Cord-Cutters are Winning? ESPN is losing?!

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree. What I find interesting is their reliance on a 50 year old model. One of the conundrums of selling broadcast entertainment to advertisers is proving how many listeners or viewers their ads will reach. There's never been a reliable method to measure the audience.

 

The new portable people meters are a great step forward, but they aren't carried by every person on the planet. (I just had a great idea for a very Orwellian science fiction script...) So, the numbers that networks try to sell to advertisers are still estimates.

 

But, you can precisely count mouse clicks and downloads and views and streams. Networks live and die by advertising dollars (which is why boycotts by "offended" groups work so well). The only conclusion I can come to is that the number of people consuming sports entertainment via "new" technology isn't significant enough to measure and sell compared to the old model of estimating viewers watching Sunday Night Baseball down at Bobby's Sports Hut. It just strikes me as weird, and perhaps a missed opportunity.

 

Great post!

 

I'd guess advertisers have ways to do these estimates, at least in their heads, and would prefer broadcasters not have a solid way to do it, because the numbers would be higher. That's a guess on both the incentives, and the numbers.

[Vanimal46]

John Clayton was laid off from ESPN today. I really enjoyed his insights about the NFL over the years... I guess it's going to be all ex-NFL footbaw players running the NFL coverage at ESPN? 

[Mike Sixel]

 

John Clayton was laid off from ESPN today. I really enjoyed his insights about the NFL over the years... I guess it's going to be all ex-NFL footbaw players running the NFL coverage at ESPN? 

 

wow. At some point, you wonder if ESPN is looking at an age lawsuit.....

[Vanimal46]

Letting Clayton go hurts the most IMO... They laid off every insightful journalist with actual information covering the sport.

[ashbury]

I guess it's going to be all ex-NFL footbaw players 

[PseudoSABR]

 

wow. At some point, you wonder if ESPN is looking at an age lawsuit.....

If Clayton wanted to bring suit, the fact that Stark and others went before him certainly bolsters his case. 

[Vanimal46]

 

My attempt to keep the Sports Bar alive... Is anyone affected by cable/satellite providers cutting off access to Fox Sports and ESPN?

[Mike Sixel]

Well, I'm a cord cutter, even though that name is silly, because we have internet on a cord......so no issues!

[Badsmerf]

I miss sports. Feel worse for my kids... We watch some sports, but baseball is basically inaccessible unless I pay more than its worth. We get lots of free soccer.

[Doomtints]

 

I cut the cord on cable almost 4 years ago, with no intention of ever going back to buy a traditional cable subscription. The fact is there are so many alternatives in the market like over-the-air TV, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Sling TV, etc. that I don't know why I would ever go back to cable. I'm waiting for a time when it all becomes a-la-carte at a reasonable price, and maybe we're getting closer to that time. 

Nothing makes me more happy than to read that ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers over the last 2 years; among the highest in the industry, and the most costly. If BIG Cable giants like ESPN are starting to feel the heat, then I am hoping others are too. 

 

Even if you like sports, ESPN just isn't interesting television. It still runs the "CNN Headline News" format that HLN dropped about twenty years ago. Gen X was the only young generation that sat and vegged on HLN, ESPN, and MTV, or whatever else was on, so it's ESPN's own fault for not adapting.

 

By being one of the channels that gets played in waiting rooms throughout the country, ESPN has become a modern muzak channel.

[Vanimal46]

Even if you like sports, ESPN just isn't interesting television. It still runs the "CNN Headline News" format that HLN dropped about twenty years ago. Gen X was the only young generation that sat and vegged on HLN, ESPN, and MTV, or whatever else was on, so it's ESPN's own fault for not adapting.

 

By being one of the channels that gets played in waiting rooms throughout the country, ESPN has become a modern muzak channel.

Couldn't agree more. I don't think ESPN knows how to adapt to the times today. We don't need to sit around and hope SportsCenter shows a 15 second highlight of the Twins game... Now it's as simple as looking it up on your phone.

 

They're trying to go TMZ on the bit and discuss LeBron's haircut or Tom Brady's vacation, but I don't care about that.

 

As you said, ESPN is becoming nothing but background noise in waiting rooms and sports bars.

[gunnarthor]

Spectrum just sent me a letter saying my rate is changing and they'll charge me a lot more. I'm still one of the few that have cable b/c we don't have great options in rural MN but now I'm starting to look around more.

[Squirrel]

I’m still on cable. It is included in my assessments, and if I’m paying for it, I’m using it. That will change when we are no longer ‘offered’ the bulk package deal that is paid for through our assessments.

[Badsmerf]

I liked sling a lot. Solid sports: fsn, btn, espn. Plus, some news and tv shows. With my limited viewing, it was great.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I am so out of touch that I literally found out two minutes ago that Baseball Tonight is now a weekly show.

 

What the hell, ESPN. The one sport that plays every day and you can't bother to do a nightly show?

 

This is why I cut the cord 15 years ago but decided to buy Hulu cable this season because fighting through VPNs just makes it not worth it after awhile. I care more about being able to catch two innings of baseball while my kids are in the bath than saving $40/mo.

[Doomtints]

 

Spectrum just sent me a letter saying my rate is changing and they'll charge me a lot more. I'm still one of the few that have cable b/c we don't have great options in rural MN but now I'm starting to look around more.

 

Now that AT&T owns DirecTV, it's better. You'll still drop signal when it rains, of course, but the system has been updated and you get free streaming options on your phone, Roku, etc.

 

I'm lucky because my association fees pay for DirecTV for me. I pay like $18 for an upgraded package though I rarely watch any of it.

[Mike Sixel]

Now that there are, what, a dozen services? It's going to be more than cable for some people.....

[Vanimal46]

Now that there are, what, a dozen services? It's going to be more than cable for some people.....

Agreed. Sometimes I forget the reason why I cut the cord in the first place... To have a cheaper bill than cable. I try to be conscious of the services I'm paying for at the same time. Otherwise it all adds up quickly!

 

It's going to get more expensive once Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max, etc. come out in 2020... Everyone's competing to get your $15-20 bucks a month it seems.

[Mr. Brooks]

Now that there are, what, a dozen services? It's going to be more than cable for some people.....

It depends.

If you're not on social media, as I'm not, and are patient enough that you don't need to see a show right away, you don't need all of them at the same time.

 

Unlike cable, there are no commitments with streaming services.

So I drop them when I don't need them. Then, when I have a month's worth of shows on say HBO, I'll add that for a month, then drop it again, then pick up Hulu, then drop, etc.

[Mike Sixel]

It depends.

If you're not on social media, as I'm not, and are patient enough that you don't need to see a show right away, you don't need all of them at the same time.

 

Unlike cable, there are no commitments with streaming services.

So I drop them when I don't need them. Then, when I have a month's worth of shows on say HBO, I'll add that for a month, then drop it again, then pick up Hulu, then drop, etc.

I doubt most people are that disciplined....

[Mr. Brooks]

I doubt most people are that disciplined....

Maybe not, although it doesn't take much.

But I mean, that's a choice. That's an easy option if people want to save money.

[Vanimal46]

It depends.

If you're not on social media, as I'm not, and are patient enough that you don't need to see a show right away, you don't need all of them at the same time.

 

Unlike cable, there are no commitments with streaming services.

So I drop them when I don't need them. Then, when I have a month's worth of shows on say HBO, I'll add that for a month, then drop it again, then pick up Hulu, then drop, etc.

I do the same system you do... Learned my lesson the hard way when one month I had NFL Red Zone, PS Vue, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO at the same time and paid a hefty price...

 

Now I'm conscious about my subscriptions and flip flop each month.

[Mr. Brooks]

I do the same system you do... Learned my lesson the hard way when one month I had NFL Red Zone, PS Vue, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO at the same time and paid a hefty price...

 

Now I'm conscious about my subscriptions and flip flop each month.

Yep, by rotating you can really get almost all of them for the price of one, just as long as you don't mind being behind the rest of the world when new shows hit, which doesn't bother me one bit.

 

And it's maybe 15 minutes per month of work to add/drop them.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yep, by rotating you can really get almost all of them for the price of one, just as long as you don't mind being behind the rest of the world when new shows hit, which doesn't bother me one bit.

And it's maybe 15 minutes per month of work to add/drop them.

 

Given the massive debt issues of this country, lack of retirement (or any) savings, etc.....I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a lot of people aren't as disciplined as you. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Given the massive debt issues of this country, lack of retirement (or any) savings, etc.....I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a lot of people aren't as disciplined as you.

Ok, but what's your point?

I'm saying that's an option, if people want to pay less.

 

I thought your point was that it's getting to be just as expensive as cable.

To which I pointed out that it doesn't have to be.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Ok, but what's your point?
I'm saying that's an option, if people want to pay less.

I thought your point was that it's getting to be just as expensive as cable.
To which I pointed out that it doesn't have to be.

 

For some people, I thought I said taht.....maybe not. I'd bet a good percent, actually. Nothing has to be, but I bet it is for many.

[Mr. Brooks]

For some people, I thought I said taht.....maybe not. I'd bet a good percent, actually. Nothing has to be, but I bet it is for many.

If your point is that choosing to buy more things costs more money, then technically you're right, but that seems self evident.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It depends.

If you're not on social media, as I'm not, and are patient enough that you don't need to see a show right away, you don't need all of them at the same time.

 

Unlike cable, there are no commitments with streaming services.

So I drop them when I don't need them. Then, when I have a month's worth of shows on say HBO, I'll add that for a month, then drop it again, then pick up Hulu, then drop, etc.

In most cases, I subscribe then immediately cancel. That way I never forget to cancel and if I don’t finish watching within 30 days, so be it.