dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
978

JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium Member
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD

JTRockville

Premium Member

[Cox] Redefining Sports - ESPN Could Get the Boot

Interesting article on Cox (in general), but specifically about Cox and ESPN (or maybe it's Cox minus ESPN?)

Cox's Robbins Champions Service Bundling, Tiering
If Contract Ends, CEO Could Be First to Pull Plug on ESPN

herdfan
Premium Member
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV

herdfan

Premium Member

I'm hard pressed to believe that ESPN only accounts for 3% of its viewership, but if it does, where does it rank among viewership for all channels? If you have 100 channels, and one channel is getting 3%, then thats 3 times more than what would be expected, ie each of the 100 channels getting 1% of the viewership.

I would feel sorry for the CS reps if Cox were to try something like that. If I were a Cox customer and they did that, I would be on the dish in a heartbeat.
rfnut
Premium Member
join:2002-04-27
Fisher, IL


1 recommendation

rfnut to JTRockville

Premium Member

to JTRockville
I do not think viewership is the issue. They are not specifically talking about just dropping ESPN. They want to place it on a higher priced tier. Makes perfect sense. Premium priced channels are placed on a premium tier. If ESPN priced itself reasonably, then it would not even be an issue. In 1990 ESPN was around 10 cents a sub. and was a basic channel. the $2.50 cent area is around what a premium (hbo, cmax) would be charging. It seems to me to be good buisiness practice by cox to make it a premium channel ( btw i am pretty sure ESPN will not allow it to be a premium channel by contract). I can see the headlines now
"ESPN PRICES ITSELF INTO PREMIUM STATUS"
Thankfully sports PPV never took off or we all would be paying 10 bucks a show to see our local baseballl team or nascar race.
oh and almost all basic channels are still WELL under a $1.00 per sub

panth1
The Coyote
join:2000-12-11
Port Saint Lucie, FL

panth1 to JTRockville

Member

to JTRockville
I would actually like to see more cable operators take a stand for their customers and tell these programmers that some of these price increases are rediculous.

As I have mentioned many times before, my cable company (BrightHouse) has been in a battle with the Florida Fox Sports Net over price per sub for a long time and has not carried the channel while our sports teams are on that network.

These networks are increasing their rates because they can and they know that customers will complain to their cable operator if they are taken off the air. The cable companies have to deal with this and the complaining about the price increases that they have to pass on to their customers.

ESPN just wants more money to increase profits for Disney, as the article mentions and also they have to build new HD studios for their HD network, pay for their sports contracts.. and etc.

sonofjay
Mission Accomplished - Bush May 1, 2003
MVM
join:2001-05-14
Malden, MA

sonofjay to JTRockville

MVM

to JTRockville
Kudos to Cox! Frankly that is why I left cable. I was tried of the 15-30% increases.

I agree, if ESPN wants to price itself like a premium channel then it should be treated like a premium channel. I would still have to get it but at least it would be my option.

Dude9
What Happens When I Do This
Premium Member
join:2000-11-20
Chicago, IL

Dude9 to JTRockville

Premium Member

to JTRockville
I agree with you sonofjay
58483323 (banned)
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL

58483323 (banned) to JTRockville

Member

to JTRockville
How can ESPN charge cable companies the same a premium channel does. All the cable companies should threaten them to take them off their lineup. Maybe then they will lower prices. This is the reason why they have to keep raising rates. I think of ESPN as a regular channel not premium, that's crazy!

BillRoland
Premium Member
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL

BillRoland to JTRockville

Premium Member

to JTRockville
I agree. Its time for ESPN to be put in their place.

mikedz4
join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

mikedz4 to 58483323

Member

to 58483323
unfortunately if any cable operator did this they would be in violation of their contract with espn and disney could in essence take the following channels of that companies lineups: Abc, ABC Family, Disney, Disney west, Toon Disney, Toon Disney espanol, Espn, Espn2, Espn news, Espn classic. All these channels belong to disney and would make people mad if they lost these channels.

BillRoland
Premium Member
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL

BillRoland

Premium Member

Re: [Cox] Redefining Sports - ESPN Could Get the B

said by mikedz4:
unfortunately if any cable operator did this they would be in violation of their contract with espn and disney could in essence take the following channels of that companies lineups: Abc, ABC Family, Disney, Disney west, Toon Disney, Toon Disney espanol, Espn, Espn2, Espn news, Espn classic. All these channels belong to disney and would make people mad if they lost these channels.
Uhh...not if the contract is up and its renegotiation time...
rfnut
Premium Member
join:2002-04-27
Fisher, IL

rfnut to mikedz4

Premium Member

to mikedz4

Re: [Cox] Redefining Sports - ESPN Could Get the Boot

said by mikedz4:
unfortunately if any cable operator did this they would be in violation of their contract with espn and disney could in essence take the following channels of that companies lineups: Abc, ABC Family, Disney, Disney west, Toon Disney, Toon Disney espanol, Espn, Espn2, Espn news, Espn classic. All these channels belong to disney and would make people mad if they lost these channels.
That is why cox is doing this now. Their contract is almost up. It is time to renegotiate. I am sick of the conglomerate networks contracts that require the carrying of other channels to lower the cost of the most popular.
Of course it would make people mad. I would be extremely upset if i lost any channels ( of course the price will not go down too, but that is another story.) I am glad it is hitting the news. Its about time the public understood why their cable bill keeps going up and maybe these conglomerates can be put in their place. Remember when Disney was a pay channel? They could not make any money so they lowered the cost and bundled it to require its carriage on the basic tier.
I remember a story a while back when we where starting negotiations for the rebroadcast of ABC. A major MSO was in a meeting with the big wigs at the broadcasters and the network wanted 17 cents a sub to rebroadcast ABC. The MSO picked up the phone, in front of the ABC execs, and called his Cheif Technical Operator and said to him " take off ABC in all our markets NOW!". The network shut up real fast.
I hope this happens to the Disney clan as well. They have to have viewers to stay alive. It would not look too good to the advertisers if they see a 6.2 million (approx subs based on Cox's website) drop in viewers and this would definitely hurt the Disney clan in their pocketbook. Hopefully other MSO's will follow suit.

edited for no reason

JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium Member
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD

JTRockville

Premium Member

'Tis quite a game of chicken!!

If ESPN won't budge on their rates, and won't allow tiering, Cox subscribers will suffer. They'll either have across-the-board price hikes or complete loss of channels.

What percent of their viewership will be lost if ESPN programming is lost?

vs

What percent of their viewership will be lost if prices are increased due to soaring ESPN programming costs?
joebear29
totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL

joebear29

Member

said by JTRockville:
'Tis quite a game of chicken!!

If ESPN won't budge on their rates, and won't allow tiering, Cox subscribers will suffer. They'll either have across-the-board price hikes or complete loss of channels.

What percent of their viewership will be lost if ESPN programming is lost?

vs

What percent of their viewership will be lost if prices are increased due to soaring ESPN programming costs?
I think its tricky for Cox. ESPN is unlike any other channel, in that people don't watch it all the time, but a good number value it highly for the times they do watch it.

For example, the non-premium channels I watch the most are Food, BBC America, Nickelodeon, Fox News and ESPN. Normally, I watch them all about the same. If Dish Network (my provider) stopped carrying one or even two of those channels, I would be annoyed but still continue service. If they dropped ESPN I would switch to DirecTV or even Charter in a heartbeat because I must watch my college and pro football (pathetic, huh?). If I could only have one cable channel, it would be ESPN.

So true, not everyone watches ESPN, and those who do watch it may not do so all the time, but I bet a good portion (at least 20 percent) of subscribers would find satellite much more tempting if they cannot get ESPN on Cox. I don't think it would take long for the satellite offers to come pouring in, with guarentees they will provide ESPN for the length of the contract etc.

Dude9
What Happens When I Do This
Premium Member
join:2000-11-20
Chicago, IL

Dude9 to JTRockville

Premium Member

to JTRockville
well not like we could do much accept call disney and tell them they have enough money

wcda
join:2001-12-06
Macon, GA

wcda to JTRockville

Member

to JTRockville
I for one could care less if Cox carries ESPN or not. At one time I would have but not now.
58483323 (banned)
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL

58483323 (banned) to JTRockville

Member

to JTRockville
I don't even watch ESPN, i could care less if its on my lineup or not.

midnight75
join:2003-07-25
USA

midnight75 to sonofjay

Member

to sonofjay
You said it, sonofjay, that is the exact same reason I left cable. It seemed like they were hiking the rates at least 2 or 3 times a year.
58483323 (banned)
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL

58483323 (banned) to JTRockville

Member

to JTRockville
I agree that charging cable companies $2.50 a month per subscriber is crazy. ESPN figures that they can raise their rates 20% and get away with it because they think that the providers have no choice to un plug them. Now imagine if every network did that cable will be hundreds of dollars a month. Why let one network get away it???
joebear29
totesmcgoats
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL

joebear29

Member

said by 58483323:
I agree that charging cable companies $2.50 a month per subscriber is crazy. ESPN figures that they can raise their rates 20% and get away with it because they think that the providers have no choice to un plug them. Now imagine if every network did that cable will be hundreds of dollars a month. Why let one network get away it???
Because they are ESPN, and enough people, including me, demand the channel. There's a reason Food or Lifetime don't try that.

Cable companies aren't that stupid, if there was not a demand for ESPN they would drop it in a hurry. If Lifetime tried to charge $2.50 a subscriber, it would be dropped like a bad habit.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-05 00:43:57]

BillRoland
Premium Member
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL

BillRoland to JTRockville

Premium Member

to JTRockville
It would be great if all these contracts expired close to the same time. The bargaining power that Cox/Comcast/Charter together would have would cause ESPN to get into a price cutting mood, very quickly.