Layoffs at Espn
- Thread starter OlegeezEER
- Start date
Imo top 3 reasons for espn decline and people dropping the 4 letter are
1. Technology-Google can tell me everything Sportscenter use to and none of the garbage I don't care for
2. Programming - how many reporter/wanna be journalist/commentator shows with phony arguing do they need?
and
3. Social/political agenda with sports-which most sports fans watch sports to get away from the world not be reminded of it in sports
For me, that makes everything on espn but college football season able to do with out. There are other options.
To make matters worse they have over paid on college football with their conference networks. You need it football Saturdays and that is really it.
1. Technology-Google can tell me everything Sportscenter use to and none of the garbage I don't care for
2. Programming - how many reporter/wanna be journalist/commentator shows with phony arguing do they need?
and
3. Social/political agenda with sports-which most sports fans watch sports to get away from the world not be reminded of it in sports
For me, that makes everything on espn but college football season able to do with out. There are other options.
To make matters worse they have over paid on college football with their conference networks. You need it football Saturdays and that is really it.
Last edited:
In terms of WVU, there clearly is money in showing it, but right now the number of outlets showing CFB is overshooting the demand and the result is a bidding war for TV rights. Eventually the market will correct itself and certain outlets will exit the market to televise live sports. For WVU and the Big XII and the other conferences at the end of the day they will have to take a pay cut but overall the games will stay on TV for us to see. There is no chance it ever starts working backwards where it will once again become difficult to watch any semi-relevant WVU football or basketball game.
Day to day ESPN non live sports content while I agree is not doing itself any favors is not moving the needle in the collapse of ESPN. Live sports has always been ESPN's bread and butter, while CBS, Fox, NBC, Turner all used to rely on scripted content as their bread and butter. With DVR/On Demand/Netflix/HBO/Showtime all now competing with the prime cable networks and driving down their advertising dollars those networks are attempting to fill the void with live sports which means that instead of ESPN mostly having a monopoly on sports coverage they're now competing with the prime cable networks who all have deeper pockets. I also haven't even covered the trend of cord cutting which is another hole in their ship that will probably not be able to be filled. The result is ESPN is losing and is going to continue to lose. I think there is enough live content to keep ESPN afloat for a very long time but you will likely see channels like ESPNU, ESPNews, ESPN Classic, LHN, SECN all go belly up in the near future. I predict by 2020 it will be back to ESPN and ESPN2, the streaming ESPN3 will stay as well.
The cable industry is declining as technology changes.
This is what is causing changes at ESPN and undoubtedly other sports networks. ESPNs problems stem from buying up the rights to as many entities as they could in order to keep their competition out of the business, and having a difficult time paying for those same rights now.
There's nothing political about that whatsoever, and it's more than disingenuous for far right wingers to be claiming such when the network hired nuts like Limbaugh just a few years back regularly spewing his racist right wing rants. Not a peep from the right wingers then not surprisingly.
That isn't a part of what's happening--it's bad business models tied in with the changing habits of viewers due in large part to technology driving the changes.
When you make one college conference nearly your entire focus for college coverage, you effectively cause everyone else to turn you off and cancel the subscription. When you try to eliminate hundreds of schools and their tens of thousands of fans from collegial competition because they don't factor into your model--you've just neutered tens of thousands of potential subscribers and viewers.
When you overcharge for your services to pay some exorbitant amounts and exclude others, you are excluding viewers and subscribers and eliminating those who don't want to pay for what you are showing.
Technology is allowing people to pay less and get more of what they actually want and that is ending forced acceptance of content most aren't interested in ( see SEC endless coverage with some ACC and a couple of Big Ten teams) .
People have more choices and for less money, you aren't showing or even talking about what they care about? Guess what, you will lose money.
This is what is causing changes at ESPN and undoubtedly other sports networks. ESPNs problems stem from buying up the rights to as many entities as they could in order to keep their competition out of the business, and having a difficult time paying for those same rights now.
There's nothing political about that whatsoever, and it's more than disingenuous for far right wingers to be claiming such when the network hired nuts like Limbaugh just a few years back regularly spewing his racist right wing rants. Not a peep from the right wingers then not surprisingly.
That isn't a part of what's happening--it's bad business models tied in with the changing habits of viewers due in large part to technology driving the changes.
When you make one college conference nearly your entire focus for college coverage, you effectively cause everyone else to turn you off and cancel the subscription. When you try to eliminate hundreds of schools and their tens of thousands of fans from collegial competition because they don't factor into your model--you've just neutered tens of thousands of potential subscribers and viewers.
When you overcharge for your services to pay some exorbitant amounts and exclude others, you are excluding viewers and subscribers and eliminating those who don't want to pay for what you are showing.
Technology is allowing people to pay less and get more of what they actually want and that is ending forced acceptance of content most aren't interested in ( see SEC endless coverage with some ACC and a couple of Big Ten teams) .
People have more choices and for less money, you aren't showing or even talking about what they care about? Guess what, you will lose money.
ESPN took a bath on the NFL Wild Card game between Oakland and Houston. They also boxed themselves into a corner with the College Football Playoff games on New Year's Eve the last two years. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl refuse to move from the traditional NYD slots. Both will host the semi's next year. ESPN's big mistake was pushing for the playoffs and forcing all the conference realignments. Maryland and Rutgers being in the B1G makes as much sense as us in the Big XII and Notre Dame, Pitt, and Louisville in the Asheshe.
I agree there are far too many ESPNs and the Conference Networks are a joke except for bout 13 Saturdays a year. How many SEC storied episodes about non football and non basketball athletes/coaches can you make? I have watched 1 game on the B1G network (WVU @ Maryland) in my life. The PAC 12 network is down to regional and not even national. I still can't believe the LHN is even on. What games do they even show? BYUs network isn't thriving either Despite a reported "devoted" following so to speak. Idk I think it is too much market saturation.
It has become a totally unwatchable channel. Not sure why they wanted to become the MSNBC of sports but that decision has really hurt them with their core sports fans.
I disagree on pushing for playoffs, the playoff if anything should be expanded further if we're talking about what would benefit ESPN. But their forced conference realignment has backfired IMO. Conference realignment is NOT a good thing for College Sports. Here we are in year 5 of WVU in the Big XII and I still could care less about any of the other 9 teams. In the BE I would watch Pitt and Louisville games because I hated them, maybe some Rutgers games because I would root for them a little, but now I don't watch anything other than WVU games and maybe a primetime game of the week from time to time.
Mike and Mike tired TV. Tired of whining about J E T Jets
and Golic's worshipping everything ND, except when they
get their *** kicked in FB. They are too enamored with
what they deem their status.
I'll pop up to tell you how stupid your comment is, and explain reality to you.
Here's the reality. ESPN is not losing money because of being too liberal, or too SEC, or anything like that. ESPN is losing money for one reason: many customers are leaving cable, and thus not paying subscription fees for ESPN every month. That's it. That's the reason. It's no more complicated than that.
Now, here is the part that makes you go all ape ****. This reality has consequences. Here they are:
ESPN isn't the only network with this problem. FS1, CBSSN, NCBSN, all those other channels are having the same problem. They are all losing subscribers to cord cutting. What that means is, none of these other channels are going to be able to step in and take up the slack. They aren't going to be able to match the contracts that ESPN was paying out. So, that means:
1. Conferences won't get as much money. (This means schools, like West Virginia, won't get as much money.)
2. Fewer games will be televised.
3. Conference networks are dead. (We see how the Pac 12 Network has floundered without a major partner.)
4. If the conferences are able to find an alternate distribution model (like streaming), you are going to be paying a lot more than $6.50- or $1.30 a month for that content.
Your problem is, you live in this fantasyland, where you think the sports landscape will be exactly like it is now, except that ESPN will be gone. The reality is, the forces that are changing ESPN are changing the entire landscape of sports, and it's not going to be the same as it is now. You are either too wrapped up in your ESPN hatred to see this, or you just don't want to face reality.
The irony ESPN, the network that aired the 30 for 30 film called "BROKE" is well on it's way to joining a lot of athletes they highlighted in that very film.
Btw that was a good documentary from Billy Corbin. That the OJ stuff, and the Pony Express and The U films are worth seeing.
I don't watch them that much except college Saturdays in the fall but I wonder which on air "talent" is about to get pink slipped to help save $100 MILLION DOLLARS as Dr Evil would say.
I wonder if Finebaum goes back to a syndicated show out of Tuscaloosa. His radio show was better then-cause it was worse-no filter on any caller.
Btw that was a good documentary from Billy Corbin. That the OJ stuff, and the Pony Express and The U films are worth seeing.
I don't watch them that much except college Saturdays in the fall but I wonder which on air "talent" is about to get pink slipped to help save $100 MILLION DOLLARS as Dr Evil would say.
I wonder if Finebaum goes back to a syndicated show out of Tuscaloosa. His radio show was better then-cause it was worse-no filter on any caller.
I see posts about ESPN suffering -- because they are now political. I will be honest... I find out what time a game comes on, then turn it to that channel at that time. I never watch a minute of guys sitting around in chairs talking... so I will have to take your word for it about the politics.
But as mentioned above, I now check out games - also - on FS1, NBCsports, CBSsports, etc. 10 years ago, NBCsports was Versus Channel showing bicycle races. But also, it just seems like people are dropping cable... and - kids today do not seem as interested in sports, IMO.
I do think about - had the Big 12 expanded - and forced ESPN's hand on the expanded contract payments - would it accelerate ESPN's impending(?) doom?
-Winter Tim
But as mentioned above, I now check out games - also - on FS1, NBCsports, CBSsports, etc. 10 years ago, NBCsports was Versus Channel showing bicycle races. But also, it just seems like people are dropping cable... and - kids today do not seem as interested in sports, IMO.
I do think about - had the Big 12 expanded - and forced ESPN's hand on the expanded contract payments - would it accelerate ESPN's impending(?) doom?
-Winter Tim
I don't know if the political or social agenda stuff is really a big factor for TV. For the 3 reasons I put up I listed it 3rd. Techology is # 1. Programming or lack there of outside of games is # 2. And the mixing of the stuff (political or social BS) the average fan runs to sports to get away from is # 3 to me (this is more radio than TV cause I do not follow their TV shows) Now 1 > 2 > 3 clearly for TV and 3 May not be that big there although any of that stuff is a turn off to me and that's both sides of any issue. I don't care about that stuff and don't want to even hear any of it. Go talk about it on CSPAN.
For radio, it is definitely easier with the advent of the tune in app to listen to a sports show that doesn't go there and SB Nation radio and CBS have shows that stay away from that stuff that espn has talked about a lot.
For radio, it is definitely easier with the advent of the tune in app to listen to a sports show that doesn't go there and SB Nation radio and CBS have shows that stay away from that stuff that espn has talked about a lot.
The new generation couldn't care less about spectator sports. I ain't saying that's a bad thing. The new generation couldn't care less about cable. I am saying that's a good thing. Warez
88 million subscribers paying 7 dollars a month.
Not to mention 88 million paying 1 dollar a month for ESPN 2
Not to mention the 88 million paying monthly for ESPN/N, ESPNU, SEC Network, LHN ect
Not to mention the money made from advertising
ESPN is a giant. They are "laying off" the on air talent too not the 4,200 people who have everyday jobs with families like most of us.
Sounds like Clay Travis is an idiot with sand in his ***.
Not to mention 88 million paying 1 dollar a month for ESPN 2
Not to mention the 88 million paying monthly for ESPN/N, ESPNU, SEC Network, LHN ect
Not to mention the money made from advertising
ESPN is a giant. They are "laying off" the on air talent too not the 4,200 people who have everyday jobs with families like most of us.
Sounds like Clay Travis is an idiot with sand in his ***.
LOL - You know ESPN is getting desperate when their paid online shills resort to fear mongering.
None of those so-called consequences bother me.
If I were a big fat couch potato who watched TV all day, maybe I'd care.
I'd gladly pay a high monthly fee directly to WVU, or an individual conference.
Last edited:
Another development is local Internet companies are starting to bring fiber to their customers, so you no longer need to purchase quality Internet from TWC, Comcast, ect., that raise their Internet fees to offset cable losses.
Copper wire is an antiquated technology.
Copper wire is an antiquated technology.
IMO, this is a diversionary move by ESPN to send positive signals to their stockholders.
They want to show that they are making hard decisions to right the ship by saying they will lay off talent, knowing fully well that when the time comes for the cuts, there's no talented people there to fire.
Sly as a fox, they are...Sly as a fox...
They want to show that they are making hard decisions to right the ship by saying they will lay off talent, knowing fully well that when the time comes for the cuts, there's no talented people there to fire.
Sly as a fox, they are...Sly as a fox...
Again, your paid shill comment is stupid. There's nothing about simply stating reality that is "shilling."
It doesn't matter if the consequences bother you are not. Your opinion doesn't change what happens.
You personally paying more to West Virginia or a conference isn't going to make up the difference lost from the current contracts.
This is what you don't get. You are going to be paying somebody. For some reason, you get your rocks off because you don't have to pay cable or ESPN. You are going to pay somebody. The reality is, you will still end up with some kind of bundling system, just like you have now with cable. A la carte is a fantasy. Most content isn't profitable enough to stand on its own. You are always going to have bundling, whether you are getting it from a cable company or streaming service.
Overthinking.
Sorry, but you can't convince me I have a moral obligation to purchase ESPN or cable.
ESPN is a failing company and a drag on Disney stock. Their product isn't important enough to keep cable subscribers and I can get sports news anywhere online - without all the social justice porn.
I don't watch much TV and cut the cord a couple years ago. Most people I know also have or have been exploring options.
We can't prop up a failing business and technology just because we are adverse to change, and that won't change no matter how hard you shill.
Subscribers mean very little if viewership is stable. If you are an avid ESPN viewer you get and pay for your content one way or another. It's just shifting the profit center. However, stable viewership is not the case either.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysom...viewership-continues-to-decline/#7f2d2f1e7bf8
Well, the problem is, I'm not telling you that you have a moral obligation to by ESPN or cable. If that's what you get from reading my post, then frankly you are just stupid.
What I AM telling you is that the "other options," are going to just be more of the same. If you look at other options like Sling or Playstation Vue, they function the same way as cable. You buy a package of channels, some you like and some you don't like. Sling and Playstation Vue offer small packages (some without sports, which is what hurts ESPN and other companies). This is only going to work out one of two ways: you will have a channel (whether it's ESPN or somebody else) who figures out a way to get a bunch of sports rights (sound familiar?), or it gets fractured, so that you have fewer games available, and have to pay more for the individual games.
Um, no. Subscribers are the foundation of these networks. The entire business model of cable is the idea that channels are subsidized by viewers who don't watch the channel. It's not just sports. The History Channel or the Food Network would not exist if they had to stand on their own. They only exist because they are bundled as part of a larger package. Very few channels on cable could exist without being bundled as part of a package. The reality is that we subsidize each other's viewing. Food Network only exists because sports fans (who don't watch the channel) are also paying for it. ESPN only exists because history buffs (who don't watch sports) subsidize the channel.
That's why services like Sling or Vue still offer packages, and not a la carte. If it was pure a la carte, only 10-20 channels would make enough profit to survive.
The reality is you work for ESPN and/or a cable provider and you're just shilling.
People are happy to pay a reasonable fee for moderate TV service but the days of bullying customers with gouging fees are over.
ESPN is a bad product that people are tuning out. Hopefully something good will come from their ashes but that network has seen its best days and something better will emerge.
Customers want something less costly, less political, and technology is fueling options that didn't exist years back.
Cable is an antiquated technology. The fact ESPN is sending people like you on message boards to beg for subscribers shows how desperate they have become.
I want to deconstruct the cable state and get antiquated technology out of our lives.
ESPN got rich from price gouging grammy, we need to upend the system and get cable out of homes.
Last edited:
That's true if you are only talking about cable, traditional cable. But if you are talking about ESPN or any non-OTA network viewers COULD remain stable by just switching platforms. You're talking like ESPN doesn't get any revenue from SlingTV if subscribers to Sling get ESPN as part of their package. ESPN still gets revenue, though I will agree that I do not know if there is a difference in what Sling pays ESPN vs. what Comcast pays ESPN. Comcast is the one who should really be concerned.
The current reality is that not only are cable subscribers to ESPN declining the alternate platforms are not picking up the slack, at least not in a revenue stream context. Right now I can watch almost anything on ESPN through multiple internet platforms across multiple devices, including ESPN's own platform, and all I have to do is select my service provider and log-in. Does ESPN get a piece from AT&T (my internet provider) when I watch ESPN programming on my tablet? I'm not sure. But this is something that ESPN and other broadcasters will need to figure out to remain viable.
The shift doesn't work for everybody. I live in a rural area in the N. GA mountains and I have two options for traditional TV - Dish TV or Direct TV, no cable available. I also only have one option for internet, the local phone company. It is slow and sometimes hard to stream content. So for right now I am stuck with a more traditional TV package for the majority of my viewing purposes. I won't be platform shifting anytime soon. And there are tens of millions of people just like me all across the country.
The problem for ESPN is 1) Enormous long term financial liabilities for live sports, and 2) Their business model has been built on continuous growth. Slow growth would be bad, but sudden declining subscriptions could be catastrophic.
At some point you need to wonder if they will run out of cash to meet their obligations.
What other channels carries that kind of contractual liability? None, I'd guess.
No, I don't work for ESPN, and I'm not a shill. This is just a stupid statement on your part.
You have this hardon against cable, and that keeps you from thinking clearly.
What you don't understand is, cable isn't the issue. Packaging is the issue. Go look at SlingTV or Playstation VUE. You can't go to either one of those services and buy channels a la carte. You have to buy a package of channels. Whether you get that package via copper wire, fiberoptic cable, or wireless, you are still getting a package of channels. You are going ape **** over the delivery system. That isn't the issue. The issue is the content, and that's basically the same. You have to buy a package of channels from cable, or you have to buy a package of channels from streaming services. Either way, you are buying a package of channels.
Now, when I tell you about the cost of games increasing, for example, what I'm doing is illustrating to you why a la carte won't happen. Most of this content can't survive individually. It has to be part of a package. That's why services like Sling or VUE still offer packages, and not a la carte.
And I'm telling you, the technology isn't going to change the business model. You are still going to have channel bundles. That WILL NOT change. The business model just got shifted from cable to streaming.
It's pretty safe to say ESPN doesn't get anywhere near the revenue from Sling that they do from cable. You just look at what Sling charges, and there simply isn't any way they can match the $6.50 ESPN gets from cable.
That said, if you read all these articles, viewership isn't the problem. When these articles mention revenue loss, they talk about the subscriptions, not the viewership. You people are overthinking this. It's pretty simple. You have cord cutters who are switching to services where they don't have to get ESPN. These people weren't watching ESPN in the first place. They just aren't paying for it anymore because they don't have cable. That's where the revenue drop is coming from.
What cord cutting is doing is just exposing the flaw in the cable business model. Cable is built on the premise that people are paying for channels they don't watch. What happens when people can get around paying for channels they don't want? Less money, that's what it means.
You are thinking too much of the old business model of the three networks. Their revenue was entirely dependent on advertising. Cable networks make a significant portion of their revenue from subscription fee. The SEC Network is a perfect example. SECN makes about $500 million a year. The majority of that is simply due to subscription fees. They make little from advertising revenue, because their ratings are so low. In other words, SECN could have the exact same viewership, yet lose half their revenue if subscriptions drop.
You are a shill and everyone is aware of it, so why continue the act?
I don't have an aversion to the concept of bundled channels, so why do you keep harping on it? I've long stated that skinny bundles are the future. Technology is democratizing TV entertainment and cable isn't necessary anymore.
Awhile ago you were here shilling on behalf of ESPN and I said the next step in this process is trimmed down bundled options, and you said it would never happen - that same week it did.
Your masters at ESPN are feeding you bad information, slave. You can't convince folks that they have a moral obligation to purchase overpriced packages and ESPN. I just read that the average cable customer pays $30 per year to ESPN just for the NBA, but the majority of folks will never watch an NBA game. What a terrible business. So happy it's failing.
I just helped my aunt cut the cord. They were paying $140/per month. Now they have a local internet provider using fiber, antenna, hulu/Netflix....happy as clams. They don't watch sports and don't want the ESPN tax.