Started By
Message
re: SEC Network has no peer
Posted on 5/6/17 at 12:03 am to FishFearMe
Posted on 5/6/17 at 12:03 am to FishFearMe
quote:
Believe we could be making twice as much money if we hadn't "partnered" with ESPN.
That's both true and not true.
Initially we needed the partnership in order to learn the ropes.
By the time this current contract runs its course we will, if we are so inclined, have the money banked to launch our own independent network and we will have the knowledge and the resume, along with the financials, to go to the bank for any start-up costs and operating expenses.
$69.95 a year or $9.95 a month per subscriber is a lot more than we are being paid now ... but the mess with current conventional providers in addition to our footprint upgrading it's pipe to above 30 mps average download speed, require that we have patience, that we stay the course and that we keep our word and continue to grow as a network during the entire course of this current contract.
Right now we are ESPN'S cash cow and we need to continue to be.
But I agree we're worth twice as much as they are claiming in the article ... ESPN is actually holding us back.
Posted on 5/6/17 at 5:09 am to scrooster
quote:
$69.95 a year or $9.95 a month per subscriber
Probably not going to happen and still have commercials
You want the biggest audience and you want to keep a year round audience. If your top channels are around 1 dollar a month, no need to get greedy and kill the volume. Just take a small nick and get max volume.
As for the PTN, would probably be smart to give it away for free outside the footprint to grow viewership and rely on advertising to add the incremental value. Suppose the Cocks are playing the Beavers. As a Beaver fan I might want the channel year round but as the Cock fan being free probably gets me to watch the 1 off game that includes the team I actually follow.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/SR_Icon.jpg)