$36 a month for ESPN only a la carte

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2015/03/25/are-you-willing-to-pay-36-per-month-for-espn/

[forgetful]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2015/03/25/are-you-willing-to-pay-36-per-month-for-espn/

I would rather that be the case and people that don't want ESPN not be forced to pay $6-8 a month.  I am a sports fan, but would rather save the $6-8 and miss out on ESPN content.  The price just isn't worth it.

[4everwarriors]

How much for the cookin' and travel channels?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2015/03/25/are-you-willing-to-pay-36-per-month-for-espn/

Is this the exact same guy that was quoted in 4-5 news stories which you posted a few months ago, as individual, separate reports?

[rocky_warrior]

Didn't Sling TV already set the price at $20/mo?

[Pakuni]

Didn't Sling TV already set the price at $20/mo?

Yep, including many other channels (CNN, TNT, TBS, History and Disney among them).

[Groin_pull]

$36 per month for ESPN? Hahaha. No thanks. I barely watch that network now. I've curtailed my sports viewing a lot of the past few years. Doubt I'd miss the "WWL" too much.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Didn't Sling TV already set the price at $20/mo?

Not by itself.  You pay for the bundle.  It keeps prices down.  I'm talking A LA CARTE, which so many people say they want.....until they don't want it when the economics are built into it.

[brandx]

So where has ESPN announced the $36 price?

I have yet to see it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not buy itself.  You pay for the bundle.  It keeps prices down.  I'm talking A LA CARTE, which so many people say they want.....until they don't want it when the economics are built into it.

Well, this is just basic economics then, isn't it?

ESPN has to charge $36 to make a profit, people don't subscribe and watch, so ESPN can't pay as much for it's content.

Am I missing something?

[mu_hilltopper]

I gotta figure ESPN is pricing it so high that zero people would purchase to make a point.

[brandx]

I gotta figure ESPN is pricing it so high that zero people would purchase to make a point.

I haven't seen anywhere that ESPN pricing will be that high.

Using some complex mathematical formulas, analyst Michael Nathanson arrived at some interesting per-subscriber price projections for major cable networks operating in a world where channels get paid based more purely on the amount of people who actually watch them.

In other words, it will not cost $36 a month. Instead, it is more of the crap that Chicos throws at the wall.

[rocky_warrior]

Not buy itself.  You pay for the bundle.  It keeps prices down.  I'm talking A LA CARTE, which so many people say they want.....until they don't want it when the economics are built into it.

So you agree. ESPN would never launch a la carte at that price.

[77ncaachamps]

That would kill the ESPN contracts for the big conferences!!!

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

So you agree. ESPN would never launch a la carte at that price.

Don't be silly. Supply and demand works for everything in the universe except cable bills.

[chapman]

Don't be silly. Supply and demand works for everything in the universe except cable bills.

We all demand to pay $12 a month for equipment leases, only to be told upon cancellation that you can toss it all because they don't want it back.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

We all demand to pay $12 a month for equipment leases, only to be told upon cancellation that you can toss it all because they don't want it back.

Not sure how that relates to my joke, but sounds like another reason to ditch cable...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, this is just basic economics then, isn't it?

ESPN has to charge $36 to make a profit, people don't subscribe and watch, so ESPN can't pay as much for it's content.

Am I missing something?

Just providing helpful information on what a la carte is going to cost since it continues to be the "rage" of some folks.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Just providing helpful information on what a la carte is going to cost since it continues to be the "rage" of some folks.

I still want ala carte. Even if ESPN costs $100 per month.

I don't think consumers need to subsidize a bunch of stuff they don't use/watch. My mom doesn't watch ESPN, so she wouldn't subscribe.

If they went full ala cart, ESPN would likely have to adjust their business model because they can't keep paying billions of dollars for television rights and just pass the costs onto the cable providers, who in turn just spread the costs out incrementally amongst a lot of people who don't even use that product.

It's UnAmerican. It's like entertainment Communism. I won't stand for it, sir.

[forgetful]

I still want ala carte. Even if ESPN costs $100 per month.

I don't think consumers need to subsidize a bunch of stuff they don't use/watch. My mom doesn't watch ESPN, so she wouldn't subscribe.

If they went full ala cart, ESPN would likely have to adjust their business model because they can't keep paying billions of dollars for television rights and just pass the costs onto the cable providers, who in turn just spread the costs out incrementally amongst a lot of people who don't even use that product.

It's UnAmerican. It's like entertainment Communism. I won't stand for it, sir.

Well said, this is my view also.

[brandx]

I still want ala carte. Even if ESPN costs $100 per month.

I don't think consumers need to subsidize a bunch of stuff they don't use/watch. My mom doesn't watch ESPN, so she wouldn't subscribe.

If they went full ala cart, ESPN would likely have to adjust their business model because they can't keep paying billions of dollars for television rights and just pass the costs onto the cable providers, who in turn just spread the costs out incrementally amongst a lot of people who don't even use that product.

It's UnAmerican. It's like entertainment Communism. I won't stand for it, sir.

As far as your premise, I agree 100%

But, we have no idea what ESPN will charge for a la carte service. It certainly won't be $36.

Well, unless every cable and Sat company goes out of business. The $36 pricing was based on a hypothetical that cable companies didn't exist. It is based on no reality that I know of.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Didn't Sling TV already set the price at $20/mo?

Ouch


http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/5/8348885/sling-tv-ncaa-finals-problems-watching


That's with only 100K customers, too. 

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Ouch


http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/5/8348885/sling-tv-ncaa-finals-problems-watching


That's with only 100K customers, too. 

Is the NC on CBS? Amazed that last weekend and Saturday were on TBS.

A couple bars around here should send their thanks to CBS for not screening it on broadcast.

[Lennys Tap]

I still want ala carte. Even if ESPN costs $100 per month.

I don't think consumers need to subsidize a bunch of stuff they don't use/watch. My mom doesn't watch ESPN, so she wouldn't subscribe.

If they went full ala cart, ESPN would likely have to adjust their business model because they can't keep paying billions of dollars for television rights and just pass the costs onto the cable providers, who in turn just spread the costs out incrementally amongst a lot of people who don't even use that product.

It's UnAmerican. It's like entertainment Communism. I won't stand for it, sir.

You, sir, are a principled capitalist and I salute you. The "Chico Way" - free enterprise for the poor, crony capitalism or corporate welfare/socialism for the rich and powerful is morally bankrupt to anyone with a brain and a heart.

[mu_hilltopper]

Amazed that last weekend and Saturday were on TBS.

Indeed .. what was that all about?  FF games on TBS? 

I guess they wanted fewer people watching.