- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sling TV Releases Sports Package - $5 Per Month
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:09 pm to KosmoCramer
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:09 pm to KosmoCramer
Okay. Back to being on the awesome train.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:12 pm to LSUzealot
quote:
Up there with diamonds & mattresses.
And anything related to fashion.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:14 pm to taylork37
You would be paying way more than $2 per channel.
The only reason channels are as cheap as they are per subscriber is because of how many subscribers there are.
If everything was a la carte, subscribers for an individual channel would go WAY down.
The only reason channels are as cheap as they are per subscriber is because of how many subscribers there are.
If everything was a la carte, subscribers for an individual channel would go WAY down.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:15 pm to PrimeTime Money
Thy is Sling deal is pretty good, but it is as cheap as it is because they already make so much money with regular cable and satellite.
If the whole system was a la carte, this Sling deal wouldn't be possible at the price it is.
They are trying to pick up the relatively few who have already cut the cord who otherwise wouldn't be paying them.
If the whole system was a la carte, this Sling deal wouldn't be possible at the price it is.
They are trying to pick up the relatively few who have already cut the cord who otherwise wouldn't be paying them.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:34 pm to rocket31
Thread title is misleading
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:36 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
You would be paying way more than $2 per channel.
I understand that, but that matters little if I am only paying $20. I am willing to pay more per channel to just have those channels.
quote:
The only reason channels are as cheap as they are per subscriber is because of how many subscribers there are.
If channels are $2 a piece then wouldn't it take less subscribers to reclaim the same margins?
quote:
If everything was a la carte, subscribers for an individual channel would go WAY down.
I don't want everything a la carte. Just give me less crap. Give me those 10 stations offered by Sling and I will pay you more per station. Its simple. I am now paying $80 for 90 channels that I don't watch.
Even I only watch 7 out of those 10 channels offered I am still saving money.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:52 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
The only thing most cord cutters need is streaming sports. There would be a huge market.
I would pay for it.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 12:57 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
My point being that EVERYONE would subscribe directly through ESPN and they wouldn't have to pay a middle man.
They could charge $5 and make more than Sling is paying them.
Some of y'all are so damn dense
your point is incorrect
the only reason ESPN is at $5ish a month on cable is b/c its on all the cable system's basic packages. If they went a la carte it would skyrocket per month b/c they would have to make up for all the lost revenue needed to pay the sports leagues from the millions that wouldn't subscribe to it.
It's a guarantee that by the time you paid for all your individual channels you'd end up paying the same amount for less channels.
ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, and SECN alone would easily be upwards of $100 once they were added up.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:03 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
it would be a bigger ripoff if you paid a la carte. You'd pay way more per channel, and the stations would make less money. That means shows you like on AMC like Breaking Bad would have a much smaller budget.
When the costs are spread over 90 to 100 million people, it's cheaper for everybody per channel.
It would also mean networks would be far less likely to take risks on new and different shows.
Do you want shows like Walking Dead to be green lit or a show like Mad Men to have the breathing room needed to gain momentum? You need those cable subs to soften the blow financially for networks to be willing to invest.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:21 pm to Carson123987
Since the SEC Network is included I might have to look into this.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:25 pm to taylork37
quote:You are missing the point. ESPN as it is right now with 100 million subscribers charges cable companies like Comcast $5 per month per subscriber. They are getting $5 per month from 100 million subscribers.
I understand that, but that matters little if I am only paying $20. I am willing to pay more per channel to just have those channels.
If the whole system was a la carte, then only a fraction of those 100 million subscribers would subscribe to ESPN on their own.
That means the price would go WAY up.
It would be like a premium movie channel.
You would be paying more than $20 per month just for ESPN most likely.
TNT might be $10 per month.
Smaller stations may not be able to afford being on the air at all.
You say you are paying $80 per month for 90+ channels... but if the entire system was a la carte, then you'd be paying $80 per month for maybe only 7-10 channels.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:25 pm to KosmoCramer
M
:kige:
quote:
y point being that EVERYONE would subscribe directly through ESPN and they wouldn't have to pay a middle man.
They could charge $5 and make more than Sling is paying them.
Some of y'all are so damn dense.
:kige:
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:27 pm to castorinho
quote:
Thread title is misleading
how? (srs)
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:28 pm to PrimeTime Money
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:31 pm to PrimeTime Money
Plus, ESPN pays sports leagues a MASSIVE amount of money to broadcast the games.
The NBA just recently signed a $24 billion dollar deal with ESPN and TNT.
$24 billion!
The way the cable and satellite system is set up now helps the sports leagues we like to follow and watch, and it helps companies like ESPN bring the games to your TV.
The NBA just recently signed a $24 billion dollar deal with ESPN and TNT.
$24 billion!
The way the cable and satellite system is set up now helps the sports leagues we like to follow and watch, and it helps companies like ESPN bring the games to your TV.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:39 pm to rocket31
quote:
y point being that EVERYONE would subscribe directly through ESPN and they wouldn't have to pay a middle man.
They could charge $5 and make more than Sling is paying them.
Some of y'all are so damn dense.
Again, that point is wrong.
ESPN is only that cheap b/c its on damn near every single basic cable package.
It would be nowhere near that cheap if everything was a la carte b/c they have to honor the deals they have with the various sports entities on top of make a profit that makes Disney happy.
They would have nowhere near the same amount of subscribers as they currently do with cable thus the prices would go way up.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:50 pm to rocket31
To put it in perspective, ESPN's highest viewership ever was for the CFB Playoff title game. That had 27 million viewers.
To make the math easy, let's say they get an even $5 per month and have 100 million subs via cable.
That's $500 million gross each month.
To get to that number w/just 27 million subs they would have to charge about $18.50 a month.
However, they would NOT have 27 million subs a la carte. That number would likely be cut in half at best for the average during the year. That means you'll be paying more like $36 per month.
Also, b/c the sus would fluctuate during the year depending on the sports they would more than likely charge even more than that just to make sure their quarterly profits stay somewhat consistent. So to make up for parts of the year when subs would drop off a cliff it would go even higher to something like $50 a month.
That's JUST for ESPN alone. That does not take into account channels like ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3 streaming, or the SECN. All of those would end up being around $15 to $20 minimum a month.
So if you want those 5 (w/o ESPNews which is starting to air more CFB games) you are easily going to end up paying over $100 a month just for the ESPN networks.
To make the math easy, let's say they get an even $5 per month and have 100 million subs via cable.
That's $500 million gross each month.
To get to that number w/just 27 million subs they would have to charge about $18.50 a month.
However, they would NOT have 27 million subs a la carte. That number would likely be cut in half at best for the average during the year. That means you'll be paying more like $36 per month.
Also, b/c the sus would fluctuate during the year depending on the sports they would more than likely charge even more than that just to make sure their quarterly profits stay somewhat consistent. So to make up for parts of the year when subs would drop off a cliff it would go even higher to something like $50 a month.
That's JUST for ESPN alone. That does not take into account channels like ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN3 streaming, or the SECN. All of those would end up being around $15 to $20 minimum a month.
So if you want those 5 (w/o ESPNews which is starting to air more CFB games) you are easily going to end up paying over $100 a month just for the ESPN networks.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:51 pm to Dr RC
quote:
So if you want those 5 (w/o ESPNews which is starting to air more CFB games) you are easily going to end up paying over $100 a month just for the ESPN networks.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 1:59 pm to KosmoCramer
Dunno why you are laughing. They have to make the money based off current cable subs if they want to be able to pay off their deals with all the sports leagues and conferences they have deals with.
They simple cannot do that with the prices you seem to think would occur via a la carte b/c there is no way in hell they would ever approach their current amount of subs.
They simple cannot do that with the prices you seem to think would occur via a la carte b/c there is no way in hell they would ever approach their current amount of subs.
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 2:06 pm to Dr RC
So you're paying $36 for ESPN and then $44+ for ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.
That makes no sense. ESPN2, et al aren't paying leagues for additional content.
And you are selling short the number of subscriptions that ESPN would sell a la carte.
That makes no sense. ESPN2, et al aren't paying leagues for additional content.
And you are selling short the number of subscriptions that ESPN would sell a la carte.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News