[opendtv] Re: ESPN Scores Top Audiences in Cable History with Semis | Multichannel
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 07:49:15 -0500
> On Jan 4, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> Okay Craig, please pay attention so we don't have to repeat these things over
> and over again.
>
> The three sports that exhibit essentially no demand elasticity in the US are
> football, basketball, and baseball. ESPN knows this. As such, ESPN can easily
> take advantage of those addicts, as indeed any drug pusher can take advantage
> of addicts, and use the most lucrative, i.e. least competitive, distribution
> model available to it.
>
> But at the same time, ESPN is no longer 100 percent dependent on walled
> garden MVPDs as its sole medium to get (especially live) content out there.
> Other media exist now. So ESPN can explore any number of new solutions, for
> those sports where the fans are less single-minded. And also, after exploring
> these new opportunities, ESPN can certainly re-evaluate the way it
> distributes any of its content, as more than one pundit have suggested.
>
> Don't forget. ESPN has lost 4.6 percent of its viewership since 2010. Unless
> you can validate any claims that the negative trend has been reversed, ESPN
> will have all the incentive it needs to keep exploring new models.
We've been over this before Bert. ESPN has many irons in the fire. They have
ESPN Radio. They have multiple websites that offer both free and subscriber
content. And they offer many popular sporting events on the ABC broadcast
network branded as "ESPN ON ABC." And they have ONE web portal, developed with
MLS that offers free access to a sports league that is still struggling to
develop an audience.
Comparing the desire to watch sports and the tendency of fans to develop
interest and loyalty to certain teams to drug addiction is INSULTING. That's
like saying that if you like and watch CSI on CBS that YOU are an addict.
Losing 4.6% of its subscribers during an economic downturn is NOT the end of
the world for ESPN. Live attendance at college football games dropped 4% this
year alone, and attendance at most bowl games was abysmal. One reason for the
drop in live attendance at ALL sports is the high cost. Buying season tickets
for most sports is more expensive than a full year of a MVPD subscription.
You really need to look at the big picture Bert, not just cherry pick a few
stats to support your doom and gloom predictions.
>> Do you still want to tell us that this has not enhanced the
>> value of a MVPD subscription?
>
> And let me repeat this one again, Craig. If Trabant were to offer Trabant
> owners a free GPS nav system, would you consider that "added value" to be
> bragging about?
Funny you should use Trabant as an example. From Wiki.
> Due to its poor performance, outdated and inefficient two-stroke engine
> (which produced poor fuel economy and smoky exhaust), and production
> shortages, the Trabant was regarded with derisive affection as a symbol of
> the extinct former East Germany and of the fall of the Eastern Bloc.
Most people in the Eastern Bloc could not afford many luxuries. I am certain
they would have considered adding GPS to be valuable, but probably would have
preferred a Volkswagon, or a BMW.
I cannot fathom why you are so derisive about TV Everywhere. The only reason I
can fathom is that it is the backbone of the strategy being used by the content
and distribution congloms to update and evolve their services to take full
advantage of the new capabilities afforded by moving content distribution to
the Internet.
Was the introduction of DVR capable STBs by cable and DBS systems an
enhancement of the service? It must have been far more valuable than TV
Everywhere, since they got away with charging a monthly fee for this
capability. Perhaps the distribution congloms realize they are pushing the
pricing envelope, and have decided to start adding value without charging more?
You seem to want increased competition in the content distribution markets, and
certainly champion any new service that lets you view their content without a
subscription. Yet you ignore the reality that the traditional MVPDs and content
owners must move to the Internet and enhance what they offer in order to retain
their subscribers.
Let's assume that Sony, or Comcast, or fill in the blank, create a Virtual MVPD
service with the followings features:
1. All of the live streams available in the basic and extended basic bundles.
2. Access on any device via authentication where adequate Internet connection
are available.
3. A VOD portal for each of the networks carried in the bundle - the portal
would allow for "non-linear" viewing of current shows, and access to libraries
of shows owned by that network, and would include sophisticated search
capabilities and social media links.
4. It would cost essentially the same amount as a facilities based video bundle
- ISP charges would be separate.
This is already happening Bert. Any facilities based MVPD would be negligent to
their owners and investors if they were not moving to do the same.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
