ESPN says no reduction in subscriptions this season despite loss of 23 live PL games
mlt11
Posts: 21,087 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Remember all those posts about how ESPN would lose large numbers of subscribers this season when it went down to 23 live Premier League games (compared to 46 last season)?
And all those posts about how they would have to massively cut prices to retain subscribers?
Well we now have the first official word on the subject from Bob Iger (President and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company). I'll give the full quote as it gives useful further background.
In a presentation on 21 September 2010, he said:
"Yea, the first year of that service, we had the extra package because of the demise of the Setanta platform. And this year, we have one less actually because Sky ended up in the new negotiation with the extra package. And we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that.
ESPN has looked at international markets for a long time for opportunity; they've had a challenge in doing so because of the competition from platform owners who are buying sports to sell subscriptions to their platforms. So it's a difficult thing to compete with when you're not in the platform business.
Specifically they had an opportunity in the UK because of the strength of the Premier League and the fact that one entity, Sky, wasn't going to end up with all of it. And felt that the investment, while not small, was certainly small when you compare it to the investment in other sports that ESPN buys, felt that it was well worth it to go after the marketplace and see whether ESPN could start to build a brand there, knowing that it would basically take a long time and knowing that it wasn't without its challenges and risks.
And they'll continue to look at markets very selectively, but there aren't that many great opportunities. This was one very specific one and they've added to their Premier League rights with some other sports as well, including rugby. And I think we feel good about that initiative."
See link - bottom of page 8 / top of page 9:
http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/presentations/GoldmanSachsCommunacopia-RAI-092110-FINAL.pdf
If anyone is interested the full financial results of The Walt Disney Company (which include ESPN) can be seen below. However unfortunately no separate numbers are given for ESPN UK (though you can see total numbers for the ESPN worldwide business):
http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/quarterly_earnings/2010_q4.pdf
And all those posts about how they would have to massively cut prices to retain subscribers?
Well we now have the first official word on the subject from Bob Iger (President and Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company). I'll give the full quote as it gives useful further background.
In a presentation on 21 September 2010, he said:
"Yea, the first year of that service, we had the extra package because of the demise of the Setanta platform. And this year, we have one less actually because Sky ended up in the new negotiation with the extra package. And we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that.
ESPN has looked at international markets for a long time for opportunity; they've had a challenge in doing so because of the competition from platform owners who are buying sports to sell subscriptions to their platforms. So it's a difficult thing to compete with when you're not in the platform business.
Specifically they had an opportunity in the UK because of the strength of the Premier League and the fact that one entity, Sky, wasn't going to end up with all of it. And felt that the investment, while not small, was certainly small when you compare it to the investment in other sports that ESPN buys, felt that it was well worth it to go after the marketplace and see whether ESPN could start to build a brand there, knowing that it would basically take a long time and knowing that it wasn't without its challenges and risks.
And they'll continue to look at markets very selectively, but there aren't that many great opportunities. This was one very specific one and they've added to their Premier League rights with some other sports as well, including rugby. And I think we feel good about that initiative."
See link - bottom of page 8 / top of page 9:
http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/presentations/GoldmanSachsCommunacopia-RAI-092110-FINAL.pdf
If anyone is interested the full financial results of The Walt Disney Company (which include ESPN) can be seen below. However unfortunately no separate numbers are given for ESPN UK (though you can see total numbers for the ESPN worldwide business):
http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/quarterly_earnings/2010_q4.pdf
0
Comments
If they didn't lose subscribers when they lost half of their most important content, how many subscribers will they gain if they now start adding more content?
The answer is, I suspect, not straightforward.
I suspect the position is that as content increases, demand for ESPN obviously also rises but it almost certainly isn't a linear relationship.
ie with 2 PL packages, Setanta (originally) and then ESPN only really attracted the "hardcore" football fan.
With only one PL package, ESPN has been able to retain all (or almost all) of these hardcore fans.
Returning to 2 PL packages in the future is likely to lead to no significant change. But if they went up to 3 PL packages (and were therefore seen as a viable alternative to Sky Sports, ie not just an add-on for hardcore fans) they may gain a lot of extra subscribers - through many more Sky Sports subscribers who would then deem ESPN to be essential and through switchers from Sky Sports (ie people who may then drop Sky Sports if ESPN was still much cheaper).
So the challenge for ESPN will be to identify which additional rights (ie not just PL football but other football and other sports) really will drive significant additional subscriptions.
The other thing to bear in mind is the importance of non content issues - I suspect the most important are brand, marketing and EPG position - and how ESPN goes about addressing these.
I subscribe to ESPN in the summer, but only for the baseball on ESPN America...i never watch the ESPN channel unless it's airing a baseball game.
As such, my reason for subscribing has zero bearing on how many football games they have or not, as i have no interest in football & certainly wouldn't watch any on tv. Others i know subscribe only for Ice Hockey & just watch that. This may be what is keeping subscription numbers up, rather than football.
I am thinking of the Premier League, SPL, FA Cup, U21 England games, Europa League and Aviva Premiership.
Now I have yet to find out what will happen on Jan 9th as they at present have an FA Cup game and a Aviva Prem game scheduled for the same time.
Yet if say I want to watch SPL on Sky it is on Sky Sports 4, to get that I believe I need to subscribe to Sky Sports1 and 2. So to get SPL on Sky Sports will cost £20.25, or £12 via ESPN. I guess the real keen might pay more for Sky as they have the SPL games.
I DO watch the Rugby on ESPN in this case on Virgin, again depending on my package I am starting at £22.50 for the Sky Sports bundle or £8 for ESPN.
So yes I guess in some ways it would be nice if ESPN got one or two more English Premier league contracts, but if it means a massive hike and games split over two channels, with each channel having individual subscription or combined like Sky, I may think again about who if any I subscribe to.
In case some people here have forgotten we live in a world with economic hardships, and tight budgets. Sure some Sky Sports subscribers may scoff at ESPN, but I wonder how many ESPN subscribers are happy with ESPN becasue it costs less, and still offers the chance to see some live premium sports.
So in my opinion, I would like ESPN to maybe bid for either another English package, the SPL with the Old Firm, or break Sky's monopoly on European Rugby (either Cup or Shield). Or if they were looking for filler content for weekends on a ESPN classic/ESPN2 maybe a Football League or Magners League package.
Although they have not reduced their prices they seem to have endless offers on for Sky and DTT customers.
I think if it was purely a stand alone premium service they would almost certainly have many, many less subcribers.
I would prefer my subscription to be less and not have it included personally.
If I really want to watch a match I go to the pub with my friends. If I really want to watch a film I go to the cinema.
Don't be fooled by paytv!
Yeah because the cinema is so dirt cheap these days...
Cinema - one film is how much?
Here it is £8.50 - basically almost a whole month of ESPN...
That's quite true but more importantly it is football that drives subscriptions, put simply ESPN couldn't survive as a pay channel without football. You are quite likely to spot (to most UK viewers) minority US sports on FTA channels but you won't be seeing live English and Scottish Premier League football FTA anytime soon, and ESPN know that. If those subscription allow them to have a wide portfolio of sports then that is good (even if I have about as much interest in US sports as knitting!)
This is related to the fact that ESPN have lost 23 matches, as it means each team including Wolves are on less.
Anyway I look forward to ESPN covering Wolves, and will watch the FA Cup once subscribed to the channel.
Perhaps 21st September was probably too early to tell. I reckon a lot of people would have gone into this season still subscribing to ESPN and not realising they had lost half their live games.
To put things in perspective for me to subscribe to Sky Sports HD on Virgin would cost considerably more than the total cost of my entire current TV subscription package which includes ESPN and it's spinoffs, 160 other channels, some in HD and loads of on demand content.
Sky Sports is excellent, but at a price.
ESPN is expanding all the time with more rights being added including the FA Cup and Aviva Premiership this season, going some way to making up for the loss of the second Premier League package. Furthermore, I find their coverage to be of very high quality indeed, particularly the rugby. No Andy Gray is also a big plus on the football.
At £9.99 a month is represents excellent value when a single Sky Sports channel would set you back £19.99. (DTT pricing)
Nothing against ESPN still a good channel. Most people I know who had it last season kept it on this year too.
Yes me too i have emailed them to ask them to get nascar but i have had no reply so far.
I agree, as I was offered 4 month free when I rang to cancel ESPN at the end of the last EPL season,that offer ended at the start of September,so when the sub figures mentioned were collated I was still a subscriber but @ £0.00 .
When the offer ended I cancelled,I have had a couple of calls offering ESPM for £4 pm but from my requirements ( I only want EPL) their offering of 23 second rate games is not attractive even at £4 pm
Nail - Head!!!
For a general sports fan like myself, it's stunning value - they've only lost the Monday night PL package anyway - always an anticlimax after the weekend.
But Sky are broadcasting Man United v Arsenal on the Monday night slot tomorrow. Isn't that against the rules for the deal for the Monday night games that ESPN originally gained the rights to. ESPN bid less money and won the deal to broadcast a lower grade of game than Man United v Arsenal that Sky are showing tomorrow at the same timeslot.
Wasn't that the package that Sky weren't really all that bothered about winning the rights to because the timeslot of 8pm on Monday night would have had to involve games between 2 less glamorous sides. Now all of a sudden they make a big thing about the Monday 8pm slot and show games they are not supposed to at that time.
For the price of one game to watch my local team, I could subscribe to all the Sky Sports channels for a month.
And I do.
But I'll say this - the only reason I'm subscribing to Sky Sports on Virgin XL is because ESPN lost 23 games. If ESPN got them back, I'd drop Sky Sports in a heartbeat.
The Monday night games are in Package C which are all 3rd picks.
But the point is that this weekend Sky is exercising 1st, 2nd and 3rd picks so they can (cleverly) choose Man Utd v Arsenal as a 3rd pick game.
Obviously if ESPN still had Package C then Sky would have to have chosen Man Utd v Arsenal as 1st or 2nd pick.
Adding Package C gives Sky an enormous amount more flexibility and control over pick strategy.
phhhtt. 0-0 draw written all over it.