ESPN Economics

[albionmoonlight]

Myself and most people to whom I talk claim that we liked ESPN better back in the day--when it showed lots of sports and Sportscenter was a highlights show. Now, ESPN shows tons of original programming and Sportscenter is about 1/2 highlights and 1/2 stuff like the Budweiser Hot Seat.

Clearly, ESPN is making money. And they are doing it by, it seems, giving us something that we don't want. And I am curious as to what makes this this case. Does anyone know? I have some ideas, but they are all speculation:

1.) Original programming is so much cheaper to put on than sports for which ESPN has to pay rights fees to broadcast, that is does not matter if a few less people are watching Around the Horn than would be watching the random baseball game that would otherwise be being shown.

2.) The Network is now just a vehicle for marketing the brand and the personalities. ESPN gains more by having Sean Salisbury's face on screen for 1 hour than it does by showing some sporting event. As Sean gains in value/prestiege, the company gains in value.

3.) Advertising opportunites. Budwieser pays a lot for the hot seat. More than they would pay for "plays of the day." More than enough to make up for lost viewers.

4.) They are actually not running the best business model, and are in danger of losing eyeballs, but--as the only game in town--nothing is really putting pressure on them to make them shape up.

5.) Me, and those to whom I talk, don't really know what we want. We are watching more ESPN because we like Quite Frankly more than a Cal-State Fullerton baseball game. And we would rather watch Ben Roethelisburger answer Tinactin's 5 Burning Questions on Sportscenter than watch highlights of him playing football.

6.) Something else that I am missing.

[ISiddiqui]

I think 1, 3, and 5 are the best reason. Probably 5 is most of all. Most people seemingly don't really know what they want. ESPN doesn't seem to be losing many viewers. As it expands its cable lineup (now we have ESPN U, etc) it seems it is just as, if not more, successful than the past. We are going to watch ESPN probably just as much as we did in the past, because for all we like to talk about how there were interesting (and crazy) sports on in the 'old days' we really didn't watch them unless we were flipping around at 1 in the morning.

Also I'd think original programming does cost less than some sports (though more for others who don't get a rights fee), and people like to watch taking heads. Hell, look at cable news nowadays. They can't all be that out of touch with what makes money.

[Toddzilla]

I think it is something else, because at this point having grown up watching SportsCenter religiously 4-5 years ago, I will not watch it at all. I prefer ESPNews for scores and highlights.

Kinda like MTV got popular and got away from showing videos, ESPN is doing the same with sports. Sad, really.

[Passacaglia]

Also, ESPN is, to some extent, the only game in town. Sure, there's Fox Sports, and Comcast Sports, but not really much else out there. Maybe #5 is a part of this, but if you just want to see some sports, you go to ESPN. Even if it's not a sporting event, it'll be sports related, and a lot of times, that's just the best you can get.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I think it is something else, because at this point having grown up watching SportsCenter religiously 4-5 years ago, I will not watch it at all. I prefer ESPNews for scores and highlights.

Kinda like MTV got popular and got away from showing videos, ESPN is doing the same with sports. Sad, really.

I think this pretty much sums up my take on it as well. I used to watch SportsCenter almost every night. If I had nothing to do on weekday mornings and was up early enough, I would have SportsCenter on and "watch" it over and over again.

I went to Europe and then came back and found that the show was nothing at all like it used to be. I can't stand it. I never watch it now. Other than NFL football, college football, the World Cup, and PTI I never watch ESPN. I'm not really a baseball or basketball fan and nothing else on there interests me. Basically, other than PTI, if it's not football season, I am not watching ESPN.

[twothree]

Option 1. ESPN is following the same road as MTV. It is cheaper to produce your own original programs and force feed them to what is left of your audience, even though that audience developed by showing highlights/music videos.

[SunDevil]

ESPNews and that is it, except for a sporting event. I can barely watch PTI anymore for the simple fact that they break it up with the beginning of sportscenter now and that is just wrong. I can not stand Dan Patrick/Stuart Scott and most of the other 'personalities'.

[John Galt]

I think the branding observation is right on. It is clearly the focus with all of there cross-marketing (see ESPN cell phone).

I think ESPN's business strategy is directed for the long-term, but I think they will find that it is actually better in the short-term and much worse in the long-term. I think ESPN, like a lot of over-exposed brands, is starting to feel a backlash. I think that unless the cross-marketing really succeeds (and I have serious doubts about that), then ESPN is going to find itself overextended facing a lull in fan support. I think ESPN's strategy is a risky one and it may work, but right now, I'd bet my money on a major correction occurring in the next few years.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by twothree

Option 1. ESPN is following the same road as MTV. It is cheaper to produce your own original programs and force feed them to what is left of your audience, even though that audience developed by showing highlights/music videos.

Thus, on a similar note, I can't remember the last time I watched MTV. I don't even have a clue what channel it is. I used to watch it every once and a while when I was in Europe, because it was one of only, say, 5 or so channels that were in English.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Also, ESPN is, to some extent, the only game in town. Sure, there's Fox Sports, and Comcast Sports, but not really much else out there. Maybe #5 is a part of this, but if you just want to see some sports, you go to ESPN. Even if it's not a sporting event, it'll be sports related, and a lot of times, that's just the best you can get.

I actually think this is a huge factor that cuts the other way, especially in terms of getting the rights to actual events. With all of the FSNs as well as the other regional networks and stations like the Golf Channel, OLN, CSTV, etc. there are many more options for teams and leagues to sign television deals with--they don't just have to go to ESPN. So, ESPN's actual sports content may go down a bit because it won't outbid everyone for everything. So, instead of trying to get everything, it cherry picks and makes up for everything else with original and branded programming.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I think the branding observation is right on. It is clearly the focus with all of there cross-marketing (see ESPN cell phone).

I think ESPN's business strategy is directed for the long-term, but I think they will find that it is actually better in the short-term and much worse in the long-term. I think ESPN, like a lot of over-exposed brands, is starting to feel a backlash. I think that unless the cross-marketing really succeeds (and I have serious doubts about that), then ESPN is going to find itself overextended facing a lull in fan support. I think ESPN's strategy is a risky one and it may work, but right now, I'd bet my money on a major correction occurring in the next few years.

I agree with you on basically all of this. I think what they're doing is far more short-term than they realize. Everything seems like a cash grab to me, and they may lose their focus on sports to the point that it really starts to bite them in the ass.

[BrianD]

You've also got the problem now of having so many ESPN channels. I think ESPN decided to take the different demographics that used to watch their channel and gave each one their own channel. The real sports news is now on ESPNews, we've got a classics channel for those fans, ESPN U for college, ESPN2 still seems to show a number of sports. ESPN has now become the channel for original programming. They have really spread themselves too thin.

It also doesn't help that SportsCenter personalities started to add a little flair to their broadcasts and the fans ate it up. Too much of that kind of reinforcement and the station decided that the personalities were more important than the sports.

[Grammaticus]

This all sounds familiar. I used to watch ESPN almost every day, if not just for sports center. I used to watch sports center over and over again, wow I miss that. Now, I pretty much just watch ESPN when there is a good game on. Pretty much just NFL and College Football. I get tired flipping to ESPN only to see some crappy original programming show or WNBA / Womens college basketball that I have pretty much stopped checking.

I would love to see ESPN air some of the top events in less popular sports. I remember back in the day when I could catch the "Dream Mile" or other top track events. I can understand if ESPN does not show a lot of programming in less popular sports, but then they over show the very unpopular WNBA. When you are force fed the WNBA, I gotta leave the table. They think it is like Ashlee Simpson, just put crap on tv and people will start loving it. It's not happening, but they keep polishing that turd.

[Warhammer]

I hate to say it, but I agree with the sentiment that they need to show more niche sports. I love the Paintball stuff they show on there.


I can't believe I just admitted that...

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

ESPNews and that is it, except for a sporting event. I can barely watch PTI anymore for the simple fact that they break it up with the beginning of sportscenter now and that is just wrong. I can not stand Dan Patrick/Stuart Scott and most of the other 'personalities'.

Agree with everything SD says.

I just want scores or the actual sporting event. It's irritating for me to listen to Stu 'BOOYAH' a TD or goal or whatever. All it says to me is he has nothing really intelligent to say about the play, so I'll cover that up appealing to the 'fake' sports fans (for lack of a better word).

The best show on ESPN, during the season, is EA Matchup show with Jaworski and Hoge. I could watch those guys inteligently point out things on tape etc, all day.

I think to sum up, as the qustion in #5 of albion's post brings up, I want more substance and less style. But, to the majority, style sells.

[kcchief19]

albion, I think you're dead-on with all of your observations. In regard to how ESPN makes money, I would also add their fee that they charge cable providers to carry their networks. ESPN charges the highest rate for basic cable -- and it's not even close. They are able to command that rate through effective branding and programming -- cable providers cut ESPN from their basic lineup or other channel lineup at their peril. ESPN further uses that powerful market position to dictate that providers carry ESPN2 and ESPN Classic. While ESPN isn't the only game in town, I think they still have a significant edge over Fox and other regional sports networks that viewers pereive as a supplement to ESPN, not a replacement.

But I think this is the most critical line from your thoughts:

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Myself and most people to whom I talk claim that we liked ESPN better back in the day--when it showed lots of sports and Sportscenter was a highlights show.

Who is WE? I think that's the critical question. ESPN programming is tailored heavily to its target demographics. SportsCenter, for example is targeted much more to ages 12-35 than say a college basketball game that is targeted toward a more all-encompassing audience. I thought SportsCenter was the greatest program in the world when I was in college -- and college kids still do. That's who ESPN wants to watch, because they are the ones who have time to watch.

I think the best example of this is Chris Berman. You rarely -- if ever -- see Chris Berman on SportsCenter. Look at the current deal they have been doing with the NFL Ultimate Depth Chart it's Trey Wingo from NFL Live, not Berman. College kids think Berman is the old due hungup on nicknames from the '60s, man. But when ESPN is looking to pull in a wider demographic for NFL Countdown and PrimeTime, there he is. Even if you look at a college basketball broadcast on ESPN, you'll see it's much more traditional than SportsCenter is.

If you're 30-35 years old plus, you're on the downside of ESPN's target demographic. Getting us to watch in big numbers isn't a big deal for ESPN because advertisers can reach us watching other programs and networks. ESPN has made its money on getting the young, hip demographic.

[Grammaticus]

Well damn, somebody needs to start a sports channel for the "old man" demographic

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Well damn, somebody needs to start a sports channel for the "old man" demographic

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/index.php

[Desnudo]

Looking at #5, what would you want in place of all the flashy ESPN programming? I'd prefer play-by-play announcers who focus on calling the game, rather than Jo-Jo Smith being the poorest guy in Texas growing up. I'd want sports highlights without all the zooming and wooshing and false excitement. I'd want them to continue running quirky sports (paintball, curling, etc.), which I think is a good thing and a hallmark of their beginnings. Most of all I'd want commentators that realize you don't need to yell to be interesting or get your point across.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If you're 30-35 years old plus, you're on the downside of ESPN's target demographic. Getting us to watch in big numbers isn't a big deal for ESPN because advertisers can reach us watching other programs and networks. ESPN has made its money on getting the young, hip demographic.

Very well put, but you don't even have to be that old to be out of the 'target demographic'. It isn't just age, but people who like style more than intricate tactics & strategy. I love NFL Matchup myself, but that is out of their target demo. It's the one nod to the guys who like breaking down the sports. Sometimes Baseball Tonight tries to do it as well (I also find baseball tonight much, much more enjoyable because the commentators there don't seem like they need to use catch phrases).

I'd like a bit more of the 'why' than currently on SportsCenter (Hell, in the World Cup coverage they never talked about strategy of the game. They showed the lineups and expected the formations to be all the strategy discussion needed!), but the target demo (style conscious 18-35) doesn't give a damn. They don't want to see the strategy inherant in a pitcher's duel, they want to see massive home runs and 6-5 games (even that may be too low scoring for some of 'em!).

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Very well put, but you don't even have to be that old to be out of the 'target demographic'. It isn't just age, but people who like style more than intricate tactics & strategy. I love NFL Matchup myself, but that is out of their target demo. It's the one nod to the guys who like breaking down the sports. Sometimes Baseball Tonight tries to do it as well (I also find baseball tonight much, much more enjoyable because the commentators there don't seem like they need to use catch phrases).

I'd like a bit more of the 'why' than currently on SportsCenter (Hell, in the World Cup coverage they never talked about strategy of the game. They showed the lineups and expected the formations to be all the strategy discussion needed!), but the target demo (style conscious 18-35) doesn't give a damn. They don't want to see the strategy inherant in a pitcher's duel, they want to see massive home runs and 6-5 games (even that may be too low scoring for some of 'em!).

Agree with the EA NFL Matchup...I mentioned it in my earlier post. That is the show I'd expect would appeal to people who play FOF. And not to the the people you describe in the 2nd portion of your post.

I think what you say about homeruns and 6-5 games can also be attributed to , strangely enough, the EA series of games, specifically Madden. Maybe moving away from that now with Head Coach, but I'd guess the majority of Madden players still want to see Reggie Bush do 360's in mid air with a customized uniform and flames shooting out of the helmet. Also explains why ESPN loves Michael Vick.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just a few random observations from the numbers, make of them what you will.

-- Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. What I mean is that when you look at the ratings on a market-by-market basis, live sports are pretty much the only thing that draws a remotely decent number on any of the ESPN networks. Sports Reporters on Sunday morning and the 9AM Sportscenter on Sunday during NFL season are pretty much the only exceptions. It's really wild to look at a Top 10 sized market like Atlanta & see times where less than 1,000 people are watching out of the millions of residents, or even a market like Nashville where the audience for anything other than a game might be measured in double-digits (as in "less than 100 people"). Thing is, their distribution is so wide that there's a lot of small audiences adding up into a pretty sizable number even for the weakest of shows.

-- By the early part of 2006, ESPN Classic in primetime was delivering more viewers than an ROS spot (Mon-Sun anytime) on ESPN News. News still gets advertising buys though, because it's priced very low compared to everything else. They've also got a lot of inventory & are prone to bonusing spots.

-- College sports kills most any of the pro sports in terms of ratings, and college football particularly stands out. There are about 50% more households watching the Thursday night football game than watch their MLB games. (probably a little closer than that now, as MLB ratings are up across the board this year)

-- 4x as many households watch the hunting & fishing shows on Saturday morning than watch ESPN News at any given moment. Think about that for a minute ... still wonder why the straight presentation of sports news has gone to the back burner?

-- Amidst all the discussion here, which hasn't been bad really, I don't believe anybody has mentioned another sizable segment of the ESPN family of networks audience -- Men 55+ -- for a lot of the live sports, they make up as much as 1/3rd of the total viewership.

-- BrianD had the most spot-on observation I've seen in the thread so far when he said "ESPN decided to take the different demographics that used to watch their channel and gave each one their own channel".
That's an extremely astute description of precisely the philosophy they've been programming under for at least the past year, and was explained to me in similar terms (about the time Mike & Mike were moved from News to E2).

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- BrianD had the most spot-on observation I've seen in the thread so far when he said "ESPN decided to take the different demographics that used to watch their channel and gave each one their own channel".
That's an extremely astute description of precisely the philosophy they've been programming under for at least the past year, and was explained to me in similar terms (about the time Mike & Mike were moved from News to E2).

So, uh, which one's my channel? Thanks in advance for the help. I don't have time to figure this out what with the wife and kids.

For the record I like live sports and highlights. I don't like reality TV or original ESPN programming. I also don't like any kind of talk shows. Sports, news, current events, whatever. They all bore me.

[ISiddiqui]

ESPN2 for you, Huckleberry!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

ESPN2 for you, Huckleberry!

Except on weekday mornings, when he's pretty much SOL except for ESPN News.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except on weekday mornings, when he's pretty much SOL except for ESPN News.

Whew. I don't have time for TV in the mornings. Sounds like I'm a fan of "the deuce" now.

Wait a second. Isn't that the channel with Mike and Mike? Meh, I guess wall-to-wall sports aren't possible. Actually, they are, but you know what I mean.

[ISiddiqui]

But that's in the mornings... just watch in the afternoon and evening .

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- Amidst all the discussion here, which hasn't been bad really, I don't believe anybody has mentioned another sizable segment of the ESPN family of networks audience -- Men 55+ -- for a lot of the live sports, they make up as much as 1/3rd of the total viewership.

Which I think also plays into another element of ESPN's ability to make money from advertisers -- high ratings for a cable network among highly affluent households. I don't think that it is any coincidence that ESPN's live traditional sports programming is very by the book -- aside from snazzier graphics and better sport coats, it's the same broadcast we've always gotten. It's nothing like their coverage of the X-Games or niche sports.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- BrianD had the most spot-on observation I've seen in the thread so far when he said "ESPN decided to take the different demographics that used to watch their channel and gave each one their own channel".

Very true. ESPN2 was essentially created to be the "edgy" channel for younger viewers, until they realized that younger viewers were addicted to the "mother ship" -- or more accurately that the original spate of programming on ESPN back in the mid-1990s sucked ass. ESPN2 then turned very traditional while ESPN has traditionally been the "college guy" network. My impression is that ESPNews is essentially a low-budget SportsCenter for the older generation -- I'd be interested in knowing how that network skews.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

My impression is that ESPNews is essentially a low-budget SportsCenter for the older generation -- I'd be interested in knowing how that network skews.

Last numbers I've got show M25-54 making up about 60% of their P18+ total audience. I don't have the breakout of who that other 40% is but from other materials/previous data I know that they're predominantly male and that there's more older than the demo than there are younger than the demo.

Basically News has demos very similar to Classic.

[saldana]

i'm going home to watch the Ocho.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

-- 4x as many households watch the hunting & fishing shows on Saturday morning than watch ESPN News at any given moment. Think about that for a minute ... still wonder why the straight presentation of sports news has gone to the back burner?

serioulsy though, is this fact applicable nationwide, or just in the area where you get information for? if it's nationwide, that to me is staggering...i find those to be the most boring programs i have ever scene, and cant imagine them getting alot of viewers in metropolitan areas where most people have never seen a deer or a fish EXCEPT on TV

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Basically News has demos very similar to Classic.

CNN-SI was a better station then ESPN News.

A good amount of what is on ESPN is unwatchable, and the website is unbearable. If it makes you guys feel any better, I hang out with a bunch of ESPN employees and they agree with everything that is being said here. Of course they are males in their early 30's.....

[panerd]

I am not sure that this has mentioned yet, but fully explains my preferences. In the 80's I used to watch Zip Rezepa do sports on channel 2, then I watched Mike Bush on channel 5. In high school and college I watched ESPN sportscenter. Why? They were the best available place to get my highlights. In the 80's I had to either watch the 10:20 sports or wait for the paper, then in the 90's ESPN could give me coverage outside of the Cardinals.

Now the internet can give me instant coverage and I can basically watch every Bengal, Mizzou b-ball, and Cardinal game live so I have no reason to sit around and wait for sportscenter to cover it. I used to have to sit through commericials wondering if NFL primetime was going to show Bengal's highlights, now I just go to the internet and I can find out the play by play from the end of the 3rd quarter.

So count me as one who used to watch back in the day and doesn't any more. But I wouldn't watch even if sportscenter was all highlights. I do however watch PTI and poker and sometimes even the other stupid PTI ripoffs. This has to be somewhat of a factor.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by saldana

serioulsy though, is this fact applicable nationwide, or just in the area where you get information for? if it's nationwide, that to me is staggering...i find those to be the most boring programs i have ever scene, and cant imagine them getting alot of viewers in metropolitan areas where most people have never seen a deer or a fish EXCEPT on TV

Those are national numbers.

If it makes you feel any better, the comparison isn't a function of how big the audience for the outdoor block is, it's a function of how small the audience for ESPN News is at any given moment. It suffers to some degree from "Weather Channel syndrome". A lot of people watch TWC, just not a lot of people watch it at the same time, same as CNN Headline News.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA--

4x as many households watch the hunting & fishing shows on Saturday morning than watch ESPN News at any given moment. Think about that for a minute ... still wonder why the straight presentation of sports news has gone to the back burner?

Is this a mis-leading stat? I know for my area, ESPN News is only available on digital cable tiers, where ESPN and ESPN2 are available on basic cable.

I'd be willing to bet that country-wide, ESPN News is only 'subscribed' to by much less than 1/4 of the population.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

CNN-SI was a better station then ESPN News.

Except that CNN-SI had a group of anchors that were about the least likable collection ever assembled. It wasn't that they were all dislikable, they were just so generic overall that they never made up the head start that ESPN had on them.

On the one hand, every anchor doesn't need 75 catchphrases, but at the same time you do need to have a delivery that's more interesting than watching paint dry.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

I'd be willing to bet that country-wide, ESPN News is only 'subscribed' to by much less than 1/4 of the population.

You'd lose that bet.

As of October 2005, E-News had 45.9m households, ESPN had 90m households.

Although while looking that up, I learned something I didn't know, or at least hadn't thought about much -- somewhere along the way, Classic passed News in households, with 58.2 homes.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You'd lose that bet.

As of October 2005, E-News had 45.9m households, ESPN had 90m households.

Although while looking that up, I learned something I didn't know, or at least hadn't thought about much -- somewhere along the way, Classic passed News in households, with 58.2 homes.

Must say I am SHOCKED by that number!

Off the topic, I wonder how many of those 45m, or 58m in Classic's case, have no idea they have those channels....my parents would in that group!

[ice4277]

Reading through this thread, you could put EA Sports in place of ESPN, and it would sound like just like one of a dozen threads we've had on here bashing EA. Not really sure where I'm going with that, but it can't be a coincidence. Or, maybe it can, its been a long day at work.

[ChiMatt]

While I agree with most of what you guys are saying about all the crap that ESPN shows now and I can't watch SportsCenter either I just don't think you guys are right that they show less sports than they used to.

MLB- 5-6 games a week. less than their peak but still seems to be enough
NFL- Full season on MNF. Same as ever just different night
NCAA Football- Just as many as ever it seems.
NBA- newer sport on their network
NCAA Basketball- They did 450 games last year which was the most ever
NHL- lost the rights. big loss to some no loss to most

plus they now have tons of College Baseball which is new. Lots of women's ncaa basketball. They showed the entire World Cup. Wide range of "minor" NCAA Championships.

So I think that they are showing just as much, if not more, live sporting events than ever. Just more boo-yeah too.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

albion, I think you're dead-on with all of your observations. In regard to how ESPN makes money, I would also add their fee that they charge cable providers to carry their networks. ESPN charges the highest rate for basic cable -- and it's not even close. They are able to command that rate through effective branding and programming -- cable providers cut ESPN from their basic lineup or other channel lineup at their peril. ESPN further uses that powerful market position to dictate that providers carry ESPN2 and ESPN Classic. While ESPN isn't the only game in town, I think they still have a significant edge over Fox and other regional sports networks that viewers pereive as a supplement to ESPN, not a replacement.

If cable operators decided to get smart, they would start offering non-ESPN or better yet non-sports packages at a reduced rate.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You'd lose that bet.

As of October 2005, E-News had 45.9m households, ESPN had 90m households.

Although while looking that up, I learned something I didn't know, or at least hadn't thought about much -- somewhere along the way, Classic passed News in households, with 58.2 homes.

I don't get either

[Easy Mac]

ESPN Classic is standard down here, while News is extra. And I turn 25 next year, but I associate far more with the 18-24 group than the 40-52 year olds. I swear I'll never understand demographics for advertising.

[sterlingice]

Was a couple of days late to the party but wanted to give lots of credit to posters in this thread for what was a great read

SI

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

If cable operators decided to get smart, they would start offering non-ESPN or better yet non-sports packages at a reduced rate.

This is what is known as "ala carte" cable and is actually being fought pretty hard by the cable companies.

[Greyroofoo]

all I know is that i've lost all respect for ESPN ever since they showed people playing 'Dominoes'

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

This is what is known as "ala carte" cable and is actually being fought pretty hard by the cable companies.

not to mention religious channels who know that no one will bother picking them up under an 'ala carte' system

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

not to mention religious channels who know that no one will bother picking them up under an 'ala carte' system

Actually, some of those (TBN, for example) would appear to stand a better chance of being picked up than a lot of the "general interest" channels. Using TBN as an example, they generate more revenue each year ($170 million in 2005) strictly through cash donations than quite a few of the cable networks generate with ad revenues.

Meanwhile, the topic of ala carte was discussed in another thread here a few months ago, short version of my take is that the ala carte model would pretty much render cable as it exists today unrecognizable. It's likely that less than 50 networks would survive initially without bundling, and ultimately I wouldn't think more than 30 or so survive long term. And consumers would then face charges of $10 or more per network for those that did survive. Short version -- ala carte may very well be the single most destructive idea in the history of television, and would quickly prove to be an extremely expensive mistake for consumers.

[Barkeep49]

Wow, I'd never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Jon so whole heartedly on a political issue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Wow, I'd never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Jon so whole heartedly on a political issue.

If it makes you feel any better, this really shouldn't be "political", it's a fairly simple matter of economics