SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ESPN, which laid off 100 people this week, has a multitude of problems, but the basic one is this: It pays too much for content and costs too much for consumers.
That didn't used to matter because, thanks to the way the cable industry "bundled" channels, cable customers were forced to pay for it even if they never watched it. Now, however, as the cable bundle slowly disintegrates, it matters a lot.
[...] But it's a pipe dream to think that ESPN will ever make the kind of profits ($6.4 billion in 2014) that it once did, for two reasons. First, as is the case with so many other industries, the internet has both shined a light on the flaws of the cable model and exploited them. What was the main flaw of the cable model? It was that consumers had to pay for channels they never watched.
And now they don't.
It turns out that there were lots of people, including sports fans, who resented having to pay for the most expensive channel in the bundle. The popularity of streaming led to "cord cutting," but it also caused cable companies to begin offering less expensive "skinny bundles," some of which don't include ESPN.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:34PM (4 children)
The funny thing is that you usually don't *need* cable TV to watch local team games; they're generally broadcast free OTA.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:14PM (1 child)
you usually don't *need* cable TV to watch local team games; they're generally broadcast free OTA.
Unless you're a fan of
A. a player who was traded to a non-local club,
B. the club of the non-local college that you attended or that your son or daughter attends,
C. a club from which you moved away following a shift in the job market, or
D. your local non-football club whose matches are shown on some regional cable sports network instead of OTA [slashdot.org].
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:29PM
A, B, C, and D are all not exceptions to my post, which specifically referred to "local team games".
In any event, you're right that there are use cases not covered by OTA broadcasts, but even if sports viewers who watch local teams aren't the majority (which I seriously doubt), they certainly make up a large enough segment of the viewing public to really hurt if they disappear from the customer list of the cable networks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:42PM (1 child)
Not in my area. There is the standard "big three" network NFL games on Sunday, but almost all the baseball, basketball, and hockey games are carried on the regional sports network cable station. For instance, you get one baseball game a week OTA where I live, and I'm in the overlapping market of two MLB teams. ESPN moved essentially the entire college football postseason off ABC and over to cable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:19PM
And I am thankful for this change. I remember when I was a kid in the 80's and baseball was on all the time. WUAB in Cleveland ran Indians games constantly despite the fact there were only 6 people in the stands. By the time the Series began in the fall, I was sick to death of baseball. Not everyone feels like every single game is a "can't miss" event when there will be yet another one tomorrow night. I feel no compulsion to memorize statistics, players, or anything else spectator sports related. In fact, I just don't give a shit.
Rising cable costs, driven by unavoidable sports bundles, caused me to jump ship years ago. Now I stand back and laugh as the sports Ponzi begins its inevitable crumble. As more and more people like me pull out of subsidizing the sports junkies' fixes, sports addicts are forced to bear their own full cost of the greed they fostered among players and owners alike. Eventually, the price themselves out of the market. That's where professional sports are headed. Demand is not completely inelastic even among the addicts.