Streaming College Sports

[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.

 

[zls44]

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.

Since you cannot keep up, I will slow down and explain the obvious to you.

I do the over-the-top bombast mocking your idiocy (UCONN AND UMASS SIMPLY SHOULD ASK FOR A PRO RATA CUT OF THE CFP BECAUSE THEYLL OBVIOUSLY GET IT). It shows how absolutely delusional you and noyenox are that you cannot see the obvious mockery. You both sound insane. You probably subscribed to Quibi, too.

The truth is the second post, which is that both sides get to save face. But the overall reality is cable is not dying nearly as fast as you think it is. This deal proves that. Again. As I have told you over, and over, and over, and over again.

This will take longer than you think.

The Charter-Disney showdown didn't transform the TV industry, after all, despite the hype

Charter and Disney reached an agreement before "Monday Night Football" in a rights deal that isn't transformational despite earlier rhetoric.

www.cnbc.com

 

[zls44]

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.

Charter is paaaaayiiiingggg foooooorrrrr alllll ooffffff theeeeese thiiiiiings! They are PAYING for the E+ subscriptions in bulk and are helping ESPN go OTT when they do!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Charter is paaaaayiiiingggg foooooorrrrr alllll ooffffff theeeeese thiiiiiings! They are PAYING for the E+ subscriptions in bulk and are helping ESPN go OTT when they do!

From the WSJ:

Disney executives acknowledged that the agreement with Charter represented some concessions but said they felt the new price terms the company got for its TV channels—as well as the boost the deal is likely to give its streaming services’ reach and advertising revenue—will make it worthwhile.

Analysts said Charter doesn’t make much money selling pay-TV packages, while its broadband-internet business is very lucrative, which gave it plenty of leverage in its fight with Disney.

The pay-TV giant on Monday said it would market Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ to its broadband-only customers. Charter will get a share of revenue as part of that effort, according to people familiar with the matter.

More lipstick on the pig. Is there anyone that doesn't already know about DisneyPlus? Didn't think so, so the reach argument is silly. Disney is giving away streaming subscriptions and trying to hide the fact that it effectively had to discount the ESPN carriage fees with those subscriptions. I would be homicidal if I was at Disney streaming and had to dump 15 million streaming subscriptions to try to bail out the sinking ESPN ship.

Disney needs to pick a horse: Streaming or ESPN. I know which one I would pick if I was Disney.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Since you cannot keep up, I will slow down and explain the obvious to you.

I do the over-the-top bombast mocking your idiocy (UCONN AND UMASS SIMPLY SHOULD ASK FOR A PRO RATA CUT OF THE CFP BECAUSE THEYLL OBVIOUSLY GET IT). It shows how absolutely delusional you and noyenox are that you cannot see the obvious mockery. You both sound insane. You probably subscribed to Quibi, too.

The truth is the second post, which is that both sides get to save face. But the overall reality is cable is not dying nearly as fast as you think it is. This deal proves that. Again. As I have told you over, and over, and over, and over again.

This will take longer than you think.

The Charter-Disney showdown didn't transform the TV industry, after all, despite the hype

Charter and Disney reached an agreement before "Monday Night Football" in a rights deal that isn't transformational despite earlier rhetoric.

www.cnbc.com

Do you search the internet for the most idiotic takes, and then link them here? That writer thinks Charter makes a lot of money on TV, when both Charter and every analyst that covers Charter says they make almost no money on TV. Since that assertion about Charter making money on TV is the whole premise of the column, and it is wrong, what was the point of the column?

 

[zls44]

Disney is giving away streaming subscriptions and trying to hide the fact that it effectively had to discount the ESPN carriage fees with those subscriptions.

Disney, Charter reach distribution deal ahead of 'Monday Night Football'

Walt Disney and Charter Communications said on Monday they have reached a deal that will see the media giant's networks, including ESPN, return to the Spectrum cable service just hours before the start of NFL "Monday Night Football."

www.reuters.com

"Under the new agreement, Charter will be able to offer subscribers to its most popular video package, Spectrum TV Select, access to the ad-supported version of the Disney+ service at no additional cost, one of its key demands in negotiations.


However, Charter will pay Disney a wholesale fee to do so, similar to an agreement Disney struck with Verizon in 2019, when the telecommunications giant offered its mobile phone customers a year's free access to Disney+."

 

[zls44]

Do you search the internet for the most idiotic takes, and then link them here? That writer thinks Charter makes a lot of money on TV, when both Charter and every analyst that covers Charter says they make almost no money on TV. Since that assertion about Charter making money on TV is the whole premise of the column, and it is wrong, what was the point of the column?

To recap, people you think are idiots are: Andrew Marchand*, John Ourand and Alex Sherman, three of the most-respected people in the entire industry, yes?


*was a hack Yankees writer, not a fan, but he's good on this beat

 

[djct1999]

Since you cannot keep up, I will slow down and explain the obvious to you.

I do the over-the-top bombast mocking your idiocy (UCONN AND UMASS SIMPLY SHOULD ASK FOR A PRO RATA CUT OF THE CFP BECAUSE THEYLL OBVIOUSLY GET IT). It shows how absolutely delusional you and noyenox are that you cannot see the obvious mockery. You both sound insane. You probably subscribed to Quibi, too.

The truth is the second post, which is that both sides get to save face. But the overall reality is cable is not dying nearly as fast as you think it is. This deal proves that. Again. As I have told you over, and over, and over, and over again.

This will take longer than you think.

The Charter-Disney showdown didn't transform the TV industry, after all, despite the hype

Charter and Disney reached an agreement before "Monday Night Football" in a rights deal that isn't transformational despite earlier rhetoric.

www.cnbc.com

While I don’t agree with your take on how Disney had leverage and won this deal, I do agree 100% that this deal absolutely slows the death of linear.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

To recap, people you think are idiots are: Andrew Marchand*, John Ourand and Alex Sherman, three of the most-respected people in the entire industry, yes?


*was a hack Yankees writer, not a fan, but he's good on this beat

WSJ and Barrons are lying. Got it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

While I don’t agree with your take on how Disney had leverage and won this deal, I do agree 100% that this deal absolutely slows the death of linear.

I don't think it matters all the much. At some point, those still paying for the bundle for a bunch of channels they don't watch are going to have a hard time justifying the cost. Disney is throwing more goodies at them to string it out a little longer, but the fact that Disney even has to do that means the bundle is just about dead.

If they unbundle cable TV, on the other hand, I could see it lasting for decades. People are lazy and if they haven't switched yet, then they are probably not early adopters. One of the problems Disney has with Charter and the rest is that if the cable companies are not making money on television, they will eventually focus on the businesses they do make money on, and try to get paid there. Disney has not given Charter or any cable company much reason to not try to cannibalize their own tv business in favor of their internet business.

 

[djct1999]

I don't think it matters all the much. At some point, those still paying for the bundle for a bunch of channels they don't watch are going to have a hard time justifying the cost. Disney is throwing more goodies at them to string it out a little longer, but the fact that Disney even has to do that means the bundle is just about dead.

If they unbundle cable TV, on the other hand, I could see it lasting for decades. People are lazy and if they haven't switched yet, then they are probably not early adopters. One of the problems Disney has with Charter and the rest is that if the cable companies are not making money on television, they will eventually focus on the businesses they do make money on, and try to get paid there. Disney has not given Charter or any cable company much reason to not try to cannibalize their own tv business in favor of their internet business.

Imagine if they unbundle cable only to bundle streaming? What a world we live in!

 

[Dizzy21]

WSJ and Barrons are lying. Got it.

Don't worry, wait a few hours and it will be @zls44 saying "Of course ESPN gave everything for free, that is what they wanted and it works out for everyone, just like I said"

 

[Huskyforlife]

Am I the only person really dreading the switch to streaming for sports networks?

Not being able to flip between games on ABC/CBS/FS1/etc without loading up separate apps seems like hell.

It’s fine if you’re a super fan watching your favorite team for 2-3 hours straight, but won’t streaming inevitably make the causal viewing experience awful? Are these smart TV makers working on multi view functions to allow for multiple streams to be played at once, with seamless transitions for the viewer?

 

[UConnJim]

Am I the only person really dreading the switch to streaming for sports networks?

Not being able to flip between games on ABC/CBS/FS1/etc without loading up separate apps seems like hell.

It’s fine if you’re a super fan watching your favorite team for 2-3 hours straight, but won’t streaming inevitably make the causal viewing experience awful? Are these smart TV makers working on multi view functions to allow for multiple streams to be played at once, with seamless transitions for the viewer?

I don't know what cable service you have, but with Xfinity, you can put multiple channels, including streams in cue. Going to the streams right now is not as fast as going to channels, but you don't have to open the app each time you switch channels and going for the streamed channel to the linear channel is quick.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Next up in the ring: Hearst vs. Dish. This is not just a Disney/ESPN problem. The whole bundled, carriage fee business model is breaking down.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[Kolumbo]

Am I the only person really dreading the switch to streaming for sports networks?

Not being able to flip between games on ABC/CBS/FS1/etc without loading up separate apps seems like hell.

It’s fine if you’re a super fan watching your favorite team for 2-3 hours straight, but won’t streaming inevitably make the causal viewing experience awful? Are these smart TV makers working on multi view functions to allow for multiple streams to be played at once, with seamless transitions for the viewer?

Just let me be able to record the game and watch it at my leisure. If I know I'm gonna be home watching the game, I'll start watching an hour late or so and fast forward through all of the down time, time-outs, and commercials. Watching a full game in 60 minutes is a pleasure. Spending an afternoon flipping around between multiple games is a luxury I no longer have. And besides, they want us to watch fewer and fewer programs anyway. I'm down to one team, and one team only.

 

[pepband99]

That's a sort of bogus number set, though. Notice the drop in streaming from week 3 to 4? It will accelerate, and drop more, all year, as the fairly terrible OOC games that got sent to streaming give way to conference games.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Disney and Charter finally end their cable TV fight—with Charter getting the streaming services it wanted

The House of Mouse and cable giant Charter’s “transformative” agreement will provide one of the first cable and streaming combo bundles.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[pepband99]

Great synopsis. Maybe @zls44 and @nelsonmuntz can stop their dueling victory laps.

Cable and Streaming TV Are Jumping Off the Cliff Together

The Disney-Charter deal is an admission of doom.

slate.com

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Great synopsis. Maybe @zls44 and @nelsonmuntz can stop their dueling victory laps.

Cable and Streaming TV Are Jumping Off the Cliff Together

The Disney-Charter deal is an admission of doom.

slate.com

It is not a very good synopsis. Netflix is very profitable, so his comment about "steaming is losing money without any end in sight" is just wrong. The other streamers are playing catch up, but most of them have huge libraries and should turn to profitability and be very good businesses, although HBO/Warner is in trouble. I am not sure that is a viable, stand alone business in streaming, although the market disagrees with me, having given it a $27.5 billion market cap even though it is losing money hand over fist.

The writer also gets this backwards:

A Charter cable subscriber who gets ESPN’s future flagship streaming offering for free is one who won’t also pay Disney $20 or $40 or $65 per month for it (unless they get extremely confused). Disney and its peers are already subsidizing lagging streaming operations with money from their traditional businesses.

Disney is giving away very cheap streaming subscriptions to prop up its linear service. Not the other way around. Disney is betting that once customers start using the streaming services, they will keep them after they finally cut the cord. Disney is also hoping that by throwing the streaming services in for free for the end customer, that the customer will be less likely to cut the cord. It is actually a solid transition strategy for Disney.

It does not make ESPN any less screwed though. ESPN has an impossible strategic conundrum: 1) ESPN has to figure out a way to get cable companies and aggregators like YouTubeTV to continue to charge every customer $10 a month even for customers that don't want ESPN. And 2) it has to come up with a rationale for the pro sports leagues not to end-run ESPN and simply go DTC. I don't see any way that this does not happen. And when the first sports league cuts ESPN out or even significantly back, justifying the $10 a month carriage fee will get a lot harder. If the NFL is that sports league, ESPN will be lucky to get $5 a month.

 

[pepband99]

It is not a very good synopsis. Netflix is very profitable, so his comment about "steaming is losing money without any end in sight" is just wrong. The other streamers are playing catch up, but most of them have huge libraries and should turn to profitability and be very good businesses, although HBO/Warner is in trouble. I am not sure that is a viable, stand alone business in streaming, although the market disagrees with me, having given it a $27.5 billion market cap even though it is losing money hand over fist.

The writer also gets this backwards:



Disney is giving away very cheap streaming subscriptions to prop up its linear service. Not the other way around. Disney is betting that once customers start using the streaming services, they will keep them after they finally cut the cord. Disney is also hoping that by throwing the streaming services in for free for the end customer, that the customer will be less likely to cut the cord. It is actually a solid transition strategy for Disney.

It does not make ESPN any less screwed though. ESPN has an impossible strategic conundrum: 1) ESPN has to figure out a way to get cable companies and aggregators like YouTubeTV to continue to charge every customer $10 a month even for customers that don't want ESPN. And 2) it has to come up with a rationale for the pro sports leagues not to end-run ESPN and simply go DTC. I don't see any way that this does not happen. And when the first sports league cuts ESPN out or even significantly back, justifying the $10 a month carriage fee will get a lot harder. If the NFL is that sports league, ESPN will be lucky to get $5 a month.

Sorry, but you're the one getting this backwards. From another article, which highlights the point even further (with more info):

Yesterday, Disney and Spectrum agreed to a deal to bring Disney-owned channels back to Spectrum Cable TV. But not all of them returned. As part of the deal, Disney agreed to remove Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FXM, FXX, Nat Geo Wild, and Nat Geo Mundo from Spectrum’s lineup. This comes as Spectrum customers will instead get access to Disney+ and ESPN+ for free, depending on their package.

This is very similar to what Disney is doing in parts of Europe and Australia, as Disney shut down many of its Disney channels. Instead, Disney is driving customers to Disney+ to replace these channels.

...in essence, Disney is now going to move channels from the linear revenue line to +. This is the dictionary definition of propping up streaming, at the expense of linear. This is admittedly mostly an accounting move though, as the collective programming in that channel set isn't terribly unique or compelling.

Has the Death of Cable TV Channels Started? Disney's Deal With Spectrum Cable TV Could Be The End of Many Smaller Cable TV Networks | Cord Cutters News

Yesterday, Disney and Spectrum agreed to a deal to bring Disney-owned channels back to Spectrum Cable TV. But not all of them returned. As part of the deal, Disney agreed to remove Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FXM, FXX, Nat Geo Wild, and Nat Geo Mundo from Spectrum’s lineup. This comes as...

cordcuttersnews.com

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Sorry, but you're the one getting this backwards. From another article, which highlights the point even further (with more info):

...in essence, Disney is now going to move channels from the linear revenue line to +. This is the dictionary definition of propping up streaming, at the expense of linear. This is admittedly mostly an accounting move though, as the collective programming in that channel set isn't terribly unique or compelling.

Has the Death of Cable TV Channels Started? Disney's Deal With Spectrum Cable TV Could Be The End of Many Smaller Cable TV Networks | Cord Cutters News

Yesterday, Disney and Spectrum agreed to a deal to bring Disney-owned channels back to Spectrum Cable TV. But not all of them returned. As part of the deal, Disney agreed to remove Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FXM, FXX, Nat Geo Wild, and Nat Geo Mundo from Spectrum’s lineup. This comes as...

cordcuttersnews.com

If Disney didn't throw the streaming services into the deal, Charter would still be blacking out ESPN and Disney, or Disney would have had to cut its carriage fees. Ergo, streaming is propping up linear. In any event, the deal is a transition from a dying linear model to streaming. Expect more of the same.

That cordcuttersnews link is a much better analysis of what happened than the other link. I think of these small channels as having been a step towards streaming that has become obsolete. When the cable technology reached a point where channels became much cheaper to add, all the major broadcasters started adding them. 30 years ago, there were 3 or 4 HBO channels, one of which was the same as one of the others, just 3 hours ahead. By the late 2010's, there were something like 10 HBO channels. There were 13 or 14 Starz channels. Disney had 8 or 10 outside of ESPN.

All of those channels could survive because viewers wanted niche programming and because the broadcasters could push through incremental carriage fees. With the cable providers and aggregators pushing back on carriage fees, some of these channels are no longer viable. But the viewers of those channels will still want that content, they will just get it through a streaming service. If someone has young kids, and Disney Junior is taken off the air, it may be time to just bite the bullet and cut the cord. The kids need their Mickey. Every time one of these channels is removed, it makes the cable bundle less valuable, because more people will then cut the cord looking for the content that they want. If they have to pay for a DisneyPlus subscription anyway, then what are they doing with cable? Which is why Charter wanted the DisneyPlus subscriptions as part of the deal. Charter no longer has to pay for niche channels but its customers still get the niche content directly through Disney.

Every article I read about the Charter/Disney deal, the more it becomes clear that Iger is trying to pretty ESPN up for a sale. Disney took a major hit through its niche channels and streaming subscriptions to maintain ESPN's carriage fees. He needs the carriage fees to make ESPN's long-term profitability look better as ESPN pays increasingly higher prices for sports content. I doubt a buyer of ESPN will fall for that shell game, but you never know. Iger only needs one to fall for it.

 

[djct1999]

If Disney didn't throw the streaming services into the deal, Charter would still be blacking out ESPN and Disney, or Disney would have had to cut its carriage fees. Ergo, streaming is propping up linear. In any event, the deal is a transition from a dying linear model to streaming. Expect more of the same.

That cordcuttersnews link is a much better analysis of what happened than the other link. I think of these small channels as having been a step towards streaming that has become obsolete. When the cable technology reached a point where channels became much cheaper to add, all the major broadcasters started adding them. 30 years ago, there were 3 or 4 HBO channels, one of which was the same as one of the others, just 3 hours ahead. By the late 2010's, there were something like 10 HBO channels. There were 13 or 14 Starz channels. Disney had 8 or 10 outside of ESPN.

All of those channels could survive because viewers wanted niche programming and because the broadcasters could push through incremental carriage fees. With the cable providers and aggregators pushing back on carriage fees, some of these channels are no longer viable. But the viewers of those channels will still want that content, they will just get it through a streaming service. If someone has young kids, and Disney Junior is taken off the air, it may be time to just bite the bullet and cut the cord. The kids need their Mickey. Every time one of these channels is removed, it makes the cable bundle less valuable, because more people will then cut the cord looking for the content that they want. If they have to pay for a DisneyPlus subscription anyway, then what are they doing with cable? Which is why Charter wanted the DisneyPlus subscriptions as part of the deal. Charter no longer has to pay for niche channels but its customers still get the niche content directly through Disney.

Every article I read about the Charter/Disney deal, the more it becomes clear that Iger is trying to pretty ESPN up for a sale. Disney took a major hit through its niche channels and streaming subscriptions to maintain ESPN's carriage fees. He needs the carriage fees to make ESPN's long-term profitability look better as ESPN pays increasingly higher prices for sports content. I doubt a buyer of ESPN will fall for that shell game, but you never know. Iger only needs one to fall for it.

But no one will, Atleast at the valuation iger pretends it is worth. We saw how desperate they are when they paid people to lie about Apple and Amazon’s interest.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

But no one will, Atleast at the valuation iger pretends it is worth. We saw how desperate they are when they paid people to lie about Apple and Amazon’s interest.

I have seen people do some stupid stuff in M&A over the years, so Iger may pull a rabbit out of his hat. Apple won’t do it, but there are buyers. I don’t see the sports leagues paying much for it either. Why buy a company they are about to put out of business?

Time is Iger’s enemy. He needs to get it sold soon.