dslreports logo
 story category
Survey: ESPN Not Important to Skinny Bundlers, Cord Cutters

A few years back, a survey showed that 56% of pay TV consumers would ditch ESPN in a heartbeat if it meant saving the $8 per month the channel is estimated to cost consumers. That problem (consumers being forced to buy channels they don't want) sits at the heart of ESPN's massive viewer losses in the wake of not only cord cutting, but skinny bundles that exclude sports from the lineup. Offering cable plans without ESPN frightens the channel so much, it sued Verizon for giving such plans to consumers.

Click for full size
This week, a new survey indicates that when consumers are allowed to build their ideal channel lineup, ESPN tends to be nowhere on their radar.

The Diffusion Group says it recently surveyed 2,030 connected consumers about the five "network families" they’d prefer to have included in a 5-group skinny TV bundle. And while local broadcast networks consistently made the grade, ESPN remained a fleeting afterthought for the majority of those polled.

The firm was quick to argue that the fact that the "ESPN family" of channels failed to rank in the top 10 suggests Disney's decision to make ESPN Plus a premium add-on to its linear ESPN channel "may have been a wise move."

"Many expected ESPN Plus to be the online equivalent of ESPN, but Disney decided that the risk of cannibalizing high-value linear pay-TV subscriptions would create substantial channel conflict and hasten the declines in pay-TV subscriptions," the firm notes. "This risk is inherent in the DTC model and must be addressed group by group, even channel by channel."

But while Disney is finally claiming to be giving these users what they want in the form of a standalone streaming ESPN channel, we recently noted that's not what's actually happening. The company's new $5 service doesn't doesn't provide the "full ESPN experience," and instead will consist of content that isn't available on the company's other traditional channels. To get ESPN via streaming, you'll still need to buy a traditional cable TV bundle.

Another recent survey by this same group predicted that every major broadcaster will be offering their own, independent streaming channel by 2022, finally giving consumers the a la carte options they've long clammored for.

Most recommended from 92 comments


videomatic3
join:2003-12-12
Pleasanton, CA

44 recommendations

videomatic3

Member

get over it

nobody wants your shitty channel
adam1991
join:2012-06-16
united state

17 recommendations

adam1991

Member

The answer is simple

ESPN, you just KNOW that there are fanatics out there that would pay $250/month for a full-on package of your channels.

So sell it. Premium channels on cable, standalone streaming product, whatever. But get some balls and sell it.

You'll get your money without impacting the people who don't care.

You've played your game of trying to get $7 from each cable subscriber no matter what, but you have to know the jig is up and that game is played out. So get some balls and go all-out the other direction. If you're going to have 1/35 the number of subscribers anyway, just admit it and go with it. What do your actuaries say about that one person willing to shoulder the entire revenue chunk that you previously tried to get from everyone no matter what?

I bet you could pull this off and then some.

But leave me the hell alone.
Warmachine99
join:2006-03-20
Pleasant Prairie, WI

13 recommendations

Warmachine99

Member

The last time I watched ESPN was.....

I cant think of ANY time I watched ESPN.

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

11 recommendations

camper

Premium Member

Sustainable business model?

...The firm was quick to argue that the fact that the "ESPN family" of channels failed to rank in the top 10 suggests Disney's decision to make ESPN Plus a premium add-on to its linear ESPN channel "may have been a wise move."...

"The firm" may have a different definition of "wise move" than I do.

What I take from the ESPN Plus affair is that ESPN may find out that they cannot get enough subscribers to a random ESPN channel at $5 per month in order to have a profitable operation of that streaming channel, that the subscribers will want ESPN's main content on streaming.

What ESPN will need to do then is put their main content on streaming and charge a subscription price that will cover the costs of doing so.

Then the ESPN people will need to come to the realization that there may not be enough streaming subscribers to cover the costs of that very expensive streaming service. The subscription costs required to cover the costs of ESPN's ridiculously expensive pro-sports contracts will be too high.

Meanwhile, ESPN is causing cable companies to lose subscribers due to the $8 per month fee for a channel that most do not want.

What I am wondering is: who will blink first? Will the cable companies grow a backbone and stand up to the ESPN forced bundling before ESPN realizes that they are running an unsustainable operation?

Is ESPN stuck in a business model that does not work?
camper

11 recommendations

camper

Premium Member

Cost of channels, from Variety magazine (March 2017)

 

Here's a PDF from Variety (March 2017) showing the monthly cost for most cable channels...
»pmcvariety.files.wordpre ··· 1-nu.pdf

Anonfdd2b
@charter.com

6 recommendations

Anonfdd2b

Anon

A few caveats

Ok do people really know which of the channels they watch are part of A&E, Discovery, Scripps, Viacom, Turner etc. Oh and Discovery now owns Scripps.
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
united state

6 recommendations

b10010011

Member

I can't say I ever met anyone that ESPN was important to

Time to move ESPN to some extra sports tier add-on and stop forcing those of use who have never watched it to pay for it.
tabernak93
join:2015-02-16
Oklahoma City, OK

6 recommendations

tabernak93

Member

Enough still want it, they'll survive

22% put it in their top 5 and 44% seem to indicate they like paying $8 for it. Even with 44% of current income (or a good bit less), that's plenty left to support it.

Nobody wants to pay for channels they don't watch. I'd love to quit subsidizing all kinds of reality TV programming same as many don't want to pay for sports they don't watch. Hopefully it works out that way. I only hope that it doesn't work out where we're all paying the same amount amount for only the channels we watch as we were before.
en103
join:2011-05-02

5 recommendations

en103

Member

The ugly part of ESPN....

It comes with just about every other form of internet based TV.
- Hulu with TV - ESPN / ESPN2 / ESPNEWS
- YouTube TV - ESPN / ESPN2 / ESPNEWS
- SlingTV - ESPN / ESPN2 / ESPNEWS
- Amazon Channels - no live TV
- PlayStation TV - ESPN / ESPN2 /ESPN3 / ESPNU / ESPNEWS / ESPNDEPORTES
- DirecTVNow - ESPN / ESPN2
- Spectrum (Charter) - same as cable package.

Unless you're going to purchase direct from a channel - i.e. CBS All Access, you're going to be pretty much forced to take at least one ESPN channel on the base.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

4 recommendations

amungus

Premium Member

Economy tier

Cox's economy tier doesn't have it. Oops.

Switched to it. Don't miss ESPN, Fox Sports, or the other channels that dropped off. Costs is about as much as most streaming services (just under $40/mo.). Better picture quality. Can use my own DVR (WMC). Not counted against data cap. Not prone to buffering issues.

Granted, I'd still cut even that package if I could, but the decision isn't solely up to me. Caps are also not great.
mdlund0
join:2011-08-02
Lawrence, KS

2 recommendations

mdlund0

Member

Well, I likED ESPN... once.

I used to like ESPN way back in the day when they would always be showing awesome crazy shit like lumberjack competitions, strongman competitions, pool, spelling bees, and whatever else. It was fun to watch genuine competitions that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to appriciate. When is the last time you saw anything like that being offered? All I see on ESPN today is a bunch of has-beens sitting at a round-table shouting, bitching and moaning about trivialities in the world of sport that no sensible person gives half a shit about. Occasionally, they have a football game that I want to watch, but it's not something I need to spend $100 a year to have.