All my footballing needs are catered for by Sky Sports, so I'm not really bothered ESPN's coverage of live games has lessened. I subscribe to ESPN for US Sports (like College Football) and UFC.
It's interesting that whilst they say they have'nt lost any subscribers they dont say if thev'e gained any either. If they had, I would suspect that they would publicise it.
From a personal perspective, I wasn't tempted by what they had on offer for £10 a month then Sky called to offer me a 3 month deal at £5 a month.
As the GF is a big Liverpool fan its been okay as ESPN have them quite a lot (shows how far Liverpool have fallen lately!) on Sat teatime and some Europa games.
However, I barely watch it and will be ringing them in a couple of days to give 1 months notice.
I think that with only 23 EPL games they will struggle to pull in large subscriber numbers.
People talk as if the Foreign football and Aviva Premiership rugby is a fair replacement for the 23 EPL games they lost.
It isn't, check out the viewing figures for AP rugby games on ESPN, They are pitiful. The bottom line is, It's still a minority sport
I watched a couple of the games and they were absolutely awful and not such a big draw/carrot for the casual fan or potential subscriber. The Leeds-Sale game was the worst game of any code iv'e ever seen.
Just had an e-mail from Sky offering me ESPN free for two months.The offer runs out on January 10. Haven't really seen anything on ESPN that would attract me, they don't seem to get any of the big Premier matches.
How does it do on Sky? Don't they own half the rights too?
It gets around 100-150K. It not a big draw for Sky either, ranking below darts, Superleague and Spanish football etc.
The Heineken cup usually gets twice as many viewers and England AI's around 500K.
I think thats why Sky were happy to keep as many AP games as before and let ESPN have the extra games included in the new deal. http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership/rugby/story/88188.html
ESPN have 43 AP games including the Final and Sky have 26.
Its a bigger commitment for ESPN than Sky but i'm not sure it's paid off for them!
In terms of English club rugby, it does not seem to get on Sky Sports Top 10.
But, European Rugby seems to get twice the amount that ESPN's domestic coverage gets.
But coverage is in ESPN's Top 5.
I think it does need a second English Premier package, maybe Old Firm SPL and to attract other sports fans, break the European Rugby hold that Sky has, Cup would be the dream contract but think European Shield may tempt some in.
Guess, for Sky and Rugby the real deal broker is England Autumn Internationals and the Lions. Southern Hemisphere tours.
Was surprised with ESPN in South America having rights to Argentina, that ESPN UK did not show the Argentina v Scotland tests, though they were on BBC Scotland with ESPN branding.
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.
Some like me, only just realised that today from this post.
Its not so bad though as there is plenty of german, italian and scottish football too.
Although the figures are low for rugby union, it does tend attract a more affluent and 'targetable' demographic and is associated with premium brands, e.g. Land Rover, Investment companies, and so on.
Although the figures are low for rugby union, it does tend attract a more affluent and 'targetable' demographic and is associated with premium brands, e.g. Land Rover, Investment companies, and so on.
Its always been viewed as an upper class sport but ticket prices are dirt cheap for most club games.
When Saracens play at Wembley on boxing day you could get a ticket for £5!
break the European Rugby hold that Sky has, Cup would be the dream contract but think European Shield may tempt some in.
I think they might be interested in the HC but the Amlin cup is a 2nd rate tournament.
Its made up of the Bottom half of the French and English, leagues, the poorest irish provence and padded out with mickey mouse teams form Spain and Romainia amongst other.
It livens up a bit at the QF stage but it never appears in the Sky top10 viewing lists and only really appeals to diehard rugby fans.
I think if it wasn't lumped in with the HC contract it would struggle to get a decent TV deal.
"And we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that.''
Growth has gone up for the XL package so it means overall ESPN has lost paying Sky customers while gaining new ones with VM. With less premiership games it will also mean less money from commercial rights with some of the loss being made up with extra rugby and FA rights.
Growth has gone up for the XL package so it means overall ESPN has lost paying Sky customers while gaining new ones with VM. With less premiership games it will also mean less money from commercial rights with some of the loss being made up with extra rugby and FA rights.
ESPN was referring to subscribers and XL viewers are not subscribers. ESPN have sold their channel at a price to Virgin.
Lower package Virgin viewers would subscribe to ESPN.
ESPN was referring to subscribers and XL viewers are not subscribers. ESPN have sold their channel at a price to Virgin.
Lower package Virgin viewers would subscribe to ESPN.
Top Up tv are subscribers too.
If a VM customers has a lower package than XL but pays for ESPN then it will be a paying customer so it will count the XL customers it has.
Setanta and ITV Digital always used to count customers receiving the channel even if it was part of a deal where the broadcaster received less.
ESPN has also had to make offers like the first 3 months free at the start of the football season which will have lost it money compared to last year.
Growth has gone up for the XL package so it means overall ESPN has lost paying Sky customers while gaining new ones with VM. With less premiership games it will also mean less money from commercial rights with some of the loss being made up with extra rugby and FA rights.
Is this thread back up due to a new article about ESPN potentially sealing more EPL packs from Sky next year?
ESPN was referring to subscribers and XL viewers are not subscribers. ESPN have sold their channel at a price to Virgin.
Lower package Virgin viewers would subscribe to ESPN.
Where do ESPN claim that? Previous broadcasters have always added up every type of subscriber.
ESPN get more money for every extra XL viewer so with XL viewers growing it should have been able to claim the number of viewers was up.
It never mentioned that revenues were up because if it was losing Sky customers and only gaining XL ones it will end up losing revenue as the XL deal pays less and it has had to make more offers like 3 months for free to Sky subscribers.
Where do ESPN claim that? Previous broadcasters have always added up every type of subscriber.
ESPN get more money for every extra XL viewer so with XL viewers growing it should have been able to claim the number of viewers was up.
It never mentioned that revenues were up because if it was losing Sky customers and only gaining XL ones it will end up losing revenue as the XL deal pays less and it has had to make more offers like 3 months for free to Sky subscribers.
doh does not common sense say so? anyway who says you know better anyway.
"And we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that."
He doesn't say anything which remotely suggests that direct subscriber numbers have fallen but these have been offset by an increase in VM XL customers.
In any case the revenue ESPN will get from each VM XL customer is tiny compared to direct paying subscribers. So Iger would have no interest in such a calculation - he will be interested almost entirely in ESPN's revenues.
As for industry practice, Sky don't include VM customers when they report subscriber numbers so why should ESPN? Like Sky, ESPN is a serious operator.
Setanta may have chosen to issue press releases about how many homes had access in order to attempt to sound impressive but so what?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, if there had been a fall in revenue then Iger's comments would actually be extremely misleading and as a Board member of a Public company he DARE NOT DO THAT.
It never mentioned that revenues were up because if it was losing Sky customers and only gaining XL ones it will end up losing revenue as the XL deal pays less and it has had to make more offers like 3 months for free to Sky subscribers.
-ESPN state "we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that".
-Sky results for the 12 months ended 30 June 2010 indicate that Sky treat the retail relationship with ESPN as third-party-channel costs.
-Sky results for the six months ended 31 December 2010 indicate increase in third-party channel costs (due to an increased number of HD channels).
What do you think would have happened to third-party channel costs if there had been a significant drop of ESPN subscribers via Sky?
Because Sky have their own TV platform and ESPN don't!
Both Setanta and ITV Digital would count every subscriber whether they were part of a package deal or even if they were getting it for free or a discount.
-ESPN state "we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that".
-Sky results for the 12 months ended 30 June 2010 indicate that Sky treat the retail relationship with ESPN as third-party-channel costs.
-Sky results for the six months ended 31 December 2010 indicate increase in third-party channel costs (due to an increased number of HD channels).
What do you think would have happened to third-party channel costs if there had been a significant drop of ESPN subscribers via Sky?
Costs will be what ESPN pays to Sky. With a new HD channel in its package it will cost more on the Sky service to sell. If Sky has seen a rise in costs it will be because of what ESPN pays it per subscriber.
Sky has been heavily advertising ESPN increasing the costs and ESPN has been willing to give its channels to all of its customers for the first 3 months of the football season for free while still paying Sky.
Comments
From a personal perspective, I wasn't tempted by what they had on offer for £10 a month then Sky called to offer me a 3 month deal at £5 a month.
As the GF is a big Liverpool fan its been okay as ESPN have them quite a lot (shows how far Liverpool have fallen lately!) on Sat teatime and some Europa games.
However, I barely watch it and will be ringing them in a couple of days to give 1 months notice.
I think that with only 23 EPL games they will struggle to pull in large subscriber numbers.
People talk as if the Foreign football and Aviva Premiership rugby is a fair replacement for the 23 EPL games they lost.
It isn't, check out the viewing figures for AP rugby games on ESPN, They are pitiful. The bottom line is, It's still a minority sport
I watched a couple of the games and they were absolutely awful and not such a big draw/carrot for the casual fan or potential subscriber. The Leeds-Sale game was the worst game of any code iv'e ever seen.
I would say it's not. EPL, SPL, Europa League and FA Cup is still a very good line up. Foreign Football is a filler.
Where's the viewers for AP rugby on ESPN?
From Barb: Games listed in multiples of 10K
(note:some weeks ESPN doesn't provide a top10)
82, 73, 51, 40, 68, 45, 28, 19, 68, 41
Average AP rugby veiwers on ESPN = 51,500.
Not very many! How is that a major sport?
Rugby does not appeal to me.
How does it do on Sky? Don't they own half the rights too?
I'm not surprised it does not do well most people probably add ESPN for Football or to get ESPN America for the US sport.
They also launched ESPN America HD this year too so that's probably why people they also have not had a loss in customers.
It gets around 100-150K. It not a big draw for Sky either, ranking below darts, Superleague and Spanish football etc.
The Heineken cup usually gets twice as many viewers and England AI's around 500K.
I think thats why Sky were happy to keep as many AP games as before and let ESPN have the extra games included in the new deal.
http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership/rugby/story/88188.html
ESPN have 43 AP games including the Final and Sky have 26.
Its a bigger commitment for ESPN than Sky but i'm not sure it's paid off for them!
But, European Rugby seems to get twice the amount that ESPN's domestic coverage gets.
But coverage is in ESPN's Top 5.
I think it does need a second English Premier package, maybe Old Firm SPL and to attract other sports fans, break the European Rugby hold that Sky has, Cup would be the dream contract but think European Shield may tempt some in.
Guess, for Sky and Rugby the real deal broker is England Autumn Internationals and the Lions. Southern Hemisphere tours.
Was surprised with ESPN in South America having rights to Argentina, that ESPN UK did not show the Argentina v Scotland tests, though they were on BBC Scotland with ESPN branding.
Some like me, only just realised that today from this post.
Its not so bad though as there is plenty of german, italian and scottish football too.
Its always been viewed as an upper class sport but ticket prices are dirt cheap for most club games.
When Saracens play at Wembley on boxing day you could get a ticket for £5!
Considering ticket prices for large Premier league clubs you have to be pretty affluent to afford a ticket.
http://www.thesportsboxoffice.com/All+Sports/Football/Premier+League/Arsenal+FC/Arsenal+v+Stoke+City/
Also, I think any advertiser would run away screaming when shown the ESPN audience figures!
I think they might be interested in the HC but the Amlin cup is a 2nd rate tournament.
Its made up of the Bottom half of the French and English, leagues, the poorest irish provence and padded out with mickey mouse teams form Spain and Romainia amongst other.
There are a lot of Cricket score mismatchs and some very low crowds.
http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/matchcentre/amlin_challenge_cup_fixtures.php
It livens up a bit at the QF stage but it never appears in the Sky top10 viewing lists and only really appeals to diehard rugby fans.
I think if it wasn't lumped in with the HC contract it would struggle to get a decent TV deal.
Growth has gone up for the XL package so it means overall ESPN has lost paying Sky customers while gaining new ones with VM. With less premiership games it will also mean less money from commercial rights with some of the loss being made up with extra rugby and FA rights.
ESPN was referring to subscribers and XL viewers are not subscribers. ESPN have sold their channel at a price to Virgin.
Lower package Virgin viewers would subscribe to ESPN.
Top Up tv are subscribers too.
If a VM customers has a lower package than XL but pays for ESPN then it will be a paying customer so it will count the XL customers it has.
Setanta and ITV Digital always used to count customers receiving the channel even if it was part of a deal where the broadcaster received less.
ESPN has also had to make offers like the first 3 months free at the start of the football season which will have lost it money compared to last year.
Is this thread back up due to a new article about ESPN potentially sealing more EPL packs from Sky next year?
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1430903
You are, of course, correct.
Where do ESPN claim that? Previous broadcasters have always added up every type of subscriber.
ESPN get more money for every extra XL viewer so with XL viewers growing it should have been able to claim the number of viewers was up.
It never mentioned that revenues were up because if it was losing Sky customers and only gaining XL ones it will end up losing revenue as the XL deal pays less and it has had to make more offers like 3 months for free to Sky subscribers.
doh does not common sense say so? anyway who says you know better anyway.
"And we haven't actually seen any decrease in subscriptions because of that."
He doesn't say anything which remotely suggests that direct subscriber numbers have fallen but these have been offset by an increase in VM XL customers.
In any case the revenue ESPN will get from each VM XL customer is tiny compared to direct paying subscribers. So Iger would have no interest in such a calculation - he will be interested almost entirely in ESPN's revenues.
As for industry practice, Sky don't include VM customers when they report subscriber numbers so why should ESPN? Like Sky, ESPN is a serious operator.
Setanta may have chosen to issue press releases about how many homes had access in order to attempt to sound impressive but so what?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, if there had been a fall in revenue then Iger's comments would actually be extremely misleading and as a Board member of a Public company he DARE NOT DO THAT.
Sure that's a difference but the points in my post above stand.
Iger simply cannot mislead investors. It is as simple as that.
-Sky results for the 12 months ended 30 June 2010 indicate that Sky treat the retail relationship with ESPN as third-party-channel costs.
-Sky results for the six months ended 31 December 2010 indicate increase in third-party channel costs (due to an increased number of HD channels).
What do you think would have happened to third-party channel costs if there had been a significant drop of ESPN subscribers via Sky?
Both Setanta and ITV Digital would count every subscriber whether they were part of a package deal or even if they were getting it for free or a discount.
Costs will be what ESPN pays to Sky. With a new HD channel in its package it will cost more on the Sky service to sell. If Sky has seen a rise in costs it will be because of what ESPN pays it per subscriber.
Sky has been heavily advertising ESPN increasing the costs and ESPN has been willing to give its channels to all of its customers for the first 3 months of the football season for free while still paying Sky.