their product is complete shit. there's times i wanna throw on sportscenter in the morning (mostly from force of habit) and it's just so unwatchable.
a merry roundtable of douchebags that have morning talk show chit chat trying desperately for a cheap safe laugh to appeal to who? i have not a fucking clue.
there's about 12 seconds of highlights for every 10 minutes of the pointless banter. but that seems to be all the network is now anyway.
the morning sportscenter in the 90's used to be must-see tv for me and i'm sure most sports fans.
If rights fees go down, salaries will have to follow.
Labor peace has been made possible by the ever increasing revenue streams that fatten everyone's wallet. If the gravytrain's over, big labor fights are in the offing.
was in college in the early 90s. I was never really exposed to it prior to 1990, as I didn't have cable. So, initially, I only knew ESPN for Sports Center, but with no volume because I would see it on in a bar. That was heaven.
Then, I finally heard a broadcast and it lost some magic. I don't want schtick or some wannabe comedian, or some wannabe talk show host. I want sports. I always found ESPN to be a bit of a joke, even then. Dan Patrick and Olberman irked me to no end and I never cared for Berman. He was a clown then, who thought the broadcast was about him. Guess what, I'm tuning in to see the highlights and scores, not to hear your stupid nicknames and schtick. Now, he is even worse because he has become a caricature of himself.
Even the one thing ESPN used to have a monopoly on, the draft, has become a shitshow. And, expanding the draft to accommodate ESPN coverage was a terrible decision because of it.
If rights fees go down, salaries will have to follow.
Labor peace has been made possible by the ever increasing revenue streams that fatten everyone's wallet. If the gravytrain's over, big labor fights are in the offing.
I don't think so. If rights fees go down, the leagues will have to pay ESPN less for coverage.
I suspect that the product will only get worse, because instead of trying to improve the product, they will try to maintain their income by cutting even more corners and provide a cheaper and less appealing product.
I suspect that they are sandwiched between having long-term contractual obligations to the NFL, MLB, etc. (costs), and the need to show quarterly earnings for their own stockholders. I see that as their problem--THEIR PROBLEM, not mine. Let them fail and be replaced by people with more imagination.
Okay, I'm a cynical bastard. I admit it.
RE: I don't worry about the income of millionaires Â
I suspect that the product will only get worse, because instead of trying to improve the product, they will try to maintain their income by cutting even more corners and provide a cheaper and less appealing product.
I suspect that they are sandwiched between having long-term contractual obligations to the NFL, MLB, etc. (costs), and the need to show quarterly earnings for their own stockholders. I see that as their problem--THEIR PROBLEM, not mine. Let them fail and be replaced by people with more imagination.
Okay, I'm a cynical bastard. I admit it.
The product was better when it was "cheaper" and they just played highlights. I'm a sophisticated sports viewer who just wants a curated highlight feed; I get my "analysis" from more reputable sources.
I loved ESPN from around 1992 when I started watching TV until 2005ish when I got out of high school. Once all that Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless shit came around I just it tuned out completely. I started watching more NFL Network instead, until that started to fall down the same hill. My God, how can cable channels who make so much money produce such shitty shows? I'd never thought I'd see the day where I couldn't stand Shaun O'Hara. A buddy of mine who I was good friends with in school and would just smoke pot and watch Sports Center all day. Riveting.
I can't remember the last time I watched sports center or purposely watched ESPN. Maybe after Super Bowl 46 to see everyone sucking Eli's ass after they were bashing him constantly? I also hate, HATE HATE their Monday Night Football pregame show. They all suck but those are THE worst. who gives a fuck what trent Dilfer and Suzy Kolber has to say? Ditka is annoying and repetitive. One last weird thing I couldn't stand was when they did Sports Center (and maybe it was around the time I stopped watching) with those bright neon purple and pink light sets. Holy shit that gave me a migraine.
and they built a network and programming schedule for insiders and to create some sort of social relevancy.
They ignored what the customers wanted in the process of making themselves feel good about Bruce Jenner and Michael Sam.
Bruce is a human freakshow paraded around as "brave" and Michael Sam was just a guy that played football and was along shot at making a team.
They need to get back to scores and games and get away from the social commentary from millionaires riding in limos.
I'd rather watch a test pattern and listen to a game on the radio than watch their coverage.
ESPN to show their coverage? Because the biggest issue seems that ESPN is locked into deals with the sports leagues that do not account for the drop in subscribers not only for ESPN but for cable subscriptions as a whole.
I know DirectTV probably has a contract with the NFL to show all of their games in a package, but when these TV contracts end is the NFL better off offering their own streaming package like the NBA does with league pass?
When it comes to renegotiating new deals with the league I'd find it hard to believe ESPN would still be paying $7B a year on rights at the rate they are losing subscribers, assuming the leagues do rely on ESPN to broadcast their content.
I don't understand how/why they are losing millions of Â
Some % of that is people who are outright cutting cable subscriptions. But espn is clearly losing more than the other sports networks. NFL ratings are down in general but there are probably plenty more who are fine with just watching Sunday football on basic channels then spend the extra for Monday night.
RE: I don't understand how/why they are losing millions of Â
As with the NFL, there are bigger socio-political issues driving this that many simply don't want to recognize.
Agreed. People are tired of the social issues and sport isn't the end all be all for every fan. My consumption has been cut down massively for many reasons, if that's possible for me that's possible for anyone.
as they are not the reason that ESPN has become a shit show. ESPN had the sports fan locked in forever. Then to grow they viewership they started trying to hard on the "entertainment" aspect to pander to the non sports fan or at least the casual sports fan. By doing that they alienated actual sports fans with all there nonsense BS.
As i said the leagues will be fine. I would not be surprised to see companies like Google, Amazon, etc.. start to gobble them up as current contracts expire. Which would honestly probably be great for sports fans.
Not sure if it was national or not, but it gave ESPN a run for its money in the early 90's with DC area fans. We all preferred it to ESPN. And that was before ESPN became the monster it is today.
I, like many, grew up with the first ESPN. It wass new, highlights every hour, games we could never have seen before. It was heaven.
Now we are all older. Most of us do not put ESPN ahead of life like we might have in our 20s. At the same time ESPN decided to go hip years ago and totally abandon the group that made it. Cross promoting horrible movies, seemingly non-stop rap and hip-hop promotions, talk shows that insult the viewers, etc, etc.
And the guys who are now the age we were when we got hooked are far less hooked to sports and TV than we were.
ESPN ignored the initial core viewer - understandably in many ways - but went too far and they underestimated that the new generation would actually watch less.
But what sociopolitical issues are you talking about ?
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
Pretty sure that's what Eric meant, and I can see that rubbing some folks the wrong way.
IMO, their coverage has been poor for some time. They're constantly trying to manufacture interest through poor behavior, whether it's screaming analysts or focus on social commentary. Very little pure sports coverage, which is the only time I actually watch ESPN.
Then you get into what these guys are making per viewer, which is just unsustainable. This had been a focal point of discussion sometime back, when the broadcast networks were renegotiating their access fees and having a hard time doing so. Once it became common knowledge that all of the viewing public was paying high fees to watch a sports network, between the cord cutting and the pressure on the cable industry to reduce costs it was only a matter of time. Grandma doesn't want or need to pay ten bucks a month to ESPN.
has tried to expand it's reach through alternative programming and entertainment as Italianju pointed out.
I understand it. With the internet being in everyone's hands, just showing highlights doesn't cut it anymore, but if they had stuck to Sportscenter and expanded their reach to other sports, I think they could've had a better model.
You know what programming they have that draws pretty good audiences? The coverage of the WSOP (poker) and the Scripps Spelling Bee. Instead of focusing coverage on MORE sports or contests, they moved away from that to pseudo news crap and way too many analyst shows.
Remember in the early days when they would show Australian Rules Football? They never kept going with that model. Instead of putting fringe sports on the radar and maybe expanding the reach of things like ultimate Frisbee or rugby or things like ski jumping in the winter, they went away from that type of programming. When they have focused on lesser sports, they've been successful. The X games draws decent ratings and their coverage of college lacrosse has brought in viewers. They needed to expand that.
It gets made fun of, but if perhaps the Ocho showed the Dodgeball finals, it might be more entertaining than listening to two schmucks like Bayless and Smith.
I don't think ESPN is neccessarily stupid. They aren't cutting down on highlights ignorantly. If I want to watch highlights I can go to NFL.com or YouTube and watch whatever highlights I want to. They have been trying to hit on the entertainment aspect because they can't compete with free online content.
But what sociopolitical issues are you talking about ?
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
I can't go into too much detail here, but...
(1) Corporate media has been exposed and people are literally cutting the cord with cable. ESPN is getting caught up in that.
(2) To a certain extent, ESPN is getting caught up the politicization of football and the rejection of that. There are boycott the NFL efforts (as well as other boycott efforts currently ongoing).
(3) ESPN is owned by Walt Disney which has a very obvious political bias and has not been shy in pushing that agenda.
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
somebody said, a lot of the original base for ESPN is getting older. They apparently aren't doing a good job attracting younger people.
A lot of people also don't want sports, and never did. Cable companies like FiOS now offer subscribers sports free packages. A lot of sports can also now be watched online. People also have a lot more viewing choices, both on and off line.
Work has also changed. By 2020, as much as 40% of the country may be self employed. The "gig" economy is real. More people are working odd hours that may make it harder for them to watch sports.
ESPN paid exorbitant rights fees based on the belief that most of the country loves to watch sports. That belief was apparently wrong. Absent major changes, it doesn't look like their business model is sustainable.
to the socio-political climate seems specious at best since ESPN has been losing viewers steadily since 2015, and the speed of losing viewers has increased as the options of alternate streaming have increased.
Not saying there can't bee a loose tie to it, but to point to factors like Disney or a "political revolution" is going quite a bit overboard.
But what sociopolitical issues are you talking about ?
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
I can't go into too much detail here, but...
(1) Corporate media has been exposed and people are literally cutting the cord with cable. ESPN is getting caught up in that.
(2) To a certain extent, ESPN is getting caught up the politicization of football and the rejection of that. There are boycott the NFL efforts (as well as other boycott efforts currently ongoing).
(3) ESPN is owned by Walt Disney which has a very obvious political bias and has not been shy in pushing that agenda.
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
Agree with all of this. Saturation is another problem. There is just too much sports on TV. Most activities start to lose their speciality the more available they become.
But what sociopolitical issues are you talking about ?
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
I can't go into too much detail here, but...
(1) Corporate media has been exposed and people are literally cutting the cord with cable. ESPN is getting caught up in that.
(2) To a certain extent, ESPN is getting caught up the politicization of football and the rejection of that. There are boycott the NFL efforts (as well as other boycott efforts currently ongoing).
(3) ESPN is owned by Walt Disney which has a very obvious political bias and has not been shy in pushing that agenda.
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
I might have missed something - what's Disney's political bias?
there is a disconnect between those of the sportswriters and those of the fans. Sports-as-life journalists, like Costas and Albom and others, abound, and ESPN wants to be cutting edge with the Whitlocks and the trendy storylines (eg Jenner), but plenty of sports fans, including those who are broadly sympathetic to particular concerns but especially those whose views are different, tune in to Sportscenter for highlights and sports news. They can and do get their news and commentary elsewhere.
but I'll disagree a little with Eric's point here...
Quote:
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
This reads like a talking point on ESPN. Many people rush to sports in stressful times. The ability to escape reality for a few hours can be very important.
Now if you're saying the politicization of sports and the showing of non-sports issues is turning off a percentage of viewers, sure, I could see this. I don't, however, think the drop in NFL ratings has anything to do with ESPN and it's parent company, or the political climate.
We all know baseball had improved ratings this last postseason, and a quick google search shows NBA ratings are doing fine. The NFL ratings are the fault of the NFL...not the political climate.
while getting ready for work in the morning. Not any more. The only time I watch is to see a football game on Monday night and that's rare for me.
It isn't that they have a bunch of analysts. They just have a bunch of crap. PTI, Around the Horn and those type of shows where people argue over the same issues is boring as hell. They come up with opinions from so-called experts and label it, six pack of facts. Facts? Get out of here.
Have you ever listened to ESPN Radio? Same baloney. They have a guy like Cowherd come on and scream for three hours about things, then another talker comes on and screams about the same things, then another. Ever since I got satellite radio in my car I haven't listened to ESPN once.
Eric, I think your socio-political points have some validity BUT: Â
the even bigger issue is that ESPN's product STINKS. As does NFLN, FOX-FS1 and NBCSN, all of whom have copied the ESPN playbook as others have pointed out. It's all snarky attitude bullshit, countdown/Top 10 shows with has been or never were "reporters" making moronic comments, screaming clowns like Chris Berman and know nothing female "reporters" who are wearing nothing more than the bare minimum to cover their "privates" and would probably have been playboy bunnies a generation ago. There is absolutely no value in it. The only reason I have it is because it would be more expensive for me to drop it and keep YES, SNY and MSG separately
I don't see the force of Eric's point, even as I think what he sees is Â
probably right. But I will note that it is common place for sports journalists like Peter King to inject politics into what they do. Even when he does it in somewhat benign ways, a distinct millennial(?) sort of political sensibility permeates SI. Why they would do this on a sports site of all things is lost to me. Carson once said that he didn't get political because he'd lose half his audience.
To me it has more to do with Cable bundling itself as a doomed way to package media.
believes or is saying that its the main factor, he's simply saying its part of the problem. Its one of the many problems with mainstream sports and its coverage.
The under 30 crowd and especially the under 25 crowd are huge into cord cutting from my personal experience.
I save $65 a month and can get all the programs I want currently for free. The internet long ago changed the perception of generations younger than me as to what they are willing to pay for. Pretty much any content should be free is the viewpoint. No one feels guilty about getting content for free. No provider or creator of content can keep up with people finding ways to provide it to others for free.
The above has nothing to do with the perceived Disney/Kaitlyn Jenner new world order cabal or the new revolution of the "masses".
RE: I don't see the force of Eric's point, even as I think what he sees is Â
probably right. But I will note that it is common place for sports journalists like Peter King to inject politics into what they do. Even when he does it in somewhat benign ways, a distinct millennial(?) sort of political sensibility permeates SI. Why they would do this on a sports site of all things is lost to me. Carson once said that he didn't get political because he'd lose half his audience.
Agree, and honestly, I rarely read King's column anymore.
To me it has more to do with Cable bundling itself as a doomed way to package media.
The same applies to all cable delivered content. Â
Politics has nothing to do with it. Technology is creating lower cost options. This is no different than people dropping land lines for cell phones or overnight shipping for email.
I think some here are looking WAY too much into the reasons. Â
The simple fact the channel SUCK’s is the main reason not political reasons. I have avoided that station for years with the exception of Monday night football, and even that is damn near close to unwatchable.
Gruden needs to go back to coaching or something but his time has come and gone as a play by play. The network continues to run commercials and miss live game play action. All of the talking heads they have are Look at me shock jocks. The channel brings nothing to the viewer of value other than a sports ticker that you can find on the internet.
ESPN decided that it was an entertainment business instead of a sports network. When they made that brand/marketing decision it went the way of Hollywood. It made politics and PC into its roadmap. So the average Joe was put through their views and opinions first and actual sports became second. Similar to most entertainers they had a captive audience and want to put forth their PC views. I'm a New York sports fan so I am stuck being out of market and having to use Direct TV sports packaging for the Giants and Yankee's which includes ESPN.
The under 30 crowd and especially the under 25 crowd are huge into cord cutting from my personal experience.
I save $65 a month and can get all the programs I want currently for free. The internet long ago changed the perception of generations younger than me as to what they are willing to pay for. Pretty much any content should be free is the viewpoint. No one feels guilty about getting content for free. No provider or creator of content can keep up with people finding ways to provide it to others for free.
The above has nothing to do with the perceived Disney/Kaitlyn Jenner new world order cabal or the new revolution of the "masses".
Its certainly true in part, but definitely not an absolute. Many people that are 25 are still living at home, so what about them? Some reports say we are reaching a record high of young adults staying home longer due to rising costs with everything and less employment opportunity for them to live on their own.
Cord cutting is definitely the top factor but it definitely is not the sole factor. People are tired of the bullshit and there's other stuff to do that doesn't impose an agenda on them. TV/Movie content has never been better as well. I fit the social issues into this bucket because there's enough content elsewhere where suffering through what sports crams down our throats is no longer necessary.
I wonder about the future of sports programming... Â
I know a lot of people learn to love sports by how it is modeled by their parents. Many of us grew up desperate for news on our team. We never missed a Sunday recap show, and we always read the sports section of the paper. I remember reading through all the box scores, trying to get insights into games. Those behaviors were modeled for me.
I am not modeling those behaviors for my sons. They see me watch the game, read BBI, watch highlights and interviews on Giants.com, then during the game rewatch the game and others using Gamepass. They're doing the same thing.
If I want to know what happened to the Eagles, Cowboys, or Redskins I watch it on Gamepass.
Although I subscribe to ESPN because I'm a DirecTV customer, I don't watch it or any other sports shows. Live programming. Discussion boards. Exclusive interviews and behind the scenes coverage from the teams websites.
This is the behavior that I'm modeling, and my sons who are barely into their 20's will only remember this behavior.
and bullshit doesn't just mean Kaepernick or LeBron Â
at a political rally. Its reporting news in the form of tweets, its hiring polarizing loud mouth ex-star players instead of intelligent lesser known players who can break down X's and O's, its making guys like Skip Bayless into its most recognizable network personality, and its talking non-stop about racial issues with Stephen A Smith, Mike Smith, Curt Schilling, etc.
The same applies to all cable delivered content.
Perkins TD! : 9:44 am : link : reply
Politics has nothing to do with it. Technology is creating lower cost options. This is no different than people dropping land lines for cell phones or overnight shipping for email.
If you look at ESPN's viewership, it has been in decline for the past few years, and is timed closely to the Roku, FireStick, AppleTV, etc all that made cord cutting possible. This also correlates to decline for HBO, Showtime and other cable outlets.
Cord cutting is the main reason. As UConn points out, it probably isn't the only reason - but it is the core reason.
I think it is a huge reach to mention these side issues Â
How many posters on this site 40+ years old have cut ESPN?
And why did you?
I think the numbers would be shockingly low.
ESPN sucks
Bundling sucks
Content is virtually freee whether it is a book, video, college course, movie, or live TV.
I'm very non tech-savvy for my age group and the cost benefit to owning a TV (let alone paying for content) in the future at this point makes little sense. I can view everything through my phone or tablet.
I would really like to know how all the posters talking about this PC bullshit and stuff they hate on ESPN know what ESPN puts on tv... Aren't you among the subscribers they are losing?
but there is just so much content and so many vehicles for leisure nowadays that less people watch sports. Many of my friends would rather play a video game than watch a secondary-interest sport on TV. Maybe they have a favorite team or sport, but it's not that they'd watch, say, non-playoff basketball just because it's on.
RE: I think it is a huge reach to mention these side issues Â
How many posters on this site 40+ years old have cut ESPN?
And why did you?
I think the numbers would be shockingly low.
ESPN sucks
Bundling sucks
Content is virtually freee whether it is a book, video, college course, movie, or live TV.
I'm very non tech-savvy for my age group and the cost benefit to owning a TV (let alone paying for content) in the future at this point makes little sense. I can view everything through my phone or tablet.
I would really like to know how all the posters talking about this PC bullshit and stuff they hate on ESPN know what ESPN puts on tv... Aren't you among the subscribers they are losing?
Much of the worst stuff finds its way to the internet in short clips, like SAS or Bayless' idiocy-fests. I never watch ESPN (I cut the cord), but I still know what's going on.
It occurs to me that there is also a different sports sensibility... Â
among some millenials that might have something to do with fantasy sports. My son and my nephew watch games with their laptops so that they can keep track of stats for their fantasy leagues. That seems to be their primary interest in sports, rather than the actual event. ESPN is definitely not their source of choice for sports information because it doesn't offer the info they're looking for. Not sure if this is much of a factor, but I think it may be somewhat significant in understanding why ESPN is lagging.
I've changed my football viewing habits and sports viewing habits in the past few years.
Where I used to sit glued to the TV watching whatever sport it was, now I'm watching with my laptop on either doing work, emailing or on Sundays when the Giants aren't playing, I'm checking fantasy scores and watching the Red Zone. I very rarely put it on one game and keep it there. When the Rangers are on, I'm usually doing work while having the game on. I haven't cut the cord, but my multi-tasking and attention is usually in high gear.
I cut my cable back to lower the cost and pay for what I was actually watching. ESPN is one of the many channels not included in my current package. Thus, they lost me as a viewer.
Thanks for the reminder about Australian Rules Football Â
Sports networks are the most expensive channels on cable due to the rights fees they have to pay to leagues or teams to show the games. ESPN is the most expensive at around $7 per household.
The sports networks: ESPN, NFL, locals like YES and MSG -- have been able to use the demands of fans to force cable systems to broadcast their networks to every household as part of their basic package. So every household they serve has to pay for the channel.
The problem is this; While sports fans by definition are fanatical about sports, they are not the majority of the population. They are getting their sports payed for on the backs of people who don't care. Those people now have the option of something else: various internet services and over the air broadcasts. That's knocked the chair out from under the sports networks.
believes or is saying that its the main factor, he's simply saying its part of the problem. Its one of the many problems with mainstream sports and its coverage.
and ABC were being boycotted due to the "political revolution", it should not be limited to sports, yet ABC's primetime shows are still doing well, especially ones like Modern Family, Blackish and Goldberg's.
Unless political enthusiasts somehow hold ESPN solely responsible.
haven't watched SportsCenter in years, or any other similar program on any network. I tune in for the game, and tune out as soon as its over. My guess is many people do the same. During halftime of Giants games, I put the TV on mute, and get up to walk around, get something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc.
haven't watched SportsCenter in years, or any other similar program on any network. I tune in for the game, and tune out as soon as its over. My guess is many people do the same. During halftime of Giants games, I put the TV on mute, and get up to walk around, get something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc.
But again: the bigger problem is the people who don't even care about watching the game. For years they've had to pay for it so you can watch. They now have options and don't have to subsidize you.
Speaking for myself, I watch much less ESPN than I used to... Â
- Getting older, more responsibilities, less free time
- Most programming (outside of the occasional 30 for 30) sucks
- Too many loudmouth, look at me personalities instead of sober analysts
- Too much left-wing politics (the celebration of Bruce Jenner and Colin Kaepernick, the absolutely insufferable Jemele Hill and other quasi political commentators whose views all seem to go in one direction)
haven't watched SportsCenter in years, or any other similar program on any network. I tune in for the game, and tune out as soon as its over. My guess is many people do the same. During halftime of Giants games, I put the TV on mute, and get up to walk around, get something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc.
But again: the bigger problem is the people who don't even care about watching the game. For years they've had to pay for it so you can watch. They now have options and don't have to subsidize you.
Agreed. As I said, FiOS now allows subscribers to have cable packages with no sports channels. Forcing everyone to pay for sports seems to be dwindling.
ESPN should be making huge investments in changing the way we watch Â
sports. They have stubbornly clung to the linear cable model.
Where is ESPN-VR? AR? Where are the digital platforms? Where is the new content? Who in Bristol is thinking about the next big idea in consuming sports media?
ESPN is dead on its feet, it just doesn't know it yet.
I have yet to hear one person (other than Eric from BBI) Â
Attribute the decline to politics. I don't follow the Alt Right stuff but I'm guessing that's their theory.
I'm sure some of their views alienated more than a few people.
It's just that I don't think it's a deliberate political movement, rather, an attempt to bring in or create interest in different viewer bases.
Most of these large multinational corporations couldn't give a hairy shit about politics, they're just interested in money, and they'll say or do anything that they think will maximize profits. That's what they're there for.
Disagree completely on Disney's political agenda Â
That is flat wrong. Everyone still visits Disney and they have jacked the prices at at that place.
It's the worst family vacation I have ever had but what can I say? The people love Disney. And you meet people from all over America there so I don't believe for one minute that Disney's 'political agenda' is hurting it. Disney is swimming in money.
is clearly an alt-right sympathizer even if he'd never admit it and it's a bit sad to see. looking forward to seeing more 8th grade-level conspiracy theory from you eric! you a big mike cernovich fan? LMAO
doesn't seem to jibe with things. Wouldn't it also be a reaction that would hurt NBC, CBS and CNN if we are looking to hold networks responsible for coverage of politics?
Seems to me that political reasons would be a tertiary or even lesser factor in people not watching ESPN.
But then again, I don't really look at things as a Political Revolution happening. what I saw was a rejection of one candidate in favor of another one, albeit in a contentious manner.
RE: ESPN should be making huge investments in changing the way we watch Â
sports. They have stubbornly clung to the linear cable model.
Where is ESPN-VR? AR? Where are the digital platforms? Where is the new content? Who in Bristol is thinking about the next big idea in consuming sports media?
ESPN is dead on its feet, it just doesn't know it yet.
Why would ESPN develop their own virtual or augmented reality platform instead of attaching their content to someone else's application after it reaches viability. Also, ESPN has had a digital platform for several years now.
The original hosts were mostly straight forward and solid. They did not try to be funny or hip. The ones that were funny kept it in check and made it work.
Today's hosts all try to be funny and hip. It is forced and boring since most of them are not true "personalities."
Made worse by them going overboard on diversity hiring at the expense of simply hiring good people.
Add the constant cross-promotions where we are lucky enough to hear actors or rappers add nothing - while the hosts seem eager to get their autograph when it ends so they can brag about meeting a star like Wale - and ESPN is hard to watch (other than the Top Ten plays that include 2 half court shots, a couple of home clips from friends of the staff, etc - ugh).
I don't think Eric
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
I haven't paid enough attention so I have no idea what his beliefs are. I'm guessing asking what they are would result in a bannable reply, but I am genuinely curious.
Because people are tired of paying $150+/mo to watch TV. As alternatives sprung up like Netflix and Hulu...people cut the cable cord. Some of those make it back into the fold using slingtv or playstation Vue...but most simply don't bother.
ESPN is in decline because people are changing how they pay and view TV. Economics is the main problem. Cable TV simply got too expensive.
I don't think Eric
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
It's horrifying.
From the "Welcome to the Corner Forum" sticky:
Most importantly, don't make things personal. If someone disagrees with you, be the bigger person. Don't launch into personal attacks and don't respond to personal attacks. This is one of the easiest ways to get into trouble around here.
Disney's WABC is sure a bastion of left-wingism (Savage, Mark Levin, formerly Hannity & Rush).
You're seeing what you want to see, and it's wrong. Wildly so. They're $150 Billion public company. They care above all about profit, period. (Or perhaps they bought Lucas Film to protest Wookiee bias...)
Just as ESPN - like much of traditional TV - is facing the harsh consequences of the Netflix et al era. Period.
Just an absurd thing to attach to your petty soapbox. Unreal.
...is evident in some of the posts on here. Socio-political reasons? Boycotting Disney? Just because there is absolutely no evidence to support this nonsense doesn't stop people from believing, because they choose not to confront/engage with any information outside of their bubble. But enough about that...evolution exists in all facets of life, including media conglomerates. ESPN has evolved into something many find unwatchable, and therefore people are choosing to not watch it. It seems likely if a la carte cable packaging was more common these numbers would be shocking as to how few actually want ESPN (and honestly many cable channels). I believe we are supposed to leave politics out of our BBI lives, yet thinly disguised posts from the site operator are apparently OK...good to know.
"As it turns out, ESPN is far from immune from the political fever that has afflicted so much of the country over the past year. Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some."
"Many ESPN employees I talked to -- including liberals and conservatives, most of whom preferred to speak on background -- worry that the company’s politics have become a little too obvious, empowering those who feel as if they’re in line with the company’s position and driving underground those who don’t.
“If you’re a Republican or conservative, you feel the need to talk in whispers,” one conservative ESPN employee said. “There’s even a fear of putting Fox News on a TV [in the office].”
"104 individual political contributions from ESPN employees to identifiable partisan entities. Of those, 80 percent went to Democratic candidates, committees or PACs. Only 20 percent went to Republican candidates, committees or PACs." Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
nobody really gives a shit what witty eleven seconds of crap Shia LeBoeuf is going to say about an NBA game in order to pitch his latest piece of shit movie, but agglomeration and the fetish for cross-promotion say otherwise.
As to the politics, people who want to be assailed with politics when they tune in for entertainment and think that other people feel likewise, or should be made to feel likewise, are the ones living in a bubble, no matter what the site operator's perspective is on a given candidate or issue.
Do you know how to follow a link?? Thats directly from an editor at espn. Right from the horses mouth that the company internally and externally is perceived as left wing and it has "alienated" some viewers due to their politically leaning.
ESPN may be liberal as far as politics and whatnot Â
But Disney is all about profits as posters have said.
I wish people would boycott Disney since it is a nefarious company the way they treat workers and how much they have raised prices. But there's no evidence of this at all. Make no mistake about it, that mouse is evil. Lol.
The fact is consumers have a greater choice of activities than ever before. That siphons off people who used to do the same things. There's less commonality in our population than ever before. And the NFL and ESPN used to be those things.
I know people who are solely into esports and not sports. That seems insane to me but it's a sign of the times. I can't name one esports personality but this is a huge deal in this day and age.
Here's ESPN head John Skipper's comment from that article. Â
You decide whether this is 'political' or not. I say it's just typical corporate mumbo jumbo.
“It is accurate that the Walt Disney Company and ESPN are committed to diversity and inclusion,” Skipper said. “These are long-standing values that drive fundamental fairness while providing us with the widest possible pool of talent to create the smartest and most creative staff. We do not view this as a political stance but as a human stance. We do not think tolerance is the domain of a particular political philosophy.”
People under 30 do not put a priority on bundles Â
The younger viewers with purchasing power do not think having a TV package ($100 to $300 per month) or a landline as critical. People Stream what they specifically want and gather socially for major events. My sons and their contemporaries barely watch sports on TV (Won't invest the hours per game unless they are actually there). Their isn't value for time spent. The future of networks have to involve internet access/ phone access otherwise they will not be pertinent for the next generation of viewers. The counter to this is when that generation (currently adults under 30) get older they may be a desire to have access to bundles, if technological advances haven't killed it already.
This is also applicable to news networks and programming. Young people are downloading content linked to blogs, etc. MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN are for people brought up before the advent of the internet. Young adults can't sit through that crap, they have 'stuff to do.
with the rise over the last 10 years of DVRs, high cost of monopolistic cable subscriptions, streaming services, watch atf with no commercials for relatively low cost - there is no surprise that live sports is suffering a setback, and the 24/7 coverage of, and the insufferable meta coverage of the coverage that goes along with it, it deserves some time on the bottom so they can find themselves. Why should ANYONE tune in to ESPN today. Think about it.
Are people making the argument that ESPN is losing subscribers Â
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
So if ESPN gives people like Curt Schilling more airtime Â
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
I don't think that is what they are saying. I think its implied that internally, differences in political views are drastically compromising decision making. It doesn't mean more or less Curt Schilling necessarily. It probably means they are having a really hard time deciding whether they should tackle social issues (they clearly are) or just leaving that to news outlets and instead focus on sports (they clearly aren't).
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
I don't think anyone is saying that ESPN's political bias is the only or even the primary reason for declining ratings, but it is certainly A reason. How big or small is guesswork - but ESPN itself is admitting that it's an issue. For people on here to continue to deny that in the face of what ESPN itself is saying is to simply deny facts and reality that they'd rather not confront.
RE: RE: RE: Are people making the argument that ESPN is losing subscribers Â
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
To take two recent examples, the nauseating celebrations of Bruce Jenner, and the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick.
RE: RE: RE: Are people making the argument that ESPN is losing subscribers Â
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
Read the story at the link. He sites numerous examples, the Caitlyn Jenner award, the pro-BLM espys, Curt Schilling/Mike Ditka fired/demoted while other commentators were not for political views, all the commentators/writers are liberal etc.
This is an Editor at ESPN and he agrees that the company shifted left and has not only alienated viewers but also employees at ESPN.
This is not to say that its a large reason ESPN is losing viewers, but many posters said there was absolutely no way ESPN was politically biased and no way were viewers staying away because of it. This article from ESPN proves those views wrong. Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
“This new role is really a blessing,” Ditka said in a statement released by ESPN. “It’s something I asked for. After many years of weekend travel, I’m thrilled I’ll get to watch NFL games on Sundays and Monday nights in the comfort of my own home. I enjoy being part of the game and part of ESPN. I really do. So this is a great solution.”
It absolutely blows my mind on how trivial some of the responses are.
Are some people not watching ESPN because they find it too liberal, or they don't like the talking heads, the subject matter, the athletes, etc.? Sure, but that's one perspective. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers and the answer is simple. It has been for years--people are cutting the cord because cable costs too much. ESPN has the most subscribers, despite never having the highest average daily viewership, with the highest cost per customer by far. So naturally they have the most to lose. End of story.
When my wife and I first started dating and she had her own place, she had cable but I can promise you she didn't watch ESPN. She still however had to pay for it because it was part of even the most basic package. Same scenario today she wouldn't have cable and would stream everything. Is it because she hates Kaepernick, Lebron or SAS? No. She might know who they are because of other media outlets/internet but how could she "turn off" a network she wasn't concerned about in the first place? This is what is happening across the country, not because of petty agendas. Every cable network is experiencing this. ESPN just has more to lose. It seems like every other month this same topic comes up with the same, lame responses. We get it, you don't like ESPN. Great. Enjoy life then.
RE: I could only get halfway through this thread before I had to stop Â
It absolutely blows my mind on how trivial some of the responses are.
Are some people not watching ESPN because they find it too liberal, or they don't like the talking heads, the subject matter, the athletes, etc.? Sure, but that's one perspective. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers and the answer is simple. It has been for years--people are cutting the cord because cable costs too much. ESPN has the most subscribers, despite never having the highest average daily viewership, with the highest cost per customer by far. So naturally they have the most to lose. End of story.
When my wife and I first started dating and she had her own place, she had cable but I can promise you she didn't watch ESPN. She still however had to pay for it because it was part of even the most basic package. Same scenario today she wouldn't have cable and would stream everything. Is it because she hates Kaepernick, Lebron or SAS? No. She might know who they are because of other media outlets/internet but how could she "turn off" a network she wasn't concerned about in the first place? This is what is happening across the country, not because of petty agendas. Every cable network is experiencing this. ESPN just has more to lose. It seems like every other month this same topic comes up with the same, lame responses. We get it, you don't like ESPN. Great. Enjoy life then.
This guy gets it. If people hated this so-called agenda so much, why is Disney so damn expensive? No one has answered that yet. Are the people that hate Jenner for her sex change boycotting? No, they are not. Disney did plenty of pro-gay stuff after that nightclub in Orlando was attacked. Hasn't hurt them.
I think people are arguing two different things. Â
On one side, people are arguing that ESPN's left wing bias is A factor - not the majority factor, but A factor - in the declining ratings. ESPN itself so admits. On the other side, people are saying that they think that's crazy, and that wouldn't affect THEIR thinking.
Those two sentiments are not at all inconsistent. The overwhelming majority of people will not and have not stopped watching ESPN for that reason. But if 1% or 3% or 5% do - then that may be reflected in lower ratings.
It's a simple concept that ESPN admits has occurred. Why is there even a disagreement?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Are people making the argument that ESPN is losing subscribers Â
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
Read the story at the link. He sites numerous examples, the Caitlyn Jenner award, the pro-BLM espys, Curt Schilling/Mike Ditka fired/demoted while other commentators were not for political views, all the commentators/writers are liberal etc.
This is an Editor at ESPN and he agrees that the company shifted left and has not only alienated viewers but also employees at ESPN.
This is not to say that its a large reason ESPN is losing viewers, but many posters said there was absolutely no way ESPN was politically biased and no way were viewers staying away because of it. This article from ESPN proves those views wrong. Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
I read some of it and there were some examples of folks feeling alienated. I guess it's possible that people feel alienated by their BLM coverage. Or even by firing that colossal asshole Schilling. Point is, I really doubt it's why they're losing subscribers. Viewers? Maybe. But ditching cable to make a statement against ESPN? Not too likely. Whether you watch it or not, ESPN is getting your money when you sign up for cable. They're on every basic cable package.
This is not to say that its a large reason ESPN is losing viewers, but many posters said there was absolutely no way ESPN was politically biased and no way were viewers staying away because of it. This article from ESPN proves those views wrong. Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
A lot of massive media markets (large urban centres) are shockingly left leaning.
Most businesses are in the business of growing or getting revenue, where does ESPNs revenue come from? Rural Montana?
You don't think the South is a major market? Or that even in the Northeast the average cable viewer wants to get his news commentary from athletes or sports journalists? Or that the major media markets have the same percentage of households glued to sports programming as do some of the lesser ones? For instance, college football certainly has a following in the northeast, but really none of the powerhouse schools is located in the region.
I don't think anyone is saying that ESPN's political bias is the only or even the primary reason for declining ratings, but it is certainly A reason. How big or small is guesswork - but ESPN itself is admitting that it's an issue. For people on here to continue to deny that in the face of what ESPN itself is saying is to simply deny facts and reality that they'd rather not confront.
Yeah fine. It's "A" reason. Just as sun exposure is "A" reason why Lindsay Lohan now looks like this:
But perhaps nonstop alcohol & cocaine benders are a more notable reason?
Intelligent people are, generally speaking, able to discern & parse degrees. To identify which, if any, factors hold more or less significance.
Cord cutting is not a new phenomenon. It's been in the news a ton and there are people (mostly younger, but not exclusively) everywhere taking advantage of it.
I'm surprised you've missed it, but perhaps that's to be expected when one is busy lamenting the perceived excessive coverage of Bruce Jenner's chopped off cock.
It's against the Disney-based conspiracy. That's what Eric brought up and I have not seen anyone challenge me on the profitability of Disney.
To everyone citing that article, the author's main point is the perception of bias more than the reality of it. That doesn't prove that ESPN is or isn't left-leaning. And that's not why people cut the cord anyway. Look at the comments - everyone on that article bitches about how much ESPN sucks yet here they are commenting on an ESPN platform about it. So that sort of invalidates the comment that 'I hate ESPN' when you still consume it.
was a major reason, or even an impactful reason for ESPN losing subscribers, then there should be an excellent explanation or a correlation to the political arena and ESPN losing viewers since 2014.
As I said above, the migration more or less is timed very closely to the alternate streaming options and related to cord-cutting. And here's another data point - the number of people who have cut the cord in the past year, exceeds the number who cut the cord the previous 4 years. The cord cutting is accelerating, and ESPN is getting caught up in that wash.
A lot of massive media markets (large urban centres) are shockingly left leaning.
Most businesses are in the business of growing or getting revenue, where does ESPNs revenue come from? Rural Montana?
You don't think the South is a major market? Or that even in the Northeast the average cable viewer wants to get his news commentary from athletes or sports journalists? Or that the major media markets have the same percentage of households glued to sports programming as do some of the lesser ones? For instance, college football certainly has a following in the northeast, but really none of the powerhouse schools is located in the region.
I think if you perceive this bias and actually broke down viewership you might find the average viewer is a lot more left leaning than yourself. You might also find major markets (NY, California) stick out as incredibly left of your positions on most subjects.
I'd even go as far to point that politically the "left" very likely outweighs the right in your country. Even with low turnout there was what? 2.5 million more on that side? One side had stagnant or decreased turnout the other had increased and yet this supposed minority American still outnumbered the other side. So if you perceive this bias why would someone be surprised?
I don't think a lot of large successful businesses make a concerted efffort to lean one way or another but if they did it would be for a profit motive or at the behest of ownership.
and his ilk are symptomatic of a broader problem in the US, which is the inability for many to see the world outside of a distorted, bifurcated, hyperpartisan lens (which ironically, is a view promoted by the very "corporate" media they so fervently reject), and the related tendency to traffic in political paranoia and third rate conspiracy theory.
and his ilk are symptomatic of a broader problem in the US, which is the inability for many to see the world outside of a distorted, bifurcated, hyperpartisan lens (which ironically, is a view promoted by the very "corporate" media they so fervently reject), and the related tendency to traffic in political paranoia and third rate conspiracy theory.
All true but that's not the reason people are dumping traditional cable service. It's not like you can call Comcast and say, "ESPN loves gays and Kap, cancel my ESPN"
In comment 13242892 Perkins TD! said:
[quote] All true but that's not the reason people are dumping traditional cable service. It's not like you can call Comcast and say, "ESPN loves gays and Kap, cancel my ESPN" [/quote
This.
Sports center is small potatoes. It's the NFL, MLB, etc. People who don't care a lot about sports are leaving cable, reducing ESPN's subscriber base. It's no more complicated than that.
All true but that's not the reason people are dumping traditional cable service. It's not like you can call Comcast and say, "ESPN loves gays and Kap, cancel my ESPN"
anyone can cancel for any reason. my point is that I don't think politics in general or Kapernick in particular is driving it. It's the cost/benefit factor. And were it not for bundling, I think it would be worse. As I said in my original post here, I would cancel ESPN, but it would cost me more to drop it and then have to pick up SNY,YES and MSG individually. I barely watch it.
and his ilk are symptomatic of a broader problem in the US, which is the inability for many to see the world outside of a distorted, bifurcated, hyperpartisan lens (which ironically, is a view promoted by the very "corporate" media they so fervently reject), and the related tendency to traffic in political paranoia and third rate conspiracy theory.
not sure how anything in my previous post can be remotely construed as ideological, either left or right, but i'll be sure to engage in some self-reflection. thanks for that tip.
and his ilk are symptomatic of a broader problem in the US, which is the inability for many to see the world outside of a distorted, bifurcated, hyperpartisan lens (which ironically, is a view promoted by the very "corporate" media they so fervently reject), and the related tendency to traffic in political paranoia and third rate conspiracy theory.
You work in academia? I would suggest not talking about distorted lens.
If folks want me to elaborate on my points - which were not intended to be all inclusive (of course there are non-political components to this) - feel free to e-mail me.
to spite one content provider? Come on, that's crazy talk. They're cutting the cord because content is being delivered in other ways that are cheaper and/or preferable to the cable/dvr system. Others are reducing their packages because for the first time you can do that. Do you think ESPN's problem is that right wing men are dropping out 500k a month because they dont like Chris Berman's politics, or is it a little more likely that non-sports fans are forgoing mega-$$ sports packages.
On the economics of ESPN, I've posted this before, but they really dug their own grave. They assumed that subscriptions could never go down, and that they'd be able to dictate price increases to cabelcos if they could back them up with increased rights deals. So ESPN decided to grossly overbid for rights deals to prevent competition from Fox and NBC's sports channels. And now they're realizing that their assumptions were wrong. Hence the cost cutting by pushing so many known talents out the door.
If folks want me to elaborate on my points - which were not intended to be all inclusive (of course there are non-political components to this) - feel free to e-mail me.
I just want to get to the bottom of this 'Disney poltical theory' and how it's hurting ESPN yet not hurting Disney's bottom line. If you don't feel this site is enough of a safe space to tell me why this is the case, then that's your call. It's all good.
Too political. Again, feel free to e-mail me if you want.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
Too political. Again, feel free to e-mail me if you want.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
OK all good. But can you at least tell me why you think then Disney is swimming in cash and there are no real 'boycott Disney' movement out there? I just want to know if you really believe that Disney's bottom line is being affected by this political theory or not without getting into the theory itself. Simple question: Is the Disney company hemorrhaging customers like ESPN?
Too political. Again, feel free to e-mail me if you want.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
OK all good. But can you at least tell me why you think then Disney is swimming in cash and there are no real 'boycott Disney' movement out there? I just want to know if you really believe that Disney's bottom line is being affected by this political theory or not without getting into the theory itself. Simple question: Is the Disney company hemorrhaging customers like ESPN?
Look, buddy. Real men don't give money to disney. Their customer base is wimmin, toddlers and pre-teen girls. So of course their agenda isn't having an effect on that customer base. It's not difficult to understand.
add that the reason I ask is because I hate Disney to the extend many of you hate ESPN. But not because of any political reason, just the way they have price-gouged the public in this way that make their theme parks and merchandise synonymous with the American experience. I mean smart business on their end but I can't believe the revenue they generate over there.
So I hope Eric is right and Disney's politics make it experience the same downfall as ESPN. I just don't see evidence of people hating Disney.
so because i work in academia you knee-jerk assume i'm part of the "liberal left" cultivating "safe spaces" for sniveling, entitled millenials, right? nice. and this without even knowing my field or university. any other alt right talking points you care to regurgitate, eric? if so, please be sure to use buzzwords.
Quote:
and his ilk are symptomatic of a broader problem in the US, which is the inability for many to see the world outside of a distorted, bifurcated, hyperpartisan lens (which ironically, is a view promoted by the very "corporate" media they so fervently reject), and the related tendency to traffic in political paranoia and third rate conspiracy theory.
You work in academia? I would suggest not talking about distorted lens.
If folks want me to elaborate on my points - which were not intended to be all inclusive (of course there are non-political components to this) - feel free to e-mail me.
Too political. Again, feel free to e-mail me if you want.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
OK all good. But can you at least tell me why you think then Disney is swimming in cash and there are no real 'boycott Disney' movement out there? I just want to know if you really believe that Disney's bottom line is being affected by this political theory or not without getting into the theory itself. Simple question: Is the Disney company hemorrhaging customers like ESPN?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-earnings-20160510-story.html Link - ( New Window )
I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without it being too political.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without it being too political.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
Thanks for this. We'll re-visit this down the road and I hope you are right that Disney was hurt by the election.
If not, I'll call you out! Kidding.
It's complicated. Take the Visa program. That's a cost issue. So Disney's labor costs will likely increase.
On the other hand, if the economy explodes, Disney will do quite well.
Only if you believe that visa policy will change. It wont. I dont think businesses were really operating under the assumption that governance would be consistent with campaign statements.
It just seems to me like the cable model is outdated. I cut the cord in 2010 and have loved it.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
It just seems to me like the cable model is outdated. I cut the cord in 2010 and have loved it.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
showcases the best of BBI. Lets face it. Everyone occasionally talks out of their ass on here. How you react to getting called on it makes up most of the entertainment on this site
ESPN comes out and admits that their left wing bias has impacted their viewership and subscriber rolls.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
ESPN comes out and admits that their left wing bias has impacted their viewership and subscriber rolls.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
Or we disbelieve ESPN, which has been lying its face off for a year plus over this very issue. Do you expect ESPN to admit that its product is too expensive, that younger consumers arent into it that much, or that they overpaid for a bunch of rights? It is far easier to attribute the problem to an easily fixable issue, indeed one that is being addressed anyway as ESPN sheds talent.
The "alt right" label is tedious and lazy, but if that makes you feel better, so be it.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand. Multinational corporations and corporate media clearly staked out their position. ABC-Disney-ESPN all respond to the same corporate masters.
It is the opinion of many that ESPN promotes political views. For those who watch sports for entertainment and don't share those views, that's a turnoff. Many watch sports to escape the real world, not be reminded of it. Now if you happen to be of a certain political persuasion, ESPN's tactics won't bother you and you will tend to easily dismiss these claims as crazy.
We all live in our own information bubbles and seek confirmation bias, whether we want to admit it or not.
RE: This thread illustrates why discourse in this country sucks today. Â
ESPN comes out and admits that their left wing bias has impacted their viewership and subscriber rolls.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
The ESPN article that I saw posted on this thread doesn't really state that they are attributing the decline in subscriptions to politics. It just says that some people think it alienates some viewers. Hardly the same thing.
I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without it being too political.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
You're contradicting yourself to some extent though, Eric. That Disney would look to seek economic gain through political means is one thing, but to suggest that they're pushing an ideology is another one altogether.
Disney doesn't care if you're gay or straight, if you're black or white, if you're left or right. Green is the only thing they give a shit about. Any efforts to politicize anything on ESPN were simply intended to increase viewership, if that backfired on them then it's not different from any other business move that doesn't pan out.
As lawguy smartly points out above, this is why we can't have civil conversations in America anymore. Look at this thread. I merely said that politics is a factor in cancelled ESPN subscriptions. I was asked to elaborate. I did. Then comes the identity-politics name-calling.
The people you hang out with think I'm an idiot. The people I hang out with think you're an idiot.
I also think people are just tired of paying the excessive costs of bundled cable packages. If there is a live sporting event I need to watch, I'll find a way to watch it.
with politics as the main driver. This has actually been long overdue. Consumer behavior has changed so much in how media gets digested, and programming has been "disney-fied", meaning that content is watered down to the point that it's not compelling TV anymore.
RE: IMO that's a stretch that people are tuning out Â
with politics as the main driver. This has actually been long overdue. Consumer behavior has changed so much in how media gets digested, and programming has been "disney-fied", meaning that content is watered down to the point that it's not compelling TV anymore.
And that may be the #1 reason. I know I didn't enjoy the product. And since NFLN has headed down the same path, I stopped watching that too. (I believe the person who runs the NFLN came from ESPN...but I may be wrong about that).
IIRC, there was a mass exodus of ESPN execs moving to NFL Network years ago, and that largely explains the shit programming we are left with today outside of "Football Life".
When they first announced there would be an NFLN Â
with politics as the main driver. This has actually been long overdue. Consumer behavior has changed so much in how media gets digested, and programming has been "disney-fied", meaning that content is watered down to the point that it's not compelling TV anymore.
The cable companies know this - AT&T just came out with a streaming version of directv called directv now which is just an app like netflix. No set top boxes - just streaming. You can get a 100 channel package right now for $35 that includes espn. So chord cutting but still with live tv.
Economics. No one needs a landline anymore. Cable companies have been slow to respond to in increasing consumer base demanding a la cart services that the big companies still fail to deliver due to an admitted lack of profit motive. They've had the technology to do it for over a decade. As cord cutters increase, fringe technology companies offering live streaming of on demand events have responded. Cable has been slow to catch up. Cord cutter clout in their local communities has been expanding as well... I for one get asked all the time how I watch live sports. It's become easier and higher quality over the last 4 years and that will only increase.
Social. No one wants to be seen as a couch potato. No one plans their day and night around TV anymore. Commercials are annoying. People have lives, and with the rise of digital recording devices and after the fact replay services in many capacities over the last several years - the consumer has more power to watch what they want, when they want it. Sports is no different - and the NFL network and Fox Sports 1 competing with ESPN along with the lack of bullshit 24/7 ad filler on ESPN, why in the world would anyone want to watch it? Also - mobile devices constitute a huge share of sports media traffic. I would think that segment along has grown 10% yoy the last 5 years.
on the NFL network was much closer to that model but changed to more closely match ESPN probably because of rantings.
As much as we complain about the TMZ ascept of sports, how do you explain the fact that the Kanye West hospitalised thread reaching a 1,000 views on BBI so quickly. We are the ones responsible for all that TMZ stuff.
And finally, if the ESPNs didn't report the players political stances and protest, many of us would be calling it censorship to protect their product. You claim that you hate it but then you gleefully use it to bash someone. Case in point, the QB and Castro thread.
That means it can have only one agenda. Maximimzing shareholder return and protecting ownership from liability. Every action of a publicly traded company must be in pursuit of that goal. Companies that fail to focus on that and only that will rightly face lawsuits and other unpleasant behaviour from outraged stockholders.
If someone thinks a publicly traded company is committed to a political or social agenda for its own sake that says more about the oberver's agenda than the company's.
It's pretty common knowledge what the rooting interests of many multinationals were... especially in the IT industry.
If you are saying ABC-Disney-ESPN didn't have a rooting interest, then we'll have to agree to disagree. But millions of people feel the same way.
Also, I recommend you take a look at what is happening with Kellog's stock if you don't think corporations make political decisions that affect their bottom line. That's just the latest example.
If you'll explain to me how executives and officers of a publicly held corporation can pursue a political or cultural agenda instead of pursuiing maximum return on stockholder investment and protection of ownership from liability without being sued and dismissed for malfeasance I'll be happy to believe in the idea. I don't claim to be an expert on politics or business but the idea makes no sense as far as I can see.
When a publicly held corporation commits acts I consider heinous I never take it personally or consider those acts to be motivated by political or social opinions. I always assume those acts are motivated by the only reasons for for-profit corporate existance. Maximum return on stockholder investment and protection of ownership from liability
Why did Disney broadcast Rush Limbaugh on its flagship radio station for 25 years? Why do they currently broadcast Mark Levin and professional crazy person Michael Savage?
According to you, "Disney [...] has a very obvious political bias."
a merry roundtable of douchebags that have morning talk show chit chat trying desperately for a cheap safe laugh to appeal to who? i have not a fucking clue.
there's about 12 seconds of highlights for every 10 minutes of the pointless banter. but that seems to be all the network is now anyway.
the morning sportscenter in the 90's used to be must-see tv for me and i'm sure most sports fans.
Labor peace has been made possible by the ever increasing revenue streams that fatten everyone's wallet. If the gravytrain's over, big labor fights are in the offing.
Then, I finally heard a broadcast and it lost some magic. I don't want schtick or some wannabe comedian, or some wannabe talk show host. I want sports. I always found ESPN to be a bit of a joke, even then. Dan Patrick and Olberman irked me to no end and I never cared for Berman. He was a clown then, who thought the broadcast was about him. Guess what, I'm tuning in to see the highlights and scores, not to hear your stupid nicknames and schtick. Now, he is even worse because he has become a caricature of himself.
Even the one thing ESPN used to have a monopoly on, the draft, has become a shitshow. And, expanding the draft to accommodate ESPN coverage was a terrible decision because of it.
It's complete shit now.
Labor peace has been made possible by the ever increasing revenue streams that fatten everyone's wallet. If the gravytrain's over, big labor fights are in the offing.
Not sure how they will be able to be half what they were at best.
Fs1 doesn't help them either.
The content has gotten worse, and everyone can get a 24/7 sports fix with the swipe of a finger.
Bad times for ESPN. If it weren't for the NFL and NBA contracts they have, don't know what they would do.
I suspect that the product will only get worse, because instead of trying to improve the product, they will try to maintain their income by cutting even more corners and provide a cheaper and less appealing product.
I suspect that they are sandwiched between having long-term contractual obligations to the NFL, MLB, etc. (costs), and the need to show quarterly earnings for their own stockholders. I see that as their problem--THEIR PROBLEM, not mine. Let them fail and be replaced by people with more imagination.
Okay, I'm a cynical bastard. I admit it.
I suspect that the product will only get worse, because instead of trying to improve the product, they will try to maintain their income by cutting even more corners and provide a cheaper and less appealing product.
I suspect that they are sandwiched between having long-term contractual obligations to the NFL, MLB, etc. (costs), and the need to show quarterly earnings for their own stockholders. I see that as their problem--THEIR PROBLEM, not mine. Let them fail and be replaced by people with more imagination.
Okay, I'm a cynical bastard. I admit it.
The product was better when it was "cheaper" and they just played highlights. I'm a sophisticated sports viewer who just wants a curated highlight feed; I get my "analysis" from more reputable sources.
I can't remember the last time I watched sports center or purposely watched ESPN. Maybe after Super Bowl 46 to see everyone sucking Eli's ass after they were bashing him constantly? I also hate, HATE HATE their Monday Night Football pregame show. They all suck but those are THE worst. who gives a fuck what trent Dilfer and Suzy Kolber has to say? Ditka is annoying and repetitive. One last weird thing I couldn't stand was when they did Sports Center (and maybe it was around the time I stopped watching) with those bright neon purple and pink light sets. Holy shit that gave me a migraine.
They ignored what the customers wanted in the process of making themselves feel good about Bruce Jenner and Michael Sam.
Bruce is a human freakshow paraded around as "brave" and Michael Sam was just a guy that played football and was along shot at making a team.
They need to get back to scores and games and get away from the social commentary from millionaires riding in limos.
I'd rather watch a test pattern and listen to a game on the radio than watch their coverage.
I know DirectTV probably has a contract with the NFL to show all of their games in a package, but when these TV contracts end is the NFL better off offering their own streaming package like the NBA does with league pass?
When it comes to renegotiating new deals with the league I'd find it hard to believe ESPN would still be paying $7B a year on rights at the rate they are losing subscribers, assuming the leagues do rely on ESPN to broadcast their content.
Some % of that is people who are outright cutting cable subscriptions. But espn is clearly losing more than the other sports networks. NFL ratings are down in general but there are probably plenty more who are fine with just watching Sunday football on basic channels then spend the extra for Monday night.
As with the NFL, there are bigger socio-political issues driving this that many simply don't want to recognize.
Quote:
subscribers. What are these people doing?
As with the NFL, there are bigger socio-political issues driving this that many simply don't want to recognize.
Agreed. People are tired of the social issues and sport isn't the end all be all for every fan. My consumption has been cut down massively for many reasons, if that's possible for me that's possible for anyone.
As i said the leagues will be fine. I would not be surprised to see companies like Google, Amazon, etc.. start to gobble them up as current contracts expire. Which would honestly probably be great for sports fans.
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
Now we are all older. Most of us do not put ESPN ahead of life like we might have in our 20s. At the same time ESPN decided to go hip years ago and totally abandon the group that made it. Cross promoting horrible movies, seemingly non-stop rap and hip-hop promotions, talk shows that insult the viewers, etc, etc.
And the guys who are now the age we were when we got hooked are far less hooked to sports and TV than we were.
ESPN ignored the initial core viewer - understandably in many ways - but went too far and they underestimated that the new generation would actually watch less.
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
Pretty sure that's what Eric meant, and I can see that rubbing some folks the wrong way.
IMO, their coverage has been poor for some time. They're constantly trying to manufacture interest through poor behavior, whether it's screaming analysts or focus on social commentary. Very little pure sports coverage, which is the only time I actually watch ESPN.
Then you get into what these guys are making per viewer, which is just unsustainable. This had been a focal point of discussion sometime back, when the broadcast networks were renegotiating their access fees and having a hard time doing so. Once it became common knowledge that all of the viewing public was paying high fees to watch a sports network, between the cord cutting and the pressure on the cable industry to reduce costs it was only a matter of time. Grandma doesn't want or need to pay ten bucks a month to ESPN.
I understand it. With the internet being in everyone's hands, just showing highlights doesn't cut it anymore, but if they had stuck to Sportscenter and expanded their reach to other sports, I think they could've had a better model.
You know what programming they have that draws pretty good audiences? The coverage of the WSOP (poker) and the Scripps Spelling Bee. Instead of focusing coverage on MORE sports or contests, they moved away from that to pseudo news crap and way too many analyst shows.
Remember in the early days when they would show Australian Rules Football? They never kept going with that model. Instead of putting fringe sports on the radar and maybe expanding the reach of things like ultimate Frisbee or rugby or things like ski jumping in the winter, they went away from that type of programming. When they have focused on lesser sports, they've been successful. The X games draws decent ratings and their coverage of college lacrosse has brought in viewers. They needed to expand that.
It gets made fun of, but if perhaps the Ocho showed the Dodgeball finals, it might be more entertaining than listening to two schmucks like Bayless and Smith.
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
I can't go into too much detail here, but...
(1) Corporate media has been exposed and people are literally cutting the cord with cable. ESPN is getting caught up in that.
(2) To a certain extent, ESPN is getting caught up the politicization of football and the rejection of that. There are boycott the NFL efforts (as well as other boycott efforts currently ongoing).
(3) ESPN is owned by Walt Disney which has a very obvious political bias and has not been shy in pushing that agenda.
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
A lot of people also don't want sports, and never did. Cable companies like FiOS now offer subscribers sports free packages. A lot of sports can also now be watched online. People also have a lot more viewing choices, both on and off line.
Work has also changed. By 2020, as much as 40% of the country may be self employed. The "gig" economy is real. More people are working odd hours that may make it harder for them to watch sports.
ESPN paid exorbitant rights fees based on the belief that most of the country loves to watch sports. That belief was apparently wrong. Absent major changes, it doesn't look like their business model is sustainable.
Not saying there can't bee a loose tie to it, but to point to factors like Disney or a "political revolution" is going quite a bit overboard.
Quote:
But what sociopolitical issues are you talking about ?
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
I can't go into too much detail here, but...
(1) Corporate media has been exposed and people are literally cutting the cord with cable. ESPN is getting caught up in that.
(2) To a certain extent, ESPN is getting caught up the politicization of football and the rejection of that. There are boycott the NFL efforts (as well as other boycott efforts currently ongoing).
(3) ESPN is owned by Walt Disney which has a very obvious political bias and has not been shy in pushing that agenda.
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
Agree with all of this. Saturation is another problem. There is just too much sports on TV. Most activities start to lose their speciality the more available they become.
Quote:
But what sociopolitical issues are you talking about ?
Is it the fact that ESPN does not just concentrate on sports news and highlights ... but tries to be politically correct as well ?
I guess that I am a little lost at exactly what you mean (without trying to bring politics into this).
I can't go into too much detail here, but...
(1) Corporate media has been exposed and people are literally cutting the cord with cable. ESPN is getting caught up in that.
(2) To a certain extent, ESPN is getting caught up the politicization of football and the rejection of that. There are boycott the NFL efforts (as well as other boycott efforts currently ongoing).
(3) ESPN is owned by Walt Disney which has a very obvious political bias and has not been shy in pushing that agenda.
(4) We're in the middle of one of the most significant political revolutions in American history. Sports seems more trivial right now.
I might have missed something - what's Disney's political bias?
This reads like a talking point on ESPN. Many people rush to sports in stressful times. The ability to escape reality for a few hours can be very important.
Now if you're saying the politicization of sports and the showing of non-sports issues is turning off a percentage of viewers, sure, I could see this. I don't, however, think the drop in NFL ratings has anything to do with ESPN and it's parent company, or the political climate.
We all know baseball had improved ratings this last postseason, and a quick google search shows NBA ratings are doing fine. The NFL ratings are the fault of the NFL...not the political climate.
It isn't that they have a bunch of analysts. They just have a bunch of crap. PTI, Around the Horn and those type of shows where people argue over the same issues is boring as hell. They come up with opinions from so-called experts and label it, six pack of facts. Facts? Get out of here.
Have you ever listened to ESPN Radio? Same baloney. They have a guy like Cowherd come on and scream for three hours about things, then another talker comes on and screams about the same things, then another. Ever since I got satellite radio in my car I haven't listened to ESPN once.
To me it has more to do with Cable bundling itself as a doomed way to package media.
I save $65 a month and can get all the programs I want currently for free. The internet long ago changed the perception of generations younger than me as to what they are willing to pay for. Pretty much any content should be free is the viewpoint. No one feels guilty about getting content for free. No provider or creator of content can keep up with people finding ways to provide it to others for free.
The above has nothing to do with the perceived Disney/Kaitlyn Jenner new world order cabal or the new revolution of the "masses".
Agree, and honestly, I rarely read King's column anymore.
To me it has more to do with Cable bundling itself as a doomed way to package media.
Gruden needs to go back to coaching or something but his time has come and gone as a play by play. The network continues to run commercials and miss live game play action. All of the talking heads they have are Look at me shock jocks. The channel brings nothing to the viewer of value other than a sports ticker that you can find on the internet.
I save $65 a month and can get all the programs I want currently for free. The internet long ago changed the perception of generations younger than me as to what they are willing to pay for. Pretty much any content should be free is the viewpoint. No one feels guilty about getting content for free. No provider or creator of content can keep up with people finding ways to provide it to others for free.
The above has nothing to do with the perceived Disney/Kaitlyn Jenner new world order cabal or the new revolution of the "masses".
Its certainly true in part, but definitely not an absolute. Many people that are 25 are still living at home, so what about them? Some reports say we are reaching a record high of young adults staying home longer due to rising costs with everything and less employment opportunity for them to live on their own.
Cord cutting is definitely the top factor but it definitely is not the sole factor. People are tired of the bullshit and there's other stuff to do that doesn't impose an agenda on them. TV/Movie content has never been better as well. I fit the social issues into this bucket because there's enough content elsewhere where suffering through what sports crams down our throats is no longer necessary.
I am not modeling those behaviors for my sons. They see me watch the game, read BBI, watch highlights and interviews on Giants.com, then during the game rewatch the game and others using Gamepass. They're doing the same thing.
If I want to know what happened to the Eagles, Cowboys, or Redskins I watch it on Gamepass.
Although I subscribe to ESPN because I'm a DirecTV customer, I don't watch it or any other sports shows. Live programming. Discussion boards. Exclusive interviews and behind the scenes coverage from the teams websites.
This is the behavior that I'm modeling, and my sons who are barely into their 20's will only remember this behavior.
People are just tired of it.
Perkins TD! : 9:44 am : link : reply
Politics has nothing to do with it. Technology is creating lower cost options. This is no different than people dropping land lines for cell phones or overnight shipping for email.
If you look at ESPN's viewership, it has been in decline for the past few years, and is timed closely to the Roku, FireStick, AppleTV, etc all that made cord cutting possible. This also correlates to decline for HBO, Showtime and other cable outlets.
Cord cutting is the main reason. As UConn points out, it probably isn't the only reason - but it is the core reason.
And why did you?
I think the numbers would be shockingly low.
ESPN sucks
Bundling sucks
Content is virtually freee whether it is a book, video, college course, movie, or live TV.
I'm very non tech-savvy for my age group and the cost benefit to owning a TV (let alone paying for content) in the future at this point makes little sense. I can view everything through my phone or tablet.
I would really like to know how all the posters talking about this PC bullshit and stuff they hate on ESPN know what ESPN puts on tv... Aren't you among the subscribers they are losing?
And why did you?
I think the numbers would be shockingly low.
ESPN sucks
Bundling sucks
Content is virtually freee whether it is a book, video, college course, movie, or live TV.
I'm very non tech-savvy for my age group and the cost benefit to owning a TV (let alone paying for content) in the future at this point makes little sense. I can view everything through my phone or tablet.
I would really like to know how all the posters talking about this PC bullshit and stuff they hate on ESPN know what ESPN puts on tv... Aren't you among the subscribers they are losing?
Much of the worst stuff finds its way to the internet in short clips, like SAS or Bayless' idiocy-fests. I never watch ESPN (I cut the cord), but I still know what's going on.
Where I used to sit glued to the TV watching whatever sport it was, now I'm watching with my laptop on either doing work, emailing or on Sundays when the Giants aren't playing, I'm checking fantasy scores and watching the Red Zone. I very rarely put it on one game and keep it there. When the Rangers are on, I'm usually doing work while having the game on. I haven't cut the cord, but my multi-tasking and attention is usually in high gear.
C'mon share, we are a community!!!!! LOL
I cut my cable back to lower the cost and pay for what I was actually watching. ESPN is one of the many channels not included in my current package. Thus, they lost me as a viewer.
Ha, mine too. I still do that at the bowling alley whenever someone throws the ball in the middle of a split.
The sports networks: ESPN, NFL, locals like YES and MSG -- have been able to use the demands of fans to force cable systems to broadcast their networks to every household as part of their basic package. So every household they serve has to pay for the channel.
The problem is this; While sports fans by definition are fanatical about sports, they are not the majority of the population. They are getting their sports payed for on the backs of people who don't care. Those people now have the option of something else: various internet services and over the air broadcasts. That's knocked the chair out from under the sports networks.
This.
Unless political enthusiasts somehow hold ESPN solely responsible.
But again: the bigger problem is the people who don't even care about watching the game. For years they've had to pay for it so you can watch. They now have options and don't have to subsidize you.
- Getting older, more responsibilities, less free time
- Most programming (outside of the occasional 30 for 30) sucks
- Too many loudmouth, look at me personalities instead of sober analysts
- Too much left-wing politics (the celebration of Bruce Jenner and Colin Kaepernick, the absolutely insufferable Jemele Hill and other quasi political commentators whose views all seem to go in one direction)
Quote:
haven't watched SportsCenter in years, or any other similar program on any network. I tune in for the game, and tune out as soon as its over. My guess is many people do the same. During halftime of Giants games, I put the TV on mute, and get up to walk around, get something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc.
But again: the bigger problem is the people who don't even care about watching the game. For years they've had to pay for it so you can watch. They now have options and don't have to subsidize you.
Agreed. As I said, FiOS now allows subscribers to have cable packages with no sports channels. Forcing everyone to pay for sports seems to be dwindling.
Where is ESPN-VR? AR? Where are the digital platforms? Where is the new content? Who in Bristol is thinking about the next big idea in consuming sports media?
ESPN is dead on its feet, it just doesn't know it yet.
Is that Johnny Perkins TD? :-)
Look 4 posts above!
Again, for me it's not politics, but it's just bad business to alienate many possible consumers of your product.
I'm sure some of their views alienated more than a few people.
It's just that I don't think it's a deliberate political movement, rather, an attempt to bring in or create interest in different viewer bases.
Most of these large multinational corporations couldn't give a hairy shit about politics, they're just interested in money, and they'll say or do anything that they think will maximize profits. That's what they're there for.
It's the worst family vacation I have ever had but what can I say? The people love Disney. And you meet people from all over America there so I don't believe for one minute that Disney's 'political agenda' is hurting it. Disney is swimming in money.
Seems to me that political reasons would be a tertiary or even lesser factor in people not watching ESPN.
But then again, I don't really look at things as a Political Revolution happening. what I saw was a rejection of one candidate in favor of another one, albeit in a contentious manner.
Where is ESPN-VR? AR? Where are the digital platforms? Where is the new content? Who in Bristol is thinking about the next big idea in consuming sports media?
ESPN is dead on its feet, it just doesn't know it yet.
Why would ESPN develop their own virtual or augmented reality platform instead of attaching their content to someone else's application after it reaches viability. Also, ESPN has had a digital platform for several years now.
I despise ESPN programming but I love MNF, college sports, etc. I don't care who owns them.
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
Today's hosts all try to be funny and hip. It is forced and boring since most of them are not true "personalities."
Made worse by them going overboard on diversity hiring at the expense of simply hiring good people.
Add the constant cross-promotions where we are lucky enough to hear actors or rappers add nothing - while the hosts seem eager to get their autograph when it ends so they can brag about meeting a star like Wale - and ESPN is hard to watch (other than the Top Ten plays that include 2 half court shots, a couple of home clips from friends of the staff, etc - ugh).
Yes - I have become my father.
Quote:
I don't think Eric
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
It's horrifying.
Quote:
I don't think Eric
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
I haven't paid enough attention so I have no idea what his beliefs are. I'm guessing asking what they are would result in a bannable reply, but I am genuinely curious.
ESPN is in decline because people are changing how they pay and view TV. Economics is the main problem. Cable TV simply got too expensive.
All the other excuses are just noise.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think Eric
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
It's horrifying.
Like MAGA, drop ESPN?
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think Eric
UConn4523 : 9:29 am : link
believes or is saying that its the main factor
To be honest I'm taken aback about a lot of the shit that the Erics in the world believe.
It's horrifying.
From the "Welcome to the Corner Forum" sticky:
Most importantly, don't make things personal. If someone disagrees with you, be the bigger person. Don't launch into personal attacks and don't respond to personal attacks. This is one of the easiest ways to get into trouble around here.
Disney's WABC is sure a bastion of left-wingism (Savage, Mark Levin, formerly Hannity & Rush).
You're seeing what you want to see, and it's wrong. Wildly so. They're $150 Billion public company. They care above all about profit, period. (Or perhaps they bought Lucas Film to protest Wookiee bias...)
Just as ESPN - like much of traditional TV - is facing the harsh consequences of the Netflix et al era. Period.
Just an absurd thing to attach to your petty soapbox. Unreal.
"Many ESPN employees I talked to -- including liberals and conservatives, most of whom preferred to speak on background -- worry that the company’s politics have become a little too obvious, empowering those who feel as if they’re in line with the company’s position and driving underground those who don’t.
“If you’re a Republican or conservative, you feel the need to talk in whispers,” one conservative ESPN employee said. “There’s even a fear of putting Fox News on a TV [in the office].”
"104 individual political contributions from ESPN employees to identifiable partisan entities. Of those, 80 percent went to Democratic candidates, committees or PACs. Only 20 percent went to Republican candidates, committees or PACs."
Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
As to the politics, people who want to be assailed with politics when they tune in for entertainment and think that other people feel likewise, or should be made to feel likewise, are the ones living in a bubble, no matter what the site operator's perspective is on a given candidate or issue.
Alt-right or are they more like the new mainstream? The new alt right will be the Westboro Baptist weekly.
Apparently some want a revolution, what they willl get is more of the same.
It's the god damn Disney PC illuminati George Soros cabal we gotta stop.
Do you know how to follow a link?? Thats directly from an editor at espn. Right from the horses mouth that the company internally and externally is perceived as left wing and it has "alienated" some viewers due to their politically leaning.
I wish people would boycott Disney since it is a nefarious company the way they treat workers and how much they have raised prices. But there's no evidence of this at all. Make no mistake about it, that mouse is evil. Lol.
Most businesses are in the business of growing or getting revenue, where does ESPNs revenue come from? Rural Montana?
The fact is consumers have a greater choice of activities than ever before. That siphons off people who used to do the same things. There's less commonality in our population than ever before. And the NFL and ESPN used to be those things.
I know people who are solely into esports and not sports. That seems insane to me but it's a sign of the times. I can't name one esports personality but this is a huge deal in this day and age.
“It is accurate that the Walt Disney Company and ESPN are committed to diversity and inclusion,” Skipper said. “These are long-standing values that drive fundamental fairness while providing us with the widest possible pool of talent to create the smartest and most creative staff. We do not view this as a political stance but as a human stance. We do not think tolerance is the domain of a particular political philosophy.”
This is also applicable to news networks and programming. Young people are downloading content linked to blogs, etc. MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN are for people brought up before the advent of the internet. Young adults can't sit through that crap, they have 'stuff to do.
with the rise over the last 10 years of DVRs, high cost of monopolistic cable subscriptions, streaming services, watch atf with no commercials for relatively low cost - there is no surprise that live sports is suffering a setback, and the 24/7 coverage of, and the insufferable meta coverage of the coverage that goes along with it, it deserves some time on the bottom so they can find themselves. Why should ANYONE tune in to ESPN today. Think about it.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Sorry, not buying it.
Quote:
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
The data is also behind. Are they capturing OTT subscribers?
Sorry, not buying it.
I don't think that is what they are saying. I think its implied that internally, differences in political views are drastically compromising decision making. It doesn't mean more or less Curt Schilling necessarily. It probably means they are having a really hard time deciding whether they should tackle social issues (they clearly are) or just leaving that to news outlets and instead focus on sports (they clearly aren't).
That's my perception anyway.
Quote:
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
I don't think anyone is saying that ESPN's political bias is the only or even the primary reason for declining ratings, but it is certainly A reason. How big or small is guesswork - but ESPN itself is admitting that it's an issue. For people on here to continue to deny that in the face of what ESPN itself is saying is to simply deny facts and reality that they'd rather not confront.
Quote:
In comment 13242753 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
To take two recent examples, the nauseating celebrations of Bruce Jenner, and the fawning coverage of Colin Kaepernick.
Quote:
In comment 13242753 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
Read the story at the link. He sites numerous examples, the Caitlyn Jenner award, the pro-BLM espys, Curt Schilling/Mike Ditka fired/demoted while other commentators were not for political views, all the commentators/writers are liberal etc.
This is an Editor at ESPN and he agrees that the company shifted left and has not only alienated viewers but also employees at ESPN.
This is not to say that its a large reason ESPN is losing viewers, but many posters said there was absolutely no way ESPN was politically biased and no way were viewers staying away because of it. This article from ESPN proves those views wrong.
Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
“This new role is really a blessing,” Ditka said in a statement released by ESPN. “It’s something I asked for. After many years of weekend travel, I’m thrilled I’ll get to watch NFL games on Sundays and Monday nights in the comfort of my own home. I enjoy being part of the game and part of ESPN. I really do. So this is a great solution.”
Are some people not watching ESPN because they find it too liberal, or they don't like the talking heads, the subject matter, the athletes, etc.? Sure, but that's one perspective. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers and the answer is simple. It has been for years--people are cutting the cord because cable costs too much. ESPN has the most subscribers, despite never having the highest average daily viewership, with the highest cost per customer by far. So naturally they have the most to lose. End of story.
When my wife and I first started dating and she had her own place, she had cable but I can promise you she didn't watch ESPN. She still however had to pay for it because it was part of even the most basic package. Same scenario today she wouldn't have cable and would stream everything. Is it because she hates Kaepernick, Lebron or SAS? No. She might know who they are because of other media outlets/internet but how could she "turn off" a network she wasn't concerned about in the first place? This is what is happening across the country, not because of petty agendas. Every cable network is experiencing this. ESPN just has more to lose. It seems like every other month this same topic comes up with the same, lame responses. We get it, you don't like ESPN. Great. Enjoy life then.
Are some people not watching ESPN because they find it too liberal, or they don't like the talking heads, the subject matter, the athletes, etc.? Sure, but that's one perspective. ESPN is losing millions of subscribers and the answer is simple. It has been for years--people are cutting the cord because cable costs too much. ESPN has the most subscribers, despite never having the highest average daily viewership, with the highest cost per customer by far. So naturally they have the most to lose. End of story.
When my wife and I first started dating and she had her own place, she had cable but I can promise you she didn't watch ESPN. She still however had to pay for it because it was part of even the most basic package. Same scenario today she wouldn't have cable and would stream everything. Is it because she hates Kaepernick, Lebron or SAS? No. She might know who they are because of other media outlets/internet but how could she "turn off" a network she wasn't concerned about in the first place? This is what is happening across the country, not because of petty agendas. Every cable network is experiencing this. ESPN just has more to lose. It seems like every other month this same topic comes up with the same, lame responses. We get it, you don't like ESPN. Great. Enjoy life then.
This guy gets it. If people hated this so-called agenda so much, why is Disney so damn expensive? No one has answered that yet. Are the people that hate Jenner for her sex change boycotting? No, they are not. Disney did plenty of pro-gay stuff after that nightclub in Orlando was attacked. Hasn't hurt them.
Those two sentiments are not at all inconsistent. The overwhelming majority of people will not and have not stopped watching ESPN for that reason. But if 1% or 3% or 5% do - then that may be reflected in lower ratings.
It's a simple concept that ESPN admits has occurred. Why is there even a disagreement?
Quote:
In comment 13242766 giant24 said:
Quote:
In comment 13242753 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
because it's too liberal? That seems like a pretty huge stretch.
Partly to blame. Read the above article i linked from ESPN's editor:
"Internally, there’s a feeling among many staffers (ESPN) -- both liberal and conservative -- that the company’s perceived move leftward has had a stifling effect on discourse inside the company and has affected its public-facing products. Consumers have sensed that same leftward movement, alienating some.
Ok, what are some examples of this leftward movement? I don't watch a lot of ESPN so maybe that's why I can't think of anything that's really been political one way or another. And these guys have the feeling that people are alienated? That's not exactly definitive. Is anybody on the board experiencing this feeling of alienation?
Read the story at the link. He sites numerous examples, the Caitlyn Jenner award, the pro-BLM espys, Curt Schilling/Mike Ditka fired/demoted while other commentators were not for political views, all the commentators/writers are liberal etc.
This is an Editor at ESPN and he agrees that the company shifted left and has not only alienated viewers but also employees at ESPN.
This is not to say that its a large reason ESPN is losing viewers, but many posters said there was absolutely no way ESPN was politically biased and no way were viewers staying away because of it. This article from ESPN proves those views wrong. Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
I read some of it and there were some examples of folks feeling alienated. I guess it's possible that people feel alienated by their BLM coverage. Or even by firing that colossal asshole Schilling. Point is, I really doubt it's why they're losing subscribers. Viewers? Maybe. But ditching cable to make a statement against ESPN? Not too likely. Whether you watch it or not, ESPN is getting your money when you sign up for cable. They're on every basic cable package.
In comment 13242766 giant24 said:
Quote:
In comment 13242753
This is not to say that its a large reason ESPN is losing viewers, but many posters said there was absolutely no way ESPN was politically biased and no way were viewers staying away because of it. This article from ESPN proves those views wrong. Inside and out, ESPN dealing with changing political dynamics - ( New Window )
Probably hate birthday threads too
Most businesses are in the business of growing or getting revenue, where does ESPNs revenue come from? Rural Montana?
You don't think the South is a major market? Or that even in the Northeast the average cable viewer wants to get his news commentary from athletes or sports journalists? Or that the major media markets have the same percentage of households glued to sports programming as do some of the lesser ones? For instance, college football certainly has a following in the northeast, but really none of the powerhouse schools is located in the region.
Yeah fine. It's "A" reason. Just as sun exposure is "A" reason why Lindsay Lohan now looks like this:
But perhaps nonstop alcohol & cocaine benders are a more notable reason?
Intelligent people are, generally speaking, able to discern & parse degrees. To identify which, if any, factors hold more or less significance.
Cord cutting is not a new phenomenon. It's been in the news a ton and there are people (mostly younger, but not exclusively) everywhere taking advantage of it.
I'm surprised you've missed it, but perhaps that's to be expected when one is busy lamenting the perceived excessive coverage of Bruce Jenner's chopped off cock.
To everyone citing that article, the author's main point is the perception of bias more than the reality of it. That doesn't prove that ESPN is or isn't left-leaning. And that's not why people cut the cord anyway. Look at the comments - everyone on that article bitches about how much ESPN sucks yet here they are commenting on an ESPN platform about it. So that sort of invalidates the comment that 'I hate ESPN' when you still consume it.
As I said above, the migration more or less is timed very closely to the alternate streaming options and related to cord-cutting. And here's another data point - the number of people who have cut the cord in the past year, exceeds the number who cut the cord the previous 4 years. The cord cutting is accelerating, and ESPN is getting caught up in that wash.
Quote:
A lot of massive media markets (large urban centres) are shockingly left leaning.
Most businesses are in the business of growing or getting revenue, where does ESPNs revenue come from? Rural Montana?
You don't think the South is a major market? Or that even in the Northeast the average cable viewer wants to get his news commentary from athletes or sports journalists? Or that the major media markets have the same percentage of households glued to sports programming as do some of the lesser ones? For instance, college football certainly has a following in the northeast, but really none of the powerhouse schools is located in the region.
I think if you perceive this bias and actually broke down viewership you might find the average viewer is a lot more left leaning than yourself. You might also find major markets (NY, California) stick out as incredibly left of your positions on most subjects.
I'd even go as far to point that politically the "left" very likely outweighs the right in your country. Even with low turnout there was what? 2.5 million more on that side? One side had stagnant or decreased turnout the other had increased and yet this supposed minority American still outnumbered the other side. So if you perceive this bias why would someone be surprised?
I don't think a lot of large successful businesses make a concerted efffort to lean one way or another but if they did it would be for a profit motive or at the behest of ownership.
This
[quote] All true but that's not the reason people are dumping traditional cable service. It's not like you can call Comcast and say, "ESPN loves gays and Kap, cancel my ESPN" [/quote
This.
Sports center is small potatoes. It's the NFL, MLB, etc. People who don't care a lot about sports are leaving cable, reducing ESPN's subscriber base. It's no more complicated than that.
anyone can cancel for any reason. my point is that I don't think politics in general or Kapernick in particular is driving it. It's the cost/benefit factor. And were it not for bundling, I think it would be worse. As I said in my original post here, I would cancel ESPN, but it would cost me more to drop it and then have to pick up SNY,YES and MSG individually. I barely watch it.
A reason is that sometimes woman's sports is on
A reason is that sometimes white protestants are smiling. And the last time that happened was before the Model T.
A reason is that there are not enough times the Star Spangled Banner is played.
A reason is that it's warmer out so more people are out.
A reason is that there are other possibilities and choices people can make
A reason?
It's amazing to watch some folks twist into pretzels to torture the data into confessing their narrative.
It also gets darker out earlier.
I don't care if you are left or right. If you can't think why would I ever listen to the rest?
Oh the irony. Look in a mirror much?
The Bubble - ( New Window )
In comment 13242946 giant24 said:
Quote:
Oh the irony. Look in a mirror much? The Bubble - ( New Window )
You work in academia? I would suggest not talking about distorted lens.
If folks want me to elaborate on my points - which were not intended to be all inclusive (of course there are non-political components to this) - feel free to e-mail me.
On the economics of ESPN, I've posted this before, but they really dug their own grave. They assumed that subscriptions could never go down, and that they'd be able to dictate price increases to cabelcos if they could back them up with increased rights deals. So ESPN decided to grossly overbid for rights deals to prevent competition from Fox and NBC's sports channels. And now they're realizing that their assumptions were wrong. Hence the cost cutting by pushing so many known talents out the door.
But the political factor is there. It's all over political websites and social media.
Is it the overriding factor? Who knows? But it is a factor.
If folks want me to elaborate on my points - which were not intended to be all inclusive (of course there are non-political components to this) - feel free to e-mail me.
I just want to get to the bottom of this 'Disney poltical theory' and how it's hurting ESPN yet not hurting Disney's bottom line. If you don't feel this site is enough of a safe space to tell me why this is the case, then that's your call. It's all good.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
OK all good. But can you at least tell me why you think then Disney is swimming in cash and there are no real 'boycott Disney' movement out there? I just want to know if you really believe that Disney's bottom line is being affected by this political theory or not without getting into the theory itself. Simple question: Is the Disney company hemorrhaging customers like ESPN?
Quote:
Too political. Again, feel free to e-mail me if you want.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
OK all good. But can you at least tell me why you think then Disney is swimming in cash and there are no real 'boycott Disney' movement out there? I just want to know if you really believe that Disney's bottom line is being affected by this political theory or not without getting into the theory itself. Simple question: Is the Disney company hemorrhaging customers like ESPN?
Look, buddy. Real men don't give money to disney. Their customer base is wimmin, toddlers and pre-teen girls. So of course their agenda isn't having an effect on that customer base. It's not difficult to understand.
So I hope Eric is right and Disney's politics make it experience the same downfall as ESPN. I just don't see evidence of people hating Disney.
so because i work in academia you knee-jerk assume i'm part of the "liberal left" cultivating "safe spaces" for sniveling, entitled millenials, right? nice. and this without even knowing my field or university. any other alt right talking points you care to regurgitate, eric? if so, please be sure to use buzzwords.
Quote:
and his ilk are symptomatic of a broader problem in the US, which is the inability for many to see the world outside of a distorted, bifurcated, hyperpartisan lens (which ironically, is a view promoted by the very "corporate" media they so fervently reject), and the related tendency to traffic in political paranoia and third rate conspiracy theory.
You work in academia? I would suggest not talking about distorted lens.
If folks want me to elaborate on my points - which were not intended to be all inclusive (of course there are non-political components to this) - feel free to e-mail me.
Quote:
Too political. Again, feel free to e-mail me if you want.
My intent was not to derail this thread but merely point to another factor that is affecting the subscriber issue. There are good counter-points within this thread, but there are also demographic/income issues that affect some of those arguments.
OK all good. But can you at least tell me why you think then Disney is swimming in cash and there are no real 'boycott Disney' movement out there? I just want to know if you really believe that Disney's bottom line is being affected by this political theory or not without getting into the theory itself. Simple question: Is the Disney company hemorrhaging customers like ESPN?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-earnings-20160510-story.html
Link - ( New Window )
Why pay for cable and ESPN when I can watch all of this stuff?
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
Thanks for this. We'll re-visit this down the road and I hope you are right that Disney was hurt by the election.
If not, I'll call you out! Kidding.
On the other hand, if the economy explodes, Disney will do quite well.
On the other hand, if the economy explodes, Disney will do quite well.
Only if you believe that visa policy will change. It wont. I dont think businesses were really operating under the assumption that governance would be consistent with campaign statements.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
Inclusivity and not being a twit are not part of Trump's followers platforms.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
Exaxtly. I love watching whatever I want.
Assuming Disney had a stake in the election because of Visa implications, it isn't Disney that is the biased party, but ESPN?
Is that rumor really floating out there on alt-right websites, because that is some crazy shit.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
Consumers are going to punish those franchises due to the parent company's political agenda.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
Or we disbelieve ESPN, which has been lying its face off for a year plus over this very issue. Do you expect ESPN to admit that its product is too expensive, that younger consumers arent into it that much, or that they overpaid for a bunch of rights? It is far easier to attribute the problem to an easily fixable issue, indeed one that is being addressed anyway as ESPN sheds talent.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand. Multinational corporations and corporate media clearly staked out their position. ABC-Disney-ESPN all respond to the same corporate masters.
It is the opinion of many that ESPN promotes political views. For those who watch sports for entertainment and don't share those views, that's a turnoff. Many watch sports to escape the real world, not be reminded of it. Now if you happen to be of a certain political persuasion, ESPN's tactics won't bother you and you will tend to easily dismiss these claims as crazy.
We all live in our own information bubbles and seek confirmation bias, whether we want to admit it or not.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
The ESPN article that I saw posted on this thread doesn't really state that they are attributing the decline in subscriptions to politics. It just says that some people think it alienates some viewers. Hardly the same thing.
I'm sure it is.
And you just proved my point.
Quote:
Lol. JFC
And you just proved my point.
We all live in our own information bubbles and seek confirmation bias, whether we want to admit it or not.
You are included in that. Your talking points are an Echo
Chamber.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
You're contradicting yourself to some extent though, Eric. That Disney would look to seek economic gain through political means is one thing, but to suggest that they're pushing an ideology is another one altogether.
Disney doesn't care if you're gay or straight, if you're black or white, if you're left or right. Green is the only thing they give a shit about. Any efforts to politicize anything on ESPN were simply intended to increase viewership, if that backfired on them then it's not different from any other business move that doesn't pan out.
As lawguy smartly points out above, this is why we can't have civil conversations in America anymore. Look at this thread. I merely said that politics is a factor in cancelled ESPN subscriptions. I was asked to elaborate. I did. Then comes the identity-politics name-calling.
The people you hang out with think I'm an idiot. The people I hang out with think you're an idiot.
That's where we are now.
Gary, mudbear has hacked Eric's account again!!!
And that may be the #1 reason. I know I didn't enjoy the product. And since NFLN has headed down the same path, I stopped watching that too. (I believe the person who runs the NFLN came from ESPN...but I may be wrong about that).
Oh what could have been
No one said it was the "main driver."
Oh what could have been
That's what I had in mind too! They really dropped the ball IMO. More Sabols and less ESPN suits.
Oh what could have been
Me, too.
The manufactured arguments on ESPN and NFLN are a real turn off for an old guy like me.
30% tech/social.
10% political.
Economics. No one needs a landline anymore. Cable companies have been slow to respond to in increasing consumer base demanding a la cart services that the big companies still fail to deliver due to an admitted lack of profit motive. They've had the technology to do it for over a decade. As cord cutters increase, fringe technology companies offering live streaming of on demand events have responded. Cable has been slow to catch up. Cord cutter clout in their local communities has been expanding as well... I for one get asked all the time how I watch live sports. It's become easier and higher quality over the last 4 years and that will only increase.
Social. No one wants to be seen as a couch potato. No one plans their day and night around TV anymore. Commercials are annoying. People have lives, and with the rise of digital recording devices and after the fact replay services in many capacities over the last several years - the consumer has more power to watch what they want, when they want it. Sports is no different - and the NFL network and Fox Sports 1 competing with ESPN along with the lack of bullshit 24/7 ad filler on ESPN, why in the world would anyone want to watch it? Also - mobile devices constitute a huge share of sports media traffic. I would think that segment along has grown 10% yoy the last 5 years.
Political. If you say so...
As much as we complain about the TMZ ascept of sports, how do you explain the fact that the Kanye West hospitalised thread reaching a 1,000 views on BBI so quickly. We are the ones responsible for all that TMZ stuff.
And finally, if the ESPNs didn't report the players political stances and protest, many of us would be calling it censorship to protect their product. You claim that you hate it but then you gleefully use it to bash someone. Case in point, the QB and Castro thread.
Pretty sure you meant "ratings" and not "rantings," but I think you're closer to the truth with the word you used.
If someone thinks a publicly traded company is committed to a political or social agenda for its own sake that says more about the oberver's agenda than the company's.
If you are saying ABC-Disney-ESPN didn't have a rooting interest, then we'll have to agree to disagree. But millions of people feel the same way.
Also, I recommend you take a look at what is happening with Kellog's stock if you don't think corporations make political decisions that affect their bottom line. That's just the latest example.
Red.
Quote:
Curious as to what your favorite flavor is:
Red.
Safe to say it isn't brown
When a publicly held corporation commits acts I consider heinous I never take it personally or consider those acts to be motivated by political or social opinions. I always assume those acts are motivated by the only reasons for for-profit corporate existance. Maximum return on stockholder investment and protection of ownership from liability
You notice what side the insults and name-calling are coming from?
It's why we can't have threads like this on BBI. You guys are too immature to handle it.
According to you, "Disney [...] has a very obvious political bias."