Disney, Warner, and FOX coming together to make a super sports streamer (Venu Sports)

[LinusFan303]

Fox Corp, Disney, and Warner are going to launch a streaming service that uses ESPN, Fox Sports, and TNT Sports as one app. It apparently will also give access to ESPN networks, FOX/ ABC, Turner Networks. Each company will own 1/3 of it. The pricing and other details aren't known right now.

Warner, Fox, Disney to Launch Streaming Sports Joint Venture

Warner Bros. Discovery, ESPN and Fox Sports will join together in a game-changing streaming outlet that will put all their sports offerings together

variety.com

 

[Goldstar!]

Last year, Disney was talking about launching ESPN as a standalone streaming service. I wonder if that idea morphed into this one.

 

[lowell]

Last year, Disney was talking about launching ESPN as a standalone streaming service. I wonder if that idea morphed into this one.

That is actually still being made but this is basically an extra opportunity for them to claw cord-cutters who want even more sports:

"For Disney, the partnership with other networks adds to an array of strategic options the company has explored for ESPN. Disney is still looking for a potential strategic partner or investor and will maintain a plan to offer a stand-alone ESPN streaming app for those who don’t want the all-in-one bundle from the three companies, people close to the situation said."

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/fox-warner-bros-discovery-and-disney-create-new-sports-streaming-venture-c9836792

 

[BigFatHairyDeal]

I wonder if it'll be competitively priced with cable. The saving grace about cable is that the quality of the broadcasts are better, with no buffering and considerably less lag. For championship events, I tend to prefer watching on cable (given the option), and if the app is super expensive then they might make it all the more enticing to pay for cable...

 

[Daikun]

I'm surprised the big Hollywood studios are attempting to collaborate on another streaming service. It fell apart with Hulu and the whole thing eventually fell into Disney's hands. I wonder if history will repeat with this service.

 

[lowell]

I'm surprised the big Hollywood studios are attempting to collaborate on another streaming service. It fell apart with Hulu and the whole thing eventually fell into Disney's hands. I wonder if history will repeat with this service.

Well, people keep touting the joint-venture model actually works. Now the big question is does that work with live sports?

The ESPN DTC service is also still being developed for those that just want ESPN only and will be arriving next fall, August at the earliest:

“It is a different product,” Iger said, describing it as “the sports lover’s delight.” The new service, he continued, “will have many more features and provide a more immersive experience for the sports fan” than the joint-venture bundled offering. The JV bundle “is really a channel bundle,” Iger said, whereas the ESPN service “will be very user-friendly because it’s more app-based.”

Disney Reveals Timing Of ESPN Stand-Alone Streaming Launch

Disney CEO Bob Iger says ESPN's bulked-up streaming service will launch in the fall of 2025, or possibly even as soon as August of that year.

deadline.com

 

[harry580]

ironic that disney would team up with fox given that fox hated disney nowadays for alot reasons that I will not talk about due to political reasons, its like universal used to hate nintendo but now they loved them and open lands in universal parks

 

[harry580]

I'm surprised the big Hollywood studios are attempting to collaborate on another streaming service. It fell apart with Hulu and the whole thing eventually fell into Disney's hands. I wonder if history will repeat with this service.

well, the reason for that because disney bought fox, which was the notable owner for hulu, because of it and studios launching streaming service, all of them left and Disney bought their stakes in them

 

[Goldstar!]

I don't know how many people are going to be willing to pay a monthly or annual fee just for sports, but a joint venture between Disney, Warner Discovery and Paramount is something that I wasn't expecting. This was tried before with Hulu, and that worked, until it didn't.

ironic that disney would team up with fox given that fox hated disney nowadays for alot reasons that I will not talk about due to political reasons, its like universal used to hate nintendo but now they loved them and open lands in universal parks

Again, you're confusing Fox News with Fox Entertainment. Disney only owns the latter.

 

[harry580]

Again, you're confusing Fox News with Fox Entertainment. Disney only owns the latter.

then again, Fox News is fox corporation which was spun off from 21st century fox, and like I said, I don't want to be political here

 

[John Pannozzi]

then again, Fox News is fox corporation which was spun off from 21st century fox, and like I said, I don't want to be political here

Fox Corporation has a subsidiary called Fox Entertainment (IINM), whereas the former Fox subsidiary Disney owns is called 20th Century Fox Studios. It gets confusing.

And I remember hearing that Rupert Murdoch and family would get a large chunk of Disney stock once Disney's acquisition of 20th Century Fox closed. I wonder if the Murdochs still have own a large amount of Disney stock today.

 

[harry580]

Fox Corporation has a subsidiary called Fox Entertainment (IINM), whereas the former Fox subsidiary Disney owns is called 20th Century Fox Studios. It gets confusing.

And I remember hearing that Rupert Murdoch and family would get a large chunk of Disney stock once Disney's acquisition of 20th Century Fox closed. I wonder if the Murdochs still have own a large amount of Disney stock today.

we don't know, but we don't want to talk about it due to politics so, moving on

 

[John Pannozzi]

we don't know, but we don't want to talk about it due to politics so, moving on

I don't think it's political to simply wonder much stock someone owns in a company, but yeah, I was intending to move along in the first place upon writing that post, so I will.

 

[Pooky]

I don't know how many people are going to be willing to pay a monthly or annual fee just for sports

I think a lot of people do, or at least did, get their Cable etc packages primarily for Sport and see everything else as a "bonus". Whether or not this will lead to a successful Streaming service remains to be seen, but I can at least see the logic.

 

[Moe]

There are a lot of Americans love sports so they will get a lot of customers at heavy expense of cable, satellite and third party linear streaming (FuboTV, Sling TV, YouTube TV).

 

[Goldstar!]

Very little has been revealed about this joint venture as of yet. We still don't know how much this service will cost per month or per year.

Myself, I'm not a huge sports fan, so I likely won't subscribe to it, especially since I already have access to the mainstream sports networks. I don't know how this will affect YouTube TV, but if in the unlikely event that YT TV goes away, I'll just go to Sling TV or DirecTV Stream. No contract means that I can cancel whenever I want.

 

[Moe]

Myself, I'm not a huge sports fan, so I likely won't subscribe to it, especially since I already have access to the mainstream sports networks. I don't know how this will affect YouTube TV, but if in the unlikely event that YT TV goes away, I'll just go to Sling TV or DirecTV Stream. No contract means that I can cancel whenever I want.

I'm speaking about studio's perceptive to shut the competitors who are middlemen out.

and no, it won't kill YouTube TV outright, however, it may cause to lose few millions subscribers, and studios can use carriage dispute as weapon to squeeze the competitors out. Even, it does affect Sling TV, DirecTV Stream and FuboTV as well since they are all middlemen. Disney want you to subscribe Hulu Live TV or major studios backed sport streaming instead of linear streaming that studios don't own.

If the Congress take action to legislate the bill to regulate the streaming and protect the competitors like allow FCC to fine studios for cause a carriage dispute in bad faith, so that put studios in check. Cable companies did in 1980s, so 1992 Cable Act neutralized them but 1992 Cable Act isn't seen as hero because it caused the mess with local broadcasters in long run.

 

[lowell]

I'm speaking about studio's perceptive to shut the competitors who are middlemen out.

and no, it won't kill YouTube TV outright, however, it may cause to lose few millions subscribers, and studios can use carriage dispute as weapon to squeeze the competitors out. Even, it does affect Sling TV, DirecTV Stream and FuboTV as well since they are all middlemen. Disney want you to subscribe Hulu Live TV or major studios backed sport streaming instead of linear streaming that studios don't own.

If the Congress take action to legislate the bill to regulate the streaming and protect the competitors like allow FCC to fine studios for cause a carriage dispute in bad faith, so that put studios in check. Cable companies did in 1980s, so 1992 Cable Act neutralized them but 1992 Cable Act isn't seen as hero because it caused the mess with local broadcasters in long run.

It is also a way to counter aggressive cable/satellite TV companies like Charter and also brunt the increase in prices from the bidding war for sports rights from the leagues.

Charter knew their customers love certain channels but when it comes to the negotiations with entertainment companies, they wanted to remove them but also add in the streaming services.

But they threatened to shut down their cable business if needed to:

"But if Disney and Charter can’t cut a deal, the cable company says it is prepared to abandon its video business altogether.

“We’re on the edge of a precipice. We’re either moving forward with a new collaborative video model, or we’re moving on,” Charter CEO Chris Winfrey said on a conference call with Wall Street analysts Friday morning. “This is not a typical carriage dispute. It’s significant for Charter, and we think it’s even more significant for programmers and the broader video ecosystem.”"

Charter Wants to Blow Up the Pay TV Bundle in Disney Fight: “This Is Not a Typical Carriage Dispute”

The cable giant, with nearly 15 million TV subs, told analysts Friday that it is prepared to "move on" from its video business: "We've reached the point of indifference."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

The best compromise, honestly, was to not remove any channels at all but add those services into the offering.

The leagues are always going to push for prices to gain the rights to increase, not stay at where they are so broader distribution of the sports content is going to be necessary to claw back as much money as possible to be able pay for the next contracts.

 

[Moe]

“We’re on the edge of a precipice. We’re either moving forward with a new collaborative video model, or we’re moving on,” Charter CEO Chris Winfrey said on a conference call with Wall Street analysts Friday morning. “This is not a typical carriage dispute. It’s significant for Charter, and we think it’s even more significant for programmers and the broader video ecosystem.”"

There is major difference with between YouTube TV and Charter - Charter wants bundle with Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ for free to all subscribers since YouTube TV don't want free bundle and they want to represent the traditional linear TV. Disney and Comcast tried to force YouTube TV to give Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ and Peacock for free to subscribers at expense of YouTube TV, so it means they have to hike the monthly price to cover on cost of bundle. Disney used carriage dispute to grow Hulu Live TV with new subscribers come from YouTube TV, but it was short lived and many of them went back to YouTube TV after carriage dispute ended.

The best compromise, honestly, was to not remove any channels at all but add those services into the offering.

Yeah, it is easy to say and if studios attempt to squeeze competitors out, so FTC could take studios to court for anti-competitive behaviors if it wasn't for Congress' intervention to protect the competitors.

 

[lowell]

There is major difference with between YouTube TV and Charter - Charter wants bundle with Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+ for free to all subscribers since YouTube TV don't want free bundle and they want to represent the traditional linear TV. Disney and Comcast tried to force YouTube TV to give Disney+, Hulu, ESPN+ and Peacock for free to subscribers at expense of YouTube TV, so it means they have to hike the monthly price to cover on cost of bundle. Disney used carriage dispute to grow Hulu Live TV with new subscribers come from YouTube TV, but it was short lived and many of them went back to YouTube TV after carriage dispute ended.


Yeah, it is easy to say and if studios attempt to squeeze competitors out, so FTC could take studios to court for anti-competitive behaviors if it wasn't for Congress' intervention to protect the competitors.

None of them are really innocent in this area, though. Whether it's through middlemen or DTC, customers will be squeezed as much as possible for live TV, of which the revenue generated will be divvied up between the cable/satellite/live TV companies, media companies, and the sports leagues.

I do have to point out, the carriage of CBS, CBS Sports, Pop TV, Showtime, Smithsonian, and the CW (pre-Nexstar) was able to help Paramount get BET, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV, etc. to be carried by YouTube TV after the reunification.

But honestly, I think if Charter wasn't so aggressive in removing channels, they could still easily work out a deal just to add the services.