I believe I said it wouldn't happen right away, that it would wait until the next contract negotiation for the conference. So I'll admit I got the timing wrong (though I'm still seeing plenty of game through the free-with-cable-subscription ESPN3).
I am seeing very little still offered via watchespn/espn3 except simucasts of what is on ESPN/ESPN2/or other ESPN networks
Mid-afternoon yesterday I had 5-6 games to choose from it seemed (beyond what was on ESPN/ESPN2). Now I don't get ESPNU, some of those games might have been on there and I was getting them through ESPN3.
Right now when I look there are only 1 or 2 espn 3 options that aren't a simulcast. Pretty slim pickings. I would guess 90% or more of what was espn3/watch ESPN is now ESPN+. Honestly I think it was silly to not recognize and see that coming. I am not saying ESPN+ isn't worth it. Just saying it was obvious that was their plan. I am guessing all the southern conference basketball games I have been watching for free for several years will now be behind pay wall. [emoji21]
Many smaller conferences already had existing streaming deals with espn that had language that allowed espn to switch the content from 3 to plus. The Southern Conference is now on plus. Some have reupped and allowed it.
Of course, the inevitable is ESPN+, ESPN++, ESPN+++,......., ESPN The Ocho-Plus. All with $, $$, $$$, ........, The Ocho-$ requirements. As a Yank, I know a chain when it gets yanked.
Counting only Division I games that are not on TV, for Saturday September 8 I count 13 games on ESPN3 and 22 games on ESPN+. TV includes channels with ESPN in their name, SEC Network, Longhorn Network, and ACC Network Extra (which are available on channels that are only used for games).
In MLS-related ESPN+ issues, I'm not seeing Saturday night's FCD-Houston and TFC-LAFC games listed among the replays available for viewing at the ESPN website, even though both games were carried by ESPN+. I just called ESPN+ about this, and they've opened up a case to escalate it to some sort of person to resolve it.
I am impressed they have a phone number displayed in a public manner that you were able to find. That is very rare for almost all internet only services.
BREAKING: ESPN+, the direct to consumer streaming service, reaches 1 million paid subscribers in just over five months #SportsBiz— Scott Soshnick (@soshnick) September 20, 2018
I am actually surprised the only have a million. That doesn't seem like a lot for a network/company as big as ESPN/Disney. With their marketing power and name recognition I would have thought they would have way more than this.
For comparison (and remember, these all had head starts on ESPN+) Netflix 118 million Amazon Prime: Over 100 million Hulu: 20 million (added 3 million between January and April) HBO Now: 5 million Sling: 2.2 million Hulu Live: 450K as of January YouTube TV: 300K as of January FuboTV: 100K as of last fall Outside of the big 3 (Netflix/Amazon/Hulu, which aren't offering live broadcast options) ESPN+ doesn't seem out of line given that its only been a few months.
The Hulu live and sling numbers surprise me the most. I and many people I know are sling subscribers. I would have guessed much higher.
To be fair, these numbers are "first hit on Google" level. If I spent real time on it I might find that they're not super accurate.
The thing about ESPN+ is that it would be cable, satellite, Sling, Hulu Live, or YouTube TV, AND ESPN+. I guess a few people might get ESPN+ without a primary provider but that number is probably tiny. I have YouTube TV and ESPN+. You have to have a primary provider to get your main ESPN channels and then you add ESPN+ to get the extra stuff. ESPN+ is not directly competing with any of the providers listed except maybe FUBO.
According to this Sling added 91k in the first quarter to up total subscription over 2.3 million. If that trend continued they should be around 2.5 million. That is just a guess. https://www.mediaplaynews.com/sling-tv-tops-2-3-million-subscribers/ P.S. meanwhile Dish the parent company lost 94k from its satellite subscriptions during the same period.
i Waiting for when ESPN+ goes global I have seen people online from Australia, Canada and Europe complaining about wanting access to ESPN+ for the various sports it carries. At $5 bucks a month and 1 million subscribers they are already on track to make $60 mil a yr in just about 5 months of service. If they open up globally like Amazon Prime does or even just a few International Terrestrial markets they will easily make several hundred million a year. Easily recovering the revenue that had been lost thru cord cutting. When many counted them out you gotta hand it to ESPN and Disney to adapting to the changing TV landscape quickly.
Be careful how you use the word "make". They won't "make" $60 million. "Make" means profit to most people. They could have $60 million in revenue. There are lots of expenses that eat away at that revenue. Rights costs, employees, streaming/server infrastructure (there is a TON involved with this...everything from bandwidth costs to electrical power to run equipment, hosting facilities, etc). The expenses for this service are probably very substantial. As for the going global....how would licensing work? Don't think they can just open it up globally. This isn't content they own. It is sporting events they have to pay for the rights which are normally based on countries. Amazon Prime is a completely different scenario.
For the domestic sports I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ESPN also bought the international rights. For the international sports (mainly soccer) they have though, you're right.
Interesting interview with John Lasker, ESPN's VP for Digital Media Programming: http://worldsoccertalk.com/2018/09/24/espn-breaks-new-ground-soccer-streaming-united-states/
How many people in other countries are clamoring for FCS football games or lower conference NCAA basketball games? Serious question. I can't see there being much demand for the domestic sports on ESPN+ outside the US. I would guess only Americans living abroad would be interested in much of the domestic content. I have been wrong many times.
And soon Disney will have their own streaming service as well. It’s ultimately going to cost chord cutters more buying a la carte to get all of the content they want.
I don't agree. You can buy a lot of a la carte services for $100+ a month (a lot of cable/satellite subscriptions are more than $100/month). I don't believe most people aren't going to need to spend more than cable/satellite packages to buy what the want in a la carte. Services like Sling start around $20-25. Then if you add on the OTT services that are 100% on demand (something cable and satellite never were), most are $5-15 a month. You are getting what you want and you are getting on demand content. It is definitely a win for consumers IMO.