Nielsen Stands by Report of Massive ESPN Subscriber Losses Last week we noted how ESPN formally complained to Nielsen after the company's latest estimates indicated fairly massive subscriber losses over the past month. Nielsen's original October subscriber estimates found that during the month of October, ESPN lost 621,000 homes, ESPN2 dropped by 607,000 and ESPNU was out in 674,000. That comes on the heels of ESPN losing more than 7 million subscribers in just the last three years, thanks to cord cutting, cord trimming, and the rise of "skinny" bundles.

But Nielsen went back and double-checked its math at ESPN's request, and found its estimates to be correct The company says it conducted an "extensive" review of its data and confirmed that its industry figures were "accurate as originally released." ESPN for whatever it's worth, continues to dispute the report's findings, even after Nielsen double-checked its numbers. "This most recent snapshot from Nielsen is a historic anomaly for the industry and inconsistent with much more moderated trends observed by other respected third party analysts," said the company in a statement e-mailed to DSLReports.com. "It also does not measure DMVPDs and other new distributors and we hope to work with Nielsen to capture this growing market in future reports." Except this isn't really an anomaly if you look at the last year of ESPN losses, which highlight a huge swath of people who don't watch sports, and are tired of paying for it. ESPN's been losing 2-4% of its subscriber base annually, and monthly losses have been close to 500,000 subscribers previously. Meanwhile, one recent survey suggested that Except this isn't really an anomaly if you look at the last year of ESPN losses, which highlight a huge swath of people who don't watch sports, and are tired of paying for it. ESPN's been losing 2-4% of its subscriber base annually, and monthly losses have been close to 500,000 subscribers previously. Meanwhile, one recent survey suggested that 56% of consumers would drop ESPN in a heartbeat if it meant saving the estimated $8 more the channel costs cable subscribers each and every month.







News Jump WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 44 comments



camper

just visiting this planet

Premium Member

join:2010-03-21

Bethel, CT 23 recommendations camper Premium Member $8 per month, every month

...One recent survey suggested that 56% of consumers would drop ESPN in a heartbeat if it meant saving the estimated $8 more the channel costs cable subscribers each and every month....



I don't want ESPN to be removed completely from the service lineup, just put it into a different tier so that only those who want it have to pay for it.



ESPN has become too expensive to be included in the starter-type "assortment of channels" tier.



Indeed, why not have a "sports-only" package that the sports fans can purchase to get the sports channels. Then the price of that sports-only package can rise as quickly as it needs to in order to subsidize the salaries of the overpaid players.

Harddrive

Proud American and Infidel since 1968.

Premium Member

join:2000-09-20

Mission, TX 17 recommendations Harddrive Premium Member Cash cow. If you understand that Disney owns ESPN, you understand that it is a major revenue stream for Disney and it's shareholders. That's why ESPN pitched a fit to Nielsen.

SysOp

join:2001-04-18

Atlanta, GA 4 edits 13 recommendations SysOp Member Ugh, ESPN at Bars and Restaurants I always have the bartender or waitstaff change the channel away from ESPN. They just default to ESPN because of habit.



A bad habit.



I don't follow sports. Is ESPN even relevant anymore to sports fans? I thought sports teams had websites or apps for that?



Next up on ESPN is 2 guys sitting at a desk making lame jokes with bad commentary re-capping "he picked up the ball" "he ran with the ball" "he sported real good", insert blah blah stats here, mix in a back in the day montage here, and look we have time for some sport bloopers. Run that reel Ed. Back to you Al with Sport Celebrity gossip...

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 11 recommendations maartena Premium Member Not a surprise... Besides the cord cutters that just don't want to pay for subscriber TV at all, there are also plenty of people that realize that besides sports, most things on the cable networks are also available through streaming somewhere, and they cut back to bare basic cable because they may not have an antenna.



The industry can keep fooling themselves that they aren't losing massive amounts of customers each year, if they aren't willing to make changes, if they aren't willing to stand up against the content owners and channel bundling, they are only going to lose more and more customers. The customer wants choice, the era of 200 bundled channels is coming to an end.



And if the cable company refuse to be (or can't be) flexible, customers will find that flexibility themselves. The new a-la-carte isn't even about channels anymore, it is about streaming services. There are about 10 or so streaming services now, other channels might launch their own..... and the new deal is you pick 3 or so streaming services, and you swap em out once you are done watching on one.... I have already been subhopping between streaming services, and I will probably drop Acorn for CBS when Star Trek is released. No need to sub throughout the year either, as soon as Star Trek has fully aired I am dropping it again and sub to something else.



Pick. Choose. And canceling/subscribing is as easy as a few mouse clicks, and no equipment to return.



I feel for those addicted to sports and unable to let go from cable.... its going to be you that will have to bend over the most when the next price increase comes around, and you'll probably have to keep bending over more and more.....as ESPN loses viewers, their cost isn't going down, which means the remaining viewers will have to pay more to keep ESPN's books in the black.

SHSPVR

join:2003-12-15

Vinita, OK 1 edit 3 recommendations SHSPVR Member ESPN is a flop At one point in time I used to watch ESPN but I haven't watch it in at lease 15+ years so Nielsen is right ESPN needs get scarp