ESPN’s Streaming Challenge: How To Sell To An Audience That May Not ‘Need’ You

After years of consternation around the impact of cord-cutting on cable and particularly, ESPN’s business model, the sports media giant’s standalone streaming service is nearly ready to launch.

You could argue that for sports fans, the initial $29.99 price tag is a steal given the breadth of live content you’re getting for it. And the ad-supported $35.99 bundle with Disney+ and Hulu sounds like even more of a steal for consumers. But that all depends on just how much a given consumer values ESPN as a brand they NEED in their lives anymore.

This week on The Hollywood Reporter, Alex Weprin wondered whether audiences cared about the legacy media brands like ESPN (and HBO and CNN) launching streaming services under the same names. It’s a fair ask, in all honesty. And one we may have already gotten an answer to with the way that audiences have not only flocked to streaming — away from many traditional cable channels — but also how younger viewers are seeing user-generated content as a better alternative.

ESPN inherently understands this dynamic already. Year-to-date, ESPN-owned channels have uploaded nearly 21K videos to YouTube alone, and nearly half of those were YouTube Shorts (according to data from Tubular Labs).

So in an environment where even “The Worldwide Leader in Sports” has caved to highlight culture and the allure of engagement from short snippets over longer-form content, what’s the draw for audiences to pay when they increasingly don’t need to anymore?

As ESPN consolidates its sports rights priorities around the NBA, NHL, ACC and SEC football/basketball and the NFL — while divesting itself of pricey investments in MLB and the Big Ten — there's an increasingly narrow window of necessity for consumers to pay for ESPN if they have an option to do so or not.

Live airings of SportsCenter, once the focal point of sports culture (and still among the top-10 programs by TV ad impressions delivered, according to iSpot), are no longer a necessity in an environment when SportsCenter itself is also a social video property and competitors like House of Highlights are functioning similarly.

Other long-standing ESPN programs like Around The Horn (last episode aired this week) have ended as the network has opted for more First Take-type programs that center on back-and-forths debating key sports topics. Documentaries and investigative-type programming have also declined as a focus. And as the number of leagues ESPN seems to prioritize has appeared to shrink, so have the range of topics and teams discussed across programs and platforms.

So for existing cord-cutters debating adding this ESPN app, or current MVPD-based ESPN subscribers trying to do the math around cutting the cord now, it’s a valid question: What do you (I), specifically, “need” ESPN for?

Without the network’s previous, 24-hour control over sports attention, consumers could be weighing how much live sports they truly watch or need to watch — along with wondering to what extent ESPN carries what you’re looking for (since the answer will be “not at all” for Big Ten and Big East fans, NASCAR viewers and soon, MLB audiences, too). Even avid fans of teams that appear on ESPN all the time could be caught in their own time and/or budget crunch, wondering how much they need the access at $29.99 per month.

If you’re ESPN, the sell for the app could be two-fold:

1. The Disney Bundle

The Disney Bundle pricing at $35.99 seems like the most alluring answer for the questions around why consumers would need it. If they’re already paying $20 (or more) per month for Disney+ and Hulu, and maybe another $10.99 for ESPN+, which lacks the breadth of content the ESPN app will have, they’re nearly at that price point already — with a lesser return on investment.

As long as Hulu keeps churning out award-winning content and Disney+ keeps up its family and franchise fare, the ESPN part of this is almost fluff; which may be a problem long-term as the price of the bundle inevitably increases. But for selling purposes right now, it’s compelling to get ALL of ESPN for what’s essentially $16 per month here.

2. Create a Need

ESPN’s created demand in the past for networks like ESPN2 and the SEC Network, putting games on those channels to drive demand/cable subscriptions, and force carriers’ hands.

The marketplace may not necessarily work like that anymore. But if it wants consumers to feel like they’re missing something without it, the compelling case is to create exclusivity.

Placing marquee games on the streaming service is the simplest move, but also the one that figures to kneecap its existing carriage fee collection most. ESPN could, however, use that strategy along with finding new ways to re-entrench itself into the routines of casual and diehard sports fans alike.

Shoulder programming and special broadcast features only available through the app become better pitches. Making fans feel like they can only see or experience something through the ESPN streaming platform creates habits and word-of-mouth that tells consumers they simply can’t miss having the service.

Given ESPN’s existing investments in talent and live sporting events, it’s no easy feat to build those experiences or programs from scratch. But what other choice does it have but to innovate its way out of the current situation (and back into being a fixture in living rooms across the U.S.)?

Consumers aren’t so far “gone” for ESPN’s purposes that they can’t win them back. They just need to run some new plays — and maybe try some things that look like the old plays, too.