# From Variety: ESPN+ Monthly Subscription to Rise $3 in August 2022



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

ESPN+ Raises Price in Monthly Subscription by $3 - Variety


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

Sports rights are expensive. And Disney has to figure out how to make more and more of their ESPN live sports portfolio available in one or more direct-to-consumer standalone streaming services that are priced high enough to be decently profitable but low enough to attract a sufficient number of subs. I can't see how their total revenue for DTC sports streaming will EVER be anywhere near as much as it's historically been for ESPN on cable, given that every cable TV sub in America had to pay for ESPN whether they ever watched it or not but only actual sports fans would buy a standalone ESPN DTC streaming service.

I expect that Disney's streaming services will evolve along these lines going forward:

fall 2022 -- Introduction of "Disney+ Hulu" wherein those two services/apps are only sold to new subs as a pair. This will coincide with the debut of the ad-supported version of Disney+. Get both services with ads for around $10/mo or both without ads for around $16/mo. Add ESPN+ for around $5/mo more to get the full Disney Bundle for either $15/mo or $21/mo.

fall 2023 -- The ESPN telecast of NFL Monday Night Football debuts as a live stream in Disney+, with additional major live sporting events promised to come in the future. 
Meanwhile, Disney launches a new FAST (free ad-supported television) app called Magic, featuring a rotating selection of older content, mostly from the vaults of the Disney and 20th Century film and TV studios, plus a small number of new original projects. It also includes their free streaming ABC News Live content, plus live and on-demand local news content from ABC's O&O stations across the nation. Magic is positioned as the company's direct competitor to Paramount's Pluto TV, Fox's Tubi, the free tier of NBCU's Peacock, and Amazon's Freevee. These FAST apps are increasingly seen as the streaming successors to those companies' over-the-air broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC).

fall 2024 -- The Hulu app is shut down, with its full library having become available a few months prior inside the Disney+ app under a new Hulu-branded content hub. Hulu's live TV add-on, now known as Disney+ Live TV, exists as an optional separate hub/section inside Disney+.

2025 -- Disney debuts ESPN College, a new direct-to-consumer sports streaming service carrying most of the live college sports that air across their linear ESPN cable channels. Between ESPN College, ESPN+, and select broadly popular sporting events on Disney+, the vast majority of the company's live sports portfolio is now available in their suite of DTC apps.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> And Disney has to figure out how to make more and more of their ESPN live sports portfolio available in one or more direct-to-consumer standalone streaming services that are priced high enough to be decently profitable but low enough to attract a sufficient number of subs.


So raising the price is the best strategy they could come up with?


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

harsh said:


> So raising the price is the best strategy they could come up with?


They have no choice, really. As they put more sports into ESPN+ -- including out-of-season NHL games this year (i.e. the NHL equivalent to MLB.tv) -- they have to increase the price to cover those costs. And as more and more of total ESPN subscribers are on the DTC side as opposed to the linear cable side, DTC will have to shoulder more of the profit burden. There doesn't seem to be a floor anywhere in sight in terms of where US cable sub numbers will level out. People just keep dumping the bundle at a clip of just over 5% per year.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

I think part of it might be to incentivize more people into taking the full Disney + bundle. For example, while ESPN+ is going up 3 bucks, the Disney+ bundle with ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu price is unchanged, at least for now. So. for someone like me who has ESPN+ and Disney+, it made sense to just add Hulu for a couple bucks extra per month.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> They have no choice, really.


How about they spend what resources they have on content that appeals? If they don't have enough content for the channels they have, reduce the number of channels rather than trying to stretch cornhole and poker to fill the gaps. ESPN won't survive if they try to cover everything poorly. I'm also not convinced of the need of headline sports news TV programming.

The movie plexes could heed similar advice.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

Probably coming to realize that very few people who watch TV actually watch or care about sports. And they paid a TON of money for the rights to show said sports. And they're just now realizing that people don't really care about watching sports.

I'm a moderate sports fan (baseball and college basketball), but when I read through various forums and mostly the younger generation it just seems that sports is not a major interest for people. Nothing wrong with that.

But I've long said that these leagues and conferences that value themselves have really over priced themselves and ESPN, RSNs, and other sports outlets have answered the call to pay whatever price those leagues and conferences have wanted. And now they're finding trouble in recouping that cost.


----------



## sd72667 (Aug 25, 2008)

I get the Disney/ESPN+/Hulu bundle for "free" through my Verizon account. I barely watch Disney+ or ESPN+ and I never watch Hulu especially since I pay for Paramount+ without ads. If the bundle price increases, adios bundle. I'm already getting chiseled each month from Netflix, YouTube TV, FRNDLY TV, HBO Max and Paramount+


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

evotz said:


> Probably coming to realize that very few people who watch TV actually watch or care about sports. And they paid a TON of money for the rights to show said sports. And they're just now realizing that people don't really care about watching sports.
> 
> I'm a moderate sports fan (baseball and college basketball), but when I read through various forums and mostly the younger generation it just seems that sports is not a major interest for people. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> But I've long said that these leagues and conferences that value themselves have really over priced themselves and ESPN, RSNs, and other sports outlets have answered the call to pay whatever price those leagues and conferences have wanted. And now they're finding trouble in recouping that cost.


I don't know if it's the issue that younger people aren't interested in watching sports. They're just not interested in PAYING to watch sports. Don't want to pay $69.99 for the UFC PPV? Someone is streaming it on Tik Tok or Twitter. They'll settle for watching someone pointing their phone at a screen for 40 minutes to see the main event. Out of market football? There's a website streaming it free. And there's a whole rabbit hole of rogue services/jailbroken devices that we don't normally discuss on these forums that provide everything under the sun for >$50/month.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

B. Shoe said:


> I don't know if it's the issue that younger people aren't interested in watching sports. They're just not interested in PAYING to watch sports.


That is part of the problem. Fortunately I am at an age / place in life where I can pay for what I want to watch. I am not a teenager living off of my parents accounts or "college age" bumming off my friends. My job pays a living wage (very fortunate to have a living wage job). And I have not quite gone off the other end of life into social security and retirement not being enough. But that assumes the "younger people" would pay if they could and not consider their stolen service not a real crime or "sticking it to the man". Billion dollar companies don't need my $6.99 per month / $69.99 per year to survive - what does it hurt? And when companies embrace account sharing like Netflix did to boost their viewership defining right and wrong can be difficult.

As for ESPN+, I didn't see the value of it when it was $5.99. Adding a dollar to the monthly subscription did not increase the value. Jumping nearly 43% to $9.99 / $99.99 makes the service cost more, not worth more. I believe a lot of subscribers are going to ask where their 43% more content is - just like we have been asking what was added to our MVPD satellite/cable subscriptions for the past decade or two. $5 more each year? What new channels did I get?

ESPN has been struggling for years and I wonder if a collapse is due. The "sticking it to the man" crowd would enjoy that. When times were good, MVPD subscriptions were increasing and they were seen as the (not just a) "must have" content for an MVPD to survive they made commitments that the declining level of subscriptions cannot cover. Commitments that they cannot back out of to cut costs (although they can reduce the quality of their coverage at the risk of losing viewers). If they can't cut costs ESPN must find some way to collect more money. Or die trying.


----------



## MCHuf (Oct 9, 2011)

I think that piracy has been way overblown for years now. While people may pirate an expensive ppv, how many are pirating a regular season game in any sport? My son just turned 30 and he and his friends never watch or care for sports. These companies are grossly overpaying for games and now that people are dropping MVPDs for direct content that they are willing to pay for, sports content is hurt the most due to the ridiculous pricing of it.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Part of the discussion of the ESPN+ price increasing, in comparison to other streaming services, is that this specific service is evolving from what it originally started out as, to what Disney wants it to be.

ESPN+ was designed as a complimentary service to the myriad of ESPN programming on MVPD. A few extra collegiate games, maybe access to a SkyCam at a bowl game, or the Above The Rim cam for a basketball game. Then toss in some other odds and ends from time to time. The early days of those that remember streaming on ESPN3 recall that there wasn't much there, but it was nice to have from time to time, especially since there wasn't any real added cost.

Now E+ is throwing everything under the sun that it can into the service. NHL, extra MLB broadcasts, international sporting leagues and series (FIBA basketball tournaments, EURO soccer, etc.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The question is whether a consumer believes that content is "added value." For someone that loves soccer, hockey and UFC/MMA, there's a lot of value in E+. If you're more of a traditional four major sports viewer, and maybe not insanely invested in college sports, you won't find it worthwhile, regardless of the cost.

But unlike some other streaming services, I believe E+ is a service that is actually growing in terms of what it offers, even in comparison to 2-3 years ago. It's up to the consumer to decide if it's worth it to them.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

B. Shoe said:


> Part of the discussion of the ESPN+ price increasing, in comparison to other streaming services, is that this specific service is evolving from what it originally started out as, to what Disney wants it to be.
> 
> ESPN+ was designed as a complimentary service to the myriad of ESPN programming on MVPD. A few extra collegiate games, maybe access to a SkyCam at a bowl game, or the Above The Rim cam for a basketball game. Then toss in some other odds and ends from time to time. The early days of those that remember streaming on ESPN3 recall that there wasn't much there, but it was nice to have from time to time, especially since there wasn't any real added cost.
> 
> ...


Yeah, here's a good write-up from earlier this year focusing on what ESPN+ has been adding.









ESPN to Focus Heavily on Adding Live Sports Rights to ESPN+


Were you impressed by the amount of live sports content that ESPN added for its streaming service ESPN+ last year? If words from the Worldwide Leader’s head honcho are any indication, we ain’t seen …




thestreamable.com





As I wrote above, I don't think it's feasible for ESPN to ever sell a standalone DTC service that offers the entirety of ESPN's current live broadcast content. It's just too much to stuff into one "take-it-or-leave-it" package, because the overwhelming majority of consumers would leave it, given the necessary price tag. 

Instead, put a few select big events (e.g. championships) in Disney+ and then divide the rest up into targeted services. Given their strength in college sports, especially the SEC, I think it makes a lot of sense to have an "ESPN College" app and an "ESPN Pro" app, the latter of which would span from certain major US leagues to various niche sports and foreign leagues. Given the seasonality of sports, I'd suggest both those apps have an inflated monthly price and a relatively large discount for purchasing by the year (perhaps billed quarterly).

And in addition to that, it might make sense for them to try to sell out of some of those sports rights they hold, e.g. their regular season national NBA and WNBA games. Assuming broadcast rights can be severed from DTC streaming rights, they might try to sell those streaming rights to Apple, Amazon, HBO Max, etc.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, here's a good write-up from earlier this year focusing on what ESPN+ has been adding.


Adding or moving from other ESPN channels? If moving it is a good way to keep charging MVPDs $8+ per month and charge extra for the previously included content. Part of figuring out how to charge more.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

B. Shoe said:


> But unlike some other streaming services, I believe E+ is a service that is actually growing in terms of what it offers, even in comparison to 2-3 years ago. It's up to the consumer to decide if it's worth it to them.


ESPN+ is what ESPN really should have been from the start. Except that the Internet (and especially Internet video on demand) wasn't really a thing in the 80's

The only real point of the myriad number of ESPN off-shoots (ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, SEC, ACC... what am I forgetting?) is for overflow. An Internet backed platform doesn't have that issue. If a game is suppose to start at 7PM but can't because the Duke/North Carolina game went long, then that game either has to delay, start on an overflow channel, or viewers miss the first 5 or 10 minutes of the game.

An Internet backed video distribution system, like ESPN+, doesn't have that problem. The game can start on time because viewers that want to see that game can just start that game.

But the point about removing ESPN from MVPD is warranted because ESPN will lose a lot of money if this happens. They can't ride the coat tails of MVPD consumers that never watch ESPN. But this is more of a hole that ESPN dug themselves into when they didn't realize that "subscribers" and "viewers" were too different things. So the paid gobs of money for leagues, conferences, games that "subscribers" had access to... but didn't view. Now with the MVPD structure starting to fall apart ESPN is left with an incredible bill that they struggle to pay.

Might be interesting to see if ESPN can get out from under that debt or if a new streaming sports network emerges that follows the ESPN+ model. The commitment years that ESPN has with some of their sports contracts are really long, but maybe there's an out some where.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

evotz said:


> An Internet backed video distribution system, like ESPN+, doesn't have that problem. The game can start on time because viewers that want to see that game can just start that game.


That is something I have wanted on the MVPD delivery for years. It has sort of worked with timers finding programs to record on selected channels and dropping the content into my recorded shows list (including recordings in progress) ... but it would be good to have a "Indianapolis Colts" channel that would show the game regardless of what network or channel had the rights. (The Colts is probably a bad example since it is national football available OTA, but the concept is "I want to watch my team" and one would tune to the "my team" channel and see today's concept regardless of network or overflow channel.)

The concept crossed my mind years ago when NASCAR was on ESPN meant the race would start on some overflow channel and my timers would record whatever ran over instead of the content I wanted. That happens less with the current Fox/NBC arrangement, but I still would like to simply have the game / race show up without hunting.


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> Adding or moving from other ESPN channels? If moving it is a good way to keep charging MVPDs $8+ per month and charge extra for the previously included content. Part of figuring out how to charge more.


I'm not sure how much live sports content, if any, ESPN has moved from linear to ESPN+ so far. One of the big things that ESPN+ has landed is the package of NHL out-of-market games; what used to be called NHL.tv is now part of ESPN+ at no extra cost. AFAIK, they're still going to distribute OOM games via MVPDs as the NHL Center Ice package; looks like they dropped the price of that down to around $60/yr last season to be more competitive with the price of ESPN+. Back before it got replaced by ESPN+, it looks like NHL.tv was priced at $145/yr.









NHL.TV | NHL TV Price, Cost, Plans, Packages & Free Trial


Learn more about NHL.TV with our comprehensive guide! Find out what games are on NHL.TV, how to get deals on NHL.TV, and more.




cordcutting.com


----------



## NashGuy (Jan 30, 2014)

James Long said:


> The concept crossed my mind years ago when NASCAR was on ESPN meant the race would start on some overflow channel and my timers would record whatever ran over instead of the content I wanted. That happens less with the current Fox/NBC arrangement, but I still would like to simply have the game / race show up without hunting.


If you've marked a certain sport/league/team as a favorite in the Apple TV app, I'm pretty sure it will proactively put any relevant live stream of a game in its cross-app Up Next queue at the top of the main tab, assuming the game is available in any of your subscribed apps that you have linked to the Apple TV app. (Although I don't know if that applies to vMVPD apps like DTV Stream; may just be DTC and TVE apps like Peacock and Fox Now.)


----------

