Tivo data shows OTA networks are the most popular
http://time.com/money/4700663/cable-pric...reddit.com

(06-22-2018 12:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Tivo data shows OTA networks are the most popular
http://time.com/money/4700663/cable-pric...reddit.com

Good article. One thing that I found interesting is that it says 50% of cable subscribers would love to say the $8/month that ESPN/2 costs and would be willing to drop it and pocket the money. One would assume that the other 50% that wouldn't, would switch providers in a heartbeat. Disney's position is only going to get stronger once they get control of FX, FXX, and FXM. Getting these networks will allow them to better compete with Turner and Comcast in the area of general entertainment as Disney does not currently have a general entertainment network. This will only increase Disney/ESPN's bundling power.

Not really a fair comparison. Would you prefer to pay $3 per glass for beer X, or drink as much beer Y as you want for free? How much of the "popularity" is just due to the price?

(06-22-2018 02:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not really a fair comparison. Would you prefer to pay $3 per glass for beer X, or drink as much beer Y as you want for free? How much of the "popularity" is just due to the price?

It might be a fair comparison. What percentage of viewers are actually getting those OTA channels for free (ie. with an antenna)? I would guess 10% (I wish it were more, I try to help as many friend and family as I can cut the cord). While even the most basic of cable and satellite packages include locals, they are no longer free at that point (Xfinity charges nearly $8 a month for them IIRC).

(06-22-2018 02:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not really a fair comparison. Would you prefer to pay $3 per glass for beer X, or drink as much beer Y as you want for free? How much of the "popularity" is just due to the price?

The average American watches just 17 channels. When you consider that most have access to many more it establishes that people tend to lock in a few channels and the traditional OTA networks win because they draw viewers for news or the viewers for local news and use them to push their upcoming programs.

I only watch the locals for local news and then sporting events on them. Rest of the time I'm normally on ESPN, FS1, or Fox Sports Midwest/Kansas City.

(06-22-2018 04:02 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 02:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not really a fair comparison. Would you prefer to pay $3 per glass for beer X, or drink as much beer Y as you want for free? How much of the "popularity" is just due to the price?

It might be a fair comparison. What percentage of viewers are actually getting those OTA channels for free (ie. with an antenna)? I would guess 10% (I wish it were more, I try to help as many friend and family as I can cut the cord). While even the most basic of cable and satellite packages include locals, they are no longer free at that point (Xfinity charges nearly $8 a month for them IIRC).

Its 19% - 21% now. It's increasing every year.

(06-22-2018 02:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not really a fair comparison. Would you prefer to pay $3 per glass for beer X, or drink as much beer Y as you want for free? How much of the "popularity" is just due to the price?

It was a sampling from Tivo viewers only, and then only a few over 3,000. I hardly call that a representative sampling. The survey was merely designed to remind people they could buy a digital antenna and get 4 channels of corporately owned network news and PBS.

ESPN shouldn't be compared other cable channels. It should be compared to the cost of 1 professional sports ticket and 1 P5 conference ticket. For that 8 dollars a month you get every sport at the fraction of the cost of 1 ticket. It's still a deal and it would be at $10 a month.

(06-22-2018 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-22-2018 02:16 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Not really a fair comparison. Would you prefer to pay $3 per glass for beer X, or drink as much beer Y as you want for free? How much of the "popularity" is just due to the price?

It was a sampling from Tivo viewers only, and then only a few over 3,000. I hardly call that a representative sampling. The survey was merely designed to remind people they could buy a digital antenna and get 4 channels of corporately owned network news and PBS.

ESPN shouldn't be compared other cable channels. It should be compared to the cost of 1 professional sports ticket and 1 P5 conference ticket. For that 8 dollars a month you get every sport at the fraction of the cost of 1 ticket. It's still a deal and it would be at $10 a month.

Here's where a school like Tulane has a chance with a small OCS (SMU, Navy, Tulsa etc. are also in this boat).

Our tickets are affordable. VERY affordable. In fact, so cheap that we actually can get you and a date/child/w.e. to see the game for less than $80 combined.

There is a way you can forge a fun niche fanbase when your prices are so low (especially with the P5 market crossing $100/ticket, $50/parking, etc).

I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

Exactly. Right now ESPN and ESPN2 is a little over 8 dollars/month with 80+ million subscribers. The cost with subscriber projections of 10 to 20 million would be very high

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

I agree with your more accurate business explanation Frank, but you have to consider your audience. The moment you use price arbitrage and a la carte in connection to an explanation of how the current market is in an emerging competition for the consumer Joe Q public tunes out, and continues to ride the current sentiment that cable is too high. Make Joe Q actually stop and consider what he gets in his own home versus what he would actually have to spend going to an event and he gets it.

If the purpose is to persuade your audience that a current point of view is simply inaccurate you need to contextualize in a manner blatantly familiar to the public. For what my wife and I pay for two reasonably located tickets to Auburn football games we could buy a 54" HD TV, a home kegerator, see every game comfortably, and stock the noshing snacks we love for the whole season and get not only football, but all 12 months of sports and have money leftover. And all of that is at the UVerse bundle rate for optimum sports viewing.

People relate to that. But they don't stop and consider it at the work water cooler when the guys are woofing about cable prices. So when you compare ways to save on your cable you are focusing on a minor expense in your life while ignoring the much larger costs that you just attribute to your lifestyle.

Outside of lodging, food, and medical insurance everything else is really a lifestyle choice.

In a different train of thought, what would a future of live sporting events on tv look like basically without built-in TV breaks for ads (Netflix for Sports sort of thing)? What would the perspective be of those watching from the stands?

Less time outs? Less trips to the mound? Shorter time periods to get the offense/defense switches in? Shorter time periods for exchange of sides in tennis?

Would shorter 10, 15, 20 second commercials air for the natural breaks in the game on a portion of the screen like something we see now with Tennis Channel for some of their commercials?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-23-2018 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

I agree with your more accurate business explanation Frank, but you have to consider your audience. The moment you use price arbitrage and a la carte in connection to an explanation of how the current market is in an emerging competition for the consumer Joe Q public tunes out, and continues to ride the current sentiment that cable is too high. Make Joe Q actually stop and consider what he gets in his own home versus what he would actually have to spend going to an event and he gets it.

If the purpose is to persuade your audience that a current point of view is simply inaccurate you need to contextualize in a manner blatantly familiar to the public. For what my wife and I pay for two reasonably located tickets to Auburn football games we could buy a 54" HD TV, a home kegerator, see every game comfortably, and stock the noshing snacks we love for the whole season and get not only football, but all 12 months of sports and have money leftover. And all of that is at the UVerse bundle rate for optimum sports viewing.

People relate to that. But they don't stop and consider it at the work water cooler when the guys are woofing about cable prices. So when you compare ways to save on your cable you are focusing on a minor expense in your life while ignoring the much larger costs that you just attribute to your lifestyle.

Outside of lodging, food, and medical insurance everything else is really a lifestyle choice.

Right now ATT and Google seem to winning the battle for the internet as an app consumer. They can sustain breakeven and at a loss pricing longer than anyone else competing in the market.

(06-23-2018 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

I agree with your more accurate business explanation Frank, but you have to consider your audience. The moment you use price arbitrage and a la carte in connection to an explanation of how the current market is in an emerging competition for the consumer Joe Q public tunes out, and continues to ride the current sentiment that cable is too high. Make Joe Q actually stop and consider what he gets in his own home versus what he would actually have to spend going to an event and he gets it.

If the purpose is to persuade your audience that a current point of view is simply inaccurate you need to contextualize in a manner blatantly familiar to the public. For what my wife and I pay for two reasonably located tickets to Auburn football games we could buy a 54" HD TV, a home kegerator, see every game comfortably, and stock the noshing snacks we love for the whole season and get not only football, but all 12 months of sports and have money leftover. And all of that is at the UVerse bundle rate for optimum sports viewing.

People relate to that. But they don't stop and consider it at the work water cooler when the guys are woofing about cable prices. So when you compare ways to save on your cable you are focusing on a minor expense in your life while ignoring the much larger costs that you just attribute to your lifestyle.

Outside of lodging, food, and medical insurance everything else is really a lifestyle choice.

Right now ATT and Google seem to winning the battle for the internet as an app consumer. They can sustain breakeven and at a loss pricing longer than anyone else competing in the market.

I believe it. I just renewed my Uverse bundle which includes the highest sports tier and I changed nothing. The bill for the next year went down $45 a month. I think they were feeling reduced Charter/Spectrum rates in the area.

(06-23-2018 02:20 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  In a different train of thought, what would a future of live sporting events on tv look like basically without built-in TV breaks for ads (Netflix for Sports sort of thing)? What would the perspective be of those watching from the stands?

Less time outs? Less trips to the mound? Shorter time periods to get the offense/defense switches in? Shorter time periods for exchange of sides in tennis?

Would shorter 10, 15, 20 second commercials air for the natural breaks in the game on a portion of the screen like something we see now with Tennis Channel for some of their commercials?

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

Eh, the ballplayers would just spit and scratch and bluff throws to third and first for a few extra minutes a game. There would be more reviews in football and more fouls called in hoops. Where there are a few extra minutes the old "nature abhors a vacuum" would take over.

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

This also assumes that ESPN's revenue and profits are a fixed variable. I agree that if ESPN goes to a subscriber/OTT format, it wouldn't be at an $8/mo price point. But when consumers are conditioned to the $10-15/month fee for similar services, $50 per month is going to be an incredibly tough sell, even for a die-hard sports fan, since that price point doesn't get you the World Cup, EPL, NHL, key NBA (playoff) games, the Olympics, the Big East, key Big Ten/Pac-12/Big XII games, MLB playoffs, etc. More likely they - and all sports broadcasters - would have to do some belt tightening on rights contracts rather than just throw ever increasing sums at the leagues.

TSN in Canada just launched a stand alone service for $25/month Canadian. I gotta think ESPN would be at least $30/month considering rights are so much more in the US

(06-23-2018 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 11:57 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

I agree with your more accurate business explanation Frank, but you have to consider your audience. The moment you use price arbitrage and a la carte in connection to an explanation of how the current market is in an emerging competition for the consumer Joe Q public tunes out, and continues to ride the current sentiment that cable is too high. Make Joe Q actually stop and consider what he gets in his own home versus what he would actually have to spend going to an event and he gets it.

If the purpose is to persuade your audience that a current point of view is simply inaccurate you need to contextualize in a manner blatantly familiar to the public. For what my wife and I pay for two reasonably located tickets to Auburn football games we could buy a 54" HD TV, a home kegerator, see every game comfortably, and stock the noshing snacks we love for the whole season and get not only football, but all 12 months of sports and have money leftover. And all of that is at the UVerse bundle rate for optimum sports viewing.

People relate to that. But they don't stop and consider it at the work water cooler when the guys are woofing about cable prices. So when you compare ways to save on your cable you are focusing on a minor expense in your life while ignoring the much larger costs that you just attribute to your lifestyle.

Outside of lodging, food, and medical insurance everything else is really a lifestyle choice.

Right now ATT and Google seem to winning the battle for the internet as an app consumer. They can sustain breakeven and at a loss pricing longer than anyone else competing in the market.

I believe it. I just renewed my Uverse bundle which includes the highest sports tier and I changed nothing. The bill for the next year went down $45 a month. I think they were feeling reduced Charter/Spectrum rates in the area.

The odd deal was mine.
I call Direct wanting to downgrade to the next lower package. I had looked it all over and didn't watch the extra channels enough to justify the difference. They dropped my price to the price of the lower package while keeping me where I was and then offered to boost my internet speed and drop the price $10 if I would bundle direct on my internet bill and waived install cost of putting in a new modem.

(06-23-2018 05:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I don’t think the comparison should be to the price of a sports ticket, but rather the generally very unrealistic expectations of what a la carte sports channels with ESPN’s content would cost. People very wrongly assume that the per subscriber basic cable fee has any relation to what that channel would cost a la carte. For ESPN to get the revenue that it has now from basic cable in an a la carte model that has HBO-like subscriber numbers, it’s likely in the $40-$50 per month range at a *minimum* (as it has to account for the fact that it will have fewer subscribers and correspondingly lower ad rates).

People simply don’t truly grasp the costs of an a la carte model long-term because we’re in this temporarily highly competitive environment where lots of companies are trying to undercut each other on streaming pricing where they’re trading growth for profits as of now. Those price arbitrage situations aren’t going to last forever. Eventually, companies like Netflix will need to deliver high profits instead of just growth to Wall Street... and these subscription prices will go up to where we’ll likely pay more for less content compared to cable. That’s especially going to be true for sports fans more than any other group.

Sports fans pay more, but pretty much every other group benefits and pays less.