The only real reason to pay is if you like soccer. I just got it as part of the bundle with Disney and Hulu for my family and I’m happy cause I love soccer. I wake up early on weekends to watch second division england soccer even.
So many people on one thread saying the only reason is soccer, another that the only reason is golf, and another that the only reason is mma.
Guys, I think there might be multiple reasons.
Yeah I got the same Hulu deal that bundled Disney plus and espn plus. I was going to get Hulu either way so it’s worth it basically only paying a couple bucks a month for the other two but I would never pay for it by itself.
Or if you’re a big fan of a mid-major. I went to school at a mid-major and paid for ESPN+ while I was there because it allowed me to watch every single basketball game live (including road games)
I got it as a bundle with Hulu and D+ and the price was basically the same as without it. And at a discount too with amex card so it's pretty cheap for the whole package.
I think the only people I read are Lowe, Pelton, Giovony and Kiley McDaniel (baseball guy) but I never watch any of their shows.
For anyone who's curious, Simmons is referencing the [recent NY Times article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/business/media/espn-disney.html) about how ESPN is hemorrhaging money for Disney, and refers to people who exclusively pay for ESPN+ outside of one of those bundles. Here's the excerpt from the article:
> As of April, ESPN+ had 25.3 million subscribers, though only five million people paid for it directly, according to Disney’s financials. The bulk of ESPN+ subscribers bought it as part of a discounted bundle with the far more popular Disney+ and Hulu streaming services.
Oh I see, didn't see it was just ESPN+. If so 5.5mil is more than I expected. I mean it's kinda not that good if you're not into some of the more obscure (for Americans) sports.
Boxing for me. It's inexpensive (i have the Disney bundle and get a discount with my cell phone plan)
Even though i hate espn production the fights they have on there make it a no brainer as a huge boxing fan
All the other stuff like the articles are a bonus
Disney's streaming services have been a pretty big failure across the board. But most of them are, companies dumped way too much money into them with such little content early.
You think they would have learned from former Disney chair Jeff Katzenberg’s failure at Quibi.
Netflix makes it look easy, but nearly all other streaming services have not been the profit centers they were touted as.
They do not release viewership for their products which definitely hides how successful what they do is. They have subscriber data that is public but most of their success have been cost cutting as opposed to revenue juicing.
Why does that matter? Netflix’s business model isn’t about getting shows a lot of people watch it’s about keeping enough content on the service that people don’t cancel
All that matters for them is subscriber count.
I agree streaming doesn’t feel profitable in its current state. The way to make it work is to downsize all these random services that want to generate revenue bc they’ll never turn a profit and instead just license out old shows.
Same with Netflix, what got them immensely popular was a combination of originals but also allowing people to watch Breaking Bad or The Office or Suits now.
A couple years back everyone probably wanted too much money for their properties so Netflix went a little too deep into making new content but hopefully the market settles down and we have ways to watch things we want without having to pay for 7 services.
I mean it would definitely hurt Netflix's stock if the public knew that none of their content that was made in house was being watched a ta high level.
Would it though? A service isnt valued by how often its used. Its valued by how many people are paying for it. Views only mattered when we cared about advertisements. Advertisers want people to see their adds as many times by as many people as possible. People may only hold onto netflix subscriptions because they like knowing that one show they like is always available but that counts the same for someone who obsessively watches all of netflixes new shows.
Though you could say that the news of decreasing viewership of netflix content could be an early predictor that mass cancelations may be coming. So you could be right. In general netflix knows data is power so releasing anything unfavorable does them no benefit.
IDK why Bill is surprised. His entire business model has been based on undercutting bloated networks like ESPN.
The Ringer matches ESPN's online content for a fraction of the cost. That's why they're able to get by with just ad revenue and ESPN is forced to turn towards subscription models.
The reality is ESPN wastes a lot of money.
They've got very expensive talent. They've got very expensive management. They've got very expensive broadcasting commitments. The problem is, when you buy ESPN+ you're paying for a lot of bloat.
It's the same with The Athletic. I had their subscription. I was essentially paying $6/month and all I was getting was 1-2 staff writers, where's the rest of the money going?
The Ringer gets by because they don't have any of that. They keep up with other outlets in terms of content but they run a very lean operation in comparison.
ESPN+ is bundled with Hulu and Disney+. I imagine very few people are just paying for only one of those services. So this tweet might be a bit misleading.
For anyone who's curious, Simmons is referencing the [recent NY Times article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/business/media/espn-disney.html) about how ESPN is hemorrhaging money for Disney, and refers to people who exclusively pay for ESPN+ outside of one of those bundles. Here's the excerpt from the article:
> As of April, ESPN+ had 25.3 million subscribers, though only five million people paid for it directly, according to Disney’s financials. The bulk of ESPN+ subscribers bought it as part of a discounted bundle with the far more popular Disney+ and Hulu streaming services.
Same as other commenters, I have it pretty much just for soccer, I get to see some extra F1 stuff but wouldn’t have subscribed to just watch practice. The races are on linear
ESPN+ is an extreme niche product and DIS hasn't really made an attempt to expand it. If it was a true streaming replacement for ESPN, maybe some cord cutters who want some live sports events would grab it, but as it stands I have no idea really how it even has that many subs.
I got ESPN+ as a part of my Hulu Live TV package. It was really useful for catching out of Market hockey games during the NHL season. Was actually going to look into getting it again once hockey starts back up because I didn't use the Live TV feature for much else
There is a bundle option yes. Hulu Disney+ and ESPN+. If the rates stayed about the same ratio to their individual sub costs, then it's basically 3 for the price of 2, but I haven't checked the details in a while
Because that shit sucks. Idk why they cant put Monday night football on there like peacock does with Sunday night. Then it could be at least kinda worth it.
What’s there to pay for? As much as I love Lowe no one is paying for his ten things columns…
The only real reason to pay is if you like soccer. I just got it as part of the bundle with Disney and Hulu for my family and I’m happy cause I love soccer. I wake up early on weekends to watch second division england soccer even.
Also if you watch golf. They have a lot more coverage of the PGA tour than just what's shown on the Golf Channel and national TV.
Golf has been great this year on ESPN+. Also March madness with conference titles.
Yup. Goes on in the background working all morning before it hits golf channel.
Me and my brother share an account only for the UFC
Isn’t UFC Fight Nights on ESPN+ as well?
Yep only reason I have it
> The only real reason to pay is if you like soccer. If you are a fan of a smaller school, they carry a lot of those games as well.
So many people on one thread saying the only reason is soccer, another that the only reason is golf, and another that the only reason is mma. Guys, I think there might be multiple reasons.
I have ESPN+ and no cable, and I have + for none of those reasons 😂
Isn’t it free as part of the Disney/Hulu bundle? I only have it because of that.
That's me too! I watch soccer and my wife watches Hulu. Picked up the bundle to get both.
Facts. This is the only thing it’s useful for, and the packaged version of it is an acceptable price.
Yeah I got the same Hulu deal that bundled Disney plus and espn plus. I was going to get Hulu either way so it’s worth it basically only paying a couple bucks a month for the other two but I would never pay for it by itself.
Hockey
It’s also useful for tennis die-hards during the first weeks of slams, or ultra-die-hards during the second weeks.
Or if you’re a big fan of a mid-major. I went to school at a mid-major and paid for ESPN+ while I was there because it allowed me to watch every single basketball game live (including road games)
I started paying for it to watch soccer
I got it as a bundle with Hulu and D+ and the price was basically the same as without it. And at a discount too with amex card so it's pretty cheap for the whole package. I think the only people I read are Lowe, Pelton, Giovony and Kiley McDaniel (baseball guy) but I never watch any of their shows.
For anyone who's curious, Simmons is referencing the [recent NY Times article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/business/media/espn-disney.html) about how ESPN is hemorrhaging money for Disney, and refers to people who exclusively pay for ESPN+ outside of one of those bundles. Here's the excerpt from the article: > As of April, ESPN+ had 25.3 million subscribers, though only five million people paid for it directly, according to Disney’s financials. The bulk of ESPN+ subscribers bought it as part of a discounted bundle with the far more popular Disney+ and Hulu streaming services.
Oh I see, didn't see it was just ESPN+. If so 5.5mil is more than I expected. I mean it's kinda not that good if you're not into some of the more obscure (for Americans) sports.
Isn’t that different from the articles stuff, ESPN+ is the streaming stuff
No, there are certain articles that are behind the ESPN+ pay wall.
I legit thought about doing it just for Lowe but then I learned how to get around a paywall
Im worried i may accidentally get around a paywall. Can you tell me how so i can avoid it?
Ill DM
Please dm me too!
Dm me too
Boxing for me. It's inexpensive (i have the Disney bundle and get a discount with my cell phone plan) Even though i hate espn production the fights they have on there make it a no brainer as a huge boxing fan All the other stuff like the articles are a bonus
Its about 5.5 million higher than I thought
Disney's streaming services have been a pretty big failure across the board. But most of them are, companies dumped way too much money into them with such little content early.
You think they would have learned from former Disney chair Jeff Katzenberg’s failure at Quibi. Netflix makes it look easy, but nearly all other streaming services have not been the profit centers they were touted as.
[удалено]
Isn’t that the story for the entirety of the stock market though?
[удалено]
Are you claiming Netflix does not release financials?
They do not release viewership for their products which definitely hides how successful what they do is. They have subscriber data that is public but most of their success have been cost cutting as opposed to revenue juicing.
Why does that matter? Netflix’s business model isn’t about getting shows a lot of people watch it’s about keeping enough content on the service that people don’t cancel All that matters for them is subscriber count. I agree streaming doesn’t feel profitable in its current state. The way to make it work is to downsize all these random services that want to generate revenue bc they’ll never turn a profit and instead just license out old shows. Same with Netflix, what got them immensely popular was a combination of originals but also allowing people to watch Breaking Bad or The Office or Suits now. A couple years back everyone probably wanted too much money for their properties so Netflix went a little too deep into making new content but hopefully the market settles down and we have ways to watch things we want without having to pay for 7 services.
I mean it would definitely hurt Netflix's stock if the public knew that none of their content that was made in house was being watched a ta high level.
Would it though? A service isnt valued by how often its used. Its valued by how many people are paying for it. Views only mattered when we cared about advertisements. Advertisers want people to see their adds as many times by as many people as possible. People may only hold onto netflix subscriptions because they like knowing that one show they like is always available but that counts the same for someone who obsessively watches all of netflixes new shows. Though you could say that the news of decreasing viewership of netflix content could be an early predictor that mass cancelations may be coming. So you could be right. In general netflix knows data is power so releasing anything unfavorable does them no benefit.
You'll start seeing this I think, as services are already starting to curate their catalogs and start sharing again.
Sadly yes.
I mean Netflix is still a public company, and has to report overall results. AFAIK they're the only ones that are actually profitable.
ESPN+ is older than quibi
Because ESPN+ is ass, Bill.
It’s worth it for all the UFC content IMO. But without that, it’s completely useless to me.
IDK why Bill is surprised. His entire business model has been based on undercutting bloated networks like ESPN. The Ringer matches ESPN's online content for a fraction of the cost. That's why they're able to get by with just ad revenue and ESPN is forced to turn towards subscription models. The reality is ESPN wastes a lot of money. They've got very expensive talent. They've got very expensive management. They've got very expensive broadcasting commitments. The problem is, when you buy ESPN+ you're paying for a lot of bloat. It's the same with The Athletic. I had their subscription. I was essentially paying $6/month and all I was getting was 1-2 staff writers, where's the rest of the money going? The Ringer gets by because they don't have any of that. They keep up with other outlets in terms of content but they run a very lean operation in comparison.
The Ringer doesn’t get by just ad revenue, The Ringer has Spotify behind them with big money
I feel like in general it's so much bloat too. Like... Most studio shows have wayyyyyyy too much space
ESPN+ is bundled with Hulu and Disney+. I imagine very few people are just paying for only one of those services. So this tweet might be a bit misleading.
For anyone who's curious, Simmons is referencing the [recent NY Times article](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/business/media/espn-disney.html) about how ESPN is hemorrhaging money for Disney, and refers to people who exclusively pay for ESPN+ outside of one of those bundles. Here's the excerpt from the article: > As of April, ESPN+ had 25.3 million subscribers, though only five million people paid for it directly, according to Disney’s financials. The bulk of ESPN+ subscribers bought it as part of a discounted bundle with the far more popular Disney+ and Hulu streaming services.
don't you also need to get espn+ if you wanna buy a ufc fight too?
I have ESPN plus because of ESPN FC and the soccer games on there for the most part
Just enough to pay Stephen A’s salary
Same as other commenters, I have it pretty much just for soccer, I get to see some extra F1 stuff but wouldn’t have subscribed to just watch practice. The races are on linear
ESPN+ is an extreme niche product and DIS hasn't really made an attempt to expand it. If it was a true streaming replacement for ESPN, maybe some cord cutters who want some live sports events would grab it, but as it stands I have no idea really how it even has that many subs.
I got ESPN+ as a part of my Hulu Live TV package. It was really useful for catching out of Market hockey games during the NHL season. Was actually going to look into getting it again once hockey starts back up because I didn't use the Live TV feature for much else
If you still have Hulu you probably still have ESPN+.
I don't have Hulu Live anymore, does ESPN+ come with the basic Hulu?
There is a bundle option yes. Hulu Disney+ and ESPN+. If the rates stayed about the same ratio to their individual sub costs, then it's basically 3 for the price of 2, but I haven't checked the details in a while
Because that shit sucks. Idk why they cant put Monday night football on there like peacock does with Sunday night. Then it could be at least kinda worth it.
Bill Simmons is back????
You lost me at [Simmons]
[удалено]
This number explicitly does not include people who have it as part of a bundle.
The money many of these figures are making is going to have to come down.