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.
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.
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.