[Purple Haize]

ESPN+ is integrated into the ESPN app most places. It’s just behind a pay wall.

Hmmm. Guess I won’t be watching many LU games this year

[JK37]

ESPN+ is definitely the future. And I’ll end up paying for it eventually. But while I can, I’d rather not.

From Liberty’s perspective, I’d ask this question:

Do we make more money with more viewers on ESPN3 (a relatively free service) or from less viewers on ESPN+ (paid service with less subscribers)?

The answer to that question is what they should do.

First, explain to me how LU makes money from viewers.

The direct chain is as follows: a network pays LU for content, then the network makes its profit by charging consumers.

Are you pursuing an indirect chain?

[Jonathan Carone]

I didn’t know who got the advertising dollars from the network or if we got a piece of that.

[LUDad]

I’ve been happy to ride the Free Train for awhile myself. I’ll accept that blessing, realizing all along that at some point it had to come to an end.

LU fans want the brand to grow. Awesome! And the growth of that brand signals a commodity that’s growing in value. For Liberty to be run correctly, it should capitalize on its valuable assets. Anything else would yield cries of poor management from many on this board - and rightly so.

So if Liberty can market it’s football broadcast rights, then it SHOULD market those rights. And if someone out there (a TV Network like ESPN, Fox, CBS, NBC) puts an offer on the table to purchase those rights, can you reasonably expect them to turn around and give that programming product away for free?

Welcome to the Big Time, boys. (Carone was right - our fan base may not have been ready.)

I’m already paying $4.99/month. That’s NOTHING! And I’m already on record predicting ESPN3 will be gone within 3 years. If you track the trends, ESPN is the guinea pig for Disney. If this works - and so far indications are good - you’re going to see a model like this for a LOT of other major visual media.

JK37, it is the principle! I paid for a number of football season tickets despite living close to 4 hours away. I travel to a lot of away games (in a number of sports). And I am not even an Alumni. The point is that it's not that the fan base is not ready, it's that ESPN is holding cable customers captive with their regular channels while also trying to get a piece of the paid subscription business. ESPN should let cord cutters decide what they want or don't want to pay for. Don't keep them captive to cable AND subscription!! If ESPN wants subscription business, put it ALL out there and let the customers decide what parts that they want. End of rant.

[Jonathan Carone]

CBS does the same thing. Disney is launching their OTT all in 2019. The networks don’t owe us the ability to watch their content in places other than the original place it airs. The fact they gave it to us for free for so long before charging for it is the reason people don’t like it.

[LUDad]

CBS does the same thing. Disney is launching their OTT all in 2019. The networks don’t owe us the ability to watch their content in places other than the original place it airs. The fact they gave it to us for free for so long before charging for it is the reason people don’t like it.

As I indicated, ESPN is straddling the fence between cable and streaming. They are holding Cable customers captive while also dipping their fingers into the subscription pie. Now, a customer cannot get all of ESPN from either cable or subscription. You need both.

As for CBS, note the link below. CBS allows cord cutters to get their entire portfolio from EITHER cable or subscription. You don't need to be married to both.

https://www.cbs.com/all-access/live-tv/

As for Disney, they are ESPN.

[JK37]

Dad, I apologize. You are #FBSready. And that’s irrelevant to the real discussion.

I’m not sure what you mean by “principle”. If you want the networks, buy the cable/satellite subscription. If you want the extra streaming content, buy ESPN+.

By the way, if you want to stream the ESPN networks, there’s always Sling or a whole host of other streaming options to get it. Sure, I wish everything in life was free. But there is demand for what ESPN is broadcasting, so why not charge for it?

[Jonathan Carone]

CBS does the same thing. Disney is launching their OTT all in 2019. The networks don’t owe us the ability to watch their content in places other than the original place it airs. The fact they gave it to us for free for so long before charging for it is the reason people don’t like it.

As I indicated, ESPN is straddling the fence between cable and streaming. They are holding Cable customers captive while also dipping their fingers into the subscription pie. Now, a customer cannot get all of ESPN from either cable or subscription. You need both.

As for CBS, note the link below. CBS allows cord cutters to get their entire portfolio from EITHER cable or subscription. You don't need to be married to both.

https://www.cbs.com/all-access/live-tv/

As for Disney, they are ESPN.

There’s a piece you’re still missing. CBS has created content that only streamed on their app that you could only access if you were an All-Access subscriber. Cable/satellite users couldn’t see that content without signing up for All-Access.

ESPN is doing the exact same thing. The stuff that is available through your tv package is still available through the ESPN app for no cost. The extra content that doesn’t make it to tv is being put exclusively on ESPN+.

They’re not trying to double dip. They’re trying to get you to pay for an extra channel.

[LUDad]

CBS does the same thing. Disney is launching their OTT all in 2019. The networks don’t owe us the ability to watch their content in places other than the original place it airs. The fact they gave it to us for free for so long before charging for it is the reason people don’t like it.

As I indicated, ESPN is straddling the fence between cable and streaming. They are holding Cable customers captive while also dipping their fingers into the subscription pie. Now, a customer cannot get all of ESPN from either cable or subscription. You need both.

As for CBS, note the link below. CBS allows cord cutters to get their entire portfolio from EITHER cable or subscription. You don't need to be married to both.

https://www.cbs.com/all-access/live-tv/

As for Disney, they are ESPN.

There’s a piece you’re still missing. CBS has created content that only streamed on their app that you could only access if you were an All-Access subscriber. Cable/satellite users couldn’t see that content without signing up for All-Access.

ESPN is doing the exact same thing. The stuff that is available through your tv package is still available through the ESPN app for no cost. The extra content that doesn’t make it to tv is being put exclusively on ESPN+.

They’re not trying to double dip. They’re trying to get you to pay for an extra channel.

The point with the subscription "CBS All-Access" is that one can access ALL the content that CBS has available on cable/satellite/etc. In other words, they have ALL their content in either place. If you have subscription, you don't have to have the underlying service such as cable, etc. and vise-versa. That is not possible with ESPN/ESPN+

By the way, I owe JK37. I just when to Sling and found out that they now offer the Hallmark Channel!!! Mrs. LUDad may now allow me to switch to Sling.

[Jonathan Carone]

You actually can’t access all the CBS content unless you pay the extra charge for All Access. That’s the piece you’re missing. They created new content that is only available through the extra subscription. It’s exactly what ESPN is doing.

Here are their originals that are only available with the All Access subscription: https://www.cbs.com/shows/originals/

As someone who has DirecTV but not All Access, I can’t watch those.

[JK37]

Oh Dad, I feel your Hallmark pain. My wife is a fanatic of it too. Christmas in July gets a little hostile in our house when the Braves are playing well.

[JK37]

Yeah, I get all the network stuff through the ESPN app. I pay the extra $4.99/mo for E+ content.

[jbock13]

Although I hate the idea of ESPN+, I also remember the days of SEC teams charging $20 per game on PPV just 10 years ago.

[LUDad]

Oh Dad, I feel your Hallmark pain. My wife is a fanatic of it too. Christmas in July gets a little hostile in our house when the Braves are playing well.

What's so sad is that she has me watching some of their programs...

[Purple Haize]

Oh Dad, I feel your HELLMARK pain. My wife is a fanatic of it too. Christmas in July gets a little hostile in our house when the Braves are playing well.

FIFY

[BJWilliams]

Don't even get me started on Hallmark Channel...

[Jonathan Carone]

Ok.

[thepostman]

Check out the deck the hallmark podcast. It's great.

[Class of 20Something]

I think there is some confusion.

Cable CBS does not have all content. CBS All Access does.

You can cut cable and buy all access and have all CBS content.

This is not the same with ESPN and ESPN+.
You must have both services to get a complete offering.

[JK37]

I’m watching ESPN2 right now through the ESPN app. In fact, I have access to all the networks. I’ve paid (paid the annual fee) to watch additional ESPN+ content.

[alabama24]

Cable CBS does not have all content. CBS All Access does.

"All Access" is a misnomer! I have never seen the "Big Bang Theory" but someone suggested a particular episode. I was going to sign up for a free trial of "All Access" only to find out... it isn't "All"!

[Purple Haize]

Sorta bummed if I can’t watch it on TV

[Cider Jim]

I’ve paid (paid the annual fee) to watch additional ESPN+ content.

How much? I mean, could a Marshall guy afford this?

[alabama24]

I’ve paid (paid the annual fee) to watch additional ESPN+ content.

How much? I mean, could a Marshall guy afford this?

ESPN+ is an additional $5/mo over and above any other fees/subscriptions you currently pay.

[Jonathan Carone]

Liberty announced a multi-year agreement on football rights with ESPN. All home games will be on ESPN3 this year.