OT: Is ESPN a bubble about to burst?

[Class of 67]

Apropo to past discussions here about cutting the cord. The author provides data that he claims points to ESPN expenses exceeding income in the coming years. (I hope Berman goes next. God, he was grating during the HR Derby.)

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo.../is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

 

[Nit777]

Long read, but interesting.

ESPN rebuts some of it but it is hard to ignore the loss of 7 million subscribers and the income that will not materialize.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

Apropo to past discussions here about cutting the cord. The author provides data that he claims points to ESPN expenses exceeding income in the coming years. (I hope Berman goes next. God, he was grating during the HR Derby.)

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo.../is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

Cable is an unstable alliance that will undoubtedly blow up one day, and ESPN will be hit pretty hard.

It's only going to take one or two semi-popular stations to sign on with some a la carte online upstart, and then cable subscribers will depart in droves, forcing them to change. I'd guess by 2020 cable is totally transformed. And there is no chance that ESPN will be on the leading edge of this. They are the type that will try to control everything that is happening, even as it is happening without them. ESPN's problem is that a lot less people care about watching sports than ESPN thinks.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Apropo to past discussions here about cutting the cord. The author provides data that he claims points to ESPN expenses exceeding income in the coming years. (I hope Berman goes next. God, he was grating during the HR Derby.)

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo.../is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

To state the obvious: Of course a competitor is going to say this.

 

[ralpieE]

The problem is, who wants to be staring at a small screen on a monitor, tablet or phone?

 

[Cletus11]

ESPN has more challengers then ever before. Fox Sports is real and paying big $$ to get programming. Comcast buying NBC and now NBC Sports is gobbling up programming. CBS has a sports network (although it stinks). Now BTN and SEC network. So up until about 4+ years ago ESPN had almost a monopoly on sports programming and now they have a legit 4 or 5 competitors for programming, so there ratings are going to go down as the other guys buy and/or have rights to better sports.

Another huge thing, talk to a 20 something about ESPN and they don't care. Growing up in 80's and 90's ESPN Sportscenter was a right of passage. Like a lot of things, the younger generation doesn't care about ESPN or sports as much in general. And as the population who grew up on ESPN ages, they are not watching ESPN as much as other things in life take priority.

It is pretty typical in business. ESPN was the first and leader and dominant market player for a long time. They got fat, dumb, and lazy and are now being caught by new, hungrier competitors while at the same time the demographics are changing.

 

[tboyer]

Time is not on ESPN's side. I look at my kids, all young 20 somethings, and they are much less interested in sports than my generation. Also, they all think the cable bill is silly. They think paying $150-$180 a month to the cable company is absolute lunacy. Now that HBO has essentially broken away from cable, they have even less interest in an expensive cable bundle.

The other thing is, ESPN is just not all that appealing. Every time I see it on, it's a panel of arrogant middle aged men talking about sports between tons of commercials. There's about a million things I would rather watch than that. It's about as entertaining as watching the Weather Channel -- which is also dying.

I think ESPN kind of built this bubble by demanding ever-higher fees from the cable companies. And then other channels followed suit and little by little, the cable bundle went from $50 a month to $180 or even $200. That's just too much money for the value it's delivering. $200 a month for TV is just not sustainable. People's entertainment budget is limited and there is a lot of competition for that money.

Now of course ESPN is trapped -- it's committed to many billions of dollars for broadcast rights. But its ability to just basically impose those costs on cable subscribers is suddenly limited.

 

[jp3272]

SEC Network is owned by ESPN

 

[BBrown]

The problem is, who wants to be staring at a small screen on a monitor, tablet or phone?

Not sure what you mean?
With smart TV's you can pretty much stream the feed from your laptop or slinbox or Hulu and with the ap's written for Smart TV's
you can do the same again Hulu and Netflix.
Ride the wave cause its going to change and sooner than many think.

 

[jrd23psu]

I think one of the most telling point is how little the younger generations are interested in listening to idiots ramble on ESPN. Like someone pointed out, it's a bunch of middle aged losers "analyzing" sports. Kids couldn't care any less about what they have to say. I haven't watched ESPN in at least 5-6 years. The only time I turn it on is to see a game that I literally can't see anywhere else, like a PSU game, Steelers game, etc. I think that's where it's heading for everyone, too.

 

[uppermaclion]

I think one of the most telling point is how little the younger generations are interested in listening to idiots ramble on ESPN. Like someone pointed out, it's a bunch of middle aged losers "analyzing" sports. Kids couldn't care any less about what they have to say. I haven't watched ESPN in at least 5-6 years. The only time I turn it on is to see a game that I literally can't see anywhere else, like a PSU game, Steelers game, etc. I think that's where it's heading for everyone, too.

I think this has more to do with it then anything. Not just the "younger" generation but ESPN has started to become very political and is interjecting politics into their broadcasts. That is turning a lot of people away as well. I only watch ESPN if there is a game on that I want to see. I never watch any of their home grown programs.

A prime example is the ESPY's. That is an ESPN thing even though it is being broadcast on ABC this year. They can't stop raving about Bruce Jenner being awarded the courage award or whatever it is called. That is interjecting right into social/political arena and will turn off probably half the people right there. It would be one thing if he earned the award for something sports related but it isn't. It's supposed to be a sports award show!

 

[HairyLion]

The problem with cutting the cord is live sports. I would cut cable in a second if I had an alternative way to watch the games.

 

[ralpieE]

Not sure what you mean?
With smart TV's you can pretty much stream the feed from your laptop or slinbox or Hulu and with the ap's written for Smart TV's
you can do the same again Hulu and Netflix.
Ride the wave cause its going to change and sooner than many think.

I have two smart TVs in the house out of 4. If you think an internet service isn't going to pull your pants down as well, you're mistaken.

 

[dwiz]

The problem is, who wants to be staring at a small screen on a monitor, tablet or phone?

You can hook your tv up to a computer so size wouldn't be am issue. As long as it streams in hd it'll be the same as watching on tv

 

[NittPicker]

It is pretty typical in business. ESPN was the first and leader and dominant market player for a long time. They got fat, dumb, and lazy and are now being caught by new, hungrier competitors while at the same time the demographics are changing.

Ain't that the truth. ESPN got drunk on their own kool aid and became the master of self-promotion. It seemed they reached a point where they were promoting themselves more than they were promoting their programming. Even though some were funny, seeing ESPN commercials on ESPN was strange.

The other thing is, ESPN is just not all that appealing. Every time I see it on, it's a panel of arrogant middle aged men talking about sports between tons of commercials. There's about a million things I would rather watch than that. It's about as entertaining as watching the Weather Channel -- which is also dying.

The Weather Channel is a good comparison. They also became drunk on their own kool aid and thought they could squeeze cable providers for more money. Before the internet exploded there were very few weather outlets aside from a five minute segment on the local news. If a person wanted to follow the progress of a hurricane for example, the Weather Channel had almost constant coverage. Today I can check any number of news and weather websites and do the same thing. In the early days both ESPN and the Weather Channel benefited from being the sole outlet for the information they provided. Times are changing.

 

[BBrown]

I have two smart TVs in the house out of 4. If you think an internet service isn't going to pull your pants down as well, you're mistaken.

oh absolutely but the reason I didn't understand your post was because is it seemed you only had to watch it on laptops, phones and tablets.
But even if they do raise the price for streaming and or ala carte it probably still wont be as much as a package and internet combined. At least I hope not.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

I think this has more to do with it then anything. Not just the "younger" generation but ESPN has started to become very political and is interjecting politics into their broadcasts. That is turning a lot of people away as well. I only watch ESPN if there is a game on that I want to see. I never watch any of their home grown programs.

A prime example is the ESPY's. That is an ESPN thing even though it is being broadcast on ABC this year. They can't stop raving about Bruce Jenner being awarded the courage award or whatever it is called. That is interjecting right into social/political arena and will turn off probably half the people right there. It would be one thing if he earned the award for something sports related but it isn't. It's supposed to be a sports award show!

The Jenner thing isn't political. Socio? Yes. But, not political.

No media outlet in existence stays out of society altogether. There is no future in that.

Your real issue is that they are delving into socio issue that you see as icky, etc. (For the record, I think the Jenner issue is icky, too. However, I don't think it turns off as many people as you or I might imagine. Seems to me that a whole ton of people have zero problem with it.)

 

[Sharkies]

I like to think their problem started just a couple years ago when I decided, based on how they tore down Joe, that I would NEVER, outside of live sports that feature Penn State, watch ESPN. I'm probably not the only Penn Stater who stopped then either.

 

[massimoManca II]

"Bubble" is too kind.... More like a PUSTULE

 

[tboyer]

The problem with cutting the cord is live sports. I would cut cable in a second if I had an alternative way to watch the games.

1) Broadcast. The best games are broadcast network anyway, which means you can watch them for free with an HD antenna. And you can feed an antenna into a Tivo and record the games and skip the commercials. Not enough people know this.

2) Bars. The lesser games, the BTN and ESPN2 games, are on at bars. For the price of a burger and a beer. You have the game you want. It's really a great way to watch a game anyway, with other like-minded fans.

Finally, the situation for cord cutters will only get better. Pressure builds on BTN to sell their content in streaming packages outside the cable bundle -- a la HBO. It's going to happen in the next few years because the BTN knows it is losing the 20-somethings as viewers.

BTN will come to the cord cutters because the cord-cutters are not coming to BTN.

One thing that needs to be noted re ESPN is that ESPN is already coming to the cord cutters by being part of the Sling streaming package.

Last year, I did the cable package just to get BTN and I wanted BTN not for football but for volleyball. But then BTN did such a lousy job, they only broadcast 2 or 3 PSU matches all year anyway. It certainly wasn't worth the price of a cable package for THAT.

This year forget BTN, I'm going to just drive to State College and I'll see some of the best matches live. Which is a much better way to support the program anyway.

ESPN does broadcast the NCAA playoffs in VB, so I'll have to figure that one out. But maybe Sling TV for a month would do it.

 

[Metal Mike]

A PSU note. The weather channel was formed by a group of meteorologists the core from PSU. They sold out to NBC a few years ago. Did they see this coming and cash out before the crash?

 

[stf110]

1) Broadcast. The best games are broadcast network anyway, which means you can watch them for free with an HD antenna. And you can feed an antenna into a Tivo and record the games and skip the commercials. Not enough people know this.

You must not watch much hockey, baseball, or motorsports.

 

[Cletus11]

The crazy thing is that with ESPN and Fox and the like paying these HUGE dollar amounts for rights to sporting events, they have to make that money back up somehow. The only way they do that is more and higher priced commercial time. But in injecting so many more commercials into the live sports programming it makes it almost impossible to watch and they get less viewers. With less viewers and lower ratings, the commercials are not worth as much money and it is a death spiral.

 

[Op2]

I think the sports providers themselves (NFL, college football, MLB, etc) need to be concerned about this too. For any business that wants to be around a long time, getting young people are key. People form habits when they're young then stick to them.

But a lot of the cord cutters these days are young people (who BTW they call "cord nevers" because they didn't cut the cord but rather never got it in the first place). The cable model and its prices are absurd and young people, not being in the habit of putting up with that particular sort of nonsense, don't get cable. But that means they're getting less sports and not developing a sports watching habit. And if they don't develop it while they're young, they may never develop it. After all, in today's world there is tons of competition for entertainment.

 

[TheBigUglies]

ESPiN is dead to me.

 

[tboyer]

There's a lot of potential for cord-cutting by older people as well. My mom-in-law, living on fixed income, basically watches the DIY channel, Masterpiece Theater and local news. For that she's paying a $140 a month cable bill, which is a lot of money to her.

Really if you consider the cost of the programming, the fact that most of what she watches is commercial supported TV, she should be paying $20 month or less.

 

[BBHorn86]

The 20 somethings are totally into eSports gaming of all kind. Not just traditional sports like Madden, FIFA, NHL, etc. but more so the collaborative strategic battle games. There are at times tens of thousands viewing while teams are playing. The interaction is what is interesting. Watching talking heads discuss sports or even just the thought of watching a sporting event that you can't touch or participate in is of no interest to this group.

ESPN is definitely in trouble. Time to sell some Disney stock.

 

[HairyLion]

I remember when MTV was HUGE, but now ... not so much (or maybe I'm just old). Is ESPN headed down the same path?

Are there any good references or resources for novice cord-cutters? Seems like lots of options out there. Is it difficult to transition from regular TV (flipping through the channels) to the streaming services (app driven)?

 

[BBrown]

There's a lot of potential for cord-cutting by older people as well. My mom-in-law, living on fixed income, basically watches the DIY channel, Masterpiece Theater and local news. For that she's paying a $140 a month cable bill, which is a lot of money to her.

Really if you consider the cost of the programming, the fact that most of what she watches is commercial supported TV, she should be paying $20 month or less.

You should find out how much she really needs to watch DIY. because a good ole antenna would save her a ton of money.

 

[BBrown]

I remember when MTV was HUGE, but now ... not so much (or maybe I'm just old). Is ESPN headed down the same path?

Are there any good references or resources for novice cord-cutters? Seems like lots of options out there. Is it difficult to transition from regular TV (flipping through the channels) to the streaming services (app driven)?

No its not you, MTV sucks and has since about 1997. VH1 was good for awhile but its now as bad as MTV unless of course you are into
the Naked Dating reality series. Yes I'm serious its that bad.
If you want to see videos Youtube is the place to be.

 

[HairyLion]

Hell, I'd even cut my cable if I could watch the games online later. Most of the time, I end up recording games and watching them later because of that damned honey-do list.

 

[Lattner]

I think the sports providers themselves (NFL, college football, MLB, etc) need to be concerned about this too. For any business that wants to be around a long time, getting young people are key. People form habits when they're young then stick to them.

But a lot of the cord cutters these days are young people (who BTW they call "cord nevers" because they didn't cut the cord but rather never got it in the first place). The cable model and its prices are absurd and young people, not being in the habit of putting up with that particular sort of nonsense, don't get cable. But that means they're getting less sports and not developing a sports watching habit. And if they don't develop it while they're young, they may never develop it. After all, in today's world there is tons of competition for entertainment.

The nerds who spend their lives gawking at their phones and adjusting their plugs are not typical.
Most young people are avid sports fans.

 

[dwiz]

The nerds who spend their lives gawking at their phones and adjusting their plugs are not typical.
Most young people are avid sports fans.

Young people don't spend money. Amazon just bought Twitch (you watch other people playing video games) for 1 BILLION dollars. There is definitely a paradigm shift.