The worse thing is that there is almost no reason to watch ESPN any longer. Sportscenter is for the most part terrible these days, with very low signal-to-noise ratio. Most of the other ESPN programming isn't worth watching, outside of the actual sporting events that they have broadcast rights to, and some niche content like the 30 for 30 documentaries.<p>Of course this is also the doldrum period of the sports year, with football long over, and basketball and hockey in their offseasons also. Baseball just doesn't do it, and ESPN has to fill up the air-time covering tennis and golf in excruciating detail.
As a huge American football fan, I don't want an ESPN streaming service. Cut out the middle man, give me an NFL games streaming service. The NFL could be innovative and do this now, but like ESPN they will ride out the cable model until something needs to be done financially. And with no competition, I guess that's the right thing to do for them. But it sucks to be a fan without cable.
The situation is reminiscent of the newspaper industry, particularly with respect to the significant contribution of a entity to the parent's bottom line. For their entire existence, newspapers have relied on lucrative content, eg, real estate or auto classifieds, cross-subsidizing the rest of the paper. As the internet and smartphone apps came along, the bundle fell apart and migrated into separate services online. New providers captured the lucrative markets and their revenues, removing the ability of newspapers to continue cross-subsidizing the actual news. [1]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news" rel="nofollow">http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news</a>
I think only half of this is ESPN, the other half is professional sports leagues which negotiate contracts that prevent networks from providing alternative broadcast methods. If they could, Fox/NBC/CBS Sports I am sure would not hesitate to offer streaming services to undercut ESPN (granted there is Fox Sports GO and NBC extra time for EPL, but they are more limited than their full channels). But the sports leagues they negotiate with won't allow it.<p>If I were ESPN, I'd ride it out. Sure you may lose compare to the old TV hegemony you had, but you'd never make it up from the streaming side while leagues have their own services.
I would gladly pay 30-40/mo if I could watch the sports I want online streaming through one service.<p>I watch EPL Football and American College Football (along with the World Cup / Euros every other 2 years).<p>With over the air ABC moved more and more games to ESPN, which is now coming back to bite them. Canceled cable in 2006 after the World Cup, tried a few online services but they were all terrible. I think 40/mo should more than cover my viewing. Funny thing is, I get it all for free now. Yet I'd prefer to pay.
Sports are the most popular thing on TV but the reach is about 40% and probably headed down. Video games scratch a similar itch and a gen xer or anybody younger with a serious gaming habit is watching less sports, if any. They are making it harder and harder to watch the games which I think means fewer people will start a sports habit.
ESPN might be going away...or at least will need to change their modus operandi? I say GOOD. While I like to watch the occasional big event like World Cup, etc. I am not much of a big sports watcher...and when I had my cable subscription - including premium channels such as HBO, Showtime - Cablevision added an additional $4 per month surcharge specifically and only for ESPN! I clearly understand that if a network considers itself premium and they have content that is in high demand, they would want to charge more. This is why HBO cost a bunch more...but at least i had a choice: if i didn't want HBO (or some other premium bundle), I just didn't get that package and done I save money. But with networks like ESPN which are part of the core offering, you're forced to pay the fee. I asked my provider to exclude ESPN so i wouldn't have to pay that surcharge, but they couldn't again because they bundle channels due to contracts, etc. I get that; not ideal but i understand. My provider is Cablevision, and some (though not all) of their fees are a little steep, I can't complain about their service - both human side and system availability/up-time. But the underlying networks like ESPN seem to be the prima donnas that are pushing the envelope in a negative direction.<p>That ESPN surcharge was the actual last straw that pushed me over to the cord-cutting side...and you know what, I don't miss ESPN at all. If ESPN goes away (I know, I know unlikely), or at least diminishes its control over other media providers, etc. then I call this market forces merely bringing their invisible hands to balance the market/industry/economy; and I don't see a problem with that.
Let me see if I understand this...<p>> The financial stakes are especially high for ESPN because it earns the most carriage fees of any TV channel, about $6.61 a month per subscriber<p>I have no interest in televised sports. But if I had a cable package I'd be paying ESPN almost $80 a year? Whether I watch sports or not?<p>Now I'm glad I don't have cable TV, just a cable modem. I'll take the $80 over those sports broadcasts I don't care about, thank you.
ESPN are atm really bad at online. I want to give them money to watch college football (it doesn't air on normal TV in Europe obv except the odd game).<p>Their price is ok (20 euro a month or so) but their app is completely broken. On iPad it kicks me out every few mins claiming I logged in somewhere else (I didn't). They had major issues with the streaming. The app is not searchable in a meaningful way.<p>Last two years I have paid them for the first month but have ended up using pirated streams/YouTube instead to even get to watch the games and then cancelling in frustration.<p>Before they are ready to move to an online first model they have a bunch of work to do. It is clear it is not a focus at the moment at least.
They ended their NASCAR contract with the 2014 season, so I would imagine some of those fans dropped ESPN for NBC Sports and Fox Sports. Also, ESPN's reporting from Sports Center (not their actual track coverage) is more sensationalist than TMZ, and the E has been overshadowing the S in their name for a while.<p>ESPN will lose the major sports to their own channels in the coming years. If ESPN is going to survive they need to become the "every other sport" network and learn to respect and promote the sports that won't defect to their own streaming services.
The future is seasonal packages over streaming by sport. I would probably subscribe to the Tour de France (oh wait, already do that) and college football (want this).
They need to pick up e-sports before Twitch and YouTube eat them alive.<p>This year The International, the annual Dota 2 "tournament of tournaments", will have a prize pool surpassing 15 million dollars. Last year's tournament reached 20 million unique viewers and peaked at 2 million concurrent.