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.
Their content. Not the people working there. Also need to figure out a way to get news to the consumer quicker. Twitter they are so far behind it's ridiculous. ESPN is like an hour behind news that breaks on Twitter. Even the NFL draft last year. Was at a beach bar for the 3rd day last year. ESPN was around 5-7 picks behind Twitter. How many people are going to sit and watch the 3rd day when I can go on Twitter and see the next 5 picks?
I want highlights from games, but each segment is 10-15 seconds of highlights(usually not the ones that impact the result) and then 5 minutes of talking about nonesense and then 10 minutes trying to push a personality. Just make it about the games.
5 picks behind when they are broadcasting the draft live? That makes no sense
I may be wrong but I think ESPN/NFL Network have an "agreement" not to spoil picks before they are announced while others openly admit they won't adhere to that.
"Were not a broadcast partner for the draft, La Canfora said. I will be trying to get the information out as quickly and accurately as possible. What event is made more for Twitter than the NFL draft? If the teams have the information; if the guys in the production truck have the information; if the commissioner has the information; why wouldnt passionate football fans want it as well?"
what Rick is saying niow, just referring to Day 3 when picks are coming in rapid fire.
It's understandable though because the picks happen so fast at that point and they are discussing a lot of stuff in between picks. They really aren't 5 picks behind though, the crawl on the bottom will always show the selection in real time, they just do a review of the last 5 picks every so often and dont discuss each one, but it 100% is on the bottom in real time
what Rick is saying niow, just referring to Day 3 when picks are coming in rapid fire.
It's understandable though because the picks happen so fast at that point and they are discussing a lot of stuff in between picks. They really aren't 5 picks behind though, the crawl on the bottom will always show the selection in real time, they just do a review of the last 5 picks every so often and dont discuss each one, but it 100% is on the bottom in real time
No the crawl is 5 picks behind. They don't update it until the little ringer comes up and the 2016 selection graphic pops up. It's not as bad on the first 2 days, but they were still behind on those days also.
They don't know who they are or what they want to be. This new format with people standing and wandering on set, the camera spinning around and then the forced "Look I'm Funny" act is unwatchable.
I believe they are in a death spiral unless they make changes but they wont..
ESPNs "story" will be interesting know when it's eventually published. Very innovative company that created a space and dominated that space then lost its way and now has struggled for some years. Still a very powerful brand but think they have cost structural problems which make profitability very difficult. Sorry for the folks out of work.
Once it was acquired and started to be used to cross promote Disney crap, movies, musical acts it was no longer about sports. Made worse when half the shows include references to 'hip' rappers or C-list celebrity guests.
the ESPN book from a few years ago ("Those Guys Have All the Fun" or something to that effect) documented it pretty well. Paying too much for broadcast rights. Paying too much for personalities. Doing this at a time when the cable television model was set to face its most serious challenge, and trying to coordinate this with sports leagues who had their own digital media cash cows that they wanted to push. But their insistence on being the story, on developing and marketing their own personalities, on pushing politics, on cross-promotions, on doing just about everything but sports highlights, none of that helped either.
Give me Wilbon and Kornheiser, and the rest can fly.
Stephen A. is an instant channel changer. I can't stand the decibel level and his slanted world view. Max Kellerman is not as bad as Skip, but not good either. Jemele Hill is brutally bad. I'm ok with Dan L. , but his dad has to go. And the tight suit, brown shoes uniform that every guy wears looks stupid. Now get off my lawn!
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.
are pretty cunty. This isn't just obnoxious on-air celebrities. There are people behind the scenes with regular jobs who will get shit-canned too...
It can cost money to can celebrities, especially if they have contractual protections (length, termination). You're right, it's far easier to cut costs with support staff.
I thought her career ended before it started when she penned that article about Kobe being better than MJ, but apparently that was the beginning of her ESPN stardom? She's hard on the eyes to boot.
reporters appear to be in the layoffs. Regardless of how you feel about ESPN, I feel bad for those involved.
Also, ESPN's "struggles" are exaggerated. They're not really growing anymore and ratings are either flat, or down, but the company is still immensely profitable for Disney from my understanding. The future forecasts are a bit murky with cord-cutting happening, but people are still going to want to watch college football (including playoffs), the nfl, the nba (including playoffs), ncaa hoops, mlb baseball, soccer, etc.
I'm a big fan of hers but I agree wholeheartedly with this tweet:
Michelle BeadleVerified account @MichelleDBeadle 10m10 minutes ago
More
Careful about how elated you get watching people lose their jobs. I hear karma is a real b.
I never revel in good honest hard working people losing their jobs, even if I disagree with them or don't like them. Especially because corporate wise the people above making a hell of a lot more money and their shitty decisions are often the reason for the struggles of the company as opposed to the poor schlubs below that get the pink slip...
RE: RE: and yet that abomination The Six trudges on
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.
Theres no market anymore for 24/7 sports news - it's all online. But I do agree, they drastically need to change their content.
In a weird way, this is probably tied to cable news lifting their formula + the influx of attention to politics/consumption of political media.
the ESPN book from a few years ago ("Those Guys Have All the Fun" or something to that effect) documented it pretty well. Paying too much for broadcast rights. Paying too much for personalities. Doing this at a time when the cable television model was set to face its most serious challenge, and trying to coordinate this with sports leagues who had their own digital media cash cows that they wanted to push. But their insistence on being the story, on developing and marketing their own personalities, on pushing politics, on cross-promotions, on doing just about everything but sports highlights, none of that helped either.
It's moreso the broadcasting rights. The payments to talent pale in comparison.
To defend ESPN a bit, they need to fill time between live sports broadcasts. I think straight highlights wouldnt be very popular -- it's easier to get those on demand at the various leagues sites. Or get a link to the must see highlights from a friend on Twitter (studies show we greatly prefer content recommended by people we know). A lot of the highlights are not worth watching (like a 3rd quarter 3 pointer in a game decided by 15 points).
So if we dont want to watch highlights, how does ESPN fill that time. 3 major options: 1) repeats/classics, 2) weird stuff like Strongest Man (which I love, but has production costs), or 3) personality driven talk content. Unscripted, low level produced shows like PTI are cheap to make, even considering paying the talent. It's probably the right model for ESPN. But right now, they desperately need to cut any costs because they're hurting Disney's results.
running sports highlights. While they don't have the novelty they once did (because the internet airs them faster and at the user's pace), they're still popular. But when I'm in the gym first thing in the morning and they have a jam band playing a five minute spot in the middle of Sportscenter, I'm going to flip the channel and I might not come back.
It's a fair point about things like The Strongest Man, but the re-runs of that were plenty popular. Same with WSOP, which they had for awhile.
They should tie in with the vast celebrity worship in the country
the talking heads with events cutaway shots from the various Disney locales, like 'WHO GETS ON THE ROLLERCOASTER RIDE FIRST' or from ABC NEWS : SPORTS coverage, like 'STEPHANOPOLOUS INVESTIGATES:'
Consolidation!
reporters appear to be in the layoffs. Regardless of how you feel about ESPN, I feel bad for those involved.
I watched a few minutes of a pre-draft show they had on last night. They had their reporters, who cover each NFL team, make their teams pick in a mock draft. In retrospect, it was a way for ESPN to bring all these reporters into Bristol to fire them!
They're flying multiple camera crews out there, putting them in hotels and feeding them at restaurants. They pay the hosts something -- probably not a ton (it's probably worth it for the hosts to do it for free, but Im sure they're paid). Flying advance teams out for B roll. Probably renting equipment and trucks for a lot of money. If ratings are good, then the WSOP will demand more for the rights. On the flipside, it's something where re-runs have value.
Compare that to an unscripted half our chattering box show. The hosts may be expensive, but they're also often fungible, and salaries are kept in check some because these guys know that no one else can pay them as much. Production costs are way smaller. Few cameras/crew, who pay for their own housing/food, and those guys can probably be shared with other shows. Fixed production location.
It's really cheap to make talking head studio shows.
The rise of the networks tied to particular sports hasn't helped...
I'm not much of a basketball fan, absent March Madness, and ESPN ODs on basketball coverage so I'd sooner watch MLB Network programming unless it's football season. And when I was more of an NHL fan I was put off by the limited coverage they got from ESPN.
you want for free on any of the league's websites.
I used to watch ESPN all the time when it was just loops of SportsCenter and old NFL Films and Game of the Week tapes.
Nowadays they're caught up in trying to offer "unique" content you can't find elsewhere, and they're also catering to the surprisingly huge market for junk like First Take.
you want for free on any of the league's websites.
I used to watch ESPN all the time when it was just loops of SportsCenter and old NFL Films and Game of the Week tapes.
Nowadays they're caught up in trying to offer "unique" content you can't find elsewhere, and they're also catering to the surprisingly huge market for junk like First Take.
Dont want to repeat myself, but I think ESPN makes its money from the monthly fees and the ad revenue on the live sports/Sportscenter broadcasts. Everything else probably has to just not lose money. Lower rating but lower cost talkies like First Take fit the bill.
@dannykanell: Poured my heart and soul into ESPN for last 8 years. Moved my wife and 3 kids to CT to go "all in" 5 years ago. Bummed it ended in 3 minutes
and I have obviously have sympathy for those at espn who've lost their jobs...both the on-air folks and the support staff. But this day-long pity party on twitter is a bit much. Nobody died.
RE: RE: Fair point that the world has changed. You can get all the highlights
you want for free on any of the league's websites.
I used to watch ESPN all the time when it was just loops of SportsCenter and old NFL Films and Game of the Week tapes.
Nowadays they're caught up in trying to offer "unique" content you can't find elsewhere, and they're also catering to the surprisingly huge market for junk like First Take.
Dont want to repeat myself, but I think ESPN makes its money from the monthly fees and the ad revenue on the live sports/Sportscenter broadcasts. Everything else probably has to just not lose money. Lower rating but lower cost talkies like First Take fit the bill.
Oh for sure the whole scam is built on forcing tens of millions of cable customers to pay a monthly for ESPN even if they're not sports watchers, but First Take actually does really well ratings wise, which is kind of sad.
Fox Sports is trying to shamelessly copycat it and literally nobody is watching.
what Screamin A earns. He is the worst form of self-aggrandizing, lowest-common-denominator bullshit that appeals to the idiots of society. But, then again, there are a lot of idiots out there watching ESPN, and that drives ratings.
A lot of the on-air 'talent' type people will find new homes...it's the names we don't hear that will have a tougher time of it. Still, maybe indicates where ESPN is headed, and maybe confirmation that the last push (moving towards a personality driven, sports talk radio type of format where the 'talent' analyze the same sports stories to death all day) was a failure. I guess it made some sense, ESPN's heyday was largely driven by some big names that went on to success elsewhere after being sorta-goofy sports broadcasters. And those shows are dirt cheap, until the 'talent' starts to demand more $. But the game has changed, and I think there's just too much similar type of analysis, where the only people who stand out are those who take a minority opinion on a topic, or just shout down the competition like SAS.
ESPN needed a change - there's simply too much of the opinion driven talk shows now, not just on ESPN or ESPN 2-3, Ocho, whatever but from radio and internet and the leagues themselves. Maybe it makes sense to going back to when they actually showed sports on ESPN occasionally, and not just talk/analysis (hell I'd be fine with the lower interest stuff like Strong Man competitions and logging, etc). Just too much of the same stuff now, talking heads re-hashing the same stories and beating them to death to fill 24 hours of content (with maybe 4 hours or real worthwhile stuff).
Count me among those not interested in the revised SC6 to re-boot SC. It was a cool show back in the day, when they had interesting hosts and there were few other places to catch highlights. Now highlights, etc are everywhere, and they moved away from a rotating stable of funny hosts to focus on 2 personalities - great of you like those 2 I guess, less so if you don't. Also think they hide way too much behind the paywall online, where you can get similar stuff for free everywhere (seriously, does anyone pay for that stuff, are they really better off than offering it free with ads or whatever -they already have the ubiquitous auto-play videos everyone hates on every page?). And I know Hockey isn't super popular, but they have totally ignored it for a while and now seem to be doubling down by dropping all their good hockey guys...but most hockey fans probably aren't worried about ESPN anyway.
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.
...the imminent/in process failure and collapse of the cable news model. ESPN was subsidized heavily by those who didn't watch sports and was the most expensive cable channel for cable companies to provide.
But I also think the fact that cable news basically co-opted the "pregame show" / Pardon the Interruption / Around the Horn style of commentary has lead to fatigue for that style of programming.
I also think that the election and subsequent focus on consuming political media has played a huge part in this fatigue. I know for a fact that I have shifted away from sports and into consuming politically relevant media since the run up to the election.
I don't think it's talent, it's the programming. The problem is that there really isn't a way out for them. They can't be a news company 24/7, you can't compete with the internet. Non-sports watchers won't continue to subsidize ESPN, so adding more live content won't really make a difference either. They need to totally change themselves from the ground up.
ESPN is on the precipice of dying a very slow, prolonged death.
The smart pivot might be a foray into "eSports" (god, I hate that term). I have a friend whose 5-6 years younger than me and just graduated from Syracuse, and he was telling me that those in his fraternity who were freshman and sophmores when he was graduating (as well as the people he knows who are still in high school) make up a HUGE market for eSports.
MSG was literally sold out for a League of Legends championship recently. I have no idea what exactly League of Legends is, but I do know that "eSports" has been booming.
I've also noticed Deadspin and ESPN's website have started covering eSports a lot more.
ESPN might have to move towards that direction to build out some sort of greater online presence... but funny enough, they've been beaten to the market by companies such as Twitch which are much more well equipped to do so.
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 )
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 )
This is the miracle of the internet!
RE: RE: RE: They should tie in with the vast celebrity worship in the country
Is going to be gigantic market. Competitive online gaming is making it one of the fastest growing industries.
The problem is that the market is already living on another broadcast platform. In this case, mainly Twitch. You would have to convince a number of viewers, used to watching on their own device (tablet/phone/computer) to switch to watch TV. Forget Millenials. The next generation (my kids age), aka the I Generation (as I think they are called) don't necessarily watch TV anymore. They consume their media from youtube. To get them to move over to ESPN is going to be a challenge.
If the complaint is that opinion journalism sucks...
it doesn't seem like ESPN thinks so. Guys like Werder and Stark were some of the best things about the network, they broke stories and could do the in-depth, human interest angle well. So far the loud and obnoxious hot-takers seem to be faring well, though the network still has a way to go.
Following
More
From multiple sources: Do not be surprised if ESPN uses some of MLB Network's studio programming heading forward. Details? Do not know yet.
that when it comes to baseball, the NHL and even CFB, trying to keep up with dedicated sports networks, with regional sports networks, or in CFB's case with conference sports networks is futile. This could be more significant even than some high profile layoffs, it could be a big-time shift in their approach to coverage.
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.
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.
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:
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
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 ONeil
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.
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
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.
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 thats the truly tragic thing about todays 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
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
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
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.
Feel awful for the employees.
And yet they were willing to pay something like 5 million to Skip Bayless.
I may be wrong but I think ESPN/NFL Network have an "agreement" not to spoil picks before they are announced while others openly admit they won't adhere to that.
"Were not a broadcast partner for the draft, La Canfora said. I will be trying to get the information out as quickly and accurately as possible. What event is made more for Twitter than the NFL draft? If the teams have the information; if the guys in the production truck have the information; if the commissioner has the information; why wouldnt passionate football fans want it as well?"
It's understandable though because the picks happen so fast at that point and they are discussing a lot of stuff in between picks. They really aren't 5 picks behind though, the crawl on the bottom will always show the selection in real time, they just do a review of the last 5 picks every so often and dont discuss each one, but it 100% is on the bottom in real time
That show is terrible. Just terrible.
ESPN has one show that I like: 'PTI'. They better not let Kornheiser and Wilbon go.
It's understandable though because the picks happen so fast at that point and they are discussing a lot of stuff in between picks. They really aren't 5 picks behind though, the crawl on the bottom will always show the selection in real time, they just do a review of the last 5 picks every so often and dont discuss each one, but it 100% is on the bottom in real time
No the crawl is 5 picks behind. They don't update it until the little ringer comes up and the 2016 selection graphic pops up. It's not as bad on the first 2 days, but they were still behind on those days also.
Lol grumpy as ever...I can at least appreciate what they're trying to do with it. Some segments are decent, it's not catering to older generations
Save Cassidy Hubbarth!
I believe they are in a death spiral unless they make changes but they wont..
The Hatable Dan LeBatard and his father are unbearable
Quote:
just don't let Lebatard, Stugotz, or Bomani go....any of the rest buh bye
The Hatable Dan LeBatard and his father are unbearable
YOU DONT GET THE SHOW
I don't need personalities to roll clips. And for god sakes, please can "the 6".
Quote:
In comment 13442513 SicilianGMEN said:
Quote:
just don't let Lebatard, Stugotz, or Bomani go....any of the rest buh bye
The Hatable Dan LeBatard and his father are unbearable
YOU DONT GET THE SHOW
What's the premise of the show? 2 loudmouths and a Cuban-American who struggles with English? It's not a funny or entertaining show.
Exactly
Stephen A. is an instant channel changer. I can't stand the decibel level and his slanted world view. Max Kellerman is not as bad as Skip, but not good either. Jemele Hill is brutally bad. I'm ok with Dan L. , but his dad has to go. And the tight suit, brown shoes uniform that every guy wears looks stupid. Now get off my lawn!
She better not be. If she goes, I riot
This is very true
It can cost money to can celebrities, especially if they have contractual protections (length, termination). You're right, it's far easier to cut costs with support staff.
Also, ESPN's "struggles" are exaggerated. They're not really growing anymore and ratings are either flat, or down, but the company is still immensely profitable for Disney from my understanding. The future forecasts are a bit murky with cord-cutting happening, but people are still going to want to watch college football (including playoffs), the nfl, the nba (including playoffs), ncaa hoops, mlb baseball, soccer, etc.
Michelle BeadleVerified account @MichelleDBeadle 10m10 minutes ago
More
Careful about how elated you get watching people lose their jobs. I hear karma is a real b.
I never revel in good honest hard working people losing their jobs, even if I disagree with them or don't like them. Especially because corporate wise the people above making a hell of a lot more money and their shitty decisions are often the reason for the struggles of the company as opposed to the poor schlubs below that get the pink slip...
Quote:
There is no one on earth who says "Hey, when is that Sportcenter with Jemele Hill on?"
Lol grumpy as ever...I can at least appreciate what they're trying to do with it. Some segments are decent, it's not catering to older generations
This. The SC6 is them catering to a younger audience. I don't mind them as much as others.
Dont care for most of the sports writers opinions. Stephen A should get a radio show
Dont care for most of the sports writers opinions. Stephen A should get a radio show
Agreed. Screaming A does have a radio show I believe.
Quote:
In comment 13442525 Anakim said:
Quote:
In comment 13442513 SicilianGMEN said:
Quote:
just don't let Lebatard, Stugotz, or Bomani go....any of the rest buh bye
The Hatable Dan LeBatard and his father are unbearable
YOU DONT GET THE SHOW
What's the premise of the show? 2 loudmouths and a Cuban-American who struggles with English? It's not a funny or entertaining show.
Couldn't disagree anymore, Anakim.
The show is a parody of sports shows. It may not be your style but it is popular for a reason.
Fuck that. LeBrun is THE guy who breaks hockey news for ESPN
Dana O'NeilVerified account
@ESPNDanaOneil
Follow
More
Add me to the list. Just got the 'call.' I've been informed my contract will not be renewed at ESPN.
In a weird way, this is probably tied to cable news lifting their formula + the influx of attention to politics/consumption of political media.
Hate to see anyone lose their job but I'd be lying if I said I'd miss Mr. Ranger hater LeBrun.
whoa.. that's a biggie.
Marisa GuthrieVerified account
@MarisaGuthrie
Sources now saying #JohnBuccigross not gone, but will not say if his contract, up this summer, renewed or reduced .
Yeah, anyone who finds themselves taking pleasure in other peoples misery should probably take a step back and do a little self reflection.
Hah....for a minute I thought you meant the BBI poster Danny Kanell
It's moreso the broadcasting rights. The payments to talent pale in comparison.
To defend ESPN a bit, they need to fill time between live sports broadcasts. I think straight highlights wouldnt be very popular -- it's easier to get those on demand at the various leagues sites. Or get a link to the must see highlights from a friend on Twitter (studies show we greatly prefer content recommended by people we know). A lot of the highlights are not worth watching (like a 3rd quarter 3 pointer in a game decided by 15 points).
So if we dont want to watch highlights, how does ESPN fill that time. 3 major options: 1) repeats/classics, 2) weird stuff like Strongest Man (which I love, but has production costs), or 3) personality driven talk content. Unscripted, low level produced shows like PTI are cheap to make, even considering paying the talent. It's probably the right model for ESPN. But right now, they desperately need to cut any costs because they're hurting Disney's results.
Yes, but I'm sure Barry Melrose will stay on to tell us consensus opinion every night.
It's a fair point about things like The Strongest Man, but the re-runs of that were plenty popular. Same with WSOP, which they had for awhile.
Consolidation!
I watched a few minutes of a pre-draft show they had on last night. They had their reporters, who cover each NFL team, make their teams pick in a mock draft. In retrospect, it was a way for ESPN to bring all these reporters into Bristol to fire them!
Compare that to an unscripted half our chattering box show. The hosts may be expensive, but they're also often fungible, and salaries are kept in check some because these guys know that no one else can pay them as much. Production costs are way smaller. Few cameras/crew, who pay for their own housing/food, and those guys can probably be shared with other shows. Fixed production location.
It's really cheap to make talking head studio shows.
I can't stand any of the afternoon shows on ESPN Radio. They have a bunch a clowns on the radio.
Maybe they need to reduce the money they pay the NFL, NCAA, MLB, etc. to broadcast their product.
Publicists would never let their clients look stupid these days. Those shows were hilarious...
Remember SNY wanted him to be their top guy when they started the network
No one gave his all like Willie Aames!
I used to watch ESPN all the time when it was just loops of SportsCenter and old NFL Films and Game of the Week tapes.
Nowadays they're caught up in trying to offer "unique" content you can't find elsewhere, and they're also catering to the surprisingly huge market for junk like First Take.
I used to watch ESPN all the time when it was just loops of SportsCenter and old NFL Films and Game of the Week tapes.
Nowadays they're caught up in trying to offer "unique" content you can't find elsewhere, and they're also catering to the surprisingly huge market for junk like First Take.
Dont want to repeat myself, but I think ESPN makes its money from the monthly fees and the ad revenue on the live sports/Sportscenter broadcasts. Everything else probably has to just not lose money. Lower rating but lower cost talkies like First Take fit the bill.
Important to remember the Stephen A. Smith makes over $3 million a year. That's a lot of jobs that could have been saved
What being an actuary at Aetna is not a cool job?
Important to remember the Stephen A. Smith makes over $3 million a year. That's a lot of jobs that could have been saved
That's a shame, they're my favorite to listen to - alongside Jalen & Jacoby. ESPN is laying off the wrong people, shocker
Now they just need to bring back Circus of the Stars and we'll be all set.
Quote:
you want for free on any of the league's websites.
I used to watch ESPN all the time when it was just loops of SportsCenter and old NFL Films and Game of the Week tapes.
Nowadays they're caught up in trying to offer "unique" content you can't find elsewhere, and they're also catering to the surprisingly huge market for junk like First Take.
Dont want to repeat myself, but I think ESPN makes its money from the monthly fees and the ad revenue on the live sports/Sportscenter broadcasts. Everything else probably has to just not lose money. Lower rating but lower cost talkies like First Take fit the bill.
Oh for sure the whole scam is built on forcing tens of millions of cable customers to pay a monthly for ESPN even if they're not sports watchers, but First Take actually does really well ratings wise, which is kind of sad.
Fox Sports is trying to shamelessly copycat it and literally nobody is watching.
ESPN needed a change - there's simply too much of the opinion driven talk shows now, not just on ESPN or ESPN 2-3, Ocho, whatever but from radio and internet and the leagues themselves. Maybe it makes sense to going back to when they actually showed sports on ESPN occasionally, and not just talk/analysis (hell I'd be fine with the lower interest stuff like Strong Man competitions and logging, etc). Just too much of the same stuff now, talking heads re-hashing the same stories and beating them to death to fill 24 hours of content (with maybe 4 hours or real worthwhile stuff).
Count me among those not interested in the revised SC6 to re-boot SC. It was a cool show back in the day, when they had interesting hosts and there were few other places to catch highlights. Now highlights, etc are everywhere, and they moved away from a rotating stable of funny hosts to focus on 2 personalities - great of you like those 2 I guess, less so if you don't. Also think they hide way too much behind the paywall online, where you can get similar stuff for free everywhere (seriously, does anyone pay for that stuff, are they really better off than offering it free with ads or whatever -they already have the ubiquitous auto-play videos everyone hates on every page?). And I know Hockey isn't super popular, but they have totally ignored it for a while and now seem to be doubling down by dropping all their good hockey guys...but most hockey fans probably aren't worried about ESPN anyway.
He loved to find random feats that players accomplished that were rare. I enjoyed reading about them, despite them being rather arbitrary.
@TDESPN
Laid off by ESPN today.Although sad cause I loved my job, mostly filled w/gratitude & appreciation for the 9 years #GreatFriendsAndTeammates
Quote:
and recreate a modern Battle of the Network Stars type of shows.
Publicists would never let their clients look stupid these days. Those shows were hilarious...
Amongst many stupid-looking celebrities, there was Lynda Carter. Perhaps the high point of that series.
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.
But I also think the fact that cable news basically co-opted the "pregame show" / Pardon the Interruption / Around the Horn style of commentary has lead to fatigue for that style of programming.
I also think that the election and subsequent focus on consuming political media has played a huge part in this fatigue. I know for a fact that I have shifted away from sports and into consuming politically relevant media since the run up to the election.
I don't think it's talent, it's the programming. The problem is that there really isn't a way out for them. They can't be a news company 24/7, you can't compete with the internet. Non-sports watchers won't continue to subsidize ESPN, so adding more live content won't really make a difference either. They need to totally change themselves from the ground up.
ESPN is on the precipice of dying a very slow, prolonged death.
MSG was literally sold out for a League of Legends championship recently. I have no idea what exactly League of Legends is, but I do know that "eSports" has been booming.
I've also noticed Deadspin and ESPN's website have started covering eSports a lot more.
ESPN might have to move towards that direction to build out some sort of greater online presence... but funny enough, they've been beaten to the market by companies such as Twitch which are much more well equipped to do so.
Yeah, but ESPN has voiced some unflattering opinions about the Giants so...
Link - ( New Window )
This is the miracle of the internet!
Is that Scott Baio cheering him on? Charles in Charge indeed.
The problem is that the market is already living on another broadcast platform. In this case, mainly Twitch. You would have to convince a number of viewers, used to watching on their own device (tablet/phone/computer) to switch to watch TV. Forget Millenials. The next generation (my kids age), aka the I Generation (as I think they are called) don't necessarily watch TV anymore. They consume their media from youtube. To get them to move over to ESPN is going to be a challenge.
Richard DeitschVerified account
@richarddeitsch
Following
More
From multiple sources: Do not be surprised if ESPN uses some of MLB Network's studio programming heading forward. Details? Do not know yet.
Agreed. Helps to have Heidi Watney too.
Dont watch MLB tv. So Billy Ripken will ALWAY be this guy to me:
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 ONeil
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.