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

ESPN exec is willing to talk to Google, Sony, Intel about IPTV -- if they'll take bundles

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by Athlon646464, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    551
    27
    Aug 11, 2008
    I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation about 18 months ago, and came up with 25. Then, a few weeks ago...

    ------------------

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/17/a_la_carte_espn_would_cost_30_a_month.html

    A La Carte ESPN Would Cost $30 A Month

    By Matthew Yglesias

    Posted Wednesday, July 17, 2013, at 1:41 PM

    The subject of "à la carte" cable pricing has attracted renewed attention since John McCain proposed federal legislation to force cable operators to shift to that model, and it's important to understand anyway because the long-term evolution of streaming video strongly militates toward unbundling. Laura Martin, a pay TV analyst with Needham & Co. in Boston, recently came out with an analysis concluding that an à la carte ESPN would charge about $30 a month to extract revenue out of big-time sports fans rather than subsisting on the single digit carriage fees it currently obtains from all cable subscribers.

    Another way of thinking about it is that if ESPN started offering a paid standalone Watch ESPN app rather than making it a free throw-in for cable subscribers, they'd probably charge $30 a month.
    ---------------------------------

    That's why I'm saying, 25 to 30.
     
  2. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,644
    101
    Nov 18, 2006
    There cost is the same. Directv has20M customers at 5 dollars each is100M , it has beed said that 25% watch ESPN.100M dollars/5M is 20 dollars. What I do not get is why people think Disney will lower there cost when there cost is not going down. If people drop Directv and go to IPTV ESPN is not going to gain customers. As for Fox now there more bidders for the sports programming, more bidders drives the cost up.
     
  3. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Correct. Disney's cost are continuing to go up (NFL Monday Night Football deal, MLB deal, new SEC deal, etc). They have to monetize those costs someway and if that means fewer subscribers it has to translate into much higher costs. Simple math. This is why I've never understood why people think that this stuff going to Google or Intel or Netflix or whatever is going to be cheaper. It won't be. The end user will be writing the same checks regardless of what pipe \ distributor they use. Disney isn't going to undercut their existing deals, nor is Fox or Viacom or any of the others.
     
  4. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    I understand what you all are saying. Basically, someone has to pay their bills. And, in the end, you may be correct.

    However, what if someday the content providers were forced to live on the folks who actually watch? Are you saying that lower demand equals a higher price?

    For example, MLB is experiencing that problem right now, and has for a few years. Attendance is down, and ticket prices have dropped, not gone up. IMHO we've seen the last A-Rod type contract in MLB. The Yankees cannot fill that new stadium, and they are re-thinking their business model. NESN & Yes have had shrinking viewership numbers the last couple of years. Ad revenue is down. Partly to do with the economy, yes, but also the splintering of delivery systems for the games and fewer fans at the same time.

    The fewer fans piece is the bigger problem. There are so many choices to keep folks entertained today. So much competition. And fewer younger fans - a huge problem on the horizon.

    Are you saying the remaining fans costs will rise because they will each have to take on a larger piece of the cost pie? That sounds like a problem for the providers, not the remaining fans. Something would have to give or MLB will collapse under that model.

    I'm not saying I know what the answer is, nor do I profess to know what will happen. Perhaps Intel, Sony and Google think they know what might happen, and that's why they are jumping in.

    I do think big changes are on the way. You may be correct, and in the end we'll pay the same. I'm still not convinced, however, given all the new competition and splintering (lowering of demand) of end users.
     
  5. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,644
    101
    Nov 18, 2006
    One of the root causes is we pay players WAY to much money and the same goes for actors. When the cost gets to high people will drop pay TV ( direct and Google) because they cant afford it. The same goes for all sports, if the player pay keeps going up and most working folks pay is the sane or less then something will have to give and it wont be us getting the same product for less money. In 1976 as a kid I went to Disney world and it was 12 dollars a day that's 49.26 in todays money (Bureau of labor Statistics). Then they were the only park in Orlando area, today with lots of parks in Orlando the cost is over 100.00 dollars. Like I said Disney never lowers there price but they will close any underperforming product.
     
  6. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    ESPN TO STREAM ALL CHANNELS ONLINE?

    ESPN is reportedly considering making all of their channels available on an Internet TV service for a fee, according to The Verge. The online provider would pay for all of the channels under the ESPN umbrella as well as for access to Watch ESPN at a comparable rate to what cable companies like Comcast and Time Warner pay. ESPN is talking to Sony, Apple, Intel, and Google about the package.

    With more and more people cutting the cord and moving away from cable and satellite, the option to receive ESPN without having a cable or satellite contract to deal with would likely end up pushing more people towards that avenue. If this really ends up happening, I can see providers going nuclear and a standoff happening when the first contract ESPN has expires.

    From ESPN's perspective, this is a risky, but wise, move. The behemoth has begun the slow leak of subscribers tied to people cutting the cord, and by cutting a deal with an Internet TV provider, they'd be effectively hedging their bets against any further drop in cable or satellite subscribers. Yet, because of the potential for a major showdown with a provider (something that Time Warner seemingly relishes), there's a huge risk involved for them if providers balk at their massive fees and continual hikes.

    Full Story Here

    [​IMG]
     
  7. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,644
    101
    Nov 18, 2006
    Just because you can buy it stoneware else dose not mean it will cost you less. I see this as a way for ESPN to hang on to its customers.
     
  8. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    If ESPN's value perception is changing (hanging on as you say), they may not have a choice.......
     
  9. sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,612
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    A better statement would be, "We pay some players way too much." The average salary in the NFL is $1.75 Million. Not everyone is making Payton Manning money ($15 million base). A good friend was a 6th round draft pick this year, and he's not even making $500k this year.
     
  10. jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    278
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    I think the excitement here is always centered on making the possibility of cord cutting a reality for more people. I will reiterate the bottom line for me. Choice is a great thing for consumers and letting the market decide (how they want to acquire a product or service) is much better than government imposed regulation.

    For my personal situation I see these multiple outlets as more choices for everyone not necessarily reduced costs for me or for anyone else for that matter. If the trend is cord cutting that just means a shift in costs from one model to the other. If you like ESPN you will pay more to receive it a' la carte. If you do not, and have the opportunity to take a pass on it, you will just be paying more for those channels you do like because a portion of the cord cutters are not subsidizing them for you.

    As many have already stated here. Revenues will not decrease they will just be redistributed. If you like TV (like me) you will just pay more for what you like but will have an opportunity to offset some of that increased cost by dropping what you don't. For the majority I think costs will continue to rise.
     
  11. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    ^^^

    I agree with everything you've said, except for the revenue piece. With declining viewers (and fans), I don't see how revenue streams can sustain these levels over time.
     
  12. jdskycaster

    jdskycaster Legend

    278
    7
    Sep 1, 2008
    ^^^ I do hope you are right and my costs overall decline in the future but the new outlets for me still continue to amount to further additional added monthly costs. I pay more now than ever before for the programming I choose to receive. Could I lower these costs that just continue on an upward trend? Sure, but then I would just receive less programming.
     
  13. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    John Skipper or ESPN talks A La Carte



    A LA CARTE NOT PRACTICAL: Skipper addressed several other topics during a 90-minute meeting with the assembled media. He said an a la carte pricing system for cable channels "is not a good solution for whatever the issue is here." Skipper: "It is not particularly beneficial to anybody. Right now there is an issue of price pressure. But the $73 for 200-plus channels kind of works for almost everybody, other than some people for whom it’s a financial burden. It subsidizes a big system of content. There is better content now to consume on video than there’s ever been. There’s a discussion about the golden age of television -- this is the only golden age of television. ... This ecosystem works to provide lots and lots of choice for a very insignificant cost on any sort of metric. If you break it up and charge it on a per-program basis or per-network basis -- which by the way has very little chance of happening, despite there being a couple senators floating this around -- it just won’t work.” Skipper said 83% of households that get ESPN watch the network. He added of a la carte ever becoming a reality: “Because of the rights we hold, we’d be fine. ... But channels 65 through 250 are going to go out business, or start producing inexpensive content, which will be lousy. There won’t be this beautiful content that you have this opportunity to pick from, because they won’t be able to afford it.” Skipper said, “Specialty channels, serving specialty interests, will not survive in an a la carte world. However, we’re talking hypotheticals. That’s just not getting ready to happen.”
     
  14. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Although I agree with most of what Skippy says, he is biased of course. I mostly agree with the notion there will be fewer 'channels' than we have today. At the same time, however, we'll have more to watch and more to divert our attention. YouTube anyone?

    As for the very last thing he said - I actually hope he's correct in that assessment, but I just don't think he is. Intel, Sony and Google - they can't all be stupid, and they're jumping in. I hope he doesn't have his head in the sand like many in the print media did 10 years ago and are out of a job today.

    Not saying I have an answer for him, but I'm thinking brighter minds will figure it out. They usually do. Progress.
     
  15. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    I've said here for years that specialty channels would die on the vine, I 100% agree with him on that. I also don't see the studios giving up their revenues, which means they are happy to sell their content to Google, Intel, etc, but at the same costs as everyone else. Makes no sense for them to undercut their current revenue streams, especially in light of what they have on the books in expenses for the next 10 years. A la carte pretty much everyone loses, including the customer on a value proposition. IMO.
     
  16. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    There really is no cord-cutting except in name-only unless you stop watching TV. The literal cord-cutting is only possible for cable where you are connected via "cord" to your provider... but most consider satellite in the "cord cutting" as well.

    But... how are you going to get that IPTV or internet-delivered content? You need an ISP and internet connection... and any decent connection is going to run you $50 just for that, before you even start paying for that content you want.

    People like to talk about Netflix costing "only" $8... but Netflix is useless unless you have high-speed internet... and yeah, you can use that internet for other things... but when you are streaming or downloading HDTV you are taking a lot of your broadband bandwidth to do that.

    Somehow nobody considers cost-of-delivery in their cable/satellite bills... they expect channels to cost them $1-$2 per channel and don't consider any other expenses.

    We also aren't even considering the bandwidth caps and overlimit charges that many ISPs are going to now... and your internet-delivered cord-cut TV is going to cost you bandwidth at some point.

    I really don't see any scenario where the long-term prices of "Cord-cutting" will ever favor the customer/consumer.
     
  17. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,644
    101
    Nov 18, 2006
    Each NFL team is allowed to have 53 players on its roster (plus a five-player practice squad). As of 2011, the NFL has 32 teams, making a total of 1,696 players. According to an estimate by Plunkett Research, the average NFL player salary in the 2010-2011 season was $1.9 million

    1.9m X 1696 is 3,222,400,000 that's a lot of money and that's only Football, now add Baseball Hockey ETC.
    Read more: Total Players in the NFL | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/total-players-nfl.html#ixzz2cp4Pl0RP
     
  18. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    391
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I can't argue that some athletes and actors aren't paid more money than perhaps I think they "deserve" for the amount of work that they do...

    BUT... as long as the company they work for (the team, and the NFL) is taking in ticket sale and other revenue at an amount that they can afford to pay those salaries... it is hard to argue the players should not get most of it, considering that fans pay to see the players.

    I think tickets to games cost too much too... but I just don't go. As long as they make enough money on people wanting to go, the money is in the coffer.

    McDonald's is a billion dollar company that I wish would pay its frontline employees more money proportional to the amount of profit they generate for the corporation... just as an example.
     
  19. Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    37
    Dec 6, 2006
    Netflix only $8 is going to be changing. They have $5 billion in liabilities due in the coming months and years. That's a tremendous amount of coin. They barely make a profit today...barely....a few million on $1 billion in revenue. Unsustainable.
     
  20. PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,644
    101
    Nov 18, 2006
    The Detroit Lions sell out every game and they lost money last year. Something has to give.
     

Share This Page