Twitter vs ESPN

[scottydont]

Can Twitter become the next ESPN?

More evidence ESPN might not be around in the same capacity in 8 years.

 

[sportsart]

Interesting. How great would it be to see Twitter knock ESPIN off its high horse.

 

[Adios]

Are they going to turn the campus into condos and leave the satellite dishes up?

 

[sportsart]

Are they going to turn the campus into condos and leave the satellite dishes up?

I heard Twitter could use some tax breaks.

 

[Nostical]

I have four grandchildren 12-15 yrs old. What's remarkable to me (but now obvious to the TV networks) is that none of them has turned on a TV set to watch programming in months. They watch everything on their phones, iPads or laptops. They watch their favorite TV shows on those devices as well as play games etc. The only time the TV set is ever on is for a live sporting event. Now here's the thing. Twitter signed with the NFL to live stream 10 Thursday Night games. They paid $10M for the privilege. The reason they paid so little is they let the NFL keep much of the ad money on the games. They league already sold ad time of $50M. Its a cash cow for the league and a tremendous platform for Twitter which, if successful, can sell other ads on its own app site if it becomes a real player here. The first game is the Jets v Buffalo in early September. Fans will be able to watch on all devices---and here's the plus---without requiring any access codes--and they can live tweet at the same time, which seems to be a big draw for other shows. Twitter is also in negotiations to get on AppleTV. So here's the deal. If the first game is a Twitter success (the streaming video and sound are clear and uninterrupted) and the buzz about it goes viral...and if Twitter gets onto AppleTV.......Katie bar the door. The cord cutting could really become massive---and so likely will the value of Twitter. Keep your eyes and ears peeled....and your stock broker on speed-dial. This entire new paradigm is why ESPN and FOX are looking hard at any new Big12 or other conference deal. We're truly in (or about to enter) a whole new world.

"For Twitter, the bet on live streaming is crucial to turning itself into a mainstream internet destination after other efforts have failed. Live streaming could finally broaden Twitter’s appeal, attracting an even wider audience. And perhaps more important, live events would be another way to sell video ads. If streaming football or basketball games on Twitter’s mobile apps and on desktop computers, along with other platforms, draws viewers, the company could sell more video ads, which typically command a premium.
Twitter has directed a former Goldman Sachs banker with deep ties to the sports media industry, to lead the charge on live streaming and has assigned an engineering team to create its streaming video player. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, considers streaming a critical component of the company’s focus on “live” experiences, along with Periscope, its app that allows smartphone users to live-stream video.
To bolster the effort, Twitter is in talks with Apple to bring the Twitter app to Apple TV, which would potentially let millions of Apple TV users watch the streaming NFL games, according to the two people briefed on the discussions.
Apple and Twitter declined to comment."

Twitter shares surge 7% on talk of Apple TV deal

 

[scottydont]

This is why I don't understand the argument for the big 12 not to piss off ESPN. 8 years from now the landscape will be completely different. Take the money for 4 expansion schools now and worry about your media partners in 8 years. There will be plenty of companies wanting live sports.

 

[The Funster]

Yep. 8 years is a lifetime when it comes to technological advances. The landscape will be completely different.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Yep. 8 years is a lifetime when it comes to technological advances. The landscape will be completely different.

The iPhone first came out 9 years ago. Will be crazy to see what is out there in 2025.

 

[Alum86]

The Buffalo game on Yahoo seemed like it worked out. Watched it on yahoo app on Roku and it came in fine. I'm sure twitter will kill crush it broadcasting NFL.
Cable will disappear and internet will be $300/mo

 

[whaler11]

I have four grandchildren 12-15 yrs old. What's remarkable to me (but now obvious to the TV networks) is that none of them has turned on a TV set to watch programming in months. They watch everything on their phones, iPads or laptops. They watch their favorite TV shows on those devices as well as play games etc. The only time the TV set is ever on is for a live sporting event. Now here's the thing. Twitter signed with the NFL to live stream 10 Thursday Night games. They paid $10M for the privilege. The reason they paid so little is they let the NFL keep much of the ad money on the games. They league already sold ad time of $50M. Its a cash cow for the league and a tremendous platform for Twitter which, if successful, can sell other ads on its own app site if it becomes a real player here. The first game is the Jets v Buffalo in early September. Fans will be able to watch on all devices---and here's the plus---without requiring any access codes--and they can live tweet at the same time, which seems to be a big draw for other shows. Twitter is also in negotiations to get on AppleTV. So here's the deal. If the first game is a Twitter success (the streaming video and sound are clear and uninterrupted) and the buzz about it goes viral...and if Twitter gets onto AppleTV..Katie bar the door. The cord cutting could really become massive---and so likely will the value of Twitter. Keep your eyes and ears peeled....and your stock broker on speed-dial. This entire new paradigm is why ESPN and FOX are looking hard at any new Big12 or other conference deal. We're truly in (or about to enter) a whole new world.

"For Twitter, the bet on live streaming is crucial to turning itself into a mainstream internet destination after other efforts have failed. Live streaming could finally broaden Twitter’s appeal, attracting an even wider audience. And perhaps more important, live events would be another way to sell video ads. If streaming football or basketball games on Twitter’s mobile apps and on desktop computers, along with other platforms, draws viewers, the company could sell more video ads, which typically command a premium.
Twitter has directed a former Goldman Sachs banker with deep ties to the sports media industry, to lead the charge on live streaming and has assigned an engineering team to create its streaming video player. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, considers streaming a critical component of the company’s focus on “live” experiences, along with Periscope, its app that allows smartphone users to live-stream video.
To bolster the effort, Twitter is in talks with Apple to bring the Twitter app to Apple TV, which would potentially let millions of Apple TV users watch the streaming NFL games, according to the two people briefed on the discussions.
Apple and Twitter declined to comment."

Twitter shares surge 7% on talk of Apple TV deal

I bought a ton of Twitter stock off the IPO dip. I stupidly didn't sell it when it got into the 70's. I've held it through this brutal year. May you be 10000% correct.

 

[whaler11]

This is why I don't understand the argument for the big 12 not to piss off ESPN. 8 years from now the landscape will be completely different. Take the money for 4 expansion schools now and worry about your media partners in 8 years. There will be plenty of companies wanting live sports.

The argument is it's really easy to say that when you aren't responsible. It's much harder to make those decisions when you have skin in the game.

 

[billybud]

I stream quite a bit..ESPN3...laptop, phone, 60" TV...and more and more has become available.

It is not the transmission mechanism that is important any longer now that mainstream cable/satellite oriented companies like ESPN are moving into streaming, it is who has the rights to the content.

 

[whaler11]

I stream quite a bit..ESPN3...laptop, phone, 60" TV...and more and more has become available.

It is not the transmission mechanism that is important any longer now that mainstream cable/satellite oriented companies like ESPN are moving into streaming, it is who has the rights to the content.

It's actually who can figure out how to pay for it without affiliate fees.

 

[noeynox]

It's actually who can figure out how to pay for it without affiliate fees.

Explain this concept further for the layman.

 

[whaler11]

Explain this concept further for the layman.

Affiliate fees are just what cable networks collect from the cable carriers for their subscriber base.

So as we move away from TV and into streaming. Who can generate enough revenue to pay a league or conference 9 or 10 figures annually without have the cable base of 70-90 million passive subscribers.


Here is the rub:

Let's say ESPN creates ESPN Now and you can stream all the networks for 19.99 a month.

They can't do this without renegotiating their contact language with every cable carrier in the country.

If you are TWC or Comcast - if ESPN is going direct why are you going to risk your subscriber base by passing along $8-$9 a month for the ESPN family of stations?

It's an extremely tricky model:

1. The capacity needed to deliver live HD broadcasts to a big audience is really expensive.
2. You now need an entire customer service model to handle billing and things like that - or you have to pay for it.
3. Obviously sports ebbs and flows - people are going to drop in and out constantly based on what they are fans of.

And the really difficult part: How can you possibly price it where you can generate the revenue you get now?

19.99/24.99 a month? Doesn't get you anywhere near the revenue you need. 39.99? You can't get anywhere near the amount of subs that you need.

Sports contracts are based on the revenue generated by 50-60 million cable subs who never watch sports. I really don't see anyway they can be sustained without someone figuring out a way to monetize non-viewers the same way they are today - and I have no idea how that would even be possible.

Who know maybe VR technology is amazing 10 years ago and people
are willing to pay thousands to see the game from inside Tom Brady's helmet. I get how fast techonology moves - but I also think there is som risk that a lot of leagues and teams think they are sitting on future revenue that is never going to materialize because networks are going to go belly up.

If 30 million cable subs disappear in the next 5 years and the carriers tell stations like YES to go pound sand how do they make the rights payments?

Separate issue but I don't get the impression that people under 30 have as much passion for sports as people over 30 and as the boomers die off it's going to be even harder to monetize people. Throw in that the sports landscape is getting even more fractured outside of the NBA and NFL.... I certainly wouldn't bet on the television contracts in say 2021 being higher than today.

 

[Kolumbo]

I knew I shouldn't try to read that (Whater's post ^) after 10PM. I stopped watching and listening to ESPN a while ago. But I did notice back then that the talking heads mentioned twitter incessantly, probably more often than mentioning their paid advertisers. I assumed espn and twitter were somehow tied together back then.

 

[noeynox]

Affiliate fees are just what cable networks collect from the cable carriers for their subscriber base.

So as we move away from TV and into streaming. Who can generate enough revenue to pay a league or conference 9 or 10 figures annually without have the cable base of 70-90 million passive subscribers.


Here is the rub:

Let's say ESPN creates ESPN Now and you can stream all the networks for 19.99 a month.

They can't do this without renegotiating their contact language with every cable carrier in the country.

If you are TWC or Comcast - if ESPN is going direct why are you going to risk your subscriber base by passing along $8-$9 a month for the ESPN family of stations?

It's an extremely tricky model:

1. The capacity needed to deliver live HD broadcasts to a big audience is really expensive.
2. You now need an entire customer service model to handle billing and things like that - or you have to pay for it.
3. Obviously sports ebbs and flows - people are going to drop in and out constantly based on what they are fans of.

And the really difficult part: How can you possibly price it where you can generate the revenue you get now?

19.99/24.99 a month? Doesn't get you anywhere near the revenue you need. 39.99? You can't get anywhere near the amount of subs that you need.

Sports contracts are based on the revenue generated by 50-60 million cable subs who never watch sports. I really don't see anyway they can be sustained without someone figuring out a way to monetize non-viewers the same way they are today - and I have no idea how that would even be possible.

Who know maybe VR technology is amazing 10 years ago and people
are willing to pay thousands to see the game from inside Tom Brady's helmet. I get how fast techonology moves - but I also think there is som risk that a lot of leagues and teams think they are sitting on future revenue that is never going to materialize because networks are going to go belly up.

If 30 million cable subs disappear in the next 5 years and the carriers tell stations like YES to go pound sand how do they make the rights payments?

Separate issue but I don't get the impression that people under 30 have as much passion for sports as people over 30 and as the boomers die off it's going to be even harder to monetize people. Throw in that the sports landscape is getting even more fractured outside of the NBA and NFL.... I certainly wouldn't bet on the television contracts in say 2021 being higher than today.

It was always a flawed business plan i guess. For as long as i could remember i recall people complainig about channels they dont watch and had to pay for. That espn locked themselves in to rights fees with the dollars of the non sports fan was a disaster waiting to happen.

And youre right about the younger generation. They get most of their entertainment from mobile devices. For people our age, sporting events were must see, set aside appointment television. Amazing how mlb was ahead of the curve on this changing landscape.

 

[whaler11]

It was always a flawed business plan i guess. For as long as i could remember i recall people complainig about channels they dont watch and had to pay for. That espn locked themselves in to rights fees with the dollars of the non sports fan was a disaster waiting to happen.

And youre right about the younger generation. They get most of their entertainment from mobile devices. For people our age, sporting events were must see, set aside appointment television. Amazing how mlb was ahead of the curve on this changing landscape.

For a long time it was perfect.

I don't know if you noticed but ESPN/Disney bought a third of the MLB technology arm with an option to buy more/all if I remember correctly.

That's one of the interesting things about the NBC Olympics online coverage. They test technology they monetize in other ways through the coverage.

The last few years have been probably the best it will ever get for sports fans. Sure your cable bill was high - but you can see anything you want, in HD and it's as simple as turning on your TV.

Maybe in 5 years someone will develop a seamless platform - but I find watching sports online to be pretty brutal. I watch West Brom
on my laptop every Saturday morning and I have to go out of my way to avoid the scores scrolling on TV and can't look at twitter because the feed is 90-120 seconds behind.

Bouncing between games is so easy on cable - bouncing between two games on different networks apps is impossible. Streaming to your phone is nice and all - as long as you don't want to do anything else with it for a few hours.

15 years ago when I was early in my career - all we talked about was sports in the office. Today, the recent grads have some interest in the NFL - but I hear more about fantasy football than any actual sport. Maybe we are just hiring better people but they want to talk about families and mortgages - we argued with the PC, Rutgers and Villanova grads.

The leagues are beyond stupid for not pushing for legalized gambling. Even if it was like Ontario, the safety net would be there for sports audiences.

 

[jfuchs91]

Affiliate fees are just what cable networks collect from the cable carriers for their subscriber base.

So as we move away from TV and into streaming. Who can generate enough revenue to pay a league or conference 9 or 10 figures annually without have the cable base of 70-90 million passive subscribers.


Here is the rub:

Let's say ESPN creates ESPN Now and you can stream all the networks for 19.99 a month.

They can't do this without renegotiating their contact language with every cable carrier in the country.

If you are TWC or Comcast - if ESPN is going direct why are you going to risk your subscriber base by passing along $8-$9 a month for the ESPN family of stations?

It's an extremely tricky model:

1. The capacity needed to deliver live HD broadcasts to a big audience is really expensive.
2. You now need an entire customer service model to handle billing and things like that - or you have to pay for it.
3. Obviously sports ebbs and flows - people are going to drop in and out constantly based on what they are fans of.

And the really difficult part: How can you possibly price it where you can generate the revenue you get now?

19.99/24.99 a month? Doesn't get you anywhere near the revenue you need. 39.99? You can't get anywhere near the amount of subs that you need.

Sports contracts are based on the revenue generated by 50-60 million cable subs who never watch sports. I really don't see anyway they can be sustained without someone figuring out a way to monetize non-viewers the same way they are today - and I have no idea how that would even be possible.

Who know maybe VR technology is amazing 10 years ago and people
are willing to pay thousands to see the game from inside Tom Brady's helmet. I get how fast techonology moves - but I also think there is som risk that a lot of leagues and teams think they are sitting on future revenue that is never going to materialize because networks are going to go belly up.

If 30 million cable subs disappear in the next 5 years and the carriers tell stations like YES to go pound sand how do they make the rights payments?

I certainly wouldn't bet on the television contracts in say 2021 being higher than today.

Bingo.

The business of sport boomed with the advent of television. As viewers move to digital over traditional cable, sports networks can no longer rely on non-sports fans to subsidize the costs.

ESPN's subscriber fee hovers around $7/month. They've lost over 11 million subscribers since 2011, including 2.2 million since February.

The demand for live sports will always be high, but it's hard to imagine how streaming will be more lucrative than the bundled-cable revenue model of the last few decades.

 

[noeynox]

Bingo.

The business of sport boomed with the advent of television. As viewers move to digital over traditional cable, sports networks can no longer rely on non-sports fans to subsidize the costs.

ESPN's subscriber fee hovers around $7/month. They've lost over 11 million subscribers since 2011, including 2.2 million since February.

The demand for live sports will always be high, but it's hard to imagine how streaming will be more lucrative than the bundled-cable revenue model of the last few decades.

I think the net effect will be that sports rights fees will come down a bit. It is totally unsustainable going forward.

If uconn sports are totally marginalized going forward, i will bite the bullet and cut the cord completely. I can stream everything i watch.

Whaler is right in that streams are not as reliable, convenient, or quality as what i get with Direct TV, but with a little up front investment i simply dont have to pay for what i watch. The catch will be if ISPs start capping how much you can stream as they have threatened.

 

[06029]

There is also the possibility that ESPN is ahead of the game in terms of the next generation. The Watch ESPN app has morphed completely from the original ESPN3 concept. Their broadcast rights deal with the conferences may include all potential outlets including live streaming in the future. The ACC deal and the ACC Network (now added to Watch ESPN) will live stream a lot of non FB content produced at the school level. Does this morph into a pay for streaming model fro real sports (sorry field hockey lovers, that is not what people really want to watch) versus the cable box model? Do they allow cord cutters to pay for all ESPN programs and supported networks on a streaming service? As of now, you also need to be hooked up with a cable/satellite provider to get the service. I would gladly drop my cable/satellite TV deal if I could get ESPN, HBO and the 3 channels my wife watches on a streaming only basis. I guarantee it would be less than the 300+ channels I don't watch and the price per subscriber could probably double/triple over what they get from cable bundle prices.

Twitter may be the next wave. Or it may be someone else. But I am not convinced that ESPN is run by people that keep their heads in the sand. They have been out in front and right on more things than they have missed on.

 

[billybud]

From Disney's Q3 earning report...as reported by Motley Fool Aug. 18...


"We are acquiring a 33% stake in BAMTech, the industry leader in video streaming, data analytics and commerce management. We have the option to acquire majority ownership in the future. And through this investment, we plan to launch a new direct-to-consumer ESPN-branded multi-sports subscription streaming service.

Iger said acquiring the BAMTech stake is a key part of the company's strategy to ensure that ESPN and its other brands remain relevant and strong in a changing TV-viewing market. The leading sports cable network has been steadily losing subscribers because consumers are increasingly dropping or slimming down their large cable bundles due to the availability of subscription video streaming services offered by companies such as Netflix and Amazon.com.

...

AT&T DirecTV, the largest distributor in the country, will feature ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, Freeform, Disney Channel, Disney XD and Disney Junior in all subscription packages offered in its upcoming DirecTV Now OTT [over-the-top] service.

The partnership with AT&T (NYSE:T), announced on the earnings call, is great news. This deal illustrates Disney's success in getting ESPN and other channels included in the various limited content -- or "skinny bundle" -- over-the-top streaming services that are rolling out.

 

[noeynox]

There is also the possibility that ESPN is ahead of the game in terms of the next generation. The Watch ESPN app has morphed completely from the original ESPN3 concept. Their broadcast rights deal with the conferences may include all potential outlets including live streaming in the future. The ACC deal and the ACC Network (now added to Watch ESPN) will live stream a lot of non FB content produced at the school level. Does this morph into a pay for streaming model fro real sports (sorry field hockey lovers, that is not what people really want to watch) versus the cable box model? Do they allow cord cutters to pay for all ESPN programs and supported networks on a streaming service? As of now, you also need to be hooked up with a cable/satellite provider to get the service. I would gladly drop my cable/satellite TV deal if I could get ESPN, HBO and the 3 channels my wife watches on a streaming only basis. I guarantee it would be less than the 300+ channels I don't watch and the price per subscriber could probably double/triple over what they get from cable bundle prices.

Twitter may be the next wave. Or it may be someone else. But I am not convinced that ESPN is run by people that keep their heads in the sand. They have been out in front and right on more things than they have missed on.

I have a neighbor that is pretty high up on the chain IT chain at espn. He is responsible for the ticker you see on the TV screen as well as part of the team that developed the watchESPN app. He tells me they were completely caught with their pants around their ankles with regards to cord cutting. They are now tied to the rights fees to the leagues.

He says for years they focused on acquiring content and they are now focusing/trying to adjust on the fly on how to deliver content while monetizing that delivery. It is fascinating when i talk to him, ironically he watches very little sports and isnt much of a sports fan.

 

[whaler11]

I have a neighbor that is pretty high up on the chain IT chain at espn. He is responsible for the ticker you see on the TV screen as well as part of the team that developed the watchESPN app. He tells me they were completely caught with their pants around their ankles with regards to cord cutting. They are now tied to the rights fees to the leagues.

He says for years they focused on acquiring content and they are now focusing/trying to adjust on the fly on how to deliver content while monetizing that delivery. It is fascinating when i talk to him, ironically he watches very little sports and isnt much of a sports fan.

Just watching them you can't come to any other conclusion that they underestimated how quickly things would change.

Simmons mentioned something on his podcast today I hadn't considered. They will leverage the MLBAM tech to roll out new channels - and then in the future bring the cable channels into the fold as the contracts change.

 

[huskymedic]

Could Twitter live-streams come to Apple TV?