• 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: WE PAID TOO MUCH FOR MONDAY NITE FOOTBALL, NOW EVERYBODY PAY UP

FreddyE1977 said:
Memo to Roger Goodell.....you've gotten just about all the blood you can out of this golden goose.
It's gonna pass-out and start dying soon.
Click to expand...
Another memo to Roger Goodell.....

Call SPORTS-IN-DEMAND & strike a deal to put Sunday Ticket on other providers that just DirecTV

NOT EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING CAN STICK A DISH OUTSIDE !!!!!

If that doesn't make it clear to the NFL, I dunno what will ::)

Cheers & 73 :)
 
WOW even more backlash at ESPN.
Here's a snip and the link.

ESPN requires distributors to offer the channel in the most popular expanded basic package which means “consumers with no interest in sports are required to subsidize the sports fan.” ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report. If you throw in other services, including regional channels, then about $12.15 — more than half of the average monthly wholesale programming payments — go for sports. Moffett figures that pay TV subscribers would have to pay an additional 67 cents a month just to cover ESPN’s additional new football costs. The price would rise to 78 cents if Dish Network drops the Disney-owned sports channel, something that the satellite company’s chairman Charlie Ergen has threatened to do.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/pay-tv-companies-say-espn-fumbled-with-its-15b-nfl-deal/
 
gregg75 said:
WOW even more backlash at ESPN.
Here's a snip and the link.

ESPN requires distributors to offer the channel in the most popular expanded basic package which means “consumers with no interest in sports are required to subsidize the sports fan.” ESPN and ESPN2 represent about 20% of a typical pay TV provider’s wholesale programming costs even though the channels just appeal to 2.5% of the viewers, Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett says in a new report. If you throw in other services, including regional channels, then about $12.15 — more than half of the average monthly wholesale programming payments — go for sports. Moffett figures that pay TV subscribers would have to pay an additional 67 cents a month just to cover ESPN’s additional new football costs. The price would rise to 78 cents if Dish Network drops the Disney-owned sports channel, something that the satellite company’s chairman Charlie Ergen has threatened to do.
http://www.deadline.com/2011/09/pay-tv-companies-say-espn-fumbled-with-its-15b-nfl-deal/
Click to expand...

I think this is why NBC is making a big cable sports play now with Vs. Yes, it's got a ways to go, but if it can offer 80% of the programming at 50% of the cost, it might become very attractive to cable companies who are starting to have a harder and harder time justifying the big prices for ESPN.

At some point, the average consumer is going to cry uncle en mass, and drop cable and satellite in the process. In the last 10 years, cable bills have almost doubled (if you kept the same "basic" package that you had before the big digital rollout, even more if you added services). Can the consumer afford another doubling in the next ten years, as the average wage goes down? I don't think so.....

For me, cable TV is a luxury. I can afford it, and it's nice to have. But the moment it becomes something I can't afford, it's one of the first things to go. Every other "luxury" has already been cut, so this is the last one. I have a feeling that I'm not alone in this thinking, not in today's economy.
 
All this complaining makes it seem like there would be advocates of MNF on PPV.

Using boxing as a template for PPV pricing, the only way you would save money is if you only watched 3 hours of ESPN/ESPN2 all year: the three hours when they air one MNF game. At $49.99, you will pay for a whole year's ESPN package before you will pay for two PPV events.
 
Why should I pay a kings ransom for a channel I never watch.Make ESPN a pay channel like HBO/Showtime.This goes for those other overpriced per subscriber channels.
 
Just more fuel for the a-la-carte concept which consumers have been wanting.
That would put the control in the consumer's hands instead of cable/satellite.
 
gregg75 said:
Just more fuel for the a-la-carte concept which consumers have been wanting.
That would put the control in the consumer's hands instead of cable/satellite.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. OK, how do consumers get that? Government regulation? Not exactly popular right now. None of the cable companies are going to do that on their own.
 
mnradiofan said:
For me, cable TV is a luxury. I can afford it, and it's nice to have. But the moment it becomes something I can't afford, it's one of the first things to go. Every other "luxury" has already been cut, so this is the last one. I have a feeling that I'm not alone in this thinking, not in today's economy.
Click to expand...

And this is how companies get you and the know it.

Let's say for me cable is a luxury too. So I lose my job, I cut my cable, they simply raise your rates a few pennies. Since it's still a luxury to those who are employed and can afford it, the extra money is paid, and there's no real loss.
 
Mark said:
mnradiofan said:
For me, cable TV is a luxury. I can afford it, and it's nice to have. But the moment it becomes something I can't afford, it's one of the first things to go. Every other "luxury" has already been cut, so this is the last one. I have a feeling that I'm not alone in this thinking, not in today's economy.
Click to expand...

And this is how companies get you and the know it.

Let's say for me cable is a luxury too. So I lose my job, I cut my cable, they simply raise your rates a few pennies. Since it's still a luxury to those who are employed and can afford it, the extra money is paid, and there's no real loss.
Click to expand...

Cable and satellite have lost a surprising number of subscribers over the past 2 years. The rapidly rising cost has everything to do with it. Many, many people are watching TV via antenna or (in the latest trend), paying only for broadband internet and streaming their TV entertainment from the likes of Hulu and others. Until these cable/sat providers can figure out ways to make the cost more palatable or to reshuffle the packages in order to get subs back, the bleeding will continue. This is how some modified form of 'a la carte' packaging could evolve.

This BS of ESPN demanding A LOT of money per sub could be a tipping point of sorts. It's not a good time to pull this, with consumers cutting back on "luxury" items, so a push-back is quite possible. I kinda hope so - ESPN/Disney has gotten waaaay out of hand as far as sticking it to everyone. We'll see.
 
Raiders-Broncos tonight at 10? I think somebody ought to pay ME to watch that! ;D
 
Mark said:
mnradiofan said:
For me, cable TV is a luxury. I can afford it, and it's nice to have. But the moment it becomes something I can't afford, it's one of the first things to go. Every other "luxury" has already been cut, so this is the last one. I have a feeling that I'm not alone in this thinking, not in today's economy.
Click to expand...

And this is how companies get you and the know it.

Let's say for me cable is a luxury too. So I lose my job, I cut my cable, they simply raise your rates a few pennies. Since it's still a luxury to those who are employed and can afford it, the extra money is paid, and there's no real loss.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do feel the loss. The cable rates go up every year to cover mostly the increased programming costs. What needs to happen is that programmers need to stop using us cable subscribers as a checkbook to cover programming costs. They are, after all, advertiser supported, and should have the same model as broadcast TV. This is why even broadcast TV is now asking for a chunk of your cable bill every month, because cable networks are able to afford to pay much more for content knowing they can just pass the bill on to the cable tv consumer.

And, while I DO think that Ala Cart would help with that aspect, ESPN would be charging a LOT more than $5 per sub if it was Ala Cart, just like every other network. For those that would want to keep every channel, they would no doubt pay more money than they do today. Where it would save is if you only watch 15 or 20 channels at $1-2 per channel (likely the price you'd end up paying for most cable channels, ESPN et al excluded.
 
BRNout said:
Cable and satellite have lost a surprising number of subscribers over the past 2 years. The rapidly rising cost has everything to do with it. Many, many people are watching TV via antenna or (in the latest trend), paying only for broadband internet and streaming their TV entertainment from the likes of Hulu and others. Until these cable/sat providers can figure out ways to make the cost more palatable or to reshuffle the packages in order to get subs back, the bleeding will continue. This is how some modified form of 'a la carte' packaging could evolve.

This BS of ESPN demanding A LOT of money per sub could be a tipping point of sorts. It's not a good time to pull this, with consumers cutting back on "luxury" items, so a push-back is quite possible. I kinda hope so - ESPN/Disney has gotten waaaay out of hand as far as sticking it to everyone. We'll see.
Click to expand...

DirecTV is willing to make sports programming a "loss leader" (like they have done with NFL Sunday Ticket by giving it away) so I don't expect them to drop ESPN any time soon. They know there are people who are willing to pay more to get their favorite sports programming, so they pay the price for the content (and exclusivity, in some occasions), and make money off of pay per view and other programming packages. They've also found a way to get nearly every restaurant chain to subscribe to their programming, so I expect the cost of dining out to jump as well.
 
mnradiofan said:
And, while I DO think that Ala Cart would help with that aspect, ESPN would be charging a LOT more than $5 per sub if it was Ala Cart, just like every other network. For those that would want to keep every channel, they would no doubt pay more money than they do today. Where it would save is if you only watch 15 or 20 channels at $1-2 per channel (likely the price you'd end up paying for most cable channels, ESPN et al excluded.
Click to expand...

The problem implementing ala carte programming today is the lack of programmers. You basically have two or three choices max in any one area to choose from. In the old Big Ugly Satellite (BUD) days we had literally hundreds of companies from which to choose and, surprise, costs were very competitive.

Also, in addition to offering ala carte services virtually all programmers had packages just as they do today so subscribers who wanted large groups of services could choose the package that best suited them in addition to any ala carte choices they may also have wanted.

It was the best of worlds. Then the pizza pan programmers eliminated the BUD and with it our programming competition. So now you have DirecTV, DISH and a cable company from which to choose and none are in competition as were independent programmers in the old days.
 
nomadcowatbk said:
Lower rated Cable channels like G4 would go away in a la carte system.
Click to expand...

So would everybody else, starting with ESPN. They charge the big bucks because they pay the big bucks to the leagues/conferences for game rights.

If a la carte were to begin tomorrow and only the 10% or so of cable/satellite viewers that watch ESPN were to pay, they'd be bankrupt in a year. Unless ESPN charged $50 per month to make up the difference.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom