The Jester's Quart: The New 'Monday Night Football'

Greg_Wyshynski · April 22nd, 2005, 08:32 AM

Imagine if I told you 10 years ago that "Seinfeld" was moving its first-run episodes to TBS. Or that "E.R." was leaving NBC to start running original episodes on TNT. Or that "The Simpsons" had decided to continue the adventures of America’s Greatest Dad on The Cartoon Network.

Would you...
Full Article

Ishkur · April 24th, 2005, 12:36 PM

Disney owns both ABC and ESPN.....so it doesn't really matter to the parent corp.

jtg33 · April 24th, 2005, 02:31 PM

It does matter though. Despite solid ratings, MNF was losing money on ABC because ABC can only take in money form one source: ad revenues. On cable however, there are two sources: ad revenues and cable subscription fees. Itr's not an incredibly huge difference, but there will either be less money lost or more money made for Disney.

If I were a gigantc multi-national corportation, I would certainly rather lose less money than more. But that's just how I see it.

Ishkur · April 24th, 2005, 03:54 PM

How the hell do you lose money on what is arguably the most traditional televised weekly sporting event in America for the past 30 years? Hasn't it been, like, consistently in the top 5 in ratings since Howard Cosell was commentating? It's practically an institution.

If they can't find a way to make money off that.....what the hell are they in business for?

JGAC · April 24th, 2005, 04:01 PM

Well despite the crediblity of losing money, it would still make some sense for Disney to move it to ESPN for the gain of subscription.

Plus, I think that the percentage of cable subscribers vs non subscribers is in favor of the move.

Ishkur · April 24th, 2005, 04:09 PM

Wait...just scratch everything I said.......I wasn't using my head. I connected some dots, and here's what I came up with:

Disney owns ESPN and ABC. ESPN == cable subscribers. ABC == free. Disney doesn't have enough Cable subscribers. So how do they attract new subscribers? Why.....by moving the most celebrated sports show to ESPN, of course. Some accountant has done his homework, and figures that the projected increase in subscribership among 20-40 males who absolutely can not live without their Monday Night Football is worth more than the ad revenue culled from normal network television.

MNF isn't losing money. They're just not making as much money for the parent corp. as they COULD. Now, here's another degree of separation:

NHL hockey is only broadcasted in the States on ESPN (when it was still around). It is a cable-only show. Disney also owns the Ducks. They want to sell the Ducks, but I'll get to that in a sec. Now, the only way to increase viewership and interest in hockey in America is to......sell more cable subscriptions. But since hockey by itself isn't enough of a carrot to dangle in front of a horse, might as well win converts over to the cable channel through.......football! People buy subscription for the football, stay for the hockey, interest goes up, Ducks are worth more, thus Disney can sell the Ducks for better markup.

Okay, so that last bit is somewhat of a stretch, but considering corporations dealing in professional sports tend to have vested stakes in more than one of them, it would make sense that they would take from one to help pay for another. It's kind of like inter-corporate welfare socialism: Take your profits from a successful business to help pay your losses in a failing business. Both businesses stay alive that way.

Aveosmth · April 26th, 2005, 05:12 PM

Excellent post!!! One of the best I've seen here. Great job!!

Shane · April 26th, 2005, 05:41 PM

I may be mistaken, but I thought I read that Disney sold the Ducks a month or so ago. Other than that (if I am in fact remembering correctly), you point is pretty much dead on.

Shane · April 26th, 2005, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg_Wyshynski

Buccigross says that McGinest is to the Patriots as Gordon Gano is to the Violent Femmes. Miller -- who was given a second shot at the booth after bloggers complained that there wasn't a conservative voice on any NFL broadcasts -- shows just how much he's grown as a mainstream announcer by comparing the fumble to a "blood bespattered Pegasus bolting forth from the teeming neck of a slain Medusa, babe."

Possibly the two funniest sentences I have read in a long time.

Greg_Wyshynski · April 28th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Thanks for the props, Point...

-GDub

April 22nd, 2005, 08:32 AM	#1
Greg_Wyshynski Join Date: 06-04-2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 223	The Jester's Quart: The New 'Monday Night Football' Imagine if I told you 10 years ago that "Seinfeld" was moving its first-run episodes to TBS. Or that "E.R." was leaving NBC to start running original episodes on TNT. Or that "The Simpsons" had decided to continue the adventures of America’s Greatest Dad on The Cartoon Network. Would you... Full Article

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sportsrant.com/forums/t12475-jesters-quart-new-monday-night-football.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
CRAVEONLINE: / April 2005 Articles	This thread	Refback	May 13th, 2007 08:10 AM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

April 24th, 2005, 12:36 PM	#2
Ishkur Join Date: 12-27-2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 438	Disney owns both ABC and ESPN.....so it doesn't really matter to the parent corp.

April 24th, 2005, 02:31 PM	#3
jtg33 Join Date: 03-17-2004 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,487	It does matter though. Despite solid ratings, MNF was losing money on ABC because ABC can only take in money form one source: ad revenues. On cable however, there are two sources: ad revenues and cable subscription fees. Itr's not an incredibly huge difference, but there will either be less money lost or more money made for Disney. If I were a gigantc multi-national corportation, I would certainly rather lose less money than more. But that's just how I see it.

April 24th, 2005, 03:54 PM	#4
Ishkur Join Date: 12-27-2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 438	How the hell do you lose money on what is arguably the most traditional televised weekly sporting event in America for the past 30 years? Hasn't it been, like, consistently in the top 5 in ratings since Howard Cosell was commentating? It's practically an institution. If they can't find a way to make money off that.....what the hell are they in business for?

April 24th, 2005, 04:01 PM	#5
JGAC Join Date: 05-09-2003 Location: North End, Boston Posts: 6,079	Well despite the crediblity of losing money, it would still make some sense for Disney to move it to ESPN for the gain of subscription. Plus, I think that the percentage of cable subscribers vs non subscribers is in favor of the move.

April 24th, 2005, 04:09 PM	#6
Ishkur Join Date: 12-27-2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 438	Wait...just scratch everything I said.......I wasn't using my head. I connected some dots, and here's what I came up with: Disney owns ESPN and ABC. ESPN == cable subscribers. ABC == free. Disney doesn't have enough Cable subscribers. So how do they attract new subscribers? Why.....by moving the most celebrated sports show to ESPN, of course. Some accountant has done his homework, and figures that the projected increase in subscribership among 20-40 males who absolutely can not live without their Monday Night Football is worth more than the ad revenue culled from normal network television. MNF isn't losing money. They're just not making as much money for the parent corp. as they COULD. Now, here's another degree of separation: NHL hockey is only broadcasted in the States on ESPN (when it was still around). It is a cable-only show. Disney also owns the Ducks. They want to sell the Ducks, but I'll get to that in a sec. Now, the only way to increase viewership and interest in hockey in America is to......sell more cable subscriptions. But since hockey by itself isn't enough of a carrot to dangle in front of a horse, might as well win converts over to the cable channel through.......football! People buy subscription for the football, stay for the hockey, interest goes up, Ducks are worth more, thus Disney can sell the Ducks for better markup. Okay, so that last bit is somewhat of a stretch, but considering corporations dealing in professional sports tend to have vested stakes in more than one of them, it would make sense that they would take from one to help pay for another. It's kind of like inter-corporate welfare socialism: Take your profits from a successful business to help pay your losses in a failing business. Both businesses stay alive that way.

April 26th, 2005, 05:12 PM	#7
Aveosmth Join Date: 01-28-2005 Posts: 241	Excellent post!!! One of the best I've seen here. Great job!!

April 26th, 2005, 05:41 PM	#8
Shane Join Date: 06-08-2003 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 6,357	I may be mistaken, but I thought I read that Disney sold the Ducks a month or so ago. Other than that (if I am in fact remembering correctly), you point is pretty much dead on.

April 28th, 2005, 10:45 PM	#10
Greg_Wyshynski Join Date: 06-04-2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 223	Thanks for the props, Point... -GDub

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)