A departure from a usual topic here at Smarter Basketball, but after attempting to watch the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl from the WatchESPN iPad app I had a few things to say. If you aren't aware, ESPN had problems with their servers, causing users to be unable to watch the first half of the FSU-Oregon game on New Years Day. Which means anyone without cable television access (traveling, staying with friends or family without cable, or just having problems with the TV) missed a very entertaining first half. Service was restored at halftime, but to say that it was a clean and reliable broadcast would be inaccurate.
I consume a significant amount online content. I use the WatchESPN app when I can for convenience (and because in a one TV household when the kids like to play Disney Infinity and Skylanders it creates some usage issues), read blogs on a variety of topics related to sports and video games, follow and watch the LCS (League of Legends Championship Series), consume almost all my television shows through internet means, and listen to multiple sports, gaming, and coaching podcasts.
So it bothers me on a night when ESPN could have anticipated a record showing in the WatchESPN app that they would have been prepared. Streaming technology is new compared to television, but it is not new. Riot Games (the creating studio and organization that manages the LCS) has been producing high quality and reliable streams through TwitchTV for more than 3 years. Major League Gaming (MLG) has been running live events simulcast over internet streams for years as well. Last year the viewer numbers were higher for the LCS championship match than the 2014 Rose Bowl. So how can a company as large as ESPN get this wrong?
First, let’s try to figure out the motivation for broadcasting this game on ESPN instead of ABC. Since these platforms offer identical broadcast capabilities (seeing as they are both owned by Disney) it seems that the decision must be business based, rather than for practicality. ABC is available as an over-the-air station, so it does not require a cable subscription. ESPN is behind a cable paywall that frequently includes quite a few channels. It surprises me that companies still try this ploy, ‘Without cable, you can’t watch the big game!!!’ This is bad marketing, and really only serves to tick consumers off.
Ultimately, this attitude leads me to believe that ESPN simply doesn't take internet streaming as seriously as it should. This technology could be a huge asset and selling point for ESPN, but instead there is bad press resulting in the problems associated with the Rose Bowl broadcast. In fact, that criticism is not restricted to the first half blackout. Complaints have continued regarding freezes in the stream, audio & video sync issues, and regional blackouts.
In 2015 HBO will starting offering subscriptions for HBO GO to consumers without cable television. It is a major win for consumers who no longer want to pay for 15 channels when they use 5. In fact, I suspect that HBO was the biggest domino consumers could have wished for. The cable company had a staggering number of non-paying users, and I am willing to bet ESPN is in the same boat. They need to take a serious look at going the way of HBO and offering stand alone subscriptions.
ESPN has a service that could be a powerhouse in the broadcast world. They need to make sure their infrastructure is sound and start offering a reliable internet broadcast available through stand alone subscription. The first domino has fallen, it seems only a matter of time before the rest follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment