3 ms·
I 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
by digikata 11y ago
I 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