4 ms·
It’s sports. As long as people want sports, they can bundle and charge whatever they want. HGTV probably pays for itself in advertising alone, but bundle it wit
by selectodude 6y ago
It’s sports. As long as people want sports, they can bundle and charge whatever they want. HGTV probably pays for itself in advertising alone, but bundle it with, say, ESPN and you can charge $1/mo and streaming companies have no choice but to buy it. I would love to spend $65/mo for all the sports, but I can’t. All of the people who want the channels I don’t want are subsidizing me. Unbundle everything and now I’m paying $170/mo and all the other ancillary channels cease to exist.
- dexterdog 6y agoESPN needs way way more than one dollar per month per subscriber for their licensing alone.
- selectodude 6y agoOf course. ESPN is about $10/mo on every single cable bill. Only a third of cable subscribers ever watch ESPN. If I had to pay fair price for it, I’d be spending likely close to $40-50 on ESPN alone. Add that onto ESPN+, BeIN Sports, NBCSN, Fox Sports, etc and I’d absolutely be up near $150 if I actually paid what it cost.
- sircastor 6y agoI recall reading somewhere it was something like $6/subscriber, they highest of any channel, and every subscriber pays to support the channel for those who utilize it.
- dexterdog 6y agoI thought it was more than that, but you may be right. Regardless if it goes a la carte the price would have to be more than double that because at least half of the people would drop it. Their whole business model is based on the forced purchase in partnership with the cable companies and it is absolutely not sustainable for the future.
- nickik 6y agoI just pay directly for NBA streaming, I don't care about the others.