Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Can ESPN Survive As Cable TV Fades?

jayboogieman
 Share

Recommended Posts

kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I listen to ESPN radio basically every Monday through Friday in the mornings and sometimes afternoons. Seeing as I've cut cable years ago, I can't speak for TV. 

ESPN is living on borrowed time as an industry titan. They had a window about a decade ago to adapt to the changing landscape of the viewership and they did not. 

It isn’t us that will decide our fate(those that grew up with them as a staple) it's the next generation that doesn't pay for cable and doesn’t pay for expensive streaming packages that include ESPN.

And that is why they will fail.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

ESPN is living on borrowed time as an industry titan. They had a window about a decade ago to adapt to the changing landscape of the viewership and they did not. 

It isn’t us that will decide our fate(those that grew up with them as a staple) it's the next generation that doesn't pay for cable and doesn’t pay for expensive streaming packages that include ESPN.

And that is why they will fail.

I think that it's all going to depend upon pricing. If customers perceive that value is there, then maybe they'll go for it. I am somewhat interested in a DTC approach, but I'm not interested in paying a lot for content (or similar content) that is free. All of the technology advances were supposed to make things more economical for the consumer, but things like YouTube TV, Direct TV and cable in general, as well as online and wireless services, seem to be providing less value to me. As long as that's the case, I'll pay the decidedly exorbitant price for Internet only and listen to free streaming via radio apps and watch free content across social media. These cable companies and apps that provide services that I have to pay for can kick rocks. They take EVERY opportunity to raise our prices when advances in technology makes things cheaper for them. I currently feel compelled to pay Spectrum for Internet, have had Netflix since they mailed DVDs because I like their catalogue and its convenience. And that's all I personally pay for. Now of course my son pays for Amazon Prime (which allows another person in the same household to share the service). I probably would pay for Prime if I had to (but they're getting annoying with ads), and my wife has been making noise about getting Walmart+ (but apparently tips are expected which has helped me stave that off). Between Netflix, Amazon, social media and a few other sources that I'm privy to, I have plenty of content, including sports content. ESPN radio is currently free (with adds) on TuneIn and Iheart Radio. I'm not interested in paying any more than $10 per month for streaming apps, and I don't believe that I should have to pay any more than $30 for cable or cable-like streaming services that include ESPN or NFLN. Seeing that none of that is happening, they can all kick rocks. Value (and really "principle") is the name of the game for me.

Oh, yeah, I also pay for PlayStation network, but with their price increases, I might kick them to the curb as well. A gaming PC and Steam seems like it may be a better value at this point.

Edited by top dawg
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kungfoodude Grand Master

kungfoodude

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, top dawg said:

I think that it's all going to depend upon pricing. If customers perceive that value is there, then maybe they'll go for it. I am somewhat interested in a DTC approach, but I'm not interested in paying a lot for content (or similar content) that is free. All of the technology advances were supposed to make things more economical for the consumer, but things like YouTube TV, Direct TV and cable in general, as well as online and wireless services, seem to be providing less value to me. As long as that's the case, I'll pay the decidedly exorbitant price for Internet only and listen to free streaming via radio apps and watch free content across social media. These cable companies and apps that provide services that I have to pay for can kick rocks. They take EVERY opportunity to raise our prices when advances in technology makes things cheaper for them. I currently feel compelled to pay Spectrum for Internet, have had Netflix since they mailed DVDs because I like their catalogue and its convenience. And that's all I personally pay for. Now of course my son pays for Amazon Prime (which allows another person in the same household to share the service). I probably would pay for Prime if I had to (but they're getting annoying with ads), and my wife has been making noise about getting Walmart+ (but apparently tips are expected which has helped me stave that off). Between Netflix, Amazon, social media and a few other sources that I'm privy to, I have plenty of content, including sports content. ESPN radio is currently free (with adds) on TuneIn and Iheart Radio. I'm not interested in paying any more than $10 per month for streaming apps, and I don't believe that I should have to pay any more than $30 for cable or cable-like streaming services that include ESPN or NFLN. Seeing that none of that is happening, they can all kick rocks. Value (and really "principle") is the name of the game for me.

Oh, yeah, I also pay for PlayStation network, but with their price increases, I might kick them to the curb as well. A gaming PC and Steam seems like it may be a better value at this point.

That's exactly what I mean, I know very few under 30's that pay for cable or the streaming equivalent. They piecemeal or share regular streaming services but not many are willing to pull the trigger on expensive options just to watch sports. They steal or avoid them.

As I said, the foundation is older Millenials to Boomers. As they age or die out, they will not be replaced. ESPN is majorly fuged.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shocker Grand Master

Shocker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Strange when I see this…seems to disagree:

The College Football Playoff and ESPN announced a $7.8 billion deal Tuesday that will give the network exclusive rights to the expanded postseason through the 2031 season, with the national championship game moving to ABC starting in 2026.

Edited by Shocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

That's exactly what I mean, I know very few under 30's that pay for cable or the streaming equivalent. They piecemeal or share regular streaming services but not many are willing to pull the trigger on expensive options just to watch sports. They steal or avoid them.

As I said, the foundation is older Millenials to Boomers. As they age or die out, they will not be replaced. ESPN is majorly fuged.


The only people still subscribing to cable or listening to radio are boomers/gen X.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Luuuuuuuuuuke59
      Crazy stat

      By Luuuuuuuuuuke59 · Posted

      The bottom lines to me are that a) we played well enough to beat the best team in the league and b) Bryce Young is growing into a bridge QB role (his ceiling) for us. As much as I don't want BY around after the season, it seems DC can still build the O with a game manager at QB for now. Best case scanario, we can build the D through the draft this year and take a QB we have conviction outside the 1st this or next draft. If BY keeps improving, we are going to win a couple more games this year.
    • *FreeFua*
      Bryce developing before our eyes

      By *FreeFua* · Posted

      Bryce has been a completely different QB since coming back. That started in Denver where it was obviously he was playing a lot more loose and willing to push the ball downfield  Bryce continues to build off of the previous weeks performance and that’s what you want to see Bryce has been making some real good anticipation throws. Reading defenses well. Pushing the ball downfield (7 throws of 20+ air yards yesterday. 8 if you want to include PI to Thielen). The deep ball accuracy has been there. Some of Young’s best throws yesterday were incompletions. Sideline balls to XL and Moore both should’ve been caught. RZ dot to Tremble should’ve been caught. And another RZ ball to Moore that Young gave him a chance at. Bryce is starting to execute Canales offense and yesterday Canales finally opened it up a bit. Canales was to blame for the 126 passing yards in Germany as he played a more conservative game.  The next bit I’m looking for his for Young to be a bit more decisive with running the ball. Start putting that on film and it’ll help open things up a tad
    • 45catfan
      Gameday Thread: KC-CAR

      By 45catfan · Posted

      This KC team isn't the juggernaut it once was.  How many one score games have they won this season?  How many of those one score wins would probably have been loses if Mahomes wasn't the QB?  Their secondary is vulnerable and it was obvious today.  Grandpa Thielen was able to get open at will all game long. Bryce played well, but thinking this is the exact same KC defense Young was able to move the ball against as last year isn't going to compute.  Last year's KC defense was #2 overall.  They have regressed. I've said it before, Bryce can move the ball before the red zone, but once there, he struggles.  He is not a threat with his legs and the passing windows get much tighter.  He's not turning the ball over, so that is a great place to start and build upon.  I still question much better he can get.  Beyond a game manager?  I highly doubt it.
×
×
  • Create New...