matcar;639580; said:
It gives people who already have the capability (sat subscribers and some cable operators) but who haven't purchased it to do so. Then, as momentum builds, it will be added to more providers. This is a simple business model, if you are arguing against it, you are arguing against how things have been done for a while now. So, while it doesn't happen overnight, it WILL happen. But I suppose you'd rather that they show old Brady Bunch episodes in hopes of gaining viewership... Yes, this is a sound decision and is just as they did with ESPN2, which I don't see anybody complaining about them carrying games now. You don't like it? Cancel all of your ESPN service or don't watch it....cut off that nose to spite your face all you want. Oh, and cancel that GamePlan next year too...and if you live out of region, you can enjoy not watching Bucks play much at all next year. This is the way the business model works, and there was no contract offering you the ability to watch every game, so they've not wronged anyone here.
matcar, with all due respect, I don't think anyone is arguing that ESPN has the right to telecast or not telecast the game. Let me frame an opposing argument from a completely unemotive position.
ESPN has an objective to maximize its revenues and profits. Fine. It uses its buying power and size to negotiate contracts with content providers, such as Ohio State, betting that we will be watching and that they can be profitable. Fine. It is due a fair profit on the risk it takes. Fine. ESPN also has the right to package its services anyway that it wishes. Fine. The expectation that ESPN will make Ohio State games available every week is not reasonable because it has promised to make only 10-15 games maximum available on GamePlan and that won't even accommodate the top 25 in a given week. Fine.
Let's say we agree on all these points.
First, ESPN guarantees that it will show "your favorites" in its advertising. Although this is a general claim, if Ohio State has the largest fan base in the country or even one of the top 5. So, it is reasonable to assume its games will be shown most of the time, which they are.
Second, however, the argument that ESPN could not show the game is not reasonable. It is telecasting the game and could find a way to show the game, at least online. No constraint issue is raised and it would be no problem for them to provide the feed profitably.
Third, an abuse of market position and possibly marketing ethics is taking place. ESPN is using the pent-up demand for the Ohio State game to try to force cable service providers to take a channel that they know nobody wants to watch. They are gathering content for lacrosse games, women's sports, and other niche markets that is not profitable to provide because no one wants to watch it, which the cable providers know.
Laudable though it may be to provide access to such coverage, college football fans should not be called on to subsidize it by paying cable fees that have been inflated by charges for an additional ESPN channel that nobody wants to watch most of the time.
Thus, many fans feel that ESPN promised that they will see their favourite college teams on GamePlan and they paid for the service, but that ESPN is now dividing that content and thereby forcing them (thorugh their cable providers) to buy yet another product in order to receive what they thought they paid for in the first place.
Let's be very clear about what is taking place. This is not about this game. ESPNU is an effort to get you and I to subsidize ESPN broadcasts of all kinds of mickey mouse sports. Why? Because sports administrators want more revenue and these sports are not profitable to broadcast.
If ESPN can get college football fans to subsidize these broadcasts, they can have more influence through the college sports departments and league offices. Suddenly, a Gene Smith has the women's lacrosse coach putting pressure on him to support an ESPN contract offer.
It's the same as all of the fishing, X-sports, and other minor sports stuff they show. It is relatively cheap content that is HIGHLY profitable to show.
But, make no mistake about what is happening here. This is a major effort to get a stranglehold on college sports and if you think the cost is high now, expect it to get worse in the future. We already subsidize all of the other sports to such an extent that most people can't afford to buy tickets anymore and even the price of licensed fan clothing is sky high.
In my opinion, college football fans have subsidized the other sports enough and ESPN should not be allowed to abuse its market position in this way.
. espn might be making an extra few bucks a month off subscriptions from 20 or so bw3's that hadn't purchased espnu yet. but this little stunt is going to cost home depot alone ~20k in materials over the next 2 years.
