ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers

Cerebus · October 30, 2016

Quote

At 74 million subscribers -- Outkick's projection for 2021 based on the past five years of subscriber losses -- ESPN would be bringing in just over $6.2 billion a year in yearly subscriber fees at $7 a month. At $8 a month, assuming the subscriber costs per month keeps climbing, that's $7.1 billion in subscriber revenue. Both of those numbers are less than the yearly rights fees cost.

Uh oh.

It seems pretty clear that within five years ESPN will be bringing in less subscriber revenue than they've committed for sports rights.

greenminer · October 30, 2016

I heard water cooler talk this weekend that NFL viewership is waaay down because ppl aren't interested in the politics Kap has introduced to the games/color commentary.

UNTexas · October 30, 2016

5 minutes ago, greenminer said:

I heard water cooler talk this weekend that NFL viewership is waaay down because ppl aren't interested in the politics Kap has introduced to the games/color commentary.

I watch football for fun. I don't need to see nonsense like Kaepernick's ridiculous behavior. Go make a difference on your time off, not at work. I'm so sick of politics with this never ending election and everyone crying foul about everything all the time. I'm glad none of my teams have these disrespectful protests. Kaepernick is drawing attention away from his team in a sad attempt to be relevant again.

While I'm on a soap box, my neighbor turned on Christmas lights last night. Seriously? In October!!!

Off my soap box...

Withers940 · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, UNTexas said:

I watch football for fun. I don't need to see nonsense like Kaepernick's ridiculous behavior. Go make a difference on your time off, not at work. I'm so sick of politics with this never ending election and everyone crying foul about everything all the time. I'm glad none of my teams have these disrespectful protests. Kaepernick is drawing attention away from his team in a sad attempt to be relevant again.

While I'm on a soap box, my neighbor turned on Christmas lights last night. Seriously? In October!!!

Off my soap box...

This made me laugh out loud

Dr. Seuss · October 30, 2016

2 hours ago, UNTexas said:

I watch football for fun. I don't need to see nonsense like Kaepernick's ridiculous behavior. Go make a difference on your time off, not at work. I'm so sick of politics with this never ending election and everyone crying foul about everything all the time. I'm glad none of my teams have these disrespectful protests. Kaepernick is drawing attention away from his team in a sad attempt to be relevant again.

While I'm on a soap box, my neighbor turned on Christmas lights last night. Seriously? In October!!!

Off my soap box...

Guess you're not a fan of the UNT Women's Volleyball..lol but I completely agree with you, along with the Christmas lights..lol

ntdaily.com/four-north-texas-volleyball-players-kneel-with-kaepernick/

KingDL1 · October 30, 2016

Espn goes out of their way to get politics involved with sports. I can't stand ESPN and they are everything wrong with sports these days.

H-towngreen · October 31, 2016

ESPN turned a lot of people off with the screaming heads approach they had for the last 10 yrs. Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless cost that company big.

The NFL is also losing viewers bc it's not just a Sunday/Monday deal anymore. Thursday night, games in Europe, when it is actually Sunday game day there are only a handful of games to watch so the odds of them being crappy matchups are even higher. They believed that the consumer couldn't be over saturated with football.

Wag Tag · October 31, 2016

2 hours ago, Cerebus said:

ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers

Good down with the monopoly!

TIgreen01 · October 31, 2016

Good article. His prediction on sports betting is unsettling, but likely dead on accurate.

Regarding politics, by and large if you only watch espn during game broadcasts you are spared. I know because they lost me a long time ago for anything outside of that.

THOR · October 31, 2016

When espn was about sports, it was a great conglomerate...need to get back to aussie football, swamp/mud racing, Jai alai...the shit that introduced us to new sports

Mike Jackson · October 31, 2016

Cable in general is just too expensive. And with insulting practices like ramming the Longhorn Network down every sport's fan throat doesn't help. Eventually, I believe the cable providers will have to go to more al a carte model. I am not paying for the Longhorn Network, PAC 12 Network, Big 10 Network just because I want NFL Redzone channel. I don't know the packaging conventions outside my market but if I were in Big 10 country and TWC was forcing the SEC Network down my throat I would be quite upset and be thinking about cutting the cord. If I had an easy to use Smart TV, I would be cutting the chord too.

GMG_Dallas · October 31, 2016

2 hours ago, H-towngreen said:

They believed that the consumer couldn't be over saturated with football.

It's not just about being over saturated with the game itself. If you're a married man, in a commited relationship or have kids, you just can't justify allocating that much time to watching games you don't care about. Add that in with early Sunday London games (lose the church crowd or partiers) and Monday and Thursday games (again tough for those with kids who you're trying to take care of after school, homework, get ready for bed) it's just a lot of obstacles to watch a game you don't care about unless you have zero responsibilities. Like you said, if the matchup is bad, it doesn't help any.

Edited October 31, 2016 by GMG_Dallas

NorthTexan95 · October 31, 2016

NFL ratings are ALWAYS lower during a Presidential election. The last time it was down this much was 2000 during the Bush-Gore election. I don't know if this dip in ratings also applies to other sports. It'll be interesting to see what happens after the election.

Edited October 31, 2016 by NorthTexan95

Army of Dad · October 31, 2016

9 hours ago, NorthTexan95 said:

NFL ratings are ALWAYS lower during a Presidential election. The last time it was down this much was 2000 during the Bush-Gore election. I don't know if this dip in ratings also applies to other sports. It'll be interesting to see what happens after the election.

Yes, but this year it's down more than previous election years.

NorthTexan95 · October 31, 2016

28 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Yes, but this year it's down more than previous election years.

Yes, and it's been a more intense election than previous years. I wouldn't make too much of NFL rating until we see what kind of bounce back there will be next season. ESPN dwindling numbers are apparently a trend that won't bounce back.

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · October 31, 2016

I think part of the problem with ESPN is the same problem that MTV eventually had - it started going into areas that had nothing to do with what made it successful.

MTV was music television at first. Then, it became a bunch of crappy non-music related programs.

ESPN is becoming the same thing. A bunch of programs that have nothing to do with the game. People arguing with each other show - check. Politically based shows - check.

If people want that, they can tune into CNN, MSNBC, or FOXNews. When ESPN also started doing the talking heads arguing and political bit, it lost me.

UNTGuy5 · October 31, 2016

19 hours ago, H-towngreen said:

ESPN turned a lot of people off with the screaming heads approach they had for the last 10 yrs. Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless cost that company big.

The NFL is also losing viewers bc it's not just a Sunday/Monday deal anymore. Thursday night, games in Europe, when it is actually Sunday game day there are only a handful of games to watch so the odds of them being crappy matchups are even higher. They believed that the consumer couldn't be over saturated with football.

On that note, I will celebrate my ass off the day Chris Berman leaves television for good. He is TERRIBLE. How he has stayed employed as long as he has is beyond me.

NorthTexan95 · October 31, 2016

5 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

I think part of the problem with ESPN is the same problem that MTV eventually had - it started going into areas that had nothing to do with what made it successful.

MTV was music television at first. Then, it became a bunch of crappy non-music related programs.

ESPN is becoming the same thing. A bunch of programs that have nothing to do with the game. People arguing with each other show - check. Politically based shows - check.

If people want that, they can tune into CNN, MSNBC, or FOXNews. When ESPN also started doing the talking heads arguing and political bit, it lost me.

You see this a lot and it always reminds me of a story about Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines. As the story goes, his staff would always come up with ideas to make money. Add a terminal in this city ... serve food ... etc ... The "experts" could always prove that their idea would make money for the airlines while only increase the cost to consumers by a bit. However, Herb would turn down most of these ideas. His line was "We are THE low cost airlines". It was their identity and to lose that would cause them to lose their place in the industry. They would become just one of the available airlines and it hurt the airline in the long run.

That story doesn't apply to every situation but I think it may here. The Steven A Smith types may get you more views in the short run but now may be costing them in the long run.

golfingomez · October 31, 2016

7 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

I think part of the problem with ESPN is the same problem that MTV eventually had - it started going into areas that had nothing to do with what made it successful.

MTV was music television at first. Then, it became a bunch of crappy non-music related programs.

ESPN is becoming the same thing. A bunch of programs that have nothing to do with the game. People arguing with each other show - check. Politically based shows - check.

If people want that, they can tune into CNN, MSNBC, or FOXNews. When ESPN also started doing the talking heads arguing and political bit, it lost me.

Problem is, MTV still works because it adjusted to what the market wanted. It realized only so many people would keep their TV's on for the same 50 videos. they morphed into show's that develop followers and more subscribers. They kept their attention on the younger demographic and are still relevant because of it.

ESPN's has multiple problems.

They are spread VERY thin. 4 'main' ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNnews and ESPNU) plus ancillary channels (SEC Network, Longhorn Network). This makes college football their cash cow and makes ad revenue sales tougher and tougher when they are programming against themselves with potentially 7 games at the same time(technically ABC, as well).

On top of this, they have made a large step forward with WatchESPN. It is both fantastic and detrimental at the same time. It gives TONS of people the excuse to not pay for cable and simply utilize someone else's subscription info as their pass to watch sports online (through multiple devices connected to their TV's). Without the unbelievable reliability and accessibility of WatchESPN (which i am almost positive they aren't generating enough ad revenue through, due to terrible survey data on who's watching) it's getting tougher and tougher to tighten up and keep dollars from traditional cable/satellite subscriptions.

The NFL is sliding back probably due to 2 factors, the market correction in terms of growing viewers every year for the past ten years, and the spreading of games to all times of the week.

MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF · October 31, 2016

1 hour ago, NorthTexan95 said:

You see this a lot and it always reminds me of a story about Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines. As the story goes, his staff would always come up with ideas to make money. Add a terminal in this city ... serve food ... etc ... The "experts" could always prove that their idea would make money for the airlines while only increase the cost to consumers by a bit. However, Herb would turn down most of these ideas. His line was "We are THE low cost airlines". It was their identity and to lose that would cause them to lose their place in the industry. They would become just one of the available airlines and it hurt the airline in the long run.

That story doesn't apply to every situation but I think it may here. The Steven A Smith types may get you more views in the short run but now may be costing them in the long run.

Agree.

With the shows, it's like they tried to bring the awful talk radio format into television, which is terrible in the first place. Then, they decided to be 60 Minutes.

I think to the vast majority of people, sports is entertainment, a chance to get away from the other things that hit you everyday in life, politics and so forth. But, now, you're getting clobbered with it even on sports channels.

Everybody wants you to take a side, whether you give a sh*t or not. This year it's the "who's kneeling during the national anthem bit." I could personally not give a f*ck. I think they are idiots. But, there's no law against being an idiot.

It turns people off to have it thrown in their face. Just show the national anthem, if you must (I personally don't even think this is a TV necessity), without beaming the cameras on them. Colin Kaepernick kneeling or standing isn't going to change anyone's mind

Last year it was trying to find a reason the gay football player from Mizzou, whose name I've already forgotten, wasn't on someone's roster. I mean, who cares? If he was good enough to play at that level, someone would have signed him. It's no more complicated than that.

But, ESPN and everyone else has to drone on and on about it.

If I tune in to a sporting event, I'm tuning in to watch a sporting event. If I want to see the Black LM versus Blue LM crowds go back and forth at each other, I'll flip it over to a hard news channel.

I also hate political campaign advertising during sporting events. Just...leave us alone while we're trying to enjoy a sporting event. Let the people who truly get a hard on from that stuff watch CNN and FOXNews. Quit mixing it up.

18 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

It's not just about being over saturated with the game itself. If you're a married man, in a commited relationship or have kids, you just can't justify allocating that much time to watching games you don't care about. Add that in with early Sunday London games (lose the church crowd or partiers) and Monday and Thursday games (again tough for those with kids who you're trying to take care of after school, homework, get ready for bed) it's just a lot of obstacles to watch a game you don't care about unless you have zero responsibilities. Like you said, if the matchup is bad, it doesn't help any.

The thing to me with the London bit is this...they've already tried American football in Europe with the WLAF/European League and it failed. Just admit it failed and quit mokeying with games in Europe.

Years ago, after they gave the Rookie of the Year Award to Vince Young, I said that they should change the National Football League's name to the National Marketing Football League. I stand by that.

Also, unrelated to football, but annoying - the in-game baseball interviews with the managers and so forth. Just, unnecessary. There are postgame press conferences. Save your pointless questions until then, please. Now, we're going to second guess the managers live during the game? Yes. Yes, we are.

Putrid.

Edited October 31, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

outoftown · October 31, 2016

4 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

Problem is, MTV still works because it adjusted to what the market wanted. It realized only so many people would keep their TV's on for the same 50 videos. they morphed into show's that develop followers and more subscribers. They kept their attention on the younger demographic and are still relevant because of it.

ESPN's has multiple problems.

1) They are spread VERY thin. 4 'main' ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNnews and ESPNU) plus ancillary channels (SEC Network, Longhorn Network). This makes college football their cash cow and makes ad revenue sales tougher and tougher when they are programming against themselves with potentially 7 games at the same time(technically ABC, as well).

2) On top of this, they have made a large step forward with WatchESPN. It is both fantastic and detrimental at the same time. It gives TONS of people the excuse to not pay for cable and simply utilize someone else's subscription info as their pass to watch sports online (through multiple devices connected to their TV's). Without the unbelievable reliability and accessibility of WatchESPN (which i am almost positive they aren't generating enough ad revenue through, due to terrible survey data on who's watching) it's getting tougher and tougher to tighten up and keep dollars from traditional cable/satellite subscriptions.

3) The NFL is sliding back probably due to 2 factors, the market correction in terms of growing viewers every year for the past ten years, and the spreading of games to all times of the week.

Let me go backwards and start at the end

3) This is one of those "we need to grow at all cost" deals, where they expanded because initally it is cool, to say oh look I can watch NFL on thursdays now. But in the long term they probably underestimated what it does to the stability of the fan culture, if you aren't having your team playing on sunday as a steady point of your season anymore. The market correction comment is on the nose I think though. The format has simply hit the point where people were not willing to pay more any more, and the NFL will have to be honest with themselfes: Growth is limited, they should start protecting what they got. And in that respect the others are right. You cannot have super broad appeal if your games take forever due to reviews and advertisment (a problem shared by the NCAA) prolonging the games past the attention span of a family, or if your athletes try to abuse your format by trying control the political narrative of the nation. That is bound to decrease things if you start out with a very broad viewership, simply because you cannot keep a broad viewership if you introduce the kind of contentiousness your format is not made for.

2) I agree, WatchESPN is the format of the future, and you are definitely right, they do a poor job of creating advertisment dollars on it. But the problem is that WatchESPNs value is not like traditional TV, but rather like netflix vs HBO etc. In order to beat the competition you don't just need the top games, you need a very broad library of ongoing games. Fox and CBS taking away even some is problem there. And in that ESPN is in a bind, for that problem is dimaterical inversed from the next one.

1) ESPN is indeed spread thin, which is why all the mid-level conferences are likely to see sharply reduced moneys in the future. ESPN simply doesn't need quite as much content as it already has for traditional tv. The SEC etc still draw.... but only for their top games. So you want to shell out top dollar, but you also need to protect against being overly risky to have plenty of games that don't draw all that well but are expensive (the current case). I am quite sure that the guys at the top will also start feeling the dollars tightening as soon as the next round of negotiations comes along.

I think the politics, and the reviews that take forever etc excarbate a base problem: The cable companies have been overcharging people for a long time, and the new poor generation came up with cheaper solutions and has now perfected and simplified them well enough for them to spread up to other age classes. Because ESPN was one of the main cash cows for cable companies, they are now also one of the main victims by being financially overcommited to a dying format and will probably suffer for a time before they find out how to properly adjust.

The real long term userss are the cable companies, who have been milking the consumer for a decade. There is something wrong if Internet is faster, loooads cheaper and actually more reliable in France than in the US (and that would be true for most european countries). And just like with the internet those companies have been taking money out in between, when it comes to tv. For a number of reasons the market is not playing in that industry. But that is a story for the eagles nest I guess.