BearsTruth Board

Why is it a failure. Just because it didn't get the converge in year 1?

The Big 10 Network experienced the same "failure" in it's first year. Even worse "failure" actually.

Takeflight- do you know what the advertising revenue was from the LHN? Compared to what ESPN had to pay for it? Do you really know what ESPN paid for it. Or does ESPN pay Texas based on a % of ad revenue earned?

You may want to look into it.

Typical douchetastic response from X with absolutely zero substance.

The LHN is an utter and complete failure thus far, and there is no disputing that. Advertising revenue is virtually nonexistent and the number of subs they have is a rounding error relative to the ESPN budget.

Comparing it to the BTN is ridiculous because there was no enormous ESPN contract behind the BTN.

With the death of MTN, I think there will be an opportunity for it to get added to DirecTV.

Dude you have no idea whether it is a failure or not.

I know the guys over at IMG who are selling this for UT.

1. The LHN Network is a bigger success than the KU network, the OU network, the KSU network, the Baylor network, the Texas Tech network, the Aggy Network, the ISU network, the Mizzou Network.

2. ESPN is not paying UT an unconditional lump sum of #### amount of dollars a year. The 3 entities ESPN, IMG College, and The University of Texas are splitting the ad revenues in a pre-agreed upon manner based on various thresholds. It's a mixture between a flat fee and percentage of ad revenue that neither of us are privy to.

3. The Big 10 Network actually had worse coverage it's first year. Eventually the carriers picked it up. The same will happen with the LHN.

4. Watch and see, Ty. There's no need to get all hot and bothered. We see way too many non-UT supporters rip the LHN as a total failure because it wasn't picked up by TWC, DirectTV, Uverse, Dish in it's first year. People don't know what they are talking about. This was not a 1 year partnership. This is something that will evolve and all parties involved realized this.

More nonsense.

1.) You define success as mere existence? ESPN has dropped over $25M into the establishment,marketing, and operation of the LHN so far. You're telling me they've recouped that amount? Nonsense.

2.) Correct. The bottom line is that ESPN is not even making enough money to cover the "flat fee" owed to ESPN/IMG. They're in the red. By a lot.

3.) You're again comparing apples to tennis shoes. The BTN did not have millions of dollars of ESPN money behind it. I'm not sure why this is hard to comprehend.

4.) Sadly, you fail at the most rudimentary of subjects: reading and comprehension. I did not say it will fail or is destined to fail or any other such prognostication about the future. I said, specifically, "The LHN is an utter and complete failure thus far". There is zero denying that. There is absolutely a chance that it WILL succeed, but trying to say it's not a complete failure and an enormous loser in its first year is just wrong.

So what are the reasons for it's failure?

You have no idea on the advertising side of it.

How many sponsorship packages did IMG sell/renew/find new corporate sponsors because they threw in some LHN inventory with the radio spots, the in-stadium signage, the internet impressions? They package a lot of this LHN inventory with other elements to create larger packages. And they increase investment levels by adding some LHN inventory.

Colt-I assume most people think it fails because it wasn't carried by many cable providers. If that is your measure of success, then you'd have to say the Big 10 network failed, since it too wasn't carried by many providers. That is the comparison.

Finally, we have no idea the metrics that ESPN, IMG or UT had established in year 1 to measure success. It may have been to generate $1 million in ad sells, get into 100,000 homes, broadcast X number of Big 12 events. All of which they could have accomplished.

Bottom line, Ty, you like most people have no idea what you're talking about. It just makes you feel good to bash the LHN. Just trying to help you out.

Whether its a success or failure depends on who you ask. Its a win/win for UT. Just the advertising they get on the main ESPN channel alone is worth any negative and thats before getting into the $$ they are and will be pulling in.

Oddly, the current big loser in the deal are UT fans. I am shocked at the number of UT fans who are irritated because during basketball season a ton of UT games were placed on a channel that their own alumni cant get. There are alot of UT alums out there, but still not enough to pressure various cable companies into having to have it.

I have the channel and they are going to have to find more material worth programming, because even if this channel was 100% all Baylor, their just isnt enough content to keep me tuned in.

In general it will be another 4 years before anyone knows if this is a success or failure.

You have to find a company that is willing to produce the material. Then a company that is willing to distribute the material.

With UT - ESPN actually invested in both the production and the distribution.
1. Production: buy the HD cameras, the editing equipment, the production trucks, building a studio, hiring talent, etc.
2. Distribution: creating and registering for a new channel.

With OU:
1. Production: OU invested million upon millions in the production equipment. They built studios. Have wired their facilities for state of the art production capabilities etc.
2. Distribution: They have partnered with FSN to distribute this content. They won't have their own channel. But they have a pre-establised medium to get their content out to the masses.

For schools like Baylor:
1. Production: We have a lot of the capabilities since we already produce "Inside Baylor Sports." But would need to further invest. Most of the other schools would have to do something similar.
2. Distribution: This is really the toughest part. Who is going to want to either invest in creating a new channel for us/Big 12 OR clear enough air time on an existing channel.

Soooo....riddle me this Batman: Do you (or your buddies in IMG) define the LHN a success based on its first year? We all understand it a is a work in progress, but it either is, or is not a success so far.

Oh, and I could care less about the BTN. It is the LHN that threatened to tear apart the Big 12.