Other ESPN in Decline

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 6, 2005
145,051
94,900
AFL Club
Fremantle
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/e...cribers-worst-month-in-company-history-102916

The biggest business story in American sports this fall isn't the declining NFL ratings or anything that's happening on the field, court, or ice, it's the collapse in ESPN subscribers, which reflect a larger trend in the collapse of cable subscribers in general.

Yesterday Nielsen announced its subscriber numbers for November 2016 and those numbers were the worst in the history of ESPN's existence as a cable company -- the worldwide leader in sports lost 621,000 cable subscribers. That's the most subscribers ESPN has ever lost in a month according to Nielsen estimates and it represents a terrifying and troubling trend for the company, an acceleration of subscriber loss that represents a doubling of the average losses over the past couple of years, when ESPN has been losing in the neighborhood of 300,000 subscribers a month.

These 621,000 lost subscribers in the past month alone lead to a drop in revenue of over $52 million and continue the alarming subscriber decline at ESPN. Couple these subscriber declines with a 24% drop in Monday Night Football ratings this fall, the crown jewel of ESPN programming, and it's fair to call October of 2016 the worst month in ESPN's history. But this isn't just a story about ESPN, the rapid decline in cable subscribers is hitting every channel, sports and otherwise. It just impacts ESPN the most because ESPN costs every cable and satellite subscriber roughly $7 a month, over triple the next most expensive cable channel.

What does ESPN do with that money?

It buys sports rights.

Presently ESPN is on the hook for the following yearly sports rights payments: $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League Baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, $225 million to the ACC, $190 million to the Big Ten, $120 million to the Big 12, $125 million a year to the PAC 12, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC.

The total costs? According to SNL Kagan ESPN is on track to pay $7.3 billion in total rights fees in 2017. That's more than any company in America.

How does that content cost compare to revenue?

Well, let's be extremely conservative and assume that ESPN is going to lose 3 million subscribers this year. ESPN lost over 4 million subscribers last year and no month was as bad as October 2016 so this is probably being extremely generous. (The pace of decline at 621,000 a month would be nearly 7.5 million lost subscribers a year, but let's presume that this past month is just a bad outlier. The average number of lost subscribers over the past several years has been right at 3.5 million).

A loss of 3 million subscribers would leave ESPN with 86 million subscribers in 2017. That would be down roughly 15 million subscribers in the past five years alone. Given that ESPN makes right at $7 a month from every cable and satellite subscriber a year, that means ESPN's subscriber revenue would be $7.22 billion in 2017. Toss in an additional $1.8 billion or so in advertising revenue and ESPN's total revenue would be $9 billion. We don't know what the costs of running ESPN are -- employees, facilities, equipment, and the like have to cost a billion or more -- but it's fair to say that ESPN is probably still making money in 2017. Just nowhere near what they used to make.

But those sports rights costs are going up and those subscriber revenue numbers are going down.

So if we're very conservative and project that ESPN continues to lose 3 million subscribers a year -- well below the rate that they are currently losing subscribers -- then the household numbers would look
like this over the next five years:

----------

It's a too long article to paste so here is the last line.

The "Worldwide Leader in Sports" is a dead channel walking.

Yep, stick a fork in them.
 
Probably see a shift of sports rights away from traditional cable/sat and to Netflix or other streaming sites.
Future will probably be a pay per view type scenario on a game by game basis,or like Telstra offering free AFL to get you on their plan.
Uncle Rupert didnt get the Libs to destroy the NBN for nothing
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Probably see a shift of sports rights away from traditional cable/sat and to Netflix or other streaming sites.
Future will probably be a pay per view type scenario on a game by game basis,or like Telstra offering free AFL to get you on their plan.
Uncle Rupert didnt get the Libs to destroy the NBN for nothing

Netflix have no interest in sport.

I'm a big ESPN fan. I don't want it to go down the streaming route if possible.

WatchESPN shows they're already going there.

Cord-cutting and the decline of actual sport on ESPN are the big issues.

What do you mean by the decline in actual sport? What aren't they broadcasting now that they used to?
 
What do you mean by the decline in actual sport? What aren't they broadcasting now that they used to?

Their model now revolves around the hot takes in the US. PTI, ATH, First Take. People get sick of talking heads yelling. What's more, ESPN in the US only pays for limited highlights - often when discussing a team's match they may only have pictures rather than video.

Much prefer NFL Network.
 
I think the next logical route and last saving grace is investing more heavily into E-Sports.
For instance League of Legends worlds viewing numbers are well into the 100s of millions (http://www.lolesports.com/en_US/articles/worlds-2015-viewership) and 2016 worlds just completed id assume the numbers have grown again, altough im not sure how much bradcasting rights cost. Time to tap into some of that nerd money.
 
I think the next logical route and last saving grace is investing more heavily into E-Sports.
For instance League of Legends worlds viewing numbers are well into the 100s of millions (http://www.lolesports.com/en_US/articles/worlds-2015-viewership) and 2016 worlds just completed id assume the numbers have grown again, altough im not sure how much bradcasting rights cost. Time to tap into some of that nerd money.
Nerds are already streaming this, they won't get cable to watch it.
 
This is pretty sad tbh. I'm a big fan of ESPN, however when looking at some opinions of those in the US they say the morning shows are pretty terrible - but the night time SVP Sportscenter etc shows are good.

Really hope there isn't any repercussions for Australian viewers in the near future.
 
What do you expect when you ridiculously overpay for sports rights? $1.9bn a year for MNF? That's what, $120m per game? Unsustainable.

If they keep losing subs watch prices hike, they'll have to cover costs somehow. More will drop off but the rusted ons will still pay no matter how much it is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ESPN is rubbish. The large majority of their programming is crap and the talent has been in decline for some time with one exception; 30 for 30, by and large, is an outstanding series.

Was 30 for 30 a Bill Simmons project or did he just collaborate on it?
 
Was 30 for 30 a Bill Simmons project or did he just collaborate on it?
As far as I'm aware, he was one of the creators but I'm not sure how far his influence reached or if he in fact, was a producer. Either way, despite his penchant for fanboi commentary, his colour on an otherwise drab network is missed.
 
From what I have read previously ESPN did a deal with the cable/satelite companys a few years ago to allow them to sell lower packages without ESPN and in return ESPN received a larger fee. So you would think ESPN were prepared for direct subscriber numbers to drop with non-sports fans (yes apparently there are freaks out there that don't like sport) no longer paying for sports channels they don't watch. Also these numbers don't include subscribers who have now jumped on streaming options that carry ESPN like slingtv.
 
As far as I'm aware, he was one of the creators but I'm not sure how far his influence reached or if he in fact, was a producer. Either way, despite his penchant for fanboi commentary, his colour on an otherwise drab network is missed.

He's struggling on HBO at the moment, ratings declining by the week. Always preferred his writing.
 
He's struggling on HBO at the moment, ratings declining by the week. Always preferred his writing.
We share an agreement. He's a significantly better writer than presenter although, I find he gets a little too sentimental and theatrical for my liking. I'm not all too interested in his life experiences when he should be discussing the here and now. Anecdotes are more powerful when used sparingly and strategically placed.
 
NFL better not go the EPL route with 1 nothing game shown and i also love ESPN.

Relax. ESPN in the USA is different to what you see here. Plus ESPN operate worldwide.

First, the article at the start. In the 'new world' most businesses that are tv channels that are tied to cable or satellite tv are being challenged right now. And it's obviously going to change more in the next 10 years. But, it's hard to believe the conclusion that it's a dead channel walking when a couple of paragraphs above they say they are making money, just less than what they used to. 'They are making money' is a comment in an overwhelmingly negative article.

Next, the use of pictures and not video. Sportscenter uses pictures when they don't have the rights, which is basically Olympics or FIFA World Cup, and occasional other European soccer. Also, sometimes they have the rights over in USA but not rights for here, so they might show video in USA but we see pictures. Or it might be golf or tennis majors. But, for us in Australia, we don't rely on ESPN for these, so we don't care.

In regard to them not showing major leagues in America, just look at sportscenter and things like Chris Berman's 2 minute drill, they show highlights from all major league games in USA. I can't ever see them losing the rights to that. It's like channel 9 or 10 show highlights of channel 7 games here.

ESPN has multiple channels in USA, depends how much you want to pay. College football is a huge industry over there, look how much college football they show here. But, largely, we are fortunate here that we get access to other networks from ESPN. For example, the red zone is not ESPN it's nfl network. Thursday night football is nfl network/nbc (last Thursday night the commentators were saying it's the end of the cbs contract). Sunday night football is nbc. So, from that point of view, ESPN in Australia is good.

When you go to America, sportscenter Is broadcast back to back,on rotation, similar to Fox sports news here. And in the past, there were less talking heads shows. With the increase in channels, and to try and expand viewership, they have increased their talking heads type shows, which are often broadcast on ESPN radio network and used as content for the 2nd channel. And with these shows, it works a lot better if they have a yin and a yang. They want conflict. It's radio. And things like 30 for 30 etc are also recent innovations.

Sports rights are changing. For Australians, so far fox have lost the epl, but have responded by bringing in the 3 bein channels and other soccer channels/shows. And, because ESPN no longer have international rights to ucl this summer we are getting more nba action from ESPN, AND through bein we are getting the ucl. Last year we got half the nba and none of the soccer. The year before, all the ucl soccer was on ESPN and they showed replays instead of nba. So, if you watch either soccer or nba, it could be said you have a better arrangement than any time in the past.

And if you don't like fox, you can subscribe to the actual competition. Nba, nhl, nfl and MLB all run their own tv which you can subscribe to. This is obviously a challenge to fox, and perhaps the afl will go that way. But, either fox gets the cable rights, or they die.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top