Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshfinnie | Hacker News Reader

I am surprised that ESPN (with all their control) haven't adopted a better online presence.

I would pay them directly $10 a month to access their sports and TV shows. Can't be doing better through the cable contracts...

View on HN

ESPN makes more then 1 Billion Dollars a year in cable carriage fees. As stated in another response they get between $2-5 per cable subscriber from these deals. This is all subs including many that don't view their channel.

No, $10 a month ala carte is not a better option for them. ESPN likes their position in cable, its hugely profitable.

ESPN makes more the $4 billion from those fees. And then they get to show advertisments as well.

I wonder if there's some kind of agreement that prohibits them from pulling the end-around on cable? Anyone know? Even if they could pull it off, they probably don't want to bite the hand that feeds.

I guess that's what I am saying. I am surprised they haven't done both yet. Get the non-cable subscribers with a separate package...

ESPN is owned by Disney[1], and I believe it is considered a channel conflict (i.e. don't compete with your customers). In effect, by making their content less scarce, their customers (Comcast, Dish) would ask for a discount during the negotiations because the content is now perceived as less valuable. In addition, advertisers simply won't pay the same rates to advertise against "internet content" as they will for cable or broadcast. My suspicion is that it has something to do with the potential for divided attention of the viewer.

[1]http://mediakit.go.com/espn/

ESPN is the costliest "basic" channel that the cable companies provide. As of 2008, it was $3.65 per subscriber per month, and ever increasing as new broadcast contracts are signed with various leagues. It's very debatable whether a $10 / month ala carte alternative would do better for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com