Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#11

Post by hedora »

I don’t understand the appeal of bundling for non-sports content. With video on demand, most people just binge watch stuff, and most streaming services have more than one thing a given subscriber would like to watch.

So, if the price of the bundle is significantly greater than the price of one streaming service, why not just hop from one streaming service to another, one at a time?

Even during peak cable, the number one request from customers was to unbundle channels. I guess they could establish consolidated monopolies that only offer expensive bundles, but BitTorrent still exists, and sufficiently expensive bundles of large amounts of unwanted content will just push people back to piracy.

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#12

Post by _delirium »

jpmattia wrote: post #6

One upstream factoid the article is missing: We are beginning to see sports team bypass networks like ESPN entirely. In the wake of Bally Sports breaking contracts with various teams, MLB started some distribution on its own. I doubt this will go unnoticed by other sports leagues. These are interesting times.

I had not heard of that dispute. But I did notice that MLB.tv has recently added blackout-free subscriptions only for two teams: the San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks. Is that what this is about?

> Policy regarding local live game blackouts does not apply to purchasers that select MLB.TV Single Team Yearly or MLB.TV Single Team Monthly who select the San Diego Padres or Arizona Diamondbacks as their club.

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#13

Post by foogazi »

_delirium wrote: post #12
jpmattia wrote: post #6

One upstream factoid the article is missing: We are beginning to see sports team bypass networks like ESPN entirely. In the wake of Bally Sports breaking contracts with various teams, MLB started some distribution on its own. I doubt this will go unnoticed by other sports leagues. These are interesting times.

I had not heard of that dispute. But I did notice that MLB.tv has recently added blackout-free subscriptions only for two teams: the San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks. Is that what this is about? > Policy regarding local live game blackouts does not apply to purchasers that select MLB.TV Single Team Yearly or MLB.TV Single Team Monthly who select the San Diego Padres or Arizona Diamondbacks as their club.

When Bally’s imploded the Padres touted how going with mlb.tv expanded their reach from cable subscribers to the whole regional fan base

Of course those fans have to sign up for yet another service vs cable tv that would just pay a fraction per subscriber

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#14

Post by bebop »

foogazi wrote: post #13
_delirium wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had not heard of that dispute. But I did notice that MLB.tv has recently added blackout-free subscriptions only for two teams: the San Diego Padres and Arizona Diamondbacks. Is that what this is about? > Policy regarding local live game blackouts does not apply to purchasers that select MLB.TV Single Team Yearly or MLB.TV Single Team Monthly who select the San Diego Padres or Arizona Diamondbacks as their club.

When Bally’s imploded the Padres touted how going with mlb.tv expanded their reach from cable subscribers to the whole regional fan base Of course those fans have to sign up for yet another service vs cable tv that would just pay a fraction per subscriber

As a padres fan it was fantastic. I could finally legally watch padres games without dealing with blackouts.

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#15

Post by metaphor »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #8

> In Phase 4, though, a churned TV customer is still a broadband customer, because the Internet is a precondition for watching the vMVPD! Sure, a customer could be so incensed that they also change their Internet provider, but that is completely unnecessary and, given the inconvenience involved, highly unlikely. 95% of the US only having access to wired broadband via coaxial cable is more than just an inconvenience t…

> 95% of the US only having access to wired broadband via coaxial cable is more than just an inconvenience to switching ISPs.

This 95% figure is clearly disingenuous handwaving.

Briefly looking at California >= 250/25 residential service for cable[1] and fiber[2] shows substantial overlap.

...and Florida cable[3] v. fiber[4].

...and New York cable[5] v. fiber[6].

[1] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=dec2...

[2] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=dec2...

[3] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=dec2...

[4] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=dec2...

[5] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=dec2...

[6] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=dec2...

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#16

Post by tyre »

hedora wrote: post #11

I don’t understand the appeal of bundling for non-sports content. With video on demand, most people just binge watch stuff, and most streaming services have more than one thing a given subscriber would like to watch. So, if the price of the bundle is significantly greater than the price of one streaming service, why not just hop from one streaming service to another, one at a time? Even during peak cable, the number…

> So, if the price of the bundle is significantly greater than the price of one streaming service, why not just hop from one streaming service to another, one at a time?

Because content is time-sensitive in the world. Watching Game of Thrones 4 weeks later is considerably worse when you miss out on the experience with friends and family. And there’s the high probability of spoilers online.

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#17

Post by raminf »

With the dropoff of local networks and cable-cutters,the sports leagues are going to start direct-streaming the games themselves and capture advertiser and viewer revenue directly. MLB.tv is a primary example. They already have the technology and the brand reach.

All they have to do is add color commentary (post-game shows, direct interviews with players and coaches) and the value of local TV sports networks and intermediaries like ESPN will drop off to zero.

Only thing ESPN will have going for it is cross-sports content, like SportsCenter. Not sure that's enough to keep them going.

Once the cable and local network deals expire, the league streamers would be smart to do away with local blackouts, and then there would be no reason for fans to just buy the league streaming service directly.

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#18

Post by xref »

labster wrote: post #10
0x445442 wrote: post #4

Here’s another perspective https://www.outkick.com/espn-charter-cable-bundle-sports/

The author is lamenting the decline of ESPN which will make everything worse, and half the ads on the page are for Fubo. Such sweet irony. The thing is, I’m one of those people who never watched ESPN, yet paid for years for it in a cable package. Now I have some streaming packages I may not watch in a month, but at least I’m not paying $10/month for something I never watch. The era of monopoly subsidized sports is co…

> Perhaps athlete salaries will come back down to Earth as well

Ehhh you lost me there with that anti-player talking point parroted by the billionaire owners of the league. The players are part of a union, and their CBA says they get 48.8% of league revenue, while the owners get 51.2%.

But somehow people just latch onto “players salaries are too high”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_collective_bargaining_ag...

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#19

Post by lotsofpulp »

metaphor wrote: post #15
lotsofpulp wrote: post #8

> In Phase 4, though, a churned TV customer is still a broadband customer, because the Internet is a precondition for watching the vMVPD! Sure, a customer could be so incensed that they also change their Internet provider, but that is completely unnecessary and, given the inconvenience involved, highly unlikely. 95% of the US only having access to wired broadband via coaxial cable is more than just an inconvenience t…

> 95% of the US only having access to wired broadband via coaxial cable is more than just an inconvenience to switching ISPs. This 95% figure is clearly disingenuous handwaving. Briefly looking at California >= 250/25 residential service for cable[1] and fiber[2] shows substantial overlap. ...and Florida cable[3] v. fiber[4]. ...and New York cable[5] v. fiber[6]. [1] https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?ve…

That broadband map is garbage, I frequently see regions where it says there is fiber, but in reality there is none. Maybe it is some other very high percentage and not 95%, but I have spent a lot of time searching for houses and looking up specific addresses on fiber ISP websites, and they pretty much only exist in 2 cases.

One is if the housing development is ~2010 or newer, and they installed fiber in the underground utilities during initial build. The other is super old neighborhoods with overheard wires that maybe get wired up.

Otherwise, any area with underground utilities built before 2010 is very, very unlikely to have fiber to the home.

Re: The Rise and Fall of ESPN’s Leverage

#20

Post by labster »

xref wrote: post #18
labster wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author is lamenting the decline of ESPN which will make everything worse, and half the ads on the page are for Fubo. Such sweet irony. The thing is, I’m one of those people who never watched ESPN, yet paid for years for it in a cable package. Now I have some streaming packages I may not watch in a month, but at least I’m not paying $10/month for something I never watch. The era of monopoly subsidized sports is co…

> Perhaps athlete salaries will come back down to Earth as well Ehhh you lost me there with that anti-player talking point parroted by the billionaire owners of the league. The players are part of a union, and their CBA says they get 48.8% of league revenue, while the owners get 51.2%. But somehow people just latch onto “players salaries are too high” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_collective_bargaining_ag...

I’m okay with owners salaries coming down as well. And stadiums getting zero public funding. I’m just more realistic about players being the first to get shafted.
Post reply on HN