Richard Deitsch & #10004; @richarddeitsch
ESPN UPDATE: I have multiple sources at ESPN telling me they expect the number of layoffs to be closer to 100 people than 70. Awful news.
Blows away other league/sport stations, and ESPN. They don't go for the biggest names - just the guys who eat, sleep and breathe baseball like Billy Ripken and Mark DeRosa.
Dont watch MLB tv. So Billy Ripken will ALWAY be this guy to me:
LOL, I was randomly talking about his card the other day because I had unearthed my baseball and football card collections from the 1980s.
I can die in peace now - I've seen Gabe Kaplan in a speedo
You don't mention the best part. Robert Conrad, noted blowhard fool, took that shit super seriously. He was talking some noise and Gabe Kaplan challenged him to a man-to-man sprint. Conrad assumed Kaplan was a dweeb, so he was all in. Mr. Kotter fucking smoked him. It was glorious.
Funny how things like that stick in your mind. I can remember that clearly as well.
RE: RE: RE: RE: They should tie in with the vast celebrity worship in the country Â
New Orleans Pelicans Reporter Justin Verrier
Radio Host Robin Lundberg
NFL Analyst Ashley Fox
College Basketball Analyst Len Elmore
Houston Rockets Reporter Calvin Watkins
ESPNW and ESPN Chicago Columnist Melissa Isaacson
SportsCenter Anchor Jay Crawford
NBA Reporter Ethan Sherwood Strauss
Pac 12 Reporter Ted Miller
NFL Analyst Trent Dilfer
Big Ten Reporter Brian Bennett
MLB Writer Jayson Stark
SEC Football Reporter David Ching
ESPNW Reporter Jane McManus
Big 12 Reporter Max Olson
Dodgers Reporter Doug Padilla
Columnist Johnette Howard
Radio Host Danny Kanell
College Basketball Reporter C.L. Brown
SEC Recruiting Analyst Derek Tyson
ESPN Dallas Columnist Jean-Jacques Taylor
College Basketball Writer Eamonn Brennan
College Football Recruiting Reporter Jeremy Crabtree
College Football Reporter Brett McMurphy
Baseball Reporter Mark Saxon
MLB Analyst Jim Bowden
Big Ten Football Reporter Austin Ward
Wisconsin and Big Ten Football Reporter Jesse Temple
Soccer Writer Mike Goodman
ESPNU Anchor Brendan Fitzgerald
College Basketball Reporter Dana O’Neil
NHL Columnist Pierre LeBrun
Hockey Writer Joe McDonald
NHL Columnist Scott Burnside
NFL Reporter Ed Werder
Titans Reporter Paul Kuharsky
Blows away other league/sport stations, and ESPN. They don't go for the biggest names - just the guys who eat, sleep and breathe baseball like Billy Ripken and Mark DeRosa.
Agreed, and some of their programming is excellent. DVRd a handful of classic playoff/World Series games during the offseason from the 70s and 80s, fun to go back and watch parts now and then
Blows away other league/sport stations, and ESPN. They don't go for the biggest names - just the guys who eat, sleep and breathe baseball like Billy Ripken and Mark DeRosa.
Agreed, and some of their programming is excellent. DVRd a handful of classic playoff/World Series games during the offseason from the 70s and 80s, fun to go back and watch parts now and then
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
RE: RE: MLB Network shows a lot of classic games Â
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
If only Buck knew what he had in Mariano Rivera in 1995, the Yankees would have won that series.
RE: RE: RE: MLB Network shows a lot of classic games Â
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
If only Buck knew what he had in Mariano Rivera in 1995, the Yankees would have won that series.
nah, he probably would have saved him for Game 1 of the ALCS
It was Donnie's one and only shot at a championship, and he played magnificently. Buck screwed the pooch and it cost them the series. It's burned into my brain - Cone threw 147 pitches in that game! Once he walked sucko #1 Alex Diaz to load the bases, that should have been it, then he wouldn't have walked sucko #2 Doug Strange to tie the game.
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
If only Buck knew what he had in Mariano Rivera in 1995, the Yankees would have won that series.
Mo didn't have his signature Cutter yet( just a Hard fastball). Black Jack McDowell blew that series. I still hate him for it.
They'd be better off rolling back the clock to 1979 and returning to what they used to be a 24 hour sports programming network. I'd much rather see Australian Rules Football or Yacht Racing than Stephen A. Smith foaming at the mouth. Someone at ESPN decided that in order to stay relevant they needed to decrease actual sports programming for social commentary, fatal mistake.
I agree that their programming has been trending downward (it seems like they found success with PTI and have since tried to replicate the model with varying personalities and middling results), but to say "fatal mistake"? What's fatal about it? To the best of my knowledge, no one can unsubscribe from ESPN directly. They can cut the cord entirely, but they can't just cut ESPN.
Where ESPN erred is actually in the programming that most sports fans actually appreciate - they overpaid for broadcast rights for live sports. And they did so repeatedly, with their cash flow from carriage fees and ad sales keeping them profitable. But then the model shifted - cord cutting and the second screen not only hit them in the carriage fees (and disproportionately so because they are one of the most expensive channels within the basic cable tier), but it also hit them in the ad sales revenue.
They're taking on water now, and it will continue to increase as second screen programming gets more accessible. That will drive down their carriage revenue further, and force a complete overhaul to their model. It'll do the same to other cable networks, but their production costs are so much less that the result will be negligible for a while (maybe a few more reality shows and a few less produced shows).
It will be interesting to see which will be the next shoe to drop: does ESPN go to a premium channel model? That will likely result in exorbitant monthly subscriber fees (since right now the cost is spread over many millions of otherwise indifferent "subscribers"), and could cause many casual sports fans to drop the channels, resulting in even higher fees, causing moderate fans to drop, and so on and so on... leaving only the die-hard fans with no spending sensitivity - not a sustainable model. Or do they curtail their spending on the next round of broadcast contract renewals, making their programming even less compelling, which would only hasten the drain-swirl above if that becomes inevitable anyway.
Most likely, we're creeping toward a PPV model in live sports, at least for major events. That PPV revenue could be collected across set-top boxes and second screens and allow ESPN (and other sports broadcasters) to claw back some of their revenue drift.
They'd be better off rolling back the clock to 1979 and returning to what they used to be a 24 hour sports programming network. I'd much rather see Australian Rules Football or Yacht Racing than Stephen A. Smith foaming at the mouth. Someone at ESPN decided that in order to stay relevant they needed to decrease actual sports programming for social commentary, fatal mistake.
I agree that their programming has been trending downward (it seems like they found success with PTI and have since tried to replicate the model with varying personalities and middling results), but to say "fatal mistake"? What's fatal about it? To the best of my knowledge, no one can unsubscribe from ESPN directly. They can cut the cord entirely, but they can't just cut ESPN.
Where ESPN erred is actually in the programming that most sports fans actually appreciate - they overpaid for broadcast rights for live sports. And they did so repeatedly, with their cash flow from carriage fees and ad sales keeping them profitable. But then the model shifted - cord cutting and the second screen not only hit them in the carriage fees (and disproportionately so because they are one of the most expensive channels within the basic cable tier), but it also hit them in the ad sales revenue.
They're taking on water now, and it will continue to increase as second screen programming gets more accessible. That will drive down their carriage revenue further, and force a complete overhaul to their model. It'll do the same to other cable networks, but their production costs are so much less that the result will be negligible for a while (maybe a few more reality shows and a few less produced shows).
It will be interesting to see which will be the next shoe to drop: does ESPN go to a premium channel model? That will likely result in exorbitant monthly subscriber fees (since right now the cost is spread over many millions of otherwise indifferent "subscribers"), and could cause many casual sports fans to drop the channels, resulting in even higher fees, causing moderate fans to drop, and so on and so on... leaving only the die-hard fans with no spending sensitivity - not a sustainable model. Or do they curtail their spending on the next round of broadcast contract renewals, making their programming even less compelling, which would only hasten the drain-swirl above if that becomes inevitable anyway.
Most likely, we're creeping toward a PPV model in live sports, at least for major events. That PPV revenue could be collected across set-top boxes and second screens and allow ESPN (and other sports broadcasters) to claw back some of their revenue drift.
I think Streaming sports/entertainment from the internet will be the death knoll to ESPN and some other Networks in the near future. People want to pick what they want to watch and its only growing more and more everyday.
They'd be better off rolling back the clock to 1979 and returning to what they used to be a 24 hour sports programming network. I'd much rather see Australian Rules Football or Yacht Racing than Stephen A. Smith foaming at the mouth. Someone at ESPN decided that in order to stay relevant they needed to decrease actual sports programming for social commentary, fatal mistake.
I agree that their programming has been trending downward (it seems like they found success with PTI and have since tried to replicate the model with varying personalities and middling results), but to say "fatal mistake"? What's fatal about it? To the best of my knowledge, no one can unsubscribe from ESPN directly. They can cut the cord entirely, but they can't just cut ESPN.
Where ESPN erred is actually in the programming that most sports fans actually appreciate - they overpaid for broadcast rights for live sports. And they did so repeatedly, with their cash flow from carriage fees and ad sales keeping them profitable. But then the model shifted - cord cutting and the second screen not only hit them in the carriage fees (and disproportionately so because they are one of the most expensive channels within the basic cable tier), but it also hit them in the ad sales revenue.
They're taking on water now, and it will continue to increase as second screen programming gets more accessible. That will drive down their carriage revenue further, and force a complete overhaul to their model. It'll do the same to other cable networks, but their production costs are so much less that the result will be negligible for a while (maybe a few more reality shows and a few less produced shows).
It will be interesting to see which will be the next shoe to drop: does ESPN go to a premium channel model? That will likely result in exorbitant monthly subscriber fees (since right now the cost is spread over many millions of otherwise indifferent "subscribers"), and could cause many casual sports fans to drop the channels, resulting in even higher fees, causing moderate fans to drop, and so on and so on... leaving only the die-hard fans with no spending sensitivity - not a sustainable model. Or do they curtail their spending on the next round of broadcast contract renewals, making their programming even less compelling, which would only hasten the drain-swirl above if that becomes inevitable anyway.
Most likely, we're creeping toward a PPV model in live sports, at least for major events. That PPV revenue could be collected across set-top boxes and second screens and allow ESPN (and other sports broadcasters) to claw back some of their revenue drift.
I think Streaming sports/entertainment from the internet will be the death knoll to ESPN and some other Networks in the near future. People want to pick what they want to watch and its only growing more and more everyday.
Cut the Cord people they are overcharging you.
Cord cutting really only saves you money because it's the alternative option and the system is still set up for corded bundling. The a la carte content that you're consuming is effectively being subsidized by the corded bundle subscribers right now. What do you think will happen when the a la carte consumers outnumber the bundled subs?
There are far smarter people than you and me that will find a way to eliminate the consumer surplus. Count on it.
How the hell did Jemele Hill and Michael Smith survive these cuts? SC6 is the worst show on TV. It's sad they are firing actual reporters and keeping clowns like them.
For better or worse, nobody cares about reporting. Â
If everyone really cared that much about the merits of good journalism, or encouraging ESPN to put on that type of programming, shows like Outside the Lines would have good ratings.
How the hell did Jemele Hill and Michael Smith survive these cuts? SC6 is the worst show on TV. It's sad they are firing actual reporters and keeping clowns like them.
+1. I said this on the other thread. Jemele Hill is unwatchable.
I can remember Battle of the Network Stars, but not the Kaplan-Conrad era of it. So I had to look it up....and Oh Em Gee this is absolute gold. Telly Savalas looking like he just stepped out of a casino, Robert Conrad making cringeworthy cracks about Kaplan being Jewish, Esptein from Kotter, Bruce freaking Jenner doing the interviews, Farrah Fawcett looking hot and braless, people smoking on the track...Gold, Cippy, gold! Link - ( New Window )
but it makes a good point. These cuts at ESPN barely scratch the surface of what they pay for a single Monday Night Football game. [I think they pay $100 million per game, and 100 people x a very generous $300,000 in costs per is $30 million/year].
Deadspin's point is that this isnt about a real business decision. It's just a signal to Disney execs/shareholders that ESPN is taking the situation it faces seriously. Except because of the math, this isnt a serious response. This isnt offsetting subscriber losses.
Quote:
And that’s the truly tragic thing about today’s layoffs, that those who lost their jobs were essentially symbolic sacrifices.
I thought this article hit the nail on the head. It mostly speaks of cost vs revenue and cord cutters. But I do think ESPN consciously expanding into political discussions whether it be Kapernick or North Carolina bathroom laws or sports pulling from states based on views on gay marriage etc turns people off.
Like MTV, many say remember when they used to play music. ESPN has turned into a bunch of idiots yelling at each other over stupid topics and many times injecting their personal political beliefs. Unfortunately in a polarized nation, that could alienate 50% of their audience. That combined with paying gazillions of dollars for NFL and NBA whose TV ratings are down for a ton of different reasons will cause a massive ongoing issue up in Connecticut. Link - ( New Window )
the ESPN situation has anything to do with politics and everything to do with people cutting the cord for economic reasons while streaming alternatives exist, especially as a younger generation comes into the fold who grew up on streaming platforms.
that despite these layoffs, ESPN still needs a major change in format, content, something - they cannot continue to operate as they have as the cable market changes, and they are uniquely vulnerable to what's happening now: As basically the most expensive channel, the old cable package system that got ESPN out to everyone was great to them, but they are suffering a people move away from cable in general, and also from the 'a la carte' type offerings now where ESPN is no longer a staple network for all. Don't know for sure, but I don't get the impression the Magazine (with the downturn in print media) or the website (too much behind paywall/too much competition/annoying auto-play videos etc) or even Radio are significant income streams for them - the TV networks seem to be the main income stream, and they are taking a huge hit.
So really, a few layoffs don't come close to solving the underlying issue - they need a wholesale change in how they do business. The layoffs may indicate where they are thinking of making changes going forward tho, and as others mentioned, it's not particularly promising: Looks like they let go some of the better reporters (Stark/Werder, entire NHL staff), and doubled down on the talking heads. I guess those shows end up doing well, despite most ppl claiming to hate them...
Perhaps this point has been made several times already Â
but as I look at the list of names being laid off - and truthfully, I do not know all of them - but it seems to be populated with the ESPNers who were actually thoughtful and measured in their approach to sports broadcasting.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
RE: Perhaps this point has been made several times already Â
but as I look at the list of names being laid off - and truthfully, I do not know all of them - but it seems to be populated with the ESPNers who were actually thoughtful and measured in their approach to sports broadcasting.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
"I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe."
Which causes me to conclude ESPN hasn't learned a damn thing.
for years followed by the sudden concern for people's jobs is a bit phony IMO.
f
That is stupid. Hating Chris Berman or Stephen A. Smith or some stupid show has nothing to do with feeling bad about some reporter or office worker getting fired.
but as I look at the list of names being laid off - and truthfully, I do not know all of them - but it seems to be populated with the ESPNers who were actually thoughtful and measured in their approach to sports broadcasting.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
its like when the Food Network got rid of all the people who were actually chefs in favor of entertainers. That's Bourdain's take about FNC but I can't disagree.
RE: RE: Perhaps this point has been made several times already Â
but as I look at the list of names being laid off - and truthfully, I do not know all of them - but it seems to be populated with the ESPNers who were actually thoughtful and measured in their approach to sports broadcasting.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
its like when the Food Network got rid of all the people who were actually chefs in favor of entertainers. That's Bourdain's take about FNC but I can't disagree.
This is the fundamental issue that people miss when they try to make the Worldwide Leader's woes about programming.
The cable model of TV is on its way out. It may take a long time for it to really die, but long before then ESPN will be unable to keep its lights on without cash infusions from their mouse overlord.
They got rid of Lewis last year.
Quote:
Blows away other league/sport stations, and ESPN. They don't go for the biggest names - just the guys who eat, sleep and breathe baseball like Billy Ripken and Mark DeRosa.
Dont watch MLB tv. So Billy Ripken will ALWAY be this guy to me:
LOL, I was randomly talking about his card the other day because I had unearthed my baseball and football card collections from the 1980s.
Quote:
I can die in peace now - I've seen Gabe Kaplan in a speedo
You don't mention the best part. Robert Conrad, noted blowhard fool, took that shit super seriously. He was talking some noise and Gabe Kaplan challenged him to a man-to-man sprint. Conrad assumed Kaplan was a dweeb, so he was all in. Mr. Kotter fucking smoked him. It was glorious.
Funny how things like that stick in your mind. I can remember that clearly as well.
Quote:
No one gave his all like Willie Aames!
Is that Scott Baio cheering him on? Charles in Charge indeed.
Radio Host Robin Lundberg
NFL Analyst Ashley Fox
College Basketball Analyst Len Elmore
Houston Rockets Reporter Calvin Watkins
ESPNW and ESPN Chicago Columnist Melissa Isaacson
SportsCenter Anchor Jay Crawford
NBA Reporter Ethan Sherwood Strauss
Pac 12 Reporter Ted Miller
NFL Analyst Trent Dilfer
Big Ten Reporter Brian Bennett
MLB Writer Jayson Stark
SEC Football Reporter David Ching
ESPNW Reporter Jane McManus
Big 12 Reporter Max Olson
Dodgers Reporter Doug Padilla
Columnist Johnette Howard
Radio Host Danny Kanell
College Basketball Reporter C.L. Brown
SEC Recruiting Analyst Derek Tyson
ESPN Dallas Columnist Jean-Jacques Taylor
College Basketball Writer Eamonn Brennan
College Football Recruiting Reporter Jeremy Crabtree
College Football Reporter Brett McMurphy
Baseball Reporter Mark Saxon
MLB Analyst Jim Bowden
Big Ten Football Reporter Austin Ward
Wisconsin and Big Ten Football Reporter Jesse Temple
Soccer Writer Mike Goodman
ESPNU Anchor Brendan Fitzgerald
College Basketball Reporter Dana O’Neil
NHL Columnist Pierre LeBrun
Hockey Writer Joe McDonald
NHL Columnist Scott Burnside
NFL Reporter Ed Werder
Titans Reporter Paul Kuharsky
Link - ( New Window )
Agreed, and some of their programming is excellent. DVRd a handful of classic playoff/World Series games during the offseason from the 70s and 80s, fun to go back and watch parts now and then
Quote:
Blows away other league/sport stations, and ESPN. They don't go for the biggest names - just the guys who eat, sleep and breathe baseball like Billy Ripken and Mark DeRosa.
Agreed, and some of their programming is excellent. DVRd a handful of classic playoff/World Series games during the offseason from the 70s and 80s, fun to go back and watch parts now and then
And bonus -- Pedro Martinez acting like an idiot!
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
Quote:
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
If only Buck knew what he had in Mariano Rivera in 1995, the Yankees would have won that series.
Quote:
In comment 13443446 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
If only Buck knew what he had in Mariano Rivera in 1995, the Yankees would have won that series.
nah, he probably would have saved him for Game 1 of the ALCS
And that hog jamele hill is still around? puke.
Quote:
In comment 13443446 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Featuring roundtable discussions with the players who played in them, which is awesome and something the NFLN would be advised to copy.
I remember watching Game 5 of the 1995 ALDS once on MLB Network. David Cone was one of the players discussing it, and it was pretty cool to see how visibly angry he still got 20 years later. He was watching himself walk off the mound after giving up the lead and got pretty emotional talking about how he went back to the clubhouse and cried. He said something to the effect of, "The Yankees brought me in to win THAT game and I let everyone down." Of course he wasn't the culprit, but I thought it shed a little light on why those Yankee teams were so great.
If only Buck knew what he had in Mariano Rivera in 1995, the Yankees would have won that series.
Mo didn't have his signature Cutter yet( just a Hard fastball). Black Jack McDowell blew that series. I still hate him for it.
I agree that their programming has been trending downward (it seems like they found success with PTI and have since tried to replicate the model with varying personalities and middling results), but to say "fatal mistake"? What's fatal about it? To the best of my knowledge, no one can unsubscribe from ESPN directly. They can cut the cord entirely, but they can't just cut ESPN.
Where ESPN erred is actually in the programming that most sports fans actually appreciate - they overpaid for broadcast rights for live sports. And they did so repeatedly, with their cash flow from carriage fees and ad sales keeping them profitable. But then the model shifted - cord cutting and the second screen not only hit them in the carriage fees (and disproportionately so because they are one of the most expensive channels within the basic cable tier), but it also hit them in the ad sales revenue.
They're taking on water now, and it will continue to increase as second screen programming gets more accessible. That will drive down their carriage revenue further, and force a complete overhaul to their model. It'll do the same to other cable networks, but their production costs are so much less that the result will be negligible for a while (maybe a few more reality shows and a few less produced shows).
It will be interesting to see which will be the next shoe to drop: does ESPN go to a premium channel model? That will likely result in exorbitant monthly subscriber fees (since right now the cost is spread over many millions of otherwise indifferent "subscribers"), and could cause many casual sports fans to drop the channels, resulting in even higher fees, causing moderate fans to drop, and so on and so on... leaving only the die-hard fans with no spending sensitivity - not a sustainable model. Or do they curtail their spending on the next round of broadcast contract renewals, making their programming even less compelling, which would only hasten the drain-swirl above if that becomes inevitable anyway.
Most likely, we're creeping toward a PPV model in live sports, at least for major events. That PPV revenue could be collected across set-top boxes and second screens and allow ESPN (and other sports broadcasters) to claw back some of their revenue drift.
Quote:
They'd be better off rolling back the clock to 1979 and returning to what they used to be a 24 hour sports programming network. I'd much rather see Australian Rules Football or Yacht Racing than Stephen A. Smith foaming at the mouth. Someone at ESPN decided that in order to stay relevant they needed to decrease actual sports programming for social commentary, fatal mistake.
I agree that their programming has been trending downward (it seems like they found success with PTI and have since tried to replicate the model with varying personalities and middling results), but to say "fatal mistake"? What's fatal about it? To the best of my knowledge, no one can unsubscribe from ESPN directly. They can cut the cord entirely, but they can't just cut ESPN.
Where ESPN erred is actually in the programming that most sports fans actually appreciate - they overpaid for broadcast rights for live sports. And they did so repeatedly, with their cash flow from carriage fees and ad sales keeping them profitable. But then the model shifted - cord cutting and the second screen not only hit them in the carriage fees (and disproportionately so because they are one of the most expensive channels within the basic cable tier), but it also hit them in the ad sales revenue.
They're taking on water now, and it will continue to increase as second screen programming gets more accessible. That will drive down their carriage revenue further, and force a complete overhaul to their model. It'll do the same to other cable networks, but their production costs are so much less that the result will be negligible for a while (maybe a few more reality shows and a few less produced shows).
It will be interesting to see which will be the next shoe to drop: does ESPN go to a premium channel model? That will likely result in exorbitant monthly subscriber fees (since right now the cost is spread over many millions of otherwise indifferent "subscribers"), and could cause many casual sports fans to drop the channels, resulting in even higher fees, causing moderate fans to drop, and so on and so on... leaving only the die-hard fans with no spending sensitivity - not a sustainable model. Or do they curtail their spending on the next round of broadcast contract renewals, making their programming even less compelling, which would only hasten the drain-swirl above if that becomes inevitable anyway.
Most likely, we're creeping toward a PPV model in live sports, at least for major events. That PPV revenue could be collected across set-top boxes and second screens and allow ESPN (and other sports broadcasters) to claw back some of their revenue drift.
I think Streaming sports/entertainment from the internet will be the death knoll to ESPN and some other Networks in the near future. People want to pick what they want to watch and its only growing more and more everyday.
Cut the Cord people they are overcharging you.
Quote:
In comment 13442569 Suburbanites said:
Quote:
They'd be better off rolling back the clock to 1979 and returning to what they used to be a 24 hour sports programming network. I'd much rather see Australian Rules Football or Yacht Racing than Stephen A. Smith foaming at the mouth. Someone at ESPN decided that in order to stay relevant they needed to decrease actual sports programming for social commentary, fatal mistake.
I agree that their programming has been trending downward (it seems like they found success with PTI and have since tried to replicate the model with varying personalities and middling results), but to say "fatal mistake"? What's fatal about it? To the best of my knowledge, no one can unsubscribe from ESPN directly. They can cut the cord entirely, but they can't just cut ESPN.
Where ESPN erred is actually in the programming that most sports fans actually appreciate - they overpaid for broadcast rights for live sports. And they did so repeatedly, with their cash flow from carriage fees and ad sales keeping them profitable. But then the model shifted - cord cutting and the second screen not only hit them in the carriage fees (and disproportionately so because they are one of the most expensive channels within the basic cable tier), but it also hit them in the ad sales revenue.
They're taking on water now, and it will continue to increase as second screen programming gets more accessible. That will drive down their carriage revenue further, and force a complete overhaul to their model. It'll do the same to other cable networks, but their production costs are so much less that the result will be negligible for a while (maybe a few more reality shows and a few less produced shows).
It will be interesting to see which will be the next shoe to drop: does ESPN go to a premium channel model? That will likely result in exorbitant monthly subscriber fees (since right now the cost is spread over many millions of otherwise indifferent "subscribers"), and could cause many casual sports fans to drop the channels, resulting in even higher fees, causing moderate fans to drop, and so on and so on... leaving only the die-hard fans with no spending sensitivity - not a sustainable model. Or do they curtail their spending on the next round of broadcast contract renewals, making their programming even less compelling, which would only hasten the drain-swirl above if that becomes inevitable anyway.
Most likely, we're creeping toward a PPV model in live sports, at least for major events. That PPV revenue could be collected across set-top boxes and second screens and allow ESPN (and other sports broadcasters) to claw back some of their revenue drift.
I think Streaming sports/entertainment from the internet will be the death knoll to ESPN and some other Networks in the near future. People want to pick what they want to watch and its only growing more and more everyday.
Cut the Cord people they are overcharging you.
Cord cutting really only saves you money because it's the alternative option and the system is still set up for corded bundling. The a la carte content that you're consuming is effectively being subsidized by the corded bundle subscribers right now. What do you think will happen when the a la carte consumers outnumber the bundled subs?
There are far smarter people than you and me that will find a way to eliminate the consumer surplus. Count on it.
✔
@WhitlockJason
When you pursue a political agenda rather than a business agenda and people lose their jobs, remember: No One Is To Blame.
+1. I said this on the other thread. Jemele Hill is unwatchable.
That's why some people that were kept are horrible - because they make peanuts.
Fantastic!! Ahh the old days....
Re: Doug Glanville. He is an intelligent guy. That has no place at ESPN anymore.
Deadspin's point is that this isnt about a real business decision. It's just a signal to Disney execs/shareholders that ESPN is taking the situation it faces seriously. Except because of the math, this isnt a serious response. This isnt offsetting subscriber losses.
Link - ( New Window )
Like MTV, many say remember when they used to play music. ESPN has turned into a bunch of idiots yelling at each other over stupid topics and many times injecting their personal political beliefs. Unfortunately in a polarized nation, that could alienate 50% of their audience. That combined with paying gazillions of dollars for NFL and NBA whose TV ratings are down for a ton of different reasons will cause a massive ongoing issue up in Connecticut.
Link - ( New Window )
So really, a few layoffs don't come close to solving the underlying issue - they need a wholesale change in how they do business. The layoffs may indicate where they are thinking of making changes going forward tho, and as others mentioned, it's not particularly promising: Looks like they let go some of the better reporters (Stark/Werder, entire NHL staff), and doubled down on the talking heads. I guess those shows end up doing well, despite most ppl claiming to hate them...
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
"I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe."
Which causes me to conclude ESPN hasn't learned a damn thing.
What happened to the fishing shows? They were wildly popular. Same with tractor pulls and shooting contests. That's what real America watches.
Give the people what they want.
Re: Doug Glanville. He is an intelligent guy. That has no place at ESPN anymore.
ANDY KATZ WOW. CBS or BTN should sign him today.
Outside of Steven A. she's the other main name I'm glad got whacked. Karma's a bitch.
Also, they grew operating income last fiscal year. This isn't a dead business.
ESPN isn't going to die, but their economics are almost certainly going to get worse in the future.
That is stupid. Hating Chris Berman or Stephen A. Smith or some stupid show has nothing to do with feeling bad about some reporter or office worker getting fired.
Damn I liked her. Leggy.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
Quote:
but as I look at the list of names being laid off - and truthfully, I do not know all of them - but it seems to be populated with the ESPNers who were actually thoughtful and measured in their approach to sports broadcasting.
I see the loudest and most self-aggrandizing personalities seem to be safe.
Considering it is those types of people/shows that make me and others want to watch ESPN less, it would seem ESPN isn't learning their lesson easily.
its like when the Food Network got rid of all the people who were actually chefs in favor of entertainers. That's Bourdain's take about FNC but I can't disagree.
I guess they were over 35 or so, so time to upgrade with some fresh babes out of college - hopefully some SEC chicks.
The cable model of TV is on its way out. It may take a long time for it to really die, but long before then ESPN will be unable to keep its lights on without cash infusions from their mouse overlord.