Stand Alone ESPN?

Dawgg

Heisman
Sep 9, 2012
10,058
10,020
113
I think I would go up to $20/mo if it included ALL of the ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, SEC Network, SEC Network+, ACC Network, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic, etc.) and ESPN+.
 

Seinfeld

All-American
Nov 30, 2006
10,773
6,170
113
Maybe start with making logging in not such a pain in the ***. Then think bigger.
I'm getting so sick of this streaming and standalone subscription ********. Just went through hell a couple days ago trying to get my individual Disney+ and ESPN accounts bundled together, and then when I finally got everything set up, my kid suddenly can't watch Disney on his TV because apparently Roku devices don't yet support Disney+ with ads. Disney+ is fine, but not the ads version.

It really should not be this difficult to pay for a service and then be able to use it, but all this streaming compatibility and blackout garbage drives me mad
 

DoggieDaddy13

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2017
3,212
1,567
113
I think I would go up to $20/mo if it included ALL of the ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, SEC Network, SEC Network+, ACC Network, ESPNU, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic, etc.) and ESPN+.
It will be more than $20 for all of that. No telling how much research they've already done, but I'd put the over/under at $79.99 for that package.
 

o_Hot Rock

Senior
Jan 2, 2010
1,707
660
113
I will not buy it. I will do without and get me some tickets. CBS has golf anyway.
 

johnson86-1

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2012
13,845
4,358
113
It will be more than $20 for all of that. No telling how much research they've already done, but I'd put the over/under at $79.99 for that package.
I can't imagine they're going to try to charge $80 for that. I think I got everything but possibly the ACC Network (and I may have gotten that and just not cared enough to notice it) on YouTubeTV for less than $60 a month. Certainly there will be some people that will pay it, but I think they'll make way more charge $15 to $25 per month for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

The Peeper

All-American
Feb 26, 2008
14,576
9,277
113
I can't imagine they're going to try to charge $80 for that. I think I got everything but possibly the ACC Network (and I may have gotten that and just not cared enough to notice it) on YouTubeTV for less than $60 a month. Certainly there will be some people that will pay it, but I think they'll make way more charge $15 to $25 per month for it.
It's the old "would you rather sell 1 pencil for $1 or 10 for .10c each" question. One guy I worked for swore by the 1 pencil for $1 theory. We charged top dollar for our work, had high end customers but stayed booked for months and we did top work. I came to learn to agree w/ him, it was much easier than having multiple crews doing 10 of the .10c jobs and after awhile I tended to agree with him. I guess in a way ESPN has to weigh the same type question w/ regards to infrastructure, employees, overhead, etc. etc.
 

johnson86-1

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2012
13,845
4,358
113
It's the old "would you rather sell 1 pencil for $1 or 10 for .10c each" question. One guy I worked for swore by the 1 pencil for $1 theory. We charged top dollar for our work, had high end customers but stayed booked for months and we did top work. I came to learn to agree w/ him, it was much easier than having multiple crews doing 10 of the .10c jobs and after awhile I tended to agree with him. I guess in a way ESPN has to weigh the same type question w/ regards to infrastructure, employees, overhead, etc. etc.
I'm not sure how much more labor or capital intensive the 10 for $0.10 model is when you are talking about a streaming service. Big money is in the production, and the high dollar customers are going to be more adamant about having comprehensive coverage. Cost on the actual tech/streaming equipment and customer support scales up with numbers, but I'm sure there are some economies of scale. Plus, unless they move away from an ad model, the 1 for $1 model hammers their ad revenue.
 

Perd Hapley

All-American
Sep 30, 2022
5,044
5,756
113
It will be more than $20 for all of that. No telling how much research they've already done, but I'd put the over/under at $79.99 for that package.

Why? Its not even that much for all that plus like 50 other channels on YouTubeTV, Hulu, etc. The amount that the ESPN family of networks costs is only like $7-8 of the whole $70 package.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

Dawgg

Heisman
Sep 9, 2012
10,058
10,020
113
Why? Its not even that much for all that plus like 50 other channels on YouTubeTV, Hulu, etc. The amount that the ESPN family of networks costs is only like $7-8 of the whole $70 package.
Agreed, I took what their full line costs most consumers and basically doubled it.
At $20/mo, It would still be a premium streaming service, but wouldn't be so expensive that I would consider, say, Sling Orange + Sports for $50/mo.
 

aTotal360

Heisman
Nov 12, 2009
20,927
12,462
113
I'm getting so sick of this streaming and standalone subscription ********. Just went through hell a couple days ago trying to get my individual Disney+ and ESPN accounts bundled together, and then when I finally got everything set up, my kid suddenly can't watch Disney on his TV because apparently Roku devices don't yet support Disney+ with ads. Disney+ is fine, but not the ads version.

It really should not be this difficult to pay for a service and then be able to use it, but all this streaming compatibility and blackout garbage drives me mad
Everyone wanted al a carte and now we have it. Congrats. **
 

Coast_Dawg

Senior
Nov 16, 2020
1,312
709
113
Sounds great if it lets me drop ESPN from regular TV bundles from February to August
 

IBleedMaroonDawg

All-American
Nov 12, 2007
25,082
9,338
113
Disney lost 120 Billion in 2022 and hasn't changed any programming on any part of Disney Plus, which lost 2.4 million subscribers. I was one this month after not seeing anything new I want to watch since Loki. I hope they enjoy losing money. I can't believe this is the same company I have enjoyed all my life. My #1 problem is they haven't released anything new that is good entertainment, and it isn't worth that much a month for a collection of old shows and movies.
 

Seinfeld

All-American
Nov 30, 2006
10,773
6,170
113
Disney lost 120 Billion in 2022 and hasn't changed any programming on any part of Disney Plus, which lost 2.4 million subscribers. I was one this month after not seeing anything new I want to watch since Loki. I hope they enjoy losing money. I can't believe this is the same company I have enjoyed all my life. My #1 problem is they haven't released anything new that is good entertainment, and it isn't worth that much a month for a collection of old shows and movies.
While I won’t personally go quite that far, I do feel like Disney became much more concerned with quantity over quality since the day they started streaming. They’re releasing a good bit more on a monthly basis than I can ever recall, but I can’t say I’ve seen much in the last 3-4 years where I thought… man, that was great.
 

johnson86-1

All-Conference
Aug 22, 2012
13,845
4,358
113
Disney lost 120 Billion in 2022 and hasn't changed any programming on any part of Disney Plus, which lost 2.4 million subscribers. I was one this month after not seeing anything new I want to watch since Loki. I hope they enjoy losing money. I can't believe this is the same company I have enjoyed all my life. My #1 problem is they haven't released anything new that is good entertainment, and it isn't worth that much a month for a collection of old shows and movies.
It's not worth that much, unless you have young kids. I think I pay $8 a month (that's with me paying annually), and I easily get that much value out of it. It'll probably seem way more expensive if they successfully convince any of my kids they need to lop off body parts to be their authentic self, but I'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

ETA: Disney does have some low hanging fruit. I think Avatar and Top Gun showed you can still do blockbuster movies, but you have to make them good and not go out of your way to cater to niche markets. No telling how much money Disney lost on Lightyear (which I heard was bad regardless so it probably wasn't just an issue of trying to shoehorn agenda items in unnecessarily) and Strange World (which I haven't even heard if it's good or bad b/c I haven't heard anybody talk about it other than to say they're not letting their kids watch it). You can still make those movies, but they need a $20M budget, not a $150M budget.
 
Last edited:

Dawgg

Heisman
Sep 9, 2012
10,058
10,020
113
Disney lost 120 Billion in 2022 and hasn't changed any programming on any part of Disney Plus, which lost 2.4 million subscribers. I was one this month after not seeing anything new I want to watch since Loki. I hope they enjoy losing money. I can't believe this is the same company I have enjoyed all my life. My #1 problem is they haven't released anything new that is good entertainment, and it isn't worth that much a month for a collection of old shows and movies.
The 2.4 million subs came from India largely they lost streaming rights through Hotstar to Indian Premier League cricket. Disney+ actually grew their US and Canada subscribers by 200,000.

Hulu added 600,000 subscribers and ESPN+ added 800,000 subs this past quarter.
 

onewoof

Heisman
Mar 4, 2008
13,463
11,165
113
When asked on the call if Disney would eventually consider converting ESPN from a linear brand to an a-la-carte, streaming-only offering, Iger said he believed it was inevitable, but declined to say when the company might actually make that happen. (He shot down reports that suggested Disney would spin off or sell ESPN, saying the brand is too strong and too lucrative to do that.)

"[Streaming] remains our number one priority," Iger said. "It is in many respects our future. But we're not going to abandon our linear or traditional platforms while they can still be a benefit to us and our shareholders."

 

mcdawg22

All-American
Sep 18, 2004
12,595
9,102
113
I would think the new SEC TV contract will be a significant expenditure.