My fear too, I think he only does it for the shipping container. BUT he really wants someone to get more creative with sports programming so I wouldn't be shocked if he and Simmons tried to work with HBO to do something different.
I always go to Yahoo. lol. Never go to ESPN for anything unless I click some link on another site that leads there.
And I clicked and will never go back to Yahoo: https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-needs-suspend-astros-yuli-gurriel-racist-gesture-074449792.html **** this
The launch of their streaming service next year won't save the day. They must get out from under their deals with the NFL and NBA. Those don't expire until 2021 and 2025. Ouch!
They can't get out of those. They're sunk costs but they still need to address viewership. It's not like they're unprofitable now, it's just that things have been trending downwards. The collapse of traditional tv distribution has really hurt ESPN which lived off of user fees from cable and satellite companies. Their margins were all built around those fees and the fees they get from streaming options are a fraction of the cable and satellite fees. A streaming service should've been a no brainer years ago. ESPN wisely invested in mobile platforms a long time ago but they never really monetized any of it. HBO of all channels has a subscription service now and has been marketing stand alone add ons to streaming services for a while now. ESPN should've done the same years ago. And they need to charge a lowish price ($15 max per month). Accept the fact that cable and satellite will go the way of landline telephones and start shifting your revenue now (even if it means cannibalizing your viewership in the short term).
Once net neutrality goes by the wayside, companies can offer a "streaming package" that includes ESPN, Netflix, Hulu etc. together for an extra $20/mo fee. They'll return back to prominence.
I 'aint buying that **** if we end up in that hellish place and I know many people who are thinking the same thing. ESPN, as the leader, should have have their digital streaming platform long ago. They have so much content under their ESPN Films production company they could have created the first major Neflix for Sports basically. They facked up and it's probably too late.
ESPN got its strategy incorrectly. They calculated that creating expansive access to content but tying it back to a cable/satellite subscription would keep people on subscriptions. But people started cord cutting anyway, leaving ESPN with no way to even partially capture lost revenue. That's where the streaming platform comes in. I dont buy the idea of a Netflix for sports ever existing. Sports content, for the most part, isn't really sought after once it has been aired live. Hulu and Netflix content is continually reusable and combined with original content, it creates a nice offering. ESPN simply has to recapture revenue from cord cutters. It has an extensive mobile and digital footprint. It just needs to accept that they need to move on from cable/satellite. HBO has already done that. They've started to shift away from their reliance on cable and satellite customers with HBO Now and add ons to streaming services. Cable and Satellite will belong in the same category as landline telephones soon enough. ESPN just needs to accept it. And yes that future will never have the revenues that satellite/cable brought them. ESPN will inevitably make less money but they can create a stable future instead of the current situation where they just hemorrhage viewers.
Bro... they have 30 for 30, OJ, and a bunch of other docs and series that were huge for them. Most of those on Netflix right now. Also streaming for sports does work if Live Stream options are high performing and mature. Twitch is a massive(100+ million viewers per month) Live Stream / E-Sports platform so I think your're dead wrong on that. They tried with ESPN3 but it's no where near a platform like Twitch. ESPN3 is hard to use and super confusing. Millennials don't care about traditional television. They consume content much differently.
Yep, it's a long term game where they establish userbase then splinter off with more "customizable services"
People don't care about ESPN, they care about the content they carry. Problem is, millennials don't really care about traditional sports. As for me, not a millennial, I don't care who shows me my games, just show me the damn games. I have no loyalty to ESPN at all. Only loyal to whomever makes it easiest for me to watch my teams.
I figured you would stay just for their liberal views alone. I for one don't watch ESPN or the NFL. Don't force your political views on me or you get tuned out.
Can we please get rid of the two that host a sports show on ESPN on the 5 o'clock hour central time here in Houston?
Of all the people they should fire, it should've been Beadle, champion and that Bryant gumble looking stiff that does sporscenter by himself during the day.
I understand all of that but the ESPN content like 30 for 30 isn't enough on its own. Netflix and Hulu are successful because the volume of content that they have. ESPN flat out can't recreate that. Their critical content is live sports and original content that analyzes sports. The other stuff like 30 for 30 is also good to have and helps provide additional value to a subscription but that stuff isn't enough on its own. So they just need a strong streaming platform that is available on all platforms and a reasonable price. As for esports, ESPN also messed up by not buying Twitch years ago. I still can't believe Amazon managed to get hold of Twitch. Again, another bad decision by ESPN with no foresight. This is especially odd given ESPN's own history where ABC bought a fledgling (and loss making) ESPN and grew it into what it is today. Yet, they completely whiffed on esports and missed out on Twitch.
