M.G. Siegler • #branding • May 9, 2025

ESPN Minus the Plus

Disney keeps the branding simple, for once...

A couple days ago, after Bob Iger teased on Disney's (fantastic) earnings call that they would soon announce the name, date, and pricing of the new stand-alone ESPN streaming service, I lobbed a joke grenade. But it wasn't just a joke, it was also a prediction: "If it’s anything other than 'ESPN' everyone should be fired."

Well:

At long last, ESPN has chosen a name for its upcoming all-access streaming service.

Ready?

It’s “ESPN.”

Disney’s sports media division will announce the new — and also sort of old — name for the all-access streaming application at a media event next week, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named speaking about not-yet-public details. A Disney spokesperson declined to comment.

I'm shocked. Truly. They made the right call! They never make the right call! The jokes in response to my tweet are a testament to that. All of the streaming services are awful at naming their products. All of them – even Apple has managed to mess it up in a way that would make Microsoft proud.¹ But Disney has the unique distinction of having by far the most convoluted offering of the bunch, because they have so many different brands that they want to bundle together in the most amount of bundle options possible. And they seemingly launch new ones each week just to add to the confusion.

And then there's been the general confusion around ESPN itself and what they have been doing, and were going to do with streaming. Calling it a "spaghetti-to-the-wall" approach is an insult to both spaghetti and to walls. There are already around a dozen different ESPN brands. And there's already an ESPN streaming service. There was about to be another...

Anyway, kudos, Disney. It's still an overall branding clusterfuck that's confusing as fuck, but at least with this one new product, you got it right. May it be a light which shows the way forward.

One more thing: let's not kid ourselves. This simple brand will create other issues because the rest of the branding is such a mess:

Disney executives have referred to the streaming product, which is expected to cost $25 or $30 a month, as “flagship” internally for the past two years as they have developed the service. It will consist of everything ESPN has to offer, including all games; programming on other ESPN cable networks such as ESPN2 and the SEC Network; ESPN on ABC; fantasy products; new betting tie-ins; studio programming; documentaries and more.

This will differ from ESPN’s current streaming product ESPN+, which does not include the most-watched live games, such as Monday Night Football, that currently only air exclusively on traditional pay-TV. ESPN+ costs $11.99 per month and can be bundled with Disney+ and Hulu for $16.99 per month with commercials. ESPN+ will remain a less expensive offering for consumers, according to people familiar with the matter.

I'm going to assume (hope) that the phrasing "will consist of everything ESPN has to offer" means it will also include ESPN+. Otherwise, this truly is ESPN-ESPN+.

Regardless, the fact that ESPN+ will still exist by itself as the cheaper alternative to ESPN is clearly a new branding problem. Because ESPN+ suddenly becomes ESPN-. Honestly, I'm not sure why you keep it around. If you want a cheaper option, maybe do something new that's most of the ESPN content (including what was the ESPN+ content) minus live sports games, since those are clearly the most expensive part of the bundle. But does anyone want that?

I mean, does anyone want ESPN+ in a world where ESPN exists?

Man, can you imagine if Venu had been allowed to live? Would Venu content have existed inside this new ESPN or vice-versa? Maybe it would have worked both ways! ESPN + Venu + ESPN+ + Disney+ + Hulu + Hulu + Live TV + Fubo.