Arguments are weak? Maybe it's because you either didn't comprehend the original post or you like twisting words.
I'm not twisting words.. maybe your words just suck? You started out with...
Disney is in a unique situation. If you look at ESPN and ABC (the networks)....there is an inherent issue. And that is..the networks don't own the product. They are merely conduits in distributing a product. A product they do not own.
1) stating they don't own the content is a generalization that is largely BS. They sign up for the exclusive right to BROADCAST the games.. productions they control and create. No they don't own everything, but they as the producers and studios own a very significant portion of their content... and it's what differentiates themselves from the lesser networks that largely rely on syndication or smaller productions.
2) Then you point to SVOD services like Netflix.. which have a hand in, or own not even a measurable fraction of the content they rely on.. and why they are changing to produce more content so they can stop fighting on the open market for it... having to take cards from the networks in how to do things because they knew they couldn't just survive bidding wars as the # of viable SVOD providers increased.
So your argument about 'not owning the content' and pointing to services like Netflix as stronger... the facts directly undermine your future model. The ABCs/ESPNs of the world already drive and control far more content (and continue to grow) than SVOD providers.. so this is 'weak'.
Then you go onto how the business is... I quote "a dying breed"... and ridiculous comments like 'they have a few shows here and there'
No sweeping. The major networks (As in ABC,NBC,CBS, and Fox) are a dying breed. Sure they have a few shows here and there, but they're nowhere near as relevant as where they were even a decade ago. [...]
Network TV is going the way of newspapers. And yes, it is still holds some relevancy today. And it will probably hold some relevancy for the foreseeable future. But it is not as relevant as it once was and there is no disputing that
'some' relevancy... I'm not sure how anyone defines the market that drives north of 85% of all TV consumption as dying nor not really relevant (Source -
http://blogs.forrester.com/james_mc...50_of_adults_under_age_32_will_not_pay_for_tv) - Even by Forrester's estimates they don't think the cord cutting population will hit 50% of the market for another 10 years. Your argument is like saying Gasoline cars are not really relevant because the growth of hybrid cars.
You cite 2 Netflix shows as signs of relevance.. nevermind that is 2 vs hundreds?? of others. You continue to make this flawed connection between distribution method and content creation.
For those not simply following the hype wagon - you should pay attention to how ABC and others have been working to wind their way out of the the broadcast stations they used to own, etc. Those are the actual 'distribution' portions.. not the actual umbrella organizations.
Then you make hyperbolic statements and infer ABC and the like are never going to change..
You probably thought delivering mail via pony express was a solid business practice and would stay in place for a thousand years.
No one ever said near term. It is evolutionary. It will continue to diminish until the need for it no longer exists.
A claim based on what? NOTHING.. A claim that ignores all the shifts that have been happening. So yes, WEAK ARGUMENTS.
Then, when your garbage is called out.. you soften to.. 'well eventually'.
Who said anything about an inflection point? It is an evolution. I've stated that it isn't happening tomorrow...but it is happening. It's not drinking the Kool-Aid it's being a realist on where things are headed.
So bringing it back around to your last post..
Yes. ESPN and Network TV if remain unchanged are in trouble. Maybe that's why the original sub-topic of ESPN negatively impacting Disney stock came up in the first place. Can they evolve, maybe. Will they have to? Absolutely, (and that was the point of the post - merely pointing out one of their drawbacks of not owning the content that generates the majority of their revenue seems to have hit a trigger with you). I'm well aware ABC/NBC/CBS were all radio broadcasting companies. So was RKO...what's your point?
You've gone from saying they are not relevant.. a dying breed.. the equivalent of believing the same business model will last forever.. to now 'they will have to evolve'. REALLY? SHOCKER!!! Businesses must evolve to progress? HOLD THE F'IN PRESSES!! You've gone from dismissing them as lame ducks to retreating to 'if they remain unchanged' they face trouble.
So.. your points of lack of dominace... BS
your points of already dying... BS
your points about property rights owners taking things direct... BS because they don't have the ability to do it themselves - they still rely on the studios and production companies. The model simply changes.
your points about why they are troubled are now simply 'if they don't change' - wow, earth shattering reveal there..
your points about not owning the content.. proven to be overgeneralizing and largely BS considering who you are lumping in
So what's my point? That you're full of it and playing chicken little by jumping on the fact that ESPN needs to change their revenue model in the future.. and leaping to all kinds of the sky is falling, dead-end, etc garbage.
ESPN is by far the most advanced of the US sports broadcasters when it comes to direct digital content and distribution.. including having dedicated channels online. They and other broadcast companies continue to be the leaders in sports broadcasting, even if not via OTA or paid subscribers.
Your statements are based on bangwagon'ing comments not actually rooted in the state of the business, nor the near term. Just because someone doesn't change at the first sight of competition... doesn't mean they'll never change. The savvy people know WHEN to change (ref: Apple), not simply change because the long term horizon means change is inevitable.
