|
|
Post by wsutommygun on May 3, 2018 12:59:54 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN tries to make more things available on ESPN+. I think it started out to get back some of the money they lost by customers cutting the chord ( I personally don't want to encourage anyone but, I think it is $4.99 a month plus tax ).
GO RAIDERS
|
|
|
|
Post by wsutommygun on May 3, 2018 13:12:38 GMT -5
Or, is that cutting the "cord", been listening to Oldies music waiting for a baseball game on MLBN.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrose on May 4, 2018 11:48:10 GMT -5
ESPN+ launched April 12 and that's when the 30 day free trial period began. Unless ESPN extends their trial period the free ride will end next weekend.
Based on the economics ESPN will have to move everything from ESPN3/WatchESPN over to the subscriber based platform. And the monthly cost will have to increase from the current $4.99/month.
Last month ESPN lost 500,000 subscribers. One of their worst months in history. That's a very inauspicious sign considering their most prized (and expensive) franchise (NBA) is having their playoffs. Over the past 7 years they've lost 14 million subscribers. Currently they're in approximately 85 million homes. Many analysts believe their red line is 75 million homes. Once they're below that the economic model they've been relying upon for the past couple of decades no longer works.
With their glide slope of lost subscribers steepening and accelerating that red-line maybe crossed in the next 3 years. I hope the HL gets out in front of the inevitable and does something creative with our media rights...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr J on May 4, 2018 13:03:12 GMT -5
I watch some college softball through the league stream to iPad. I have AppkeTV on big screen Samsung. Dowladed app Mirror for Samsung $5 and then can watch on the TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrose on May 9, 2018 21:06:40 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN tries to make more things available on ESPN+. I think it started out to get back some of the money they lost by customers cutting the chord ( I personally don't want to encourage anyone but, I think it is $4.99 a month plus tax ). GO RAIDERS I don't think ESPN knows what their master plan is at this point. Disney/ESPN acquired all the regional Fox Sports channels, such as Fox Sports Ohio that has the Reds, Indians, Blue Jackets, and Cavs games. The FCC/SEC should approve the deal by the end of the year. How we watch Raiders games this year may be hit or miss. Hopefully, an inexpensive, quality package will be available next year. I think Disney/ESPN has a good idea what their plan is. The question is, will it work? Disney has a ton of content/inventory they believe is valuable, but it has to be delivered somehow someway. Their traditional mode was theaters or cable/satellite. That model basically worked for both entertainment (movies) and live sports. However, over the past several years Netflix and Amazon have blown to smithereens Disney's model. People are happy to spend money on entertainment (and live sports) for a reasonable price if it's convenient to them with easy access and no long-term contracts. But while Netflix and Amazon were busy building the new model ESPN was busy spending exorbitant money for the rights to NFL, NBA, and MLB. All long-term contracts...and all contracts that require ESPN to use the old traditional mode of distribution---Cable or Satellite. Heck, I bet most typical people who have a basic package that includes the lower-tier of sports don't know $3/mo or $35-$40/year in their cable/Satellite bill goes to ESPN just for their NBA rights! And I would bet nearly 100% of those people don't watch one second of NBA basketball. So, ESPN over-spent on every acquired marketing right over the bast 6--7 years. The NFL and MLB contracts run through the 2021 regular season. The NBA through the 24-25 season. And, FWIW, The Cav's-Pacer's game during the night of the NFL draft was the highest rated NBA game in nearly 9 years and yet the NFL Network had nearly triple the viewership of ESPN. Gulp... Now, I believe, ESPN sees the seeds they have sown. They're screwed. And to retain the value of their long-term contracts they need to double-down. They can't afford to have regional sports networks negotiate their own local marketing rights. Heck, ESPN can't afford to lose any control--at any level. Sports highlights on the local TV? Nope. Tune into ESPN or ESPN+. I'm sure the ABC affiliates will be directed to promote that...ESPN needs to control the TV contracts and everything about viewing of the Cav's, Reds, Pacers, etc. The other monkey on their back ESPN needs to address is over-the-top distribution. That could destroy ESPN over the next decade. By controlling the national platform (ESPN) and regional platforms I believe ESPN thinks they can combat that threat. I'm not sure about that. For instance, why wouldn't MLB or the NBA want to control their distribution direct to the consumer if ESPN is unable to pony-up the exorbitant fees they have previously paid? If ESPN has to pay market-rate (not over market as they have in the past) that brings other players back into the game--CBS, FOX, NBC and Sinclair (I'll write about them below), but all wouldn't be anchored by the legacy costs ESPN has accrued over the years and all have platforms that could easily be expanded for the additional inventory. Sinclair---If not already--they will soon be the largest operator of TV stations in the country. They are currently in the motion to acquire Tribune's TV assets. They will have approximately 225 stations and cover 40% of the population---With FREE TV. Last year they merged their ASN (American Sports Network) with College Insider and 120 Sports (a quasi Chicago White Sox Digital platform--They work closely with MLB and the NHL). It's now called "Stadium" on a sub-channel, but they seem to be positioning themselves for expansion. Currently they televise the Big Sky, WCC, Mountain West, and Patriot League. Why them? It may not be them, but perhaps some one similar. Why? Next-Gen TV. It will be out within 5 years. It's being tested this year in 2 major markets--DFW and Phoenix. It's digital over-the-air TV...similar to our local stations now, but next-gen is broadcast with an Internet Protocol. In essence, it's your local TV, but with all the features of high-priced cable options of today or shows currently streamed over the internet. And if you have an amplified digital antenna you can pick up stations as far as 70 miles away. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) says it will be free. I believe most of it will be free, but I can't believe on-demand (new releases) or premium channels will be free. Why? In fact, AT&T and Verizon are fighting it since mobile devices could access the options without incurring any data usage from their services. Advertisers like it because ads can be placed at the micro-level. For instance, instead of a commercial that everyone in the Miami Valley sees, advertisers can direct commercials to certain localities. I see value in this...lots of it with live sports. Why do the Reds need to be tied to a regional sports carrier that can only be accessed via cable/satellite or a mobile device that incurs data charges or limits? And, if you don't have a cable/satellite why have to pay a monthly fee? Under the current landscape if a person, without a ESPN/FOXSports "subscribtion" will need to purchase a plan to watch the Reds...and do so while eating away at their data limits. Not so with Next-Gen TV. Now, again, I believe stations should and will charge for the premium content, but people can do so (as proposed now) without racking up data charges or having it limited. If I were a commissioner of a D I conference--Any conference (B1G, SEC, A-10, HL, etc) I would be looking into this seriously and try to position the conference at the forefront. Get established with Stadium. Secure a foothold. |
|
|
|
Post by mrose on May 23, 2018 13:55:37 GMT -5
The ESPN acquisition of most of FOX assets and FOX regional sports is still up in the air. Soon after Disney announced (several months ago) their intention to acquire much of FOX Comcast came in with a substantially higher offer. In short, Disney made a $52.4 Billion All-Stock offer. Comcast made a $60 Billion All-Cash offer. The Murdoch's, who are the largest shareholders (17%) of FOX, endorsed the Disney offer.
However, since Disney went public with their offer DIS stock is down more than 3% (FWIW, down nearly 17% over the past 2 1/2 years while the broader indexes are up). The reason I bring this up is Comcast announced today they have their financing in place and will proceed with the all-cash offer if a Federal Judge allows the proposed AT&T purchase of Time Warner to proceed. I presume Comcast may be uneasy antitrust issues could be raised, but if AT&T is allowed there will be legal precedent. At worse Comcast will force Disney's hand to pay more...
Comcast's announcement is a shot across the bow of the Murdoch's. Though the Murdoch's own 17% of FOX there's another 83% out there who might favor the cash. According to reports, if the Murdoch's took the all-cash deal then they would face a substantially higher tax liability (in the billions $$).
My gut reaction is I would rather have Comcast own the regional sports networks. If ESPN were to take ownership my view is they would have too much control of programming--especially in sports--and would further squeeze out any collegiate conference/program that isn't in the Power-5.
|
|
|
|
Post by raiderrunt on May 25, 2018 12:24:52 GMT -5
Holy crap, I tried to sign up for the ESPN+ seven day trial and I gave up after 10 minutes. When I tried to register a password of a mix of numbers and a simple word, it came back and said you can't use profanity.
Also, what happen to all the views on each thread? It says this one has two views when I clicked on it. All the other threads were off too.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Jul 27, 2018 10:23:05 GMT -5
This morning FOX shareholders agreed to Disney's offer of $71.3 Billion. Last month the DOJ gave their blessing to the acquisition only if Disney sells the 22 Regional Sports Networks within 90 days of the transaction closing. The transaction is expected to close sometime next year.
It will be interesting to see who the buyer of the Regional Sports Networks is...Comcast? If there will be one buyer or if the RSN's are split up. Most of the RSN's are the home to Major League baseball teams, NBA, NHL and some MLS, but it will be interesting to see what they do for inventory in the winter. Will they compete with ESPN for college hoops and will college basketball be able to leverage the local competition into better coverage?
|
|
|
|
Post by grossie on Oct 29, 2018 10:47:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrose on Oct 29, 2018 12:53:12 GMT -5
is ESPN3 still free with my ESPN App? Yes. ESPN3 (ESPN Watch) is free streaming. ESPN+ requires a subscription. |
|
