Potential problems for SEC / ESPN…

[SSBGDog]

If anyone has been paying attention to Clay Travis, ESPN is facing tremendous revenue issues as more and more subscribers “cut the cord”. ESPN could go from 100m subscribers to 50m. They have already had lots of layoffs.

So for years, ESPN has been “subsidzed” by sat/cable subscribers who rarely watch their programming. Things are changing fast.

The SEC network is 50% owned by ESPN. Furthermore, Commish Sankey, put ALL of the SEC’s eggs in ESPN’s basket when he negotiated the last TV deal.

Contrast that with the Big10, who are getting all their games on the Networks (NBC, CBS, FOX primarily i believe).

Bottom line, as more and more folks cut the cord, the SEC may have to look for more TV partners and/or we may wind up paying a lot more to watch the games.

 

[8dog]

He has been writing this same article for 8 years now. He isn’t necessarily wrong but ESPN will eventually just go to a stand alone sub once they think the numbers make sense.

 

[Clay Lyle]

He does work for Fox, so it’s not surprising he has that take. The SEC will be fine no matter how this ESPN/Disney stuff shakes out. Our viewership numbers are too valuable to jeopardize for Disney or any new owner. It’s the ACC, Big12, and PAC12 that will suffer. Any changes likely further advance conference realignment.

 

[Maroon13]

It will work itself out. I think it's a matter of time before espn removes itself from YouTube etc and goes with ala carte subscription plans. ...and it's going to be expensive.

 

[ronpolk]

I’m not sure someone like Clay Travis is the best source on something regarding ESPN.

 

[57stratdawg]

He has been writing this same article for 8 years now. He isn’t necessarily wrong but ESPN will eventually just go to a stand alone sub once they think the numbers make sense.

Maybe one day we can just bundle a bunch of TV Channels together instead of having to pay much higher costs for them individually….

 

[kphall11]

ESPN has basically become a live rights station and that is what they are gearing towards.

 

[aTotal360]

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

CT obviously wants ESPN to fail. And ESPN is hemorrhaging subs.

This ala cart deal that everyone has been yearning for the past 20 years is starting to wear out its welcome. It works for some people and doesn't work for many. First-world problems...but I was sick and tired of having to pay multiple subs and still not getting the service I was used to. I went back to cable. It was costing only $11 more a month but got rid of the hassle of swapping apps and the benefit of a few more channels.

 

[mcdawg22]

If anyone has been paying attention to Clay Travis, ESPN is facing tremendous revenue issues as more and more subscribers “cut the cord”. ESPN could go from 100m subscribers to 50m. They have already had lots of layoffs.

So for years, ESPN has been “subsidzed” by sat/cable subscribers who rarely watch their programming. Things are changing fast.

The SEC network is 50% owned by ESPN. Furthermore, Commish Sankey, put ALL of the SEC’s eggs in ESPN’s basket when he negotiated the last TV deal.

Contrast that with the Big10, who are getting all their games on the Networks (NBC, CBS, FOX primarily i believe).

Bottom line, as more and more folks cut the cord, the SEC may have to look for more TV partners and/or we may wind up paying a lot more to watch the games.

When did Clay Travis start covering sports?

 

[Seinfeld]

It will work itself out. I think it's a matter of time before espn removes itself from YouTube etc and goes with ala carte subscription plans. ...and it's going to be expensive.

It seems inevitable doesn’t it? Almost to the point where you wonder why they haven’t already done it.

I’ve wondered if maybe it is the required price point, and while subscribers don’t flinch at paying $20-30/mo for it when it’s buried inside a cable package, they’re concerned that people won’t shell that out for a stand-alone streaming service

 

[johnson86-1]

Maybe one day we can just bundle a bunch of TV Channels together instead of having to pay much higher costs for them individually….

I suspect that option is going to continue in the future. But you're also going to have an option for a stand along ESPN streaming package that it probably going to be expensive ($20 per month maybe?) and no ESPN channel will probably be included in basic cable packages when that happens. You'll have people like me that can get by with a $20 ESPN package and netflix/prime and be fine, you'll have those that want live sports and live tv and they'll get packages that will look like todays (although they may have to go a higher tier to get ESPN channels), and you'll have people that will happily pay for live tv without the espn package. Only question is where the numbers end up for each producct.

ESPN has been in a tough spot because they get a little bit of money from a lot of cable/sat subscribers that don't care about live sports, and if they give the people like me that only care about live sports a cheap option, they lose all their leverage with the cable and satellite companies to force them to include ESPN in a lower tier package and also get a premium charge for it.

 

[patdog]

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

CT obviously wants ESPN to fail. And ESPN is hemorrhaging subs.

This ala cart deal that everyone has been yearning for the past 20 years is starting to wear out its welcome. It works for some people and doesn't work for many. First-world problems...but I was sick and tired of having to pay multiple subs and still not getting the service I was used to. I went back to cable. It was costing only $11 more a month but got rid of the hassle of swapping apps and the benefit of a few more channels.

a la carte was never going to work. Once people find out how much it would cost for each channel as a stand-alone, they start culling channels they "need," which just drives up the cost even more.

 

[columbiadawg2]

You lost me at Clay Travis.

 

[catvet]

Diamond Sports/Bally Sports show what happens to Sports programming when it goes Ala carte. They are in bankruptcy. At some point you will see a realignment in Sports because it is simply financially out of control

 

[OG Goat Holder]

It seems inevitable doesn’t it? Almost to the point where you wonder why they haven’t already done it.

I’ve wondered if maybe it is the required price point, and while subscribers don’t flinch at paying $20-30/mo for it when it’s buried inside a cable package, they’re concerned that people won’t shell that out for a stand-alone streaming service

Whenever it happens, I'll buy it, and promptly cut the $75 YoutubeTV subscription. So it'll save me money.

 

[WrapItDog]

I’ve wondered if maybe it is the required price point, and while subscribers don’t flinch at paying $20-30/mo for it when it’s buried inside a cable package,

Cable carriers currently pay $9.42 per subscriber each month to ESPN,

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

If anyone has been paying attention to Clay Travis, ESPN is facing tremendous revenue issues as more and more subscribers “cut the cord”. ESPN could go from 100m subscribers to 50m. They have already had lots of layoffs.

So for years, ESPN has been “subsidzed” by sat/cable subscribers who rarely watch their programming. Things are changing fast.

The SEC network is 50% owned by ESPN. Furthermore, Commish Sankey, put ALL of the SEC’s eggs in ESPN’s basket when he negotiated the last TV deal.

Contrast that with the Big10, who are getting all their games on the Networks (NBC, CBS, FOX primarily i believe).

Bottom line, as more and more folks cut the cord, the SEC may have to look for more TV partners and/or we may wind up paying a lot more to watch the games.

We may actually have to attend games in person. Oh the horrors!

 

[The Cooterpoot]

ESPN actually gained 400K subscribers last quarter. Disney is who is bleeding money.
Also, ESPN has 25.3MM subscribers in the US.
Clay Travis should do better research.
I also find it funny people say ESPN is too political but will listen to a Clay Travis type, who is also political.

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

CT obviously wants ESPN to fail. And ESPN is hemorrhaging subs.

This ala cart deal that everyone has been yearning for the past 20 years is starting to wear out its welcome. It works for some people and doesn't work for many. First-world problems...but I was sick and tired of having to pay multiple subs and still not getting the service I was used to. I went back to cable. It was costing only $11 more a month but got rid of the hassle of swapping apps and the benefit of a few more channels.

I'm actually considering going back to DirecTV. I still have the post mounted on my house and could easily hook it back up to the existing coax cable that is now attached to an antenna. If Hulu raises their junk fee one more time I'm out.

 

[patdog]

ESPN actually gained 400K subscribers last quarter. Disney is who is bleeding money.
Also, ESPN has 25.3MM subscribers in the US.
Clay Travis should do better research.

ESPN is going to be fine. Rumors that the NFL may be buying into an ownership interest.

 

[Seinfeld]

Cable carriers currently pay $9.42 per subscriber each month to ESPN,

Huh, a lot less than I was expecting. Then I guess the issue may be that if you take away the ability to subsidize it with a cable package and instead are only charging willing subscribers, maybe the feasible price point would just to be too much

 

[ChE1997]

If anyone has been paying attention to Clay Travis, ESPN is facing tremendous revenue issues as more and more subscribers “cut the cord”. ESPN could go from 100m subscribers to 50m. They have already had lots of layoffs.

So for years, ESPN has been “subsidzed” by sat/cable subscribers who rarely watch their programming. Things are changing fast.

The SEC network is 50% owned by ESPN. Furthermore, Commish Sankey, put ALL of the SEC’s eggs in ESPN’s basket when he negotiated the last TV deal.

Contrast that with the Big10, who are getting all their games on the Networks (NBC, CBS, FOX primarily i believe).

Bottom line, as more and more folks cut the cord, the SEC may have to look for more TV partners and/or we may wind up paying a lot more to watch the games.

The base assumption is that Disney is more at risk of losing money on the only ad revenue event, Live sports, than is Fox, NBC, or CBS.

How many of you watch commercials anymore in your non sports programming? I don't.

The thing we have going for us (the SEC) is that Disney is the biggest.

Having more partners is not a help vs cord cutting.

Now will we see a PPV model for live sports? Or a $5-15 a month SEC /ESPN streaming channel?

 

[11thEagleFan]

I think we’re all going to look back on the days of premium cable and realize that was the best model. We’ve reached the point of over saturation with streaming services, and it’s only going to get worse. I did a 7 day free trial of MGM+ this past week because there was a show I wanted to watch. When I finished the show I perused the rest of their catalogue to see if there was anything else I wanted to watch. Nope. Good lord their selection was awful.

The big boys at Netflix seem to be suffering too. Oh and those “cheap” price points? A thing of the past, really. We should’ve shut up and enjoyed our cable.

 

[SSBGDog]

The base assumption is that Disney is more at risk of losing money on the only ad revenue event, Live sports, than is Fox, NBC, or CBS.

How many of you watch commercials anymore in your non sports programming? I don't.

The thing we have going for us (the SEC) is that Disney is the biggest.

Having more partners is not a help vs cord cutting.

Now will we see a PPV model for live sports? Or a $5-15 a month SEC /ESPN streaming channel?

I’m not sure someone like Clay Travis is the best source on something

Almost as big as the ESPN problem in my original post was how well the Big10 did in negotiating their TV deal. That SEC CBS game of the week is a thing if the past. They now will broadcast Big10 football instead. All anyone has to do to watch Big10 now is buy an antenna. Sankey screwed up by going All In with ESPN.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Almost as big as the ESPN problem in my original post was how well the Big10 did in negotiating their TV deal. That SEC CBS game of the week is a thing if the past. They now will broadcast Big10 football instead. All anyone has to do to watch Big10 now is buy an antenna. Sankey screwed up by going All In with ESPN.

Soooooo.....wouldn't that net LESS money for CBS (or whatever network channel the B1G is on)? I don't know how those subscriptions would add up to overall advertising dollars, so it may be minimal. But I do know that every household in America still likely has ESPN somehow, so ESPN seems to be getting the same coverage, PLUS the money. So it seems to me they are still the winner.

 

[Dawgg]

Almost as big as the ESPN problem in my original post was how well the Big10 did in negotiating their TV deal. That SEC CBS game of the week is a thing if the past. They now will broadcast Big10 football instead. All anyone has to do to watch Big10 now is buy an antenna. Sankey screwed up by going All In with ESPN.

Right... and SEC Game of the week will now be on ABC, which you can also get with an antenna.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

Right... and SEC Game of the week will now be on ABC, which you can also get with an antenna.

Maybe even multiple games on ABC each week. Also, for fans, one stop shop for streaming.... If you want to stream B1G sports, you will need subscription for Peacock, Paramount+ and whatever Fox uses.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

They are trying to get all their eggs in one basket before they roll out a subscription streaming service. I thought it would be this year. It will probably be in conjunction with the new SEC, just a guess, but it would make sense to launch a streaming service while your biggest brand is doing a re-face.

 

[patdog]

Right... and SEC Game of the week will now be on ABC, which you can also get with an antenna.

Wouldn't be surprised to see 2 games on ABC after Texas and Oklahoma join.

 

[Dawgg]

Wouldn't be surprised to see 2 games on ABC after Texas and Oklahoma join.

Maybe even multiple games on ABC each week. Also, for fans, one stop shop for streaming.... If you want to stream B1G sports, you will need subscription for Peacock, Paramount+ and whatever Fox uses.

I agree. I think you're going to see SEC double-headers regularly and the occasional triple-header. Since all the rights are with one provider, they can schedule these things without regard for other broadcast partners.

I also agree that it's great having them on one network if/when ESPN becomes fully available as a standalone service. If they raised the price of ESPN+ from $10 to $20 and included the ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/SECN/ACCN programming, that's a really good deal.

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

they will be fine. ESPN will go to a sub and probably be bought from Disney

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Maybe one day we can just bundle a bunch of TV Channels together instead of having to pay much higher costs for them individually….

Let me tell you about this new VoIP telephony. You see, you never have to pay for your home phone, you just rent it from the phone company. I know your next question is "can I get a party line?". Unfortunately, the answer is no, you will have to stalk your weird neighbors social media to find out what they are up to rather than listen in on their calls.

 

[ChE1997]

Almost as big as the ESPN problem in my original post was how well the Big10 did in negotiating their TV deal. That SEC CBS game of the week is a thing if the past. They now will broadcast Big10 football instead. All anyone has to do to watch Big10 now is buy an antenna. Sankey screwed up by going All In with ESPN.

I disagree. We got the biggest deal ever when we signed.

The Big 10 got more money because they negotiated after we did.

less than 14% watches over the Air TV. And as broadband expands to rural communities, (completed by 2030).

We dropped CBS because they wanted exclusive rights to 2:30. That doesn't make sense. having one network means the SEC has MORE control.

And No way Disney sells ESPN. Live sports is the only way to get big ad $$$ now.

Not to mention that adding UT and OU == re-opening the contract.

 

[onewoof]

ESPN/Disney/ABC have the option to show SEC games on ABC which is in virtually every home

Big 10 has the option to show on FOX which is also in many homes and not just on the BigTen channel

That being said, no one does better at selling ads more than CBS, they are in a league of their own with that.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Whenever it happens, I'll buy it, and promptly cut the $75 YoutubeTV subscription. So it'll save me money.

No kidding. $20 / month for ESPN channels sounds amazing…its the only reason why I personally care about having YTTV. And I’ll promptly drop it for February, March, July, and August…..borrow a buddy’s password if I want to want to watch a State basketball game or early season nonconference baseball game here or there, and be out the door for $160 per year for my sports viewing.

 

[onewoof]

No kidding. $20 / month for ESPN channels sounds amazing…its the only reason why I personally care about having YTTV. And I’ll promptly drop it for February, March, July, and August…..borrow a buddy’s password if I want to want to watch a State basketball game or early season nonconference baseball game here or there, and be out the door for $160 per year for my sports viewing.

My guess. $25 for ESPN and $10 for SEC Network

 

[Mobile Bay]

He has been writing this same article for 8 years now. He isn’t necessarily wrong but ESPN will eventually just go to a stand alone sub once they think the numbers make sense.

I would gladly pay $20 a month for the length of football season and not pay for the rest of the trash on cable.

 

[Perd Hapley]

My guess. $25 for ESPN and $10 for SEC Network

I doubt they’d split them up….divides the market too much. Most everyone in the SEC footprint would just do the $10 / month and password share for NFL games or SEC games on ESPN / ESPN 2. Plus, even if they did, in that model you’d also have the ACC Network and B1G network at $10 per month as well. Ain’t nobody paying $65 for that whole family of channels when they already get all those plus a bunch of others for $70 with a YTTV subscription. If they split them, you’d probably be looking at $15 for ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, then $5 each for the regional conference networks.

 

[chuckster.sixpack]

He has been writing this same article for 8 years now. He isn’t necessarily wrong but ESPN will eventually just go to a stand alone sub once they think the numbers make sense.

ESPN is the only thing Clay is more obsessed with than the coronavirus. A true culture warrior.

 

[onewoof]

I doubt they’d split them up….divides the market too much. Most everyone in the SEC footprint would just do the $10 / month and password share for NFL games or SEC games on ESPN / ESPN 2. Plus, even if they did, in that model you’d also have the ACC Network and B1G network at $10 per month as well. Ain’t nobody paying $65 for that whole family of channels when they already get all those plus a bunch of others for $70 with a YTTV subscription. If they split them, you’d probably be looking at $15 for ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU, then $5 each for the regional conference networks.

Correct. I meant the SEC Network is +10. You have to have ESPN to get it.