OT : Disney stock getting pummeled

KontradictioN said:

Probably due to a combination of people tiring of ESPN being the sports version of TMZ coupled with them also getting tired of ESPN's political agenda getting driven down their throats.

Click to expand...

Mostly about cable cutters like me getting sick of paying $$$ for zillions of channels I never watch.

PatsGuy said:

Netflix is ruling the roost these days and everyone including HBO are going streaming.

Click to expand...

NFL will have no choice but do the same. It's hard to predict when, but it is inevitable, IMHO.

Joker said:

awww....Donna Duck is quackers because poor Mickey just found out Minnie is effin' Goofy...(yes it's OK to LYAO at this tasteless swipe taken at the Magic Mushroom Kingdom)

Click to expand...

I wonder if Minnie bought into the ole' shoe size theory.

Bill Lee said:

Mostly about cable cutters like me getting sick of paying $$$ for zillions of channels I never watch.

NFL will have no choice but do the same. It's hard to predict when, but it is inevitable, IMHO.

Click to expand...

If BSPN has to cut their price because of the Pay Per Channel schemes, how will they be able to pay the NFL 2 Billion for MNF?

Let it burn to the ground!

Couldn't be happier to hear of their struggles

Other than Patriot's games, and even then it's on the local affiliate, I haven't watched ESPN in 3 or 4 years. I haven't watched NFLN since the Wells report came out. Little by little the giants fade.

Brady taking down Disney is the mic drop of all mic drops...

Joker said:

awww....Donna Duck is quackers because poor Mickey just found out Minnie is effin' Goofy...(yes it's OK to LYAO at this tasteless swipe taken at the Magic Mushroom Kingdom)

Click to expand...

Not to worry. Minnie told Mickey that Goofy had a mini...
(Is that tasteless enough?)

I recall seeing that the average cable subscriber is paying 6.16 per month to get ESPN. Most other major channels, would typically run you about $1. Maybe they can go the paid-tv route and save me about 6.16 a month.

If I recall the article, only about 25% of the people would even use ESPN (or are using).

Why on Earth would any Patriots fan watch ESPN unless forced to (i.e. at bar, airport, or actually exclusively broadcasting a Patriots game)?

Tony2046 said:

If BSPN has to cut their price because of the Pay Per Channel schemes, how will they be able to pay the NFL 2 Billion for MNF?

Click to expand...

Eventually they won't. Cable is so expensive that existing customers are cancelling and potential first time customers aren't signing up for it either. That means BSPN is getting less subscriber revenue and less advertising revenue. I don't see how they can reverse that trend.

RelocatedPatFan said:

I recall seeing that the average cable subscriber is paying 6.16 per month to get ESPN. Most other major channels, would typically run you about $1. Maybe they can go the paid-tv route and save me about 6.16 a month.

If I recall the article, only about 25% of the people would even use ESPN (or are using).

Click to expand...

Yet the reason BSPN insists on being in the basic cable packages is that they want to be able to claim all those customers are available to advertisers.

The system's been a sham for a long time, and everyone involved knows it. That's the reason why it will eventually implode.

wait...what?...oh no!! How on earth will I be able to watch last year's "World Series Of Poker" championship, split up into 500 parts???

Joker said:

awww....Donna Duck is quackers because poor Mickey just found out Minnie is effin' Goofy...(yes it's OK to LYAO at this tasteless swipe taken at the Magic Mushroom Kingdom)

Click to expand...

And that all comes out in court when Judge Berman says "Mickey, you can't get a divorce just because your wife is silly" and Mickey answers "Judge, I didn't say she was silly, I said she was effing Goofy!"

Tony2046 said:

That was a good thread. The article, I believe, referenced the changing cable scheme of going to "pay by channel" format and how expensive BSPN is. BSPN may be forced to reduce their price which will effect their ability to pay for their current contracts with the NFL etc..

Click to expand...

At the same time, internal dissension within the NFL owners has the chairman of their broadcast committee resigning his position on the board of a major media company, so they lose a lot of leverage, and may have a new negotiator on their side when that contract comes up.

On a tangent, wonder if Goodell will insist on a binding arbitration clause in the next TV contract, allowing the Commissioner God-like powers over broadcasts?

Everyone enjoys beating up on the Cable Industry. They have made a lot of money -- some people say too much. The fact is that cable is still a bargain. I remember paying for local phone service, local long distance, and long distance -- now it is a feature of cable. In 1996, AOL charged $20/month for dialup. Before that, they charged by the hour! Now we get high speed internet as part of a cable bundle.

When cable first became available, it was amazing. We had always used an antenna and were accustomed to inconsistent picture quality, so the beautiful (SD) presentation was immersive. The movies on Home Box Office (that's what HBO stands for) were very good. They were unedited movies that had recently been in theaters -- so there was nudity and bad language. I remember visiting my sister on weekends just to sit around, eat pizza, and watch HBO.

Some people chose to spend extra money for high quality, ad free movies, news, and, eventually, sports. To get more people to choose to spend extra money, the premium providers entered into 'exclusive' agreements for access to sports content. Exclusivity is expensive, but it brought eyes and wallets to cable. It also fragmented the audience. Some people watched less baseball and hockey. I think we are seeing the consequences of that today. I think the combination of fragmented and declining audience plus steadily increasing prices at the gate, at the concession stands, and at Comcast have diminished demand. The bundling tactic hid this for a long time, but the resurrection of broadcast television and the arrival of streaming have given people options. Many are exercising these options. The industry is a bit panicked and content providers are abandoning exclusivity to some extent. The stock market is reacting to this uncertainty. That is what we are seeing right now.

Comcast could solve the problem by reducing their prices. It wouldn't take much. People talk about Sling TV at $20 with ESPN and add HBO for $15, but that does not include the cost of unthrottled and uncapped high speed internet. I pay $45 a month for that, so $65/$80. And that is for one stream plus you have to buy a device to get that stream to the television.

The real problem is on the content end of the business. Ad supported broadcast television -- which includes the NFL -- is free. So there is an inexpensive alternative. For the most part, broadcast content is very inexpensive and cable subsidizes it via carry fees. Maybe the era of $200,000,000 contracts will end? Certainly the networks have decided they are overpaying for talking heads. I do not believe ESPN is sustainable at $30/month, but I suspect they will figure out how to stay on the air.

Plus there is a tremendous shift in the competitive landscape. Both the Internet and the streaming services it enables provide alternatives that didn't exist when cable grew up. Now we have a plethora of streaming entertainment choices for those what want to watch, and a broad variety of social media for those who want to interact. This forum is a good example, it's an alternative that didn't exist when Comcast was created. Now it competes for eyeballs and engagement time. There isn't a big growth opportunity for cable anymore. There will be other new forms, but not more of the same. That's a hit to corporate results, and Wall Street is reacting.

Tony2046 said:

Their stock is Deflating..

Click to expand...

Great line.

n6249c said:

This forum is a good example

Click to expand...

It's a GREAT example. It's a free 'crowd sourced' news service for people with a very specific news interest. Stuff gets posted here which is not heard on WEEI, seen on ESPN, or read in the Globe. When something breaks on twitter, it is here before anywhere else.

n6249c said:

There isn't a big growth opportunity for cable anymore.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. Cable owns the last mile. Until wireless performs at the speed of light, there will always be opportunity for the guys who own the wires. When I worked for a cable company 30 years ago, we used to hook people up for pay-per-view, tune in adult satellite feeds, and queue up video tapes of the races at the dog track in Seabrook. All that content was free or nearly free for the cable company but made enough to be worth the effort.

Let me ask you a question: Do you remember Wild Kingdom? Do you remember the sponsor?



Ad supported television can be profitable and memorable. Given the amount of time people spend watching America's Funniest Videos and YouTube, I think there is plenty of compelling television that does not cost billions.

wizwor said:

Comcast could solve the problem by reducing their prices. It wouldn't take much. People talk about Sling TV at $20 with ESPN and add HBO for $15, but that does not include the cost of unthrottled and uncapped high speed internet. I pay $45 a month for that, so $65/$80. And that is for one stream plus you have to buy a device to get that stream to the television.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the dynamic is shifting. Pretty much up until the last few years most new entrants would prioritize having a cable tv plan at home above having internet access at home, but that is reversing. In days gone past having a cable plan was something of a status symbol, showing that you could afford to have all the channels and packages you wanted. Now it's often seen as a sign of stupidity, paying big bucks for something of marginal value.