ESPN Lost 4 Million Subscribers

[prankster]

Apparently, over the past 5 years ESPN has lost more than 11 million subscribers...and it is accelerating.

 

[uc1974]

I blame it all on Joe Tessitore.

 

[RioDog]

Maybe because they break every tenet of basic good customer service.

 

[CardiffGiant]

Less money to pay for Big 12 expansion...

 

[Exit 4]

This strongly correlates with our demotion to G5. Clearly there is a connection and I know the cure!

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Any business that relies on an ability to charge people for stuff they don't want (or more than they're willing to pay) will discover they have a losing hand when the river card is dealt.

 

[Slasher]

Less money to pay for Big 12 expansion...

They're contractually obligated to pay for Big 12 expansion, unless they're going bankrupt but I think Disney is going to be just fine.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

10 years from now, there will be a lot of money in broadcasting sports. I just don't know how much of it ESPN is going to get.

 

[Stinger92860]

I wonder how many of those 11m are fans of non p5 teams? Also, anyone know of a maps mashup showing the cord cutters?

 

[UConnDan97]

This is essentially why I hate ESPN (taken from Wikipedia - ESPN history):

Origins[edit]
ESPN was founded by Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott Rasmussen and Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan.[1] Bill, who had an affinity with sports for much of his life, was fired from his position as the communications manager for the New England Whalers in 1978.[1] During his tenure with the hockey team, Rasmussen had met Eagan, who displayed an interest in building a career in television. Eagan approached Bill with the idea of creating a monthly cable television program covering Connecticut sports and was curious to see if the Whalers would be interested in being the main feature on the show.[1]

Though discouraged by his firing, Rasmussen and Eagan began to discuss a new course; Bill Rasmussen's original idea was to create a cable television network that focused on covering all sporting events in the state of Connecticut (for example, the Whalers, the Bristol Red Sox and the Connecticut Huskies), rather than just focusing on one team as Eagan had proposed.[1]


We essentially created this behemoth. As a state, we have given them ample tax breaks and support along the way. And make no mistake, they are perhaps the #1 major player in conference realignment since it all heated up 15 years ago, as they continue to be the #1 major player in conference realignment going forward.

I expect to get f#$@ed by my enemies. I don't expect to get f#$@ed by my family...

 

[CL82]

This is essentially why I hate ESPN (taken from Wikipedia - ESPN history):

Origins[edit]
ESPN was founded by Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott Rasmussen and Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan.[1] Bill, who had an affinity with sports for much of his life, was fired from his position as the communications manager for the New England Whalers in 1978.[1] During his tenure with the hockey team, Rasmussen had met Eagan, who displayed an interest in building a career in television. Eagan approached Bill with the idea of creating a monthly cable television program covering Connecticut sports and was curious to see if the Whalers would be interested in being the main feature on the show.[1]

Though discouraged by his firing, Rasmussen and Eagan began to discuss a new course; Bill Rasmussen's original idea was to create a cable television network that focused on covering all sporting events in the state of Connecticut (for example, the Whalers, the Bristol Red Sox and the Connecticut Huskies), rather than just focusing on one team as Eagan had proposed.[1]


We essentially created this behemoth. As a state, we have given them ample tax breaks and support along the way. And make no mistake, they are perhaps the #1 major player in conference realignment since it all heated up 15 years ago, as they continue to be the #1 major player in conference realignment going forward.

I expect to get f#$@ed by my enemies. I don't expect to get f#$@ed by my family...

Yah! You tell 'em Dan!​

 

[UConnNick]

This is essentially why I hate ESPN (taken from Wikipedia - ESPN history):

Origins[edit]
ESPN was founded by Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott Rasmussen and Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan.[1] Bill, who had an affinity with sports for much of his life, was fired from his position as the communications manager for the New England Whalers in 1978.[1] During his tenure with the hockey team, Rasmussen had met Eagan, who displayed an interest in building a career in television. Eagan approached Bill with the idea of creating a monthly cable television program covering Connecticut sports and was curious to see if the Whalers would be interested in being the main feature on the show.[1]

Though discouraged by his firing, Rasmussen and Eagan began to discuss a new course; Bill Rasmussen's original idea was to create a cable television network that focused on covering all sporting events in the state of Connecticut (for example, the Whalers, the Bristol Red Sox and the Connecticut Huskies), rather than just focusing on one team as Eagan had proposed.[1]


We essentially created this behemoth. As a state, we have given them ample tax breaks and support along the way. And make no mistake, they are perhaps the #1 major player in conference realignment since it all heated up 15 years ago, as they continue to be the #1 major player in conference realignment going forward.

I expect to get f#$@ed by my enemies. I don't expect to get f#$@ed by my family...

ESPN ceased having any "family" type connection with the state when Rasmussen sold the company, not long after it started. He wanted to concentrate on starting a 24/7 sattelite sports radio network, which bombed right out of the gate. ESPN didn't start its radio network until many years later.

ESPN was owned by Getty Oil for a few years during the early 80's, and then Capital Cities, ABC's then parent corp., bought it. That's how Disney ended up with it. The Conn. connection is ancient history that died prior to 1980.

 

[UConnDan97]

ESPN ceased having any "family" type connection with the state when Rasmussen sold the company, not long after it started. He wanted to concentrate on starting a 24/7 sattelite sports radio network, which bombed right out of the gate. ESPN didn't start its radio network until many years later.

ESPN was owned by Getty Oil for a few years during the early 80's, and then Capital Cities, ABC's then parent corp., bought it. That's how Disney ended up with it. The Conn. connection is ancient history that died prior to 1980.

It's ancient history? How about only a couple of years ago when they became part of Malloy's "First Five" companies, receiving 25 million dollars in state incentives? Is that recent enough?

I get that we are not a legal obligation for them. But there is a difference in being obligated legally and owing someone. They owe us...big time...

 

[omniorange]

I hope posters on this board realize that while the focus is on ESPN losing subscribers, it's not as though FS1, BTN, and other sports networks aren't losing millions of subscribers as well. ESPN gets the headlines because they are the Worldwide Leader after all.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[UConnNick]

It's ancient history? How about only a couple of years ago when they became part of Malloy's "First Five" companies, receiving 25 million dollars in state incentives? Is that recent enough?

I get that we are not a legal obligation for them. But there is a difference in being obligated legally and owing someone. They owe us...big time...

Sure, they have some moral or ethical obligation to reciprocate on the tax incentives, but since when does any corp. care about such things? As far as they're concerned, they've already reciprocated on the tax benefits by staying in Conn. when others like GE are leaving.

Do they owe Conn. any more than that? They're owned by a corp. foreign to Conn., which was my point. They have no ties to the state other than location, and their No. 1 priority is to do what's in their own self interest. Keeping UCONN in a mid major conference apparently helps their bottom line because they don't want to pay P5 prices for a school that delivers P5 caliber content, for the most part, if they don't absolutely have to. It's strictly a business decision, and any warm and fuzzy feelings ESPN might have had toward UCONN and the state died when Rasmussen sold the company. It's blatantly obvious that nobody in a decision making position at ESPN gives a rat's ass about the state or UCONN anymore, if they ever did.

 

[djct1999]

Sure, they have some moral or ethical obligation to reciprocate on the tax incentives, but since when does any corp. care about such things? As far as they're concerned, they've already reciprocated on the tax benefits by staying in Conn. when others like GE are leaving.

Do they owe Conn. any more than that? They're owned by a corp. foreign to Conn., which was my point. They have no ties to the state other than location, and their No. 1 priority is to do what's in their own self interest. Keeping UCONN in a mid major conference apparently helps their bottom line because they don't want to pay P5 prices for a school that delivers P5 caliber content, for the most part, if they don't absolutely have to. It's strictly a business decision, and any warm and fuzzy feelings ESPN might have had toward UCONN and the state died when Rasmussen sold the company. It's blatantly obvious that nobody in a decision making position at ESPN gives a rat's ass about the state or UCONN anymore, if they ever did.

Enjoy Charlotte.

 

[B1GEast]

They saturate every nework with as much content as possible, so when you put espn on, you've already seen it a dozen times or heard it on a son radio. Espn is just too redundant for its own good.

Oh, and they kept Uconn out of the acc, so them

 

[djct1999]

I hope posters on this board realize that while the focus is on ESPN losing subscribers, it's not as though FS1, BTN, and other sports networks aren't losing millions of subscribers as well. ESPN gets the headlines because they are the Worldwide Leader after all.

Cheers,
Neil

Who cares. The motto is f ESPN. Cheers!

 

[atom58]

Yet, if you do want to see more sports than broadcast channels provide, and don't have cable, you can still pay for ESPN through Sling TV for instance, and through Roku I believe via the Internet so they still receive a fee. That's the interesting point.

 

[UConnFranklin]

This is essentially why I hate ESPN (taken from Wikipedia - ESPN history):

Origins[edit]
ESPN was founded by Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott Rasmussen and Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan.[1] Bill, who had an affinity with sports for much of his life, was fired from his position as the communications manager for the New England Whalers in 1978.[1] During his tenure with the hockey team, Rasmussen had met Eagan, who displayed an interest in building a career in television. Eagan approached Bill with the idea of creating a monthly cable television program covering Connecticut sports and was curious to see if the Whalers would be interested in being the main feature on the show.[1]

Though discouraged by his firing, Rasmussen and Eagan began to discuss a new course; Bill Rasmussen's original idea was to create a cable television network that focused on covering all sporting events in the state of Connecticut (for example, the Whalers, the Bristol Red Sox and the Connecticut Huskies), rather than just focusing on one team as Eagan had proposed.[1]


We essentially created this behemoth.

UConn actually did create ESPN. I remember when this all happened. I can remember going to UConn basketball games in the Field House and for the first time seeing ESPN cameras. IN the beginning, without UConn ESPN doesn't happen. UConn was their prime programming and just about their only programming. And we took virtually nothing in terms of $ from them at the time. It was all about exposure for us. The idea for creating the network actually occurred and was first discussed by father and son in a car ride from Bristol to Waterbury. They needed us at the time. We didn't need them!! But we were there for them.. Where are they now when we need them????

 

[dwalks93]

While the idea of some family style arrangement and shared history with ESPN and Connecticut sounds nice, the cold reality is ESPN is a corporate business who makes decisions based on money. IMO it is not some Cuse alumni trying to punish UConn but more ESPN makes money off UConn in its current situation.

Bottom line is currently the best financial decision for ESPN is to keep UConn in the AAC. ESPN is making a fortune off UConn in the AAC. The AAC is ESPN's biggest profit maker (% return to payout) and UConn is arguably its biggest brand. There is a reason ESPN had a melt down about expansion last week and it was because B12 expansion was going to destroy its cash cow known as the AAC. Moreover, keeping UConn in the AAC allows ESPN to have a "selection ready" program should the ACC ever decide to expand.

Does this mean all is lost with ESPN? No, but the state of Connecticut needs to apply its leverage to change the financial metrics. ESPN has invested millions into its property in Bristol and enjoys millions in tax breaks from Connecticut. To move its headquarter would costs hundreds of millions and would be a massive disruption for ESPN. The state of Connecticut needs to let ESPN know its favorable treatment in Connecticut is very much dependent on UConn being in a P5. It does not mean a lawsuit but more an explanation between business partners.

Every other program going back to Baylor, Virgina Tech, etc... has used its political leverage to get into a P5. The governor of Connecticut does not have the leverage the governor of Texas does with the Big12 but he does have leverage with one of the media providers who pays the Big12. Helping move UConn to a P5 will cost ESPN some money but losing massive tax breaks or moving out of Connecticut will cost ESPN more....it just needs to be framed in those terms.

It cannot be lost on Governor Malloy or the UConn Athletic Department how important a P5 position is for the future of UConn and the state of Connecticut. My guess is these conversations are going on with ESPN right now. Just because it isn't put out in a tweet does not mean it is not happening.

 

[uconnfan68]

10 years from now, there will be a lot of money in broadcasting sports. I just don't know how much of it ESPN is going to get.

Have to disagree hear. Boomers aren't going to keep paying, and young folks are too busy doing other things. Espn's long term strategy was to accumulate content for as long as possible. That's why their profits have started to dip the past few years, and let's be honest, you wish your 401k could have the return they have. The years of double digit profits might be over though.

 

[J187Money]

While the idea of some family style arrangement and shared history with ESPN and Connecticut sounds nice, the cold reality is ESPN is a corporate business who makes decisions based on money. IMO it is not some Cuse alumni trying to punish UConn but more ESPN makes money off UConn in its current situation.

Bottom line is currently the best financial decision for ESPN is to keep UConn in the AAC. ESPN is making a fortune off UConn in the AAC. The AAC is ESPN's biggest profit maker (% return to payout) and UConn is arguably its biggest brand. There is a reason ESPN had a melt down about expansion last week and it was because B12 expansion was going to destroy its cash cow known as the AAC. Moreover, keeping UConn in the AAC allows ESPN to have a "selection ready" program should the ACC ever decide to expand.

Does this mean all is lost with ESPN? No, but the state of Connecticut needs to apply its leverage to change the financial metrics. ESPN has invested millions into its property in Bristol and enjoys millions in tax breaks from Connecticut. To move its headquarter would costs hundreds of millions and would be a massive disruption for ESPN. The state of Connecticut needs to let ESPN know its favorable treatment in Connecticut is very much dependent on UConn being in a P5. It does not mean a lawsuit but more an explanation between business partners.

Every other program going back to Baylor, Virgina Tech, etc... has used its political leverage to get into a P5. The governor of Connecticut does not have the leverage the governor of Texas does with the Big12 but he does have leverage with one of the media providers who pays the Big12. Helping move UConn to a P5 will cost ESPN some money but losing massive tax breaks or moving out of Connecticut will cost ESPN more....it just needs to be framed in those terms.

It cannot be lost on Governor Malloy or the UConn Athletic Department how important a P5 position is for the future of UConn and the state of Connecticut. My guess is these conversations are going on with ESPN right now. Just because it isn't put out in a tweet does not mean it is not happening.

The state's math has to be about what ESPN does to the state economy.

If UCONN is in a better conference it could be worth an extra $20M a year at most, which I guess in theory could eliminate the subsidy that the athletic department receives from the school (and thus the state).

I'm pretty sure that ESPN is worth more than $20M/year to the state coffers.

If I'm governor, I make sure that ESPN is happy. I'm not saying I wouldn't try and exert some sort of pressure, but there are a lot of things in the state that don't have anything to do with UCONN or UCONN athletics.

 

[huskymedic]

... but there are a lot of things in the state that don't have anything to do with UCONN or UCONN athletics.

 

[UC313]

Youre missing the bigger picture 187. Our athletics crumble and what's it do to our enrollment? Will there still be record numbers applying? Will housing and retail continue to grow in storrs/mansfield? All of those pay taxes. If we can continually pack the xl could it pay for repairs and upgrades? Would an upgraded xl attract other sports and entertainments? Its not just on the surface. This is important on multiple levels. We, as a state, need uconn to produce top level employees into top level, local business. Attracting young and intelligent people to the state is crucial to turning our economy around.