Last week, ESPN announced the subscription price for the standalone streaming service it plans to launch in the fall, and it’s quite high.
The cost of ESPN’s streaming service will be $30 monthly, with an additional option to bundle Hulu and Disney+ for just $6 more. (A limited-time offer during the launch will provide both additional services free for the first year.) In comparison, ESPN’s fees for cable companies to carry its channels are said to be around $10 monthly, reflecting a 200% increase for watching it a la carte.
If you’re struggling to understand who would choose to pay for such a service, the answer may be “very few.” ESPN’s standalone offering appears to be unappealing enough that it won’t entice customers to cut the cord, and the steep price indicates you should likely access the channel through a different method, whether that be via a traditional pay TV package or newer streaming bundles.
You asked for a la carte TV, and now you have it.
If you want to watch all the NFL games typically included in a cable TV package, you would need to subscribe to ESPN ($30 monthly), Peacock ($8 monthly), Paramount+ (also $8 monthly), and Fox (with its upcoming Fox One service likely costing around $20 monthly).
In total, that would equate to $66 monthly. Choosing the ad-free options for Paramount+ ($13 monthly) and Peacock ($14 monthly)—necessary for local CBS and NBC feeds beyond NFL coverage—would raise the total to $77 monthly.
That price isn’t significantly lower than what a comprehensive pay TV package costs. YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV each have a price tag of $83 monthly. DirecTV’s new MySports bundle is somewhat more affordable at $70 monthly, but it currently doesn’t include CBS.
A standalone ESPN subscription could still be viable when combined with an antenna, enhancing what’s available for free over the airwaves. Perhaps there exists a specific type of ESPN superfan for whom this service is the only reason to stay tied to a more expensive pay TV package.
However, for sports enthusiasts seeking complete coverage of what’s generally available on cable, choosing the a la carte method won’t work out. Unlike general entertainment content, you can’t simply rotate through streaming services periodically to cut costs. Aside from password sharing or piracy, bundling is the sole method to lower expenses.
Returning to the bundle concept, this leads us to the main objective of ESPN’s streaming service, which is to act as a foundation for new television bundle formats.
Look to Disney’s bundling approach as an illustration. Hulu and Disney+ are priced at $10 monthly each when purchased separately, but the combined cost is $11 monthly. When you include them with ESPN’s primary service, the price for the pair decreases to $6 monthly (and, initially, free for the first year).
Disney has also been exploring bundling with other businesses. It already provides a package priced at $17 monthly for Disney+, Hulu, and Max (which will soon revert to HBO Max), saving $4 monthly compared to purchasing each service’s separate ad-supported options. Although Disney hasn’t officially announced a tie-in with ESPN, it would be surprising if it didn’t occur given the perceived popularity of these bundles.
Disney had initially intended to team up with Warner Bros. Discovery and Fox for a combined service called Venu Sports, which would package all three companies’ sports and broadcast channels at a cost of $43 monthly. That initiative fell through in court, but there’s still potential for collaboration on discount bundling of their individual offerings.
Telecom providers have also entered the streaming bundle market. Verizon, in particular, provides Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+ (the current ESPN service excluding the majority of cable content) for $10 monthly with its latest unlimited plans. Including ESPN’s flagship service seems like a logical next step.
Streaming companies prefer these types of bundles as they deter subscription hopping, where users switch between services each month to access the best content across platforms. By pricing their standalone services high, like Disney is doing with ESPN currently, these bundles become even more enticing.
However, none of this is feasible without ESPN actually presenting a standalone streaming service. The new offering’s purpose is less about selling a $30 monthly plan for a single sports channel and more about paving the way for innovative streaming bundle options.
Determining whether this is an improvement over the old pay TV model is challenging, but it’s likely to be a better alternative than paying for each individual service a la carte. That concept was never truly viable as cord-cutters had envisioned.
Leave a Reply