Is ESPN Doomed?

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[The Lens]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[MU82]

Has Twitter failed? Is it still failing?

[Not A Serious Person]

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"

[The Lens]

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. 

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[The Lens]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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?

[MU82]

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

[Pakuni]

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.

[WhiteTrash]

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

[The Lens]

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.

[Pakuni]

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

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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?

[rocket surgeon]

“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?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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

I doubt it falls.

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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."

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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"

[Pakuni]

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

[Not A Serious Person]

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?

[Not A Serious Person]

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.