ESPN Loses 621,000 Subscribers

Fox is also struggling.



FOX network's national PAC12 broadcasts down BIG in 2016:

Through Week 8:

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

Wash/Oregon 1.837M

BYU/Utah 1.693M

ASU/USC 1.459M

Utah/UCLA 1.368M

USC/Zona 0.871M

7.228M TOTAL

or

1.445M per game.



2015

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/2/

Through Week 8:

Utah/USC 3.344M

Utah/Oregon 2.975M

ASU/UCLA 2.162M

8.481M TOTAL

or

2.827M per game



BamaCoug

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=16822248

Interesting that the second highest rating this year, and the only one of the top five not involving two P12 schools, is BYU/Utah. I assume that sends a good message for BYU.

People just aren't shelling out for cable anymore. I dropped mine since moving two years ago. I thought life would end, but I've been just fine. For the big games, I find someone to watch the game with.

Gunk wrote:
People just aren't shelling out for cable anymore. I dropped mine since moving two years ago. I thought life would end, but I've been just fine. For the big games, I find someone to watch the game with.

Ditto. I dropped mine years ago. The $84 a month then went to things like gymnastics and karate lessons. I've been fine. If anything, it has helped me watch less TV, but when I really want to, there is always something entertaining to watch. Netflix, Amazon Prime (because my wife shops a ton on Amazon), and the BYU channel, together with Sling for ESPN, makes a big difference ($34 vs. $84 dollars a month and half the year is only $14 a month when I drop Sling after football season).



I can't wait to see what happens to the glut of TV money conferences are used to when contracts have to be negotiated. Maybe they give a per team value to show what their conference is really worth. That would open some eyes.

The problem with cord cutting is that sooner or later you're going to run out of other people you can watch sports with. Right now I don't know a single person who can reliably get every sporting event that even a basic cable subscription allows on their own. It's always, "Oh, my parents give me their comcast login so I can stream that," or "I go watch this at my neighbors house," etc.



I'm very much considering dropping my DirecTV subscription when my contract ends, but that means that many of the away games that I host will no longer be available.

I wonder how that number correlates to viewership on the WatchESPN platform. My guess is that they have the same number (or more) eyes watching, but the masses are moving away from buffet services like Comcast and DirecTV and to a'la carte services.



How long until we see a standalone WatchESPN subscription offer?

snoscythe wrote:
How long until we see a standalone WatchESPN subscription offer?

I have to assume that day is rapidly coming. I might be willing to pay $8 a month for unfettered ESPN access but I would definitely be willing to pay $15 a month for all the Disney umbrella network streaming for the whole family (ABC, Disney Jr, ESPN etc).

I dropped my $89 Direct TV for $35 Playstation Vue with no contract. I get virtually all the sports I can handle with the upcoming game against Cincinnati being a rare exception from the past 2 years...

Nielsen ratings are a joke these days, they do not reflect viewing habits accurately at all. Unfortunately, they are still being used by media executives to make decisions.



We've used Sling TV this year and I will never go back to cable.

byufan4ever wrote:
I dropped my $89 Direct TV for $35 Playstation Vue with no contract. I get virtually all the sports I can handle with the upcoming game against Cincinnati being a rare exception from the past 2 years...

Yup. It is a rare exception indeed. You can handle the rare game missed on sling TV by going to buffalo wild wings or just listening to it on byu radio while you do something else. It happens so rarely that I quite like the fact that I have cut the cord.

What do you cord-cutters use to record live shows? Does Sling have a DVR function?

hawkwing wrote:
The problem with cord cutting is that sooner or later you're going to run out of other people you can watch sports with. Right now I don't know a single person who can reliably get every sporting event that even a basic cable subscription allows on their own. It's always, "Oh, my parents give me their comcast login so I can stream that," or "I go watch this at my neighbors house," etc.



I'm very much considering dropping my DirecTV subscription when my contract ends, but that means that many of the away games that I host will no longer be available.

Very true. It' kind of like anti-vaccers. Not vaccinating your kid "works" as long as everyone else is vaccinated.



I suspect something is going to give soon. ESPN/Disney won't sit by and watch revenue disappear. Sports are basically keeping cable businesses in the black. I suspect, most broadcasting companies will become mini-netflixes.



I'd be willing to pay $10 - $15 per month during the season to watch games. I'd even shell out $5 to watch a specific game. It's still cheaper than $100/month for cable, and the sports networks actually wouldn't lose any money. People would still watch sports but rather than having to go through a provider, we'd be going directly to the source.

YNot wrote:
What do you cord-cutters use to record live shows? Does Sling have a DVR function?

Sling doesn't but PlayStation vue does.

mormonrasta wrote:

What do you cord-cutters use to record live shows? Does Sling have a DVR function?

Sling doesn't but PlayStation vue does.

Yep, I had Sling and moved to Playstation Vue. It has a cloud DVR so you don't need any special equipment like for a TiVO. As far as I can tell there's no storage space limit, but there is a time limit, it keeps everything for 30 days then auto deletes. As far as recording shows, I am unable to record very far into the future. The guide (and this might be different if you have an actual Playstation, I don't) only shows the next 7 upcoming shows so you can't record anything beyond that. However, once you've added something to "My Shows" the cloud DVR will auto record all shows of that type on that channel. For example, after adding one of BYU's football games that was on FS1 to My Shows, I now have ALL college football games on FS1 set to auto record.



And you get WatchESPN which has replays of virtually all games played on ESPN/ABC that you can access whenever you want (and often with less commercials).

Gunk wrote:
I'd be willing to pay $10 - $15 per month during the season to watch games. I'd even shell out $5 to watch a specific game. It's still cheaper than $100/month for cable, and the sports networks actually wouldn't lose any money. People would still watch sports but rather than having to go through a provider, we'd be going directly to the source.

The sports networks will lose money. Right now, ESPN makes 75-80% of its subscription fees from cable users who do not watch ESPN.



That's why the cable subscriber losses are such a big deal.



To break even, ESPN would need to charge $35 or so per month for its sports package alone. The market doesn't seem to support that. SlingTV offers ESPN plus other ABC channels, HGTV, etc. for $20 per month.

Gunk wrote:

The problem with cord cutting is that sooner or later you're going to run out of other people you can watch sports with. Right now I don't know a single person who can reliably get every sporting event that even a basic cable subscription allows on their own. It's always, "Oh, my parents give me their comcast login so I can stream that," or "I go watch this at my neighbors house," etc.



I'm very much considering dropping my DirecTV subscription when my contract ends, but that means that many of the away games that I host will no longer be available.

Very true. It' kind of like anti-vaccers. Not vaccinating your kid "works" as long as everyone else is vaccinated.



I suspect something is going to give soon. ESPN/Disney won't sit by and watch revenue disappear. Sports are basically keeping cable businesses in the black. I suspect, most broadcasting companies will become mini-netflixes.



I'd be willing to pay $10 - $15 per month during the season to watch games. I'd even shell out $5 to watch a specific game. It's still cheaper than $100/month for cable, and the sports networks actually wouldn't lose any money. People would still watch sports but rather than having to go through a provider, we'd be going directly to the source.

It'll transition at some point. Someone is going to figure out how to make money from the cable cutter whether it be through payments or ads or something and make a killing. I'd bet all the major cable companies see the writing on the wall and have contingency plans, just haven't rolled em out as they are profitable from you suckers still paying for cable.



I haven't had cable for 10 years.....

YNot wrote:

I'd be willing to pay $10 - $15 per month during the season to watch games. I'd even shell out $5 to watch a specific game. It's still cheaper than $100/month for cable, and the sports networks actually wouldn't lose any money. People would still watch sports but rather than having to go through a provider, we'd be going directly to the source.

The sports networks will lose money. Right now, ESPN makes 75-80% of its subscription fees from cable users who do not watch ESPN.



That's why the cable subscriber losses are such a big deal.



To break even, ESPN would need to charge $35 or so per month for its sports package alone. The market doesn't seem to support that. SlingTV offers ESPN plus other ABC channels, HGTV, etc. for $20 per month.

Good point. I forgot all the people paying for cable that don't want sports. That's "free" money for ESPN. Those viewers are the ones more likely to cut their subscriptions. The days of gluttony may be behind.



I heard somewhere recently the NFL is starting to lose a lot viewers as well.