Read the debate intro and the arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan about whether or not league affiliated cable networks are beginning to come into their own.
I am really partial to these media debates (as you may have noticed since I seem to draw the judging straw for the majority of them). I am extremely fascinated by how and why fans choose to consume sports content. The development of so-called “niche” sports networks – those dedicated to a single sport or league – carry forward the immersion perspective to sports fandom. As the popularity of these networks grows within the diehard fan community (and make no mistake – popularity is increasing), ESPN viewer attrition is a plausible reality. Fans are beginning to shift their focus from a holistic perspective on all sports to a concentration only on the sports and leagues they like the best. Before these networks existed ESPN owned 100 percent of sports fans’ eyeballs. The only possible outcome is for ESPN to no longer own 100 percent of the market. Thus, competition.
The argument from Loyal Homer leads me to believe ESPN viewership will be replaced by the most diehard of information-hungry fans. Therefore, the debate victory is awarded to Loyal Homer.
The first paragraph of Loyal Homer’s argument won me over. The exclusive immersion of content is a tremendous advantage these networks have over what is now becoming a general sports aggregator in ESPN. For ESPN to compete with these exclusive networks they would need to serve almost every conceivable sports master. It is an impossible task, even for ESPN and its many distribution touch points.
Loyal Homer also proved that “niche” networks have improving reporting and are capturing a larger share of the all-important live events. League-affiliated networks also provide access to previously inaccessible events for fans. As Loyal Homer pointed out, NFL junkies love understanding what is happening at the pre-draft rookie combine. The NFL Network provides exclusive access and content never before seen for even the most enthusiastic of fans.
Bleacher Fan made some interesting points, specifically about specialization. While the argument is correct in pointing out these specialist networks’ singular focus, it is precisely the enthusiast audience the content is designed to appeal to. Live events will draw bigger ratings, but the diehard fans are the ones that watch the analysis and other network content on any network, including ESPN. The specialization of each network is designed to appeal to an audience that has previously not been catered to by ESPN’s more holistic sports approach.
Bleacher Fan is correct that the league-owned networks are unable to carry live events year ‘round that draw big ratings. However, as previously stated, that goal is the not the stated purpose of these networks. They are designed to appeal to the 365 day fan of a single league or sport, not the occasional seasonal fan that only watches when their team is doing well. Competition is well-defined and relative in this case. Is the MLB Network looking to displace ESPN? No. But the minds behind the MLB Network have recognized that the diehard 365 day fan is not well served, so they are providing a product to serve the need.
Bleacher Fan is correct that the not every sports fan NEEDS a 24-7 view of MLB’s Winter Meetings. However, if some do (and Loyal Homer points out how value that content is), what’s the harm in filling that void? Passionate fans are a highly sought after crowd for advertisers because they buy the products that sponsor their passion. Those purchases are viewed as if the viewer is giving to a political cause or a charity. If the sponsors are happy the content lives on. And the exclusive networks are now better at attracting these types of fans than ESPN is.
The basic differences I have with Bleacher Fan’s argument boil down to the comparison between shopping for specialty food items and watching sports television. One requires a great deal of effort, the other requires a flip of the channel. Also, those seeking 10 varieties of milk and 50 choices of cereal prefer two separate stores for the depth they seek. Depth trumps efficiency. Therefore, both stores exist for a reason and serve an audience, just not as big of an audience as a general store. Bleacher Fan’s so-called “snob” audience is a real, valid, money-spending audience deserving of content they wish to see. To define the audience for sports as singular is not only invalid, it misses the huge money-making opportunity locked within the enthusiast.
Taking the MLB Network example ever farther, the content, guests on shows, and personalities on the network are all solid. The reporting is solid. The bar was set high in these pillars of sports broadcasting from the start, and that foundational philosophy allowed the network to also be very aggressive in how it penetrated markets. Rather than the soft launch approach many of these channels have used – a few homes while trying to cut sweetheart deals with the various carriers and cable companies – the MLB Network sold minority ownership stakes in the network to all of the big broadcast distributors like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and DirecTV. Instead of launching in a few million homes as many of the other networks have, MLB Network launched in 53 million homes – including Sports Geek’s home – from day one. For perspective, the MLB Network was in as many homes on day one of its broadcast life as the NFL Network was after six years on air. The MLB’s updated and more aggressive model is better for its stakeholders while also providing a blueprint for the success of present and future niche networks.
That long-winded example is essential to prove a point – these networks are competing with ESPN in every way shape or form, and the viewer attrition just beginning will hit light speed as more networks adopt the successful MLB Network model (keep an eye out for the NHL Network in most homes in 12-18 months). I know when I want baseball news or scores at night during the season I no longer turn on Baseball Tonight – I go for the MLB Network to get stats on the scroll, highlights, and live look-ins at games that are not in my market (this is key for an Indians fan… especially late in the season). The MLB Network is a better baseball product than ESPN, and fans will slowly wake up to a new sports information/broadcast reality – ESPN is no longer mandatory viewing.
The truth is, the more ESPN tinkers with formats, lets columnists clumsily anchor Sportscenter (yes that is YOU RICK REILLY, STOP IT!!!!), and takes credit for reporting done by competitive organizations, the more fans will turn away. ESPN is still a primary destination for the holy grail of sports broadcasting – live events – but it is losing the battle in analysis. Live events are the next target from the networks (see the NFL Network’s model and MLB Network’s Thursday Night Baseball for two examples). Because of the close league ties, getting the live programming will not be an issue, as the league’s sensitively dance around the current but temporary structure of potentially airing competing live content on two networks.
ESPN will always fulfill the needs of the devoted sports fan who desires broad coverage of every sport. But that all-inclusive sports fan has been taken for granted by ESPN. Fan fragmentation is the new reality of sports content, and competitive niche channels are popping up to prove the point. The 100 percent share of eyeballs the network enjoyed for the majority of its life is gone. The answer to the fundamental question – Could ESPN be replaced by viewers? – is yes.
Stay tuned – the next time ESPN must renew rights to a major sports league’s games, the deal will look different. And that is a positive trend for diehard fans.
Posted by Sports Geek 
