4 ms·

I for one would kill to see an ESPN that has to court direct subscribers. Getting people to pay to subscribe to you is a whole different beast from chasing rat

by Legion 13y ago

I for one would kill to see an ESPN that has to court direct subscribers. Getting people to pay to subscribe to you is a whole different beast from chasing ratings among an audience that pays for you either way. ESPN may get ratings doing endless Tim Tebow stories, but I posit that the viewers that generate those ratings aren't the same people the network could successfully convert into subscribers. Fluff crap may get people to stop while flipping channels, but nobody is going to be directly subscribing to get it. I'm a sports fan, yet like many other sports fans, I consider ESPN to be borderline unwatchable. The only thing I care to watch are actual game broadcasts. And what happens when wider direct distribution means that the sports world no longer needs ESPN's cable reach to get to viewers?

vsprabhakara1 13y ago
>And what happens when wider direct distribution means that the sports world no longer needs ESPN's cable reach to get to viewers? Its not the viewers the sports leagues value ESPN for. Its the money ESPN pays them for the right to broadcast to their viewers. That's why the NFL Network is a step-child network that can't maximize its value as the NFL can't make more from it that they can selling to ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC
- rhizome 13y ago
  Its the money ESPN pays them for the right to broadcast to their viewers What? No. The cable companies pay ESPN for the privilege of carrying them. It's a revenue share, that's why ESPN is a part of basic packages: cable companies using their billing base to increase the cable company's profit margin on the extortionate amounts they kickback to the network. You think ESPN doesn't use sports agent techniques in their business development department?
jdechko 13y ago
Outside of Baseball, Basketball and College Football, ESPN's sports broadcasts can be difficult, especially if you follow a less-popular sport. Due to some unfortunate circumstances, NHL games aren't even broadcast on ESPN. Usually, the only soccer I see is the MLS Game of the Week (and Fox Soccer is a much better channel for soccer anyway). Some leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL) are getting better, though, at providing direct access to the consumers.
- dhugiaskmak 13y ago
  Better unless you live in the same broadcast market as the team you want to watch. In all leagues that I am aware of those games are blacked out and TV is your only option.
jdminhbg 13y ago
> I'm a sports fan, yet like many other sports fans, I consider ESPN to be borderline unwatchable. The only thing I care to watch are actual game broadcasts. And what happens when wider direct distribution means that the sports world no longer needs ESPN's cable reach to get to viewers? I agree with you about the quality of non-game broadcasts on ESPN, but I think this is sort of exactly why it's not more profitable for leagues to sell directly to consumers. The major networks pay a price for broadcast rights that is greater than what they make in just advertising during those events because they use the NFL/MLB/etc to prop up the rest of their programming.
- untog 13y ago
  The major networks pay a price for broadcast rights that is greater than what they make in just advertising during those events ...and when the major networks can no longer afford those fees, the prices will drop. It's a market, and if ESPN loses a ton of money at the same time as every other purchaser does, the leagues are going to have to change their fee models or find themselves with no coverage.
- rhizome 13y ago
  I think this is sort of exactly why it's not more profitable for leagues to sell directly to consumers Well yeah, forcing every cable customer to subsidize your multi-channel mandatory presence in basic packages is going to be "more profitable" to ESPN than becoming a selection that has to compete for optional package selection. I don't think the advantage of this arrangement for ESPN is any question to anybody.

by Legion 13y ago

vsprabhakara1 13y ago

>And what happens when wider direct distribution means that the sports world no longer needs ESPN's cable reach to get to viewers? Its not the viewers the sports leagues value ESPN for. Its the money ESPN pays them for the right to broadcast to their viewers. That's why the NFL Network is a step-child network that can't maximize its value as the NFL can't make more from it that they can selling to ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC

rhizome 13y ago
Its the money ESPN pays them for the right to broadcast to their viewers What? No. The cable companies pay ESPN for the privilege of carrying them. It's a revenue share, that's why ESPN is a part of basic packages: cable companies using their billing base to increase the cable company's profit margin on the extortionate amounts they kickback to the network. You think ESPN doesn't use sports agent techniques in their business development department?

jdechko 13y ago

Outside of Baseball, Basketball and College Football, ESPN's sports broadcasts can be difficult, especially if you follow a less-popular sport. Due to some unfortunate circumstances, NHL games aren't even broadcast on ESPN. Usually, the only soccer I see is the MLS Game of the Week (and Fox Soccer is a much better channel for soccer anyway). Some leagues (MLB, NBA, NHL) are getting better, though, at providing direct access to the consumers.

dhugiaskmak 13y ago
Better unless you live in the same broadcast market as the team you want to watch. In all leagues that I am aware of those games are blacked out and TV is your only option.

jdminhbg 13y ago

> I'm a sports fan, yet like many other sports fans, I consider ESPN to be borderline unwatchable. The only thing I care to watch are actual game broadcasts. And what happens when wider direct distribution means that the sports world no longer needs ESPN's cable reach to get to viewers? I agree with you about the quality of non-game broadcasts on ESPN, but I think this is sort of exactly why it's not more profitable for leagues to sell directly to consumers. The major networks pay a price for broadcast rights that is greater than what they make in just advertising during those events because they use the NFL/MLB/etc to prop up the rest of their programming.

untog 13y ago
The major networks pay a price for broadcast rights that is greater than what they make in just advertising during those events ...and when the major networks can no longer afford those fees, the prices will drop. It's a market, and if ESPN loses a ton of money at the same time as every other purchaser does, the leagues are going to have to change their fee models or find themselves with no coverage.
rhizome 13y ago
I think this is sort of exactly why it's not more profitable for leagues to sell directly to consumers Well yeah, forcing every cable customer to subsidize your multi-channel mandatory presence in basic packages is going to be "more profitable" to ESPN than becoming a selection that has to compete for optional package selection. I don't think the advantage of this arrangement for ESPN is any question to anybody.