
Bullet Points of Doom for ESPN - crgt
https://500ish.com/the-9-bullet-points-of-doom-for-espn-a692d0f48182
======
douche
The worse thing is that there is almost no reason to watch ESPN any longer.
Sportscenter is for the most part terrible these days, with very low signal-
to-noise ratio. Most of the other ESPN programming isn't worth watching,
outside of the actual sporting events that they have broadcast rights to, and
some niche content like the 30 for 30 documentaries.

Of course this is also the doldrum period of the sports year, with football
long over, and basketball and hockey in their offseasons also. Baseball just
doesn't do it, and ESPN has to fill up the air-time covering tennis and golf
in excruciating detail.

~~~
jib
I think this is the most significant point. Filler material doesn't work
anymore. I can and will watch reruns of old content rather than unexciting new
content or filler stuff like commentary.

I will gladly pay a premium for someone to present me good content in an
easily consumable manner, but I don't want filler stuff like talk shows etc
about the content - that isn't where the value add is. The value add is in
creating a package of actual content that I want and presenting it to me in a
way that doesn't require a lot of work or nickel and diming of me?

I watch a bunch of magic the gathering on twitch, and there are two competing
"brands"for casted live tournaments - WotC themselves, and starcitygames. WotC
thinks they should be ESPN with a lot of talk in between, SCG thinks they
should be just content, with a few really talented commentators mostly doing
colour and play by play. SCG gets much higher viewership and better feedback
despite running an objectively lower level tournament series, from having more
content and more in tune with audience commentating talent.

I think that is a microcosm of where we will be going. Content and a small
pocket of talent rather than huge productions that tries to cover gaps in
content.

~~~
theseatoms
The "reruns of old content" model is bit closer to NFL Network's, fwiw.

------
ohitsdom
As a huge American football fan, I don't want an ESPN streaming service. Cut
out the middle man, give me an NFL games streaming service. The NFL could be
innovative and do this now, but like ESPN they will ride out the cable model
until something needs to be done financially. And with no competition, I guess
that's the right thing to do for them. But it sucks to be a fan without cable.

~~~
adventured
You're likely correct that the NFL will ride out the end of the cable era.

However, MLB has shown it can be done right now, and done very successfully.
MLB league revenue is about $9 billion vs $11 billion for the NFL, so the
businesses are comparable. Yet MLB has built a juggernaut in the MLBAM
subsidiary, with perhaps a billion in revenue for 2015 and ~$300+ million in
operating income.

To put that in perspective, Netflix had operating income of $400 million for
2014.

The NFL is making a huge mistake in not building out a comparable platform to
MLBAM. They're going to be running from behind as cable goes down.

~~~
twoodfin
AFAIK, local MLB games are still subject to streaming blackout, lest they hurt
the local (often team-owned) sports networks' massive revenues.

Since, as you rightly point out, they're the vanguard here, when MLB figures
out (contractually, presumably, not technologically) how to get local games
streamed, that will be a watershed moment.

------
var_eps
The situation is reminiscent of the newspaper industry, particularly with
respect to the significant contribution of a entity to the parent's bottom
line. For their entire existence, newspapers have relied on lucrative content,
eg, real estate or auto classifieds, cross-subsidizing the rest of the paper.
As the internet and smartphone apps came along, the bundle fell apart and
migrated into separate services online. New providers captured the lucrative
markets and their revenues, removing the ability of newspapers to continue
cross-subsidizing the actual news. [1]

[1] [http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-
news](http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news)

------
kodablah
I think only half of this is ESPN, the other half is professional sports
leagues which negotiate contracts that prevent networks from providing
alternative broadcast methods. If they could, Fox/NBC/CBS Sports I am sure
would not hesitate to offer streaming services to undercut ESPN (granted there
is Fox Sports GO and NBC extra time for EPL, but they are more limited than
their full channels). But the sports leagues they negotiate with won't allow
it.

If I were ESPN, I'd ride it out. Sure you may lose compare to the old TV
hegemony you had, but you'd never make it up from the streaming side while
leagues have their own services.

~~~
aesthetics1
I agree that the problem is the league's negotiations locking the content down
to specific viewing methods, but I disagree with your second point.

I think creating a good solid product wins. Something like www.ballstreams.com
is much better than NBA League Pass. HBO Go is a better experience than your
cable + HBO Subscription.

Good products and services win out in the long run. That's why this is even a
debate - services like Netflix are destroying the cable companies. It's only a
matter of time.

If ESPN built their own platform that was simple to use, worked wherever you
were (without a cable subscription), and maybe most importantly _did not have
blackouts_ , I think they would make a killing.

~~~
kodablah
My second point was less about quality and more concerned the fact that ESPN
can't create a system without blackouts because the leagues won't let them. So
there is nothing they can do, they should ride it out.

------
iolothebard
I would gladly pay 30-40/mo if I could watch the sports I want online
streaming through one service.

I watch EPL Football and American College Football (along with the World Cup /
Euros every other 2 years).

With over the air ABC moved more and more games to ESPN, which is now coming
back to bite them. Canceled cable in 2006 after the World Cup, tried a few
online services but they were all terrible. I think 40/mo should more than
cover my viewing. Funny thing is, I get it all for free now. Yet I'd prefer to
pay.

~~~
bkjelden
I'd _gladly_ pay this amount too, if it meant I got all college football and
NFL games. A one stop shop for all games would be a huge convenience, too.
When my favorite college team is playing early season games, sometimes it's a
scramble to make sure I have access to whatever minor network picked up the
broadcast rights to the game.

$30/mo is $360/yr. Could I even take my wife to a game at Levi's stadium for
that price, once you factor in transportation and parking?

Almost everyone I know who watches football more than casually would pay for
an all-access streaming service.

------
PaulHoule
Sports are the most popular thing on TV but the reach is about 40% and
probably headed down. Video games scratch a similar itch and a gen xer or
anybody younger with a serious gaming habit is watching less sports, if any.
They are making it harder and harder to watch the games which I think means
fewer people will start a sports habit.

~~~
coldpie
Sports seems to be the last bastion of TV. If you ask why a Netflix user still
has TV, the answer will be "sports" in 90% of cases. I think there is a huge
bundle of money waiting for whatever company manages to convince the
rightsholders to leave the hulking behemoth of TV and move into the world of
streaming. TV is still big enough that the equation hasn't shifted yet, but I
think it will shift soon.

I like to watch auto racing, but there's no legal way to watch live without a
cable sub and an extra package or two on top of that. Usually I pirate races
after the fact or watch a handful of smaller series that upload to YouTube
after the race. But watching live really has its own unique quality, and I
would happily pay a few bucks for the privilege.

~~~
bane
> I think there is a huge bundle of money waiting for whatever company manages
> to convince the rightsholders to leave the hulking behemoth of TV and move
> into the world of streaming.

I heard this from somebody a couple years ago, so I can't take credit for the
thought. In a broadcast medium, like TV, they don't _actually_ know how many
people are watching. It's kind of a guess built up from survey companies like
Nielsen, but it's ultimately a fiction and can be gamed in certain ways. For
example, "90% of cable subscribers subscribe to cable for the sports channels"
and "there are 100million cable subscribers, so therefore the market for
sports channels is 90 million households" and "the average household is 3
people" therefore "advertising reach is potentially 270 million pairs of
eyes".

They can use these numbers to sell advertising at inflated prices, which makes
the channel more money, etc.

But on the internet, things become less "fiction" because they can be backed
by much more concrete numbers like unique visitors to a site, or number of
accounts who watched some particular live-stream, etc. And suddenly 270
million pairs of eyes turns to 11,000 people tuned into the live-stream and
now ESPN or whoever can't really charge $50k for a 30 second placement
anymore...after all no more than 33,000 people might see it, and even if
access to the stream is $10/mo, the revenue from a single game's TV
advertisements will overwhelm the monthly fees from all of the subscribers.

The internet simply eliminates the advertising fiction the TV world operates
in, and the better data quality it provides simply shows that it doesn't allow
them to charge the same kind of revenue generating advertising that they used
to. On _top_ of that, there's more actors in the distribution channel that
they have to revenue share with, making the number even smaller.

TV broadcasters are terrified of streaming TV even though they know it's the
future. The gold mines of broadcast TV are too hard to move away from even if
it's rapidly going away as a medium.

------
mercnet
ESPN has turned into TMZ for sports. I stop watching after they spent a week
focusing on Brett Farve's sexting incident.

------
mxuribe
ESPN might be going away...or at least will need to change their modus
operandi? I say GOOD. While I like to watch the occasional big event like
World Cup, etc. I am not much of a big sports watcher...and when I had my
cable subscription - including premium channels such as HBO, Showtime -
Cablevision added an additional $4 per month surcharge specifically and only
for ESPN! I clearly understand that if a network considers itself premium and
they have content that is in high demand, they would want to charge more. This
is why HBO cost a bunch more...but at least i had a choice: if i didn't want
HBO (or some other premium bundle), I just didn't get that package and done I
save money. But with networks like ESPN which are part of the core offering,
you're forced to pay the fee. I asked my provider to exclude ESPN so i
wouldn't have to pay that surcharge, but they couldn't again because they
bundle channels due to contracts, etc. I get that; not ideal but i understand.
My provider is Cablevision, and some (though not all) of their fees are a
little steep, I can't complain about their service - both human side and
system availability/up-time. But the underlying networks like ESPN seem to be
the prima donnas that are pushing the envelope in a negative direction.

That ESPN surcharge was the actual last straw that pushed me over to the cord-
cutting side...and you know what, I don't miss ESPN at all. If ESPN goes away
(I know, I know unlikely), or at least diminishes its control over other media
providers, etc. then I call this market forces merely bringing their invisible
hands to balance the market/industry/economy; and I don't see a problem with
that.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> I don't miss ESPN at all.

I barely watch it now. The only reason I have it is its included in the
DirecTV package we get.

Since they moved MLS and the Premiership to ABC and its affiliates, and Hockey
is no longer on ESPN either, I hardly watch it anymore. I used to be a huge
Sportscenter fan, which used to be 30 min and really informative. Now it runs
more than an hour and completely disorganized, and barely watchable.

I agree - good riddance.

------
Stratoscope
Let me see if I understand this...

> The financial stakes are especially high for ESPN because it earns the most
> carriage fees of any TV channel, about $6.61 a month per subscriber

I have no interest in televised sports. But if I had a cable package I'd be
paying ESPN almost $80 a year? Whether I watch sports or not?

Now I'm glad I don't have cable TV, just a cable modem. I'll take the $80 over
those sports broadcasts I don't care about, thank you.

~~~
nhebb
> The financial stakes are especially high for ESPN because it earns the most
> carriage fees of any TV channel, about $6.61 a month per subscriber

That's not why the financial stakes are high. They're high because ESPN has
fixed price contracts into the future for the rights to broadcast sports
events. If their subscriber base falls, they're still on the hook for those
contracts.

The article "Is ESPN A Giant Bubble About To Burst?" [1] does a much better
job of explaining the whole picture. It also gives a reasonable argument as to
why subsidizing channels we don't watch benefits TV viewers as a whole. (I'm
thinking about becoming a cord cutter myself, but the argument is still
reasonable.)

[1] [http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-
covera...](http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-
espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215)

~~~
jamessun
> They're high because ESPN has fixed price contracts into the future for the
> rights to broadcast sports events. If their subscriber base falls, they're
> still on the hook for those contracts.

If ESPN continues to lose viewers, their ad revenue will suffer. If ESPN
revenue suffers, will they be able to pay the fixed price contracts they have
with the largest, most viewed sports leagues, such as the NFL, MLB, and SEC
(college football)?

Seems to me that this is the first domino to fall...

~~~
nhebb
They're owned by Disney, so it's not like the bills wouldn't be paid, but if
(when) the bubble burst, it would have a ripple effect through sports and
television.

Hypothetically, ESPN itself doesn't need to lose many viewers for this to
happen. The ad revenues mostly just cover production costs. The bulk of their
revenues come from the cable companies via cable subscriptions. Virtually all
cable bundles include ESPN, so if cable subscriptions fell among non-ESPN
watchers, it would still impact ESPN's bottom line.

------
jib
ESPN are atm really bad at online. I want to give them money to watch college
football (it doesn't air on normal TV in Europe obv except the odd game).

Their price is ok (20 euro a month or so) but their app is completely broken.
On iPad it kicks me out every few mins claiming I logged in somewhere else (I
didn't). They had major issues with the streaming. The app is not searchable
in a meaningful way.

Last two years I have paid them for the first month but have ended up using
pirated streams/YouTube instead to even get to watch the games and then
cancelling in frustration.

Before they are ready to move to an online first model they have a bunch of
work to do. It is clear it is not a focus at the moment at least.

~~~
brohoolio
Huh. I've had really good luck with the ESPN App / streaming services. But I'm
using it in America. No problems watching the World Cup and other things.

~~~
maukdaddy
Jib is right. ESPN app is terrible in Europe. The web version is Flash-based,
constantly drops me to lowest quality adaptive-streaming despite 100mbit
fiber, and many other problems. iPad version does the same thing too, only
natively :)

NFL Gamepass is MUCH better, although the web version is still Flash.

~~~
coldpie
These content companies really need to stop trying to build their own
streaming infrastructure (HARD!) and just build on someone else's tech. You're
a content company, not a tech company. Stream on YouTube or one of the other
handful of companies that do this well.

~~~
dfxm12
It's tempting to integrate vertically. Surprisingly, Major League Baseball did
such a great job building out their streaming service that other companies,
like the WWE, are using MLB's tech for their own streaming service.

------
protomyth
They ended their NASCAR contract with the 2014 season, so I would imagine some
of those fans dropped ESPN for NBC Sports and Fox Sports. Also, ESPN's
reporting from Sports Center (not their actual track coverage) is more
sensationalist than TMZ, and the E has been overshadowing the S in their name
for a while.

ESPN will lose the major sports to their own channels in the coming years. If
ESPN is going to survive they need to become the "every other sport" network
and learn to respect and promote the sports that won't defect to their own
streaming services.

------
outside1234
The future is seasonal packages over streaming by sport. I would probably
subscribe to the Tour de France (oh wait, already do that) and college
football (want this).

~~~
jmagoon
Agreed. The internet allows me to follow the NBA, NHL, MLS, Premier League,
NFL, College Football, and various tournaments (World Cup, Copa America, Gold
Cup, Euro, etc.) around the world. Why would I want to watch an hour of
SportsCenter talking about Johnny Manziel's off field issues when I could
watch a nailbiter between Trinidad & Tobago and Mexico, or Chile and Argentina
going to penalties.

The 24 hour sports channel model just can't work in an age of on demand
content. I want the event--not the pointless filler / tabloid drama. Ideally,
all of these organizations would own their own streaming, and you could
purchase various 'packages'...if there was a Netflix for sports, I would
subscribe ASAP.

------
Zikes
They need to pick up e-sports before Twitch and YouTube eat them alive.

This year The International, the annual Dota 2 "tournament of tournaments",
will have a prize pool surpassing 15 million dollars. Last year's tournament
reached 20 million unique viewers and peaked at 2 million concurrent.

~~~
jandrese
Would you really want to hear ESPNs commentators voice track over a DOTA2
tournament? I can't imagine a pack of people who would be more lost.

~~~
Zikes
One would assume they'd find qualified professionals for the job.

