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.
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 )
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.