Insight into ESPN's thought process

[Waquoit]

It seems that one reason UConn isn't important to ESPN is because they see Connecticut as SEC territory. When commenting about the new SEC network, the ESPN prez said, "I want to emphasize that we believe this conference has national appeal. This is not a regional network. This is a national network. We understand that within the 11-state footprint is where the most passionate fan base is, the most important fan base, but there's a lot of SEC fans in California, Michigan, Connecticut, Nebraska. We expect to be in all those places widely distributed with this network."

 

[Fairfield 1st]

He's nuts if he thinks anyone will upgrade their basic tier to include the SEC or ACC networks. If Comcast decides to link it to NFL Redzone, well then hellooo Direct TV

 

[epark88]

*Sigh.*

Bristol's thought process for the past near-decade has been to cheapen and marginalize both UConn and it's conference.

Mission accomplished.

Going forward, it would behoove the school and its fanbase to finally take our mouths off of Bristol's teat and just focus on what it can still control: academic ranking, AAU status, bigger stadium, better marketing, getting fannies in the seats - all that jazz.

Because frankly, anything ESPN says about the University of Connecticut and it's current situation needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

They're just not that into us...

 

[epark88]

He's nuts if he thinks anyone will upgrade their basic tier to include the SEC or ACC networks. If Comcast decides to link it to NFL Redzone, well then hellooo Direct TV

Upgrade? Pffft - we don't even have cable.

In our home we don't watch enough TV to justify the expense of another Comcast bill. That said, if UConn were on a B1G/ACC/SEC-type network, I would sign up for cable in a heartbeat - no matter what tier the network was on.

But w/o UConn? No dice...

 

[Durks07]

It seems that one reason UConn isn't important to ESPN is because they see Connecticut as SEC territory. When commenting about the new SEC network, the ESPN prez said, "I want to emphasize that we believe this conference has national appeal. This is not a regional network. This is a national network. We understand that within the 11-state footprint is where the most passionate fan base is, the most important fan base, but there's a lot of SEC fans in California, Michigan, Connecticut, Nebraska. We expect to be in all those places widely distributed with this network."

I'm not sure that's the point, by that logic, then Michigan is SEC country too. I'm all for hating ESPN as much as the next person, but the examples are so geographically spread out to illustrate how much appeal SEC games have nationally. I really wouldn't read too much into this. For what it is worth, when LSU and Alabama are playing on prime-time on CBS, is anyone not watching that game? I get the point he is making, but I'll be dead before I pay to have access to Mississippi State playing against Missouri.

 

[pj]

I'll be dead before I pay to have access to Mississippi State playing against Missouri.

What about Mississippi versus Kentucky?

 

[Durks07]

What about Mississippi versus Kentucky?

Oh! Any day of the week! I need an occasional reminder that there are realllllly bad teams in the SEC to make myself feel better about vaunted Tulane

 

[UPitt]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=8a43ba62-920c-475e-b15e-f15273e5d466

"A La Carte" Cable is another step closer to passage. This bill may kill conference networks or at least put a dent in their profits.

"A La Carte" Cable actually scares me a little. I feel like I watch the popular channels that will cost more to watch. Television Networks and Cable Companies are going to price accordingly to continue to make the same profits. For every retired grandmother that saves $50/month watching knitting on TV, a group of people watching something popular will have to pick up her tab. I think many of us will see an increase in cable costs.

 

[upstater]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=8a43ba62-920c-475e-b15e-f15273e5d466

"A La Carte" Cable is another step closer to passage. This bill may kill conference networks or at least put a dent in their profits.

"A La Carte" Cable actually scares me a little. I feel like I watch the popular channels that will cost more to watch. Television Networks and Cable Companies are not going to price accordingly to continue to make the same profits. For every retired grandmother that saves $50/month watching knitting on TV, a group of people watching something popular will have to pick up her tab. I think many of us will see an increase in cable costs.

I say--bring it on!!! It will be great for my house.

 

[bmayuc]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=8a43ba62-920c-475e-b15e-f15273e5d466

"A La Carte" Cable is another step closer to passage. This bill may kill conference networks or at least put a dent in their profits.

"A La Carte" Cable actually scares me a little. I feel like I watch the popular channels that will cost more to watch. Television Networks and Cable Companies are not going to price accordingly to continue to make the same profits. For every retired grandmother that saves $50/month watching knitting on TV, a group of people watching something popular will have to pick up her tab. I think many of us will see an increase in cable costs.

If this is true, using your logic, then everyone else has been subsidizing your all along!

Pay what you subscribe/use. No purer way to do it.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[UPitt]

If this is true, using your logic, then everyone else has been subsidizing your all along!

Pay what you subscribe/use. No purer way to do it.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

There are additional costs that come with having the options for "A La Carte" tv. Right now cable companies put out packages. It's simple to do packages that puts everyone in a tier. It's simple for billing, customer service questions, change in plans, advertisement, user friendliness, and more. I do not see anything that becomes simpler when switching over to "a la carte" tv. All of these additional costs will be passed along to the customer.

I am not opposed to the "a la carte" tv plans because I really only watch a few stations, and there is a possibility that my bill may even decrease (although I would think that ESPN and FOX and a few other popular stations will cost more). With internet tv and more competition from satelite, the "a la carte" tv on cable may see more competition and thus decrease the cost. I just think that cable tv is in it to make a profit and will charge accordingly to do so. Some people may see a decrease in cost, but I think many will see no change or slight increase in cost as well.

 

[frankthetank]

If this is true, using your logic, then everyone else has been subsidizing your all along!

Pay what you subscribe/use. No purer way to do it.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

From a purely selfish standpoint, if you're a sports fan, then a la carte is a very bad deal for you without exception. I always shake my head when I see sports fans complaining about all of the channels that they don't watch. What they fail to realize is that ESPN and your applicable regional sports network alone cost more than the bottom 80 to 100 channels in your basic cable channel lineup *combined*. Those channels are the most expensive by FAR and, more importantly, ESPN isn't going to charge the $5 per month that it's doing in the cable context. It's going to need to charge at an a la carte rate that matches the revenue that it gets now, which would be astronomical. Think about what it cost just to watch one Mayweather fight for a couple of hours earlier this month and now extrapolate that into paying a la carte for an entity that has NFL Monday Night Football, NBA and MLB playoff games (not just the regular season), all of the major power college conferences and the College Football Playoff.

There is one group that will save money in a la carte: the group that watches (a) NO sports and (b) NO high cost scripted programs (e.g. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Archer, The Americans). The channels that carry those types of programs draw the highest carriage fees by far, while the other 90% of the basic channels in your lineup cost mere pennies.

If you want to argue from an altruistic standpoint that the 80-year grandmothers shouldn't be paying $5 per month for ESPN when she never watches it, then that's perfectly fine. I more than sympathize with that viewpoint. However, if you're posting on this message board, I really hope that you're not naive enough to think that you'll actually end up being the beneficiaries of an a la carte environment. Sports fans will bear the cost, which might very well be fair overall, but it certainly won't save any of us here any money. The people that watch Lifetime, OWN, low cost reality shows and documentaries, and daytime talk shows all day are the ones subsidizing people that watch (a) sports and (b) high cost scripted shows. The problem that I see is that disproportionate number of the people that seem to argue in favor of a la carte and fool themselves into thinking that they'd be saving money are the people that watch (a) and (b) without any understanding of the cost structure (and to be clear, I'm very much in the (a) and (b) category). Once again, I have no issue with the concept of "paying for what you watch" in principle (although that brings up the issue that probably no channels other than the most popular established ones that were in the circa-1990 basic cable lineup could survive in an a la carte environment, which is another matter), but it irks me when the very people that think that it will save them money are exactly who are going to get slammed with the highest costs. We're not the ones getting screwed in the basic cable environment - it's actually everyone else that's subsidizing our sports viewing habits. Whenever you have a conversation about this a la carte topic, always remember that.

 

[upstater]

From a purely selfish standpoint, if you're a sports fan, then a la carte is a very bad deal for you without exception. I always shake my head when I see sports fans complaining about all of the channels that they don't watch. What they fail to realize is that ESPN and your applicable regional sports network alone cost more than the bottom 80 to 100 channels in your basic cable channel lineup *combined*. Those channels are the most expensive by FAR and, more importantly, ESPN isn't going to charge the $5 per month that it's doing in the cable context. It's going to need to charge at an a la carte rate that matches the revenue that it gets now, which would be astronomical. Think about what it cost just to watch one Mayweather fight for a couple of hours earlier this month and now extrapolate that into paying a la carte for an entity that has NFL Monday Night Football, NBA and MLB playoff games (not just the regular season), all of the major power college conferences and the College Football Playoff.

There is one group that will save money in a la carte: the group that watches (a) NO sports and (b) NO high cost scripted programs (e.g. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Archer, The Americans). The channels that carry those types of programs draw the highest carriage fees by far, while the other 90% of the basic channels in your lineup cost mere pennies.

If you want to argue from an altruistic standpoint that the 80-year grandmothers shouldn't be paying $5 per month for ESPN when she never watches it, then that's perfectly fine. I more than sympathize with that viewpoint. However, if you're posting on this message board, I really hope that you're not naive enough to think that you'll actually end up being the beneficiaries of an a la carte environment. Sports fans will bear the cost, which might very well be fair overall, but it certainly won't save any of us here any money. The people that watch Lifetime, OWN, low cost reality shows and documentaries, and daytime talk shows all day are the ones subsidizing people that watch (a) sports and (b) high cost scripted shows. The problem that I see is that disproportionate number of the people that seem to argue in favor of a la carte and fool themselves into thinking that they'd be saving money are the people that watch (a) and (b) without any understanding of the cost structure (and to be clear, I'm very much in the (a) and (b) category). Once again, I have no issue with the concept of "paying for what you watch" in principle (although that brings up the issue that probably no channels other than the most popular established ones that were in the circa-1990 basic cable lineup could survive in an a la carte environment, which is another matter), but it irks me when the very people that think that it will save them money are exactly who are going to get slammed with the highest costs. We're not the ones getting screwed in the basic cable environment - it's actually everyone else that's subsidizing our sports viewing habits. Whenever you have a conversation about this a la carte topic, always remember that.

I'm pretty sure I will benefit because the ONLY thing I watch on cable is ESPN. The only thing.

 

[UConnJim]

A la carte does not mean there will not be bundling or packages of channels. Why? They will offer a la carte pricing that makes bundling and packages more attractive to most viewers. The losers won't be sports channels, although the price of the channels will go up, but the losers will be all of the little watched channels. Here are the numbers:

http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

 

[frankthetank]

I'm pretty sure I will benefit because the ONLY thing I watch on cable is ESPN. The only thing.

If that is truly the case, then maybe. And I'm just talking about the ESPN mothership. We're not including ESPN2 and ESPNU here. We're also not including your applicable regional sports network. All of those alone would likely cost as much in an a la carte environment than what you pay for an entire basic cable lineup (because you now have to start incorporating marketing costs and other expenses that skyrocket when you have to sell a la carte). They dwarf everything else. If you're in the average viewer in the female over-50 demo, then you can probably save quite a bit of money with a la carte. The male age 18-49 demo, though, are exactly who all of the highest priced cable channels are targeting (beyond the sports networks, they include TNT, TBS, Comedy Central, USA, FX and AMC) and I'll take a wild guess that many people here fit into that demo.

Believe me - I don't like defending the cable people here. The real price gouging isn't the fact that you're paying $5 per month for ESPN or your RSN, but rather that Disney forces every provider to buy a dozen other Disney-owned channels in order to get ESPN at all. The bundling is really what's a killer (and likely where the compromise will be with the McCain-types). If you have a channel that can garner a high monthly rate with basic carriage, then it's likely justifiable based upon viewership. Comcast and DirecTV aren't handing all of that money over to ESPN (or the Big Ten Network) because they're feeling charitable - it's because those are the types of channels that a large enough number of people will switch providers for in order to gain access to them (so choosing not to carry them isn't economically feasible, meaning that the channel has the leverage). What I find much more nefarious is tying access to that popular channel to granting carriage to other less popular channels that wouldn't have gotten basic carriage on their own.

 

[upstater]

If that is truly the case, then maybe. And I'm just talking about the ESPN mothership. We're not including ESPN2 and ESPNU here. We're also not including your applicable regional sports network. All of those alone would likely cost as much in an a la carte environment than what you pay for an entire basic cable lineup (because you now have to start incorporating marketing costs and other expenses that skyrocket when you have to sell a la carte). They dwarf everything else. If you're in the average viewer in the female over-50 demo, then you can probably save quite a bit of money with a la carte. The male age 18-49 demo, though, are exactly who all of the highest priced cable channels are targeting (beyond the sports networks, they include TNT, TBS, Comedy Central, USA, FX and AMC) and I'll take a wild guess that many people here fit into that demo.

Believe me - I don't like defending the cable people here. The real price gouging isn't the fact that you're paying $5 per month for ESPN or your RSN, but rather that Disney forces every provider to buy a dozen other Disney-owned channels in order to get ESPN at all. The bundling is really what's a killer (and likely where the compromise will be with the McCain-types). If you have a channel that can garner a high monthly rate with basic carriage, then it's likely justifiable based upon viewership. Comcast and DirecTV aren't handing all of that money over to ESPN (or the Big Ten Network) because they're feeling charitable - it's because those are the types of channels that a large enough number of people will switch providers for in order to gain access to them (so choosing not to carry them isn't economically feasible, meaning that the channel has the leverage). What I find much more nefarious is tying access to that popular channel to granting carriage to other less popular channels that wouldn't have gotten basic carriage on their own.

ESPN isn't offered on the basic cable package. Not in my area. Only offered on the next tier, which is $85. I don't watch U., but with the AAC's deal, I may have interest. I do watch the Deuce. SNY is on my basic cable--I don't watch any other regional sports channels.

 

[RS9999X]

ABC announced their Streaming Deal this week and its contingent on a Cable Subscription. Pay your provider $13 a month (Plus taxes) and if you have free WiFi stream away.

For people who have to pay for their internet at home there's not many ways to save money via streaming and a la carte presently. Currently its estimated Cable marks up their stations by 100% to 200% depending on the vendor. ESPN inclusive might be as low as $14.95. I doubt it would go lower. Fine if you have free WiFi. Add $5o.00 for broadband and the advantage of a la pricing goes downhill fast. Local Basic and 50Mbps runs around $80 a month plus taxes. Add ESPN for $15.00 a month and a cable card and a Netflix subscription and Spotify and now its $120 a month.

 

[Husky Pete]

A la carte does not mean there will not be bundling or packages of channels. Why? They will offer a la carte pricing that makes bundling and packages more attractive to most viewers. The losers won't be sports channels, although the price of the channels will go up, but the losers will be all of the little watched channels. Here are the numbers:

http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/

Interesting to note that the Big Ten Network was already #17 in 2009. Wonder what they are today? Also, where the Longhorn network is today?

 

[B1GALUM]

Interesting to note that the Big Ten Network was already #17 in 2009. Wonder what they are today? Also, where the Longhorn network is today?

"The switch to move the Big Ten Network off of sports tiers in Maryland and New Jersey will cost distributors. Currently, the network costs around 15 cents per subscriber per month outside of the Big Ten’s core market. Inside the conference’s core market, though, the price jumps to around 80 cents."

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimor...-ten-might-keep-maryland-off-tv.html?page=all

 

[minidarren]

I'm pretty sure I will benefit because the ONLY thing I watch on cable is ESPN. The only thing.

I have a decent idea of how things in the industry work.

A la carte services will be extremely expensive and most likely never happen. The cable industry has tried to figure this out for years. Sports are the big ticket items. Viewer ship of sporting channels are somewhere around 20%.

Local networks are attempting to raise rebroadcast rights to the cable operators by 200%. However that is only on a very small amount. ESPN is much more expensive per sub.

ESPN a la carte will cost you 150.00 per month.

Keep dreaming. Its not going to happen.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[pj]

A la carte means a big loss of revenue to the cable industry and not much change in satisfaction to consumers. Instead of paying $50 per month for many channels, people will pay $8 a month for a small number of channels. Cable company revenue will fall 80% and consumer satisfaction will be similar. The people who only like ESPN will benefit. People who like large numbers of channels will lose out.

Bundling makes sure that no consumer gets a windfall, but that nearly every consumer gets a wide range of channels at a rate that is acceptable to them. It maximizes revenue and profits to the cable industry.

For UConn, it would be a competitiveness-improving change, in the sense that TV revenue to the 5 power conferences would fall and the playing field would be level again. But being in a power conference with the current cable arrangement would be the best fate of all for UConn.

 

[UConnJim]

I have a decent idea of how things in the industry work.

A la carte services will be extremely expensive and most likely never happen. The cable industry has tried to figure this out for years. Sports are the big ticket items. Viewer ship of sporting channels are somewhere around 20%.

Local networks are attempting to raise rebroadcast rights to the cable operators by 200%. However that is only on a very small amount. ESPN is much more expensive per sub.

ESPN a la carte will cost you 150.00 per month.

Keep dreaming. Its not going to happen.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Totally disagree with your math. Let's use your numbers and say 20% would want ESPN. Currently, ESPN is getting about $5/ sub, so multiply that by 5 and you get $25/month for ESPN channels. I would argue that more than 20% would want ESPN, especially as more sports content goes to cable channels, and the price would be lower than $25/month.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

It seems that one reason UConn isn't important to ESPN is because they see Connecticut as SEC territory. When commenting about the new SEC network, the ESPN prez said, "I want to emphasize that we believe this conference has national appeal. This is not a regional network. This is a national network. We understand that within the 11-state footprint is where the most passionate fan base is, the most important fan base, but there's a lot of SEC fans in California, Michigan, Connecticut, Nebraska. We expect to be in all those places widely distributed with this network."

He is out of his mind if he believes there are enough SEC fans in Nebraska to keep a public access station happy. If they are watching a football game on the SEC Network it is because the Huskers have a bye week and they decided to scout potential bowl opponents.

 

[whaler11]

, I really hope that you're not naive enough to think that you'll actually end up being the beneficiaries of an a la carte environment.

Since this thread went to these places clearly they are.

 

[upstater]

I have a decent idea of how things in the industry work.

A la carte services will be extremely expensive and most likely never happen. The cable industry has tried to figure this out for years. Sports are the big ticket items. Viewer ship of sporting channels are somewhere around 20%.

Local networks are attempting to raise rebroadcast rights to the cable operators by 200%. However that is only on a very small amount. ESPN is much more expensive per sub.

ESPN a la carte will cost you 150.00 per month.

Keep dreaming. Its not going to happen.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

ESPN is going to cost $150? I don't think so. No.