• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

A Spirited Perfect Ten

"El Gran Magnifico"

I was once held captive by a village of pygmies
Premium Member
And anyone who thinks an inflection point has been reached because of two shows making it a total of three seasons... is drunk on the kool aid. You're following the hype vs following the actual business.

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.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

And you think the old guard is going to do absolutely nothing about it and just wait till cable subscribers goto zero? Market shifts man... they happen all the time and businesses adapt or die. You've not really painted any picture of credibility of how ABC or ESPN are incapable of changing and instead are just beating a drum about 'the world is changing...'. Your arguments lack the critical part about how the business is failing, will fail in the future, and your claims about their current businesses have largely been nonfactual.

The chicken little arguments are pretty weak... especially when the come back is 'well EVENTUALLY' -- ignoring the tens of billions inbetween here and there. As if.. no company will change at all in the next decade.

Less you forget... ABC/NBC/CBS were a radio broadcasting companies... before they were Television broadcast companies. And GE was a DC electric company back in the day.. You shouldn't be saying companies are doomed simply because there is a market shift in front of them.
 
Last edited:

"El Gran Magnifico"

I was once held captive by a village of pygmies
Premium Member
Arguments are weak? Maybe it's because you either didn't comprehend the original post or you like twisting words. 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?
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
What would ESPN have to offer 'the whales' to get them to fork over big $$$ that they can't get from regular over the air TV or other cable offerings (whether ESPN or not)?

Oh you would be surprised. First, they could downgrade everyone else - say, only the top paying get live access, everyone else is delayed by an hour. Yes people would scream, but they would say "bandwidth reasons" and the whales would pony up.

There is a significant sports spending addiction out there, clearly - there is so much money flying around that all they need to do is cast out a wider net and they could come up with "Value Content". Say, exclusive interviews (what if Tommy Top Kicker and Mr Tight End of the Year only exclusively gave interviews to ESPN-Premium or ESPN-Gold or whatever such nonsense they called it) or access to archival games, etc.

There is a lot they could offer because there is a ravenous base out there who eats the stuff up alive. I mean, so you see how much some of the whales of sports spending spend on "Fantasy Sports"? Professional sports and all the product around it makes the Disney Princess marketing look restrained - it's clearly the money-dumping hobby of choice for a good number of adult consumers.

Anecdotally, I am personally shocked they can have money problems at ESPN - I guess they must spend like crazy because with the amount of advertising on that channel (even constantly during programming, it's astounding - every second is seemingly sponsored by a named brand) you'd think that the $5 they lose for each cord cutter would really be fluff money compared to the real profit. When I accidental expose myself to it I often have to watch for a few minutes out of curiosity to see if it's actually a real broadcast or a SNL-style spoof it's just so constantly there like a strobe light that won't die, I can't believe that folks put up with it.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
I'm well aware ABC/NBC/CBS were all radio broadcasting companies. So was RKO...what's your point?

I can't speak to the other bickering, but jis point here is they were radio broadcasting companies that became television broadcasting companies who are already slowly becoming data "broadcasting" companies.

It's the same with the cable companies. They aren't going away. They are just becoming primarily data services. They are in control of so much of the infrastructure that they will get their cut on one end, or the other. While little projects here and there are bringing more options for Internet access, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans only have viable access to broadband (and all this digital content) from lines owned by the cable companies.

I wouldn't count ESPN out, unless the "professional sports bubble" ever bursts and folks become less interested in watching, one way or another - they'll find revenue streams. From some of the posts, though - it sounds like they do need to cut some spending, though.
 

Hakunamatata

Blood Orange Please
Premium Member
I can't speak to the other bickering, but jis point here is they were radio broadcasting companies that became television broadcasting companies who are already slowly becoming data "broadcasting" companies.

It's the same with the cable companies. They aren't going away. They are just becoming primarily data services. They are in control of so much of the infrastructure that they will get their cut on one end, or the other. While little projects here and there are bringing more options for Internet access, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans only have viable access to broadband (and all this digital content) from lines owned by the cable companies.

I wouldn't count ESPN out, unless the "professional sports bubble" ever bursts and folks become less interested in watching, one way or another - they'll find revenue streams. From some of the posts, though - it sounds like they do need to cut some spending, though.
Excellent points about companies changing. After all wasn't Disney just an animation company in the beginning?
 

brb1006

Well-Known Member
It's currently 7:40pm as of this typing. Only a few more minutes until the Zootopia special comes on Disney Channel after The Incredibles is over.
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Anecdotally, I am personally shocked they can have money problems at ESPN - I guess they must spend like crazy because with the amount of advertising on that channel (even constantly during programming, it's astounding - every second is seemingly sponsored by a named brand) you'd think that the $5 they lose for each cord cutter would really be fluff money compared to the real profit. When I accidental expose myself to it I often have to watch for a few minutes out of curiosity to see if it's actually a real broadcast or a SNL-style spoof it's just so constantly there like a strobe light that won't die, I can't believe that folks put up with it.

Because, again, it isn't "losing money". It's losing revenues, but is still (currently) profitable. ESPN in recent years has been making a profit of something in the $4 to 6 billion range -- it's not like that kind of profit margin evaporates just because of a relatively handful of cord cutters.

Wall Street is doing what Wall Street does -- reacting over the top to changes because they don't like to see any sign of decline. It's certainly understandable to downgrade the future estimates of ESPN and, thus, Disney as a result of revenue declines which will accelerate. It's another thing entirely to paint ESPN as a non-viable entity or an anchor on the company even though it still is pulling in multiple billions in revenues.
 

indyumd

Well-Known Member
Fox with FSN1 is already doing so and gaining eyeballs by the day. ESPN has overpaid for the rights because they COULD not because it made business sense. They would have been much better advised to let MNF go to someone else and kept that 1.9 B in their pocket

Just for the record, this isn't true at all. FSN1 ratings are awful, in fact the MLB playoffs set some record lows on FSN1.

Not to mention, Fox and NBC paid more than $8B for Nascar rights, a sport that saw ratings drop 47% during the previous contract. At the time, FSN (Speed at the time) got a whopping .22 per subscriber. That is a monumentally worse deal than the MNF deal you keep mentioning.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.
 

raymusiccity

Well-Known Member
All we need now is an organ grinder for the circus to be complete

image.jpeg
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
I know we talk a lot about business here. Business, movies, theme parks, and god knows what else Disney is invested in.

Thinking movies for a second.... If youve ever been interested in even 1% of the business conversations we've had, go watch "The Big Short." Its really really good.... tho you may need to chase it with vodka and vicodin.

It explains exactly how messed up our financial system is.... and has Margo Robbie in a bubblebath.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom