You guys are bitching about ESPN losing 600k subscribers like it's their fault.
But guess what?
TBS, FX, CNN, FOX News, TNT, Spike, AMC ,BET and hundreds of other channels lost 600,000 subscribers last month to so none of this nonsense you people are bringing up about ESPNs programming has a damn thing to do with why they are losing subscribers.
Try to inject some analytical thinking to your lives
But guess what?
TBS, FX, CNN, FOX News, TNT, Spike, AMC ,BET and hundreds of other channels lost 600,000 subscribers last month to so none of this nonsense you people are bringing up about ESPNs programming has a damn thing to do with why they are losing subscribers.
Try to inject some analytical thinking to your lives
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck could be the sports centers anchors and they still would have lost 600k subscribers last month
ESPN's advertising revenue is way less than subscriber revenue.
A loss of 3 million subscribers would leave ESPN with 86 million subscribers in 2017. That would be down roughly 15 million subscribers in the past five years alone. Given that ESPN makes right at $7 a month from every cable and satellite subscriber a year, that means ESPN's subscriber revenue would be $7.22 billion in 2017. Toss in an additional $1.8 billion or so in advertising revenue and ESPN's total revenue would be $9 billion. We don't know what the costs of running ESPN are -- employees, facilities, equipment, and the like have to cost a billion or more -- but it's fair to say that ESPN is probably still making money in 2017. Just nowhere near what they used to make.
Nobody is "bitching"....the whole point of the above story was about the sustainability of their business model. Cord cutting touches all networks, but none of the networks that you referenced have committed the amount of capital that espn has for tv rights. You will only see their ability to attract talented journalists/broadcaster further diminished....so get used to the homeboys, many of whom need the check because they pissed away their fortunes earned from yheir playing days.
There is at least 5 people in this thread saying they losing subscribers because of the programming or the personalities and this and that.
My comment had nothing to do with what network gets effected the most or anything in the article.
Its the people in this thread blaming a bunch of nonsense that has absolutely 0 to do with why they lost 600k subscribers last month
Because ALL the other channels lost the same exact amount of subscribers as ESPN.
Does Steven A Smith work for all 200 of the other networks to?
This is not difficult to understand . Just use a tad of common sense.
You can't call your cable or sat provider and ask them just to remove one channel .
My comments have to do with 600k less subscribers.
And when you reduce the number of people who have access to your network it automatically reduces ratings
Did you even read the article?
They didn't all lose the same amount. ESPN lost the most subscribers.
ESPN isn't going to be the only company hit by the popping of the sports bubble either, but it will be the most significantly impacted by far. Let me explain. Let's use FS1 as an example. FS1 brings in around $1 a month in cable and subscriber revenue. This past month FS1 lost 355k subscribers, just shy of half of ESPN's losses. Leaving FS1 in 85.6 million homes to ESPN's 88.9 million homes. That means FS1 lost $4.2 million in yearly revenue off the subscribers it lost this month. That pales in comparison to ESPN's over $50 million in lost revenue.
Because FS1 is not on basic cable .
Any channel on basic cable lost the same amount of subscribers.
So the point is they did not lose a single subscriber due to the reasons most people mentioned in this thread.
And for the 4th time my comments have nothing to do with which network gets hurt the most by lost subscribers.
So I have no idea why you keep bringing up the fact espn gets hurt the most. That fact has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Thats a completely different subject .
Start another thread if you want to talk about that.
Yeah their business model is probably F'd in 10-15 years when these rights deals expire and everything goes a la carte. Tough to pinpoint the exact timetable on it, but I think it'll happen fairly soon.
Clay Travis has written that exact same article like 30 times and he just says the samething everytime. But 1 thing that seems like he should be right about in theory is the leagues just going direct to consumer and cutting the middle-men and existing TV infrastructure out in the future.
When the initial cable TV revolution started, the teams were mostly owned by legacy families and small business owners. Now they are mostly run by billionaires with tons of connections and know-how to pull something like that off.
