On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good article. I have one bicker point: I don't think ESPN is as > "essential" as the article implies. We might have talked about this in the > past, but I often wonder what the break down is between "I don't watch > ESPN", "I watch ESPN for a specific team/event", and "I watch ESPN > regardless of what's on/because I'm a huge [league/conference/sport] fan > and they have them." The example of the second group would be a person in > the Detroit area who watch if they had the Pistons, Tigers, Lions, > Wolverines, Spartans, or [Directional] Michigan (or any combination > thereof), but that's it. (SNIP) > Your group 2 though is precisely what makes securing live sports contracts so crucial for ESPN. It is not enough for them to have an NBA deal to get those Detroit viewers, who will only watch when the Pistons are on. They need MLB and NCAA and NASCAR and as many more as possible. And if the Pistons or Tigers or Wolverines start showing up on Fox Sports 1 with any regularity, ESPN loses those viewers who will do not watch them for poker or SportsCenter or PTI or Mike and Mike, and puts downward pressure on subscription fees. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
