5 ms·
To be precise, I'd say the article's core argument is something like: The obfuscated upper bound of $40/mo/subscriber cannot be recovered since the transparent
by VanillaCafe 11y ago
To be precise, I'd say the article's core argument is something like: The obfuscated upper bound of $40/mo/subscriber cannot be recovered since the transparent pricing upper bound is $20/mo/fan. ESPN currently accounts for approximately half of all revenue for major league sports teams. The internet is driving unbundling which is forcing a move from obfuscated to transparent pricing.
With that premise and those numbers from the article, the crash will be something like a 35% drop in revenue (bounded by 25% and 50%) for sports teams when the transition from obfuscated to transparent pricing is complete. That seems like a big deal.
- digikata 11y agoI think the mistake is assuming that $20/mo/fan is the upper bound. That's just a baseline direct subscription number. What ESPN should do then is offer a menu of more specialized sports products on top of that baseline. I do think there's going to be a painful transition in their business model in moving from leveraging a price from a wide range of cable subscribers, to offering premium products directed at sports fans. But, for all the pain, I think there's plenty of money to be made.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago$20 a month woudl be cheap when compared to the Murdoch Tax in the uk to watch skysports.
- Symbiote 11y agoOr £5 ($8) a month for BT Sport, which has some Premiership football, though not all. I'm not a [watching] sports fan — is BT Sport making much impact in Britain?
- spacecowboy_lon 11y agoIts upsetting News international who have been lobbying to hobble BT
- ams6110 11y agoPricing per-month is not the way to go. They need to move to streaming, and price per-event. $5 per event sounds like a great deal, and I bet I'd end up spending more than $40/month at that rate at least at certain times of the year (i.e. when my favorite sports are in season).