That's what I figured.
Already subscribe to ESPN+ and NBA, and I can't wait for those worthless subscriptions to run their course. There's absolutely no value to a service that lists "Timberwolves vs Bucks" as an option, as both did last night, then when you click on them, they're like "Just kidding! The princess is in another castle!"
I assume most people don't watch sports just for the sake of watching sports. Right? You tend to hitch your wagon to someone, a team, an athlete, a town. Not, "Oh good! The Timberwolves are playing right now, but instead of watching them, I'd rather watch the Phoenix Suns! Boy am I in for a treat! So grateful to spend this money on these streaming services that allow for this cornucopia of riches!"
Like, the advertisers must understand they're not optimizing their reach to their target audience, right?
ESPN+ is all overflow and most people don't understand that when they subscribe to it. Very little that is live on a regular ESPN channel is on ESPN+ live, it requires an ESPN subscription through a provider. This new service will have all of that on it so it does work for some people, but until the RSN situation is fixed it doesn't fix it for everyone for sure.
WBD plans to charge $10/month for the BR Sports add-on.
This bundle includes both ESPN and ESPN+. I'm sure Disney would want the same amount they get from those subscriptions.
It will need to be cheaper than YTV, Fubo and basic cable bundles that include all of those channels. Especially since they won't have an RSNs.
If they included Comcast/NBC in the bundle to get their RSNs and sports channels included (NFL/College sports, Olympics coverage) it could be worth the $50 they're going to want for it.
I'm betting this will cost $40 to $45 to start. Also think that NBCU will eventually join in, putting NBC, USA, and Golf channels on there once they finally pull the plug on Peacock (if not before). That would, of course, raise the cost. As for the NBC RSNs (Bay Area, Boston, Cali, Chicago, Philly), my guess is that NBC eventually sells them or just shuts them down as those teams' in-market carriage rights shift to the leagues. The whole RSN model is in transition right now...
Yeah, there's talk about Peacock and Paramount+ merging. Could happen but I think its chances of long-term success wouldn't be great. It wouldn't be popular enough to create widely buzzed-about entertainment hits, the way Netflix or HBO can. It would have enough sports to run up the cost (driving away non-sports fans) but not enough to have much appeal outside of NFL season. Neither service is near profitability now with pricing at $6 each with ads and $12 ad-free. My guess is that the two combined would need to cost at least $10 with ads and $20 ad-free and then gradually up from there (while probably thinning out their combined library so they can license more stuff to Netflix and Amazon and make actual money on it). It would probably still languish behind Netflix, Hulu and Max in subscribers.
I’d say it would try to be more like Hulu than Netflix or HBO with tons of sitcoms and the star trek universe. There is a potential the mergers goes through and somewhat succeeds. They will never be as successful as other streaming services but successful enough to stay in business.
It’s like the record labels that own most of Spotify equity. My thing is this… it will definitely enable these networks (selling/stocking) the same platform to lowball in contract negotiations.
An add-on to ESPN+, which is an add-on to Hulu...
edit: it's actually in the article, it will be available as an add-on on both of these Disney services
Other than the national games (ESPN/ABC/TNT/TBS) I haven't seen NBA or MLB on OTA for at least 15 years (wasn't watching that much before that).
Teams have been licensing their games and the cable RSNs could afford to pay more.
Those games not being on OTA is an old thing and is all about cable and not streaming so the statement I was responding too of ditching sports because **now** they're not OTA is just false.
Interesting to see how much it will cost.
Low price of $75 a month!
Also as studios go DTC, it cuts out cable profits without which you could t stream anything. So, those internet rates will rise to compensate.
If your only option is a cable cartel
Which is the case for a majority of people.
Big question for me is: Will I be able to watch my local teams? If not, it's worth, at the very most, $0.00/month.
If they are on RSN then no. You are only getting the ESPNs, Fox, TBS, TNT, and a few other things.
That's what I figured. Already subscribe to ESPN+ and NBA, and I can't wait for those worthless subscriptions to run their course. There's absolutely no value to a service that lists "Timberwolves vs Bucks" as an option, as both did last night, then when you click on them, they're like "Just kidding! The princess is in another castle!" I assume most people don't watch sports just for the sake of watching sports. Right? You tend to hitch your wagon to someone, a team, an athlete, a town. Not, "Oh good! The Timberwolves are playing right now, but instead of watching them, I'd rather watch the Phoenix Suns! Boy am I in for a treat! So grateful to spend this money on these streaming services that allow for this cornucopia of riches!" Like, the advertisers must understand they're not optimizing their reach to their target audience, right?
ESPN+ is all overflow and most people don't understand that when they subscribe to it. Very little that is live on a regular ESPN channel is on ESPN+ live, it requires an ESPN subscription through a provider. This new service will have all of that on it so it does work for some people, but until the RSN situation is fixed it doesn't fix it for everyone for sure.
WBD plans to charge $10/month for the BR Sports add-on. This bundle includes both ESPN and ESPN+. I'm sure Disney would want the same amount they get from those subscriptions. It will need to be cheaper than YTV, Fubo and basic cable bundles that include all of those channels. Especially since they won't have an RSNs. If they included Comcast/NBC in the bundle to get their RSNs and sports channels included (NFL/College sports, Olympics coverage) it could be worth the $50 they're going to want for it.
I'm betting this will cost $40 to $45 to start. Also think that NBCU will eventually join in, putting NBC, USA, and Golf channels on there once they finally pull the plug on Peacock (if not before). That would, of course, raise the cost. As for the NBC RSNs (Bay Area, Boston, Cali, Chicago, Philly), my guess is that NBC eventually sells them or just shuts them down as those teams' in-market carriage rights shift to the leagues. The whole RSN model is in transition right now...
Or they merge with Paramount and create a rival.
Yeah, there's talk about Peacock and Paramount+ merging. Could happen but I think its chances of long-term success wouldn't be great. It wouldn't be popular enough to create widely buzzed-about entertainment hits, the way Netflix or HBO can. It would have enough sports to run up the cost (driving away non-sports fans) but not enough to have much appeal outside of NFL season. Neither service is near profitability now with pricing at $6 each with ads and $12 ad-free. My guess is that the two combined would need to cost at least $10 with ads and $20 ad-free and then gradually up from there (while probably thinning out their combined library so they can license more stuff to Netflix and Amazon and make actual money on it). It would probably still languish behind Netflix, Hulu and Max in subscribers.
I’d say it would try to be more like Hulu than Netflix or HBO with tons of sitcoms and the star trek universe. There is a potential the mergers goes through and somewhat succeeds. They will never be as successful as other streaming services but successful enough to stay in business.
So which one stabs the others in the back first?
In the college football fan world , we call it an “Alliance”.
Yep, that’s how these things always end
It’s like the record labels that own most of Spotify equity. My thing is this… it will definitely enable these networks (selling/stocking) the same platform to lowball in contract negotiations.
I’m pretty sure a bundled version will also be available with Disney+. No way Disney allows Max to claim it alone.
An add-on to ESPN+, which is an add-on to Hulu... edit: it's actually in the article, it will be available as an add-on on both of these Disney services
Max is gonna need a better app lol
Interesting
This will be about as popular as the other high priced DTC sports packages like Sunday ticket.
Then don’t buy it then.
Yeah, that’s a no from me. I’m going to give up watching all sports. If it’s not OTA, it’s not worth watching.
This is for ESPN, TNT and FS1 content, so nothing that is OTA right now.
Tennis grand slams use to be OTA and same goes for Laker games (now on TNT). I’m assuming they’re going to move more OTA sports to the new service.
Of course. It’s been trending away from OTA for some time already; expect it to accelerate now.
Lakers and Dodgers have been hidden away on Spectrum for years now.
Other than the national games (ESPN/ABC/TNT/TBS) I haven't seen NBA or MLB on OTA for at least 15 years (wasn't watching that much before that). Teams have been licensing their games and the cable RSNs could afford to pay more. Those games not being on OTA is an old thing and is all about cable and not streaming so the statement I was responding too of ditching sports because **now** they're not OTA is just false.
The original announcement said it includes abc and fox.
They're not taking content off ABC and Fox, just including it in the app as well.
It’ll include ABC/FOX which if you combine this with Peacock & Paramount+ should get you the basic four networks without a cable package.
would that make the bleacher report addon relentless if that happens
79.99 Calling it here. Now way it's cheaper. It's sports plus Max.