• 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

One of the Biggest Cable Companies Says Cable TV Isn’t Working / Can ESPN Survive?

From the New York Times. Since the story on their site would be behind a paywall for some, this link is to the Yahoo version:

One of the Biggest Cable Companies Says Cable TV Isn’t Working​

Cable TV has become too expensive for consumers and providers, Charter Communications said in an 11-page presentation to investors Friday, adding that cord-cutters and rising fees are contributing to a “vicious video cycle.”
The presentation comes amid negotiations between Charter and The Walt Disney Co., owner of popular cable channels including ESPN and FX, which will not be available to Charter’s nearly 15 million pay-TV subscribers until both sides agree on how much Charter will pay Disney to carry its channels. Subscribers to Charter’s Spectrum TV service will be without access to the U.S. Open tennis tournament and college football games during a holiday weekend.
The fight comes at a time of declining subscriptions: More than 5 million Americans end their cable-TV subscriptions annually, according to research from SVB MoffettNathanson.
Almost every traditional media company is trying to hold on to its cash-rich cable partnerships while building streaming businesses that will eventually replace those alliances. But investors in traditional media companies have also grown impatient with attempts to build new streaming businesses, saying they are not as profitable as cable TV used to be.
 
Related story, from the Los Angeles Times:

Can ESPN survive while cable TV dies?​

When consumers pay their cable or satellite TV bills, networks get a cut, and the biggest portion is passed along to ESPN whether you watch it or not. It has long been the most expensive part of the pay-TV bundle, currently getting close to $9 per subscriber.
Live NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball contests and the authoritative highlight show “SportsCenter” made the Walt Disney Co. unit's package of channels a must-have for households with sports fans.
But the TV game has changed over the last decade — and now Disney is scrambling to come up with a new playbook.
Consumers moving to streaming video has led to the decline of the pay-TV business, which has lost 25 million customers in the last five years alone. And with ESPN being the biggest player, it's being disproportionately hurt. ESPN is now in 73 million homes, down from 98.5 million in 2013.
It's not just cord-cutting. Young fans now turn to YouTube and other sites for sports highlights, making “SportsCenter” less of a must-see, and the network is more dependent than ever on exclusive live events, which are increasingly expensive as deep-pocketed tech giants such as Amazon, Apple and Google chase after them for their streaming businesses.
 
ESPN is in several million fewer homes this weekend because they are fighting with Spectrum. So, no college football on ESPN/ESPN2 for millions of subscribers.
Same goes with AT&T U-Verse and Nexstar.
 
From the New York Times. Since the story on their site would be behind a paywall for some, this link is to the Yahoo version:

One of the Biggest Cable Companies Says Cable TV Isn’t Working​

Not shocking given that in areas where Disney has a Local ABC O&O they have been calling on viewers to subscribe to the Disney Bundle on their TV's like Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+. Also I seen ads saying Get ABC 7 News and ABC on Hulu between newscasts.
 
Not shocking given that in areas where Disney has a Local ABC O&O they have been calling on viewers to subscribe to the Disney Bundle on their TV's like Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+. Also I seen ads saying Get ABC 7 News and ABC on Hulu between newscasts.
You're correct and that has been the case for a long while. For the past few years, viewers of NBC have been seeing ads for Peacock. During the past few Olympic games, they heavily pushed Peacock as an option for watching the games. For about as long, when you'd watch most any program on the Discovery networks (HGTV, Animal Planet, Discovery, Travel Channel, Food Network, etc.) they would often show commercials featuring some really interesting and appealing looking programming, followed by the message that, if you wanted to see those things and more, you had to subscribe to Discovery+ and stream them.

I think the 2 articles in the OP above and the comments by @crainbebo and @KeithE4 illustrate how difficult things have become financially for "traditional" CATV and Dish providers and it's kind of a downward spiral at this point. Comcast, Spectra, DirectTV and other providers are hurting because they've had to continuously raise the costs of their monthly subscriptions to cover carriage fees that they're paying to all the networks and stations they carry, but also maintaining and upgrading their distribution systems, which comes at a cost. Partly as a result of those increased subscription prices, several million have "cut the cord". That means CATV and similar companies are taking in less, but yet networks like ESPN, FX and ABC (Disney) and Nexstar (nearly 160 Nexstar owned stations) keep demanding more $$ in carriage fees to cover their own rising costs, and that's resulted in what we're now seeing - Carriage disputes between Disney and Spectrum causing all those channels to go dark, and the carriage dispute between Nexstar and DirecTV causing all those stations to be pulled from that service until a deal is negotiated.

CATV and Dish providers are stuck in a cycle of rising costs and falling subscriptions. Companies like Nexstar and ESPN who have traditionally made a lot of $$ from those providers in carriage fees to help pay their bills are now in disputes and their channels are going dark.
 
Last edited:
You're correct and that has been the case for a long while. For the past few years, viewers of NBC have been seeing ads for Peacock. During the past few Olympic games, they heavily pushed Peacock as an option for watching the games. For about as long, when you'd watch most any program on the Discovery networks (HGTV, Animal Planet, Discovery, Travel Channel, Food Network, etc.) they would often show commercials featuring some really interesting and appealing looking programming, followed by the message that, if you wanted to see those things and more, you had to subscribe to Discovery+ and stream them.

I think the 2 articles in the OP above and the comments by @crainbebo and @KeithE4 illustrate how difficult things have become financially for "traditional" CATV and Dish providers and it's kind of a downward spiral at this point. Comcast, Spectra, DirectTV and other providers are hurting because they've had to continuously raise the costs of their monthly subscriptions to cover carriage fees that they're paying to all the networks and stations they carry, but also maintaining and upgrading their distribution systems, which comes at a cost. Partly as a result of those increased subscription prices, several million have "cut the cord". That means CATV and similar companies are taking in less, but yet networks like ESPN, FX and ABC (Disney) and Nexstar (nearly 160 Nexstar owned stations) keep demanding more $$ in carriage fees to cover their own rising costs, and that's resulted in what we're now seeing - Carriage disputes between Disney and Spectrum causing all those channels to go dark, and the carriage dispute between Nexstar and DirecTV causing all those stations to be pulled from that service until a deal is negotiated.

CATV and Dish providers are stuck in a cycle of rising costs and falling subscriptions. Companies like Nexstar and ESPN who have traditionally made a lot of $$ from those providers in carriage fees to help pay their bills are now in disputes and their channels are going dark.
Yes also for Nexstar they have been justifying their carriage fees by advertising sports, Newsnation and the CW recently given their recent promos in some cities.
 
Nobody forced Disney to over pay for broadcast rights of these sports. Why should consumers be forced to pay for it.
 
keep demanding more $$ in carriage fees to cover their own rising costs, and that's resulted in what we're now seeing - Carriage disputes between Disney and Spectrum causing all those channels to go dark, and the carriage dispute between Nexstar and DirecTV causing all those stations to be pulled from that service until a deal is negotiated.
And there legitimately might never be a deal. DirecTV has been without Mission Broadcasting stations for 10 months, and Nexstar's stations for two months. Mission has also taken their stations off Dish Network for 8 months.

The longer the disputes go on, the less incentive there is for the carriers to do a deal: After a certain time, customers who wanted to see CBS 22 in Wilkes-Barre or ABC 53 in Lansing will have found another way to watch, or found other habits to replace their favorite shows.

Disney, on the other hand, can't really do without Spectrum. Spectrum customers pay over $1 billion in carriage fees a year, just for the ESPN networks.

However, as a Spectrum customer, I'm amused that they raised my price again while taking away 10% of the channels this month.
 
Who else, then? When media corporations make mistakes, the consumer is the one who usually pays for them. Nothing new here.
Except increasingly the consumer is saying "no thanks". It's going to be a big problem for everyone involved, and I am guessing this is just the tip of the iceberg. Eventually, these networks will no longer be able to afford to pay the money these sports teams/leagues are demanding, and the leagues will have to lower prices or go direct to the consumer. And in the end, the consumer (finally seeing how much they will have to pay just for their favorite team) may walk away in shock at what the bill is when the costs are no longer socialized to those that don't watch. The last estimate I heard for what ESPN would have to cost if ONLY the people who watched ESPN paid for it was something around $40. That was a decade ago, so I am guessing it's even higher now. Will people pay $50 for just ESPN? $60? And how about another $30 for their RSN?
 
It's the same old story. Consumers want what they want, and they want it as cheaply as possible. When cable companies have disputes with channels, it's because they're trying to hold the line on their cable fees to subscribers. Cable keeps getting more expensive because the program fees keep going up. The cable companies are just passing along their higher fees.

Will ESPN survive? Of course it will. That's why they just did a billion dollar deal with an online betting company. Expect to see more of those sponsorship deals to make up for cable fees in order to keep the price to consumers reasonable. There are lots of ways for ESPN to make money. People complain about all the commercials on the radio. Count the number of minutes on TV, and then wait a couple years. The number will be going up.
 

ESPN, Disney push for Spectrum customers to sign up for Hulu​

With Charter Communications happily referring customers who want to dump Spectrum cable to FuboTV, Disney and ESPN has launched a massive push to get Spectrum customers to sign up for Hulu, with live TV, in order to regain access to ESPN and other Disney channels.
“This Labor Day weekend has been a frustrating one for millions of Spectrum cable subscribers,” ESPN said in its latest statement issued on behalf of corporate parent Disney. “Instead of enjoying major sporting events such as the return of college football and the US Open, ESPN and other Disney-owned channels like ABC were blacked out due to a dispute between Spectrum’s parent company — Charter Communications — and Disney Entertainment. Unfortunately, the dispute is still ongoing.”
The message then makes a pitch for Hulu. The same message has been blasted through the companies various social-medial channels.
 
ESPN has used it's app to air more & more sports either exclusively or simulcast with either ABC or an ESPN channel so yes I firmly believe it can. I've LONG believed that

In fact, they can take ESPNNEWS & make it a streaming only channel available for free (Like CBS Sports HQ is) or on streaming services like Hulu, YouTube TV, Sling, etc RIGHT NOW as all it is is basically SportsCenter all day (In fact, they can even use that as a name with the moniker being SportsCenter 24 Hours A Day) just as they call SportsCenter on ESPN Radio SportsCenter All Night
 
If Cable providers put a foot down and refuse to pay the prices who loses in the end?
They lose channels and content, they lose subscribers.
 
They are already losing subscribers who don't want to pay the high prices.
Correct. It's a classic lose-lose scenario that declining businesses often face.

1. Revenue goes down
2. Management cuts the service or raises prices to maintain profit
3. More customers cancel because the value is reduced
4. Repeat

You can find this pattern in the department store industry from 2006 to present. Or the passenger rail industry c. 1950s. And now the television industry in the 2020s.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom