Cord Cutting Is About To Punch ESPN Squarely In The Face
from the dying-cash-cows dept
If there's a primary reason for ridiculously-high cable TV prices, it's sports content generally, and ESPN specifically. On one hand, sports programming is one of the biggest reasons that people continue to pay for traditional TV. But with the slow but steady rise in cord cutting and an increase in so-called "skinny bundle" streaming services, it's pretty clear that the "worldwide leader in sports" is starting to get a little bit nervous. Cord cutting has hit segments like kids broadcasting harder than other areas, but it's increasingly clear the death of the traditional cable cash cow is headed in ESPN's direction at a pretty reasonable clip.According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, the channel is tightening its belt after starting to feel the cord cutting (and more accurately, the cord trimming) pinch. ESPN has lost 7.2 million viewers in the last four years, and a little more than three million in the last year:
Since July 2011, ESPN’s reach into American homes has dropped 7.2%, from more than 100 million households—roughly the size of the total U.S. pay-TV market—to 92.9 million households, according to Nielsen data. Viewership of SportsCenter, its marquee and high-margin sports-news show, has sagged since September, due in part to the fact that younger consumers are increasingly finding sports news at their fingertips on smartphone apps.There's a cable and broadcast industry narrative that consumers just can't live without sports, and the blathering talking heads on ESPN somehow get included in this argument. But a recent survey by DigitalSmiths suggested that only 35.7% of consumers would include ESPN in their cable lineup if they were able to pick and choose their channels (a la carte TV). In fact, the channel came in at 20th place in terms of the most desired channels among those surveyed. So according to SNL Kagan data, there are about 94.5 million homes each paying $6.41 per month ($7.5 billion annually) for a channel they're not really all that interested in.
That's pretty clearly not sustainable, and ESPN could be served by getting ahead of the curve and launching its own direct-to-consumer streaming service. But the Journal points out that the company's current contracts with pay TV providers state that if ESPN goes that route, the cable operators have the right to boot ESPN out of their core channel lineups:
If ESPN offers its channel as a direct-to-consumer streaming service, some pay-TV operators have the contractual right to boot ESPN out of their most widely-sold channel packages and sell it a la carte, according to people familiar with the matter. ESPN would have to charge about $30 a month per customer in an over-the-top offering to make the same money using that model, analysts say. But those distributors would have the right to undercut ESPN in their retail pricing, the people said.And you might recall that ESPN sued Verizon when the company decided to pull ESPN out of the core channel lineup, arguing at the time that this was necessary to protect "innovation":
ESPN is at the forefront of embracing innovative ways to deliver high-quality content and value to consumers on multiple platforms, but that must be done in compliance with our agreements. We simply ask that Verizon abide by the terms of our contracts.In other words, if ESPN actually decides to get out ahead of cord cutting and cord trimming by focusing on a direct-to-consumer effort, they'll open the door to more cord cutting and cord trimming, since they'll no longer be able to force people to pay an arm and a leg for a product many of them don't actually watch. Isn't the Internet video revolution kind of beautiful?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bundles, cable, cable tv, cord cutting, espn, internet, streaming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's plenty of value that can be added to a whole lot of things media related out there simply making it goddamn available whenever, wherever and however people want.
Honestly cable is on an extra, unneeded shift already. Good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note that NewsCorp, owner of WSJ, also has pay-TV, among other, interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never looked back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love me some college football
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love me some college football
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No channel will willingly do anything to reduce their revenue. Their shareholders won't stand for it. This is why they are fighting so hard against a la cart. Many of these channels aren't worth as much as they think they are and consumers aren't permitted to prove it to them, short of cutting the cord entirely.
I will not shed a single tear for the plight of cable companies and channels long used to bilking consumers with ridiculously high bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sling TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What ESPN?
Sports are a big no-go in my household.
I would prefer that all sports and shopping related channels be removed altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What ESPN?
Also, I do think we have a serious problem with misfocused attention in our society. Rather than pay attention to people that make decisions that will actually impact our lives, celebrity-worship is our new religion. That applies to E!, ESPN, and a host of other channels.
Regards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What ESPN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Cord Cutting Is About To Punch ESPN Squarely In The Face"
The thing is, I don't hate sports. I just don't watch them. (Most times anything I might actually want to watch is on network TV anyway.)
What really bugs me is all the bundling. The four or five "extra" channels I actually do want are inevitably spread across three or four bundles. But it's all but impossible to avoid getting saddled with ESPN and its family of channels since they're included with most of the base level packages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sports Not Politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math is Difficult
Better check that math. Should be 605 million/month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Math is Difficult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math is Difficult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More fun facts about ESPN
2.) Based on current Nielsen estimates, ESPN is currently losing 300,000 homes per month. Last I checked, SNL Kagan reported that ESPN's carriage fee is $6.61/month, and ESPN2's carriage fee is $0.83/month. That means ESPN's total carriage fee income for those two channels decreases by $2,232,000 every month. Assuming a steady decline through the end of 2015, ESPN will be down to 91.4 million homes by Christmas and will have missed out on $174 million in carriage fees thanks to cord cutting and cord shaving.
3.) With ESPN on the hook for nearly $14 billion of the NBA's shiny new $24 billion TV deal, we could see a number of leagues moving back to broadcast networks in the coming years, simply because ESPN can't afford them anymore. The Big Ten is up for grabs in 2017, and TV deals for the NFL, MLB, NHL, and MLS all expire between 2020 and 2022. Who knows how many subs ESPN will have lost by 2022?
This piece explains why I think broadcast networks could take the upper hand on ESPN when it comes to televised sports in the future:
http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/07/how-broadcast-tv-networks-could-reclaim-sports/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More fun facts about ESPN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More fun facts about ESPN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More fun facts about ESPN
As if ESPN paid *any* attention to the NHL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The cable companies may respond
Life is complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MNF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ESPN is only the #20 on the list of most wanted channels?!?
That shows just how much Cable Providers are overpaying ESPN, since they're the most expensive cable channel included in basic bundles.
I'm surprised to see the weather channel ahead of ESPN by a comfortable margin to, despite their dropping ratings and the cuts they were forced to take in the latest dispute between cable providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
screw that pc station
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I watch about 5 channels
$6.71 for ESPN, even though it's not in my sub? Ridiculous. (I actually thought it was only $5.) My cable company shouldn't have to pay ESPN even when it's not in my sub.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Symbolic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YEA!!
HOw to drop Excess channels..
Let people select the channels they want and pay for ONLY the ones they View.
Considering customers watch about 20 channels out of 200+..
90% of those channels are Paid under $0.50 to show..
Cable and Sat can monitor WHICH channels are watched..They know how many people are watching Which channels...
Cable and Sat, could CHARGE the Broadcaster, insted of the consumer...If they dont get enough Viewers to PAY for the channel..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if ESPN was to come up with a reasonably priced alternative, I no longer care. The damage was done long ago and so was the remedy. That lack of connection means lack of interest today. I am not and will never again be part of their market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plug and Play boxes are legal
What makes internet streaming legal is because it is legal to broadcast these streams in some other countries, and it is legal in the US to watch streams from those countries.
Not legal is recording the streams, or showing them at public events, restaurants and bars.
The catch is, the boxes must be programed, which is very difficult for most people who still can't figure out Facebook, or don't have a couple hours to figure it out.
In that case, it may benefit those people if they buy a box that comes preloaded with a user friendly menu, and updates automatically.
Here is one place that offers plug and play streaming TV boxes:
http://tvstreamer.uboxlive.com/
For everyone else who wants to save three hundred dollars, they should just figure out how to use KODI on their own.
Either way, streamers don't need cable anymore. They don't have to pay for limited selections. Now they get over 10,000 TV stations around the world, any movie ever made, any TV show ever made, any live broadcast event, broadcast educational course, and of course, lots of password protected porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plug and Play boxes are legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you would think..
THEY DONT..they hold all the cookies and get Paid from Every side..REALLY..
Long ago Cable had a good idea over the RELAY stations that Broadcast around the country..
The corps could install 2 Sats to cover ALL the USA..and Broadcast for free..and cover 80% of ALL of the Americas...
The MOST expensive thing to do...is to PROTECT yourself, Make things HARD to do..so that no one can steal your product..
But if you give it away FREE...its very simple..and COSTS LESS..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, Let's Work This Out In Network Terms And See Why Broadcast Is Obsolete.
If we go by traditional Nielson Ratings, that is, how many people are actually watching the program, we might find that there is only room for about five broadcast channels. Given the way your street is built, a program would have to get a Nielson rating somewhere up in the 30-40% range before it caused significant congestion on the internet portion of your joint subscriber loop. The last time people got Nielson ratings in that range was before cable television, when there were only three or four channels to chose from. Organizing enough football fans in the neighborhood to watch the game at home on television to justify a dedicated channel would be as difficult as organizing a neighborhood picnic, at which the young men all actually play a football game while the women are preparing supper.
In the year 1998, before the advent of the internet, TV Guide had a circulation of thirteen million, and Sports Illustrated had a circulation of three million. TV Guide's circulation probably reflected the number of people who were willing to minimally inconvenience themselves to program VCR's to capture particular programs, not the rather smaller number who were willing to actually watch the television at a stipulated time. Sports Illustrated had to pad out its circulation with a conspicuously advertised "Swimsuit Issue," for men whose wives would not allow them to simply subscribe to Playboy or Penthouse. At the time, daily newspaper circulation in the United States ran about 237 per thousand, or 63 million. Unlike, say, woodworking hobbyists, sports fans are noisy, and they tend to make themselves visible, but there aren't really all that many of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]