It's earnings season [again] and you know that gives me a stiffy. Aside from the financial mumbo-jumbo and forecasts of such, there is some interesting stuff going on in the media sector.
CBS reported a few days ago. Mega-Chairman Les Moonves said that they will be forming a streaming channel for sports. He did not have any details, but said it would be along the lines of what NBC does with their streaming content. OK, then.
Disney reported earlier today. Bob Iger said that their ESPN branch is going to be streaming content on the Internet, but like Iger, had little in the way of details - price, actual content, or accessibility - but suffice it to say, the idea is to form an Internet-only portal for sports similar to what ESPN does on the cable end. Oh and, they'll be pulling their content from Netflix (NFLX) in 2019. So, if you want to see a Disney movie, you'll have to subscribe to their channel.
In addition, he suggested that they may be forming a "Star Wars Channel" and a "Marvel Channel." At least, when asked about it, he didn't rule it out. Disney has plenty of content, and the idea of forming individual channels for fans isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
After all, Sirius Satellite (SIRI) radio has individual channels for Howard Stern, The Beatles, Pearl Jam, Billy Joel, and all sorts of specialized content. Over 200 channels, and if you can't find something to listen to, the problem is with you, not them.
So, why wouldn't video media use the same tact? Actually, it seems like it's about time. There's money to be made, and plenty of people willing to pay - which is where the problem comes in. Follow along:
Today, my cable/Internet bill is $208 a month. Let's say I cut the cable (aside from local TV, which is $10 a month) and go with Internet-only service from Comcast. That should cost me in the vicinity of $70 a month, after I have purchased my own router, at a cost of about $100.
Needing content, I'd go with Netflix ($12 a month), Hulu ($10 a month), Amazon Prime ($99 per year), and add-in the pick of your choice (HBO On Demand or Apple Music) at another $10 a month each.
If you like sports - which is the kicker [pun] - you're into the ESPN/CBS bundle for (probably) another $20 to $30 a month (?). So, let's do the math:
With the $70 a month for Internet, plus all the extra streaming services, they are into your checking account for approximately $135. All that for the sake of "cutting the cord" vs. the $208 you were paying before.
The point here is, big business has a lot of meetings. My company has meetings every day. The other point is, big business doesn't like to lose money. You cutting the cord means they are losing money. They don't like that, so they have meetings to figure out how to keep from losing money. They win, because you still want HBO, sports, and well ... entertainment. What you may or may not realize is that most entertainment is controlled by the same half-dozen corporations. So, you cutting the cord means that one or the other of them will have to make-up for your lost income.
So, despite your best efforts, you have two choices. (1) Go without your desired entertainment for the savings, which is noble or (b) Spend almost the same amount of money you were spending when you had cable and still get to see your precious sports and shows, and flip between a several options to find the show or sporting event you want to watch. Inconvenience in the name of saving a few bucks.
Those are the short hairs they want to have you hang from. Rest assured, in some way, they will find a way to get you to pay something close to the money you're paying now. It's in their next meeting. They don't like to lose.
Those are the short hairs they want to have you hang from. Rest assured, in some way, they will find a way to get you to pay something close to the money you're paying now. It's in their next meeting. They don't like to lose.
It's simple - and complicated. Good luck with your decision.
