Stand alone HBO

[jesmu84]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2014/10/15/356388248/hbo-without-cable-coming-in-2015

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2014/10/15/356388248/hbo-without-cable-coming-in-2015

wait... i thought Chico said this would never happen?

[Ari Gold]

wait... i thought Chico said this would never happen?

I feel like I've heard the same thing here before too. Man, sucks to be wrong

Hopefully this is a step towards paying only for the channels I want, not giant blocks of useless filler channels

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Big picture:

It's all just content, and if HBO (a content producer) can find a profitable way to distribute without a traditional cable provider (the distributor), they will do it.

Lots of layers of politics, contracts, relationships, tech., etc. etc. etc. Chico's has for more insight on that stuff.

But, big picture, they are just trying to cut out the middle man.

[chapman]

Hopefully this is a step towards paying only for the channels I want, not giant blocks of useless filler channels

Agree.  Always more channels, more features, more.  Tell them you want to pay less and they'll offer you a ton more to pay a little more...which isn't less.  I'm not willing to pay even $10 more per month for 500 or 5000 more channels that I don't care about.  I actually would be willing to pay just $10 less per month to give up 195 of the 200 channels I have.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Agree.  Always more channels, more features, more.  Tell them you want to pay less and they'll offer you a ton more to pay a little more...which isn't less.  I'm not willing to pay even $10 more per month for 500 or 5000 more channels that I don't care about.  I actually would be willing to pay just $10 less per month to give up 195 of the 200 channels I have.

I'm not sure Chico's doomsday scenarios of having to pay $20 per month for ESPN are realistic. For a business guy, he sure seems to misunderstand economics. If ESPN is forced to go alone and starts out at $20 per month, and no one pays it ... law of supply and demand suggests they are going to have to reduce their costs. Does that mean they will have to cut back on their own programming / extra channels (the Ocho)? Yeah, probably. The market will bear what people actually want, not what a few hyper wealthy monopolists on the coasts have created for the plebes.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm not sure Chico's doomsday scenarios of having to pay $20 per month for ESPN are realistic. For a business guy, he sure seems to misunderstand economics. If ESPN is forced to go alone and starts out at $20 per month, and no one pays it ... law of supply and demand suggests they are going to have to reduce their costs. Does that mean they will have to cut back on their own programming / extra channels (the Ocho)? Yeah, probably. The market will bear what people actually want, not what a few hyper wealthy monopolists on the coasts have created for the plebes.

Correct, but so far the demand for live content by both advertisers and consumers has been relatively inelastic.

But, we know that it's not perfectly inelastic, and eventually there will be a market correction. The question is not if, but rather when.

[mu03eng]

Correct, but so far the demand for live content by both advertisers and consumers has been relatively inelastic.

But, we know that it's not perfectly inelastic, and eventually there will be a market correction. The question is not if, but rather when.

Beware of the bubble.  Live content is a bubble right now, and it is unsustainable long term.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Beware of the bubble.  Live content is a bubble right now, and it is unsustainable long term.

And I think the biggest consumers - boomers - of live content (i.e. sports), while today's biggest spending demographic, are going to crater in 10-20 years. What then?

[reinko]

Beware of the bubble.  Live content is a bubble right now, and it is unsustainable long term.

Why does an executive who is 45 care about the long term bubble?  It's an honest question, they will cash out in in the next 10-15 years, and the job of someone else to clean up the mess.   

[brandx]

Correct, but so far the demand for live content by both advertisers and consumers has been relatively inelastic.

But, we know that it's not perfectly inelastic, and eventually there will be a market correction. The question is not if, but rather when.

I have been saying this for a long time. But then, so have you. And just like myself, you were told it couldn't be done. Content, contracts, etc.

It will be a slow process, but between this and Verizon's announcement last week, the wheels are starting to turn.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I have been saying this for a long time. But then, so have you. And just like myself, you were told it couldn't be done. Content, contracts, etc.

It will be a slow process, but between this and Verizon's announcement last week, the wheels are starting to turn.

It will be slow, but there will be different catalyst points along the way, which will change the game.

There is a lot of money (and profit) in the "traditional" delivery/distribution system. Once an alternate system becomes profitable/competitive, things will evolve far more quickly.

[Hards Alumni]

This is where I get to say "I told you so".

[mu03eng]

Why does an executive who is 45 care about the long term bubble?  It's an honest question, they will cash out in in the next 10-15 years, and the job of someone else to clean up the mess.   

Because the bubble may not last that long.  But the point is well taken, in this and most other corporations long term vision is sacrificed for short term gain.

[brandx]

I don't know the specifics of ESPN's contract with the cable companies, but I believe they will be watching what happens very closely - if it is not specifically prohibited in said contract to make themselves available stand-alone.

Obviously they would be cutting their own throats to offer for less that cable companies pay, but even charging a small premium over that charge would create lots of $$$

[mu03eng]

I don't know the specifics of ESPN's contract with the cable companies, but I believe they will be watching what happens very closely - if it is not specifically prohibited in said contract to make themselves available stand-alone.

Obviously they would be cutting their own throats to offer for less that cable companies pay, but even charging a small premium over that charge would create lots of $$$

I don't know that ESPN wants to expose what it actually charges to the average consumer.  If ESPN went alone, I'm not sure that they could get from the consumers what they get from the cable providers.  It's a game of Blind Man's Bluff...ESPN can hide it's costs behind the cable companies and the cable companies can keep saying rate increases are al ESPN's fault.

However, once live sports has a cable cutting option, cable companies are done...that's the only reason I stay with cable.

[brandx]

I don't know that ESPN wants to expose what it actually charges to the average consumer.  If ESPN went alone, I'm not sure that they could get from the consumers what they get from the cable providers.  It's a game of Blind Man's Bluff...ESPN can hide it's costs behind the cable companies and the cable companies can keep saying rate increases are al ESPN's fault.

However, once live sports has a cable cutting option, cable companies are done...that's the only reason I stay with cable.

I agree, but this would be in addition to the cable offering - not replacing it.

There are millions without cable that would jump at the chance to get ESPN standalone.

[Benny B]

And I think the biggest consumers - boomers - of live content (i.e. sports), while today's biggest spending demographic, are going to crater in 10-20 years. What then?

Thank you.  At least someone else is paying attention here.

[mu03eng]

I agree, but this would be in addition to the cable offering - not replacing it.

There are millions without cable that would jump at the chance to get ESPN standalone.

I don't think with sports live streaming revenue would be additive to cable revenue.  I think it replaces it.  Once you can get an sports you want by paying for just that, I think most people leave cable.  The irony is that over the air TV may become in vogue again because they have sports and its "free".

Here is how the bubble bursts.  Consumers are exposed to what they actually pay for sports content, ergo some choose not to purchase it and live without it.  Those that do choose to purchase end up killing cable eliminating a revenue stream for ESPN.  The streaming revenue does not totally replace the cable revenue.  This forces ESPN to scale back what it pays for content, cutting revenue streams for all sports content, forcing those sports to face the reality of budgeting and the fact that revenues don't go up every year.  College sports suffer the most as they have out spent potential revenue in the new paradigm.  Meanwhile all the boomers who had money to burn and an overwhelming appetite for sports content are dead and/or dying further reducing demand for the content at the prices presented, forcing ESPN to further reduce cost/decrease price.  Combined with on-going social issues leagues shrink, valuations decrease, and big money investors and advertisers leave for more attractive grounds.

I'm using ESPN as a proxy for all sports media content providers, Fox Sports, NBC Sports, etc will all be in the same boat.

I actually think, in the grand scheme of things there is the possibility that 40 years from now basketball is the dominant revenue sport in America.  Not saying it will happen, but it is the least risky of the current major sport platforms long term, ya know except for all that crazy multi-billion franchise valuation stuff.

[rocky_warrior]

And now CBS launches their platform.  But no sports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-launches-digital-subscription-service-cbs-all-access/

[g0lden3agle]

When you factor in the fact you're still going to need to get internet from Comcast/ATT/TWC/etc, and all the services I'd actually want (Hulu,Netflix,Amazon Prime, HBO, etc.), I'd almost rather pay the premium to have it all in one package.

[mu03eng]

When you factor in the fact you're still going to need to get internet from Comcast/ATT/TWC/etc, and all the services I'd actually want (Hulu,Netflix,Amazon Prime, HBO, etc.), I'd almost rather pay the premium to have it all in one package.

Pipes aren't the technology, that'll go away with time, especially as wi-fi expands.  And someone will come up with an app or technology to do the ala carte for you....perhaps even one of the pipe owners.

[brandx]

And now CBS launches their platform.  But no sports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-launches-digital-subscription-service-cbs-all-access/

But this can't happen.....

[chapman]

When you factor in the fact you're still going to need to get internet from Comcast/ATT/TWC/etc, and all the services I'd actually want (Hulu,Netflix,Amazon Prime, HBO, etc.), I'd almost rather pay the premium to have it all in one package.

Key words bolded.  If you want a lot the package makes sense. 

If I want Amazon Prime, MLB.TV, and Hulu, I can pay $350 per year.  Bump it up to $500 to include Netflix or ad-hoc movie/TV show rentals.  I'm currently paying about $1,350 annually for that lineup plus ESPN and 200 more channels I don't watch.  Is the ESPN package and the other junk worth $850 per year since there is no alternative for ESPN?  That's my decision point now.  If the option were actually offered, a provider's option or a stream of just ESPN could get me at $50 per month without hesitation since the total cost for what I actually want would be less.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

DirecTV sucks. I don't know that for a fact but I'll throw it out there.

...

I'm just waiting to see how much Chicos bait this thread needs before he actually responds. Is he in a coma or actually working?