2 edits | reply to Dogfather
Re: They didn't keep prices down said by Dogfather:Given ESPNs low ratings I would disagree. Tell you what, you go setup your own service with all the sports on another Tier, and you report back with how successful you are.
Ratings are irrelevant in this particular discussion, people may not watch ESPN all the time, but they want access to it. During the peak of football season I may watch 12 hours of ESPN weekly...1/2 to 1/3 that any other time...but I would still want it. |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare.
Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. |
|
| said by Dogfather:Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. |
|
 N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Dogfather
I can't remember the last time I watched ESPN.
I watch more Weather Channel and News channels than anything else.
Maybe History, Discovery, and AMC.
But I agree, at this point ESPN and other sports channels should be on a separate tier, given their cost.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
 fancydancerPerception is realityPremium
join:2002-08-28
Springfield, IL
2 edits | reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather  Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. 
--
Thank you for keeping this a work-free environment! |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Absolutely...bring on a la carte. |
|
DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. Look at their ratings, they suck horribly. Even huge games like Yankees Red Sox can't even muster a 3. They only had 2 events in the top twenty with only Nascar pulling better than a 4. 1 decently rated event a week certainly isn't worth the dough they're charging. The week before, only Home Run Derby and pregame cracked the top 20 for ESPN. The week before that, the ONLY ESPN show to make the top 20 was another Yankees Red Sox game and it didn't even pull a 3. More people watched WWE than that game. The July 1st Nielsens; not a SINGLE event or show of ANY ESPN network broke into the top 20.
ESPN aside from an occasional NASCAR event or big baseball game (which would get decent ratings no matter what channel it's on) can't muster any decent ratings. NONE.
Hell, look at the ratings for the so-called popular SportsCenter. They can't even pull a single point. They get a 0.7-0.9. That's the kind of numbers infomercials pull. |
|
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest. espn can go bankrupt for all i care |
|
| reply to Dogfather
It isn't the number of eyeballs that matter, it is the type of consumer those eyeballs are attached to and it is a very lucrative consumer. |
|
| reply to jmallory
said by jmallory:said by Dogfather:Easy tiger. Good for you and your football but there are quite a few people not interested in channel welfare. Sports fans should pay to support their very expensive channels instead of expecting everyone else to pay for them. Yep, and as soon as you show me some numbers were 51% of the subscribers don't want at least ESPN, ESPN2, and their RSN...we can talk about the rest.
You got it all wrong. Its not the market that is demanding ESPN to stay on all channel tiers. Its Disney's practice to bundle less popular channels with popular ones and even with some of their local networks they own. For example, if Dish wanted to create a tier without the expensive sports crap then Disney would drop Lifetime, possibly ABC, cartoon channels etc.. Its common knowledge that Disney extorts extra money through bundling extortion.. just do a google to confirm that. Disney owns so many channels as a content provider and they can basically charge more through bundling. Its totally wrong and is the major reason this industry needs regulation. These channels should exist on their own merit not on subsidies. And ESPN probably has the highest carriage fee of any channel and is one of the least watched channel. I'm sick of the increases myself and every time Dish has a hike I cut back services. I dropped one of my tuners last time. Next increase they will see me say goodbye. |
|
|
|
