ESPN Layoffs

[GWSwarrior]

A thread on massive layoffs at the largest sports channel in America has turned into a hodgepodge display of the political persecution complex millions of people inflict upon themselves. 'Murica 2017!

it is simply a continuation of Heisy attempting to Make Scoop Great Again

[GGGG]

Not sure if people are saying that is the reason or not. The lay-offs are happening with the cost of MNF and the NBA deal that blocked out FS1. The cord-cutters is always the major factor. That being said, your head is in the sand if you don't think millions are not feed up with ESPN with their programs outside of live sports.

Mostly because they are unwatchable.  Not because they are overly political.

[GGGG]

Deadspin got this right.

http://deadspin.com/espns-diminished-future-has-become-its-present-1794433796?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

"The causes of the layoffs are clear. As ESPN’s subscriber base, and the rate those subscribers paid monthly, grew in the late aughts and early 2010s, Bristol spent flagrantly. They created the Longhorn and SEC Networks, built a massive new SportsCenter studio, hired hundreds of writers to cover specific teams, and, most importantly, spent billions of dollars on live sports rights. They made big bets. They made wrong bets.

Right around the time the ink dried on a $15.2 billion deal to broadcast the NFL, subscribers began fleeing cable television in droves—not because of anything the Worldwide Leader did wrong, but because of secular changes in the way broadcast and video works. Phones, Twitter, and YouTube began instantaneously delivering highlights and entire games to fans, obviating the need for anyone to watch SportsCenter, or any other news shows, to catch up on what happened in sports, or even, in some cases, to watch live games. Terrestrial ad revenue never migrated online, and the revenue to be found there was largely eaten up by Facebook and Google, leaving little to pay those new ESPN.com reporters.

ESPN is still wildly profitable—the operating income of Disney’s media networks (of which ESPN plays the largest role) was $1.36 billion in the 2016 fourth quarter—but it’s less profitable than it used to be, and projects to be far less so in the future. With its latest cuts, ESPN isn’t just trying to stanch the bleeding and/or to be seen by investors as attempting to do so: They’re also laying out what the network will look like over the next five years and beyond."

[bradley center bat]

Mostly because they are unwatchable.  Not because they are overly political.

I'm sure it's a case of both. Nobody really knows.

[CTWarrior]

Have fun in your safe space.

It's very easy to avoid politics on ESPN.  I never see the above referenced discussions since I only watch live sports.

True for me, too.  I don't like interjecting political slants and hot takes and flogging of Kaitlyn Jenner and stuff like that, but I easily avoided it by not watching.  I find myself hardly ever watching ESPN since we are now on FoxSports and I get the MLB package for baseball.  The 30 for 30 documentaries are an exception, as I have enjoyed many of them.

[Eldon]

Ah Trent Dilfer.  The guy who is more known as a counterexample to the argument "only great quarterbacks win Super Bowls" than he is for his actual Super Bowl performance.

[bradley center bat]

She is finally gone!
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrittMcHenry/status/857602447409201155?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Most of this "boycott" due to politics stuff for all business is convenient virtual signaling.

If you cut the cord because cable costs too much money, but you did hate the editorializing it is convenient to emphasize that tangential reason.  In other cases, it is the convenient straw one can pick up, place on top of the camel so you can break its back.

When I want to see team highlights, I go to that team's website which have more and better ones then were ever on a sports TV show.

I will grant that there is a whole bunch of folks out here that are tired of everyone getting political about something.  But they are also equally tired of those that get upset at those who are getting political.   When it gets that meta, the issue is jumping the shark.

I hope I skirted the no-politics rule properly.

Agreed 100%

[MerrittsMustache]

Mostly because they are unwatchable.  Not because they are overly political.

Cable and TV are far from being by area of expertise so excuse my ignorance in this question but...Why doesn't ESPN replay games and/or a highlights show? In addition, why don't they make more low budget (or at least lower budget) online-only media?

FoxSports Wis replays just about every Brewers and Bucks game, even replaying MLB matinees in prime time. MLB Network runs the hour-long highlights-only show "Quick Pitch" for literally 9-10 hours every morning. Are the ratings and revenue produced by those broadcasts all that much different than producing new, midday episodes of "First Take" or "Seven Ex-NFL Players Sit Around a Desk and Talk Nonsense?" I feel like so much of ESPN's programming is just there to fill time, why not eat up 3 hours by replaying a game from the night before? I understand that ESPN has a host of channels and multiple sports to cover but is the production of daytime shows and the money they're paying to all those hosts/analysts actually worth it? Couldn't the content from daily shows be done in 3-minute online videos with actual reporters providing actual information as opposed to former players rambling on about nothing to fill an hour?

Again, maybe this is completely ignorant but I'm genuinely curious. Hopefully someone out there has more knowledge on this topic and can fill me.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What's happening with ESPN kind of reminds me of food network. I am a bit of a foodie and the future Mrs. TAMU loves cooking so we will often watch Food Network, usually as something on in the background while doing something else. Fans of Food Network have been complaining for years that all of the good cooking shows that actually teach you how to cook have been replaced by game shows and large personalities like Guy Fieri. But the network keep cutting cooking shows in favor of more entertainment first shows. The reality is, if you want to learn to cook, there are so many more efficient ways to do it than waiting for a specific episode of a cooking show to come on. Since the need isn't there, the network turns to entertainment to try and keep viewers. Kind of like the death of highlight shows and the rise of talking head hot takes on ESPN.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Cable and TV are far from being by area of expertise so excuse my ignorance in this question but...Why doesn't ESPN replay games and/or a highlights show? In addition, why don't they make more low budget (or at least lower budget) online-only media?

FoxSports Wis replays just about every Brewers and Bucks game, even replaying MLB matinees in prime time. MLB Network runs the hour-long highlights-only show "Quick Pitch" for literally 9-10 hours every morning. Are the ratings and revenue produced by those broadcasts all that much different than producing new, midday episodes of "First Take" or "Seven Ex-NFL Players Sit Around a Desk and Talk Nonsense?" I feel like so much of ESPN's programming is just there to fill time, why not eat up 3 hours by replaying a game from the night before? I understand that ESPN has a host of channels and multiple sports to cover but is the production of daytime shows and the money they're paying to all those hosts/analysts actually worth it? Couldn't the content from daily shows be done in 3-minute online videos with actual reporters providing actual information as opposed to former players rambling on about nothing to fill an hour?

Again, maybe this is completely ignorant but I'm genuinely curious. Hopefully someone out there has more knowledge on this topic and can fill me.

My guess is that as hated as First Take and its like seem to be....they still get better ratings than replaying past games. No idea if its true but that's my gut feeling. We often forget that we tend to surround ourselves with people who have opinions similar to ours. We all sit on here and complain about the hot takes and pine for more live sports. But there is a significant population out there that worships the Stephen A Smiths of the world or at least loves to hate them so much that they tune in every day. I'll admit, I did watch Skip Bayless' new show the day after the Packers beat the Cowboys just to watch him throw a hissy fit.

[jficke13]

She is finally gone!
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrittMcHenry/status/857602447409201155?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I have no idea who that is. Why are you happy she got fired?

[GGGG]

I have no idea who that is. Why are you happy she got fired?

She yelled at a parking lot attendant two years ago.  It was pretty bad but my recollection is that everyone forgave one another and moved on. 

[4everwarriors]

What's happening with ESPN kind of reminds me of food network. I am a bit of a foodie and the future Mrs. TAMU loves cooking so we will often watch Food Network, usually as something on in the background while doing something else. Fans of Food Network have been complaining for years that all of the good cooking shows that actually teach you how to cook have been replaced by game shows and large personalities like Guy Fieri. But the network keep cutting cooking shows in favor of more entertainment first shows. The reality is, if you want to learn to cook, there are so many more efficient ways to do it than waiting for a specific episode of a cooking show to come on. Since the need isn't there, the network turns to entertainment to try and keep viewers. Kind of like the death of highlight shows and the rise of talking head hot takes on ESPN.

You're knot co-habitatin' now are ya, hey?

[Osiris]

I have no idea who that is. Why are you happy she got fired?

YouTube search her name, you'll understand.

[MU82]

Deadspin got this right.

http://deadspin.com/espns-diminished-future-has-become-its-present-1794433796?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

"The causes of the layoffs are clear. As ESPN’s subscriber base, and the rate those subscribers paid monthly, grew in the late aughts and early 2010s, Bristol spent flagrantly. They created the Longhorn and SEC Networks, built a massive new SportsCenter studio, hired hundreds of writers to cover specific teams, and, most importantly, spent billions of dollars on live sports rights. They made big bets. They made wrong bets.

Right around the time the ink dried on a $15.2 billion deal to broadcast the NFL, subscribers began fleeing cable television in droves—not because of anything the Worldwide Leader did wrong, but because of secular changes in the way broadcast and video works. Phones, Twitter, and YouTube began instantaneously delivering highlights and entire games to fans, obviating the need for anyone to watch SportsCenter, or any other news shows, to catch up on what happened in sports, or even, in some cases, to watch live games. Terrestrial ad revenue never migrated online, and the revenue to be found there was largely eaten up by Facebook and Google, leaving little to pay those new ESPN.com reporters.

ESPN is still wildly profitable—the operating income of Disney’s media networks (of which ESPN plays the largest role) was $1.36 billion in the 2016 fourth quarter—but it’s less profitable than it used to be, and projects to be far less so in the future. With its latest cuts, ESPN isn’t just trying to stanch the bleeding and/or to be seen by investors as attempting to do so: They’re also laying out what the network will look like over the next five years and beyond."

I'm not always a Deadspin guy, but I agree 100% with this.

This has to do with two things - neither one of them even remotely political: 1, cord-cutting; 2, cost-cutting.

I have cable specifically because I want to be able to watch live sports on my nice, big, flat-screen TV. Once it becomes economically feasible to continue to do so without cable or DirecTV, I'll make a move, too.

I still like highlights, so I now go to MLB network for baseball highlights, NFL Network for football highlights, etc. I rarely watch SportsCenter anymore, and I can't watch the FS1 highlight show, either. I do like most of the 30 For 30s, and I loved the O.J. doc. Otherwise, it's about the live sports.

I wonder how much ESPN would have to charge cord-cutters for a stand-alone ESPN package so that it would be profitable, and I wonder how much ESPN could charge for such a package before it would be too expensive for customers. I pay roughly $15/month for HBO and I'm guessing I would pay that much for ESPN, too - more if they teamed with FS1, regional sports, etc, and put out an all-sports package. Don't know if that's feasible, of course.

[Skitch]

The joy so many people seem to be taking in people they have never and will never meet losing their jobs astounds me.

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm not always a Deadspin guy, but I agree 100% with this.

This has to do with two things - neither one of them even remotely political: 1, cord-cutting; 2, cost-cutting.

I have cable specifically because I want to be able to watch live sports on my nice, big, flat-screen TV. Once it becomes economically feasible to continue to do so without cable or DirecTV, I'll make a move, too.

I still like highlights, so I now go to MLB network for baseball highlights, NFL Network for football highlights, etc. I rarely watch SportsCenter anymore, and I can't watch the FS1 highlight show, either. I do like most of the 30 For 30s, and I loved the O.J. doc. Otherwise, it's about the live sports.

I wonder how much ESPN would have to charge cord-cutters for a stand-alone ESPN package so that it would be profitable, and I wonder how much ESPN could charge for such a package before it would be too expensive for customers. I pay roughly $15/month for HBO and I'm guessing I would pay that much for ESPN, too - more if they teamed with FS1, regional sports, etc, and put out an all-sports package. Don't know if that's feasible, of course.

ESPN gets about $9/month if you get all their channels ($7 for ESPN, about $1 ESPN2 and about $1 for everything else ,.. classic, news, SEC, Longhorn and so on)

They have WATCHESPN which gives you all this and more.  If they charged $9/month for Watch, and completely cut out all cable broadcasting. the estimate is about 15% to 25% of current subscribers would pay for it.  This means 75% to 85% of cable customers that pay $7 to $9 a month ESPN et al don't watch it.

The point is if we waved a wand and cable did not exist and waved a wand again and everyone had free gigabit internet access (1000 Mips speed), ESPN would lose 75% of customers and 75% of its revenue.  That means they file for bankruptcy, cannot pay the NFL its $14.7 billion for broadcasting rights thus putting the NFL in deep trouble.

Deadspin is correct but avoided saying the obvious ... ESPN can only manage their decline into hell.  They cannot get off this road.  They put themselves on this road because they pay $8 billion a year for broadcasting rights (more than any other channel, including the networks and even Netflix), these are contracts that cannot rework.

[Pakuni]

Whoa ... appears Andy Katz is out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-bog0lW0AM--uB.jpg:large

[Dr. Blackheart]

Whoa ... appears Andy Katz is out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-bog0lW0AM--uB.jpg:large

Thanks Sherlock

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54230.msg926149#msg926149

[MerrittsMustache]

[bradley center bat]

I have no idea who that is. Why are you happy she got fired?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/26/hooksteads-hot-take-why-the-hell-hasnt-espn-fired-britt-mchenry/

[Pakuni]

Thanks Sherlock

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54230.msg926149#msg926149

Sorey.

[muguru]

She is finally gone!
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrittMcHenry/status/857602447409201155?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

  This one sucks...super HOT, may be a b*itch, but hotness supersedes everything else to me. You can fix B*itchy anyway..

[muguru]

I still don't understand the "cord cutters". I can fathom life without my #1 entertainment...TV. Sure, there's lot of channels I don't want/need with Directv, but I can't imagine EVER watching TV or live sports on a screen so small...like a laptop/Ipad just to save some money. It's like people that ONLY use the internet on their phones, and don't have a laptop or anything else at home...just way too small and inconvenient for me.