In 2021, ESPN lost 8 million cable and satellite subscribers, finishing with around 75 million total subscribers. That 8 million subscriber loss represented 10% of ESPN’s overall subscriber base and accelerated a calamitous decline from over 100 million subscribers just over a decade ago. The loss of those eight million subscribers will …
In 2021, ESPN lost 8 million cable and satellite subscribers, finishing with around 75 million total subscribers. That 8 million subscriber loss represented 10% of ESPN’s overall subscriber base and accelerated a calamitous decline from over 100 million subscribers just over a decade ago. The loss of those eight million subscribers will cost the network roughly a billion a year in recurring revenue across all ESPN network properties…representing the largest yearly subscriber loss in ESPN history.
ESPN’s future as a standalone cable entity is even more dire. Why? Because streaming isn’t going to save ESPN’s business either, no matter how much bragging to the contrary company executives attempt about ESPN+.
The consensus view is that ESPN will lose around 5 million subscribers a year between now and 2030ish, eventually settling at a floor of 50 million subscribers. What’s important to note is that ESPN would be losing money hand over fist if this, the consensus view, occurs. Because as ESPN’s revenue declines the amount it can afford to pay for sports rights, at least if profitability is the goal, will decline substantially too
Just 22.3 million subscribers currently have ESPN+. Many of these “subscribers” aren’t real subscribers either, they are included in rolled up bundled streaming options that are providing ESPN+ at virtually no cost. And the streaming business in general is still producing a massive deficit
Let me explain the basic math here and show you the problems that are destined to arise for ESPN in future years.
Links avoid a lot of copy and paste. Especially when economics are involved. You may have to be a bit more open minded to understand his economic analysis is sound. Travis is not my favorite either, but this one is worth reading.
In 2021, ESPN lost 8 million cable and satellite subscribers, finishing with around 75 million total subscribers. That 8 million subscriber loss represented 10% of ESPN’s overall subscriber base and accelerated a calamitous decline from over 100 million subscribers just over a decade ago. The loss of those eight million subscribers will cost the network roughly a billion a year in recurring revenue across all ESPN network properties…representing the largest yearly subscriber loss in ESPN history.
ESPN’s future as a standalone cable entity is even more dire. Why? Because streaming isn’t going to save ESPN’s business either, no matter how much bragging to the contrary company executives attempt about ESPN+.
The consensus view is that ESPN will lose around 5 million subscribers a year between now and 2030ish, eventually settling at a floor of 50 million subscribers. What’s important to note is that ESPN would be losing money hand over fist if this, the consensus view, occurs. Because as ESPN’s revenue declines the amount it can afford to pay for sports rights, at least if profitability is the goal, will decline substantially too
Just 22.3 million subscribers currently have ESPN+. Many of these “subscribers” aren’t real subscribers either, they are included in rolled up bundled streaming options that are providing ESPN+ at virtually no cost. And the streaming business in general is still producing a massive deficit
Let me explain the basic math here and show you the problems that are destined to arise for ESPN in future years.
https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-million-subscribers-in-2021-10-of-its-overall-subscriber-base/
I think we’re in a CFB bubble, and by the end of their contracts the networks will regret overpaying for the inventory.
You need to read the whole linked column to understand why the economics are different for ESPN.
Links avoid a lot of copy and paste. Especially when economics are involved. You may have to be a bit more open minded to understand his economic analysis is sound. Travis is not my favorite either, but this one is worth reading.