Link

It's $5 a month right? That's $60MM in revenue per year right there from a streaming service. And that's before ESPN has the rights to UFC, even.

(09-20-2018 03:56 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

It's $5 a month right? That's $60MM in revenue per year right there from a streaming service. And that's before ESPN has the rights to UFC, even.

Doubt they'll announce the 50% drop after December 3rd.

(09-20-2018 03:56 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

It's $5 a month right? That's $60MM in revenue per year right there from a streaming service. And that's before ESPN has the rights to UFC, even.

Be careful with that figure they threw out. When they merged ESPN insider with ESPN+, it looks like they counted those as subscribers. I don't believe they would have gotten that many without that merger.

Nonetheless, a decent chunk of revenue for ESPN thus far. Good for ESPN, bad for most everybody else.

If I pay the $5 a month it allows me access to all football games that are available on ESPN? I got rid of cable long time ago and haven't really replaced my sports and I need something bad. This might work if it's available in an app.

(09-20-2018 04:28 PM)TUCandoit Wrote:  If I pay the $5 a month it allows me access to all football games that are available on ESPN? I got rid of cable long time ago and haven't really replaced my sports and I need something bad. This might work if it's available in an app.

You will only be able to watch ESPN+ streams. You cannot watch ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, SEC Network, or ESPN3 streams. You still need a cable provider/steaming service if you're wanting to watch the main ESPN channels.

If most of the AAC games are going to be on ESPN+ and that's primarily what you are wanting to see, then ESPN+ is the way to go.

(09-20-2018 05:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 04:28 PM)TUCandoit Wrote:  If I pay the $5 a month it allows me access to all football games that are available on ESPN? I got rid of cable long time ago and haven't really replaced my sports and I need something bad. This might work if it's available in an app.

You will only be able to watch ESPN+ streams. You cannot watch ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, SEC Network, or ESPN3 streams. You still need a cable provider/steaming service if you're wanting to watch the main ESPN channels.

If most of the AAC games are going to be on ESPN+ and that's primarily what you are wanting to see, then ESPN+ is the way to go.

Possibly in the next deal we will be moving the lesser content to espn+.

ESPN+ looks the ESPN Ocho with a fee. No thanks.

(09-20-2018 04:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:56 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

It's $5 a month right? That's $60MM in revenue per year right there from a streaming service. And that's before ESPN has the rights to UFC, even.

Be careful with that figure they threw out. When they merged ESPN insider with ESPN+, it looks like they counted those as subscribers. I don't believe they would have gotten that many without that merger.

Nonetheless, a decent chunk of revenue for ESPN thus far. Good for ESPN, bad for most everybody else.

Im nost sure---but I was under the impression that wont become effective for several months. My guess is ESPN-Plus has probably had a nice run of subscription sign ups since football season began. College football is going to be their best draw. I imagine they will see some more growth as a number of teams that are members of ESPN+ conferences have probably not yet played an ESPN+ game. Now that the conference season is about to begin---I suspect a number of folks who have avoided singing up will now do so.

(09-20-2018 07:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 04:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:56 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

It's $5 a month right? That's $60MM in revenue per year right there from a streaming service. And that's before ESPN has the rights to UFC, even.

Be careful with that figure they threw out. When they merged ESPN insider with ESPN+, it looks like they counted those as subscribers. I don't believe they would have gotten that many without that merger.

Nonetheless, a decent chunk of revenue for ESPN thus far. Good for ESPN, bad for most everybody else.

Im nost sure---but I was under the impression that wont become effective for several months. My guess is ESPN-Plus has probably had a nice run of subscription sign ups since football season began. College football is going to be their best draw. I imagine they will see some more growth as a number of teams that are members of ESPN+ conferences have probably not yet played an ESPN+ game. Now that the conference season is about to begin---I suspect a number of folks who have avoided singing up will now do so.

Actually, they merged at the end of August so that would be the combined subscriptions.

https://www.si.com/tech-media/2018/08/30...bscription

(09-20-2018 04:07 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:56 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Link

It's $5 a month right? That's $60MM in revenue per year right there from a streaming service. And that's before ESPN has the rights to UFC, even.

Be careful with that figure they threw out. When they merged ESPN insider with ESPN+, it looks like they counted those as subscribers. I don't believe they would have gotten that many without that merger.

Nonetheless, a decent chunk of revenue for ESPN thus far. Good for ESPN, bad for most everybody else.

This. They send me an email saying my insider account was now part of ESPN+ so I get all of it for the same price. So since I have been an insider for a number of years i don't know how that adds up. I mean how many of those accounts are converted insider accounts???? 60%, 70%...90% ??? I will say this though it is more likely I stay an insider now though since they have added ESPN+ content. So maybe it is still positive

So what the hell is ESPN+? I have ESPN3 and most everything relevant is already streamed through that platform.

So what is going on ESPN+?

(09-21-2018 08:56 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  So what the hell is ESPN+? I have ESPN3 and most everything relevant is already streamed through that platform.

So what is going on ESPN+?

Another way for ESPN to make money. It's that simple. They created a streaming service, put content on it, and charge people money for it. Bottom line.

(09-21-2018 09:38 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 08:56 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  So what the hell is ESPN+? I have ESPN3 and most everything relevant is already streamed through that platform.

So what is going on ESPN+?

Another way for ESPN to make money. It's that simple. They created a streaming service, put content on it, and charge people money for it. Bottom line.

From what I can tell, the difference is ESPN3 is part of the same contract as ABC/ESPN/2/U/News. ESPN looks at all the content they've purchased and scatters it across those platforms in order to maximize ratings.

The new ESPN+ is separate from the rest of the ESPN platforms. If you sell your content to ESPN+ it will never be moved to the other platforms, and vice versa. Which can be good if you're a cord cutting FCS fan.

I see it as a preemptive strike at the notion of Netflix/Amazon/Youtube live sports streaming. By gobbling up all the low value sports content, there won't be anything left for ESPN's potential competitors. So ESPN+ doesn't even need to be profitable, if that $5/mo just covers production costs then it's a win for ESPN.

(09-21-2018 08:56 AM)The Knight Time Wrote:  So what the hell is ESPN+? I have ESPN3 and most everything relevant is already streamed through that platform.

So what is going on ESPN+?

It's just another hook, line and sinker that those smarter-than-the-rest-of-us cord cutters are swallowing thinking that they're beating the cable system.