Would you pay $20 for ESPN?...

[dawgstudent]

Interesting article besides the fact I would pay $20 b/c the SEC resides on ESPN.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...onsumers-would-pay-20-a-month-for-espn-011416

 

[57stratdawg]

This is why Cord Cutters are screwing everything else for everyone.

 

[aTotal360]

I would pay $20 for access to every ESPN network on every platform.

 

[aTotal360]

Cord cutting days are coming to an end. ISPs are starting to limiting data usage. Especially ISPs that also deliver cable or satellite tv.

 

[johnson86-1]

Cord cutting days are coming to an end. ISPs are starting to limiting data usage. Especially ISPs that also deliver cable or satellite tv.

Cord cutting (at least the current low cost version of it) was never a realistic model for more than a small minority of consumers. Somebody has to pay for content and somebody has to pay for the pipes. The cable bundle paid for both. As cord cutters undermine the cable bundle, that revenue will have to be made up somewhere, with some of it logically coming from the company charging for the pipes and some of it logically coming from content producers. Some people will win and some will lose. It's even possible a majority will lose, as the cable bundle essentially allowed for price discrimination among people with various preferences.

 

[ronpolk]

I would pay that for the whole ESPN family. Hell if I could get ESPN and Sunday ticket is "cut the cord".

 

[121Josey]

I would pay Clay Travis $20 to stop writing about this. His logic is so flawed. I'm still waiting on the article on the financial stability or ramifications for Fox Sports.

 

[MaroonNation]

I would say the 7,000,000 subscribers ESPN has lost has less to do with cable cutting. It has to do with Disney's insistence on broadcasting a ultra liberal agenda to sports fans.

They took the ultimate guys network and turned it into a gaycentric group hug channel full of race baiter's and women talking about sports.

 

[RecSportsFootballCollege]

No. But I did pay $5 for the sports package on Sling TV

Interesting article besides the fact I would pay $20 b/c the SEC resides on ESPN.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...onsumers-would-pay-20-a-month-for-espn-011416

The sports package plus Sling TV's regular channels (TBS, CC, HGTV, etc. - ) was $25/month and it included the SEC Network, ESPNU, etc. I was able to watch all of Mississippi State's games on my Roku set-top box. Since there's no contracts and we suck at basketball, I cancelled after the Belk Bowl. https://www.sling.com/

 

[00Dawg]

Definitely. I came really close to cutting the cord this past fall, and was expecting to buy two Sling subscriptions (one with ESPN) so I could watch sports without kicking my family off. This would've been cheaper.
Meanwhile, Travis always plays a little loose with the real situation. Notice how he denigrates lots of sports in quick succession and touts what ESPN doesn't have. Yes, if current providers dropped ESPN and lowered bills by $8, only 6% of viewers would be guaranteed to immediately shell out $20 a month for ESPN. That's only 5.5 million viewers. I think we all know by the time things were sorted out (either through full unbundling or something else) the state of Texas alone would have more ESPN viewers than that. Heck, even with a 15% drop from 2015 the national title game still had over 28 million viewers.
The bottom line here is that you need about 38.3 million subscriptions at $20 per month to keep ESPN at their current revenue numbers. I don't think that's a completely unrealistic viewer base in a truly unbundled world, and if you drop MNF's hefty price tag, it's just 30.4 million.

 

[WrapItDog]

At some point the streaming content providers are going to cut out sharing of login info. Then cord cutters are going to have to pay for access/content and it's not such a great deal anymore. I'm guilty of using this loophole myself although I still have Directv.

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

lol

 

[GloryDawg]

ESPN is the Wal Mart of sports broadcasting.

 

[mstateglfr]

Cord cutting days are coming to an end. ISPs are starting to limiting data usage. Especially ISPs that also deliver cable or satellite tv.

We have 3 streaming video programs going at the same time on many nights, yet havent exceeded our monthly allowance for internet. And if we ever did, its like $5 for another 10gig of data.

If there are ISPs out there offering less data for more money than ours, I can only say that must be frustrating for users.

 

[mstateglfr]

This is why Cord Cutters are screwing everything else for everyone.

We have ROKU and pay for netflix, amazon prime, and a DVR. We get hulu, hbogo, and watchespn due to using extended family info. $22 per month gives us way more content than we will ever need, and $15 of that cost is for the DVR to record live over the air TV and admittedly, that live TV could be streamed if we wanted.

I absolutely completely admit that I use other people's info to watch HBO, HULU, and ESPN content. Yup, I do. I also find the entire system for sports entertainment to be insane. I get to do the hilarious hypocritical and copout religious approach where I love the sinner but hate the sin. I enjoy the content while loathing the system and not supporting it financially.
ESPN give tens of millions to conferences. Conferences pay coaches larger and larger contracts while building more and more impressive facilities just to keep up with one another since they are all now flush with cash. ESPN then has to charge a ton of money somehow and recoup all that money conferences get. Same general thing for the NBA, NFL, etc.

Its insane.

I love the ability to now watch every MSU game. Hell, even teams like Rider are on live TV now all the time. Its fantastic from an accessibility standpoint.
But it isnt worth near the cost ESPN wants to charge everyone, hence they find themselves in the current situation where they have lost viewers.

 

[Tin Cup Cowboy]

 

[DerHntr]

Yes. I have an antenna in my attic that I built, Hulu ($7.99), and Amazon video(included with Amazon Prime that I bought for free shipping and didn't use the video for a year). The only thing making me reconsider cable again is not having ESPN. Since I'd pay for Amazon Prime without the video feature, I would be sitting at $28 a month for what I want to watch. With SlingTv I would only be paying a total of $33 a month. I've considered that as an option but want SlingTv to get more consistent reviews first.

 

[mcdawg22]

He asks what does ESPN create that you absolutely have to watch. I don't think any channel creates something that I have to absolutely watch. Any show can be sold to another network, the network buys the show but it doesn't create it, with a few exceptions.

 

[mstateglfr]

I would say the 7,000,000 subscribers ESPN has lost has less to do with cable cutting. It has to do with Disney's insistence on broadcasting a ultra liberal agenda to sports fans.

They took the ultimate guys network and turned it into a gaycentric group hug channel full of race baiter's and women talking about sports.

View attachment 2935

 

[Dawg1976]

The sports package plus Sling TV's regular channels (TBS, CC, HGTV, etc. - ) was $25/month and it included the SEC Network, ESPNU, etc. I was able to watch all of Mississippi State's games on my Roku set-top box. Since there's no contracts and we suck at basketball, I cancelled after the Belk Bowl. https://www.sling.com/

Exactly what I did. Dropped the extra sports package from Sling after the bowl games. I still pay $20 for the basic Sling package which includes ESPN 1&2 and ESPN 3 is to be added soon too. For $20, their base package is a pretty good deal. I should have said, they will add ESPN 3 to the regular viewing setup so you don't have to go into the Watch ESPN app to get it.

 

[Dawg1976]

Cord cutting days are coming to an end. ISPs are starting to limiting data usage. Especially ISPs that also deliver cable or satellite tv.

Comcast began this a couple of years ago. My cap is 300 GB. I haven't come close to going over. Perhaps if someday they lower the cap and I will have to rethink things.

 

[Captain Ron]

Yes. I have an antenna in my attic that I built, Hulu ($7.99), and Amazon video(included with Amazon Prime that I bought for free shipping and didn't use the video for a year). The only thing making me reconsider cable again is not having ESPN. Since I'd pay for Amazon Prime without the video feature, I would be sitting at $28 a month for what I want to watch. With SlingTv I would only be paying a total of $33 a month. I've considered that as an option but want SlingTv to get more consistent reviews first.

FWIW, we have Sling and the live broadcast on ESPN can be kind of glitchy. By having Sling, you also get access to the Watch ESPN app which works much better on our ROKU.

 

[DerHntr]

FWIW, we have Sling and the live broadcast on ESPN can be kind of glitchy. By having Sling, you also get access to the Watch ESPN app which works much better on our ROKU.

I had considered that as a way to use it instead of actually going through sling. I have appleTV and could just use the app. I may need to give it a go next football season.

Other than basketball, I don't have a need for TV between now and August. I mostly listen to baseball.

 

[RocketDawg]

If I could remove the channels I don't watch and get reimbursed for them, then yes, I would pay $20 for ESPN.

 

[RocketDawg]

To the best of my knowledge, I have no limit. I have WoW (used to be Knology). I don't stream much though.

 

[dannyripms]

If the cable companies want to save themselves they would let the customers choose what they want. Maybe give them a package of 20-30 channels at a certain price. People would be more willing to go that route.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Not until Howlands wins an SEC game**

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

I fully agree

but, seems corps. that own one good network, also own 3 or 4 dogs.
They say, buy them all or none.
Until we as consumers All say 17U, we Won't take them all...

We are where we are.

 

[bulldogbaja]

Yep, pretty soon we will go back to printed newspapers too.

Not.

 

[dawglawz]

FWIW, we have Sling and the live broadcast on ESPN can be kind of glitchy. By having Sling, you also get access to the Watch ESPN app which works much better on our ROKU.

I've had Sling for about 7 months now. ESPN live events are by far the worst when it comes to stability. You just have to remind yourself that you're saving $100/month versus DirecTv.

Ditto on using WatchESPN through Roku instead. Much more stable.

 

[johnson86-1]

If the cable companies want to save themselves they would let the customers choose what they want. Maybe give them a package of 20-30 channels at a certain price. People would be more willing to go that route.

They already do this. It's just that the channels most people want are expensive because the demand is high, and tacking on the less popular programs doesn't add much to the price and a lot of people really like one or two of the less popular. So most people pass over the smaller package in order to get a lot of extra channels, even if they don't care about a lot of them, because they do like a few of them and it's relatively cheap.