Cracks in the cable business send media stocks tumbling

[Mr. Wonderful]

Yes. But apples and oranges. Cord cutting is real. A boycott by UCONN fans is like standing in Bristol and throwing racquetballs at ESPN and expecting the building to come down.

I get the impression you are never going to understand this, but I couldn't give a sh!!t less if preventing ESPN from getting my $6 per month makes no difference to them.

At least I won't be contributing to the bottom line of a corporation that is trying to make my alma mater, the most significant economic and social entity in the state, irrelevant nationally.

And if we're completely honest here, that's what they're doing. I'm taking that $6 per month and sending it to UConn instead.

 

[whaler11]

If anyone thinks CR made college football less popular.... they should probably go look at television ratings.

 

[billybud]

I watch ESPN...I watch a lot of college football. And yes, I'd pay $50 a month to watch ESPN.

Between my North Carolina place and my Florida place I pay Comcast (internet included) and Direct TV about $275 for internet and TV . It's the cost of entertainment.

My son, who is 30, is a cable cutter because he is single and active and makes a budget choice that works for him....during football season he watches games with friends and at my house when I am in North Carolina.

A lot of us will pay for sports programming...but, if debundled, you could kick the 175 channels that I do not watch to the curb. it will just simplify the guide.

 

[J187Money]

I get the impression you are never going to understand this, but I couldn't give a sh!!t less if preventing ESPN from getting my $6 per month makes no difference to them. At least I won't be contributing to the bottom line of a corporation that is trying to make my alma mater, the most significant economic and social entity in the state, irrelevant nationally. And if we're completely honest here, that's what they're doing. I'm taking that $6 per month and sending it to UConn instead.

So I suppose you don't let your kids consume any ABC or Disney product also? You don't let your wife watch Scandal?

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

So I suppose you don't let your kids consume any ABC or Disney product also? You don't let your wife watch Scandal?

My wife and kids already don't watch TV.

 

[J187Money]

If anyone thinks CR made college football less popular.... they should probably go look at television ratings.

I know. Like ESPN's goal is to make UCONN irrelevant. They want to make money.

BTW - the boycott must be working. Disney only made $6.7 Billion over the first 9 months of the year (up 13% y/y).

 

[J187Money]

BTW - Disney owns 1/3rd of Hulu also. Cord cutters beware...

Read the annual report so you can get a list of all of the things you need to avoid in order to stop supporting the evil empire known as ESPN.

http://cdn.media.ir.thewaltdisneycompany.com/2014/annual/10k-wrap-2014.pdf

(of course, you would really need to avoid all of their advertisers as well if you were really serious)

 

[J187Money]

And to be clear - do what you want. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it matters.

 

[Exit 4]

I know. Like ESPN's goal is to make UCONN irrelevant. They want to make money.

BTW - the boycott must be working. Disney only made $6.7 Billion over the first 9 months of the year (up 13% y/y).

Generally I respect your posts - but on this subject - what's wrong with someone not liking a corporate establishment and therefor electing to minimize their business with said establishment? Of course ABC/ESPN/Disney will do just fine w/o us, but that isn't so much the point as the point being they (the consumer) have decided that they don't want their $ going that firm. Frankly, we do this every day as consumers - sometimes with conscientious objections to a brand and sometimes with deep seated bias that many probably don't give much thought too. The classic example would be coffee, many loathe either Dunkin or Starbucks for what they perceive the other brand stands for - whether its really true or not.

Admittedly I have mixed feelings. As I said earlier, as a CT resident & tax payer, I want ESPN to succeed very much...but as a consumer - I purposefully avoid the channel as much as possible and if I could, I would probably cut out of my sports package. Yes - I do feel - given the anecdotal evidence collected over the past 5 years of CRA that ESPN has had an active hand in forcing realignment. They have been an enabler. Partly this is the force of Adam Smith (straight economics) and partly - in my own opinion - due to bias at worst or indifference at best by ESPN beancounters & decision makers. That all said, I hope someone at ESPN pens a tell all book at CRA 30 years from now that gets the truth out there - what ever it is.

One other thought about ESPN....the channel is chock full itself and its brand. Its especially good at ignoring all other media outlets, particularly national media outlets it perceives as competition.

Bottomline - yes I am bitter about CRA and that bitterness drives me to minimize my ESPN watching (I don't watch their news/non live sports broadcasting). Silly, perhaps. Unproductive, perhaps. Do I feel a little better about myself...yes.

These days - for tv sports news coverage, I mostly watch SNY Geico Sports Night. 'Get your NY sports here.'

 

[Exit 4]

And to be clear - do what you want. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it matters.

Of course not... but it matters how I feel and so - as a consumer - I look to make other choices when I can.

 

[J187Money]

Generally I respect your posts - but on this subject - what's wrong with someone not liking a corporate establishment and therefor electing to minimize their business with said establishment? Of course ABC/ESPN/Disney will do just fine w/o us, but that isn't so much the point as the point being they (the consumer) have decided that they don't want their $ going that firm. Frankly, we do this every day as consumers - sometimes with conscientious objections to a brand and sometimes with deep seated bias that many probably don't give much thought too. The classic example would be coffee, many loathe either Dunkin or Starbucks for what they perceive the other brand stands for - whether its really true or not.

Admittedly I have mixed feelings. As I said earlier, as a CT resident & tax payer, I want ESPN to succeed very much...but as a consumer - I purposefully avoid the channel as much as possible and if I could, I would probably cut out of my sports package. Yes - I do feel - given the anecdotal evidence collected over the past 5 years of CRA that ESPN has had an active hand in forcing realignment. They have been an enabler. Partly this is the force of Adam Smith (straight economics) and partly - in my own opinion - due to bias at worst or indifference at best by ESPN beancounters & decision makers. That all said, I hope someone at ESPN pens a tell all book at CRA 30 years from now that gets the truth out there - what ever it is.

One other thought about ESPN....the channel is chock full itself and its brand. Its especially good at ignoring all other media outlets, particularly national media outlets it perceives as competition.

Bottomline - yes I am bitter about CRA and that bitterness drives me to minimize my ESPN watching (I don't watch their news/non live sports broadcasting). Silly, perhaps. Unproductive, perhaps. Do I feel a little better about myself...yes.

These days - for tv sports news coverage, I mostly watch SNY Geico Sports Night. 'Get your NY sports here.'

I don't disagree with you at all. And you hit the nail on head in the bolded part above. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. It is silly. It is unproductive. And btw if it makes you happy so be it. Just be honest about it. I just didn't buy the "I don't watch ESPiN because 100% of their content is inferior to all other content" line of reasoning, which is how this got started. Being bitter and angry is a good enough reason not to watch.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I know. Like ESPN's goal is to make UCONN irrelevant. They want to make money.

BTW - the boycott must be working. Disney only made $6.7 Billion over the first 9 months of the year (up 13% y/y).

I knew you wouldn't get it.

This is the point: it is irrelevant whether ESPN does it deliberately. They're not. But it doesn't have to be deliberate to deserve my scorn and motivate me to severe my support.

 

[J187Money]

I knew you wouldn't get it.

This is the point: it is irrelevant whether ESPN does it deliberately. They're not. But it doesn't have to be deliberate to deserve my scorn and motivate me to severe my support.

Read my other posts. I do get it. I understand why people are angry. I understand why people want to boycott.

Here is my point of view (in bullet form because apparently people don't want to actually read what I've written):

• *I* don't blame ESPN. They are a corporation that is trying to make money.
• I don't care if you do blame ESPN. I might disagree with you, but who cares.
• I don't care if you watch ESPN. You should do whatever makes you happy.
• Your individual choices don't matter to ESPN because there aren't enough of you to matter. Which again, doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you want to do. And I suppose if you want to pretend that it matters, fine. Just doesn't make it true.
• It feels to me that people here say they don't like ESPN content BECAUSE they are mad at ESPN. Which is odd. If you don't like ESPN, fine. If you like ESPN and don't want to watch because you are mad, also fine.

 

[itgoeslike]

Fair point. But if I'm ESPN I act in my own self interest. That's my job. It sucks that UCONN lost. But they were way late to the table. I've said it before - I grew up in Wisconsin and moved out here as a teenager. When I went to UCONN it was mostly based on price and it killed me that we were playing 1-AA football and I never went to any games. The reputation of UCONN football across the country is not weak. It is non-existent. Nobody cares. It is not a brand. If people think that ESPN should have acted differently they don't work in the real world.

CR has ruined things for lots of people. Even the winners. They have more cash but that's it.

If ESPN can act in their own self-interest (as they should [on many levels]), why can't pissed off UConn fans be afforded the same consideration? Personally, I wouldn't avoid watching ESPN at the expense of not watching UConn, but if someone felt that strongly, so be it. It's his or her choice.

As college football becomes more "contrived" it loses some of the allure it once had over professional sports. Apathy is the biggest threat to media properties.

 

[J187Money]

If ESPN can act in their own self-interest (as they should [on many levels]), why can't pissed off UConn fans be afforded the same consideration? Personally, I wouldn't avoid watching ESPN at the expense of not watching UConn, but if someone felt that strongly, so be it. It's his or her choice.

As college football becomes more "contrived" it loses some of the allure it once had over professional sports. Apathy is the biggest threat to media properties.

I've never said otherwise.

 

[itgoeslike]

Yes. But apples and oranges. Cord cutting is real. A boycott by UCONN fans is like standing in Bristol and throwing racquetballs at ESPN and expecting the building to come down.

Although not mutually exclusive, I don't believe that I ever stated that Cord Cutting and a boycott by UConn fans were the same thing.

 

[J187Money]

Although not mutually exclusive, I don't believe that I ever stated that Cord Cutting and a boycott by UConn fans were the same thing.

No you didn't. But you used Sea World as an example as to how it could matter. I was just stating that it wouldn't matter, given the relative size of the UCONN fan population that cares, and the fact that most other fan bases are happy. It worked at Sea World because pretty much EVERYONE hates mistreatment of animals.

 

[SAMCRO]

As college football becomes more "contrived" it loses some of the allure it once had over professional sports. Apathy is the biggest threat to media properties.

You just summed up exactly how I feel about CFB, and college sports in general. Apathetic... Passionate about UConn, indifferent o apathetic about games not involving UConn. I went from being a die-hard college sports fan who loved UConn, to solely a UConn fan who predominantly watches games they were involved in, and very little else in college sports. I want from having ESPN on my TV around the clock (and this was before UConn even upgraded), to just watching it when there is live content, predominantly UConn games. For me, it isn't about "boycotting" ESPN or even cord cutting, it has just become less interesting. Sports TV is jumping the shark a bit (for me at least). Maybe it is the over-exposure of players, the biased narrative that networks seem to push to advance their initiatives.... I dunno.

Season can't start soon enough.

 

[itgoeslike]

I've never said otherwise.

You haven't called anyone/anything "odd" and/or "silly" for refusing to partake in advancing CR and its related interests?

 

[itgoeslike]

No you didn't. But you used Sea World as an example as to how it could matter. I was just stating that it wouldn't matter, given the relative size of the UCONN fan population that cares, and the fact that most other fan bases are happy. It worked at Sea World because pretty much EVERYONE hates mistreatment of animals.

I don't think anyone suggested that the number of fans avoiding ESPN would bring it to its knees. I was responding specifically to your comment "I don't care about the random ESPN employee or the bar back. Just calling B/S on the thought that by boycotting anything you hurt your intended target." Then you gave an example of how a Domino's pizza boycott was not effective. Whether driven by animosity or apathy, when people vote with their pocketbooks it can affect businesses, large and small.

 

[J187Money]

You haven't called anyone/anything "odd" and/or "silly" for refusing to partake in advancing CR and its related interests?

Yes I have. Just because a UCONN fan has the right to boycott a network doesn't mean that I don't think it is silly. And I think it is silly because it won't accomplish anything.

From a personal perspective, I don't watch a lot of TV live (I travel and work a ton). I listen to ESPN Radio a lot on XM. I thought about how to avoid it given the context of everyone's comments and came to the following conclusion:

• Most of the other sports programming on XM is worse (some channels have decent programs in some dayparts, but by and large ESPN is much better across the board)
• I don't care about local NY sports (so I don't really listen to the FAN)
• Therefore, avoiding ESPN Radio makes my life worse.

As to TV - I watch live events that I want to watch, regardless of what network they are on. When I want scores, I go to ESPN or ESPN news because to be honest I don't know what other sports channels exist and have never tried to figure that out. I get what I need. I like programming like Sports Reporters and Outside the Lines. I'm not going to not watch them because I'm mad at ESPN. I don't believe there is equivalent programming on other networks. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not going to stop watching things I like because the network made a rational decision to improve their bottom line.

Again, if it improves your life to behave differently, great. We all are driven by different wants/needs.

 

[itgoeslike]

You just summed up exactly how I feel about CFB, and college sports in general. Apathetic... Passionate about UConn, indifferent o apathetic about games not involving UConn. I went from being a die-hard college sports fan who loved UConn, to solely a UConn fan who predominantly watches games they were involved in, and very little else in college sports. I want from having ESPN on my TV around the clock (and this was before UConn even upgraded), to just watching it when there is live content, predominantly UConn games. For me, it isn't about "boycotting" ESPN or even cord cutting, it has just become less interesting. Sports TV is jumping the shark a bit (for me at least). Maybe it is the over-exposure of players, the biased narrative that networks seem to push to advance their initiatives.... I dunno.

Season can't start soon enough.

The biased narrative was a huge turnoff. The AAC blog was a slap in the face to most its fans. All they did was post game photos or articles about other conferences in the blog. ESPN lost an opportunity to captivate, engage and own incoming fans of ECU, UCF, Houston, etc. Maybe things have changed over there. I wouldn't know.

 

[J187Money]

I don't think anyone suggested that the number of fans avoiding ESPN would bring it to its knees. I was responding specifically to your comment "I don't care about the random ESPN employee or the bar back. Just calling B/S on the thought that by boycotting anything you hurt your intended target." Then you gave an example of how a Domino's pizza boycott was not effective. Whether driven by animosity or apathy, when people vote with their pocketbooks it can affect businesses, large and small.

Right. When enough of a customer base votes, it matters. Sea World is a unique example. But it is still open. And mostly who took it on the chin were the shareholders, who were not the intended target, and of course the CEO, who made millions by being fired and is still a consultant. The goal would be the humane treatment of animals in captivity. Did that happen? Great. But now Sea World is less profitable. And they will probably counter that by reducing costs. So some employee at a random Busch Gardens will be fired because people were upset about how Sea World treats its animals? Yay? Was that guy the target?

 

[UConnJim]

Can't everyone agree? There are cracks in the cable business model as cable penetration appears saturated and cord cutting has begun. This doesn't mean the cable business model is going to change over night, but it will change sometime in the next 10 years.

ESPN used to grow through 3 main drivers: subscriber additions, channel additions, and price increases. The first 2 growth drivers are pretty much over for ESPN (subscribers are starting to be a drag on growth) and we will see if ESPN can continue to increase prices for the foreseeable future.

Even small losses of subscribers really impacts a cable networks economics. Why? The profit margin of adding a new subscriber once the fixed costs are covered is close to 100%. The math works the opposite way for subscriber losses. Thus, if ESPN lost 1% of its subscriber base, this would probably hit ESPN income by ~2.5%.

And don't forget ala carte cable channel pricing. Canada is switching from forced bundles to ala carte cable pricing this year. It is coming to the US and the estimate is that ESPN will cost $36/month in the US if only 16% of households subscribe to ESPN. (And that's just for ESPN as ESPN2, ESPNU,... would add to the cost.)

If you don't think ESPN is scared about changes in the cable network business model, think about this: ESPN has locked up some sports rights for the next 7 to 10 years, but their customers subscribe to cable on a month to month basis. If cord cutting accelerates or ala carte pricing comes to the US in the next few years, ESPN has some huge legacy sports rights contracts that they wish they didn't have.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Right. When enough of a customer base votes, it matters. Sea World is a unique example. But it is still open. And mostly who took it on the chin were the shareholders, who were not the intended target, and of course the CEO, who made millions by being fired and is still a consultant. The goal would be the humane treatment of animals in captivity. Did that happen? Great. But now Sea World is less profitable. And they will probably counter that by reducing costs. So some employee at a random Busch Gardens will be fired because people were upset about how Sea World treats its animals? Yay? Was that guy the target?

J187, I have read through this thread and I follow you on everything but this post, which implies a complete hopelessness for consumers. In short, your point is that even in the rare instances where consumers can impact a company it is still pointless. I can only gather that you are an investor, or otherwise work in financial services, because you have completely divorced the concept of owning stock in a company from having any responsibility for its actions. Owning stock does not entitle you to profits without also generating culpability for the company's actions. To carry forward your failed Sea World example, of course the shareholders should have been the target. They chose the board who hired the management that rounds up wild orcas, houses them in solitary tanks, and has them do flips in a stadium. And for the random worker, there are other entertainment options in Florida where the tourism money will move - I am sure they will find a job (not that your primary concern was the worker at Busch Gardens anyway).