Iger does ESPN deal

[michael hagerty]

ESPN has enough money as the carriage fees charge enough for it. If Disney doesn't include those fees in the spinoff they need to renegotiate the carriage fees.

You seem to be of the opinion that carriage fees are a reliable stream of income for the long haul:

Amid Linear TV’s Slow Slide, New Warning Signs Emerge

For years, cable channels have used steadily rising carriage fees and advertising growth to offset subscriber decline. Now, times may be changing “as cord-cutting headwinds intensify.”

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[TheBigA]

Not if they split the company off. They can't just offload it with nothing.

I don't think Iger talked about spinning ESPN completely off. Here's what he said:

Cable TV channel ESPN is in a different bucket, however. On that front, Iger said Disney is open to finding a strategic partner, which could take the form of a joint venture or offloading an ownership stake.

So he still wants a piece of ESPN.

 

[CTListener]

I remember when Barstool was a free weekly newspaper I used to pick up at Suffolk Downs, a horse track in Boston, and when Penn was Penn National, a horse track near Harrisburg.

 

[CommunicationsMajor]

I think their view is that the parks may have up and down cycles, but there's nothing threatening the existence and concept of parks the way linear media is being threatened now.

I keep waiting for Disneyland to become "too expensive" for too many people, but the crowds just keep getting bigger. We went on two mid-week days in early November (after Halloween, before Thanksgiving break for the schools) and it was as packed as weekends used to be.

Looking at the website, if we wanted to go tomorrow, the single ticket one-day price is $169. The reported gross per day is between $11 and $20 million in ticket sales alone. And it drives merch, the kids' desire to see Disney content after the visit, and return visits.

It depends on where you live in relation to the parks. I remember the Disney parks in Cailforina used to give dicounts on admission to the locals. There are a lot of locals who buy passes to Disney or the other local parks in the area.

 

[michael hagerty]

It depends on where you live in relation to the parks. I remember the Disney parks in Cailforina used to give dicounts on admission to the locals. There are a lot of locals who buy passes to Disney or the other local parks in the area.

They still do, but they're not cheap and there are strings attached. They are seasonal now, with passes good for early January through late May and mid-June through late September. There are no locals deals for Halloween or Christmas (which follows immediately).

The current locals plan is for California residents. You have to visit three times from June 12 through September 28, 2023—subject to theme park reservation availability, which is not guaranteed. Monday to Thursday tickets are also subject to weekend blockout dates.

Special California Resident Tickets at a Glance

• 3-Day (Monday to Thursday), 1-Park Per Day Ticket – $249 ($83/Day)
  Not Valid for Admission on Fridays to Sundays
• 3-Day (Monday to Sunday), 1-Park Per Day Ticket – $299 ($100/Day)
  No Blockout Dates Apply

So, yeah, that's better than $169 if I had just shown up yesterday at 8:00 a.m., but for a family of four who wants to be able to go on any day, including weekends, it's $1,200.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Ouch

 

[Kelly A]

Not quite sure how. I can't imagine whoever buys ABC next having the resources to run it better than Disney has as the world pivots away from linear broadcast TV. ESPN has more upside.

Unfortunately, I totally agree. Pivoting ESPN to a form of interactive sports coverage via an online gambling app(s) has a longer tail than feeding people the same local news at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 PM.

 

[CTListener]

Unfortunately, I totally agree. Pivoting ESPN to a form of interactive sports coverage via an online gambling app(s) has a longer tail than feeding people the same local news at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 PM.

The partnership could really take off if legalized sports wagering ever goes nationwide. But that's unlikely, with Texas, California and much of the South, along with staunch gambling opponents Utah and Hawaii, looking like long-term holdouts.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Holdout$ have a way of changing. Well $ee how long they $tick to that $tance.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Holdout$ have a way of changing. Well $ee how long they $tick to that $tance.

A key tenet of American capitalism: “Never let any sense of morality get in the way of making money.”

Eventually pressure from Texas business interests, who want to tap the lucrative gambling gravy train, will force change and the current restrictions will be loosened or eliminated. Too much money to be made.

Similar situation in the 1980s when the state’s archaic Blue Laws were repealed. Businesses were missing out on too much revenue, and Texas residents were sick and tired of not being able to shop on Sundays…thus change happened.

Having said all that, I have no interest in gambling. I’ve never bought a lottery ticket in my life, and my only gambling experience was feeding a few quarters into Las Vegas slot machines many years ago. Went to a horse track once (just to see what it was like) but didn’t place any bets. So not my thing, though I fully realize there is a ton of money to be made for those in that industry.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Other than the huge jackpot drawings when I throw a few bucks in and the very rare instance of being around slot machines and tossing in some coins for kicks (and occasionally being guilted into fundraising raffles), also have no interest. Certainly not in sports betting in any way, shape or form. The preponderance of “online casino” commercials tends to get annoying and I have concerns about the potential impact on those who struggle with compulsion, but there’s no putting the horse back in this particular barn.

 

[Weiserguy]

...Similar situation in the 1980s when the state’s archaic Blue Laws were repealed. Businesses were missing out on too much revenue, and Texas residents were sick and tired of not being able to shop on Sundays…thus change happened...

...I have concerns about the potential impact on those who struggle with compulsion, but there’s no putting the horse back in this particular barn.

There's a major difference between shopping and gambling. People need to shop, at least for necessities like food, drugs, clothing, household supplies, etc., and everyone's schedule is different.

The blue laws were intended to impose the majority religious group's beliefs upon the entire society, with little-to-no regard for the needs of the minority or minorities. (If I were to quote you the actual wording of the Ten Commandments, as written in the Torah, not some church's translated interpretation of the bible, and then demand that America adhere to them per original intent – where have you heard that expression before? – all commerce and transportation would shut down at sunset every Friday, stay closed until sundown on Saturday, be open all Sundays except when they overlap with a religious holiday, and all images and statues of God and Jesus would be banned. Because that's the original wording and original intent of the original religion. Is that the world anyone would want to live in?)

OTOH, gambling is not a necessity for anyone. No one needs the lottery, horse racing or sports betting to survive. And gambling addiction isn't an unfortunate byproduct, it's the intention, to hook gamblers. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

I never intended to compare blue laws on shopping and the like to gambling. It was an observation about the general state of advertising of sports betting and online gaming. And at that, only expressed concerns; I’m not a fan of government intervention in those matters, simply someone who has concerns about those who struggle with things.

 

[michael hagerty]

ESPN has enough money as the carriage fees charge enough for it. If Disney doesn't include those fees in the spinoff they need to renegotiate the carriage fees.

This just in:

Linear TV Falls Below 50 Percent of Viewing for First Time

Nielsen's monthly platform rankings show broadcast and cable making up less than half of all TV use.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

It is a rapidly changing world.

 

[davideduardo]

It is a rapidly changing world.

I am fond of procedural dramas on network TV: The 3 "Chicago" shows, the "Law & Order" series and the like, and have a TiVo to record many of them. I've kept cable to watch them.**

But in the last several seasons, I've found that even my favorites have poor story lines, much worse acting by secondary parts and lessened production values. There are as many as 10 of those that I recorded during the last season that I still have 10 to 15 un-viewed episodes of and which I will likely just delete.

I have cable for the convenience of recording those shows and the local newscasts. The procedural shows are all now over a 5-on-a-scale-of-10 for suckiness and (the very well done) local news is now on about 6 different free streams. The few procedurals I still like are on streams the next day, also.

So if I cancel cable now, I save nearly $100 a month or over a kilobuck a year, and, in particular I avoid paying nearly $150 a year for ESPN which I never, ever have or would watch*.... and another $60 or so on other sports channels which have the same or less interest. I will get a cheap "You're fired" thrill sticking it to ESPN and the cable company for forcing me to pay for sports channels I will never view.

• * Did I say "Never"? It's n-e-v-e-r.
• ** I kinda' like the recurring characters and restricted plots of procedurals as they are easy to follow while I work on my website. Of course, I can't watch an old classic Fellini flick while working...

 

[michael hagerty]

I am fond of procedural dramas on network TV: The 3 "Chicago" shows, the "Law & Order" series and the like, and have a TiVo to record many of them. I've kept cable to watch them.**

But in the last several seasons, I've found that even my favorites have poor story lines, much worse acting by secondary parts and lessened production values. There are as many as 10 of those that I recorded during the last season that I still have 10 to 15 un-viewed episodes of and which I will likely just delete.

I have cable for the convenience of recording those shows and the local newscasts. The procedural shows are all now over a 5-on-a-scale-of-10 for suckiness and (the very well done) local news is now on about 6 different free streams. The few procedurals I still like are on streams the next day, also.

So if I cancel cable now, I save nearly $100 a month or over a kilobuck a year, and, in particular I avoid paying nearly $150 a year for ESPN which I never, ever have or would watch*.... and another $60 or so on other sports channels which have the same or less interest. I will get a cheap "You're fired" thrill sticking it to ESPN and the cable company for forcing me to pay for sports channels I will never view.

• * Did I say "Never"? It's n-e-v-e-r.
• ** I kinda' like the recurring characters and restricted plots of procedurals as they are easy to follow while I work on my website. Of course, I can't watch an old classic Fellini flick while working...

That all makes sense.

When there isn't a writer's strike, this is the sum total of our broadcast/cable TV viewing:

• Rachel Maddow (an hour on Mondays on MSNBC)
• The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (CBS, DVR-ed and played back the next evening---I just don't stay up til midnight anymore)
• Late Night with Seth Meyers (NBC, DVR-ed and played back the next evening, because that's 12:35 AM and are you crazy?)
• Saturday Night Live (NBC, DVR-ed and played back the next day)
• 60 Minutes (CBS, DVR-ed and played back at our convenience, if they have something really compelling that week).

That is literally it.

Everything else we watch is streaming, and given that only Maddow gets watched live on a regular basis, I could probably watch every one of those on streaming, dump cable, and save myself that kilobuck-plus. But I'm still in news, and I feel like I need the ability to turn on the local channels if/when something big happens.

Mostly, it's contemporary streaming shows we'll watch. Right now, with The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Barry, Succession and Better Call Saul all having done their series finales, the watch list is Winning Time on HBO (Sundays) Only Murders in the Building on Hulu (Tuesdays), The Afterparty on Apple+ (Wednesdays), The Lincoln Lawyer on Netflix (Thursdays) and What We Do In The Shadows on Hulu (Fridays).

We'll also pepper in older shows that we missed (for me, that's a lot having done late local news and thus missed primetime for most of 30 years). Right now, it's the David E. Kelly legal drama "The Practice"---it's streaming on Amazon Prime.

I'm 67 and my wife's 60. The demos for broadcast and cable have to be positively scary.

And expect to see more gray-hairs go for streaming. Roku and NBCUniversal just did a deal that is aimed right at the heart of the TV nostalgia market:

Roku, NBCUniversal Expand FAST Channel Offerings

Channels devoted to 'Murder, She Wrote,' 'Saved by the Bell' and other shows from the NBCU library launch Tuesday.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[michael hagerty]

And as soon as I posted that, I started catching up on my e-mail, which included last night's Reliable Sources newsletter from Oliver Darcy at CNN. His lead story is the turmoil at the top of the network news groups (CBS's news chief walked the plank Sunday). It goes deeper into the challenging times for the broadcast and cable networks and this is the eighth paragraph, in its entirety:


"The secular decline of linear television has accelerated at a faster pace than many observers had anticipated, applying high levels of pressure upon the industry to hastily adapt to the streaming era and hulk up on digital platforms."

 

[michael hagerty]

Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the same article:



"In a conversation Monday with another former television news executive, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, this reality again arose. The industry veteran noted to me that there is less of a focus on making splashy — perhaps at times risky — moves to build for the future among the C-suite ranks. Instead, there is a mounting emphasis on slashing costs to best position the mammoth media companies for the inevitable decline of linear television.

"It's about how do we strip this thing down to its barest bones," the former executive said, grimly adding, "The reality of the day-to-day for these executives is that they are managing the corporate politics of their institutions and overseeing cost cutting as the top lines decline."

 

[CTListener]

Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the same article:



"In a conversation Monday with another former television news executive, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, this reality again arose. The industry veteran noted to me that there is less of a focus on making splashy — perhaps at times risky — moves to build for the future among the C-suite ranks. Instead, there is a mounting emphasis on slashing costs to best position the mammoth media companies for the inevitable decline of linear television.

"It's about how do we strip this thing down to its barest bones," the former executive said, grimly adding, "The reality of the day-to-day for these executives is that they are managing the corporate politics of their institutions and overseeing cost cutting as the top lines decline."

Case in point. I was watching a live match from a tournament in Cincinnati on T2, the FAST channel of The Tennis Channel, earlier today. At one point, a player went way off the court (the lined portion, that is) to return a shot, and what I saw on TV was a returned ball seemingly returned by no one. Fine, it happens. The camera didn't follow the player. But the announcer actually said, "I couldn't see him on my screen." Really? Tennis Channel's announcers are calling matches from Cincinnati off TV screens somewhere else -- maybe even from home -- instead of being at courtside at the event? I can understand this with foreign tournaments, but since when is it not in the budget of a channel devoted to tennis not to have someone calling the event as he sees it when the event is in Cincinnati U.S.A.?

 

[michael hagerty]

Case in point. I was watching a live match from a tournament in Cincinnati on T2, the FAST channel of The Tennis Channel, earlier today. At one point, a player went way off the court (the lined portion, that is) to return a shot, and what I saw on TV was a returned ball seemingly returned by no one. Fine, it happens. The camera didn't follow the player. But the announcer actually said, "I couldn't see him on my screen." Really? Tennis Channel's announcers are calling matches from Cincinnati off TV screens somewhere else -- maybe even from home -- instead of being at courtside at the event? I can understand this with foreign tournaments, but since when is it not in the budget of a channel devoted to tennis not to have someone calling the event as he sees it when the event is in Cincinnati U.S.A.?

Oh, hey, that’s nothing:

US Open to feature AI sports commentary following other experiments

AI commentary was introduced in at least three major sports tournaments, including the Masters golf and Wimbledon tennis tournaments, for the first time this year.

www.nbcnews.com