FOX claims FS1 is 3rd among sports networks

[stever20]

Is this report reading FS1 is generating .90 per subscriber? If so, the narrative is nothing but propaganda much like the polls in UK over the last few weeks. SPEED was generating .23 per viewer and FS1 ratings have been no better than SPEED and unlike SPEED, FS1doesnt deliver a target audience.

The report is complete FOX propaganda. I wish I had saved an article I read last year (around Thanksgiving if I remember correctly) which stated FS1 was getting between .25 and .79 per viewer depending on the cable system they were on. Please don't misunderstand I believe Fox Sports Net will eventually be a major player in cable sports and that will be excellent news for the Big East but it is not true today. We need the money and the exposure and our contract is better than any other non-football conference as well as most of the G5. Perhaps Fox will measure up in 3 to 5 years.

There is as equal a chance of these stats being true as there is of my walking down Vine St. in Cincy and seeing Jesus and Sasquatch playing put put golf.

Jesus n Squatch are at a putt putt tourney in Cleveland this week.

Obviously your opinion is carved in stone and you seem to be axe grinding.

FS1 is growing and gaining ground. When ISPs debundle cable tiers, it will be interesting to see the percentage of defectors from ESPN due to its' high cost. Consumers can get all of TNT/CBS/FS1/NBC for less than $4, vs $6.60 for ESPN. ESPN and cable costs are projected to continue rising. Fortunately there is a limit to how much gouging the consumer will take. $6.60 per month is it. With de-bundling at the ISPs, the competition will have a chance to catch the WWL on a more level playing field. Should be fun to watch as Espns earnings in a de-bundled cable world should drop to a more realistic, less extortionistic, $3.00/mo.

No big concern here as BE money is guaranteed. However, it is entertaining to see how the various companies strategize and employ their business tactics.

FS1 is one acquisition/Joint Venture away from being #2 on this list. They were thwarted in their
attempt to buy TNT (this time), but there are other candidates. I look forward to seeing the battles when the NFL and NBA contracts open up for renewals.

There are so many problem with this it's not funny...

1st - debundling isn't going to be happening any time soon. It's not just ESPN fighting that. It's CBS, NBC, and yes, even Fox. And ESPN has probably 2 of the biggest chess pieces around in this- ESPN and the Disney Channel.
2nd- NBA contract just did open up and ESPN/Turner closed it before Fox even got a chance to bid. There is absolutely no guarantee at all that the NFL will open up their bidding at all. And Fox probably would be ok with that- as it keeps their Sunday package in tact- which is MUCH more important to them quite frankly vs FS1. If anything happens, I could see the NFL force MNF back to ABC- where then all of their programming would be on network TV. Incumbents have a HUGE advantage in programming.

[ElDonBDon]

The WWE has its own network?!? And it collects more in fees than the NHL network? When did this happen? How the hell does Vince McMahon fill 24 hours of WWE television? Wow.

[stever20]

The WWE has its own network?!? And it collects more in fees than the NHL network? When did this happen? How the hell does Vince McMahon fill 24 hours of WWE television? Wow.

Just looking at the channel schedule- they do have replays of events from before- but also like tonight is Monday night- they have a "pregame" show if you will pre-Raw, and a "post game show" after Raw.

You have to think- while the audience is probably pretty small- it's pretty much 100% the prime advertising demographic- 18-34 yr old males.

[Chalmers0]

I have a serious issue with Clay Travis and our ratings on FS1. I believe there is some argument that can be made that FOX is using the BE as seasonal filler for their pseudo boxing and other equally absurd programming. However since they are paying a premium they have the right to do that. However taking second fiddle to such programming is derogatory to the BE. Also I must say as I have before that ESPiN still has the top in game programming by a wide margin. It is their talking heads which cause me to grind my teeth.

I would ask you when you have the time to go to the FOX website or elsewhere on the net and read other articles by Travis. After having done so come back and tell me if you believe his reportage is fair, unbiased and entirely rational.

Clay Travis, when it comes down to it, is just a Fox Sports version of Skip Bayless/Stephen A. Smith. Fox hiring Horowitz basically guarantees that Fox will go the route of using talking heads such as Clay Travis to generate attention and potentially ratings while actually hurting the quality of the programming.

[DudeAnon]

Am I the only one that really doesn't have a problem with ESPN's programming? Before FS1 I used to literally have it on 24/7. Some of the personalities get old, but what else do you expect them to show? Other than that, their presentation is pretty much perfect. The more FS1 can emulate them the better imo.

[gtmoBlue]

Bump.

This thread was discussing the plethora of cable issues, wwl dominance, poss. debundling by cable operators
And the like. Started by none other than robinreed.

[gtmoBlue]

Here's robinreed's latest

Troubles at ESPN and perhaps other cable sports networks
Unread postby robinreed » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:03 pm
This article has been floating around the web for a few days now but I have seen no mention of it here. If it is in another thread will the mod please remove this.

Big trouble at ESPN financially. They are paying out to much and are making adjustments and reductions. If it hits ESPN it will hit Fox, Comcast and all the others eventually.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-cut ... z3fVfxftyJ

The projected increases for the P5 may be a chimera.

[robinreed]

Bump.

This thread was discussing the plethora of cable issues, wwl dominance, poss. debundling by cable operators
And the like. Started by none other than robinreed.

gtmoBlue,

I especially like the "none other than robinreed" I may adopt that as my formal address. Thanks

[gtmoBlue]

Transplanted post from Bluejayunderground.com:

cujaysfan wrote:
may as well put this here

"espn has lost 3.2 million subscribers in a little over a year"

cord cutting is affecting the mouse in a pretty big way

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/espn-t ... MDkxMjAwWj


...and the wwl's losses will continue, given the model they use, lack of online streaming offerings, their exorbitant price gouging, and the content bidding wars.
This was noted both in this thread and over on the HHL thread. Their cockiness has become arrogance. That and their greed has caught up with the wwl.

It's consumers seeking more value for their shrinking bucks. I can buy all the rest of the sports offerings (TBS/TNT, NBC, Fox, CBS, etc.) for less than what ESPN charges. Losing 3.5 mill subscribers is a beginning, ESPN will lose more. They no longer have the predominant viewership edge. This issue will not bleed over to the others, as their business model and pricing structure are different. The next top providers are all offering at $1.50 or much less/per viewer. This issue is solely on the wwl, but does affect the cable carriers greatly - the cable carriers finally appear to have had enough of the wwl. we shall see.

Because of the plunge in subscribers Disney will probably cut the contract ESPN made with Sling TV ($20/person online deal). ESPN is not keen on competing with their pay channels by using online streaming anyway. Disney may solve that problem by cancelling that deal altogether. Lack of streaming though will only make matters worse, they will lose access to a rapidly growing segment of viewship.

WWL is paying way too much for content (according to Disney). They thought they had a money tree in Disney, but Mickey wants to see higher revenues. With a reduced subscriber base and possibly fewer outlets ( with digital cable and possible debundling), if this trend continues we could possibly see some content providers executing escape clauses in contracts with the wwl.

The Cable carriers are also looking for cost-cutting, ways to increase profit margin...ESPN with their high cost ($6.61 per viewer) is a big obstacle for the carriers. They may debundle ESPN from their basic packages...they may drop ESPN all together...they may haggle to force the wwl to lower their carriage fee to a more reasonable price ($2.50-3.50 per viewer). Whatever "solution" is reached - ESPN will lose more eyeballs and more money.

Note: Funny, a couple of folks here (Bluejayunderground) stated early that ESPN would only be beatable via the switch to digital cable. That premise is fast becoming the national reality
and will force ESPN to stop their price gouging. Add online streaming into this mix and the folks in Bristol (or at Disney) have some serious adjusting to do with their business model.

cujaysfan (Bluejayunderground) talked about online streaming back in April 10 (pg 29). The article above shows the wwl's resistance to putting online streaming content (against their pay channels). More and more folks use online streaming to get their "highlight" fix, skipping cable offerings altogether. The 30 and under crowd are not "tied" to watching Cable - they are tied to their portable devices.
Until the wwl begins to change their strategy - they will continue to lose eyeball's and money. Digital cable, online streaming, and portability are key aspects moving forward.

All of the above bodes well for the wwl's competition (TBS/TNT, NBC, Fox, CBS, etc.).

[handdownmandown]

...unless of course it means everybody who is tying themselves to the fixed rate platform (see: cable) gets flushed along with ESPN.

Then it isn't good for FS1.