Most people don't want ESPN on the cable system!

[VideoEagle]

I saw this story today and thought it would be interesting for the group. While we tend to think of sports fans as the majority of people, they are not! A DigitalSmith's Q! 2015 Video trends report shows 81.6% of consumers want a la carté cable/satellite. Instead of the 100 to 200 channels the system currently provide for $100+/month, most people want just 17 channels although there is a wide variety of what those 17 actually are. Most popular was ABC. ESPN was the 20th most popular with only 35.7% of viewers saying they would pay for it. Most of the other sports channels drew less than 20%. 

Those who think rights payments are going to continue to grow are in for a rude awakening! 

Here's a link to the article. 

[GreenMachine]

Lot of Quoners in the world. 

[greenminer]

I'm curious what further discussion will reveal, and for the moment disagree with your last statement.  Rights/money are shifting, not lessening.  The sentiment about sports on cable is low because it is available online now.  Just off the top of my head, I would think it's safe to say ESPN would be much higher up that list of desired channels if sports were not available on the internet.

Don't forget, also, that ABC and ESPN are all under the same umbrella of Disney, and that there are still major sports events happening on the major, non-ESPN networks.

Edited June 25, 2015 by greenminer

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Really .??.. and where was this poll taken..... at some women's club or an Opera House... ??? 

[Ryan Munthe]

I saw this story today and thought it would be interesting for the group. While we tend to think of sports fans as the majority of people, they are not! A DigitalSmith's Q! 2015 Video trends report shows 81.6% of consumers want a la carté cable/satellite. Instead of the 100 to 200 channels the system currently provide for $100+/month, most people want just 17 channels although there is a wide variety of what those 17 actually are. Most popular was ABC. ESPN was the 20th most popular with only 35.7% of viewers saying they would pay for it. Most of the other sports channels drew less than 20%. 

Those who think rights payments are going to continue to grow are in for a rude awakening! 

Here's a link to the article. 

I'm cutting the cord and BSPN is the least of my concerns. In 2015 there is no reason BSPN is necessary. Everything they give you is online, in a less biased fashion. If I need to watch a game, I'll use someone's password or go to a sports bar and have a beer.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Ryan Munthe

[VideoEagle]

Really .??.. and where was this poll taken..... at some women's club or an Opera House... ??? 

I saw it in TV technology. Survey was by DigitalSmith's who are now owned by TiVO. They specialize in programming research across the pay tv industry - cable, telco and satellite plus pay per view, video on demand and now connected devices. This actually fits what parts of the industry is moving towards - smaller, less expensive, more custom packages. And the all want to leave ESPN and other sports channels out of the packages as those are the priciest channels.

ESPN is fighting them on it, demanding they be on every bottom level package or not on at all. If ESPN isn't on all the packages, then their model doesn't work because they are paying too much for programming. Don't forget the reason ABC moved Monday Night Football to ESPN was because the ratings couldn't sustain it on a weeknight in primetime. ABC did better with other programming and ESPN improved by getting the NFL over what they had before on Monday nights. 

For a long time, I've thought the long term future of college sports was PPV via the internet on "channels" run by the schools themselves. They can sub contract out the production much like most of the sports channels do now. Total viewers per game will be less, but since the school is directly selling both the ads and the programming the more popular schools can net more money. 

[Quoner]

Lot of Quoners in the world. 

They have MLB.TV and avoid the ESPN shit show too? Good for them. 

[oldguystudent]

I would've PPV'd through Roku to watch the final game of the CWS last night.  Otherwise, I've no need for an annual or even monthly subscription to ESPN.  It's been six or seven years since I cut the cord.  Don't miss it one bit.  Not one bit.

[ColoradoEagle]

I think this should be filed under obvious. Most diehard sports fans would pay for ESPN and Fox Sports (or standalones like MLB.tv). Casual sports fans know there's more than enough content free OTA. I'm surprised the number willing to pay is actually as high as it is. I'm absolutely shocked that Discovery and History Channel are in the top 5 networks. I would pay not to receive those.

[oldguystudent]

 I'm absolutely shocked that Discovery and History Channel are in the top 5 networks. I would pay not to receive those.

I think there are quite a few people that still haven't gotten the memo that neither of those networks are even remotely related to their names anymore.

[VideoEagle]

I think there are quite a few people that still haven't gotten the memo that neither of those networks are even remotely related to their names anymore.

What is much sadder to me is both Discovery and History have dramatically increased their total viewers by adding what strikes me as garbage. But the trashy reality shows have increased the viewers which increases both advertising and the demand for cable companies to carry those networks. Once again, you don't lose money UNDER estimating the intelligence of TV viewers. 

[Coffee and TV]

What is much sadder to me is both Discovery and History have dramatically increased their total viewers by adding what strikes me as garbage. But the trashy reality shows have increased the viewers which increases both advertising and the demand for cable companies to carry those networks. Once again, you don't lose money UNDER estimating the intelligence of TV viewers. 

And this is right here is why NPR and PBS still need to exist. 

[KRAM1]

And this is right here is why NPR and PBS still need to exist. 

Have no problem at all with this statement...when and if all govt. subsidiaries disappear.

[oldguystudent]

Have no problem at all with this statement...when and if all govt. subsidiaries disappear.

This is what makes me disagree with that statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q

Huh.  How do we embed video on this new fangled board?

Edited June 25, 2015 by oldguystudent

[Stix]

And this is right here is why NPR and PBS still need to exist. 

Have no problem at all with this statement...when and if all govt. subsidiaries disappear.

Fine, @Coffee and TV.  @KRAM1, I agree - and "Public Media" (as they now want to be called) needs to be honest. The "messages from sponsors" are advertisements, and the organizations are hardly non-profit anymore - PBS productions show up on various cable channels these days.

As for pledge drives - that always has made me want to turn the channel, rather than making me want to give money.

[ColoradoEagle]

The whole current state of History Channel, Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, and Arts & Entertainment completely invalidates the argument against funding public broadcasting.

[Cerebus]

This has been a dirty little secret for over a decade.  ESPN charges a huge amount for their package, yet most people would not pay that price for them a la carte.  The Mouse is one of the biggest opponents of a la carte programming specifically because of this.  

[KingDL1]

I hate espn and what they do to sports