SBJ reported this today.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Da...itaro.aspx

Not sure it's anything earth-shattering, but Burke Mangus will be the "president of content." He's basically #2 behind Jimmy Pitaro. Mangus' old role will be filled by Rosalyn Durant...programming and rights acquisitions.

Well, decided to take a quick look at Durant since I was unfamiliar with her. Apparently she used to head up ESPN's college networks and was instrumental in launching the ACC Network. Variety reports as well not that.

According to SBJ, she'll be splitting time between Bristol and Charlotte after more recently working in Disney's parks division. That little aspect is somewhat interesting to me as the Charlotte studios obviously house the SEC Network. It's not like ESPN doesn't own other facilities so I'm curious why Charlotte would be such a key site for an executive. I'm sure it has something to do with ESPN's unique commitment to college sports, but it could also signal more operations being moved to Charlotte at some point.

Disney also announced the other day that ESPN would be in its own unit. The 2nd Variety article breaks down implications of that. Basically, one of these days ESPN is going to be a streaming-first entity, but Disney has no plans to sell it off.

Just some interesting news and notes along with general speculation that ESPN will be more careful with rights fees going forward.

ESPN just seems doomed in the new age of streaming. I'd hate to see it go as I prefer cable to streaming.

ESPN+ is a good stepping stone. Though I don't understand why Disney doesn't cross promote games they own. Why not offer some ESPN+ games to Hulu. Maybe even a few games before on Disney+. It would seem like a way to bring in a new fan base for sports.

I appreciate your sharing this information. An informative post!

(03-02-2023 12:32 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  SBJ reported this today.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Da...itaro.aspx

Not sure it's anything earth-shattering, but Burke Mangus will be the "president of content." He's basically #2 behind Jimmy Pitaro. Mangus' old role will be filled by Rosalyn Durant...programming and rights acquisitions.

Well, decided to take a quick look at Durant since I was unfamiliar with her. Apparently she used to head up ESPN's college networks and was instrumental in launching the ACC Network. Variety reports as well not that.

According to SBJ, she'll be splitting time between Bristol and Charlotte after more recently working in Disney's parks division. That little aspect is somewhat interesting to me as the Charlotte studios obviously house the SEC Network. It's not like ESPN doesn't own other facilities so I'm curious why Charlotte would be such a key site for an executive. I'm sure it has something to do with ESPN's unique commitment to college sports, but it could also signal more operations being moved to Charlotte at some point.

Disney also announced the other day that ESPN would be in its own unit. The 2nd Variety article breaks down implications of that. Basically, one of these days ESPN is going to be a streaming-first entity, but Disney has no plans to sell it off.

Just some interesting news and notes along with general speculation that ESPN will be more careful with rights fees going forward.

The ACC and its network are now headquartered in Charlotte as well.

As Ms Rosalyn Durant helped launch the ACC Network and continues to work in sports content acquisition, expect her to know contract terms as well as anybody. This includes grants of rights, both notorious and non-notorious.

In the bigger picture, Mr Bob Iger appears determined to position ESPN as an international player for NBA streaming.

(03-02-2023 01:24 AM)46566 Wrote:  ESPN+ is a good stepping stone. Though I don't understand why Disney doesn't cross promote games they own. Why not offer some ESPN+ games to Hulu. Maybe even a few games before on Disney+. It would seem like a way to bring in a new fan base for sports.

The ESPN-NHL deal actually has a package that's on Hulu.

We have Hulu Live TV+ and that also integrates ESPN+ if you have subscriptions to both services. The ESPN+ games will pop up on the "Sports" section on Hulu Live TV+ and you can watch them directly on Hulu as opposed to having to open up the ESPN+ app separately.

The big question for Disney is whether it makes sense to continue to have 3 separate streaming services (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+) in the US or have everything put together into one huge Disney+ service. Note that in most other countries, Disney puts *everything* onto Disney+ (sports, R-rated moves, etc.) and they sell only that single streaming service. They haven't done that here because the Disney brand in the US has a certain family-friendly reputation that they want to protect (whereas they aren't as skittish about that in other countries).

(03-02-2023 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:24 AM)46566 Wrote:  ESPN+ is a good stepping stone. Though I don't understand why Disney doesn't cross promote games they own. Why not offer some ESPN+ games to Hulu. Maybe even a few games before on Disney+. It would seem like a way to bring in a new fan base for sports.

The ESPN-NHL deal actually has a package that's on Hulu.

We have Hulu Live TV+ and that also integrates ESPN+ if you have subscriptions to both services. The ESPN+ games will pop up on the "Sports" section on Hulu Live TV+ and you can watch them directly on Hulu as opposed to having to open up the ESPN+ app separately.

The big question for Disney is whether it makes sense to continue to have 3 separate streaming services (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+) in the US or have everything put together into one huge Disney+ service. Note that in most other countries, Disney puts *everything* onto Disney+ (sports, R-rated moves, etc.) and they sell only that single streaming service. They haven't done that here because the Disney brand in the US has a certain family-friendly reputation that they want to protect (whereas they aren't as skittish about that in other countries).

Disney has at least two, maybe 3 markets - those that stream Disney specific content & have no interest in sports, those that have strictly sports interests & no otherwise Disney interests & a small segment that want both. So to maximize revenue they're offered separately. But I definitely think Disney does a much better job with their app than ESPN+ & that being one company should at least use the better Disney s/w for both.

I don't know why everyone is talking about ESPN declining. ESPN had a ratings boost last year.

Durant spending significant time in Charlotte is just another business quietly leaving the northeast for more business friendly North Carolina.

(03-02-2023 10:16 AM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  I don't know why everyone is talking about ESPN declining. ESPN had a ratings boost last year.

The cord cutting is what people are referring to.

(03-02-2023 10:10 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:24 AM)46566 Wrote:  ESPN+ is a good stepping stone. Though I don't understand why Disney doesn't cross promote games they own. Why not offer some ESPN+ games to Hulu. Maybe even a few games before on Disney+. It would seem like a way to bring in a new fan base for sports.

The ESPN-NHL deal actually has a package that's on Hulu.

We have Hulu Live TV+ and that also integrates ESPN+ if you have subscriptions to both services. The ESPN+ games will pop up on the "Sports" section on Hulu Live TV+ and you can watch them directly on Hulu as opposed to having to open up the ESPN+ app separately.

The big question for Disney is whether it makes sense to continue to have 3 separate streaming services (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+) in the US or have everything put together into one huge Disney+ service. Note that in most other countries, Disney puts *everything* onto Disney+ (sports, R-rated moves, etc.) and they sell only that single streaming service. They haven't done that here because the Disney brand in the US has a certain family-friendly reputation that they want to protect (whereas they aren't as skittish about that in other countries).

Disney has at least two, maybe 3 markets - those that stream Disney specific content & have no interest in sports, those that have strictly sports interests & no otherwise Disney interests & a small segment that want both. So to maximize revenue they're offered separately. But I definitely think Disney does a much better job with their app than ESPN+ & that being one company should at least use the better Disney s/w for both.

I have decent Internet (fiber) and ESPN+ is the only streaming service that gives me constant issues. Of course, it's also the only live one other than YouTube and twitch, which both have service issues for similar reasons. I can't wait till it's more stable.

That's normal Q1 behavior for any company.

(03-02-2023 09:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:24 AM)46566 Wrote:  ESPN+ is a good stepping stone. Though I don't understand why Disney doesn't cross promote games they own. Why not offer some ESPN+ games to Hulu. Maybe even a few games before on Disney+. It would seem like a way to bring in a new fan base for sports.

The ESPN-NHL deal actually has a package that's on Hulu.

We have Hulu Live TV+ and that also integrates ESPN+ if you have subscriptions to both services. The ESPN+ games will pop up on the "Sports" section on Hulu Live TV+ and you can watch them directly on Hulu as opposed to having to open up the ESPN+ app separately.

The big question for Disney is whether it makes sense to continue to have 3 separate streaming services (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+) in the US or have everything put together into one huge Disney+ service. Note that in most other countries, Disney puts *everything* onto Disney+ (sports, R-rated moves, etc.) and they sell only that single streaming service. They haven't done that here because the Disney brand in the US has a certain family-friendly reputation that they want to protect (whereas they aren't as skittish about that in other countries).

I was referring to offering some games without the need for ESPN+. Basically having either exclusive Hulu college games or Disney games without the need for a ESPN+ account. I always assumed Hulu would be the streaming service for their more adult programming needs. I just figured it shouldn't be hard shifting a ESPN+ game to Hulu. Though I personally think ESPN and Hulu might be a better sell merged together. More people would be willing to spend on a streaming service with sports if it has the old Fox movie library and touchstone. Maybe make a deal with Sony for Hulu to be the streaming service for them.

(03-02-2023 10:16 AM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  I don't know why everyone is talking about ESPN declining. ESPN had a ratings boost last year.

Because ESPN relies on cable subscribers. ESPN is, by far, the most expensive cable channel. That's where ESPN get's 80% of its money, less than 20% from advertising. That's why so many big time sports event migrated from the networks to ESPN--NBC can only really make money off of the All STar GAme by selling ads to Toyota and Budweiser. ESPN can sell those same ads, AND use the All Star Game to jack up the prices they charge the cable companies to keep ESPN on your cable package.

As cord cutting continues, every year there are a few percent fewer households paying for cable. That means less money for ESPN to spend on sports rights. They still spend a ton, and they're still making money, but the day is coming when the graphs cross. ESPN has started to, in their executive's phrasing "be more selective" about the rights they buy.

(03-02-2023 06:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 10:16 AM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  I don't know why everyone is talking about ESPN declining. ESPN had a ratings boost last year.

Because ESPN relies on cable subscribers. ESPN is, by far, the most expensive cable channel. That's where ESPN get's 80% of its money, less than 20% from advertising. That's why so many big time sports event migrated from the networks to ESPN--NBC can only really make money off of the All STar GAme by selling ads to Toyota and Budweiser. ESPN can sell those same ads, AND use the All Star Game to jack up the prices they charge the cable companies to keep ESPN on your cable package.

As cord cutting continues, every year there are a few percent fewer households paying for cable. That means less money for ESPN to spend on sports rights. They still spend a ton, and they're still making money, but the day is coming when the graphs cross. ESPN has started to, in their executive's phrasing "be more selective" about the rights they buy.

Well streaming is kinda struggling as of late. Who knows what could happen when it comes to cable

My question is can streaming really replace ESPN like that. As we seen with the Thursday night football ratings went down dramatically.

(03-02-2023 06:24 PM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 06:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 10:16 AM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  I don't know why everyone is talking about ESPN declining. ESPN had a ratings boost last year.

Because ESPN relies on cable subscribers. ESPN is, by far, the most expensive cable channel. That's where ESPN get's 80% of its money, less than 20% from advertising. That's why so many big time sports event migrated from the networks to ESPN--NBC can only really make money off of the All STar GAme by selling ads to Toyota and Budweiser. ESPN can sell those same ads, AND use the All Star Game to jack up the prices they charge the cable companies to keep ESPN on your cable package.

As cord cutting continues, every year there are a few percent fewer households paying for cable. That means less money for ESPN to spend on sports rights. They still spend a ton, and they're still making money, but the day is coming when the graphs cross. ESPN has started to, in their executive's phrasing "be more selective" about the rights they buy.

Well streaming is kinda struggling as of late. Who knows what could happen when it comes to cable

That's the thing-- a couple of years ago the big idea was that streaming would come along and streaming revenue would replace the cable revenue.

Nope, there's just gonna be less money.

(03-02-2023 10:17 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Durant spending significant time in Charlotte is just another business quietly leaving the northeast for more business friendly North Carolina.

Charlotte was the home of Creative Sports, which ESPN bought in 1997 to create ESPN Regional TV along with OCC Sports in California. It was supposed to relocate to Orlando a year later, but it remained in Charlotte.

https://charlotte.axios.com/6896/the-esp...s-but-not/

I could be wrong, but I think cable replacement is the wave of the future.

These services have shown us they can take some of the intuitive features of cable(linear feeds and channel surfing) and not only combine them with the flexibility of internet technology, but they can also integrate on-demand streaming content. It's basically what everyone wants from one perspective or the other.

We've had YouTube TV for a couple of years and we love it. There are some features that would make it more user friendly, but it will get there. Meanwhile, you have a video library feature that would make integrating unique content easy to pull off.

We know some companies that were big on cable infrastructure in the past are now focusing on supplying internet services more so than cable packages so the market will be there for these large companies to stay profitable as ISPs.

I am a Hulu + Live TV subscriber. ESPN+ is included.

I get a much better feed via Hulu than previously using the Roku app.