Despite ESPN Whining, Nielsen Confirms Historic Subscriber Losses For Channel

from the not-just-a-river-in-Egypt dept

Mon, Nov 7th 2016 11:45am — Karl Bode

Last week, we noted how Disney and ESPN threw a bit of a hissy fit when Nielsen data indicated that ESPN had one of the biggest subscriber losses in company history last month. According to Nielsen's data, ESPN lost 621,000 homes in a single month, as well as losing 607,000 ESPN2 households and 674,000 ESPNU homes. That's of course on the heels of losing more than 7 million subscribers over the last three years or so, thanks largely due to the rise of cord cutting, cord trimming (scaling down your TV package) and the rise of some "skinny bundles" that exclude ESPN from the base channel lineup.

ESPN demanded that Nielsen withdraw its numbers, insisting they represented a "dramatic, unexplainable variation" that didn't match ESPN's own numbers. Nielsen obliged, but after conducting an "extensive" review of the numbers found them to be "accurate as originally released." Of course, this shouldn't be a surprise; we've noted how everybody but ESPN appears to have seen the writing on the wall. But instead of adapting to the changing times, ESPN responded by denying that cord cutting was real, and suing companies like Verizon for trying to bring some flexibility to the traditional cable bundle.

Not too surprisingly, ESPN's response in light of Nielsen confirming its numbers was to continue denying the very obvious fact that customers are tired of paying an arm and a leg for sports programming many of them simply don't watch. From an ESPN statement given to the media:

"This most recent snapshot from Nielsen is a historic anomaly for the industry and inconsistent with much more moderated trends observed by other respected third party analysts. It also does not measure DMVPDs and other new distributors and we hope to work with Nielsen to capture this growing market in future reports."

Except it's not an "anomaly" at all if you've been watching ESPN's subscriber base drop 2-4% per year right alongside dips in other broadcast ratings. Even sports, long believed to be the untouchable holy grail of television programming, has been suffering a notable decline as younger viewers look for cheaper, more flexible alternatives to the bloated cable bundle. ESPN's response to these challenges? Either outright denial or incorrect claims by company executive John Skinner that these departing customers are old, poor, and not worth keeping anyway.

ESPN is the biggest beneficiary of the old method of bloated, overpriced channel bundles, but like so many broadcast and cable companies, it's too terrified of prematurely harming the existing cable TV cash cow to try anything truly innovative. As a result, the company is seeing historic losses in subscribers, with apparently everybody but ESPN seeing that this adaptation (like a standalone streaming service) will need to come sooner rather than later.

Pretty amazing sign on ESPN's College Gameday. pic.twitter.com/o2NfeMalSf
— Jason Abbruzzese (@JasonAbbruzzese) December 5, 2015

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: cord cutting, espn, ratings, subscribers
Companies: disney, espn, nielsen

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TechDescartes (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 11:59am

You would think that the ESP Network would have seen this one coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy2020 (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  You forgot the "N" which must be for Not
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TechDescartes (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it's there. It's hiding between the "ESP" and the "etwork".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dr. James Madison, 7 Nov 2016 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re:
  I agree with you. One factor = that ESPN will NOT offe rpay-for-view @10-15-20 per event whatever it is. They want to sign you up for a contract of 68.00 per month which most you will never have the time to use. or worth it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
streetlight (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:30pm

The home team paradigm might be one problem
Besides the TV viewer that has absolutely no interest in sports, a TV viewer might be at home thinking of watching something and is mildly interested in sports so checks the listings. The home team (basketball, baseball, hockey, football, whatever) isn't on so looks elsewhere for some entertainment. The viewer finds a couple of good movies not seen, checks out IMBD for ratings and forgets about sports. After some years of finding home teams are almost never on ESPN and isn't interested in Frisbie golf, decides money can be saved by not subscribing to a package that includes ESPN. Of course, the high cost of the subscription is what ESPN has spent "billions and billions" of dollars for - sports, like basketball, that few will watch. Advertisers must also be ticked off because fewer and fewer eyes see their ads but are unwilling to pay higher fees to subsidize a failing network. ESPN has cash flow problems and starts firing it's high paid analysts. Even sports fanatics become upset at the lower quality of on-air "talent" and move away. ESPN needs a new business model as well as the sports team industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:31pm

To be fair...
ESPN's entire complaint is that Nielsen does NOT count cord-cutters watching their WatchESPN service through Sling or Vue, like I am.

That's what "It also does not measure DMVPDs and other new distributors and we hope to work with Nielsen to capture this growing market in future reports" means.

It's a legitimate complaint and Nielsen is a well-known dinosaur when it comes to these things. Unfortunately, ESPN will still lose money on ads until the dinosaur figures out how to count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Apache, 29 Dec 2016 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re: To be fair...
  Good argument -- however, espn might be streaming on Vue and Sling, they most certainly are not collecting the $6.80 they are getting from the cable companies. I'll guess that it's half that at best. And the fact that Sling is offering the non-espn version at a steeper price than then version that includes espn, makes this investor think espn is getting somewhere around ONE or TWO dollars from Sling and less from Vue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruce C., 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:31pm

Up Next
MLB signs exclusive new broadcast/streaming contract with YouTube Red.

...or Amazon or Netflix or Hulu... One of the streaming services will be willing to overpay a bit to nail the lid on the coffin of traditional sports broadcasting, and then the floodgates will open. ESPN has held streaming of sports hostage to their broadcast service, but eventually, someone will be willing to pay enough for streaming that ESPN won't be able to match because of the lost subscriber streams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:37pm

And For Those of Us Who May Watch One/Two Games a Year
My local sports bar also has a Hofbrau. So... for Game 7 of the World Series, my wife and I went there, got a nice dinner and a drink each and then watched the game for less than the cost of one month of cable with E$PN.

And I make no secret of the fact that I cut my cord back in 1992 and haven't looked back except to pull down and trash the slowly rotting cable more than a decade later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 12:42pm

...company executive John Skinner that these departing customers are old, poor, and not worth keeping anyway.

Perhaps we should apply that logic to company executives who are old, overpaid, and not worth keeping unless you want to ride ESPN to the end, which is coming much faster than they want to admit. Even if he assists in driving ESPN into a smoking crater, he still gets a handy parachute... perhaps if you want them to adapt to changing markets you should tie their pay to performance of the network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geno0wl (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 1:06pm

As a result, the company is seeing historic losses in subscribers, with apparently everybody but ESPN seeing that this adaptation (like a standalone streaming service) will need to come sooner rather than later.

Pretty sure that them going to a straight stand along streaming service would actually violate a lot of their contracts which put them on the base package deals. Which is why they have not tried to push into that arena.

They are stuck in between a rock and a hard place in that respect. Sling TV is their attempt to get into the streaming space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simon, 8 Nov 2016 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  >They are stuck in between a rock and a hard place in that respect
  
  I know. I love it!
  
  The cable providers are also stuck having to force ESPN on their subscribers which limits their ability to offer better value packages. Which again helps encourages people to drop cable TV all together.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Apache, 29 Dec 2016 @ 2:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I love it too! And I don't know why, because i'm a daily watcher and have been for 35 yrs. BUT espn has become a cess pool of hate and anti-white commentary and it's difficult to imagine this was at one time a totally unstoppable machine. And now - it's in the toilet with NO WAY OUT! Makes me smile and smile - - since i dropped my $180 per month Charter cable pack and now do the $20 Sling pack. Find myself hating espn even more than before!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2016 @ 1:07pm

In the last year I unsubscribed from all ESPN chanels, UT they did not lose a viewer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryunosuke (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 1:12pm

in other news, horse breeders upset that automobiles are a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mrvco (profile), 7 Nov 2016 @ 2:34pm

ESPN should invest in original content... maybe rekindle the Hard Knocks franchise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freakanatcha, 7 Nov 2016 @ 4:16pm

espn dumping subscribers like me after a bad mexican meal
Has anyone estimated the effect of gaming on ESPN? Same male 18-49 demo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2016 @ 5:52pm

The problem is people are cutting the cord and don't give a crap about ESPN. It's the majority of Cable and Satellite subscribers subsidizing the Tiny fraction of people who do watch Sports. These Sports channels are the most costly.

If they were realistic, only those that wanted the Sports channels should pay, the real cost could be $25-$50 a month extra to get those Sport channels.

Even SlingTV, ESPN is thrown into the main Bundle and everyone PAYS wither they care about sports or not. It's one reason I don't pay for that. I get most of my TV from the Antenna.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 8 Nov 2016 @ 8:50am

Looking forward to the fallout
It's increasingly looking as if ESPN has overpaid for certain sports rights and for too far into the future.

Losing their subsidizing viewers means that the people that really want ESPN are going to have to foot the bill, which as it increases will cause more and more will decide they can live without it. Thus ESPN will raise the costs and the vicious circle repeats. Hopefully a huge correction will occur and the ridiculous price of sports rights will become more sensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
programvb.com/2017/03/Frequency-channels-hotbird-T, 31 Mar 2017 @ 5:27pm

programvb.com
My local sports bar also has a Hofbrau. So... for Game 7 of the World Series, my wife and I went there, got a nice dinner and a drink each and then watched the game for less than the cost of one month of cable with E$PN.

And I make no secret of the fact that I cut my cord back in 1992 and haven't looked back except to pull down and trash the slowly rotting cable more than a decade later.

http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/channel-frequency-alhidaya-tv.html
http://www.programvb.com/20 17/03/channel-frequency-al-omma-tv.html
http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/channel-frequency-alathar-tv .html
http://www.programvb.com/search/label/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%AF%20%D9%82%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]