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.
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.