ESPN Layoffs

[B. McBannerson]

No Direct TV, ai-na?

Looks like Dish and Direct TV also have packages without ESPN.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13319026/1/espn-could-start-to-lose-a-lot-more-subscribers.html

[B. McBannerson]

She's mostly wrong.

I agree, sort of.  Thing is, how she said it is important.  She indicates it is partly to blame, a percentage of it, but doesn't say how big.  We don't know if she meant 1% or 50%, or somewhere in between.  No doubt there is a percentage that doesn't like it and is tuning out, but probably fairly small.

Here is what she said.

"You're right. That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage. But if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind. That’s what I meant about the core group that made ESPN so successful," she said.

[MU82]

The original reason I started this thread was to discuss the potential benefits to Fox Sports of picking up some recognizable ESPN talent. So far no announcements made to that effect.

Some people like Skip Bayless already jumped ship. His new show Undisputed with Shannon Sharpe is fun sometimes.

If I owned a TV and was bored out of my mind and Skip and Shannon was the only thing on the air, I would keep the TV turned off ... and keep my sanity.

[Jockey]

If I owned a TV and was bored out of my mind and Skip and Shannon was the only thing on the air, I would keep the TV turned off ... and keep my sanity.

Amen (no offense ).

Bayless is an idiot and is in the process of teaching Sharpe everything he knows.

[warriorchick]

Jerk.  Used more for men or women?   Men, but one could technically say both.

Airhead.  Used more for men or women?  Women, but one could technically say both.


The cool news is Game of Thrones and British TV in general has made it cool to associate this with men, not just the ladies


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/13CSWRyaAgA" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/13CSWRyaAgA</a>

Is that so?

[jficke13]

Having watched a bit of the draft as the first ESPN programming I've watched in a while, I've now seen promos for SC6 (or whatever they're calling it). It looks annoying, but I can honestly say I have no idea what it's supposed to be based on the promos they're showing.

Put me squarely in the ESPN is putting garbage on the air + secular changes = ESPN bleeds camp.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

[naginiF]

We tend to use the term "Space Cowboy" or simply, "Moron" when describing a dude.

What's worse? They all merit a trip to the Confessional -- assuming I'll ever go again!

We, meaning the U.S.A., tend to use "Gangster of Love", some use the term "Maurice", nobody uses "Moron"

[Herman Cain]

If I owned a TV and was bored out of my mind and Skip and Shannon was the only thing on the air, I would keep the TV turned off ... and keep my sanity.

Shannon has some funny moments.

[MU82]

Shannon has some funny moments.

I'll take your word for it. He was a good quote when he played. You would have to hold a gun at my head for me to watch 1/10th of a second of the Skip/Shannon Show.

[B. McBannerson]

Related. #1 and #2.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/27/these-are-the-10-worst-jobs-of-2017.html

[barfolomew]

We, meaning the U.S.A., tend to use "Gangster of Love", some use the term "Maurice", nobody uses "Moron"

NOW I see what you speak of.

[mayfairskatingrink]

Do you know what non-productive pro athlete ESPN discusses and features a TON - way more than Sam, Jenner and other politically correct types named earlier?

Tim Tebow!

Wow, ESPN, that's soooo political. Trying to get everybody to love Christians and men and whites and heterosexuals. The agenda is so obvious! Liberal media!!!!

I mean, white, hetero, male Christians are ruining this country, with their love of white Christian women, and turkey sandwiches on white bread with mayo, and guns. They've infiltrated our schools, taken over Hollywood, messed with our kids! What has become of this country, anyway?

Tim Tebow ... effen minor-league ballplayer and one of the worst NFL QBs ever ... yet all we get is Tebow, Tebow, Tebow!!!!!!

Absolutely shameless political posturing by ESPN. I'm never watching it again (until something I want to see is on it).

You do know that Tebow is treated 100% differently than liberal heroes Sam, Jenner or Kap by the talking heads on both ESPN TV and Radio?  He is/was mocked incessantly.  From First Take to Around the Horn to PTI to Lebatard to ESPNW's The Trifecta, Tebow is made fun of. 

I don't recall a single negative word from anyone at ESPN about Sam, Jenner or Kap.

[rocket surgeon]

You do know that Tebow is treated 100% differently than liberal heroes Sam, Jenner or Kap by the talking heads on both ESPN TV and Radio?  He is/was mocked incessantly.  From First Take to Around the Horn to PTI to Lebatard to ESPNW's The Trifecta, Tebow is made fun of. 

I don't recall a single negative word from anyone at ESPN about Sam, Jenner or Kap.

oh-oh... just stop, ey?

[Billy Hoyle]

You do know that Tebow is treated 100% differently than liberal heroes Sam, Jenner or Kap by the talking heads on both ESPN TV and Radio?  He is/was mocked incessantly.  From First Take to Around the Horn to PTI to Lebatard to ESPNW's The Trifecta, Tebow is made fun of. 

I don't recall a single negative word from anyone at ESPN about Sam, Jenner or Kap.

Alternative facts right there. Please tell us you didn't graduate from MU and really believe that.

[Jay Bee]

Is "female airhead" redundant?

[GoldenWarrior11]

http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-liberal-bias-bob-iger-disney-jason-barrett-barrett-sports-media/1vkiau005ud0i135hcxdg6wxat

National poll finds 60% of ESPN viewers finds that the network has a "left-leaning agenda".
 The poll also found that 40.6% of viewers found ESPN's on-air talent "underwhelming" and 19.1% thought the on-air talent was "terrible".  Add the two percentages on on-air talent up, and it is also 60% against the talent at ESPN.

ESPN entered a perfect storm of bad decisions.  They overpaid for content.  They shifted their focus from being highlight-driven to outlandish commentary.  They fired true reporters and kept outrageous on-air personalities.  Despite some on here claiming about "alternative facts" and the hope that "some here did not attend MU", the reality is that political discussions and agendas tend to divide and alienate people.  ESPN has embraced certain political aspects of sports in recent years, with a perceived slant on the political spectrum.  Whether or not you agree with the said political viewpoints, it can absolutely be said that it divided and turned off a portion of its audience.

[GGGG]

http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-liberal-bias-bob-iger-disney-jason-barrett-barrett-sports-media/1vkiau005ud0i135hcxdg6wxat

National poll finds 60% of ESPN viewers finds that the network has a "left-leaning agenda".
 The poll also found that 40.6% of viewers found ESPN's on-air talent "underwhelming" and 19.1% thought the on-air talent was "terrible".  Add the two percentages on on-air talent up, and it is also 60% against the talent at ESPN.

ESPN entered a perfect storm of bad decisions.  They overpaid for content.  They shifted their focus from being highlight-driven to outlandish commentary.  They fired true reporters and kept outrageous on-air personalities.  Despite some on here claiming about "alternative facts" and the hope that "some here did not attend MU", the reality is that political discussions and agendas tend to divide and alienate people.  ESPN has embraced certain political aspects of sports in recent years, with a perceived slant on the political spectrum.  Whether or not you agree with the said political viewpoints, it can absolutely be said that it divided and turned off a portion of its audience.

The three things highlighted are arguably not bad decisions.  Content, commentary and outrageous personalities are what drive their ratings. 

The political discussions played a very small role...if any. 

[GoldenWarrior11]

The three things highlighted are arguably not bad decisions.  Content, commentary and outrageous personalities are what drive their ratings. 

The political discussions played a very small role...if any.

Content, commentary and outrageous personalities are what drive their their loss of 12 million subscribers since 2011 and an average loss of 10,000 viewers per day...

[Pakuni]

Content, commentary and outrageous personalities are what drive their their loss of 12 million subscribers since 2011 and an average loss of 10,000 viewers per day...

You don't believe this, do you?

[GGGG]

Content, commentary and outrageous personalities are what drive their their loss of 12 million subscribers since 2011 and an average loss of 10,000 viewers per day...

Well you could argue that content drives up price and price is what is driving some people away, but highlight shows a la 20 years ago don't draw eyeballs.  Both NBC and FS1 tried it and it didn't work.

ESPN knows their market.

[rocket surgeon]

The three things highlighted are arguably not bad decisions.  Content, commentary and outrageous personalities are what drive their ratings. 

The political discussions played a very small role...if any.

so, if the 3 things highlighted drive their ratings and their ratings are down, logic tells me the 3 highlighted things ARE bad decisions. 

[GGGG]

so, if the 3 things highlighted drive their ratings and their ratings are down, logic tells me the 3 highlighted things ARE bad decisions. 

How do you know that if they would have done the opposite the ratings wouldn't have been worse?

[Pakuni]

so, if the 3 things highlighted drive their ratings and their ratings are down, logic tells me the 3 highlighted things ARE bad decisions.

No, that's not how it works.
ESPN knows exactly what it's viewers are and are not watching, and when and how they are watching it. If they're investing in  commentary and outrageous personalities, as opposed to, say, highlights shows and Stump the Schwab (RIP), then it's because those are the things people are watching.

[rocket surgeon]

How do you know that if they would have done the opposite the ratings wouldn't have been worse?

i don't, but we are analyzing what they did do(the 3 highlighted things) and the outcome wasn't too good.  let's say coach wojo employs a man-man instead of a zone in the last minute of a game and we lose.  was it a good decision or bad one?  well, by your thinking, if we didn't lose by too much, it would be a success?  gotta go with what we have.  yes, i realize it's "monday morning qb'ing, but we have to look at cause-effect and admit that someone made the wrong decision(s).  the decisions they made or direction they decided to take are all we have to work with here and...someone needs to right the ship