Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nelsonmuntz, post: 4743428, member: 833"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach