Fox Sports 1 Update

[stever20]

here's the problem of the gloom and doom....

2011-
ESPN with 100 million subscribers. charged 4.69 per subscriber per month. so for the year 56.28 per subscriber. So 5.628 billion dollars in subscriber revenue.
2017
ESPN with 88 million subscribers. charging 7.21 per subscriber per month. so for the year 86.52 per subscriber. So 7.614 billion dollars in subscriber revenue.

So getting almost 2 billion more in subscriber revenue from 6 years ago.

[paulxu]

Why do you axe 100 people if your revenue is up $2 billion?

[Savannah Jay]

here's the problem of the gloom and doom....

2011-
ESPN with 100 million subscribers. charged 4.69 per subscriber per month. so for the year 56.28 per subscriber. So 5.628 billion dollars in subscriber revenue.
2017
ESPN with 88 million subscribers. charging 7.21 per subscriber per month. so for the year 86.52 per subscriber. So 7.614 billion dollars in subscriber revenue.

So getting almost 2 billion more in subscriber revenue from 6 years ago.

And what has happened to ESPN's rights fees in that same time? You know, when running a business you can't just soil yourself over revenue increases because most businesses (okay, all businesses) have expenses, too. So while you are educating us on (fill in the blank...because we always learn from the Stever), Disney CEO Iger is having to respond to his board and analysts about the future of ESPN. Why is that, if revenue is up so much?

As has been pointed out (but you ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrative):
1. ESPN is committed to about $7.3 billion in televised rights fees this year. As they have been leaking subscribers, they have been spending more and more on rights fees. If the subscriber loss trend continues (about 786,000 folks cut the cable in the first quarter this year), there is a reasonable chance that ESPN will be paying more for rights fees than it is getting in cable subscription dollars. This is a significant departure from 2011.
2. Of the 87 million subscribers, about half never watch ESPN.
3. As cord cutting continues and viewers opt for "ala carte" choices, half of the subscribers are "vulnerable" because, if given a choice, they would not choose to pay the $7 a month for a channel they don't watch.
4. ESPN has plenty of resources but even they recognize that their business model needs to change because the landscape of sports broadcasting is changing.

I don't believe I've read any poster suggest ESPN's demise is imminent. However, ESPN being the "sports bully" and being able to do and buy anything they want and expect their cash cow (subscriber fees) to continue as they have in the past is not going to happen. As least the leadership at Disney and Wall Street recognizes that, even if the Stever does not.

EDIT: Corrected spelling of Bob Iger's name (it's not Igor...oops).

[EMT]

And now some streaming services do not include ESPN.....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-streami ... 1494766801

[Xavier4036]

And what has happened to ESPN's rights fees in that same time? You know, when running a business you can't just soil yourself over revenue increases because most businesses (okay, all businesses) have expenses, too. So while you are educating us on (fill in the blank...because we always learn from the Stever), Disney CEO Igor is having to respond to his board and analysts about the future of ESPN. Why is that, if revenue is up so much?

As has been pointed out (but you ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrative):
1. ESPN is committed to about $7.3 billion in televised rights fees this year. As they have been leaking subscribers, they have been spending more and more on rights fees. If the subscriber loss trend continues (about 786,000 folks cut the cable in the first quarter this year), there is a reasonable chance that ESPN will be paying more for rights fees than it is getting in cable subscription dollars. This is a significant departure from 2011.
2. Of the 87 million subscribers, about half never watch ESPN.
3. As cord cutting continues and viewers opt for "ala carte" choices, half of the subscribers are "vulnerable" because, if given a choice, they would not choose to pay the $7 a month for a channel they don't watch.
4. ESPN has plenty of resources but even they recognize that their business model needs to change because the landscape of sports broadcasting is changing.

I don't believe I've read any poster suggest ESPN's demise is imminent. However, ESPN being the "sports bully" and being able to do and buy anything they want and expect their cash cow (subscriber fees) to continue as they have in the past is not going to happen. As least the leadership at Disney and Wall Street recognizes that, even if the Stever does not.

Great stuff here. Facts about the significant challenges of ESPN. Stever's response will be to trash FOX and FS1 in 3...2...1

[MUPanther]

First things First

http://www.foxsports.com/presspass/late ... s-fs1-fall

[BEXU]

here's the problem of the gloom and doom....

2011-
ESPN with 100 million subscribers. charged 4.69 per subscriber per month. so for the year 56.28 per subscriber. So 5.628 billion dollars in subscriber revenue.
2017
ESPN with 88 million subscribers. charging 7.21 per subscriber per month. so for the year 86.52 per subscriber. So 7.614 billion dollars in subscriber revenue.

So getting almost 2 billion more in subscriber revenue from 6 years ago.

Yeah, except they SPENT $7.3 billion on sports content and production last year.

[stever20]

the thing is, folks want to only focus on the number of subscribers, and fail to mention that the amount they get per subscriber has gone up at a far greater pace. So even though they lose 12 million subscribers, they get 2 billion more in revenue from just subscribers. And that's even before you take into account the ad revenues, which are considerable. ESPN still makes money. It's just that the profit margin has gone down.

Also, there are no new rights packages coming up for the next several years. So the rights fees will start to stabilize for ESPN. Will the amount per subscriber continue to increase?

[Savannah Jay]

the thing is, folks want to only focus on the number of subscribers, and fail to mention that the amount they get per subscriber has gone up at a far greater pace. So even though they lose 12 million subscribers, they get 2 billion more in revenue from just subscribers. And that's even before you take into account the ad revenues, which are considerable. ESPN still makes money. It's just that the profit margin has gone down.

Also, there are no new rights packages coming up for the next several years. So the rights fees will start to stabilize for ESPN. Will the amount per subscriber continue to increase?

You can't be this stupid. Folks aren't just focusing on subscribers. Folks talk about subscribers because it's part of the bigger picture of revenues and expenses.

See, the thing you can't seem to grasp, is the relationship between revenues and expenses. If you make $30,000 a year, and all of your expenses add up to $20,000 a year, you are netting $10,000 a year. If you get a raise to $40,000 a year, but go out and buy a bunch of stuff to the point that your expenses are now $38,000 a year, you are not better off even though your "revenue" has gone up 33% because your expenses went up 90%. You used to net $10k a year, now it's $2k. This is an illustration of what's going on at ESPN. Yes, they are still profitable, but not nearly as profitable as they used to be, which has Disney leadership, stockholders, Wall Street analysts, pretty much everyone with a stake in the long term profitability of Disney concerned about the current direction.

[Xavier4036]

Stever, why as a "Georgetown fan" are you continuously coming to a Big East board to tear down FOX/FS1 every chance you can, while propping up ESPN every chance you can?