don't think any cord cutters are missing the Raven-Browns game tonight
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
ESPN has investors really worried
- Thread starter landtuna
- Start date
If I were King of Programming at ABC/Disney, I'd seriously consider moving MNF back to ABC from ESPN. Albeit less than years past (what isn't?), the numbers on MNF on ABC were still monsters in that time slot and it gave O&O's and affiliate stations a HUGE lead-in to their 11:00 newscasts. Seems like the viewer number push to ESPN with MNF, never did translate.
That would be up to the NFL, not The Mickey Mouse Outfit. The rights fees were set based on cable ratings, not OTA. If MNF were to return to broadcast television, the league would probably want at least twice the money they're getting from Disney now.
If you remember the quality of games in the last few years ABC carried "Monday Night Football", they were a lot of terrible matchups, not unlike many of the games in the ESPN era of MNF (and especially late night's game). With that, ABC didn't put up much of a fight to keep MNF, and it also coincided with ABC Sports officially becoming part of ESPN. I do think that if ABC were granted with the same cross-flexing privileges that NBC currently has with its Sunday Night package, maybe they would have been more inclined to keep MNF. Right now, the closest way ABC gets to carry NFL is the simulcast of one of the ESPN wild card games.
I was in senior management of a large market ABC affiliate during the transition of MNF to ESPN. Disney negotiates the rights with the NFL, but it isn't up to the NFL as to which part of Disney airs the game.
ABC and their affiliates were not happy with giving up MNF, but Disney wanted to drive viewership to cable-only in the hope that they could justify charging higher sub-fees with cable companies. My guess is ultimately the loss of advertising from carrying MNF on ABC Network, was never made up by increased sub fees from carrying it on ESPN. As BigA mentioned; NFL game viewer numbers and subsequent advertising revenue are substantially higher when carried on the major networks. Another reason why the Super Bowl is not carried on a cable-only channel.
OK, I stand corrected. I thought the contract specifically required the games to air on ESPN, and weren't allowed on ABC.
I take it that would (should?) also be the case for the other major sports? And if so, why are so many of them dumping broadcast television in favor of cable? For example, CBS cleaned up for years with the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Now, 3/4 of it is farmed out to Turner. MLB has almost no OTA presence anymore, save for a shrinking number of local broadcasts, plus a few Saturday games and the World Series on Fox. Same goes for Hockey, and even the Stanley Cup Finals are split between NBC and NBCSN.
Between college and pro sports, there are a lot going on in a week. For college, preference is usually given to the highest ranking or largest regional rivalry (best ratings). Remember too, the major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) all have many cable channel holdings as well. The networks negotiate and purchase the rights to various sports programming and rights, including seasons well ahead of the broadcast when they come up for bid. Depending on the circumstances behind the sport at the time of airing and how it falls into the network schedule on a particular day, the network may decide to air it on one of their cable channels rather than the main network and affiliates. NBC bought The Golf Channel, and carries several tournaments accordingly. CBS may have negotiated certain other golf tournaments for carriage on their main network. FOX Sports has Regional Sports cable affiliates all over the US, who carry regional sports, or FOX may decide to feature some of those games on the main network, blocking it from cable. Just a couple examples..
Besides their cable channels, most networks have agreements with other networks to carry programs that they don't have schedule room for.
In the specific case of the NCAA tournament on CBS: The NCAA decided that games should be aired in their entirety, rather than piecewise on CBS. So CBS had to either find a cable partner, or lose the tournament to ESPN. And remember that CBS doesn't have a broad assortment of cable properties anymore since CBS Corp. and Viacom split.
Well they do have the CBS Sports Channel. But that came along after their latest deal with the NCAA. And it doesn't have the coverage that Turner has.
Many CBS affiliates aired up to 3 games on their digital subchannels, plus the main one in HD (if the station had HD). They were also available online -- $10 for one or two seasons, but free later on. Now you have to have a cable/satellite subscription to watch the games on the Turner channels, similar to WatchESPN. CBS still offers theirs free.
The issue is that the Beast puts the loss at ESPN's feet, when it is really a cable "cord cutting" problem that affects all cable channels alike.
Although the purpose of the article was not so much what happens to ESPN itself but the sports-media industry in general if the decline continues.
That said, how many cord cutters do you think cemented their decision when they found out how much money they were paying ESPN and didn't watch?
And you know what happened in Britain back in 2002 with ITV Digital:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_Digital#Administration_and_Freeview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_Digital#Administration_and_Freeview
My sense is they're simply recognizing that they're spending more time with Netflix and YouTube, and less with any real time video. Not just sports. As I said earlier, it has already hurt Viacom, and they don't have a sports channel.
Depends. If they do nothing, then you may be right. Disney is better managed than to allow a cash cow to collapse.
The first thing is to reorganize the way their content can be viewed, and they've already done that.
The next thing is to reassess the contracts they sign. And they're already doing that.
So my sense is they knew this was coming, and some of the changes they've already made (such as dropping certain events and talent) were in anticipation of this.
My decision to drop my heritage cable provider in favor of Verizon FiOS was in part due to the ability to exclude ESPN et. al. Of course, the bigger reason was to get 500/500 mb/s Internet service, but the ability to smack ESPN for its excessive fees made the choice very rewarding.
- Status