Streaming College Sports

[huskymedic]

Good summary here from Andrew Marchand.

Charter has already agreed to pay Disney more money for ESPN. That is not in dispute.

The dispute is Charter wants subscribers to have access to Disney+ and ESPN+. I agree with them on that point!

Aaron Rodgers’ Jets debut could help force end to Charter-ESPN battle

If the Spectrum versus ESPN battle is the Super Bowl of cable rights disputes, then Aaron Rodgers may be the one who settles it.

nypost.com

 

[Sea Goat]

Interesting topic. I have seen some investment presentations on the subject and Disney/ESPN is one of the top streamers and the clear leader in the clubhouse when it comes to sports streaming. The key question for Disney/ESPN is can they attract enough subscribers/price high enough to offset the captive cable subscriber losses. We will see, but I'm skeptical. But, must watch teams/games will become very valuable to the streamers as that will drive subscribers and pricing.

I have always said that the streaming world is a positive for UConn sports. Why? UConn athletics are undervalued, in my opinion, from a media value standpoint. Heck UConn women's basketball is worth more than BC athletics media value as UConn's women's basketball draws the fans. What currently props up BC's value is football games against Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St.,... not the size of BC's fanbase.

Instead of any form of physical punishment, prisons are forcing recalcitrant prisoners to watch BC sports on the ACCN... As a result incidents of bad behavior have declined to record lows...

 

[nelsonmuntz]

He does not understand Spectrum's position.

Spectrum is saying that non-ESPN watchers shouldn't have to pay for ESPN, not that people should get stuff for free. Now if ESPN is going to sell a competitive product outside of Spectrum, and is demanding that every Spectrum customer pay for ESPN, I think it is very reasonable for Spectrum to say that its customers should not have to pay twice for two very similar products, even if there are some differences on the ESPN+ end.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

He does not understand Spectrum's position.

Spectrum is saying that non-ESPN watchers shouldn't have to pay for ESPN, not that people should get stuff for free. Now if ESPN is going to sell a competitive product outside of Spectrum, and is demanding that every Spectrum customer pay for ESPN, I think it is very reasonable for Spectrum to say that its customers should not have to pay twice for two very similar products, even if there are some differences on the ESPN+ end.

Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.

You could just do PPV at that point. For live sports it could be 50 cents or a dollar per hour. Each basketball game is $2 and football is $3.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.

Not the way @zls44 sees it. He thinks cable is making a COMEBACK!!!!!!!

Back in the real world, I agree with you. And the implications of this extend beyond just ESPN and Fox, although ESPN was by far the biggest beneficiary of carriage fees relative to viewers.

 

[zls44]

Not the way @zls44 sees it. He thinks cable is making a COMEBACK!!!!!!!

Back in the real world, I agree with you. And the implications of this extend beyond just ESPN and Fox, although ESPN was by far the biggest beneficiary of carriage fees relative to viewers.

Oh, goodness no. Cable is in clear decline. That’s why Charter wants to quit entirely.

But they won’t. Not yet.

 

[zls44]

Ala carte offering is what we are heading. Consumers should only pay for things they actually watch.

Classic be careful what you wish for, you just might get it scenario.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Oh, goodness no. Cable is in clear decline. That’s why Charter wants to quit entirely.

But they won’t. Not yet.

Cable companies already invested a huge amount of money into their outdated coaxial infrastructure. They will do their best to try to offer internet over that along with cable TV.

The Trend is more and more people are subscribing to what they actually watch, and that won't change any time soon.

People that already cut the cord because they don't want to pay the over priced cable subscriptions for things they don't watch. Streaming is the future, and people will just pay for things they actually watch.

UConn needs to start to position itself for this future. UConn should definitely try to get a combo of linear TV and streaming contract if possible. Hopefully, we can get paid more than what we are getting now.

 

[zls44]

Charter caved.

They always do.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Charter caved.

They always do.

CABLE IS BACK, BABY!!!!!!

It is funny that you claim to be a UConn fan, yet you are hoping for an outcome that is both A) extremely unlikely (Cable regaining subscribers) and B) very bad for UConn. You actually are rooting for UConn's athletic program to die.

 

[ramses 2.0]

Looks like both gave up some ground, Charter subs get Disney + at a discount & Disney gets it's increase in fees

 

[zls44]

CABLE IS BACK, BABY!!!!!!

It is funny that you claim to be a UConn fan, yet you are hoping for an outcome that is both A) extremely unlikely (Cable regaining subscribers) and B) very bad for UConn. You actually are rooting for UConn's athletic program to die.

I was right. You were wrong.

It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.

 

[noeynox]

CABLE IS BACK, BABY!!!!!!

It is funny that you claim to be a UConn fan, yet you are hoping for an outcome that is both A) extremely unlikely (Cable regaining subscribers) and B) very bad for UConn. You actually are rooting for UConn's athletic program to die.

He hated the Big12 potential move and said the ACC was a better fit. You can't fit where you're not wanted. But whatever. Kicking the can down the road with this move.

 

[noeynox]

I was right. You were wrong.

It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.

At least this is funny.

 

[huskymedic]

Charter caved.

They always do.

The Walt Disney Company And Charter Communications Announce Transformative Agreement For Distribution Of Disney’s Linear Networks And Direct-To-Consumer Services - The Walt Disney Company

Disney+ Basic Ad-Supported Offering Will Be Included in Spectrum TV Select Video Packages as Part of Wholesale Arrangement Between the Two Companies

thewaltdisneycompany.com

… “To preserve all these valuable business models, the parties have also renewed their commitment to lead the industry in mitigating the effects of unauthorized password sharing.”

 

[UConnJim]

According to WSJ, Charter customers will get the ad supported Disney+ and ESPN+ in their cable packages. Disney+ is included in TV Select and ESPN+ is included in the sports tier. Thus, I will now get both included in my cable package. And, when ESPN launches its direct to consumer channel, it appears I will get that as well.

ESPN+/Disney+/ESPN DTC are Disney's cable growth engines, so I would view the deal as somewhat negative for Disney in the LT. Charter basically got what they wanted, although they are paying Disney a higher fee.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I was right. You were wrong.

It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.

What was I wrong about?

And it looks like Disney caved.

 

[ramses 2.0]

I would definitely say Charter won out this round but if ESPN partners with say Amazon on their DTC model then they will gain more leverage going forward

 

[zls44]

Everyone got something they wanted.

Well, not the consumers, of course. But there’s a lot for Disney and Charter here to like.

 

[ScottVib]

Disney wants people on the ad supported tiers (of Disney+) to continue to increase the ad rates for its streaming content. Being able to count all Charter subscribers as ad tier subscribers helps them… essentially bringing the cable model to the streaming content.

They’ll get some lessor fee (a “wholesale” rate) on the streaming channels, count the subs to help with ad rates, plus take the increases in ESPN. Charter drops a bunch of the lessor Fox, NatGeo and Disney channels from its lineup.

I don’t know that either side caved, it looks like both achieved goals they can sell as wins to their subscribers/share-holders.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Charter caved.

They always do.

Everyone got something they wanted.

Well, not the consumers, of course. But there’s a lot for Disney and Charter here to like.

It took you less than three hours to take a diametrically opposed position to the one you had earlier, regarding a subject that you represent yourself to be the board expert.

 

[UConnJim]

Disney wants people on the ad supported tiers (of Disney+) to continue to increase the ad rates for its streaming content. Being able to count all Charter subscribers as ad tier subscribers helps them… essentially bringing the cable model to the streaming content.

They’ll get some lessor fee (a “wholesale” rate) on the streaming channels, count the subs to help with ad rates, plus take the increases in ESPN. Charter drops a bunch of the lessor Fox, NatGeo and Disney channels from its lineup.

I don’t know that either side caved, it looks like both achieved goals they can sell as wins to their subscribers/share-holders.

From a stock perspective, it's a mixed deal for Disney. Investors are focused on streaming when they value Disney. Disney will get high subscribers, but at a lower than average rate and investors don't like a declining average revenue per user.

 

[djct1999]

I was right. You were wrong.

It’s amazing how this happens every time. Undefeated.

Lol, the only way this is a win for Disney is they avoided the absolute worst case scenario. If Charter pulled its subscribers the ramifications would have potentially been catastrophic . Disney avoided that. Kudos. But they still have a steep uphill battle. It’s simply a slower death. I don’t think you called that.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I like Disney's streaming potential long term. I think there is a lot of room for price increases in the core Disney platform. Streaming services are very cheap for what you get. I like Hulu's original content is excellent, and I think it can be very successful as a DTC platform for ABC, FX and the other channels it resells. I am struggling a bit with Hulu's reseller model, but there is a solid business in there somewhere.

On the other hand, ESPN is losing value by the minute. The fact that Iger had to give away streaming subscriptions to Charter to maintain ESPN's carriage charges shows how desperate he is to put lipstick on the ESPN pig. Rumor is that Iger is asking for $50 billion for ESPN, but Iger will go down in history as a legendary CEO if he is able to dump that dumpster fire of dogspit for anything over $30 billion.

From a Barron's article this month:

KeyBanc’s Nispel did the math and puts ESPN’s value at about $30 billion currently but he compared it to a “melting iceberg”, as he argued the broadcaster is set to struggle with an eventual transition to being primarily a streaming service.