How Watching 'Unbundled' ESPN and AMC Could Cost More Than Your Whole Cable Bill

Re:How Watching 'Unbundled' ESPN and AMC Could Cost More Tha... by jdminhbg on Thursday July 18, 2013 @01:29PM (#6065105)

> I'm a sports fan, yet like many other sports fans, I consider ESPN to be borderline unwatchable. The only thing I care to watch are actual game broadcasts. And what happens when wider direct distribution means that the sports world no longer needs ESPN's cable reach to get to viewers?

I agree with you about the quality of non-game broadcasts on ESPN, but I think this is sort of exactly why it's not more profitable for leagues to sell directly to consumers. The major networks pay a price for broadcast rights that is greater than what they make in just advertising during those events because they use the NFL/MLB/etc to prop up the rest of their programming.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Watching 'Unbundled' ESPN and AMC Could Cost More Tha... by untog on Thursday July 18, 2013 @02:32PM (#6065513)

The major networks pay a price for broadcast rights that is greater than what they make in just advertising during those events

...and when the major networks can no longer afford those fees, the prices will drop. It's a market, and if ESPN loses a ton of money at the same time as every other purchaser does, the leagues are going to have to change their fee models or find themselves with no coverage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Watching 'Unbundled' ESPN and AMC Could Cost More Tha... by rhizome on Thursday July 18, 2013 @02:42PM (#6065586)

I think this is sort of exactly why it's not more profitable for leagues to sell directly to consumers

Well yeah, forcing every cable customer to subsidize your multi-channel mandatory presence in basic packages is going to be "more profitable" to ESPN than becoming a selection that has to compete for optional package selection. I don't think the advantage of this arrangement for ESPN is any question to anybody.

[ Parent | on HN ]