Beerball Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 ABC will possibly pull out of the MNF business because they are losing money hand over fist. They are said to be offering 450-500M per year, below the 550M they are currently paying. At the current pricetag they are said to be losing 150M per year. Barry Frank says "ESPN likely would pay $900 million up to as much as $1 billion a year" for MNF. How is it that ABC is losing 150M while paying 550M, but ESPN (same parent company) may be willing to pay one billion dollars for MNF? I get the whole subscription thing. ESPN gets $$ for every household etc. etc. etc. But will that make up the difference? Will advertisers pay more for time on ESPN? How can ESPN offer twice what ABC is willing to pay for MNF? linky
BigdaddyinOrlando Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Does seem preety wierd. Wonder if the bean counters also worked at Enron?
SDS Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 ABC will possibly pull out of the MNF business because they are losing money hand over fist. They are said to be offering 450-500M per year, below the 550M they are currently paying. At the current pricetag they are said to be losing 150M per year. Barry Frank says "ESPN likely would pay $900 million up to as much as $1 billion a year" for MNF. How is it that ABC is losing 150M while paying 550M, but ESPN (same parent company) may be willing to pay one billion dollars for MNF? I get the whole subscription thing. ESPN gets $$ for every household etc. etc. etc. But will that make up the difference? Will advertisers pay more for time on ESPN? How can ESPN offer twice what ABC is willing to pay for MNF? linky 271648[/snapback] I'd explain it to you, but I don't want to waste my time on such an inferior intellect.
LabattBlue Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 ABC will possibly pull out of the MNF business because they are losing money hand over fist. They are said to be offering 450-500M per year, below the 550M they are currently paying. At the current pricetag they are said to be losing 150M per year. Barry Frank says "ESPN likely would pay $900 million up to as much as $1 billion a year" for MNF. How is it that ABC is losing 150M while paying 550M, but ESPN (same parent company) may be willing to pay one billion dollars for MNF? I get the whole subscription thing. ESPN gets $$ for every household etc. etc. etc. But will that make up the difference? Will advertisers pay more for time on ESPN? How can ESPN offer twice what ABC is willing to pay for MNF? linky 271648[/snapback] Only one answer....fuzzy math!
Beerball Posted March 11, 2005 Author Posted March 11, 2005 I'd explain it to you, but I don't want to waste my time on such an inferior intellect. 271699[/snapback] Master Bastard!
RJsackedagain Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Translation ---- ABC wants to spend more money on spinoffs to Desperate Housewives
eSJayDee Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I'm speculating here, but perhaps it has something to do w/ revenue sharing. W/ some or maybe all of its commercials, ABC has to share the revenue w/ local affiliates (also allocating a certain # of spots for 'local' ads). ESPN doesn't have affiliates. I also think that saying ABC loses money running MNF is a difficult thing to quantify. How many ads do they run for their own shows? Do they pay themselves? What about lead-in? & follow-thru to local news. I would also imagine that it's one of the higher rated shows on Monday, so indirectly it makes their franchises/affiliates more valuable.
UConn James Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 I'm speculating here, but perhaps it has something to do w/ revenue sharing. W/ some or maybe all of its commercials, ABC has to share the revenue w/ local affiliates (also allocating a certain # of spots for 'local' ads). ESPN doesn't have affiliates.I also think that saying ABC loses money running MNF is a difficult thing to quantify. How many ads do they run for their own shows? Do they pay themselves? What about lead-in? & follow-thru to local news. I would also imagine that it's one of the higher rated shows on Monday, so indirectly it makes their franchises/affiliates more valuable. 271716[/snapback] For the revenue-sharind reason, yeah. But also, unlike their regular programming, ABC can't so much put on re-runs of MNF to double or triple their ad take. $500M for (hmm... let's do the math here.... 17x3... carry the 2...) 51 hours of showtime each year? That's a lot of green. And the guess that it's "one of the higher rated shows on Monday" is wrong, wrong, wrong. In the past several years it has tanked. Utterly. Why do you think they tried Dennis Miller and reeled in Madden thinking these moves might boost ratings? They didn't. Don't be surprised if you have to watch MNF on ESPN next year, but you could see SNF on the network and Desperate Housewives moved to Mondays. Sunday is the natural day for football.
Alaska Darin Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 Simple. ABC is run by #2. ESPN is run by Dr. Evil.
Sound_n_Fury Posted March 11, 2005 Posted March 11, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/m...07-22-mnf_x.htm "ABC has been losing a ton of money on Monday Night Football," TV consultant Neal Pilson said. "ESPN can better afford the package." ABC reaches 20 million more households than ESPN, but ESPN has two revenue sources — ad sales and cable subscriber fees.
plenzmd1 Posted March 12, 2005 Posted March 12, 2005 ABC will possibly pull out of the MNF business because they are losing money hand over fist. They are said to be offering 450-500M per year, below the 550M they are currently paying. At the current pricetag they are said to be losing 150M per year. Barry Frank says "ESPN likely would pay $900 million up to as much as $1 billion a year" for MNF. How is it that ABC is losing 150M while paying 550M, but ESPN (same parent company) may be willing to pay one billion dollars for MNF? I get the whole subscription thing. ESPN gets $$ for every household etc. etc. etc. But will that make up the difference? Will advertisers pay more for time on ESPN? How can ESPN offer twice what ABC is willing to pay for MNF? linky 271648[/snapback] Really comes down to the differance between a network vs cable station. Quite simply, ESPN will just bump up the number thet charge cable systems per subsciber. How long would you saty with cable if ESPN was no longer on. Thats why they are the most profitable property in the Disney family. Not only do they get the revenue from commercials, they also charge the highest, by far, per sub of any channel. They can make it work, ABC cannot!
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 12, 2005 Posted March 12, 2005 Pro wrestling is kicking MNF's ass and has been for at least 5 years now. Sad.
Alaska Darin Posted March 12, 2005 Posted March 12, 2005 Pro wrestling is kicking MNF's ass and has been for at least 5 years now. Sad. 271873[/snapback] Welcome to America.
Generation ME Posted March 12, 2005 Posted March 12, 2005 "Someone much smarter than I, will have to make sense of this" Thanks for calling me out. As for your problem, I think it's all creative accounting or something.
jarthur31 Posted March 12, 2005 Posted March 12, 2005 Simple. ABC is run by #2. ESPN is run by Dr. Evil. 271838[/snapback] Only a cheap tart who sleeps with both would know.
Recommended Posts