The Death of ESPN is Greatly Exaggerated.

[CL82]

Decent Washington Post article that notes that though things are changing, ESPN is better positioned then anyone else to survive cable cutting.

I found this quote interesting though:

The biggest threat to ESPN, and its competitors, is a scenario develops in which sports leagues can make more money televising their games themselves than they do now selling their television rights to the highest bidder. That day could come, analysts think, but not this decade.

If ESPN agrees that private networks are their biggest risk, how does that influence their thoughts regarding the ACCN and their current negotiation with the B1G?

 

[Seaa Blue]

As long as the economy is good I think ESPN will be aggressive with hanging on to live content from most parts of the country. They will then bundle to both cable networks and direct to consumer (at a premium price).

 

[J187Money]

ESPN is nowhere near dead. Any cost cutting is generally related to Disney using a cash cow to help offset issues elsewhere in the business. The reality is if you don't do that sort of work every few years you will wake up one day and be way behind. I find their actions to be generally proactive, which is a good thing for the long-term health of their business.

 

[junglehusky]

If Episode VII: The Force Awakens breaks box office records, which it probably will, it'll relieve a little bit of the pressure on ESPN.

 

[UConn Dan]

If Episode VII: The Force Awakens breaks box office records, which it probably will, it'll relieve a little bit of the pressure on ESPN.

So what you are saying is that if the force awakens, do does the Death Star.

 

[ZooCougar]

So what you are saying is that if the force awakens, do does the Death Star.
View attachment 10155

Relieve the pressure, it will.

 

[CL82]

So what you are saying is that if the force awakens, do does the Death Star.
View attachment 10155

I wish I could like this 10 times..

lol.

 

[gioff23]

the premise of this chain is not in complete "alignment" with the views of wall street, which today is taking DIS stock out behind the woodshed and whipping it because of ESPN

 

[J187Money]

the premise of this chain is not in complete "alignment" with the views of wall street, which today is taking DIS stock out behind the woodshed and whipping it because of ESPN

That's not why. ESPN earnings are up. Broadcast is down. They did lose subscribers. But that isn't the big story. ESPN will have to subsidize the broadcast business.

 

[uconntailgater]

ESPN has lost 3.2 million subscribers in a little over a year. That is a real money. They get over six dollars per subscriber with forced bundled cable. Bundled cable and satellite time is coming to an end.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...million-subscribers-floats-streaming-service/

 

[gioff23]

That's not why. ESPN earnings are up. Broadcast is down. They did lose subscribers. But that isn't the big story. ESPN will have to subsidize the broadcast business.

I could clutter the board w/analyst reports, but this should suffice

Disney shares fell more than 9% on Wednesday amid deep concerns about the company's most profitable enterprise, ESPN. It was the stock's worst single-day performance in almost four years.

Fears about subscriber declines seemed to trigger a broader sell-off of media stocks.

When the company posted mixed second quarter results on Tuesday, the focus was on ESPN, which is being pinched by changes in consumer habits.

Disney CEO Bob Iger confirmed that there have been "some subscriber losses" at ESPN because some households have opted for smaller cable packages that don't include the pricey cable channel.

On a conference call with investors on Tuesday, Iger forcefully expressed confidence in ESPN's future, and he reiterated that view in interviews on Wednesday morning. On CNBC, he said "we are very bullish" about the cable business.

But investors appear spooked about the possible impact from "cord-cutting" (a term for households dropping cable TV altogether) and "cord-shaving" (households choosing smaller bundles of cable).

ESPN continues to make huge amounts of money through its $6-a-month subscriber fee, but Disney said Tuesday that its year-over-year profits won't be quite as high as it had forecast earlier.

 

[Exit 4]

the cable box rev model is less predictable

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cord-cutters-weights-on-pay-tv-1438820384

 

[uconntailgater]

ESPN has to contend with cord cutters, and even worse, cord nevers. People, manly millennials, who will never sign up for bundled cable due to them still living at home or watching media strictly on their devices.

 

[whaler11]

I haven't checked where everyone closed but I saw the companies with a lot of cordcutting exposure were having a rough day?

 

[huskypantz]

ESPN has to contend with cord cutters, and even worse, cord nevers. People, manly millennials, who will never sign up for bundled cable due to them still living at home or watching media strictly on their devices.

Most of the manly millennials will be sports fans who will subscribe to ESPN.

 

[B1GEast]

Disney may sell espn, they've milked that cow for all it's worth. They can get a premium now, but espn is not what it once was, but they the brand is still worth plenty.

 

[Stinger92860]

If your league has its own network and you can stream said network, you don't need to rely on ESPN as much as you do now. I am not saying they go away, but you may see them contract in revenue and prestige.

For example, should UConn join the B1G and I can watch UConn athletics on BTN, I will rarely watch ESPN. Right now I only turn on ESPN during winter months for cbb, even then it's only for select games. I have hard time determining what I would pay for BTN in CT, but I would not blink at 50 a month. What's the optimal price to drive revenue and what's the revenue stream from advertising? In this model we are very attractive.