Future of Cable TV

Quote: Evenbob

They do that with everything. They have
to pay for movies and TV shows and if
a show doesn't draw a certain number of
hits a month, they drop it, or part of it.
Movies too.

I suspected that was the case. Now I have little use for Netflix either

Quote: Evenbob

for all their good movies you have to be a subscriber to Showtime, Starz, HBO, or Cinemax. What's the point.

All of those networks should be available as streaming services in 6 months, but it remains to be seen at what cost.

What is it about certain YouTube video series that make you binge and binge and binge?

Since my (apparent) layoff last week I stumbled on a video series of a guy repoing cars. This isn't "Operation Repo" or any kind of reality TV hype, it is the guy driving in his truck, narrating, hooking the car, and interacting with the customers. Now yes, I do enjoy seeing some of the crazy excuses people are giving. But I can watch this for hours. Maybe I like it because it *is* "reality TV."

According to the Wall St Journal, ESPN has lost 3.2 million viewers in just over 1 year. That statistic is specifically relevant for Sling TV.

Quote: Wall Street Journal

When Disney struck a deal to put channels on Dish Network Corp.’s Sling TV service, it negotiated the right to terminate the deal if ESPN lost three million Nielsen households after May 2014—a threshold that has now been crossed, according to people familiar with the matter.

Other factors could play into Disney exercising that right, including if Sling TV attracts more than two million subscribers, though that benchmark is still a ways off, the people said.

Sounds like Disney has decided to ignore that opt-out clause in their contract with Dish Network. But it also sounds like the losses in subscribers is worse than they anticipated:



Ouch.

Quote: reno

According to the Wall St Journal, ESPN has lost 3.2 million viewers in just over 1 year.

Quote: reno

According to the Wall St Journal, ESPN has lost 3.2 million viewers in just over 1 year. That statistic is specifically relevant for Sling TV.

Sounds like Disney has decided to ignore that opt-out clause in their contract with Dish Network. But it also sounds like the losses in subscribers is worse than they anticipated:


Ouch.

You have to wonder why they would opt-out. "Uh, we are losing subscribers so lets not make it easier to subscribe!" The $30 figure in the article is near spot-on to what I always figured they would have to charge if the service was removed from the basic tier. The other danger is some part of the population will just switch to say MLB Extra Innings because they really like baseball and not the other sports, so if the cost is that high why not?

The wolf is not at the door, but he is cruising the street. ESPN execs need to understand that the time is now to fix their "must take" model, the consumer has changed. The chart shows a 7% drop in 4 years, when it gets to 20% it is over because the next 60% will happen as fast as the first 20%. Even at 20% their revenue model may be unfixable.

It's too easy to find a stream of whatever you want to watch. Toronto is usually no good, so they're not gonna be on tv that much. Streaming from UK they're on every night. Racing doesn't exist unless it's NASCAR or Indy. Online I get Nurburgring and 24 Heurs du Mans and Continental Tire Series and every other thing I want.

Who cares about "commentary"? All it ever does is focus on one or two things ad nauseum. LeBron James and Danica Patrick and events or sports I don't even care about. Bah.

Let em die.

Quote: Face

It's too easy to find a stream of whatever you want to watch. Toronto is usually no good, so they're not gonna be on tv that much. Streaming from UK they're on every night. Racing doesn't exist unless it's NASCAR or Indy. Online I get Nurburgring and 24 Heurs du Mans and Continental Tire Series and every other thing I want.

Who cares about "commentary"? All it ever does is focus on one or two things ad nauseum. LeBron James and Danica Patrick and events or sports I don't even care about. Bah.

Let em die.

+1. Commentators are all the same anyways. Same opinion, different voice.

Quote: AZDuffman

The $30 figure in the article is near spot-on to what I always figured they would have to charge if the service was removed from the basic tier.

HBO ended 2012 with 28.7 million subscribers, HBO Now is $14.99 per month while Showtime is $10.99 per month. CBS All Access is $6.99 per month. Hallmark will be available to access for $4.99 per month or for an annual membership fee of $35.99. Acorn TV (BBC) costs $4.99/month or $49.99/year.

But you would think that ESPN could pull in 50 million subscribers at $20 per month ($12 billion per year). That is down from 92 million subscribers under the basic tier business model. To raise ESPN to $30/month seems ridiculous.

Quote: Pacomartin

HBO ended 2012 with 28.7 million subscribers, HBO Now is $14.99 per month while Showtime is $10.99 per month. CBS All Access is $6.99 per month. Hallmark will be available to access for $4.99 per month or for an annual membership fee of $35.99. Acorn TV (BBC) costs $4.99/month or $49.99/year.

But you would think that ESPN could pull in 50 million subscribers at $20 per month ($12 billion per year). That is down from 92 million subscribers under the basic tier business model. To raise ESPN to $30/month seems ridiculous.

It is all about the costs and viewers. ESPN pays a fortune in rights fees. Sports is niche. People will tune in for the big things, but that is maybe once a week on average. The rest might watch the home team. Otherwise it is the hardcore fans. I still say if they took ESPN off the basic tier and just charged the same rate as they get now they would lose at least half their base.