I guess I don't agree. I don't see comparing 125 games to 33 (even less because 33 haven't been played yet) as a "fair comparison."
SKC vs Atlanta - 323k NYC vs Red Bulls - 240k Portland vs Galaxy - 265k Spurs vs Juve - 347k Community Shield - 324k Source: showbuzzdaily.com
Based on last season's ratings, those are both good FS1 numbers (323k and 240k), while the ESPN number (265k) is below average. The 323k number for the SKCvATL game is very good.
You're right, but you're wrong. Content airing on an ESPN TV network won't be available in this stream package. You'll still need some sort of bundle being piped into your home which allows you access to those networks on ESPN3. Conversely. If you have a cable/satellite subscription, you won't get this new package included (which you do now, btw). So if you want to subscribe to this package, you won't get the weekly MLS games airing on ESPN/2/ABC. If you want to watch the Championship games ESPN bought the rights to this year, you would have to plunk down the additional fee to have access to those games. Just like you have to buy the NBC Gold pass to have access to all the EPL games which we used to have on Extra Time. Also, you won't get TV-quality broadcasts on your 50"+ screen at home. You can cast/stream to your TV if able, but I've hardly ever seen it compare in picture quality. Don't get me wrong, games look great on my 17" computer monitor, especially when it's on my lap. When I move the game over to the TV, it stutters. Just doesn't compare. Thx, Jay!
I don't agree with this at all. I use WatchESPN for all my espn content. I have an Android TV device and Roku. Both have native WatchESPN apps. No casting required and the video is HD quality. Higher than my cable ever was. Do you have a link to back up the other stuff about having to have 2 subscriptions? Also, please don't use the term "ESPN3" when referring to the streaming platform. They are 2 distinct things. ESPN3 refers to content that is only available via a stream. Meaning it is not airing on one of the ESPN tv networks or it is simulcast on both. WatchESPN is the streaming platform itself. It can be confusing if people use the terms interchangeably. ESPN3 = watchable content. Most of the time this content is not airing on any ESPN TV networks. Sometimes is simulcast and available to those without a subscription to the specific channel it is airing on. WatchESPN = the platform used to stream any ESPN content. Access is gained via your TV providers or ISP credentials. ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN deportes, SEC Network, ESPN3, etc content is streamed via WatchESPN platform.
Here are the baseball ratings over weekend. The left hand number is total viewers, the right target demographic. And the top MLS game with target demographic. Target demographic Dodgers@Mets (ESPN) - 524k Nationals@Cubs (TBS) - 207k Atlanta@SKC (FS1) - 182k Dodgers@Mets (FS1) - 121k Nationals@Cubs (MLBN) - 98k Yankees@Indians (MLBN) - 87k
The wording of their survey strongly implied the new streaming service is different than what's shown on TV, or available to stream that currently shows on TV. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/efl-championship-cup-on-espn-networks.2066409/page-2#post-35735076 And I'll use the term ESPN3 any way I like. Because if I'm having problems differentiating the services, you can wager that plenty of the other 80 million or so ESPN subscribers can't tell the difference either. And since I type www.espn3.com whenever I want to stream something ESPN offers, that's what I'm going with. Thx, Jay!
I'm not that familiar with college basketball but the baseball comparison is interesting. It would be interesting to know how MLB and MLS compare in the 18-34 age range.
I imagine that as a percentage of viewers MLS does better, but as a total number of young viewers watching, MLB is way ahead, they play so many games.
That redirects to http://www.espn.com/watch/ and has a WatchESPN logo and the title of the page is WatchESPN: Live Sports, but sure why use terms correctly it is overrated. gooogle.com also redirects you to google.com. Does that mean we should all start calling it gooogle? I definitely think it is a stretch to take that survey and matter of factily be stating that this content is going to be taken away from current subscribers. It sounds to me like they are considering a direct paid service that gives you ESPN3 content and doesn't require you to have access via your ISP or TV provider. I see nothing that makes me believe they are taking this content away from current subscribers. You may be right in the end but I see nothing there to indicate that.
This is from a month old article: Median age of viewers (Courtesy Magna Global) 57 MLB (7.0-percent of audience below age 18) 50 NFL (9.0 of audience below age 18) 42 NBA (11.0-percent audience below age 18) 40 MLS (17.0 percent audience below age 18) Read more: http://700wlw.iheart.com/featured/l...etter-pick-up-the-pace-or-else/#ixzz4pHgT4hIK But how many are unique viewers?
So that means because NBC did it and you got a survey talking about creating a direct pay ESPN streaming service that ESPN is going to also take content away from current subscribers. Again it may happen but your post stated it as fact. As far as I can tell you are making assumptions based on no fact.
Tannewald had some tweets yesterday with a quote that said that the new streaming service WatchESPN, ESPN3, new name, whatever) will not have the same things as the networks would have. So, presumably, to get what the networks have you'll need a cable or SlingTV subscription (or similar). As to what's currently streamed on WatchESPN and how it would be split up the details are less clear. Some of it may be absorbed into the new subscription service and some of it may continue to be linked to existing accounts that come with cable/dish subscriptions. Details to follow. And a piece of advice, try being a little less demanding/arrogant in your posts. We're all (relatively) friends here.
That is one of the factors why I just dropped Directv after years along with the fact I have t-mobile and love my unlimited LTE and Comcast internet. The bundle with Comcast for the same channels is less than just Directv. And Comcast streaming is years ahead. More that the premier league extra games became premium, see zero incentive in paying more for Directv. I also stream fox soccer do I get. FS2. in that manner So now, my internet plus home phone plus tv is less than what I was paying for just Directv.
I have home phone as it will allow me to communicate when the earthquake takes out all the cell towers.
I have the ESPN app. on my Amazon Fire TV. The quality is far better than HD cable. Hey I'm over 50 and I'm unplugged, though I still prefer Direct Kick over MLS Live because it's on TV.