ESPN+ subscriptions increase to 21.3 million, up 76% from last year

[royals119]

Agreed - I think most people who I know that have it are due to Hulu - they love Hulu. Disney+ is probably up there with people who have children.

We had Disney+ first, and don't have kids. Disney has all the Marvel and Star Wars content. It's not just kids stuff.

When the NHL switched to ESPN+ we looked at all the packages and ended up going all in on Hulu+ (added live TV, extended DVR, commercial free, etc) and dropped a couple of other streaming services. Seems like a pretty smart move on their part offering diverse programming over multiple platforms and discounting the bundle.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

The NHL and the other sports leagues need to dump the blackout rule. Customers pay for ESPN+ for the hockey package, they pay for MLB TV and the NBA package. Their local team(s) games are blacked out and you need a cable TV subscription/streaming TV service to watch your team play. You already paid ESPN+ and now you are paying another $80-$110 per month for cable/streaming service to watch your team play.

We live in a world where you can watch HBO, Showtime, etc without a TV provider. Just pay your $15 per month to HBO. You get HBO Max.

The teams make from selling their TV rights to RSN's and the RSN's make their deals with the TV providers. They are double dipping. We have the technology where we don't need the middle man anymore. We are getting screwed. HBO eliminated the middle man and are selling their product directly to customers.

We are moving in the direction of RSNs going direct to consumer. There's been tons out there in recent weeks about Sinclair and NBCU preparing for this.

You'll still need to pay for your RSN, since that's the team's revenue stream. You're never going to get your local team on a national package.

 

[Kirk Van Houten]

 

[gstommylee]

We are moving in the direction of RSNs going direct to consumer. There's been tons out there in recent weeks about Sinclair and NBCU preparing for this.

You'll still need to pay for your RSN, since that's the team's revenue stream. You're never going to get your local team on a national package.

RSN isn't going to survive on a direct to consumer... Basically be like a HBO and have to subscribe to get it will not bring in the money people think it'll will.

 

[eojsmada]

RSN isn't going to survive on a direct to consumer... Basically be like a HBO and have to subscribe to get it will not bring in the money people think it'll will.

I'd be curious to see if a major sports league would ditch the RSN idea and create their own media, subsuming all of the RSN's into itself (creating a separate "division" of their corporate entity) and sell to the consumer. I know they don't like having to put that much effort into their broadcasts and dealing with so many "talent" contracts...but it would be an interesting thing to see.

 

[Spydey629]

I'd be curious to see if a major sports league would ditch the RSN idea and create their own media, subsuming all of the RSN's into itself (creating a separate "division" of their corporate entity) and sell to the consumer. I know they don't like having to put that much effort into their broadcasts and dealing with so many "talent" contracts...but it would be an interesting thing to see.

Aren’t NESN, Yes, and MSG doing this already? The groups that own the teams that play on those networks own the networks, too.

 

[Fatass]

Up here hockey is easy to get on TV. Is it hard to watch hockey in the States? Does a viewer need a special channel like this ESPN+ to watch games?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Up here hockey is easy to get on TV. Is it hard to watch hockey in the States? Does a viewer need a special channel like this ESPN+ to watch games?

Depends on the games. Local games you can (usually) get through cable packages (but not always).

 

[Tawnos]

Depends on the games. Local games you can (usually) get through cable packages (but not always).

Modify that to “local games you HAVE TO (usually) get through cable packages”

I include something like Fubo when I say cable package, because it’s the same exact concept over a different delivery format.

 

[varsaku]

MEDIA Disney to raise price on ad-free Disney+ to $13.99 per month starting October 12

• Disney is increasing the price of Disney+ and Hulu without commercials, but is leaving the price stable for the products with ads.
• Disney’s streaming division lost $512 million in its third quarter.
• Disney is launching a new “premium duo” product of Disney+ and Hulu without commercials for $19.99 per month.

Disney is raising prices on almost all of its streaming offerings as it looks to accelerate profitability for the business.

Commercial-free Disney+ will cost $13.99 per month, a 27% increase, beginning Oct. 12. Disney+ with ads will remain $7.99 per month. Disney will also expand its ad-tier offering to select markets in Europe and in Canada beginning Nov. 1.

Disney is increasing the price of Hulu without ads to $17.99 per month, a 20% price hike. Hulu with ads will also stay the same price, at $7.99 per month.

 

[S E P H]

The "Disney Bundle" effect.....

Isn't Disney+ numbers really down though? I remember reading that they lost a ton of subscribers.

 

[MMC]

Isn't Disney+ numbers really down though? I remember reading that they lost a ton of subscribers.

Most are due to them no longer carrying cricket in India

 

[LadyStanley]

Up here hockey is easy to get on TV. Is it hard to watch hockey in the States? Does a viewer need a special channel like this ESPN+ to watch games?

ESPN+ is really only for out of market games. (ESPN/2 and TNT/TBS are not -- currently -- included in that package. Nor NHL Network.)

Depends on the games. Local games you can (usually) get through cable packages (but not always).

Unless you are lucky and the team has moved to an OTA channel due to bankruptcy/death of previous local (cable) carrier. (If the channel is receivable in your location.)