- 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
0
Posted on 2/6/15 at 2:11 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.
Wot
It's $25 a month with sling
This post was edited on 2/6/15 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 2/6/15 at 2:17 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
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.
Uhh, they kind of are. They have a ton of programming on those channels that they need to pay for. They can't do that with just ESPN.
WWE Network is $10 a month and that's just for wrestling that they own. ESPN2, ESPNU, and ESPN3 have a far wider variety content to air than that and thus would have more costs to pay off deals with content providers. SECN alone would easily command $15 a month.
quote:
And you are selling short the number of subscriptions that ESPN would sell a la carte.
No I'm really not. The vast majority of TV viewers DO NOT watch sports on a regular basis.
Their highest average ratings are for the NFL in the fall with Monday Night Football. Those are around only 13 million a game. You won't get much more than that subscribing in the fall and after the NFL is done their ratings go way down. Their subscription during the rest of the year would take significant hits and that would force them to charge more to make up the difference.
Posted on 2/6/15 at 2:20 pm to rocket31
quote:
It's $25 a month with sling
yes, RIGHT NOW it is b/c they still have roughly 100 million cable subscriptions that have ESPN.
if everything went a la carte they would no longer have that 100 million to fall back on and prices would skyrocket.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 7:46 pm to Dr RC
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/30/19 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 2/7/15 at 7:55 pm to kfizzle85
1) One subscription, one tv at a time. Thats great for single people, sucks for everyone else.
2) Can't pause or rewind ESPN channels.
These two are absolutley game killers.
2) Can't pause or rewind ESPN channels.
These two are absolutley game killers.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 8:00 pm to rocket31
I think something that shouldn't be overlooked is the easier advertising dollars made with direct subscriptions.
Companies will know exactly who is watching ESPN. The field becomes much more narrowed, and they can pinpoint their ads to appeal to the specific audience.
ESPN could make up some lost revenue from subscriptions with advertisement sales.
Companies will know exactly who is watching ESPN. The field becomes much more narrowed, and they can pinpoint their ads to appeal to the specific audience.
ESPN could make up some lost revenue from subscriptions with advertisement sales.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 8:03 pm to rocket31
That's not bad
Posted on 2/7/15 at 8:36 pm to barry
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/30/19 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 2/7/15 at 8:38 pm to StringedInstruments
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/30/19 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 2/7/15 at 8:56 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
FWIW there's no commercials on the espn channels. Its just like WatchESPN, it just says commercial break.
Thats not what the website says
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:27 pm to barry
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/30/19 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:33 pm to kfizzle85
There are no commercials right now I believe... but that's only because they have not gotten advertising yet.
I read about this Sling deal a month or so ago, and I remember reading that they plan to have commercials in the future.
I read about this Sling deal a month or so ago, and I remember reading that they plan to have commercials in the future.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:13 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.
this unfortunately is the truth. everyone bitches about the current cable format, but if you think about all the channels you watch, espn, nfl network, tnt, mlb network, fox sports, etc that if you paid $10-20 a month a la carte, it would easily eclipse your current cable bill. additionally, a lot of the original programming on channels like AMC wouldn't exist, or would be vastly different.
Posted on 2/8/15 at 10:39 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
If ESPN would just go ala cart, they would make a mint and all of us would only have to pay $5 a month.
Posted on 2/8/15 at 12:51 pm to StraightCashHomey21
This service sucks
No DVR, only one device at a time. No thanks
No DVR, only one device at a time. No thanks
Posted on 2/8/15 at 5:26 pm to dallastiger55
another thing that people don't mention when begging for an a la carte model, is what about all the channels your wife or kids wants to watch? or a news channel you might need.
when you add it all up, cable looks like a deal.
when you add it all up, cable looks like a deal.
Posted on 2/9/15 at 5:24 am to 632627
Anyone saying that ESPN by itself would cost $100/month needs to do some research on price elasticity of demand. Consumers already hate spending $80-120 on cable so the threshold for total out of pocket can only go down with the evolution of a new system. There is a single primary variable at play - number of channels (or more specifically individual content within the channel).
The 27 million figure is bogus because it only counts the number of active TVs during a game that is commonly held in social gatherings. The actual number of eyeballs on the game was significantly higher. Nielsen tv ratings are significantly flawed even if they are the best we have.
Additionally, channel viewership is not MECE. There are people who love one sport and will not watch another which is also dappening the quoted figure.
The small channels die and the big channels have to put out high quality content to stay relevant. Consumer wins.
The 27 million figure is bogus because it only counts the number of active TVs during a game that is commonly held in social gatherings. The actual number of eyeballs on the game was significantly higher. Nielsen tv ratings are significantly flawed even if they are the best we have.
Additionally, channel viewership is not MECE. There are people who love one sport and will not watch another which is also dappening the quoted figure.
The small channels die and the big channels have to put out high quality content to stay relevant. Consumer wins.
Posted on 2/9/15 at 5:27 am to lynxcat
People are saying ESPN on its own would cost $100 a month?
Posted on 2/9/15 at 7:21 am to lynxcat
I don't think anybody said ESPN would cost $100 per month...
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News