Yup.  ESPN will stay alive in a new world.  Not doomed at all

September 8, 2023
Media analysts explains how the NBA could be a major loser of the Disney, Charter dispute
ESPN has been blacked out across 14.7 million Spectrum subscribers for over a week.
By TheStreet Staff

Disney and Charter aren't the only ones suffering from their now weeklong holdout.

The changing tide in the sports broadcasting industry signified by Charter Communications standing its ground against Disney and ESPN has analyst Ben Thompson concerned about what it could mean for the NBA.
Thompson spoke on "The Bill Simmons Podcast" and explained that the NBA will likely not get the raise it's targeting for its next rights deal. The league's current deal — which is with ESPN and Warner Bros. Discovery — expires after the 2024-25 season, and reports are the league is expecting to triple its yearly fee.

"The NBA is in a bad spot that it did not get this deal done before this happened," Thompson told Bill Simmons.

Thompson explained that Charter's hardball negotiation with ESPN signifies a changing tide in the industry. Cable operators used to value sports, and particularly The Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN because of the value of sports to the cable bundle. But with the shift to streaming, and how many cable providers are now shifting their revenue focus to internet service, they are now able to squeeze ESPN instead of the other way around.

Because of ESPN's ability to utilize its service on companies like Charter, sports leagues like the NBA were able to strongarm ESPN into paying more for rights deals. But that may no longer be the case.

[The NBA's] whole bit about being able to triple the rights deal and extract all this money from ESPN, it's dependent on ESPN being able to extract money from the cable carriers. And if the cable carriers say no, where's the money gonna come from?" Thompson said.

Thompson said he still expects to see the NBA's next rights deal to be higher than the $2.7 billion annually it was receiving from ESPN and Turner, but he just doesn't project it to be as much as the $7 or $8 billion that past reports have suggested.

Charter is making the mistake that people actually want their service. To an increasing extent, they don't, and this is most true amongst younger individuals.

Younger generations would rather scroll through endless TikTok videos than watch cable television. The only exception, and it too is suffering in terms of the numbers of eyes wanting it, is live sports.

To an ever increasing extent, individuals are accepting cable, only because they want their sports and do not want to have to figure out the details to make it work.

If Charter keeps playing their hands, these people will likely figure it out and jettison cable for good.

Quote from: forgetful on September 08, 2023, 03:09:12 PM
Charter is making the mistake that people actually want their service. To an increasing extent, they don't, and this is most true amongst younger individuals.

Younger generations would rather scroll through endless TikTok videos than watch cable television. The only exception, and it too is suffering in terms of the numbers of eyes wanting it, is live sports.

To an ever increasing extent, individuals are accepting cable, only because they want their sports and do not want to have to figure out the details to make it work.

If Charter keeps playing their hands, these people will likely figure it out and jettison cable for good.

But cable television isn't their main product from a profit margin perspective. Mobile and broadband services are. The way I have heard it described is that cable is to Charter as gas is to convenience stores. But in this case, their wires are already in your house.

This is why I think Charter is so willing to play hardball here. They know that many of their customers will flock to other services - most of which will be delivered over their broadband.

So the NBA is still gonna land the largest TV rights fees in league history, but it now appears unlikely to triple that.

I'm other words ...

Doomed.

A sign of desperation, ESPN/Disney seems to be abandoning their woke/virtue-signaling ways by hiring Pat McAfee, who debuted yesterday.

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/pat-mcafee-show-different-from-anything.html

I say desperate as their primary audience, white male sports consumers, are abandoning their non-live sports shows in droves because they are all unwatchable woke crap. So they have to shift and try and appeal to this demographic, in yet another attempt to stop the Disney empire from imploding (stock at a nine-year low, lower than the 2020 panic low).

Enter Pat McAfee

But the ESPN brass are so frightened of him that they are delaying his show so they can bleep out things he says that are probably true, but they don't like (otherwise known as "misinformation") under the guise of stopping f-bombs.

From the link above:
There were plenty of curses as McAfee and Aaron Rodgers teamed up to test ESPN's censorship rules by saying "sh*t." And after months of anticipation, McAfee even dropped his first f-bomb on ESPN. Thankfully, virgin ears were spared by ESPN airing its simulcast of The Pat McAfee Show on delay for the sole purpose of being able to mute f-bombs. That should be good news for Chris "Mad Dog" Russo, who begins his second tenure as McAfee's colleague.

His show opened with this disclaimer.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5b1hzKXEAAVdb6?format=jpg)

In 2003, ESPN hired Rush Limbaugh for the same reason, to appeal to middle-aged white guys. That experiment lasted seven weeks on ESPN before he was fired for saying something true, but the ESPN brass did not want it said out loud.

Over/under on McAfee's show on ESPN? Longer than Limbaugh?

Quote from: MU82 on September 08, 2023, 03:56:35 PM
So the NBA is still gonna land the largest TV rights fees in league history, but it now appears unlikely to triple that.

I'm other words ...

Doomed.

NBA team owners are paying out on long-term contracts with the expectation of more money from broadcast rights.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 04:01:11 PM
A sign of desperation, ESPN/Disney seems to be abandoning their woke/virtue-signaling ways by hiring Pat McAfee, who debuted yesterday.

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/pat-mcafee-show-different-from-anything.html

I say desperate as their primary audience, white male sports consumers, are abandoning their non-live sports shows in droves because they are all unwatchable woke crap.

WTF are you talking about?

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 08, 2023, 04:11:08 PM
WTF are you talking about?

The only non-live sports shows getting traction are shows like McAfee and Portnoy/Barstool.  And they get that traction precisely by saying things you are not allowed to say on ESPN.  But ESPN is now so desperate to stop the bleeding they are going to try something that they have not done in many years ... giving the primary audience what they want.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 04:15:06 PM
The only non-live sports shows getting traction are shows like McAfee and Portnoy/Barstool.  And they get that traction precisely by saying things you are not allowed to say on ESPN.  But ESPN is now so desperate to stop the bleeding they are going to try something that they have not done in many years ... giving the primary audience what they want.

So Stephen A. Smith, PTI, etc. is "unwatchable woke crap?"

You often make good points. You often post nonsense. This is the latter.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 04:15:06 PM
The only non-live sports shows getting traction are shows like McAfee and Portnoy/Barstool.  And they get that traction precisely by saying things you are not allowed to say on ESPN.  But ESPN is now so desperate to stop the bleeding they are going to try something that they have not done in many years ... giving the primary audience what they want.

You're watching too much cable news and not enough ESPN/Disney if you think this is what is happening.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 08, 2023, 04:17:05 PM
So Stephen A. Smith, PTI, etc. is "unwatchable woke crap?"

You often make good points. You often post nonsense. This is the latter.

Yes, Stephen A is garbage

"Woke"

😂😂😂😂😂😂

https://nypost.com/2023/09/06/mina-kimes-signs-massive-new-espn-deal-to-end-free-agency/amp/

NFL media rights deals definitely going to be an issue for the league

https://nbcsportsgrouppressbox.com/2023/09/08/lions-chiefs-in-nfl-kickoff-game-on-nbc-and-peacock-is-medias-most-watched-show-since-super-bowl-lvii-averaging-nearly-27-million-viewers/P

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsGMvQGX0AM29DP.png)

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 08, 2023, 05:04:45 PM
NFL media rights deals definitely going to be an issue for the league

https://nbcsportsgrouppressbox.com/2023/09/08/lions-chiefs-in-nfl-kickoff-game-on-nbc-and-peacock-is-medias-most-watched-show-since-super-bowl-lvii-averaging-nearly-27-million-viewers/P

So ... is this going to end cord-cutting?  Is this your argument?

Or are you saying you're willing to pay $300-ish/year for some version of "NFL ticket?"
----
10 years ago, ESPN had 100 million subscribers paying about $6/month ($600 million/month). Today, they have about 70 million paying $9/month ($630 million/month). So, 50 million people pay for ESPN and do not give a Sh!t about the NFL but are paying for it.

This link is the exact reason we have cord-cutting! They don't want to pay for stuff they don't want. And you posted a link that about 75% of the cable-paying public is uninterested in the NFL. And they are going to cord-cut and stop paying for it.

See the many stories I posted above: cord-cutting is accelerating, and $630 million/month is now falling, but broadcast rights are rising. This is why Disney wants to sell ESPN to the NBA/NFL.

When the 75% that are uninterested in the NFL complete cord-cutting, the 27 million that do care have to shoulder all the payment of the broadcast fees owed to the NFL. 

Do you think 27 million Americans will pay the NFL $300-ish/year to watch the Bills/Jets on Monday night? Are you?

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 08, 2023, 03:22:40 PM

But cable television isn't their main product from a profit margin perspective. Mobile and broadband services are. The way I have heard it described is that cable is to Charter as gas is to convenience stores. But in this case, their wires are already in your house.

This is why I think Charter is so willing to play hardball here. They know that many of their customers will flock to other services - most of which will be delivered over their broadband.

This is true, but every cable subscriber they lose is lost revenue that they are not going to make back via other channels.  Isn't that still a net loss for them? 

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 06:20:26 PM
So ... is this going to end cord-cutting?  Is this your argument?

Or are you saying you're willing to pay $300-ish/year for some version of "NFL ticket?"
----
10 years ago, ESPN had 100 million subscribers paying about $6/month ($600 million/month). Today, they have about 70 million paying $9/month ($630 million/month). So, 50 million people pay for ESPN and do not give a Sh!t about the NFL but are paying for it.

This link is the exact reason we have cord-cutting! They don't want to pay for stuff they don't want. And you posted a link that about 75% of the cable-paying public is uninterested in the NFL. And they are going to cord-cut and stop paying for it.

See the many stories I posted above: cord-cutting is accelerating, and $630 million/month is now falling, but broadcast rights are rising. This is why Disney wants to sell ESPN to the NBA/NFL.

When the 75% that are uninterested in the NFL complete cord-cutting, the 27 million that do care have to shoulder all the payment of the broadcast fees owed to the NFL. 

Do you think 27 million Americans will pay the NFL $300-ish/year to watch the Bills/Jets on Monday night? Are you?

No, my argument is, NFL rights fees will go up a lot again.  NFL is rolling

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 08, 2023, 06:34:09 PM
No, my argument is, NFL rights fees will go up a lot again.  NFL is rolling

And who is going to pay these fees? Most of the fees are paid by those who do not watch the NFL. When these people stop paying it (aka cord-cutting), riddle me this ... how many Americans are willing to pay $300-ish/year for the NFL only?

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on September 08, 2023, 06:22:47 PM
This is true, but every cable subscriber they lose is lost revenue that they are not going to make back via other channels.  Isn't that still a net loss for them? 

No because I believe their payments to ESPN (and other networks) are on a per subscriber basis.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 06:45:45 PM
And who is going to pay these fees? Most of the fees are paid by those who do not watch the NFL. When these people stop paying it (aka cord-cutting), riddle me this ... how many Americans are willing to pay $300-ish/year for the NFL only?

Millions and millions of Americans.  NFL gonna be cashing big fat rights fees checks for generations

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 04:38:34 PM

Yes, Stephen A is garbage

Yep. But it's not "woke."

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 06:20:26 PM
So ... is this going to end cord-cutting?  Is this your argument?

Or are you saying you're willing to pay $300-ish/year for some version of "NFL ticket?"
----
10 years ago, ESPN had 100 million subscribers paying about $6/month ($600 million/month). Today, they have about 70 million paying $9/month ($630 million/month). So, 50 million people pay for ESPN and do not give a Sh!t about the NFL but are paying for it.

This link is the exact reason we have cord-cutting! They don't want to pay for stuff they don't want. And you posted a link that about 75% of the cable-paying public is uninterested in the NFL. And they are going to cord-cut and stop paying for it.

See the many stories I posted above: cord-cutting is accelerating, and $630 million/month is now falling, but broadcast rights are rising. This is why Disney wants to sell ESPN to the NBA/NFL.

When the 75% that are uninterested in the NFL complete cord-cutting, the 27 million that do care have to shoulder all the payment of the broadcast fees owed to the NFL. 

Do you think 27 million Americans will pay the NFL $300-ish/year to watch the Bills/Jets on Monday night? Are you?

Yes, I think sports minded Americans will pay $300/year to watch their sports. I actually think, if they are saving money cutting all the channels they don't want to watch, that they might pay $400/year.

And I think the number willing to pay for ESPN as a standalone $20-25 per month is likely around 50M subscribers (if they have sufficient dominance of the sports content), and possibly upwards of 100M worldwide (albeit the international subscription fee might have to be decreased).

The 100M subscriber mark has been consistent when you total in ESPN+ subscribers. Pretty much the yearly loss in cable TV subscribers is equally matched with people getting ESPN+.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 08, 2023, 06:50:40 PM
Millions and millions of Americans.  NFL gonna be cashing big fat rights fees checks for generations

Annual NFL Broadcasting Rights


ESPN/ABC (Monday Night) = $2.7B
Fox (Sunday NFC) = $2.29B
CBS (Sunday AFC) = 2.15B
NBC (Sunday Night) = 2.05B
YouTube (Sunday Ticket - Residential) = $2B
Amazon Prime (Thursday Night) = $1.2

Source
www.statista.com/statistics/615678/nfl-national-television-broadcast-deals/


Total Broadcasting fees = $12.39 billion (and remember his number is going up every year)

The average audience for an NFL broadcast totaled 16.7 million last year, down from 17.1 million in 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/09/nfl-ratings-dominance-starts-early-with-biggest-hall-of-fame-game-viewership-in-5-years/?sh=4c3a104a6e36

That works out to $75 for an NFL fan. This does not include costs (someone has to pay Romo and Aikman production costs), and it does not include the playoffs.

So, I'll ask again: When cable goes away (where the vast majority of the $12.39 billion/year is now paid by people who do not watch the NFL), and everything is effectively pay-per-view (aka, all streaming), How many people are going to pay this?  In several posts above, the execs and the networks think it is actually $300-ish/year ($25/month).

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 07:05:57 PM

Annual NFL Broadcasting Rights


ESPN/ABC (Monday Night) = $2.7B
Fox (Sunday NFC) = $2.29B
CBS (Sunday AFC) = 2.15B
NBC (Sunday Night) = 2.05B
YouTube (Sunday Ticket - Residential) = $2B
Amazon Prime (Thursday Night) = $1.2

Source
www.statista.com/statistics/615678/nfl-national-television-broadcast-deals/


Total Broadcasting fees = $12.39 billion (and remember his number is going up every year)

The average audience for an NFL broadcast totaled 16.7 million last year, down from 17.1 million in 2021
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2023/08/09/nfl-ratings-dominance-starts-early-with-biggest-hall-of-fame-game-viewership-in-5-years/?sh=4c3a104a6e36

That works out to $75 for an NFL fan. This does not include costs (someone has to pay Romo and Aikman production costs), and it does not include the playoffs.

So, I'll ask again: When cable goes away (where the vast majority of the $12.39 billion/year is now paid by people who do not watch the NFL), and everything is effectively pay-per-view (aka, all streaming), How many people are going to pay this?  In several posts above, the execs and the networks think it is actually $300-ish/year ($25/month).

Millions and millions of Americans will pay it.  NFL is gonna be rolling in the cash for generations.  League is unstoppable despite all the fans they've lost because of kneeling.  Owners are laughing their way to the bank.  You'll be dead and buried and the league will be making sick profits beyond your wildest imagination

Quote from: forgetful on September 08, 2023, 07:05:02 PM
Yes, I think sports minded Americans will pay $300/year to watch their sports. I actually think, if they are saving money cutting all the channels they don't want to watch, that they might pay $400/year.

And I think the number willing to pay for ESPN as a standalone $20-25 per month is likely around 50M subscribers (if they have sufficient dominance of the sports content), and possibly upwards of 100M worldwide (albeit the international subscription fee might have to be decreased).

The 100M subscriber mark has been consistent when you total in ESPN+ subscribers. Pretty much the yearly loss in cable TV subscribers is equally matched with people getting ESPN+.

Make up numbers to fit a conclusion you already decided. Nice!

Meanwhile, people who actually understand this stuff think it is more than one-tenth your made-up number ...

May 23, 2023
It's About to Get Incredibly Expensive to Watch Sports
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/espn-streaming-and-the-rising-cost-of-watching-sports.html

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 08, 2023, 07:12:13 PM
Millions and millions of Americans will pay it.  NFL is gonna be rolling in the cash for generations.  League is unstoppable despite all the fans they've lost because of kneeling.  Owners are laughing their way to the bank.  You'll be dead and buried and the league will be making sick profits beyond your wildest imagination

Are you long Disney?  You should your entire net worth only in this stock if you truly believe this.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 07:21:53 PM
Are you long Disney?  You should your entire net worth only in this stock if you truly believe this.

Millions and millions of Americans will pay a lot of money to watch the NFL.  These are facts.  League owns a day of the week and two nights of the week.  Gambling and violence, two things Americans love mixed together. 

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 08, 2023, 07:20:13 PM
Make up numbers to fit a conclusion you already decided. Nice!

Meanwhile, people who actually understand this stuff think it is more than one-tenth your made-up number ...

May 23, 2023
It's About to Get Incredibly Expensive to Watch Sports
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/05/espn-streaming-and-the-rising-cost-of-watching-sports.html

You cited the 100M 10 years ago number.

Today, they have 71M cable subscribers, and 25.2M ESPN+ subscribers for a total of 96.2M between the two platforms.

Those are factual numbers.

Note, you linked to a Intelligencer article...which is clearly the brain trust of experts...that has nothing a long the lines of what you say experts are saying. Sometimes I think you get paid for driving links to these terrible sources.

Meanwhile, the actual experts modeling this have come up with an estimated price of $22/month.

Now, where does my 50M number come from. Estimates from polling from a number of sources say that around 50% of subscribers would remove ESPN if possible. That leaves ~35M that aren't giving it up. Add it to the 25.2M that already pay for standalone, and that means you have around a pool of 60M that are likely to buy in. I estimated that around 80-85% would actually pay for the service.

Rights fees for most sports are unsustainable.

The NFL will be the exception.  I know some people want it to fail because of how "woke" it is.  A player nearly died on the field from an innocuous hit last year and the league churns along with nary a blip.

14 African-American QBs will start for their teams this weekend.  Elite QBs will be making $70 million plus in a few years.

Other sports leagues are terrified to compete with the NFL.  The NFL owns Sunday and owns Monday night.  They have taken over Thursday night kicking college football to the curb without a fight.

The NFLPA has caved on the Thursday night issue, the 17-game schedule and expanded playoffs.  NIL will not bother the NFL in the slightest.

Cut all the cords you want.  People want and need the NFL.  Americans love gambling and violence because despite our proclamations, we consume sin and violence like it's water. 

Quote from: Jockey on September 07, 2023, 11:01:40 AM

Caleb's father = Lavar Ball?

It's astounding that these experts aren't professional head coaches.

While Caleb's father's comments are obviously idiotic, he'd really have to step up his game to match Ball. Do we all remember Lavar's assertion that he was a better player than MJ?  :o

I heard that the Ball brother absolutely love their father but as they got older have told dad to cool it. I guess that is why we don't hear from him any more.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 09, 2023, 08:49:37 AM
Rights fees for most sports are unsustainable.

The NFL will be the exception.  I know some people want it to fail because of how "woke" it is.  A player nearly died on the field from an innocuous hit last year and the league churns along with nary a blip.

14 African-American QBs will start for their teams this weekend.  Elite QBs will be making $70 million plus in a few years.

Other sports leagues are terrified to compete with the NFL.  The NFL owns Sunday and owns Monday night.  They have taken over Thursday night kicking college football to the curb without a fight.

The NFLPA has caved on the Thursday night issue, the 17-game schedule and expanded playoffs.  NIL will not bother the NFL in the slightest.

Cut all the cords you want.  People want and need the NFL.  Americans love gambling and violence because despite our proclamations, we consume sin and violence like it's water. 

The NFL is also now playing on Black Friday and is putting a full slate of games up against the NBA on Christmas.

Also playing a playoff game exclusively on Peacock.

ESPN's biggest problem is you can get highlights on Twitter and YouTube almost instantly. There's also hundreds of podcasts of people talking sports. ESPN used to be the one stop shop for that.

Then they leaned into the debate shows and started creating the news rather than just reporting it. I think that's turned a lot of people off and they need the TV deals with the league to drive their viewership and build shows around.

Quote from: cheebs09 on September 09, 2023, 09:48:05 AM
ESPN's biggest problem is you can get highlights on Twitter and YouTube almost instantly. There's also hundreds of podcasts of people talking sports. ESPN used to be the one stop shop for that.

Then they leaned into the debate shows and started creating the news rather than just reporting it. I think that's turned a lot of people off and they need the TV deals with the league to drive their viewership and build shows around.

I totally agree with everything you stated. I'd add that the biggest problem ESPN has is that the major sports have taken control of their own content to the extent that they either have their own networks or are demanding huge fees for rights. They have had to over pay (relative to the past) for rights that teams or leagues can broadcast through other outlets. There used to be an exposure benefit along with fees that ESPN provided and they could leverage their platform for lower fees. Those days are over.

ESPN budget now affords them cornhole, lacrosse and women's soccer. Also, the big name talent has been cut and ESPN is left with on-air personalities that no one knows or wants to make a point to tune in and see. (ESPN radio has become awful in that respect)

There are signs this is a death spiral. Seems like the ACC contract is their last good asset.

Quote from: forgetful on September 08, 2023, 08:40:24 PM
You cited the 100M 10 years ago number.

Today, they have 71M cable subscribers, and 25.2M ESPN+ subscribers for a total of 96.2M between the two platforms.

Those are factual numbers.

Note, you linked to a Intelligencer article...which is clearly the brain trust of experts...that has nothing a long the lines of what you say experts are saying. Sometimes I think you get paid for driving links to these terrible sources.

Meanwhile, the actual experts modeling this have come up with an estimated price of $22/month.

Now, where does my 50M number come from. Estimates from polling from a number of sources say that around 50% of subscribers would remove ESPN if possible. That leaves ~35M that aren't giving it up. Add it to the 25.2M that already pay for standalone, and that means you have around a pool of 60M that are likely to buy in. I estimated that around 80-85% would actually pay for the service.

It's good to have experts like you to tell us that everyone involved in cable and streaming is wrong.  All they need to do is what you did above, randomly pull numbers out of your a$$ ... and suddenly, there is no more problem!



September 10, 2023
It's Getting Harder—and Expensive—to Watch Sports on TV
https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-getting-harderand-expensive-to-watch-sports-on-tv-football-game-streaming-nfl-season-d8551aef
The NFL and other sports leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing games to costly streaming options.

I started trying to figure out how to stream football games a few days before the season began, because I knew YouTube tech support would be slammed on the first Sunday of the season, with millions of other dinosaurs like me calling in to ask out how to use their expensive new streaming toys. I downloaded the YouTube TV app on my phone, but Google wanted me to verify my location on another device and I wasn't able to do it after about an hour of trying on various devices and internet browsers. After a 108-minute call with a pair of polite but poorly trained support reps in Manila, we determined the problem. I signed up for the service using my email but, apparently, my wife is our Google "family manager," so we had to log in using her account.

Google signed a seven-year deal with the NFL, paying $2 billion a year for the rights to broadcast Sunday games. But my $399 commitment doesn't cover me for every Bills game this season. I need my DirecTV subscription, which costs about $150 a month, for two Monday night games on ESPN. I need a streaming subscription to Peacock to see a Saturday game against the Chargers. And I need an Amazon Prime membership to see a Thursday night game against the Buccaneers. I discovered that I could save $100 on my Sunday Ticket subscription if I switched from DirecTV to YouTube TV for my basic cable package, but then I realized I'd have to buy a Bally Sports Plus streaming subscription for $189 to continue watching my favorite baseball team, the Rays.

I'm also a tennis addict, and the sport has similarly pricey and muddled broadcast contracts. I need streaming subscriptions to ESPN+ and Tennis Channel Plus; other matches have been on Peacock, but I've yet to be desperate enough to buy that subscription. I'm not nearly as addicted to soccer, but when Lionel Messi signed with Inter Miami CF, I combed my channel guide, hoping their games would be on TV in Florida, where I live. But alas, I discovered that I need an Apple TV+ season pass to watch their games. Thank God I don't follow rugby or cricket, and college sports are still on broadcast television, at least for the moment.

-----

The NFL and other leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing their content to costly streaming options. Children whose parents can't afford streaming packages will be turned off from sports they could have had a future in.

I'd like to cut back on my sports viewing and save some money. Sports leagues of all kinds are making it less convenient to watch their games while jamming woke ideology down our throats. But with so much depressing news on offer—inflation, Ukraine, Trump vs. Biden—it's hard to beat bonding with my sons over our shared dislike of Patrick Mahomes and our collective admiration for Josh Allen, Carlos Alcaraz, Lionel Messi and other athletes. For the moment I'll keep paying, but I'm near the end of my patience, and budget, for sports streaming subscriptions.


----------------------------------

See the highlighted paragraph above. According to your "data analytics," 100 million people can afford all this.

Here is some reality .... only 22% of Americans (~60 million adults) have more than $10,000 in savings. But don't fret; 100 million will pay hundreds of dollars a year just to stream the NFL.

July 5, 2023
https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/

Americans today are lacking crucial savings needed for managing short-term emergencies and building long-term wealth. According to a rolling representative online survey among U.S. adults by YouGov, 27 percent of Americans had some savings below $1,000 as of May 2023, while 12 percent said they had no savings at all.

This is about as many people as those who volunteered to give answers about the status of their savings and had more than $1,000 in the bank. 18 percent said their saving were at least $1000 but under $10,000, while 11 percent each had $10,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 or more saved up. A substantial share of respondents - 17 percent - preferred not to answer.

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20323.jpeg)

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 10, 2023, 08:19:35 PM
It's good to have experts like you to tell us that everyone involved in cable and streaming is wrong.  All they need to do is what you did above, randomly pull numbers out of your a$$ ... and suddenly, there is no more problem!



September 10, 2023
It's Getting Harder—and Expensive—to Watch Sports on TV
https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-getting-harderand-expensive-to-watch-sports-on-tv-football-game-streaming-nfl-season-d8551aef
The NFL and other sports leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing games to costly streaming options.

I started trying to figure out how to stream football games a few days before the season began, because I knew YouTube tech support would be slammed on the first Sunday of the season, with millions of other dinosaurs like me calling in to ask out how to use their expensive new streaming toys. I downloaded the YouTube TV app on my phone, but Google wanted me to verify my location on another device and I wasn't able to do it after about an hour of trying on various devices and internet browsers. After a 108-minute call with a pair of polite but poorly trained support reps in Manila, we determined the problem. I signed up for the service using my email but, apparently, my wife is our Google "family manager," so we had to log in using her account.

Google signed a seven-year deal with the NFL, paying $2 billion a year for the rights to broadcast Sunday games. But my $399 commitment doesn't cover me for every Bills game this season. I need my DirecTV subscription, which costs about $150 a month, for two Monday night games on ESPN. I need a streaming subscription to Peacock to see a Saturday game against the Chargers. And I need an Amazon Prime membership to see a Thursday night game against the Buccaneers. I discovered that I could save $100 on my Sunday Ticket subscription if I switched from DirecTV to YouTube TV for my basic cable package, but then I realized I'd have to buy a Bally Sports Plus streaming subscription for $189 to continue watching my favorite baseball team, the Rays.

I'm also a tennis addict, and the sport has similarly pricey and muddled broadcast contracts. I need streaming subscriptions to ESPN+ and Tennis Channel Plus; other matches have been on Peacock, but I've yet to be desperate enough to buy that subscription. I'm not nearly as addicted to soccer, but when Lionel Messi signed with Inter Miami CF, I combed my channel guide, hoping their games would be on TV in Florida, where I live. But alas, I discovered that I need an Apple TV+ season pass to watch their games. Thank God I don't follow rugby or cricket, and college sports are still on broadcast television, at least for the moment.

-----

The NFL and other leagues risk alienating casual fans if they keep pushing their content to costly streaming options. Children whose parents can't afford streaming packages will be turned off from sports they could have had a future in.

I'd like to cut back on my sports viewing and save some money. Sports leagues of all kinds are making it less convenient to watch their games while jamming woke ideology down our throats. But with so much depressing news on offer—inflation, Ukraine, Trump vs. Biden—it's hard to beat bonding with my sons over our shared dislike of Patrick Mahomes and our collective admiration for Josh Allen, Carlos Alcaraz, Lionel Messi and other athletes. For the moment I'll keep paying, but I'm near the end of my patience, and budget, for sports streaming subscriptions.


----------------------------------

See the highlighted paragraph above. According to your "data analytics," 100 million people can afford all this.

Here is some reality .... only 22% of Americans (~60 million adults) have more than $10,000 in savings. But don't fret; 100 million will pay hundreds of dollars a year just to stream the NFL.

July 5, 2023
https://www.statista.com/chart/20323/americans-lack-savings/

Americans today are lacking crucial savings needed for managing short-term emergencies and building long-term wealth. According to a rolling representative online survey among U.S. adults by YouGov, 27 percent of Americans had some savings below $1,000 as of May 2023, while 12 percent said they had no savings at all.

This is about as many people as those who volunteered to give answers about the status of their savings and had more than $1,000 in the bank. 18 percent said their saving were at least $1000 but under $10,000, while 11 percent each had $10,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 or more saved up. A substantial share of respondents - 17 percent - preferred not to answer.

(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20323.jpeg)

It doesn't take an expert to know the NFL is thriving and will continue to thrive for decades

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 10, 2023, 08:19:35 PM
It's good to have experts like you to tell us that everyone involved in cable and streaming is wrong.  All they need to do is what you did above, randomly pull numbers out of your a$$ ... and suddenly, there is no more problem!

None of the endless drivel of random links you provided is remotely germane to what I posted regarding ESPN. I also explained my number, including the exact numbers of subscribers currently with ESPN and ESPN+.

Further, even tangentially, your links actually support my stance and refute yours. Your links indicate that the smartest minds in the business, at entities like Google, think that Americans will pay for their sports.

Charter and Disney strike a deal hours before tonight's game.

And this author thinks everyone's doomed ... literally!

September 11, 2023
Cable and Streaming TV Are Jumping Off the Cliff Together
The Disney-Charter deal is an admission of doom.

https://slate.com/business/2023/09/disney-charter-deal-streaming-cable-tv-doom-espn.html

The deal solves short-term problems for both companies. Spectrum avoids hemorrhaging more subscribers at the start of the football season, and Disney avoids cutting into the part of its TV operation that prints cash instead of incinerating it. But it doesn't solve the long-term problems, at least not on its own. Cord-cutting has accelerated, and the days of 100 million American houses having pay-TV bundles are very likely done forever. In addition to cutting into Charter's pool of potential subscribers, that trend will continue to lessen the number of fee-paying customers for Disney's channels. And now, to preserve its access to Charter's customers, Disney will let them have its streaming products for free. A Charter cable subscriber who gets ESPN's future flagship streaming offering for free is one who won't also pay Disney $20 or $40 or $65 per month for it (unless they get extremely confused). Disney and its peers are already subsidizing lagging streaming operations with money from their traditional businesses.

A deal like this one with Charter crystallizes Disney's lack of confidence that streaming can stand on its own. Other pay-TV providers were watching with bated breath as Charter stepped into the arena, and they will take lessons from the outcome. Other cable behemoths' negotiations with Disney might be complicated by the existence of their own streaming services, which are direct competitors with Disney's. (Would Comcast ever demand that its Xfinity cable subscribers get Hulu with their subscriptions, given that Comcast owns Peacock?) But those cable companies don't want to lose subscribers any more than Spectrum did, and Disney doesn't want to lose the fees those customers generate. The traditional TV business is losing customers until it hits a bottom that it may take a while to find. Streaming is losing money without any end in sight. It's ascending, but it's still underwater. Disney and Charter avoided a breakup. Now they can set about finding a way to change math.

From the WSJ:

The cable company reached an agreement with Disney after a blackout that lasted more than a week—and hours before the NFL season's first "Monday Night Football" game. The pay-TV provider will cough up higher rates to carry Disney's TV channels, enabling it to provide the Disney+ and ESPN+ streaming services to its Spectrum subscribers. The closely watched standoff became a referendum on television's future amid the rise of streaming.

Maybe only 9 toes in the grave. Tough to fully doom Disney as long as it has the once-thought-doomed NFL on its airwaves.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 11, 2023, 06:37:18 PM
Charter and Disney strike a deal hours before tonight's game.

And this author thinks everyone's doomed ... literally!

September 11, 2023
Cable and Streaming TV Are Jumping Off the Cliff Together
The Disney-Charter deal is an admission of doom.

https://slate.com/business/2023/09/disney-charter-deal-streaming-cable-tv-doom-espn.html

The deal solves short-term problems for both companies. Spectrum avoids hemorrhaging more subscribers at the start of the football season, and Disney avoids cutting into the part of its TV operation that prints cash instead of incinerating it. But it doesn't solve the long-term problems, at least not on its own. Cord-cutting has accelerated, and the days of 100 million American houses having pay-TV bundles are very likely done forever. In addition to cutting into Charter's pool of potential subscribers, that trend will continue to lessen the number of fee-paying customers for Disney's channels. And now, to preserve its access to Charter's customers, Disney will let them have its streaming products for free. A Charter cable subscriber who gets ESPN's future flagship streaming offering for free is one who won't also pay Disney $20 or $40 or $65 per month for it (unless they get extremely confused). Disney and its peers are already subsidizing lagging streaming operations with money from their traditional businesses.

A deal like this one with Charter crystallizes Disney's lack of confidence that streaming can stand on its own. Other pay-TV providers were watching with bated breath as Charter stepped into the arena, and they will take lessons from the outcome. Other cable behemoths' negotiations with Disney might be complicated by the existence of their own streaming services, which are direct competitors with Disney's. (Would Comcast ever demand that its Xfinity cable subscribers get Hulu with their subscriptions, given that Comcast owns Peacock?) But those cable companies don't want to lose subscribers any more than Spectrum did, and Disney doesn't want to lose the fees those customers generate. The traditional TV business is losing customers until it hits a bottom that it may take a while to find. Streaming is losing money without any end in sight. It's ascending, but it's still underwater. Disney and Charter avoided a breakup. Now they can set about finding a way to change math.

You do get an A for effort.

Serious question: Is Disney primed for a breakup? I don't know much about that space, but it is not unusual for these large conglomerates to split up when shareholders are looking to maximize value.

Keep in mind on a scale of 0 to 10 of media business knowledge, I'm a 1.

Quote from: WhiteTrash on September 11, 2023, 08:31:41 PM
Serious question: Is Disney primed for a breakup? I don't know much about that space, but it is not unusual for these large conglomerates to split up when shareholders are looking to maximize value.

Keep in mind on a scale of 0 to 10 of media business knowledge, I'm a 1.

Yes.  ESPN is a prime candidate to be sold off. 

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 11, 2023, 08:35:17 PM
Yes.  ESPN is a prime candidate to be sold off.

It has been discussed and maybe it's still being discussed, but Iger has been pretty adamant about wanting to keep ESPN.

Quote from: MU82 on September 11, 2023, 08:54:32 PM
It has been discussed and maybe it's still being discussed, but Iger has been pretty adamant about wanting to keep ESPN.

He should sell it to AT&T. They make a habit of buying at the top (DirecTV, NCR, Time Warner).

Quote from: MU82 on September 11, 2023, 08:54:32 PM
It has been discussed and maybe it's still being discussed, but Iger has been pretty adamant about wanting to keep ESPN.

We'll see.  They have been handing out contracts and shaking things up. 

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 11, 2023, 09:02:30 PM
We'll see.  They have been handing out contracts and shaking things up.

Agreed. Unlike 9-9-9, I don't get invited to sit in on internal corporate discussions.

Quote from: MU82 on September 11, 2023, 09:21:32 PM
Agreed. Unlike 9-9-9, I don't get invited to sit in on internal corporate discussions.

I do.  I had lunch with Bob Iger yesterday at Lambeau

Last month, these graphics were in an Economist story about broadcast fees.
(The article is about the fear the Saudis will take over the sports world.)

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/08/10/saudi-arabia-is-spending-a-fortune-on-sport


Ownership rules are being liberalised as clubs and tournaments seek new sources of capital to stay competitive. American sports leagues are the world's best at raking in money (see chart 1). Since 2019, several big American leagues have relaxed their rules to allow minority investments by institutional investors. In July Qatar's investment authority reached a deal to buy 5% of the parent company of the Washington Wizards, an American basketball team.

(https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230812_FBC114.png)

Digital disruption has also finally reached live sports, which had been one of the last bastions of traditional television (see chart 2). Increasingly viewers who have "cut the cord" on television instead watch sports through streaming services which offer live games but also on-demand highlights, analysis and other digital add-ons. This digital shift is being accompanied by unexpected swirls and shifts in audiences. For example, Formula 1, once notable for having little presence in the United States, is now gaining some traction there, boosted by tie-ups with Netflix.

(https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230812_FBC085.png)

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 13, 2023, 09:26:56 PM
Last month, these graphics were in an Economist story about broadcast fees.
(The article is about the fear the Saudis will take over the sports world.)

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/08/10/saudi-arabia-is-spending-a-fortune-on-sport


Ownership rules are being liberalised as clubs and tournaments seek new sources of capital to stay competitive. American sports leagues are the world's best at raking in money (see chart 1). Since 2019, several big American leagues have relaxed their rules to allow minority investments by institutional investors. In July Qatar's investment authority reached a deal to buy 5% of the parent company of the Washington Wizards, an American basketball team.

(https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230812_FBC114.png)

Digital disruption has also finally reached live sports, which had been one of the last bastions of traditional television (see chart 2). Increasingly viewers who have "cut the cord" on television instead watch sports through streaming services which offer live games but also on-demand highlights, analysis and other digital add-ons. This digital shift is being accompanied by unexpected swirls and shifts in audiences. For example, Formula 1, once notable for having little presence in the United States, is now gaining some traction there, boosted by tie-ups with Netflix.

(https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=360,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20230812_FBC085.png)

What will the next rights fee for the NFL be?  I bet multiple providers approach a billion dollars. 

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 13, 2023, 09:32:19 PM
What will the next rights fee for the NFL be?  I bet multiple providers approach a billion dollars.

So a big cut is coming?

Annual NFL Broadcasting Rights (2022 levels)

ESPN/ABC (Monday Night) = $2.7B
Fox (Sunday NFC) = $2.29B
CBS (Sunday AFC) = 2.15B
NBC (Sunday Night) = 2.05B
YouTube (Sunday Ticket - Residential) = $2B
Amazon Prime (Thursday Night) = $1.2

Source
www.statista.com/statistics/615678/nfl-national-television-broadcast-deals/

Total Broadcasting fees = $12.39 billion

SportsCenter's fight for survival: Can ESPN's flagship survive the digital age?
Threatened by social media, can SportsCenter reclaim its past glory, or is ESPN's flagship doomed to become irrelevant?

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/can-sportscenter-survive-digital-age.html

ESPN is shrinking before our eyes, doubling down on its efforts to win the broadcast rights arms race while losing sight of the formula that made it so successful, a first-of-its-kind powerhouse capable of moving mountains.

Some of those factors are out of ESPN's control, harsh realities of a failing industry that no longer sees journalism as essential, playing fast and loose with debate shows peddling contrived takes, provocative rants pandering to the viral masses and pointed coverage (the company's East Coast bias is well-documented) framed as insider reporting. It's not the most sophisticated blueprint, undermined by audience fatigue and a newfound philosophy treating talent as expendable (June's mass exodus claimed Max Kellerman, Jalen Rose, Jeff Van Gundy and Suzy Kolber, among other high-profile departures), pawns in a high-stakes chess match pitting the newsroom—or what's left of it—against profit-minded executives obsessing over quarterly projections.

----------

SportsCenter, in all likelihood, will never be the draw it once was, but it doesn't have to be an afterthought either, a forgotten vessel aboard a sinking ship headed for the bottom of the proverbial ocean. The SportsCenter brand is well worth protecting, a treasured relic of a time when highlights were king and the anchors who read them were treated as royalty, triumphant conquerors who swept us off our feet with humor and gravitas in equal proportion. Maybe that ship has sailed, never to return, but hopefully there's a life raft in sight, a rescue boat waiting to ferry SportsCenter back to dry land.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 13, 2023, 11:17:01 PM
SportsCenter's fight for survival: Can ESPN's flagship survive the digital age?
Threatened by social media, can SportsCenter reclaim its past glory, or is ESPN's flagship doomed to become irrelevant?

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/can-sportscenter-survive-digital-age.html

ESPN is shrinking before our eyes, doubling down on its efforts to win the broadcast rights arms race while losing sight of the formula that made it so successful, a first-of-its-kind powerhouse capable of moving mountains.

Some of those factors are out of ESPN's control, harsh realities of a failing industry that no longer sees journalism as essential, playing fast and loose with debate shows peddling contrived takes, provocative rants pandering to the viral masses and pointed coverage (the company's East Coast bias is well-documented) framed as insider reporting. It's not the most sophisticated blueprint, undermined by audience fatigue and a newfound philosophy treating talent as expendable (June's mass exodus claimed Max Kellerman, Jalen Rose, Jeff Van Gundy and Suzy Kolber, among other high-profile departures), pawns in a high-stakes chess match pitting the newsroom—or what's left of it—against profit-minded executives obsessing over quarterly projections.

----------

SportsCenter, in all likelihood, will never be the draw it once was, but it doesn't have to be an afterthought either, a forgotten vessel aboard a sinking ship headed for the bottom of the proverbial ocean. The SportsCenter brand is well worth protecting, a treasured relic of a time when highlights were king and the anchors who read them were treated as royalty, triumphant conquerors who swept us off our feet with humor and gravitas in equal proportion. Maybe that ship has sailed, never to return, but hopefully there's a life raft in sight, a rescue boat waiting to ferry SportsCenter back to dry land.

Interesting. Speaking for myself, I have probably watch SC more than any other show in my lifetime. I haven't watch SC in about 5 years.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 13, 2023, 09:41:12 PM
So a big cut is coming?

Annual NFL Broadcasting Rights (2022 levels)

ESPN/ABC (Monday Night) = $2.7B
Fox (Sunday NFC) = $2.29B
CBS (Sunday AFC) = 2.15B
NBC (Sunday Night) = 2.05B
YouTube (Sunday Ticket - Residential) = $2B
Amazon Prime (Thursday Night) = $1.2

Source
www.statista.com/statistics/615678/nfl-national-television-broadcast-deals/

Total Broadcasting fees = $12.39 billion

You're right, they'll probably approach a trillion dollars in my lifetime

ESPN will be on the same scrap heap as Apple.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 13, 2023, 11:17:01 PM
SportsCenter's fight for survival: Can ESPN's flagship survive the digital age?
Threatened by social media, can SportsCenter reclaim its past glory, or is ESPN's flagship doomed to become irrelevant?

https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/can-sportscenter-survive-digital-age.html

ESPN is shrinking before our eyes, doubling down on its efforts to win the broadcast rights arms race while losing sight of the formula that made it so successful, a first-of-its-kind powerhouse capable of moving mountains.

This is really an odd sentence.  The circumstances that made SportsCenter such a "powerhouse" no longer exist.  The reason that they are doubling down on rights fees is that live sports continues to draw more eyeballs than anything else.

The article reeks of nostalgia for a past that's never returning.

Quote from: Jockey on September 14, 2023, 02:00:46 PM
ESPN will be on the same scrap heap as Apple.

Both of them sell things that have become commoditized. Sports news and broadcast has been federated. Apple doesn't make anything that's really better than their competitors. Apple, compared to ESPN, has established themselves as a luxury brand so their marketing will carry. Dunno what ESPN has to fall back on?

Let me tie up some of my posts into one idea.

The business model of cable TV is everyone pays for everything. ESPN charges $9/month to all 76 million subscribers they currently have (they had about 110 million about ten years ago.) So even if we get excited that Monday Night Football had 23 million viewers, the highest week 1 in 8 years, that means 53 million subscribers are paying ESPN for that game and did not watch it.

So, they are cutting the cord and narrowly subscribing to only the streaming services that want and nothing more. In some cases, many subscribe for a month to binge a show and then cancel.
https://hbr.org/2023/07/tackling-the-problem-of-subscribers-who-bingethen-bail

ESPN pays $2.7 billion/year for Monday Night Football. So some math:

76 million x $9/month = $684 million a month in revenues
The NFL season is roughly five months, or 18 weeks (17 games plus the bye week).

So, ESPN's revenues are $3.4 billion over these five months.  $2.7 billion of this revenue goes to the NFL for the rights to three hours of programming a week (listed in a post below).

During these five months, ESPN still has to pay the broadcast rights for baseball (for one month), the US Open (tennis), golf, the NBA, college football, college basketball, hockey, motorsports, and so on.

They also get advertising revenue, just 20% to 30% of their total revenue ($600 million to $900 million). Add production costs for everything ESPN does during these five months, and they are not making money. This is why Disney's stock has been tanking for the last few years.

What went wrong? Cord cutting. They never expected it to be this big, and now it is accelerating to a record pace, and for the first time, ESPN's revenues are falling (before, it was just slowing growth rates). But broadcast rights are not falling. Worse, advertising revenue will also fall with the smaller total subscriber audiences.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/cord-cutting-all-time-high-q1-2023-pay-tv-losses-1235610939/

What is the solution? Since they have given up on getting cable TV subscribers to grow again, it is to get out of the pay-TV (or cable) business and into the streaming business. This means charging only for what you watch. This is a bad deal for sports fans  (everyone here) as they were "free-riders" in the current system, getting non-watchers to pay the vast majority of the broadcast rights so they can binge on sports cheaply.

This means sports fans might all be asked to pay $250 to $300/year for the NFL. $100/year for MLB. $150 per year for the NBA, $50 to $100 per year for college football, $25 to $50 per year for college basketball, and so on.

As I noted above, 60% of the population has less than $10k in savings. They cannot afford any of this. Only a few million can pay these numbers. So, sports programming is going to change fundamentally.

The lynchpin in the move to streaming is ESPN. Below, Disney is looking to jettison the ABC TV network. This is a precursor to selling ESPN. Who is going to buy ESPN? They are talking to the NFL, NBA, and MLB about buying it (Hey, NFL, you want your $2.7 billion fee for Monday Night Football? Here you take ESPN and make it work, we're out). If the sports leagues do take ESPN, who are the experts they can hire to make it work? The current executives at ESPN cannot make it work now!  Vicious cycle.

-----

September 14, 2023
Disney Holds Initial Talks on Sale of ABC to Local Broadcaster Nexstar
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-14/disney-is-said-to-hold-initial-talks-on-sale-of-abc-to-nexstar

Walt Disney Co. has held exploratory talks about selling its ABC network and TV stations to local broadcaster Nexstar Media Group Inc., according to people familiar with the discussions.

The talks are preliminary and haven't involved a specific valuation, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions aren't public. Nexstar would only be interested at the right price.

A spokesperson for Nexstar declined to comment. Disney declined to comment.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 14, 2023, 02:51:46 PM
Let me tie up some of my posts into one idea.

The business model of cable TV is everyone pays for everything. ESPN charges $9/month to all 76 million subscribers they currently have (they had about 110 million about ten years ago.) So even if we get excited that Monday Night Football had 23 million viewers, the highest week 1 in 8 years, that means 53 million subscribers are paying ESPN for that game and did not watch it.

So, they are cutting the cord and narrowly subscribing to only the streaming services that want and nothing more. In some cases, many subscribe for a month to binge a show and then cancel.
https://hbr.org/2023/07/tackling-the-problem-of-subscribers-who-bingethen-bail

ESPN pays $2.7 billion/year for Monday Night Football. So some math:

76 million x $9/month = $684 million a month in revenues
The NFL season is roughly five months, or 18 weeks (17 games plus the bye week).

So, ESPN's revenues are $3.4 billion over these five months.  $2.7 billion of this revenue goes to the NFL for the rights to three hours of programming a week (listed in a post below).

During these five months, ESPN still has to pay the broadcast rights for baseball (for one month), the US Open (tennis), golf, the NBA, college football, college basketball, hockey, motorsports, and so on.

They also get advertising revenue, just 20% to 30% of their total revenue ($600 million to $900 million). Add production costs for everything ESPN does during these five months, and they are not making money. This is why Disney's stock has been tanking for the last few years.

What went wrong? Cord cutting. They never expected it to be this big, and now it is accelerating to a record pace, and for the first time, ESPN's revenues are falling (before, it was just slowing growth rates). But broadcast rights are not falling. Worse, advertising revenue will also fall with the smaller total subscriber audiences.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/cord-cutting-all-time-high-q1-2023-pay-tv-losses-1235610939/

What is the solution? Since they have given up on getting cable TV subscribers to grow again, it is to get out of the pay-TV (or cable) business and into the streaming business. This means charging only for what you watch. This is a bad deal for sports fans  (everyone here) as they were "free-riders" in the current system, getting non-watchers to pay the vast majority of the broadcast rights so they can binge on sports cheaply.

This means sports fans might all be asked to pay $250 to $300/year for the NFL. $100/year for MLB. $150 per year for the NBA, $50 to $100 per year for college football, $25 to $50 per year for college basketball, and so on.

As I noted above, 60% of the population has less than $10k in savings. They cannot afford any of this. Only a few million can pay these numbers. So, sports programming is going to change fundamentally.

The lynchpin in the move to streaming is ESPN. Below, Disney is looking to jettison the ABC TV network. This is a precursor to selling ESPN. Who is going to buy ESPN? They are talking to the NFL, NBA, and MLB about buying it (Hey, NFL, you want your $2.7 billion fee for Monday Night Football? Here you take ESPN and make it work, we're out). If the sports leagues do take ESPN, who are the experts they can hire to make it work? The current executives at ESPN cannot make it work now!  Vicious cycle.

-----

September 14, 2023
Disney Holds Initial Talks on Sale of ABC to Local Broadcaster Nexstar
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-14/disney-is-said-to-hold-initial-talks-on-sale-of-abc-to-nexstar

Walt Disney Co. has held exploratory talks about selling its ABC network and TV stations to local broadcaster Nexstar Media Group Inc., according to people familiar with the discussions.

The talks are preliminary and haven't involved a specific valuation, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions aren't public. Nexstar would only be interested at the right price.

A spokesperson for Nexstar declined to comment. Disney declined to comment.

NFL could sell rights to Apple

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 14, 2023, 03:18:52 PM
NFL could sell rights to Apple

Is the assumption here that they are a massively large company, so they will overpay for the rights? In other words, we expect them to act like drunken sailors when spending money because they are big?

If so, why? Does Apple need to garner attention because so many people do not know they offer TV shows? That is why would overpay to attract attention to yourself.

I think it is more likely that a AMC or Showtime gamble their future by overpaying in hopes it gets them tons of new subscribers. (but I do now expect either to do that)

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 14, 2023, 02:51:46 PM
Let me tie up some of my posts into one idea.

The business model of cable TV is everyone pays for everything. ESPN charges $9/month to all 76 million subscribers they currently have (they had about 110 million about ten years ago.) So even if we get excited that Monday Night Football had 23 million viewers, the highest week 1 in 8 years, that means 53 million subscribers are paying ESPN for that game and did not watch it.

So, they are cutting the cord and narrowly subscribing to only the streaming services that want and nothing more. In some cases, many subscribe for a month to binge a show and then cancel.
https://hbr.org/2023/07/tackling-the-problem-of-subscribers-who-bingethen-bail

ESPN pays $2.7 billion/year for Monday Night Football. So some math:

76 million x $9/month = $684 million a month in revenues
The NFL season is roughly five months, or 18 weeks (17 games plus the bye week).

So, ESPN's revenues are $3.4 billion over these five months.  $2.7 billion of this revenue goes to the NFL for the rights to three hours of programming a week (listed in a post below).

During these five months, ESPN still has to pay the broadcast rights for baseball (for one month), the US Open (tennis), golf, the NBA, college football, college basketball, hockey, motorsports, and so on.

They also get advertising revenue, just 20% to 30% of their total revenue ($600 million to $900 million). Add production costs for everything ESPN does during these five months, and they are not making money. This is why Disney's stock has been tanking for the last few years.

What went wrong? Cord cutting. They never expected it to be this big, and now it is accelerating to a record pace, and for the first time, ESPN's revenues are falling (before, it was just slowing growth rates). But broadcast rights are not falling. Worse, advertising revenue will also fall with the smaller total subscriber audiences.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/cord-cutting-all-time-high-q1-2023-pay-tv-losses-1235610939/

What is the solution? Since they have given up on getting cable TV subscribers to grow again, it is to get out of the pay-TV (or cable) business and into the streaming business. This means charging only for what you watch. This is a bad deal for sports fans  (everyone here) as they were "free-riders" in the current system, getting non-watchers to pay the vast majority of the broadcast rights so they can binge on sports cheaply.

This means sports fans might all be asked to pay $250 to $300/year for the NFL. $100/year for MLB. $150 per year for the NBA, $50 to $100 per year for college football, $25 to $50 per year for college basketball, and so on.

As I noted above, 60% of the population has less than $10k in savings. They cannot afford any of this. Only a few million can pay these numbers. So, sports programming is going to change fundamentally.

The lynchpin in the move to streaming is ESPN. Below, Disney is looking to jettison the ABC TV network. This is a precursor to selling ESPN. Who is going to buy ESPN? They are talking to the NFL, NBA, and MLB about buying it (Hey, NFL, you want your $2.7 billion fee for Monday Night Football? Here you take ESPN and make it work, we're out). If the sports leagues do take ESPN, who are the experts they can hire to make it work? The current executives at ESPN cannot make it work now!  Vicious cycle.

-----

September 14, 2023
Disney Holds Initial Talks on Sale of ABC to Local Broadcaster Nexstar
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-14/disney-is-said-to-hold-initial-talks-on-sale-of-abc-to-nexstar

Walt Disney Co. has held exploratory talks about selling its ABC network and TV stations to local broadcaster Nexstar Media Group Inc., according to people familiar with the discussions.

The talks are preliminary and haven't involved a specific valuation, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions aren't public. Nexstar would only be interested at the right price.

A spokesperson for Nexstar declined to comment. Disney declined to comment.

Disney's stock has tanked because the bought Fox foolishly and have way overspent on their streaming services.  Selling their network TV holdings would be smart because I can't name a single person under 50 that watches anything on network TV other than sports.

This story says sports will stay on cable (Pay) TV (second part below). The first part also explains how cable companies get paid (the first part below), as I explained in my long post above.

Not answered is if cable is losing 5 million a year, as said below (meaning that ESPN loses $540 million/year in revenue), who is paying the broadcast rights? Who is paying the NFL $2.7 billion/year for the rights to Monday Night Football?

The answer is a smaller and smaller pool of cable subscribers. So, they will have to keep raising prices, driving more people to streaming.

Death spiral

----------------



September 14, 2023
Cable TV Is on Life Support, but a New Bundle Is Coming Alive
Cable companies have started to figure out a way to stay in the TV game: Reselling streaming services.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/business/media/cable-tv-bundle-streaming.html

For more than a half-century, the cable-TV bundle was one of the best businesses in the history of media. TV giants like Disney were paid twice: first by cable distributors, which shelled out billions every year to have channels like ESPN available for their subscribers, and then by advertisers, which opened their wallets to promote products alongside the hottest shows.

The bundle was also good for the cable providers, which steadily added subscribers: At the peak of traditional cable in 2012, more than 100 million Americans paid for the bundle.

That era is gone. Now, about five million people abandon cable TV every year — leaving about 75 million Americans in the traditional TV ecosystem, according to analyst estimates.

--------------------

Mr. Freston noted that live sports and news programming, which have yet to be completely replicated by streaming services, remained vital to the pay-TV bundle. National Football League games, an entertainment mainstay for tens of millions of Americans, will remain on traditional television for years because of existing contracts, guaranteeing a lifeline for cable providers.

But streamers are starting to encroach on that territory, too. Amazon and YouTube are making inroads with N.F.L. fans by securing football rights, and Apple has begun to show Major League Baseball and Major League Soccer matches.

Crazy thing is this is now an 8-page thread, where the post title and whole concept can be answered quietly simply.

Is ESPN Doomed?

No!

Quote from: forgetful on September 15, 2023, 09:56:40 PM
Crazy thing is this is now an 8-page thread, where the post title and whole concept can be answered quietly simply.

Is ESPN Doomed?

No!

Defined doomed. 

Quote from: forgetful on September 15, 2023, 09:56:40 PM
Crazy thing is this is now an 8-page thread, where the post title and whole concept can be answered quietly simply.

Is ESPN Doomed?

No!

Obviously, most of us see that. Heisy is still pissed at 'em for firing Rush, so he will never let this go. There are many more long winded posts to come.

Quote from: Jockey on September 15, 2023, 10:30:29 PM
Obviously, most of us see that. Heisy is still pissed at 'em for firing Rush, so he will never let this go. There are many more long winded posts to come.

Rush is definitely doomed. His new flame, Tuckems, is pretty obviously doomed in a different way.

From The Athletic:

Max and Warner Bros. Discovery Sports announced a Bleacher Report Sports add-on tier that will allow subscribers to watch live sports. Here's what you need to know:

The option allows viewers to see live coverage of MLB, NHL, NBA, the NCAA Tournament and U.S. Soccer events in addition to studio shows like "Inside the NBA." Max and Warner Bros. Discovery Sports said more than 300 live events — including the MLB and NHL postseasons — will be available.

NBA fans will be able to watch opening night and regular season action, the inaugural NBA In-Season Tournament, NBA All-Star events and part of the postseason.

The add-on will launch Oct. 5 and be included until Feb. 29 before users are charged $9.99 per month.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 15, 2023, 10:01:40 PM
Defined doomed.

I'd say that is a good question. Could ESPN end up like CNN?

Quote from: WhiteTrash on September 20, 2023, 06:46:43 PM
I'd say that is a good question. Could ESPN end up like CNN?

ESPN+ lasted more than 3 weeks.

Advantage:  ESPN.

Quote from: WhiteTrash on September 20, 2023, 06:46:43 PM
I'd say that is a good question. Could ESPN end up like CNN?

Definition of doomed
(I'm old enough to remember the early 1990s when CNN was a primary reason people wanted to ditch the antenna for cable)

September 20, 2023
https://www.thestreet.com/entertainment/cnn-recorded-the-lowest-key-demo-primetime-ratings-in-network-history

CNN garnered just 55,000 viewers for its coveted weekend lineups, which include "State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash," and "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

Its Sunday primetime shows, which include "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper" and "Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy," fared worse, bringing in just 43,000.

The key demo is considered viewers between the ages of 25-54 and is highly coveted by advertisers and network bosses.

The ratings, which were first recorded online in 1991, are CNN's worst since the ratings began being tracked in '91.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 20, 2023, 10:57:36 PM
Definition of doomed
(I'm old enough to remember the early 1990s when CNN was a primary reason people wanted to ditch the antenna for cable)

September 20, 2023
https://www.thestreet.com/entertainment/cnn-recorded-the-lowest-key-demo-primetime-ratings-in-network-history

CNN garnered just 55,000 viewers for its coveted weekend lineups, which include "State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash," and "Fareed Zakaria GPS."

Its Sunday primetime shows, which include "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper" and "Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy," fared worse, bringing in just 43,000.

The key demo is considered viewers between the ages of 25-54 and is highly coveted by advertisers and network bosses.

The ratings, which were first recorded online in 1991, are CNN's worst since the ratings began being tracked in '91.

I was a dedicated viewer of CNN HLN morning show for a long time, but they ended the show last year due to budget cuts. (HLN only shows simulcast of CNN and Forensic Files now) I really liked the show because they only reported the news, no commentary or spin. CNN lost this 10+ year viewer.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 20, 2023, 10:57:36 PM
Definition of doomed
(I'm old enough to remember the early 1990s when CNN was a primary reason people wanted to ditch the antenna for cable)

What?

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 21, 2023, 08:39:03 AM

What?

Yes, it was way more important than ESPN has ever been. This station was the primary catalyst for getting cable in the early 1990s

So important a force was CNN that TIME Magazine named Ted Turner its 1991 "Man of the Year"

History As It Happens
Linking leaders as never before, CNN has changed the way the world does its business.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,974614,00.html



(https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920106_400.jpg)

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 21, 2023, 12:17:32 PM
Yes, it was way more important than ESPN has ever been. This station was the primary catalyst for getting cable in the early 1990s

So important a force was CNN that TIME Magazine named Ted Turner its 1991 "Man of the Year"

History As It Happens
Linking leaders as never before, CNN has changed the way the world does its business.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,974614,00.html



(https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920106_400.jpg)

My house got cable in the early 80's so we could watch MTV and own the conservatives

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 21, 2023, 12:17:32 PM
Yes, it was way more important than ESPN has ever been. This station was the primary catalyst for getting cable in the early 1990s

So important a force was CNN that TIME Magazine named Ted Turner its 1991 "Man of the Year"

History As It Happens
Linking leaders as never before, CNN has changed the way the world does its business.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,974614,00.html



(https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920106_400.jpg)

Watching the first Gulf War on CNN was nuts.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 21, 2023, 12:17:32 PM
Yes, it was way more important than ESPN has ever been. This station was the primary catalyst for getting cable in the early 1990s

So important a force was CNN that TIME Magazine named Ted Turner its 1991 "Man of the Year"

History As It Happens
Linking leaders as never before, CNN has changed the way the world does its business.
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,974614,00.html



(https://content.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920106_400.jpg)

LOL, you are using Time naming him "Man of the Year" as evidence for that?

Regardless, CNN was never the "primary reason" people got cable television. That's nonsense.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 21, 2023, 01:18:21 PM

LOL, you are using Time naming him "Man of the Year" as evidence for that?

Regardless, CNN was never the "primary reason" people got cable television. That's nonsense.

FCC loosening of restrictions was the biggest reason.  It allowed entities like HBO, ESPN and yes, TBS, to get off the ground. 

By the end of the 80's, cable was in over half of American households.

CNN was an important part of cable and American history.  We can argue about the benefits of CNN outweighing the bad from its inception if we'd like as well.  CNN begat our other news channels and its debatable if that's good or not

Quote from: Uncle Rico on September 21, 2023, 01:27:46 PM
FCC loosening of restrictions was the biggest reason.  It allowed entities like HBO, ESPN and yes, TBS, to get off the ground. 

By the end of the 80's, cable was in over half of American households.

CNN was an important part of cable and American history.  We can argue about the benefits of CNN outweighing the bad from its inception if we'd like as well.  CNN begat our other news channels and its debatable if that's good or not

Right. But the primary reason people got cable was because they were tired of only seeing the four broadcast networks.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 21, 2023, 01:29:55 PM

Right. But the primary reason people got cable was because they were tired of only seeing the four broadcast networks.

Most of us understand this.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 21, 2023, 01:29:55 PM

Right. But the primary reason people got cable was because they were tired of only seeing the four broadcast networks.

I think you just made my argument.

TV viewers wanted more specialized programming, and in the early 1990s, as the TIME article says, CNN and round-the-clock cable news was a huge draw.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 21, 2023, 03:28:13 PM
I think you just made my argument.

TV viewers wanted more specialized programming, and in the early 1990s, as the TIME article says, CNN and round-the-clock cable news was a huge draw.

You said CNN was "the primary reason." Now you are saying it was "a huge draw."

Those aren't the same thing.

Who cares about cable news? The median age of viewers is 60+, they're all doomed.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 21, 2023, 03:29:45 PM

You said CNN was "the primary reason." Now you are saying it was "a huge draw."

Those aren't the same thing.

They are, and if the Sultan is semantics doesn't know this, change your handle

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 21, 2023, 07:29:05 PM
They are, and if the Sultan is semantics doesn't know this, change your handle

Nope.

Your nonsense has been exposed again. You never learn to take the L. Always come back for another beating.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on September 21, 2023, 03:28:13 PM
I think you just made my argument.

TV viewers wanted more specialized programming, and in the early 1990s, as the TIME article says, CNN and round-the-clock cable news was a huge draw.

We got cable for CSPAN. 8-)

Quote from: Skatastrophy on September 21, 2023, 03:40:31 PM
Who cares about cable news? The median age of viewers is 60+, they're all doomed.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...... we're all doomed.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on September 21, 2023, 07:49:12 PM
Nope.

Your nonsense has been exposed again. You never learn to take the L. Always come back for another beating.

Keyboard warriors unite!

Quote from: WhiteTrash on September 21, 2023, 09:51:50 PM
We got cable for CSPAN. 8-)

You might want to keep this to yourself :)

Sports will splinter over many streaming services that will follow what MAX is doing starting later this week and charge extra for it. Getting everything you get on cable now will cost hundreds of dollars annually.

Why?

Because, under the cable business model, 75+% of sports are paid by people who do not watch it. Non-sports watchers are heavily subsidizing the sports watchers.

Now, under the streaming model, 100% of sports are going to be paid by sports watchers, and the cost to the sports watcher is going to skyrocket.

--------------------------------------------------------

Max Streaming Service Unveils $9.99-a-Month Sports Tier With NBA and MLB Games
'Bleacher Report Sports' add-on tier will be available starting Oct. 5, with a promotional period through February
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/max-streaming-sports-tier-nba-mlb-1c845ba

Live sports including NBA and MLB games are coming to the Warner Bros. Discovery increase; green up pointing triangle-owned streaming service Max next month and will cost interested subscribers an additional $9.99 a month, the company said Tuesday.

The charge for the "Bleacher Report Sports" add-on tier—named after the company's digital sports platform—is a 62% premium over the $16-a-month average subscription fee for the most popular version of the service, which includes content from HBO and Discovery and the Warner Bros. television and movie library.
-----

The approach Max is taking differs from other streaming platforms such as NBCUniversal's Peacock and Paramount Global's Paramount+, both of which carry live sports that air on their broadcast networks at no extra charge to subscribers. Media companies pay huge sums for the rights to air live sporting events.

"Our peers are essentially giving away sports for free. That is not the right model," said JB Perrette, chief executive of Warner Bros. Discovery global streaming and games.

There has been tension between pay-TV distributors and programmers over the movement of high-value content in the cable bundle, including sports, to streaming services. The distributors say that is encouraging people to cut the cable cord, destroying a lucrative business.

https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-releases/2023/10/espn-finishes-2023-fiscal-year-with-networks-best-overall-viewership-since-2019-fiscal-year-key-demo-persons-18-49-also-best-since-fiscal-year-2019/

Scoop's George Costanza with another good call.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on October 25, 2023, 10:56:48 AM
https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-releases/2023/10/espn-finishes-2023-fiscal-year-with-networks-best-overall-viewership-since-2019-fiscal-year-key-demo-persons-18-49-also-best-since-fiscal-year-2019/

Scoop's George Costanza with another good call.

Yes, we all laugh at him.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on October 25, 2023, 10:56:48 AM
https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-releases/2023/10/espn-finishes-2023-fiscal-year-with-networks-best-overall-viewership-since-2019-fiscal-year-key-demo-persons-18-49-also-best-since-fiscal-year-2019/

Scoop's George Costanza with another good call.

I'm curious what the 10 year trend lines are.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on October 25, 2023, 10:56:48 AM
https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-releases/2023/10/espn-finishes-2023-fiscal-year-with-networks-best-overall-viewership-since-2019-fiscal-year-key-demo-persons-18-49-also-best-since-fiscal-year-2019/

Scoop's George Costanza with another good call.

You quote ESPN's press release spinning its numbers. 

This is what serious people think about these numbers.
tl:dr Disney's stock has been slammed down 5% in the last week based on these numbers. Because it is a dying business with ever-declining numbers.


(Background: one week ago, Disney published separate numbers for ESPN for the first time.)

----

https://www.barrons.com/articles/disney-stock-espn-value-buy-sell-668a51f7

At a first glance, the figures don't suggest Disney is in line for a windfall. 

KeyBanc analyst Brandon Nispel said the figures were negative for his previous estimation of ESPN's value at about $30 billion, saying investors would likely be disappointed by its midteens percentage operating margin.

"We suspect it will be difficult for Disney to drive much better operating income given rising sports costs, including the upcoming NBA renewal," Nispel wrote in a research note.

----

Growth rates are what matter and ESPN has lost 40% of its income in recent years.

https://puck.news/the-2-9-billion-espn-valuation-question/

2.9 billion: That's how much operating income ESPN, the legacy sports television network, made in fiscal year 2022, according to financial data that Disney broke out separately for the first time on Wednesday. Until last week, ESPN's exact financial performance was a mystery. Now, with those numbers in hand, Wall Street can finally take a stab at determining what ESPN is worth these days, as Bob Iger weighs the costs of owning and operating a still massively profitable but swiftly declining business. To share some idea of the decline, I'm told that between 2012 and 2018, ESPN made $22 billion in profits, with $4.4 billion being the most it made in one single year.

So what is the true value of a linear TV network that appears to have made $2.9 billion in operating income last year but that once upon a time made $4.4 billion?

----

I like watching the NFL on ESPN and texting friends about the game on my iPhone

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 25, 2023, 05:13:05 PM
I like watching the NFL on ESPN and texting friends about the game on my iPhone

Yes, and?

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/10/nfl-ratings-up-four-five-networks-multi-year-highs-cbs-nbc-mnf/

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 25, 2023, 05:33:24 PM
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/10/nfl-ratings-up-four-five-networks-multi-year-highs-cbs-nbc-mnf/

The NFL remains doomed.

Then buy Disney's stock right now.

ESPN is the central part of its revenue, more significant than ABC and movies.

Its stock is at an 11-year low.  And it has been in free fall since the ESPN results were released last week. It is a major bargain!!

Get rich!!!

Quote from: Pakuni on October 25, 2023, 05:44:00 PM
The NFL remains doomed.

And what are the networks paying for these ratings? (addressed in the previous pages)

Quote from: Pakuni on October 25, 2023, 05:44:00 PM
The NFL remains doomed.

I'm beginning to think the NFL will be fine. 

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 25, 2023, 05:50:28 PM
I'm beginning to think the NFL will be fine.

This thread is about ESPN.

Goalpost shifting --- which applies as we are talking about football.

The NFL with Taylor Swift is even bigger

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-made-nfl-more-popular-in-america-us-2023-9?amp

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 25, 2023, 05:57:09 PM
The NFL with Taylor Swift is even bigger

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-made-nfl-more-popular-in-america-us-2023-9?amp

Are you buying Disney?

Quote from: Douche Canoe on October 25, 2023, 05:24:05 PM

Yes, and?

  reeko fills that age 6-12 metric espn is counting on lifting their stock back to the "back-back-back" good ole days.  you know the kids who pester their mommies and daddies to buy them espn chit and blow crazy inflated amounts of money at disney world

Quote from: rocket surgeon on October 26, 2023, 05:21:00 AM
  reeko fills that age 6-12 metric espn is counting on lifting their stock back to the "back-back-back" good ole days.  you know the kids who pester their mommies and daddies to buy them espn chit and blow crazy inflated amounts of money at disney world

3.5 out of 10

Quote from: Uncle Rico on October 26, 2023, 05:50:14 AM
3.5 out of 10

I don't think his heart was really in that one. Felt mailed in.

Quote from: TSmith34, Inc. on October 26, 2023, 06:53:27 AM
I don't think his heart was really in that one. Felt mailed in.

It was.  I think it was supposed to be insulting to me but lacked any real creativity. 

ESPN is the biggest loser here

For the first time, cable and broadcast makes up less than half of TV viewing
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/media/cable-broadcast-tv-decline-nielsen-report/index.html

In July, linear TV made up less than half of all TV viewing, according to Nielsen. Both broadcast and cable "each represented record low shares" of total viewership, the firm's report said, making up just 49.6% combined. Meanwhile streaming services, such as Netflix and YouTube, grew last month to a record high of 38.7% of all total TV watching.

Broadcast viewership dropped 3.6% in July, making up just 20% of all TV viewership, and cable viewing dropped 2.9%, making up 29.6%. Year-over-year, broadcast viewership slid 5.4% and cable TV dropped 12.5%.

But streaming jumped 25.3% year over year in July, with three services hitting record highs in shares: YouTube, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. YouTube is the most popular streaming option, making up 9.2% of the category, followed by Netflix (8.5%) and Hulu, at 3.6%.

Did ESPN hire another Lib to get Douchy all pissed off?

Quote from: Jockey on December 12, 2023, 06:02:57 PM
Did ESPN hire another Lib to get Douchy all pissed off?

This is embarrassing. Now put your back in it and try again with the obligatory insult.

Otherwise, delete your account.

Quote from: Not A Serious Person on December 12, 2023, 05:30:22 PM
ESPN is the biggest loser here

For the first time, cable and broadcast makes up less than half of TV viewing
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/media/cable-broadcast-tv-decline-nielsen-report/index.html

In July, linear TV made up less than half of all TV viewing, according to Nielsen. Both broadcast and cable "each represented record low shares" of total viewership, the firm's report said, making up just 49.6% combined. Meanwhile streaming services, such as Netflix and YouTube, grew last month to a record high of 38.7% of all total TV watching.

Broadcast viewership dropped 3.6% in July, making up just 20% of all TV viewership, and cable viewing dropped 2.9%, making up 29.6%. Year-over-year, broadcast viewership slid 5.4% and cable TV dropped 12.5%.

But streaming jumped 25.3% year over year in July, with three services hitting record highs in shares: YouTube, Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. YouTube is the most popular streaming option, making up 9.2% of the category, followed by Netflix (8.5%) and Hulu, at 3.6%.

The strikes contributed to a really poor last few months for broadcast networks but if you look at these things over the long term, broadcast viewership always takes a dive in the summer and comes back up in the fall driven by NFL, CFB and season premieres. Remains to be seen if the fall bump occurs this year. Streaming is growing like crazy. 

Not sure how you determined that ESPN was the biggest loser from this but that's par for the course.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 12, 2023, 06:50:16 PM
The strikes contributed to a really poor last few months for broadcast networks but if you look at these things over the long term, broadcast viewership always takes a dive in the summer and comes back up in the fall driven by NFL, CFB and season premieres. Remains to be seen if the fall bump occurs this year. Streaming is growing like crazy. 

Not sure how you determined that ESPN was the biggest loser from this but that's par for the course.

Are they not the largest cable network? And if linear TV is falling below 50%, the lowest ever, doesn't this mean that the largest cable network would be the biggest loser?

If not, tell me who it would be.

Birdie for the course.  You don't get a mulligan.

Quote from: Not A Serious Person on December 12, 2023, 06:57:17 PM
Are they not the largest cable network? And if linear TV is falling below 50%, the lowest ever, doesn't this mean that the largest cable network would be the biggest loser?

If not, tell me who it would be.

Birdie for the course.  You don't get a mulligan.

ESPN is not the "largest" (I assume you mean highest rated) linear network. They are well behind the broadcast networks. 

I don't have the ratings data available, but I would bet that the broadcast networks had the largest ratings declines as their primary programming (prime time and late night) have been either in reruns or the 8th iteration of the masked singer for the last few months. ESPN probably actually fared pretty well since they are live sports focused and that content remained new for obvious reasons.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the networks get back to original scripted prime time shows. I personally think the cow is out of the barn and the broadcast networks are dying a slow, mostly self-inflicted death. 

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 12, 2023, 07:06:45 PM
ESPN is not the "largest" (I assume you mean highest rated) linear network. They are well behind the broadcast networks. 

I don't have the ratings data available, but I would bet that the broadcast networks had the largest ratings declines as their primary programming (prime time and late night) have been either in reruns or the 8th iteration of the masked singer for the last few months. ESPN probably actually fared pretty well since they are live sports focused and that content remained new for obvious reasons.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the networks get back to original scripted prime time shows. I personally think the cow is out of the barn and the broadcast networks are dying a slow, mostly self-inflicted death.

Wrong, it's the ones that are woke

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on December 12, 2023, 07:06:45 PM
ESPN is not the "largest" (I assume you mean highest rated) linear network. They are well behind the broadcast networks. 

I don't have the ratings data available, but I would bet that the broadcast networks had the largest ratings declines as their primary programming (prime time and late night) have been either in reruns or the 8th iteration of the masked singer for the last few months. ESPN probably actually fared pretty well since they are live sports focused and that content remained new for obvious reasons.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the networks get back to original scripted prime time shows. I personally think the cow is out of the barn and the broadcast networks are dying a slow, mostly self-inflicted death.

Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks for making me look it up.

ESPN is the second-largest cable loser behind Fox News and the fourth-biggest loser after ABC and NBS (I'm excluding Prime Video).  But they are the largest sports loser ahead of CBS and Fox broadcast networks.



https://www.nationalmediaspots.com/stats-us-cable-broadcast-tv-network-rankings.php
1   Prime Video   11,015,000   3.49   +2%
2   ABC   2,925,000   0.93   -5%
3   NBC   2,225,000   0.71   -14%
4   Fox News   2,199,000   0.70   -10%
5   ESPN   2,170,000   0.69   -1%
6   CBS   2,047,000   0.65   -45%
7   FOX   1,695,000   0.54   -85%


I personally think the cow is out of the barn and the broadcast networks are dying a slow, mostly self-inflicted death.

I 100% agree, and this is why Disney is trying to get rid of ESPN and talking about selling it to the NFL and/or NBA (posts above).

Do some people (or one person) here not realize that streaming services like YouTube TV, Hulu and Sling carry ESPN?

Quote from: Pakuni on December 12, 2023, 08:35:02 PM
Do some people (or one person) here not realize that streaming services like YouTube TV, Hulu and Sling carry ESPN?

Ranking of television networks based on the most recent, aggregated ratings data. The audience figures are derived from the latest Nielsen daily, weekly, or monthly P2+ network audience averages.

Do some people (or one person) here not realize that these ratings numbers include all (or aggregate) sources?

Quote from: Not A Serious Person on December 12, 2023, 09:01:09 PM
Ranking of television networks based on the most recent, aggregated ratings data. The audience figures are derived from the latest Nielsen daily, weekly, or monthly P2+ network audience averages.

Do some people (or one person) here not realize that these ratings numbers include all (or aggregate) sources?

Cool. But that has nothing to do with the initial article you posted in which you tried to claim ESPN is the "biggest loser" because fewer people are watching broadcast and cable.
That quote comes from your second link.
Bad faith at every turn.

January 2, 2024

Americans Are Canceling More of Their Streaming Services

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/americans-are-canceling-more-of-their-streaming-services-fb9284c8

Hulu, Netflix and other streamers are turning to bundles, discounts and ad-supported plans as customer defections rise

About one-quarter of U.S. subscribers to major streaming services—a group that includes Apple TV+, Discovery+, Disney+, Hulu, Max, Netflix, Paramount+, Peacock and Starz—have canceled at least three of them over the past two years, according to November data from subscription-analytics provider Antenna.

Two years ago, that number stood at 15%, a sign that streaming users are becoming increasingly fickle.

——-
ESPN Has Lost Almost 4 Million Subscribers and MLB Network Has Lost Over 11 Million Subscribers in the Last Year as Cord Cutting Grows

https://cordcuttersnews.com/espn-has-lost-almost-4-million-subscribers-and-mlb-network-has-lost-over-11-million-subscribers-in-the-last-year-as-cord-cutting-grows/


ESPN has lost 4 million subscribers since December of 2022, according to a report from Nielsen and published by SportsTVRatings. The report found MLB Network had been hit the hardest, losing over 11 million subscribers, or more than a quarter of all of its TV subscribers. (MLB Network was dropped by YouTube TV earlier this year.)

Other networks have felt the pressure too. During the last 12 months, FS1 lost over 3 million, BTN lost over 2 million, and TNT lost more than 4 million. One surprise is the NFL Network, which only lost 281,000 thanks to new deals with players like DIRECTV STREAM.
This all comes as the U.S. added 1.2 million new TV homes in 2023. Increasingly cord cutters are ditching any traditional pay TV service, whether that be cable TV or a live TV streaming service, in favor of on-demand-only services like Max and Netflix.

With numbers like 4 million fewer paying customers, you can see why ESPN wants to launch its own streaming service. This may help ESPN recover some lost subscribers and lost revenue. But that service is not expected to launch until sometime in 2025.

Monster ratings for the Rose Bowl

https://deadline.com/2024/01/college-football-semifinal-ratings-rose-sugar-bowl-washington-michigan-1235694090/amp/

Quote from: Not A Serious Person on January 03, 2024, 05:59:51 AM
January 2, 2024

Americans Are Canceling More of Their Streaming Services

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/americans-are-canceling-more-of-their-streaming-services-fb9284c8

Hulu, Netflix and other streamers are turning to bundles, discounts and ad-supported plans as customer defections rise
.......

Your copy and pastes are boring.

ESPN is doomed.

https://www.abc27.com/national/espn-returns-37-emmys-won-using-fake-names-report/#:~:text=(KTLA)%20%E2%80%94%20The%20National%20Academy,a%20report%20in%20The%20Athletic. (https://www.abc27.com/national/espn-returns-37-emmys-won-using-fake-names-report/#:~:text=(KTLA)%20%E2%80%94%20The%20National%20Academy,a%20report%20in%20The%20Athletic.)

Arrogance.

Quote from: Jockey on January 12, 2024, 01:41:06 PM
Arrogance.

Yes, and pathetic at the same time.

The Athletic reports: NFL in advanced talks with ESPN to acquire equity stake in network

https://theathletic.com/5199825/2024/01/13/nfl-espn-equity-stake-redzone-network/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=8740869

The partnership between the NFL and ESPN could soon grow more intertwined with the league in advanced talks with ESPN to acquire an equity stake in the sports network, sources briefed on the matter confirmed to The Athletic. The cable giant would gain control of NFL Media, including NFL Network in return, sources said.

News of the advanced talks between the NFL and ESPN was first reported by The New York Post. The report said discussions between the two entities are far enough along for the league to have notified owners and the Players Association.

Quote from: MU82 on January 14, 2024, 08:21:56 AM
The Athletic reports: NFL in advanced talks with ESPN to acquire equity stake in network

https://theathletic.com/5199825/2024/01/13/nfl-espn-equity-stake-redzone-network/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=8740869

The partnership between the NFL and ESPN could soon grow more intertwined with the league in advanced talks with ESPN to acquire an equity stake in the sports network, sources briefed on the matter confirmed to The Athletic. The cable giant would gain control of NFL Media, including NFL Network in return, sources said.

News of the advanced talks between the NFL and ESPN was first reported by The New York Post. The report said discussions between the two entities are far enough along for the league to have notified owners and the Players Association.

No conflicts of interest to see here. Please move along.

ESPN would be producing the NFL network just like Fox produces the Big Ten Network. So of course there are conflicts. There always have been such conflicts.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on January 14, 2024, 08:46:57 AM
ESPN would be producing the NFL network just like Fox produces the Big Ten Network. So of course there are conflicts. There always have been such conflicts.

Of course there are conflicts out of their longtime business relationships, but an actual ownership stake raises that to a different level.
An analogy of sorts:
When the big healthcare group in town is a major advertiser with the local newspaper, it creates a potential conflict.
When the healthcare group owns the local newspaper, it's a conflict on a much greater scale.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 14, 2024, 09:05:46 AM
Of course there are conflicts out of their longtime business relationships, but an actual ownership stake raises that to a different level.
An analogy of sorts:
When the big healthcare group in town is a major advertiser with the local newspaper, it creates a potential conflict.
When the healthcare group owns the local newspaper, it's a conflict on a much greater scale.

I miss ESPN having access to NFL films. 

Fox owns a majority of the Big Ten Network.

ESPN owns almost all of the SEC Network.

I guess my point is no one is denying conflicts of interest because this is simply a model that has existed for a long time. I just don't understand why those conflicts are problematic.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on January 14, 2024, 09:08:46 AM
Fox owns a majority of the Big Ten Network.

ESPN owns almost all of the SEC Network.

I guess my point is no one is denying conflicts of interest because this is simply a model that has existed for a long time. I just don't understand why those conflicts are problematic.

It's different because everyone recognizes that the Big 10, SEC and NFL networks exist entirely to promote those leagues, and no one involved pretends otherwise. Nobody tunes into the NFL Network expecting a harsh critique of Roger Goodell  or the SEC Network for an investigation into academic fraud at Tennessee.

ESPN, at least at some level, still practices journalism, and certainly opinion journalism. Are they going to be able to produce an E60 segment critical of Jerry Jones or offer harsh opinions of Goodell once the NFL becomes the boss? That's a fair question, IMO.

I guess I don't really view ESPN as a journalistic organization.

Quote from: Pakuni on January 14, 2024, 09:36:13 AM
It's different because everyone recognizes that the Big 10, SEC and NFL networks exist entirely to promote those leagues, and no one involved pretends otherwise. Nobody tunes into the NFL Network expecting a harsh critique of Roger Goodell  or the SEC Network for an investigation into academic fraud at Tennessee.

ESPN, at least at some level, still practices journalism, and certainly opinion journalism. Are they going to be able to produce an E60 segment critical of Jerry Jones or offer harsh opinions of Goodell once the NFL becomes the boss? That's a fair question, IMO.

I guess fair. I haven't viewed ESPN as a journalistic outlet for a long time. That's just me.

I'm okay with what ESPN does (or doesn't do). Sports is entertainment, no different than TV or movies. Not sure it needs journalistic standards.

Former ESPN sportscaster was nearly doomed.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/former-espn-sportscaster-ejected-rv-crash-busy-southern-106456121

From The Athletic:

The first "Game of Thrones" season cost HBO about $55 million to produce. Soon, ESPN could essentially be paying twice that for just a Utah vs. Ole Miss quarterfinal alone. Yesterday, The Athletic broke the news of the network's anticipated $7.8 billion, six-year pact to broadcast six years of the 12-team College Football Playoff.

For $1.3 billion, the average price of just one tournament, you might be able to buy the Pittsburgh Pirates. (Same number of quality viewing hours per year, usually.)

How much of that $7.8 billion will be paid to players? Well, you see, the thing is ... local car dealers are now allowed to pass the hat, so let's call it even. Surely this labor setup will remain legal forever.

With various details still TBD (including the wrinkle that ESPN could choose to sublicense some of these games to other networks), we asked Andrew Marchand, who helped our college football crew report the story, one Q.

Biggest takeaway, and what don't we know?

Marchand: ESPN will have control of college sports championships outside of the Men's NCAA Basketball Tournament (CBS). Let's be clear: The idea in recent years that ESPN is diminished also takes a blow with this pending agreement.

Quote from: The Sultan of Semantics on January 14, 2024, 09:42:06 AM
I guess I don't really view ESPN as a journalistic organization.

Nor do I.

It's a far cry from the days when Curt Gowdy would introduce the baseball Game of the Week as "NBC Sports, a Service of NBC News, presents...."

ESPN has certain elements that mimic journalism and, at times, actually practices Journalism. But there is a huge conflict when ESPN News attempts to cover institutions and organizations that are part of ESPN Entertainment. Look at the way the Big East has been treated by ESPN since our conference left ESPN for Fox. It's like we don't exist, except when we play ESPN teams on ESPN Networks.

Quote from: dgies9156 on February 14, 2024, 03:07:43 PM
Nor do I.

It's a far cry from the days when Curt Gowdy would introduce the baseball Game of the Week as "NBC Sports, a Service of NBC News, presents...."

ESPN has certain elements that mimic journalism and, at times, actually practices Journalism. But there is a huge conflict when ESPN News attempts to cover institutions and organizations that are part of ESPN Entertainment. Look at the way the Big East has been treated by ESPN since our conference left ESPN for Fox. It's like we don't exist, except when we play ESPN teams on ESPN Networks.

How does Fox Sports cover the Big East?  Are they critical?  How would they cover it if there were a scandal at a school?

Gus Johnson said when Penn State won the Big Ten title game in 2016, what a healing moment it was for them to overcome everything. 

ESPN and college football playoff agree to 6 year, $7 BILLION deal

Only care about streaming/television rights for the Big East.

Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 14, 2024, 03:22:37 PM
How does Fox Sports cover the Big East?  Are they critical?  How would they cover it if there were a scandal at a school?

They don't and not really.

When we had our scandal during the Hillbilly regime, the only media outlet that I saw cover it was the Chicago Tribune. The Urinal may have covered it, but the Tribune was out front with it.

Quote from: dgies9156 on February 16, 2024, 09:50:22 PM
They don't and not really.

When we had our scandal during the Hillbilly regime, the only media outlet that I saw cover it was the Chicago Tribune. The Urinal may have covered it, but the Tribune was out front with it.

Fox Sports didn't hold the BE rights then and FS1 didn't even exist at the time.

CNBC released this documentary about ESPN last week.

Well done and worth a watch

-----

Disney's Fight To Save ESPN From Cord Cutters | CNBC Documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0sTwRs8A_w

For more than 40 years, ESPN has reigned supreme as the king of sports media. Growing its business by consistently raising the price of its fee to cable TV providers, ESPN now generates more than $16 billion in annual revenue.

But the business of media is changing rapidly. In the past decade, about 40 million U.S. households have cut the cord on traditional cable TV. ESPN must adjust to find customers that aren't subscribing to the cable bundle as new competitors including YouTube TV, Apple, Amazon, Peacock and perhaps Netflix bid on packages of live sports.

This CNBC documentary examines ESPN's strategy to fend off larger streamers and questions its sustainability in a digital-first world.

Chapters:
00:00 – 02:25 Intro
02:26 – 08:59 ESPN's streaming plan
09:00 – 16:14 Rising cost of sports
16:15 – 20:07 Mounting competition
20:08 – 24:20 ESPN's future

I saw a preview of the documentary, Douchey, and agree it sounds interesting. I'll give it a look.

They probably didn't mention that Disney stock has experienced 42.5% total return since Sept. 8, the day you implied that only a moron would buy DIS.

For comparison's sake, SPY is up 18.3% since then. Oh, and the stock of Elon Musk's publicly traded company is down a mere 31.3%.

Cheers!

Quote from: MU82 on March 25, 2024, 11:31:30 PM
I saw a preview of the documentary, Douchey, and agree it sounds interesting. I'll give it a look.

They probably didn't mention that Disney stock has experienced 42.5% total return since Sept. 8, the day you implied that only a moron would buy DIS.

For comparison's sake, SPY is up 18.3% since then. Oh, and the stock of Elon Musk's publicly traded company is down a mere 31.3%.

Cheers!

I've been crapping on DIS here since 2015. And back in September it had underperformed SPY going back to the early 1990s.

And the catalyst for the rally since September was the reports it was going to sell ESPN to the sports leagues (NFL, NBA and MLB).

Are you advising staying long DIS because they are going to finally unburden themself of ESPN?

Quote from: MU82 on March 25, 2024, 11:31:30 PM
I saw a preview of the documentary, Douchey, and agree it sounds interesting. I'll give it a look.

They probably didn't mention that Disney stock has experienced 42.5% total return since Sept. 8, the day you implied that only a moron would buy DIS.

For comparison's sake, SPY is up 18.3% since then. Oh, and the stock of Elon Musk's publicly traded company is down a mere 31.3%.

Cheers!

Good to see Elon Musk publicly traded company have issues.  Anti-semites have no place in society

Quote from: Not A Serious Person on March 26, 2024, 06:52:07 AM
I've been crapping on DIS here since 2015. And back in September it had underperformed SPY going back to the early 1990s.

And the catalyst for the rally since September was the reports it was going to sell ESPN to the sports leagues (NFL, NBA and MLB).

Are you advising staying long DIS because they are going to finally unburden themself of ESPN?

I'm advising to sell AAPL in 2015, as you advised.

I'm also advising to be suspicious of investing advice given on basketball fanboards by people you don't know, especially when the adviser has no proof of expertise on the subject and doesn't know the goals of potential investors.

Anyhoo, this is fun. Back to the subject, The Athletic's Andrew Marchand gave a nice summary of the whole ESPN thing in his article last week: https://theathletic.com/5355283/2024/03/20/espn-tv-rights-nfl-nba/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=9364963&userId=3738391

With ESPN's direct-to-consumer plan, the network is attempting to uphold its mission statement of, "Serving sports fans. Anytime. Anywhere."

In the process, Disney CEO Bob Iger and ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro are looking to make deals. Anytime. Anywhere.

Iger and Pitaro are trying, through equity stake talks with the biggest leagues and with distribution discussions with the largest digital players, to add to ESPN's already impressive content lineup and have price points to serve every sports fan.