# Disney to stream ESPN and buys stake in BAMTech



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Disney announced today it will stream some ESPN content according to a number of websites. But it appears that the streaming will resemble ESPN3, sort of, kind of, as explained at MarketWatch:



> The question is what sports ESPN will show on this service, since airing the same live games that show up on linear television could draw viewers away from the cable bundles that are lucrative for ESPN and Disney. Chief Executive Robert Iger mentioned several sports that could show up on the service Tuesday, but specifically said that the new streaming offering would only include programming "that's not appearing on the channels."
> 
> "It will include product that BAMTech already has licenses for, Major League Baseball and the NHL . . . we'll add to it a stable of product that ESPN has, including a lot of college sports, college football, college basketball, they have tennis rights, they have rights to things like rugby and cricket," Iger told CNBC in an interview Tuesday, a collection of specifics he repeated in the conference call. "It'll be a collection of many different sports, sports that are on ESPN but not product that is on ESPN."
> 
> The National Hockey League - which also gained an ownership stake in BAMTech on Tuesday - and MLB offer their own streaming services for all their live games, so it's doubtful those entire assets will be included on the ESPN service. And Iger's statements suggest that the big games ESPN and ABC choose to show live on their networks, as well as on the WatchESPN streaming service available only to cable subscribers, will not be available either.


Truthfully, the ESPN streaming is almost a footnote when the announcement is taken as a whole as Fortune explains the announcements:



> The first was the acquisition of a 33% stake in BAMTech, the streaming platform that Major League Baseball has been building for the decade and a half to handle both its digital delivery needs and those of other providers.
> 
> Disney is paying $1 billion to become a co-owner of BAMTech, and the deal includes an option to acquire a majority stake over the next two years. Reports of the acquisition surfaced earlier this year, but it wasn't confirmed until the company announced its earnings on Tuesday.
> 
> MLB's CEO Bob Bowman originally built what became Major League Baseball Advanced Media or MLBAM in 2000, to handle the design and management of MLB.tv, one of the first subscription streaming services on the Internet. As it grew, the technical arm of the company-known as BAMTech-took on the streaming of other services as well, including Time Warner's HBO Now streaming channel.


The Verge noted:



> "What they've got is really robust," [CEO Iger] said of BAM Tech's business and expertise. "We obviously need this capability to take ESPN, Disney, and other Disney IP onto similar platforms." BAM Tech started as part of Major League Baseball Advanced MediaBAdvanced Media, but is being spun off into its own company as part of this transaction.


BAMTech is, of course, a major player in the growth of the streaming market having been spun off of Major League Baseball Advanced Media (MLBAM) last year. Having the ability to acquire 100% of that spin-off is no small matter.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I read today that Disney now owns a majority of BAMTech and Disney will be pulling their content from Netflix in 2019. 
Disney to leave Netflix, launch new streaming services


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

This article (Variety) has additional information.
Disney to End Netflix Deal, Sets Launch of ESPN and Disney-Branded Streaming Services


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Just the beginning of what I've been saying for a while... IF streaming takes off, it's only a matter of time before each production company decides to start their own service rather than let someone else make the money... so Netflix, Hulu, and others will lose content here and there and if you're a viewer, you have to add another (likely) $10+ service to get programming you like from that producer. We're going to end up far more expensive for less variety of content than on traditional cable/satellite before this is all done.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez (Aug 11, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Just the beginning of what I've been saying for a while... IF streaming takes off, it's only a matter of time before each production company decides to start their own service rather than let someone else make the money... so Netflix, Hulu, and others will lose content here and there and if you're a viewer, you have to add another (likely) $10+ service to get programming you like from that producer. We're going to end up far more expensive for less variety of content than on traditional cable/satellite before this is all done.


The only subscriber who will be worse off is the sports fan, who will see himself paying far more than he is today to see the same content.

The cord-cutters who no longer have the Disney Channel couldn't care less that Disney is pulling their content from Netflix, given all the other children's content available on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Sure, some Netflix subscribers may subscribe to Disney's new offering (at the right price point), but the vast majority (90%+, I'd bet) won't bother.

*********************************************************

Disney's Channels: Kids Are Tuning Out -- Update

By Joe Flint and Ben Fritz Published July 04, 2017 Features Dow Jones Newswires

Disney's Channels: Kids Are Tuning Out -- Update

But ratings have fallen significantly at Disney's biggest brands reaching children, teens and young adults, led by Disney Channel and Freeform. Those two channels each has lost about four million subscribers over the past three years, bringing them to around 90 million apiece.

The troubles are twofold: a lack of hits and the broader move by audiences away from traditional television to digital alternatives. The shift to streaming services such Netflix Inc. and web-based platforms like Google's YouTube is particularly pronounced among younger viewers targeted by these Disney networks.

*********************************************************


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> The only subscriber who will be worse off is the sports fan, who will see himself paying far more than he is today to see the same content.
> 
> The cord-cutters who no longer have the Disney Channel couldn't care less that Disney is pulling their content from Netflix, given all the other children's content available on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Sure, some Netflix subscribers may subscribe to Disney's new offering (at the right price point), but the vast majority (90%+, I'd bet) won't bother.
> *********************************************************
> ...


It isn't just the TV shows they are pulling, also their movies. That includes Lucas films, Marvel Studios and Pixar Animation Studios.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Disney's Channels: Kids Are Tuning Out -- Update


Yay for out of context articles that cherry pick numbers for gloom and doom. Especially when they over emphasize the slumps when originals are in between seasons, ignore the cycle that happens with all networks as shows end (i.e. Girl Meets World) and newer shows debut in their place (i.e. Andi Mack), and act like the subscriber drop is only for those channels, even though nearly every provider has both of them in their lowest tiers, so any drop affecting them has to affect dozens of other channels. (Not to mention Nielsen still doesn't include OTT providers like PS Vue, Sling, DirecTV Now, Fubo and others in subscriber counts for networks)

For everyone of those, there's a bunch of these:
Ratings - Season Two Premiere of Disney Channel's "Stuck in the Middle" Is Cable TV's #1 Series Telecast in Kids 2-11 for 2017 to Date | TheFutonCritic.com
Disney's Andi Mack scores as top youth telecast
Disney Channel's ANDI MACK Delivers Another Series Ratings High in Total Viewers
Ratings - Disney Channel's "Raven's Home" Is #1 Cable TV Series Launch in Two Years Among Targeted Kid and Tween Demographics | TheFutonCritic.com
Disney Channel's 'Descendants 2' Draws 21 Million Viewers Across 6 Networks In L+3 - Update
'Descendants 2' Rises to 21 Million Viewers in Delayed Viewing



Gloria_Chavez said:


> The only subscriber who will be worse off is the sports fan, who will see himself paying far more than he is today to see the same content.


It's not just sports fans. For many TV shows and movies that you used to be able to stream on Netflix or got for free as part of your cable or satellite subscription, now you need Hulu, Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Seeso, Go90, among others.
i.e. the entire Doctor Who library (now only on Amazon Prime), the Scripps Networks back library (now on Hulu), the Lorimar Television/TGIF library (coming to Hulu next month), Viacom's back library (only on Amazon prime, except certain shows like South Park which Hulu got the exclusive rights to) Looking for some recent WB, Universal, Lionsgate and Fox movies on Netflix? Not gonna find them there, you need HBO Go/Now, Showtime, Starz, Epix and others for that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The mouse owns ABC ... so should we be looking for an "ABC All Access" and watch content disappear from Hulu?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The mouse owns ABC ... so should we be looking for an "ABC All Access" and watch content disappear from Hulu?


I'm not worrying about it as they own 30% of Hulu as does Fox and NBC with Turner owning the remaining 10%. CBS All Access is a bit of a puzzle. I thought they might create a package by offering as an add-on their wholly-owned subsidiary Showtime at something like $5. But no sign of that....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Gloria_Chavez said:


> The only subscriber who will be worse off is the sports fan, who will see himself paying far more than he is today to see the same content.
> 
> The cord-cutters who no longer have the Disney Channel couldn't care less that Disney is pulling their content from Netflix, given all the other children's content available on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Sure, some Netflix subscribers may subscribe to Disney's new offering (at the right price point), but the vast majority (90%+, I'd bet) won't bother.
> 
> ...


Everyone will pay more for less, because every provider is headed this way. Did you read about the new FOX+ streaming channel yet? Anyone who thinks dum,ping sports will make their bill go down and by moving to a la cart will as well doesn't see the bigger picture in how these companies make money. And Disney is massive, stop looking at a tiny portion and look at its over all arch. Star Wars alone....

I wonder how much it hurt STARZ when Disney left just movies and went to Netflix.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I expect we will see one to four offerings for streaming of Disney stuff... should be interesting to see what they do. It will depend on how they want to split it all up, but i wouldn’t be surprised if you can buy all Disney streaming for 20 a month.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

It is, IMHO, exactly correct that each of the major production companies will just have their own OTT services. Why not? In traditonal linear TV, the channels need cable/dish to deliver the content. Think of it as transportation. But if the channels are just on the internet, why let Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. take a cut. You can deal directly with the consumer.

Disney is, however, in a huge catch 22. It massively overbid for the NBA (Finals, ignored by 85% of Americans, regular season by 98%) . Then, to cut costs, it "lobotmized" itself, firing most of the staff that can talk about most any other sport. It is down, more or less, to the NBA, a single NFL game per week, college football and basketball, and a couple of nights of baseball (with plenty of baseball on other channels, including your team every night on your local RSN, baseball having become highly regionalized). 

If your happy with that, you are going to keep traditional linear TV. The huge costs of ESPN are spread across the whole subscriber base, including the many millions who have no sports interest at all, and the yet more millions who ignore the NBA. 

If not, then you no interest in ESPN OTT. Who exactly is the potential customer?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I expect we will see one to four offerings for streaming of Disney stuff... should be interesting to see what they do. It will depend on how they want to split it all up, but i wouldn't be surprised if you can buy all Disney streaming for 20 a month.


CEO said yesterday they will start off with two packages -- Entertainment and Sports. And as of yesterday, Marvel and Lucas Films products won't be shown on the new entertainment package. 'But that could change.'


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SamC said:


> It is, IMHO, exactly correct that each of the major production companies will just have their own OTT services. Why not? In traditonal linear TV, the channels need cable/dish to deliver the content. Think of it as transportation. But if the channels are just on the internet, why let Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. take a cut. You can deal directly with the consumer.
> 
> Disney is, however, in a huge catch 22. It massively overbid for the NBA (Finals, ignored by 85% of Americans, regular season by 98%) . Then, to cut costs, it "lobotmized" itself, firing most of the staff that can talk about most any other sport. It is down, more or less, to the NBA, a single NFL game per week, college football and basketball, and a couple of nights of baseball (with plenty of baseball on other channels, including your team every night on your local RSN, baseball having become highly regionalized).
> 
> ...


You could still sell to Netflix etc, but there would have to be a different price point or something. Hulu is doing ok because it's partly owned y these companies so they make money twice on Hulu. At least at the moment. In five years, I expect Netflix to be no different than HBO will be in five years, which is also very far from what even HBO was just 10 years ago. HBO will get less and less content that doesn't come from a Warner company...

By the way, saying 85 percent ignored the finals is a bit disingenuous. 15 percent is a good number. It's the short length and the rest of the season that killed them, not the finals. Almost any network would love to get even close to 15 % of everyone to watch their channels regularly. Only the top ones these days get even close to that.

Espn did over bid for the nba big time, but it's really the nfl that I think is killing them...


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

$1.4 BILLION/year for a 15 rating for a max of 7 nights in the summer against reruns; a mac of 6 20 or so times during May and a 1.5 to 2.5 in the winter, when you could get the same with a MAC game you paid 8 cents for, was the overbid of all time. 

In true a la carte, if you take what ESPN and Turner paid, and divided it by the number of people that actually care, you come out to $36/month according to USA Today. Just for the NBA. 

The point is not just that, it is that ESPN has now doubled down on its overbid. Outside of football (pro and college) they lack the interest or ability to cover anything else. SportsCenter used to be appointment viewing for every sports fan. Yeah, you can say "well people get their highlights on their phones now". Really? Nah. 

As to the NFL, yeah, every network loses money on the NFL, including ESPN. But having the NFL makes ESPN different from the other three imitators.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Imitators? Espn is being hurt by the nfl more than any other network by far and I wouldn’t say all networks lose with the nfl. Actually I’d say only espn does right now. 

In true a la cart espn family and turner together would probably be cheaper than Viacom by the time you do the math... a la cart would be really expansive for everyone and people just don’t seem to understand why. 

I don’t know what mac is? What are you referring to? Not sure what acronym you are using. 

And I never said they didn’t overpay. I just said the ratings aren’t as bad as you made it sound. In fact they where dang good in the finals.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

inkahauts said:


> Imitators? Espn is being hurt by the nfl more than any other network by far and I wouldn't say all networks lose with the nfl. Actually I'd say only espn does right now.
> 
> In true a la cart espn family and turner together would probably be cheaper than Viacom by the time you do the math... a la cart would be really expansive for everyone and people just don't seem to understand why.
> 
> ...


MAC - Mid American Conference. Mid Week MACtion.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

USA Today already did the math. If you take what Turner and ESPN pay JUST FOR THE NBA (not the entire group of channels, just pretend ESPN and TNT did not exist and you had the opertunity to pay to the NBA (players) directly what Disney and Turner pay them, after subtracting what they make back on commercials) and divided it by the number of people that actually watch the NBA, you come out at $36/month. 

The reason cord cutting became a thing is the massive costs of sports channels, first among these being the Disney group. Due to its massive NBA overbid. It made the price so high that the vast majority of people (people who do not follow sports at all) and even the vast majority of those who do follow sports (which is to say those that do not follow the NBA) said "enough is enough, and looked to free themselves.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SamC said:


> USA Today already did the math. If you take what Turner and ESPN pay JUST FOR THE NBA (not the entire group of channels, just pretend ESPN and TNT did not exist and you had the opertunity to pay to the NBA (players) directly what Disney and Turner pay them, after subtracting what they make back on commercials) and divided it by the number of people that actually watch the NBA, you come out at $36/month.
> 
> The reason cord cutting became a thing is the massive costs of sports channels, first among these being the Disney group. Due to its massive NBA overbid. It made the price so high that the vast majority of people (people who do not follow sports at all) and even the vast majority of those who do follow sports (which is to say those that do not follow the NBA) said "enough is enough, and looked to free themselves.


And the math forgets the millions of reasons you can't make decisions on anything based on one small amount of data.

Again I'm not saying they overpaid but don't think it's the nba alone causing issues. That nfl contract hurts them the most. They lose the eyeballs to push other things.

And more people watch sports than the ratings say but they are more casual fans. Just like a lot of tv shows that don't get rated right. Once they started adding in DVR viewings they suddenly realized their actual numbers where off, and on some shows a lot. I bet at least 50% watch some sports at some point during a year not the 18% people like to claim.

Worth hat said again anyone who thinks they can get cheaper by avoid sports is just wrong. Prices of channels will skyrocket because it costs so much more and the huge ad dollars from sports aren't there to ease the costs.

Just look at the new FX streaming channel and it's pricing. That's just for FX!!!! Ridiculous!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

You can do creative math all you want and blame sports all you want... but when each network/production studio looks to start their own streaming service and charge you $7-$10 per service... you're going to quickly be paying as much or more than you pay for satellite/cable and for only a fraction of the content you have via those methods of delivery. That's the road we appear to be headed towards... and I'm amazed at how many people don't see this coming. Every newly launched service comes in at this price range, and pulls their content back from virtually all the other available services at the same time.. leaving you with only one option to watch their content.

You're not going to be able to pick Netflix or any single service and watch all the stuff you want to watch, unless you simply don't want to watch much TV... and IF you don't want to watch much TV, then you already should have dropped cable/satellite years ago! For anyone who watches regular TV on a lot of different channels... you're going to be paying more for less in a hurry VERY soon.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

And don't forget the data charges and caps. I shifted my ISP just because of data caps.


----------

