3 ms·
Yes, that's how espn's economics work: every cable subscriber pays them $6.61 a month. That's why xfinity costs so damn much. And apparently only one in five
by x0x0 11y ago
Yes, that's how espn's economics work: every cable subscriber pays them $6.61 a month. That's why xfinity costs so damn much. And apparently only one in five watch, since the article claims espn would have to charge $30/mo to make the same money in an ala-carte model.
- Shivetya 11y agoIt isn't just ESPN, many other channels are bundled and the costs are passed on. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/ http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-... Still I find it ironic how many complain about the six dollar figure assigned to ESPN when many premium channels; hbo/showtime/etc are ten to fifteen dollars a month. I know quite a few who spent that for HBONow just for one show only to cancel as soon as the season for GOT was over. While I have no interest in sports its a matter of perception. Now ESPN and others have sued cable operators who have tried to slice up offerings to where customers could elect to not have specific channels. So while not defending cable and satellite companies it does come to the point where its cheaper to eat the bad customer feelings than spend the money on court cases. That being said, you would think with the drop in subscribers that the financials of that decision are turning around sufficiently that maybe they will push back harder
- maxerickson 11y agoThey aren't just complaining about the $6, they are complaining that it is hidden in the base package.
- ascagnel_ 11y agoThe major difference here is that you generally will always pay the ~$6.50 for ESPN with a cable package, while a $15 payment is required if you want the HBO package. ESPN splits its costs over the entire cable subscriber base, while HBO only has its subscribers.