Despite ESPN Whining, Nielsen Confirms Historic Subscriber Losses For Channel

from the not-just-a-river-in-Egypt dept

Last week, we noted how Disney and ESPN threw a bit of a hissy fit when Nielsen data indicated that ESPN had one of the biggest subscriber losses in company history last month. According to Nielsen’s data, ESPN lost 621,000 homes in a single month, as well as losing 607,000 ESPN2 households and 674,000 ESPNU homes. That’s of course on the heels of losing more than 7 million subscribers over the last three years or so, thanks largely due to the rise of cord cutting, cord trimming (scaling down your TV package) and the rise of some “skinny bundles” that exclude ESPN from the base channel lineup.

ESPN demanded that Nielsen withdraw its numbers, insisting they represented a “dramatic, unexplainable variation” that didn’t match ESPN’s own numbers. Nielsen obliged, but after conducting an “extensive” review of the numbers found them to be “accurate as originally released.” Of course, this shouldn’t be a surprise; we’ve noted how everybody but ESPN appears to have seen the writing on the wall. But instead of adapting to the changing times, ESPN responded by denying that cord cutting was real, and suing companies like Verizon for trying to bring some flexibility to the traditional cable bundle.

Not too surprisingly, ESPN’s response in light of Nielsen confirming its numbers was to continue denying the very obvious fact that customers are tired of paying an arm and a leg for sports programming many of them simply don’t watch. From an ESPN statement given to the media:

“This most recent snapshot from Nielsen is a historic anomaly for the industry and inconsistent with much more moderated trends observed by other respected third party analysts. It also does not measure DMVPDs and other new distributors and we hope to work with Nielsen to capture this growing market in future reports.”

Except it’s not an “anomaly” at all if you’ve been watching ESPN’s subscriber base drop 2-4% per year right alongside dips in other broadcast ratings. Even sports, long believed to be the untouchable holy grail of television programming, has been suffering a notable decline as younger viewers look for cheaper, more flexible alternatives to the bloated cable bundle. ESPN’s response to these challenges? Either outright denial or incorrect claims by company executive John Skinner that these departing customers are old, poor, and not worth keeping anyway.

ESPN is the biggest beneficiary of the old method of bloated, overpriced channel bundles, but like so many broadcast and cable companies, it’s too terrified of prematurely harming the existing cable TV cash cow to try anything truly innovative. As a result, the company is seeing historic losses in subscribers, with apparently everybody but ESPN seeing that this adaptation (like a standalone streaming service) will need to come sooner rather than later.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: disney, espn, nielsen

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Despite ESPN Whining, Nielsen Confirms Historic Subscriber Losses For Channel”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
20 Comments
streetlight (profile) says:

The home team paradigm might be one problem

Besides the TV viewer that has absolutely no interest in sports, a TV viewer might be at home thinking of watching something and is mildly interested in sports so checks the listings. The home team (basketball, baseball, hockey, football, whatever) isn’t on so looks elsewhere for some entertainment. The viewer finds a couple of good movies not seen, checks out IMBD for ratings and forgets about sports. After some years of finding home teams are almost never on ESPN and isn’t interested in Frisbie golf, decides money can be saved by not subscribing to a package that includes ESPN. Of course, the high cost of the subscription is what ESPN has spent “billions and billions” of dollars for – sports, like basketball, that few will watch. Advertisers must also be ticked off because fewer and fewer eyes see their ads but are unwilling to pay higher fees to subsidize a failing network. ESPN has cash flow problems and starts firing it’s high paid analysts. Even sports fanatics become upset at the lower quality of on-air “talent” and move away. ESPN needs a new business model as well as the sports team industry.

PRMan (profile) says:

To be fair...

ESPN’s entire complaint is that Nielsen does NOT count cord-cutters watching their WatchESPN service through Sling or Vue, like I am.

That’s what “It also does not measure DMVPDs and other new distributors and we hope to work with Nielsen to capture this growing market in future reports” means.

It’s a legitimate complaint and Nielsen is a well-known dinosaur when it comes to these things. Unfortunately, ESPN will still lose money on ads until the dinosaur figures out how to count.

The Apache (user link) says:

Re: To be fair...

Good argument — however, espn might be streaming on Vue and Sling, they most certainly are not collecting the $6.80 they are getting from the cable companies. I’ll guess that it’s half that at best. And the fact that Sling is offering the non-espn version at a steeper price than then version that includes espn, makes this investor think espn is getting somewhere around ONE or TWO dollars from Sling and less from Vue.

Bruce C. says:

Up Next

MLB signs exclusive new broadcast/streaming contract with YouTube Red.

…or Amazon or Netflix or Hulu… One of the streaming services will be willing to overpay a bit to nail the lid on the coffin of traditional sports broadcasting, and then the floodgates will open. ESPN has held streaming of sports hostage to their broadcast service, but eventually, someone will be willing to pay enough for streaming that ESPN won’t be able to match because of the lost subscriber streams.

sehlat (profile) says:

And For Those of Us Who May Watch One/Two Games a Year

My local sports bar also has a Hofbrau. So… for Game 7 of the World Series, my wife and I went there, got a nice dinner and a drink each and then watched the game for less than the cost of one month of cable with E$PN.

And I make no secret of the fact that I cut my cord back in 1992 and haven’t looked back except to pull down and trash the slowly rotting cable more than a decade later.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

…company executive John Skinner that these departing customers are old, poor, and not worth keeping anyway.

Perhaps we should apply that logic to company executives who are old, overpaid, and not worth keeping unless you want to ride ESPN to the end, which is coming much faster than they want to admit. Even if he assists in driving ESPN into a smoking crater, he still gets a handy parachute… perhaps if you want them to adapt to changing markets you should tie their pay to performance of the network.

Geno0wl (profile) says:

As a result, the company is seeing historic losses in subscribers, with apparently everybody but ESPN seeing that this adaptation (like a standalone streaming service) will need to come sooner rather than later.

Pretty sure that them going to a straight stand along streaming service would actually violate a lot of their contracts which put them on the base package deals. Which is why they have not tried to push into that arena.

They are stuck in between a rock and a hard place in that respect. Sling TV is their attempt to get into the streaming space.

The Apache (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I love it too! And I don’t know why, because i’m a daily watcher and have been for 35 yrs. BUT espn has become a cess pool of hate and anti-white commentary and it’s difficult to imagine this was at one time a totally unstoppable machine. And now – it’s in the toilet with NO WAY OUT! Makes me smile and smile – – since i dropped my $180 per month Charter cable pack and now do the $20 Sling pack. Find myself hating espn even more than before!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

The problem is people are cutting the cord and don’t give a crap about ESPN. It’s the majority of Cable and Satellite subscribers subsidizing the Tiny fraction of people who do watch Sports. These Sports channels are the most costly.

If they were realistic, only those that wanted the Sports channels should pay, the real cost could be $25-$50 a month extra to get those Sport channels.

Even SlingTV, ESPN is thrown into the main Bundle and everyone PAYS wither they care about sports or not. It’s one reason I don’t pay for that. I get most of my TV from the Antenna.

Simon says:

Looking forward to the fallout

It’s increasingly looking as if ESPN has overpaid for certain sports rights and for too far into the future.

Losing their subsidizing viewers means that the people that really want ESPN are going to have to foot the bill, which as it increases will cause more and more will decide they can live without it. Thus ESPN will raise the costs and the vicious circle repeats. Hopefully a huge correction will occur and the ridiculous price of sports rights will become more sensible.

programvb.com/2017/03/Frequency-channels-hotbird-T (profile) says:

programvb.com

My local sports bar also has a Hofbrau. So… for Game 7 of the World Series, my wife and I went there, got a nice dinner and a drink each and then watched the game for less than the cost of one month of cable with E$PN.

And I make no secret of the fact that I cut my cord back in 1992 and haven’t looked back except to pull down and trash the slowly rotting cable more than a decade later.

http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/channel-frequency-alhidaya-tv.html
http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/channel-frequency-al-omma-tv.html
http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/channel-frequency-alathar-tv.html
http://www.programvb.com/search/label/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%AF%20%D9%82%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...