BleedGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 63,051
- Reaction score
- 20,735
- Points
- 113
Interesting read on the failure of the TLN:
According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL's numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn't comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That's a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn't much different. That's because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas -- that's roughly 13.5 million subscribers -- are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network. Those 13.5 million subscribers would add just $3.2 million more a year in revenue, meaning after four years the Longhorn Network is still just doing $25.8 million a year in revenue. (Putting that number in a sports TV context, the Longhorn Network is on pace to do less revenue in 20 years than Mayweather-Pacquiao did in one night of pay-per-view boxing.)
Given that ESPN has guaranteed Texas in the neighborhood of $15 million a year and the costs to launch and run the network were substantial, this also means ESPN has lost money every year the Longhorn Network has existed. Those losses likely run into the tens of millions of dollars so far. And while the Longhorns were guaranteed a payment that averages $15 million a year and ESPN isn't bouncing checks, the rumored millions of additional dollars that could materialize from a successful network are not ever going to arrive.
Why has the Longhorn Network been the farthest thing from must-see television in cable sports history? It's the programming, stupid. ESPN and Texas gambled that a couple of football games, a bevy of other less popular sporting events and rabid coverage of their local team would be as popular as oil in the Lone Star State. The problem was this: Even the most diehard Texas fan can watch only so many softball games and swim meets. Football's the life blood of televised college sports. And the Longhorn Network never had enough football to get fan demand stoked to a high level. This was a dry oil well priced as a gusher.
Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...-longhorn-network-is-all-hat-no-cattle-051115
Go Gophers!!
According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL's numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn't comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That's a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn't much different. That's because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas -- that's roughly 13.5 million subscribers -- are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network. Those 13.5 million subscribers would add just $3.2 million more a year in revenue, meaning after four years the Longhorn Network is still just doing $25.8 million a year in revenue. (Putting that number in a sports TV context, the Longhorn Network is on pace to do less revenue in 20 years than Mayweather-Pacquiao did in one night of pay-per-view boxing.)
Given that ESPN has guaranteed Texas in the neighborhood of $15 million a year and the costs to launch and run the network were substantial, this also means ESPN has lost money every year the Longhorn Network has existed. Those losses likely run into the tens of millions of dollars so far. And while the Longhorns were guaranteed a payment that averages $15 million a year and ESPN isn't bouncing checks, the rumored millions of additional dollars that could materialize from a successful network are not ever going to arrive.
Why has the Longhorn Network been the farthest thing from must-see television in cable sports history? It's the programming, stupid. ESPN and Texas gambled that a couple of football games, a bevy of other less popular sporting events and rabid coverage of their local team would be as popular as oil in the Lone Star State. The problem was this: Even the most diehard Texas fan can watch only so many softball games and swim meets. Football's the life blood of televised college sports. And the Longhorn Network never had enough football to get fan demand stoked to a high level. This was a dry oil well priced as a gusher.
Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...-longhorn-network-is-all-hat-no-cattle-051115
Go Gophers!!
