Is ESPN Doomed?

[Pakuni]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[JWags85]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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 ...

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[Pakuni]

"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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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/

[Jockey]

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.

[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.

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.")

[MU82]

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!

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[MU82]

Yes.

[MU82]

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



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.

[MU82]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[Not A Serious Person]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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...

[muwarrior69]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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