44 recommendations |
get over itnobody wants your shitty channel |
|
|
17 recommendations |
The answer is simpleESPN, 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. |
|
13 recommendations |
The last time I watched ESPN was.....I cant think of ANY time I watched ESPN. |
|
camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT
11 recommendations |
camper
Premium Member
2018-Mar-22 7:23 pm
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
2018-Mar-23 11:31 am
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 |
|
6 recommendations |
Anonfdd2b
Anon
2018-Mar-22 7:01 pm
A few caveatsOk 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. |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag? join:2004-09-07 united state
6 recommendations |
I can't say I ever met anyone that ESPN was important toTime 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. |
|
6 recommendations |
Enough still want it, they'll survive22% 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. |
|
5 recommendations |
en103
Member
2018-Mar-22 9:27 pm
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
2018-Mar-22 11:04 pm
Economy tierCox'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. |
|
2 recommendations |
mdlund0
Member
2018-Mar-26 11:36 am
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. |
|