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
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Expansion Talk 2021
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: 813520" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>I stated in a post a few minutes ago that I do agree that things are headed in that direction.</p><p></p><p>You are missing a few things you are missing in the 70 million subscribers at $65 minimum per month though. A large majority of people with TV subscriptions never, ever watch the SECN. A large majority of people with a TV subscription never even watch ESPN. (In the article I linked to they estimate 80 million ESPN subscribers and 50 million SECN subscribers). Just out of a hat, you might end up with 30 million people who want the ESPN content and 20 million who want the SEC content. The audience base is a lot smaller than 70 million. In addition, the $65 cost isn't what the average person pays for sports content. The average person actually doesn't want to pay for sports content. If you take the 30 million who do want sports content, many of those also are paying for the TV subscription so their wives can watch Lifetime Movies and the Oscars. So their kids can watch Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. If those people have to pay $65 for the premium SEC Network, they will also have to pay extra for Lifetime and Cartoon Network.</p><p></p><p>If the solution was simple, someone would have already replaced the business model. ESPN built a house of cards. They forced TV providers to pay outrageous fees for their channels and force people who don't want the channel to pay for it. They paid outrageous fees for content to be able to strongarm the TV providers into those deals. The people with content are not willing to go backwards. They want more money for the content not less. Cord cutting is putting a serious strain on ESPN, because they can't use non-sports people to subsidize their content as easily. I have no inside information about it, but I think it is interesting that Comcast has up to this point basically turned away from the ACCN. I think every TV provider that has had their contract end with Fox/Sinclair/Bally's has flat out said they weren't willing to pay for it. ESPN's house of cards if falling in. I could see the SEC trying to totally separate from ESPN and just run their TV content themselves. Maybe this expansion is the SECs first step in separating from ESPN.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 813520, member: 2426"] I stated in a post a few minutes ago that I do agree that things are headed in that direction. You are missing a few things you are missing in the 70 million subscribers at $65 minimum per month though. A large majority of people with TV subscriptions never, ever watch the SECN. A large majority of people with a TV subscription never even watch ESPN. (In the article I linked to they estimate 80 million ESPN subscribers and 50 million SECN subscribers). Just out of a hat, you might end up with 30 million people who want the ESPN content and 20 million who want the SEC content. The audience base is a lot smaller than 70 million. In addition, the $65 cost isn't what the average person pays for sports content. The average person actually doesn't want to pay for sports content. If you take the 30 million who do want sports content, many of those also are paying for the TV subscription so their wives can watch Lifetime Movies and the Oscars. So their kids can watch Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. If those people have to pay $65 for the premium SEC Network, they will also have to pay extra for Lifetime and Cartoon Network. If the solution was simple, someone would have already replaced the business model. ESPN built a house of cards. They forced TV providers to pay outrageous fees for their channels and force people who don't want the channel to pay for it. They paid outrageous fees for content to be able to strongarm the TV providers into those deals. The people with content are not willing to go backwards. They want more money for the content not less. Cord cutting is putting a serious strain on ESPN, because they can't use non-sports people to subsidize their content as easily. I have no inside information about it, but I think it is interesting that Comcast has up to this point basically turned away from the ACCN. I think every TV provider that has had their contract end with Fox/Sinclair/Bally's has flat out said they weren't willing to pay for it. ESPN's house of cards if falling in. I could see the SEC trying to totally separate from ESPN and just run their TV content themselves. Maybe this expansion is the SECs first step in separating from ESPN. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Expansion Talk 2021
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