1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Disney to stream ESPN and buys stake in BAMTech

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by phrelin, Aug 9, 2016.

  1. Aug 9, 2016 #1 of 19
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,070
    323
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Disney announced today it will stream some ESPN content according to a number of websites. But it appears that the streaming will resemble ESPN3, sort of, kind of, as explained at MarketWatch:

    Truthfully, the ESPN streaming is almost a footnote when the announcement is taken as a whole as Fortune explains the announcements:

    The Verge noted:

    BAMTech is, of course, a major player in the growth of the streaming market having been spun off of Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM) last year. Having the ability to acquire 100% of that spin-off is no small matter.
     
  2. Aug 8, 2017 #2 of 19
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,728
    289
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
  3. Aug 8, 2017 #3 of 19
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,728
    289
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
  4. Aug 8, 2017 #4 of 19
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,614
    383
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Just the beginning of what I've been saying for a while... IF streaming takes off, it's only a matter of time before each production company decides to start their own service rather than let someone else make the money... so Netflix, Hulu, and others will lose content here and there and if you're a viewer, you have to add another (likely) $10+ service to get programming you like from that producer. We're going to end up far more expensive for less variety of content than on traditional cable/satellite before this is all done.
     
  5. Aug 8, 2017 #5 of 19
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    535
    25
    Aug 11, 2008
    The only subscriber who will be worse off is the sports fan, who will see himself paying far more than he is today to see the same content.

    The cord-cutters who no longer have the Disney Channel couldn't care less that Disney is pulling their content from Netflix, given all the other children's content available on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Sure, some Netflix subscribers may subscribe to Disney's new offering (at the right price point), but the vast majority (90%+, I'd bet) won't bother.

    *********************************************************

    Disney's Channels: Kids Are Tuning Out -- Update

    By Joe Flint and Ben Fritz Published July 04, 2017 Features Dow Jones Newswires

    Disney's Channels: Kids Are Tuning Out -- Update

    But ratings have fallen significantly at Disney's biggest brands reaching children, teens and young adults, led by Disney Channel and Freeform. Those two channels each has lost about four million subscribers over the past three years, bringing them to around 90 million apiece.

    The troubles are twofold: a lack of hits and the broader move by audiences away from traditional television to digital alternatives. The shift to streaming services such Netflix Inc. and web-based platforms like Google's YouTube is particularly pronounced among younger viewers targeted by these Disney networks.

    *********************************************************
     
  6. Aug 8, 2017 #6 of 19
    trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,728
    289
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    It isn't just the TV shows they are pulling, also their movies. That includes Lucas films, Marvel Studios and Pixar Animation Studios.
     
  7. Aug 8, 2017 #7 of 19
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,432
    606
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    Yay for out of context articles that cherry pick numbers for gloom and doom. Especially when they over emphasize the slumps when originals are in between seasons, ignore the cycle that happens with all networks as shows end (i.e. Girl Meets World) and newer shows debut in their place (i.e. Andi Mack), and act like the subscriber drop is only for those channels, even though nearly every provider has both of them in their lowest tiers, so any drop affecting them has to affect dozens of other channels. (Not to mention Nielsen still doesn't include OTT providers like PS Vue, Sling, DirecTV Now, Fubo and others in subscriber counts for networks)

    For everyone of those, there's a bunch of these:
    Ratings - Season Two Premiere of Disney Channel's "Stuck in the Middle" Is Cable TV's #1 Series Telecast in Kids 2-11 for 2017 to Date | TheFutonCritic.com
    Disney’s Andi Mack scores as top youth telecast
    Disney Channel's ANDI MACK Delivers Another Series Ratings High in Total Viewers
    Ratings - Disney Channel's "Raven's Home" Is #1 Cable TV Series Launch in Two Years Among Targeted Kid and Tween Demographics | TheFutonCritic.com
    Disney Channel’s ‘Descendants 2’ Draws 21 Million Viewers Across 6 Networks In L+3 – Update
    ‘Descendants 2’ Rises to 21 Million Viewers in Delayed Viewing

    It's not just sports fans. For many TV shows and movies that you used to be able to stream on Netflix or got for free as part of your cable or satellite subscription, now you need Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Seeso, Go90, among others.
    i.e. the entire Doctor Who library (now only on Amazon Prime), the Scripps Networks back library (now on Hulu), the Lorimar Television/TGIF library (coming to Hulu next month), Viacom's back library (only on Amazon prime, except certain shows like South Park which Hulu got the exclusive rights to) Looking for some recent WB, Universal, Lionsgate and Fox movies on Netflix? Not gonna find them there, you need HBO Go/Now, Showtime, Starz, Epix and others for that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
  8. Aug 9, 2017 #8 of 19
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,016
    1,042
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The mouse owns ABC ... so should we be looking for an "ABC All Access" and watch content disappear from Hulu?
     
  9. Aug 9, 2017 #9 of 19
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,070
    323
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    I'm not worrying about it as they own 30% of Hulu as does Fox and NBC with Turner owning the remaining 10%. CBS All Access is a bit of a puzzle. I thought they might create a package by offering as an add-on their wholly-owned subsidiary Showtime at something like $5. But no sign of that....
     
  10. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,797
    1,121
    Nov 13, 2006


    Everyone will pay more for less, because every provider is headed this way. Did you read about the new FOX+ streaming channel yet? Anyone who thinks dum,ping sports will make their bill go down and by moving to a la cart will as well doesn’t see the bigger picture in how these companies make money. And Disney is massive, stop looking at a tiny portion and look at its over all arch. Star Wars alone....

    I wonder how much it hurt STARZ when Disney left just movies and went to Netflix.
     
    AZ. likes this.
  11. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,797
    1,121
    Nov 13, 2006
    I expect we will see one to four offerings for streaming of Disney stuff... should be interesting to see what they do. It will depend on how they want to split it all up, but i wouldn’t be surprised if you can buy all Disney streaming for 20 a month.
     
  12. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,124
    49
    Jan 20, 2003
    It is, IMHO, exactly correct that each of the major production companies will just have their own OTT services. Why not? In traditonal linear TV, the channels need cable/dish to deliver the content. Think of it as transportation. But if the channels are just on the internet, why let Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. take a cut. You can deal directly with the consumer.

    Disney is, however, in a huge catch 22. It massively overbid for the NBA (Finals, ignored by 85% of Americans, regular season by 98%) . Then, to cut costs, it "lobotmized" itself, firing most of the staff that can talk about most any other sport. It is down, more or less, to the NBA, a single NFL game per week, college football and basketball, and a couple of nights of baseball (with plenty of baseball on other channels, including your team every night on your local RSN, baseball having become highly regionalized).

    If your happy with that, you are going to keep traditional linear TV. The huge costs of ESPN are spread across the whole subscriber base, including the many millions who have no sports interest at all, and the yet more millions who ignore the NBA.

    If not, then you no interest in ESPN OTT. Who exactly is the potential customer?
     
  13. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,728
    289
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    CEO said yesterday they will start off with two packages -- Entertainment and Sports. And as of yesterday, Marvel and Lucas Films products won't be shown on the new entertainment package. 'But that could change.'
     
  14. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,797
    1,121
    Nov 13, 2006
    You could still sell to Netflix etc, but there would have to be a different price point or something. Hulu is doing ok because it’s partly owned y these companies so they make money twice on Hulu. At least at the moment. In five years, I expect Netflix to be no different than HBO will be in five years, which is also very far from what even HBO was just 10 years ago. HBO will get less and less content that doesn’t come from a Warner company...

    By the way, saying 85 percent ignored the finals is a bit disingenuous. 15 percent is a good number. It’s the short length and the rest of the season that killed them, not the finals. Almost any network would love to get even close to 15 % of everyone to watch their channels regularly. Only the top ones these days get even close to that.

    Espn did over bid for the nba big time, but it’s really the nfl that I think is killing them...
     
  15. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,124
    49
    Jan 20, 2003
    $1.4 BILLION/year for a 15 rating for a max of 7 nights in the summer against reruns; a mac of 6 20 or so times during May and a 1.5 to 2.5 in the winter, when you could get the same with a MAC game you paid 8 cents for, was the overbid of all time.

    In true a la carte, if you take what ESPN and Turner paid, and divided it by the number of people that actually care, you come out to $36/month according to USA Today. Just for the NBA.

    The point is not just that, it is that ESPN has now doubled down on its overbid. Outside of football (pro and college) they lack the interest or ability to cover anything else. SportsCenter used to be appointment viewing for every sports fan. Yeah, you can say "well people get their highlights on their phones now". Really? Nah.

    As to the NFL, yeah, every network loses money on the NFL, including ESPN. But having the NFL makes ESPN different from the other three imitators.
     
  16. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,797
    1,121
    Nov 13, 2006
    Imitators? Espn is being hurt by the nfl more than any other network by far and I wouldn’t say all networks lose with the nfl. Actually I’d say only espn does right now.

    In true a la cart espn family and turner together would probably be cheaper than Viacom by the time you do the math... a la cart would be really expansive for everyone and people just don’t seem to understand why.

    I don’t know what mac is? What are you referring to? Not sure what acronym you are using.

    And I never said they didn’t overpay. I just said the ratings aren’t as bad as you made it sound. In fact they where dang good in the finals.
     
  17. ejbvt

    ejbvt AllStar

    1,546
    142
    Aug 14, 2011
    VT
    MAC - Mid American Conference. Mid Week MACtion.
     
  18. SamC

    SamC Hall Of Fame

    2,124
    49
    Jan 20, 2003
    USA Today already did the math. If you take what Turner and ESPN pay JUST FOR THE NBA (not the entire group of channels, just pretend ESPN and TNT did not exist and you had the opertunity to pay to the NBA (players) directly what Disney and Turner pay them, after subtracting what they make back on commercials) and divided it by the number of people that actually watch the NBA, you come out at $36/month.

    The reason cord cutting became a thing is the massive costs of sports channels, first among these being the Disney group. Due to its massive NBA overbid. It made the price so high that the vast majority of people (people who do not follow sports at all) and even the vast majority of those who do follow sports (which is to say those that do not follow the NBA) said "enough is enough, and looked to free themselves.
     
  19. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,797
    1,121
    Nov 13, 2006
    And the math forgets the millions of reasons you can’t make decisions on anything based on one small amount of data.

    Again I’m not saying they overpaid but don’t think it’s the nba alone causing issues. That nfl contract hurts them the most. They lose the eyeballs to push other things.

    And more people watch sports than the ratings say but they are more casual fans. Just like a lot of tv shows that don’t get rated right. Once they started adding in DVR viewings they suddenly realized their actual numbers where off, and on some shows a lot. I bet at least 50% watch some sports at some point during a year not the 18% people like to claim.

    Worth hat said again anyone who thinks they can get cheaper by avoid sports is just wrong. Prices of channels will skyrocket because it costs so much more and the huge ad dollars from sports aren’t there to ease the costs.

    Just look at the new FX streaming channel and it’s pricing. That’s just for FX!!!! Ridiculous!
     

Share This Page