Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Join Forces for Sports Streaming Service

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
11,322
Points
113
Via NYT -

For years, the rising price of sports rights has been a major headache for media executives, who have watched viewers abandon traditional TV for streaming services even as their companies pay up to broadcast games.

On Tuesday, Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery proposed a new offering that could keep them in business with some of those customers. The companies announced a streaming service that will feature games from the major professional leagues and college conferences, which they hope will attract sports fans who have abandoned cable.

The service will offer streaming subscribers all the games available to viewers of traditional channels like ESPN, TNT and FS1. The price, name and executive team behind the service have not yet been determined. It is scheduled to launch in the fall.

The service, which will also be supported by advertising, will be distinct from the companies’ other streaming services, such as Disney’s ESPN+ and Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
more details from USA Today:

Subscribers will have access to all the broadcast and cable channels owned by each of the companies that feature sports: For Disney, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS and ABC. For Fox Corp., FOX, FS1, FS2 and the Big 10 Network. And for Warner Bros. Discovery, TNT, TBS, truTV. Disney's ESPN+, a standalone streaming service with 26 million subscribers, will also be part of the new entity, though it lacks rights to major sports and is often bundled with Disney+ and Hulu.

In addition to the Big 4 ― NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL ― the service will feature NASCAR auto racing, UFC, PGA Tour golf, Grand Slam tennis, the FIFA World Cup and several college sports, among others.

The companies have not announced any pricing plans, but said the new service will be offered in bundles with existing streaming services they own, including Max, Disney+ and Hulu. Fox has no current subscription-based service.


this could be big. if people have been hanging onto cable TV or satellite for sports, this new venture could convince a lot more people to cut the cord and go all-streaming.

of course, the price will matter. and the sun will rise in the East.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
3,245
Points
113
If people continue to abandon cable I wonder what the price of interest is gonna due. Can only imagine it’s gonna go up and up to replace revenue.
 

Gopher_In_NYC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
11,322
Points
113
more details from USA Today:

Subscribers will have access to all the broadcast and cable channels owned by each of the companies that feature sports: For Disney, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS and ABC. For Fox Corp., FOX, FS1, FS2 and the Big 10 Network. And for Warner Bros. Discovery, TNT, TBS, truTV. Disney's ESPN+, a standalone streaming service with 26 million subscribers, will also be part of the new entity, though it lacks rights to major sports and is often bundled with Disney+ and Hulu.

In addition to the Big 4 ― NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL ― the service will feature NASCAR auto racing, UFC, PGA Tour golf, Grand Slam tennis, the FIFA World Cup and several college sports, among others.

The companies have not announced any pricing plans, but said the new service will be offered in bundles with existing streaming services they own, including Max, Disney+ and Hulu. Fox has no current subscription-based service.


this could be big. if people have been hanging onto cable TV or satellite for sports, this new venture could convince a lot more people to cut the cord and go all-streaming.

of course, the price will matter. and the sun will rise in the East.
Sounds interesting to me, I’d gladly pay $15-20 for this and dump YTTV.
 

Ogee Ogilthorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,054
Reaction score
11,741
Points
113
The Athletic weighs in...

New Disney, Fox, WB Streaming Venture Won't Solve Much - At Least Not Yet

"For the consumer, you won’t need this venture-to-be-named later and, my initial bet is most of you will go with that option. The service will be owned equally by the three sides, but each partner will receive the same fee as they earn from cable or YouTubeTV, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement. Just ESPN, the singular network, receives around $12 per month from cable subscribers.

So what does that mean for you? The estimated price for the new venture when you add ESPN, Fox and WBD Sports together likely will be around $50 per month. There probably are some sports fans who would like to save a little money with this arrangement, but it is hard to believe there are a lot.

You already can watch nearly everything that this trio offers through places like YouTube TV for around $70 and change per month. If you want this option, it is already available, with even more channels to boot.

Fox Sports moves into the sports subscription space for the first time with this baby step. They have been the ones to watch their competitors pour billions into subscription streaming as they stood on the sidelines patiently biding their time. Their executives have thought rebundling is the way to go, so this gives them an initial shot.

ESPN has been planning to go direct-to-consumer with its entire product by 2025 with the possibility of 2024. Now, it will start this fall with tag-team partners.

This new arrangement doesn’t deter ESPN’s previous plans. The network still intends to have a stand-alone ESPN direct-to-consumer product by next year.
 


MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
35,595
Reaction score
9,779
Points
113
Sounds interesting to me, I’d gladly pay $15-20 for this and dump YTTV.
Well at that price, sure.

Not a snowflake’s chance in hell that’s the price.


YTTV is up to $70/mo and gets you all these channels and many more?

So it can’t reasonably be up in that range.

But I also can’t see them going less than $35/mo. Maybe more like 45 - 50. Will be interesting.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
35,595
Reaction score
9,779
Points
113
^^ right, Ogee’s paste says basically the same thing I’m saying.

Not sure who this makes sense for.

If $50/mo vs $70/mo breaks the bank … you have much bigger issues to deal with than TV.

Also does the new service offer DVR?? YTTV’s is hard to beat.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
23,875
Reaction score
4,418
Points
113
How would this deal impact access to timberwolves and twins broadcasts?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
79,325
Reaction score
35,653
Points
113
How would this deal impact access to timberwolves and twins broadcasts?
For now, it wouldn't except for nationally televised games on ESPN, TBS/TNT etc. However, it probably gives the leagues another option to go to try and sell the streaming rights after Diamond/Bally's finally dies.
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
35,595
Reaction score
9,779
Points
113
You don’t sell rights to a streaming service directly.

You sell them to FOX (for example), and the streaming is how FOX gets to your house.


If the Twins want to put their games on a channel that’s similar to BTN, and this new service carries that channel, outstanding. That channel will be on YTTV as well as traditional cable/sat.
 

#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
9,178
Reaction score
3,056
Points
113
Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe it will all happen before football season next fall.
 

Ogee Ogilthorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,054
Reaction score
11,741
Points
113
There are a lot of people bitching about NFL games being streamed but that's certainly not really the reality when it comes to viewership.

The Dolphins-Chiefs game that was streamed only on Peacock in early January last month had 23 million viewers.

Regular season NBA games are getting about 238 people a night watching.

I'd say the NFL has a pretty good plan in place for how they're moving in this direction. People hate on Goodell for whatever reason but he's by far and away, INFINITELY better than every other Commissioner in major sports.

Goodell's exceptional at his job, and for some reason the media (who is also getting rich from Goodell) paints him as a villain. Conversely, Adam Silver has absolutely run the NBA into the ground, let the inmates completely run the asylum, and for some odd reason he's painted in some uber positive light, just an awesome dude doing some kind of awesome job.

Weird....
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
19,213
Reaction score
12,796
Points
113
saw some guy on Twitter claiming to have inside information - says this new streaming sports bundle will be priced at somewhere between $35 to $50 a month.

when you consider that Bally Sports Plus is going for $20 a month - if the new service is more in the range of $35 to $40, let's say - that seems reasonable for the amount of content being provided. (IF it is a quality product - unlike Bally Sports Plus which is reportedly a complete cluster-bleep)

If you're a sports fan and you're ready to dump cable, paying $40 or even $50 a month for the streaming sports bundle in place of $100 or more for cable may seem like a good deal.

also - ESPN is apparently going ahead with plans for its own direct-to-consumer offering. no word on price yet, but ESPN claims their new stand-along app will have exclusive features that will not be found on the streaming bundle.
 



#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
9,178
Reaction score
3,056
Points
113
saw some guy on Twitter claiming to have inside information - says this new streaming sports bundle will be priced at somewhere between $35 to $50 a month.

when you consider that Bally Sports Plus is going for $20 a month - if the new service is more in the range of $35 to $40, let's say - that seems reasonable for the amount of content being provided. (IF it is a quality product - unlike Bally Sports Plus which is reportedly a complete cluster-bleep)

If you're a sports fan and you're ready to dump cable, paying $40 or even $50 a month for the streaming sports bundle in place of $100 or more for cable may seem like a good deal.

also - ESPN is apparently going ahead with plans for its own direct-to-consumer offering. no word on price yet, but ESPN claims their new stand-along app will have exclusive features that will not be found on the streaming bundle.
Another one says $90.00 a month. We're going to hear all kinds of pricing information for the next few months. All of them supposedly a reliable source.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,201
Reaction score
2,189
Points
113
Another one says $90.00 a month. We're going to hear all kinds of pricing information for the next few months. All of them supposedly a reliable source.

Gonna let it all shake out without believing one word of rumored pricing. Why? Because nearly all rumors about pricing, or even what is gonna happen have been dead wrong.
 

Ogee Ogilthorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
19,054
Reaction score
11,741
Points
113
Gonna let it all shake out without believing one word of rumored pricing. Why? Because nearly all rumors about pricing, or even what is gonna happen have been dead wrong.

I would have to imagine most of the rumors being bandied about about pricing are the powers that be floating different numbers around to see just what might be a palatable amount according to a majority of responses.
 

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,201
Reaction score
2,189
Points
113
I would have to imagine most of the rumors being bandied about about pricing are the powers that be floating different numbers around to see just what might be a palatable amount according to a majority of responses.

Sure, partially at least. Lying comes naturally to most of them. Monopolies will do that to you. But if it's' like all the other rumors from the sports world, it's more likely it's a reporter or online reporter wanna be, who's trying to prove that they have inside information.

Which is nearly always wrong.

Something that they never admit and that no one actually tracks.
 




Top Bottom