Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
ESPN Finally Admits "Fans Do Not Want Us Covering Politics"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 581945" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>I don't think that the political issues have affected ESPN's number of subscribers. They are by far the most expensive set of channels in standard cable/sat packages. People who cut the cord in general do so to get away from paying for channels that they don't want.(Or pricing that they don't want to pay) Does anyone on GTSwarm have zero access to ESPN? Even if you use SonyVUE, Sling, or YoutubeTV you are paying for ESPN. If you don't have ESPN, then how do you watch GT football games? Surely there aren't a lot of fans who are excited about GT football enough to frequent a GT forum that wait until the games are on Youtube to watch them.</p><p></p><p>Where it has hurt them is in viewership of things that aren't live sports events.(At least I believe. I haven't looked for any actual numbers) A few years ago, ESPN's revenue was about 80% from subscriber fees and 20% from advertising. They were pretty much tapped out at subscribers, because they had forced their way into just about every pay TV package available. They have a stable viewership base that won't leave because they watch live sports. They have tried to broaden their appeal to non-sports fans by increasing entertainment and political content in their programming that is not live sports. There have been several examples of niche channels who try to broaden their content and fail.(Not just to broaden, but outright fail) ESPN is in a better position because the live-sports fans can't leave. They are in a bad position because: Their core viewer no longer watches normally produced programming and even with the loss of millions of subscribers they still have a large subscriber base who has zero interest in the channel. I made a prediction long ago that they would eventually fail, solely based on their business model. I haven't looked at their financial information in a while, but I still predict that they will eventually fail. Their subscriber count will continue to decline. They have contracts with sports leagues/conferences that are extremely expensive. Now, at least I assume, they are receiving less advertising income for their normally produced programming. It isn't a situation that I would want to be in charge of resolving. They grew an incredibly large business using a stack of cards and it is about to tumble down.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 581945, member: 2426"] I don't think that the political issues have affected ESPN's number of subscribers. They are by far the most expensive set of channels in standard cable/sat packages. People who cut the cord in general do so to get away from paying for channels that they don't want.(Or pricing that they don't want to pay) Does anyone on GTSwarm have zero access to ESPN? Even if you use SonyVUE, Sling, or YoutubeTV you are paying for ESPN. If you don't have ESPN, then how do you watch GT football games? Surely there aren't a lot of fans who are excited about GT football enough to frequent a GT forum that wait until the games are on Youtube to watch them. Where it has hurt them is in viewership of things that aren't live sports events.(At least I believe. I haven't looked for any actual numbers) A few years ago, ESPN's revenue was about 80% from subscriber fees and 20% from advertising. They were pretty much tapped out at subscribers, because they had forced their way into just about every pay TV package available. They have a stable viewership base that won't leave because they watch live sports. They have tried to broaden their appeal to non-sports fans by increasing entertainment and political content in their programming that is not live sports. There have been several examples of niche channels who try to broaden their content and fail.(Not just to broaden, but outright fail) ESPN is in a better position because the live-sports fans can't leave. They are in a bad position because: Their core viewer no longer watches normally produced programming and even with the loss of millions of subscribers they still have a large subscriber base who has zero interest in the channel. I made a prediction long ago that they would eventually fail, solely based on their business model. I haven't looked at their financial information in a while, but I still predict that they will eventually fail. Their subscriber count will continue to decline. They have contracts with sports leagues/conferences that are extremely expensive. Now, at least I assume, they are receiving less advertising income for their normally produced programming. It isn't a situation that I would want to be in charge of resolving. They grew an incredibly large business using a stack of cards and it is about to tumble down. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
ESPN Finally Admits "Fans Do Not Want Us Covering Politics"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top