The price of power

There’s not much you can add to this but “wow”.

… At $4.69 per subscriber per month, ESPN already is the most expensive channel on cable systems. TNT is a distant second, at $1.16, according to SNL Financial. At that rate, even a small percentage increase would represent big bucks to distributors.

Also, Holy Mother of Crap.

11 Comments

Filed under ESPN Is The Devil

11 responses to “The price of power

  1. Dave

    awesome….How many subscribers?

    Like

  2. Dboy

    “In 2010, for example, 17 ESPN-produced NFL games made the list of cable’s 20 most watched shows”

    Well, that might explain it.

    Like

  3. Big Shock

    As much as I dislike the agenda of ESPN, I can’t imagine not having the network. I’m sure most people think that same way, which is why ESPN can command that kind of premium…which in turn gives them money to move traditional network sports onto cable and then forces us to continue paying higher and higher subscriber fees. Our only hope is for congress to tackle this problem after they finish with conference reallignment.

    Like

    • JaxDawg

      approaching ESPN’s under anti-trust rules might be a solution, but given the choices for sports programming, it’s hard to see that course of action being legitimate.

      Like

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        The way to get at ESPN is “a la carte.” That is allowing the consumer to select the stations that they each want from a menu of all the stations carried by the cable provider. As it is now ESPN is mandatory on all cable providers nationwide. Even little old ladies who don’t care one whit about sports have to have it and pay for it with their cable package. If ESPN had to be selected affirmatively then the consumer would have a way to register his/her dislike for what the WWL is doing by canceling ESPN alone. As things stand, the only way for the consumer to express dissatisfaction with ESPN is to cancel cable (or satellite, as the case may be) in its entirety which doesn’t happen. A bill was filed in Congress and as you might imagine ESPN spent zillions lobbying against “a la carte.” It never got out of committee. So much for the free market.

        Like

  4. Sniffer

    Umm, Senator, would you provide a link to “Saturday Night Live Financial’s” website, please. They can’t be any worse than my current investment advisors.

    Like

  5. stoopnagle

    All that money they’re paying the conferences comes from somewhere.

    Like

  6. AusDawg85

    Elsewhere in the ESPN empire…if I’ve done the maths right, the Longhorn network, according to the UT President Powers, expects to generate $300mm over the next 20 years, or $15mm per year. That’s only $750/yr for each of the current 20,000 subscribers.

    Well, he did suggest more folks sign-up.

    Like

  7. JBJ

    It is pretty amazing that ESPN dominates so thoroughly. Eventually someone will roll out a sports network that really competes with them.

    Cable operators pay Versus $.30 per subscriber. Versus reaches 76 million homes while ESPN reaches 100 million. After the Comcast/NBC merger, NBC Sports is planning on a major expansion throughout the next year using Versus as one of its primary channels (rebranding it NBC Sports Network).

    Already an epic fail in my opinion. Versus is a good name. People like it. Why change it to NBC Sports Network? Now it sounds old and tired.

    Whomever it is that finally steps up, they would be well advised to think about alternative ways to stream their content to the masses. iPads, mobiles, TV streaming, etc. ESPN is already kicking everyone’s ass there as well.

    Like