HBO considering offering HBO GO w/o cable

[keefe]

I've been involved in drug discovery also, and can tell you that Big Pharma can improve on efficiency significantly.  I realize drug trials are quite expensive and there is a lot of risk.  I know whole companies that folded, because a rat dies after taking a drug, but that doesn't mean they are being run in the best manner possible.

I'll also say that big pharma is probably the shadiest industry out there.

Also, on the patent side there are a lot of avenues to extend their patent rights. For example, extended release formats, that provide no additional efficacy, but can allow them to obtain/extend the patent.  If the company holding the patent sues the provider of a generic, there is an automatic hold of 30 months before a generic can be offered. 

As will all things involving the government, the excessive degree of regulatory oversight on human subject clinical trials inhibits efficiencies that might otherwise be obtained. Having said which the principle aims of our joint venture was:

- expand trustworthy investigation into jurisdictions that had theretofore not been credible sources for validated study
- expand the statistical sample of human subjects for clinical investigation
- increase the statistical data base of de-identified patient data for clinical analysis
- enable greater accuracy and efficiency through technological innovation

We implemented the first EDC trials in Asia (and the first paperless Phase III anywhere) that improved accuracy and accelerated data lock by 70%. This was almost 20 years ago but at the time was revolutionary. At that time the only EDC was done for Phase IV which has far less regulatory oversight. One of the yields from this project was the platform that is now Oracle Clinical. I can assure you that GE made some money on this venture.

As for efficiency in Clinical Trials I would always default to the overwhelming need for safety and security. Any investigations involving human subjects must position safety as the paramount consideration. Anything less is criminal.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Your agreement to eventually agree with the rest of us who support free commerce is accepted.

My guess is the time horizons you envision are much different than mine. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I wonder if you went to DaVinci's house and wanted to buy a painting if he would only sell it to you if you would also buy some crap nobody else wanted. Or if a drug company would only sell you an arthritis drug you found effective if you also bought some junk from their warehouse that didn't work. Or if a movie studio would only let you pay to see Iron Man if you also bought a ticket to Gigli. Create enough hits to cover your misses (or one big enough hit) and you're in business. Don't and you fail. Isn't that the American way?

Like I said, we would sell the channels a la carte in a second, but we can't.  But don't pretend that the drug company isn't selling that drug for X times what it costs to produce or even cover the R&D because they are also monetizing it against the failed drugs they tried to generate.  This is very similar to what the media companies will do.  I told you, ESPN could go down this path and you would pay $20 a month just for ESPN...if that's the way you want to go, then have at it.  Canada is trying it and it's imploding because people now realize what it actually means.  To each their own.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Friedman was a big Sox fan so I believe he would be in favor of competitive balance in professional sports. Baseball's anti-trust exemption exists for the reason that the internal management of MLB or the NFL is to maintain some semblance of competitive balance. The mistake you make is in confusing competitive balance with competitiveness. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL are collectives with 30-32 independent business units. Profit sharing and access to labor are mechanisms used to control competitive balance between the constituent members of the collective.

But MLB or the NFL must be competitive within the entertainment vertical for it is there that they slug it out with Hollywood, the symphony, the local poetry reading, a trip to Disneyland, or having a beer in your backyard. Consumers vote with their wallets and baseball competes with Sea World for a family's discretionary entertainment spend. They may purchase tickets to see the Padres but that is a sub-brand to MLB.

I agree with some of this, but not entirely.  There have been teams that have purposely lived off the shared revenues and not tried to be competitive because it was more profitable for them to do that.  Basically put out a team with limited stars, rookies, journeymen and collect the fat revenue sharing checks.  Plenty of examples out there.  Also factor in that the value of these teams have absolutely exploded so even if they are "losing" money in a given year, when they go to sell the team they are making out very well. 

I also don't think you are correct with some sports.  NFL teams don't have to be competitive and fans still buy the tickets.  There are only 8 games at home and even the worst of the worst teams sell out or come within 5% of sellouts for all of their games.  In some markets, this is all they have.  It's certainly tougher for a team in California to do this, but if you're in Buffalo, Green Bay, Minneapolis, etc, there aren't a whole of other things going on that are going to eat into your selling opportunities. 

So humor me a bit, you do agree (I think) based on your response that some industries are better served with a non-free market  (or fully free market) model...correct?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are acknowledging that even Friedman would be in favor of competitive balance for which the lever that is most often used has been revenue sharing and a salary cap, hardly the principles of a free market.

[keefe]

I agree with some of this, but not entirely.  There have been teams that have purposely lived off the shared revenues and not tried to be competitive because it was more profitable for them to do that.  Basically put out a team with limited stars, rookies, journeymen and collect the fat revenue sharing checks.  Plenty of examples out there.  Also factor in that the value of these teams have absolutely exploded so even if they are "losing" money in a given year, when they go to sell the team they are making out very well. 

I also don't think you are correct with some sports.  NFL teams don't have to be competitive and fans still buy the tickets.  There are only 8 games at home and even the worst of the worst teams sell out or come within 5% of sellouts for all of their games.  In some markets, this is all they have.  It's certainly tougher for a team in California to do this, but if you're in Buffalo, Green Bay, Minneapolis, etc, there aren't a whole of other things going on that are going to eat into your selling opportunities. 

So humor me a bit, you do agree (I think) based on your response that some industries are better served with a non-free market  (or fully free market) model...correct?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are acknowledging that even Friedman would be in favor of competitive balance for which the lever that is most often used has been revenue sharing and a salary cap, hardly the principles of a free market.

I would say that there are certain industries that should have regulatory oversight for the sake of safety and health. One only need read Upton Sinclair or Charles Dickens to fathom the horrors of industrialization. I was speaking just yesterday with another Scoop member about abuses that take place today in manufacturing in south China. My view is that no Christmas ornament is worth the health of the young women producing them in toxic fumes and dangerous machinery without adequate safety controls in place.

I would say that commercial aviation is an example of an industry that requires oversight, again for safety reasons. It was absolutely controlled in the past but has been quasi-deregulated over the past 30 years. What has transpired is inefficient carriers have struggled and disappeared, only to be replaced by leaner, keener competitors. There has been significant consolidation but for every Braniff there has been a Southwest or Virgin to raise the efficiency bar. Entrepreneurs like Kelleher and Branson have revolutionized the industry, forcing others to adapt or die.

Prior to 1980 it was impossible for a Southwest or Virgin to enter the market as routes and gates were controlled by the government. Fares ran 500% greater in NPV terms simply because there was no competition. And as Open Skies theory gained traction in international routes more innovative carriers as Singapore shoved the entrenched players, BOAC, Pan Am, and TWA, into bankruptcy.

Singapore revolutionized the industry by changing a carrier's corporate paradigm. SQ was the first carrier to not see itself as a transportation company that flew aircraft. Rather, it identified itself as a service company that happened to fly aircraft. The traditional model for service was that an airline could only concern itself with the time a passenger was in a seat. SQ opened up the aperture to make the UX better from the moment a passenger contemplated taking an international trip until he walked back through his front door. Every potential UX was identified, measured, calibrated and analyzed. SQ introduced Kaizen protocols to ensure the very best possible UX.

Product innovation and service excellence were the guiding principles of SQ operational practice. Singapore pioneered a number of industry firsts, all designed to improve the UX:

- free headphones in all compartments
- free alcohol in all classes
- meal choices in all compartments
- in-flight phone service
- personal entertainment systems
- city check baggage service

In the domestic industry Herb Kelleher emphasized financial management at Southwest to a degree not seen before in the industry. He standardized his fleet to make maintenance more efficient; carrying costs for spares were 15% of that at UAL and NWA which operated multi-platform fleets. He obtained gates at older, less expensive in-town fields that were actually more convenient for most business travelers. And he was the first airline to play futures. When fuel prices sky rocketed only SWA had controlled its single biggest variable expense through the use of futures. And for 4 years only SWA made money. I won't get into his labor practices as that might be controversial but Management-Labor relations at SWA are the best in the domestic industry.

Compare all of this with the industry prior to deregulation. Innovators like SWA and Virgin could not have entered the marketplace. Stodgy players like Pan Am, TWA, Braniff, Eastern, BOAC, Sabena, etc... ruled the skies but flitted in and out of bankruptcy protection. Aviation is still regulated to a degree but the inefficient are no longer protected. Should every country have a national airline? Only if they can operate efficiently in a de-regulated marketplace. Belgium and Singapore are comparable in that there is no domestic market per se so all flights are international. But SQ is run brilliantly while Sabena was just another government bureaucracy. Sabena died because the already overburdened Belgian taxpayers had enough of subsidizing incompetence. SQ gets no subsidy from the Singapore government but then it has demonstrated it does not need it.

Regulatory oversight still exists but it is really to sort out safety issues and other problems associated with international travel. I cannot comment on entertainment as I have no experience in it other than as a consumer. But I know that cable companies get away with murder because the genesis of that industry was through governmental midwives. They offer horrible product and abysmal customer service because they can. I have always had DirecTV because cable is a nightmare. But DTV is far from being responsive; they are just better than the cables in terms of service and had better sports packages than your sole competitor, Dish. I will always argue against monopolies and government regulation whenever possible. I believe that serves me well with the Cato Institute, Milton Friedman, and St. Ronald Reagan.

[keefe]

Also factor in that the value of these teams have absolutely exploded so even if they are "losing" money in a given year, when they go to sell the team they are making out very well. 

This reminds me of a line from one of my favorite artists. Roger Waters wrote, "Think I'll buy me a football team..."

Sports franchises, like art work, have artificial value and cannot be correlated with the broader marketplace. These are vanity assets that gain equity uptick through incoherent factors not found elsewhere. While there is some relationship with the financial performance these are by and large valued in ways that lack conventional measurement.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Keefe

I don't disagree with what you said there, especially with the aviation industry.  In our industry, I believe we've made television 100X better and actually got cable to get their crap together because at the time they were a monopoly.  Our technological leaps have forced them to get better. Service is always a challenge with products that have many variables (user error, electricity, weather, infrastructure, computer chips, etc)....no question about it.

Some interesting times ahead.  We'll see if we get Hulu as it has been widely reported that we are bidding along with some others.  Technology keeps changing, still at the end of the day it's the content that drives the pricing.  We spent over $10 billion on programming fees alone last year...that's more than the GDP of about 65 nations...just on programming fees.  Interesting times ahead, indeed.

[keefe]

Keefe

I don't disagree with what you said there, especially with the aviation industry.  In our industry, I believe we've made television 100X better and actually got cable to get their crap together because at the time they were a monopoly.  Our technological leaps have forced them to get better. Service is always a challenge with products that have many variables (user error, electricity, weather, infrastructure, computer chips, etc)....no question about it.

Some interesting times ahead.  We'll see if we get Hulu as it has been widely reported that we are bidding along with some others.  Technology keeps changing, still at the end of the day it's the content that drives the pricing.  We spent over $10 billion on programming fees alone last year...that's more than the GDP of about 65 nations...just on programming fees.  Interesting times ahead, indeed.

I agree that the satellite players forced the cables to become more responsive. Perfect example of why government sanctioned monopolies are horrible for efficiency, customer service, and overall competitiveness.

I was not aware you guys were sniffing at Hulu but it certainly makes sense. I would not see that as a content play, however. It's more about delivery and access. You guys are a distribution company and the more portals you control the more compelling your USP.

The real winners of tech innovation are the consumers. I remember as a kid when the old Magnavox crapped out. My dad would open up the back panel and pull a bunch of tubes. We would head over to the hardware store where he used the "Bulb tester" to deconflict the problem. The UX of today is markedly different than just 5 years ago. I really do believe the sats are so much better positioned for the long term than the land line players. Delivery is fundamentally driven by transmission media. Exciting times.

[ChicosBailBonds]

We bid a year ago but ultimately the auction went south for everyone.  Now it's back on the table.

http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/05/directv-time-warner-place-bids-to-buy-hulu

[keefe]

We bid a year ago but ultimately the auction went south for everyone.  Now it's back on the table.

http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/05/directv-time-warner-place-bids-to-buy-hulu

[Lennys Tap]

I told you, ESPN could go down this path and you would pay $20 a month just for ESPN...if that's the way you want to go, then have at it.  Canada is trying it and it's imploding because people now realize what it actually means.  To each their own.

If I want ESPN enough to pay $20 a month for ESPN that's up to me, but it's certainly not fair to force everyone to pay $5 (or whatever) if they don't. Maybe it will (eventually) mean that revenues shrink throughout the business of sport to meet real demand rather than an artificial one. Or maybe there's truly enough demand to support further increases. Why not stop the corporate welfare and find out?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

This is somewhat interesting.  The May 2013 issue of Connecticut Magazine has a short interview with ESPN President John Skipper.  The reporter brings ups some MUScoop discussed topics.

http://www.connecticutmag.com/Connecticut-Magazine/May-2013/Final-Say-John-Skipper/


Final Say: John Skipper

by Ray Bendici

John Skipper, 57, is the president of ESPN and co-chairman of Disney Media Networks. Previously, he was ESPN’s executive vice president of content, and has also served as general manager of ESPN The Magazine. He lives in Wilton.

What are the plans for ESPN 8, The Ocho?
 The Ocho? [laughs] I don’t think we’re going to actually name anything The Ocho, but I think we’ll have ocho. We have ESPN 1, 2, 3, ESPN News, Deportes, Classic, ESPNU and The Longhorn Network, so we already have eight networks already. We’re not going to use The Ocho twice—I’m not going to give Ben Stiller the satisfaction.
 
Is it possible for sports to become even more popular?
Will it become more popular? Sports is pretty central to the culture. What I do believe is that there’s still demand for more sports because there are still people who have games they care about that aren’t produced and available widely. So yeah, I think sports will remain ascendant. The other issue you’ve got, of course, is that sports are live and in this current media environment, the only thing you have to watch live other than news—although this is scheduled, meaning we know when the Rose Bowl is and it’s unique, so you can’t knock it off, and it’s live, so you can’t DVR it. This all that portends for growth. Ninety-nine percent of all ESPN is watched live, and that’s a big advantage, say if you want to advertise a movie on Thursday because it’s opening on Friday, and you want to make sure that everybody is watching right then and not the next Wednesday on their DVR.  
 
Are sports over-exposed?  
No, I don’t think so. Fans want as much choice as possible. But it’s a choice—if you don’t want to watch it, you don’t have to watch it. It’s not going to get overexposed. My son went to Davidson College in North Carolina, and the Southern Conference tournament was this weekend and he was able to watch all of it on ESPN3, so he doesn’t think of that as being overexposed. He just thinks of that as being available.
 
It seems that for sports like the NFL and MLB, the coverage is now year-round. How does the ESPN 24/7 news cycle play into that?  
 You could argue that ESPN was quite influential in that. Long before I got here, ESPN began to make—out of necessity—events out of the off season. The NFL draft, training camps . . . now we do it with college-recruiting sign-up days, we do it with Major League Baseball winter meetings, we do it with the NBA Summer League, so if you’re a fan, you’re a fan year-round. Even when there are not games, you’re a fan because your team is trading for players or signing free agents. So almost all sports are year-round now. You don’t see the seasonal swings you used to see.
 
FOX just announced its own sports network and—
You’re kidding! [laughs] I need to get some information on this!
 
Right? And NBC is increasing its sports coverage, so is there enough content for everyone?  
 Well . . . it’s an excellent question because the answer is “Yes,” and “No.” There is literally enough content, right? What there is a scarcity of is high-profile big events. There’s a lot of content, right? There’s at least 300 American universities that play college football and basketball—there’s more than that, 500 or 600—there’s wrestling teams, there’s high-school track teams . . . but when you get to the things that aggregate an audience of a million-plus people, there’s not that much. There’s Major League Baseball, NBA, SEC football, Wimbledon, etc. So the issue for these new networks is that there’s plenty of content to put on, but is there big-event content that can actually aggregate you an audience? Because you need those big events to have your studio programming get a big audience because it’s all about lead-ins. Very little studio programming is appointment viewing. Mostly you tune in to see the game and you stay around afterward to watch “SportsCenter.” You tune in early to see “College Game Day” because you’re going to be watching the game afterward.
 
NBC Sports has been infringing on your turf by setting up in Stamford—do you feel like the home team?  
 Oh yeah. I wouldn’t use the word “infringe.” I mean, NBC has moved into the 24/7 cable business, they have a radio-syndication business, they’ve been more aggressive with their digital business, so I’d certainly suggest that they’re looking to compete with us. The question of whether they’ve infringed on us or not is not clear. I think so far we’ve been holding our own.
 
ESPN is one of Gov. Malloy’s “First Five” participants and has demonstrated a big commitment to the state—other than the tax breaks, why here?    
Well you know, it’s legacy and it’s competitive advantage and it’s culture, right? This is where it started back in 1979. At various times in the company’s history, there were decision points where the company decided to stay here rather than go somewhere else, which turned out to be an enormous advantage. None of those decision points have been recently, by the way—they were early in the company’s history. We’re here, we’re going to be here and we think it’s an enormous competitive advantage because we’ve created a Bristol culture. It’s a culture of work ethic, a sense of not being in the mainstream in New York City, the media capital of the world—we’re up here in Bristol and there’s sort of a hometown advantage to being here. People feel real pride at being from Southington and Cheshire and Plainville and Bristol and Waterbury and Southbury and Southtown—wait, I don’t think there’s actually a Southtown. [laughs] So we think it’s great, we have no intention of going anywhere. We like being in this particular part of the state as well. You mentioned NBC; they decided to go to Stamford—that works for them because they’re really a New York City company. We’re a Bristol company. We’re proud of being from here.
 
More plans for expansion?  
 Our business is good. Right now we’re building a new digital center, too, which is 193,000 square feet of space. We’ve never had a moment on this campus, I’m told, where there wasn’t building and growth. As president of this company, it’s my intention to continue to be a growth company.
 
Biggest challenge for the worldwide leader in sports?  
 You know, it’s hard to say that there’s a big challenge; there are several big challenges. Maintaining the culture of the company. Maintaining the quality of the people who work here is very, very important. We have a very successful business model, which has as one of its important elements the pay-television business, so the continuation of that business is an important issue for us. Competition is important, you mentioned that. You heard me talk about how important big-event live rights are, and that is an issue for us, maintaining that live rights portfolio. Making sure we get into new platforms—digital, mobile apps. If you have to sum it up into one thing, we just have to keep our edge—we have to be not complacent. As long as we concentrate on what we’re doing—we have an established business, we have a long head start, we have the best brand in sports. We just need to keep doing what we’re doing and not get complacent.
 
Biggest challenge for the leader of the worldwide leader in sports?
 The biggest challenge is managing my time, prioritizing, figure out where best to use my time because the range of things I can get involved in from rights deals to innovations owned to studio programming to relationships with major partners, distribution deals to being out at the Walt Disney Company to participate there . . . . It’s also staying in touch with as many people as possible. This is a very people-oriented culture, so I make a point to get down to the cafeteria and walk around, see people and shake hands. It’s one person with a plethora of things to do, so it’s figuring out how to spend my time, that’s the hardest challenge.
 
What’s one aspect of your job that no one knows?  
 I don’t know that people know really how much fun this is. I mean, it’s got stress and challenges and demands but it’s got to be one of the best ten jobs in the world, right? You’re working for ESPN, people love sports and it’s fun. I should say one of my biggest challenges is convincing my family that I’m working when I’m at sporting events! They just think I’m having fun.
 
Do you get to watch a lot of live sporting events?
 I do get to a lot of sporting events. Over the course of the last 10 to 15 years, I’ve had the great fortune to be at most of the major sporting events in the world. I try not to tell people on airplanes stuff I’ve done because I’m concerned they’ll throw me out.
 
Favorite venue?
 You know I’m a big fan of the North Carolina Tarheels, so my favorite sporting venue was the old Carmichael Auditorium where North Carolina used to play basketball in, which was fabulous and fun. So I’ll stick to that, but you know, I love The Garden and going to see the Knicks play. College football stadiums are just fabulous. I mean you go to The Big House in Michigan, you go down to Blacksburg and see Virgina Tech play, you go to the Rose Bowl and sit there and watch the Rose Bowl, you go to Austin, Texas . . . I love college football stadiums. I also happen to love the English Premier League, so I’m fond of White Hart Lane.
 
You’re a big soccer fan—why has it struggled to gain the popularity of the other big sports in the U.S.?
 Well, it’s a crowded landscape, right? And it’s a legacy. There have been big shifts—there was a time when this was not a professional sports team country, when it was about boxing, horse racing, it was about college football at one point, but now it’s about the NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, big-time golf and tennis. Soccer’s coming, though. It’s just got to find its place in this very crowded landscape. We’re the only country in the world to have this wide variety of popular sports. Most countries, it’s just a couple of things. In the U.S., we have lots and lots of sports variety, and soccer is wedging its way in and becoming more important, and I think that trend will continue.  
 
What other sports do you enjoy/play?
 The thing that I enjoyed playing the most in my life was basketball, and I’m too feeble now to play. But that’s what I enjoyed playing in my life. Back to your earlier question: I have the great pleasure of being at the Super Bowl, I’ll be at the NCAA Women’s Final Four, I was at the World Series last year, I get to the U.S. Open tennis in New York, I get to The Masters—I always loved basketball, so I like it all. I love all my children!
 
Speaking of children, Given your ESPN and Disney background, your sons must’ve gotten used to access to things that most kids don’t experience—at any point, did they realize, “Hey, not everyone lives like this?”
Oh, yeah! I have 27- and 23-year-old boys, and they understand how lucky they are. [laughs] They can never become estranged from their father because my tickets are too good and they might actually have to figure out how to use StubHub!
 
Is it challenging to raise kids with such access?
 We’ve been having a lighthearted conversation, but it’s one of the things I’m most proud of in my life—my wife Jessica probably had more to do with it than me. The challenge is keeping your kids grounded when they have so many opportunities and privilege. There’s nothing wrong with being privileged; what you can’t have it leading to is being spoiled or taking it for granted, and my kids do not. They never get anything that they don’t thank me for or anyone else who helped them to get the access. I’m very proud, obviously.
 
Sports Illustrated recently named you the "4th Most Powerful Person in Sports"—how much of that is you and how much of that is ESPN?  
 I’d say it’s about 99.99 percent ESPN and .01 percent Skipper. I mean, anybody in this job is going to be on the list. I’m in a different job, I’m not on the list.
 
Where you rank on that list is due to you—you could be 10 or 20.  
 ESPN has more to do with that. I am proud of working hard and making the contribution, and I’m proud of having the privilege of getting this job, so that’s an accomplishment, but the job carries with it the responsibility and the influence. I walk out of this job and my influence in the sporting business is pretty small.
 
How was it moving from Disney family-centric content to ESPN’s sports-centric atmosphere?
 It was actually remarkably easy. I don’t know if it’s so much as “family” to “sports” as it’s about the culture and ethos of the companies. If you listen to Bob Iger [CEO of The Walt Disney Company], he’ll say it’s about creativity, it’s about integrity, it’s about innovation, it’s about growth, it’s about collaboration, so the Walt Disney Company and the ESPN division are very consistent. You don’t get the bends going from one culture to the other because there’s not much difference in the oxygen.
 
You started back in print—how was the transition from print to multimedia?  
 I was very fortunate. As you know, I love magazines—you work for a magazine. It was a very outstanding transition because there’s just more growth and vitality in other segments. Again, I have great affection and respect for magazines, so I don’t mean to be flippant talking to a magazine writer, you understand. But the transition wasn’t that hard. The fundamental things apply, right? I feel like I’m in Casablanca: “The fundamental things apply, as time goes by . . .” [laughs] If you’re creative in one medium, you can be creative in another medium. The main thing is understanding what the attributes of the medium are. In print, it’s about paper and ink and photography and design and ease of navigation because I can turn to page 73 quicker than I can figure out where page 73 is ESPN.com. But to me, it didn’t seem like a difficult transition.
 
Do you think print is dying? Or dead?  
 Dying? No. But is it challenged? Yeah. By the way, people love magazines, they love print. It’s the business—it’s just not where advertisers are putting their money. People haven’t quit reading magazines. We have 15 million people every two weeks reading ESPN Magazine, and they love it and they like it. But selling the ads into it is a challenge right now.
 
Given your magazine background [Rolling Stone and SPIN], What’s your favorite type of music?
 Reggae. I have one of the largest reggae collections in Connecticut—sometime you can come out and do a photo spread on my reggae collection. I have thousands of reggae CDs. I don’t know what I’m doing with CDs, but . . . . I’m thinking in Fairfield County, I don’t have a lot of competition for reggae collections.
 
Favorite reggae artist?
 Bob Marley.
 
Favorite musical athlete?
 Musical athlete? No, I can’t think of a single, great musical athlete. Well, Bernie Williams is a real musician, but he ain’t no Bob Marley. I’m not struggling to figure out if I’m putting on some Bernie or Bob. [laughs]
 
Favorite SportsCenter commercial?
 Yeah, I do actually have a favorite one. I’ve got to admit though, this is an old one, but it’s a funny one. I have never seen or said out loud, “Charley, come out and get your whuppin’!” without laughing. It’s the old Evander Holyfield and Charley Steiner commercial where Evander is walking through the office going, “Charley, come get your whuppin’!” and Charley is hiding under the desk. I laugh every time I see that.

MTV—no more music it seems. Other cable networks also seem to change their original mission trying to reach more audiences. does ESPN have that concern?
 No. In fact, I think if anything, we have focused in the last few years on core stick-and-ball sports, sports, sports. There was a time when we veered a little bit toward ESPN Hollywood movies, but we think sports is ascendant in this culture and we’re going to ride that. Though I must confess, as a kid—ESPN, MTV and CNN all kind of started together in 1979, and were really the core of how the cable-television business got started because people wanted their MTV, they thought, “Wow, 24/7 news, 24/7 sports? This is fabulous!” and I think the issue for MTV is that they had kind of had a thing that happened: Music videos—free content, by the way, that was promotional in nature—and it was great. I remember watching Martha Quinn and Alan Hunter and those guys, but 24/7 news and 24/7 sports are still very excellent concepts.
 
Can we expect more fictional content?
 Right now, no. It is not our intention to re-enter that.
 
ESPN is 34 this year—where do you see it in 34 years?
 I see it from a very long distance away because I’m pretty sure I don’t have 34 years left! [laughs] I see it from the beach. I see myself in a hammock watching television! [laughs] This is a very sustain't I dimble business over a long period of time. There’s nobody foolish enough to predict what the world is going to look like in 34 years—what would that be, 2047? But if you had to make bets, you’re betting on the sustain't I dimbility of sports video—and I didn’t deliberately say television because it’s just video, right?—I’d make that bet. I can’t think of anything that’s a better bet, not even oil and gas because they’ll run out at some point. Sports will never run out.
 
This article appeared in the May 2013 issue of Connecticut Magazine

Did you like what you read here? Subscribe to Connecticut Magazine »
Final Say: John Skipper

[keefe]

This is somewhat interesting.  The May 2013 issue of Connecticut Magazine has a short interview with ESPN President John Skipper.  The reporter brings ups some MUScoop discussed topics.

NBC Sports has been infringing on your turf by setting up in Stamford—do you feel like the home team?  
 Oh yeah. I wouldn’t use the word “infringe.” I mean, NBC has moved into the 24/7 cable business, they have a radio-syndication business, they’ve been more aggressive with their digital business, so I’d certainly suggest that they’re looking to compete with us. The question of whether they’ve infringed on us or not is not clear. I think so far we’ve been holding our own.
 

I actually have some insight on the NBC Sports move to Stamford. It is related to GE ownership of the network and capturing synergies with GE Cap holdings in Stamford. That decision was made well before Comcast entered the picture.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I actually have some insight on the NBC Sports move to Stamford. It is related to GE ownership of the network and capturing synergies with GE Cap holdings in Stamford. That decision was made well before Comcast entered the picture.

That is interesting.  I know GE Capital has a huge campus on Long Ridge Road.  Strangely, NBC Sports is located in a renovated building that used to be old Clairol shampoo factory.

[keefe]

That is interesting.  I know GE Capital has a huge campus on Long Ridge Road.  Strangely, NBC Sports is located in a renovated building that used to be old Clairol shampoo factory.

I believe that property was better suited for production requirements. It is still part of Cap's portfolio. GE Cap is really an umbrella brand. I was on the GEFA side so we didn't do real estate but when we needed a new footprint in Tokyo the deal was managed by that unit of Cap. GE must be the single largest private employer in CT. I would dare say it has the highest tax base and payroll.

It is funny but when I was with PepsiCo it was the largest private employer in the world. The vast majority of the employees were employed at Pizza Huts, Taco Bells, KFCs, A&Ws, Long John Silvers, etc...around the world.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I believe that property was better suited for production requirements. It is still part of Cap's portfolio. GE Cap is really an umbrella brand. I was on the GEFA side so we didn't do real estate but when we needed a new footprint in Tokyo the deal was managed by that unit of Cap. GE must be the single largest private employer in CT. I would dare say it has the highest tax base and payroll.

It is funny but when I was with PepsiCo it was the largest private employer in the world. The vast majority of the employees were employed at Pizza Huts, Taco Bells, KFCs, A&Ws, Long John Silvers, etc...around the world.

GE is the largest corporation headquarted in Connecticut (in Fairfield) and a large employer.  The largest overall employer is actually United Technologies (UTC).  The largest employer is the UTC Sikorsky Division (helicopters), followed by the Foxwoods Casino, Yale University then UTCs Pratt & Whitney Division (jet engines) and at # 5 is The Hartford Insurance.  UTCs UTC Aerospace Systems Division falls in at #10.

[keefe]

GE is the largest corporation headquarted in Connecticut (in Fairfield) and a large employer.  The largest overall employer is actually United Technologies (UTC).  The largest employer is the UTC Sikorsky Division (helicopters), followed by the Foxwoods Casino, Yale University then UTCs Pratt & Whitney Division (jet engines) and at # 5 is The Hartford Insurance.  UTCs UTC Aerospace Systems Division falls in at #10.

I had forgotten about UTC being in CT. Of course they would be the largest in the state. I have flown three airframes using a mix of both PW and GE power plants. The 220E is just raw kick ass power while the TF 34 is brutally efficient. If I had to differentiate I would say GE power plants are far more reliable while PW's are something a Tennessee moonshiner would appreciate.

What is scary is that a casino is the second largest employer in the state. I can think of no less worthy or productive endeavor. Gambling does nothing from a wealth/value generation standpoint; it is really just moving sand between buckets. I am surprised there are more employed in CT at a casino than GE. GE has a lot of intellectual capital in that footprint.

 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

GE has like 6,500 employees in Connecticut among the HQ and all it's divisions so that's significant.  For what its worth, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the world.  The second largest casino resides 15 minutes away at the Mohegan Sun. 

[keefe]

GE has like 6,500 employees in Connecticut among the HQ and all it's divisions so that's significant.  For what its worth, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the world.  The second largest casino resides 15 minutes away at the Mohegan Sun.  

I have heard of the Mohegan Sun because ESPN broadcasts women's pool. the Black Widow seems to be a crowd favorite. Certainly looks like she knows how to handle a stick.







She wears a thong

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

That's the place.

[Benny B]

What is scary is that a casino is the second largest employer in the state. I can think of no less worthy or productive endeavor. Gambling does nothing from a wealth/value generation standpoint; it is really just moving sand between buckets. I am surprised there are more employed in CT at a casino than GE. GE has a lot of intellectual capital in that footprint.

It is perfectly acceptable to speak derogatorily about the expansion of gambling beyond the borders of land better suited for nuclear testing and alien autopsies because it was the same which facilitated and directly contributed to the demise of our beloved Warrior moniker.  There's absolutely no need to bring the logic and economic truths of sand and buckets to Scoop.

That said, the majority of people in this country are better suited to employment at a casino than the likes of GE (or even more so, UTC), and CT is no exception.  Perhaps we should be thankful that we don't live in an alternate world where affirmative action exists not for the benefit of race but strictly for those with inferior intelligence... the otherwise common blackjack dealer might have been the one working quality control on the the power plants for said airframes you've flown.  In which case, God only knows what we'd be talking about right now.

In short, I like casinos.

[keefe]

It is perfectly acceptable to speak derogatorily about the expansion of gambling beyond the borders of land better suited for nuclear testing and alien autopsies because it was the same which facilitated and directly contributed to the demise of our beloved Warrior moniker.  There's absolutely no need to bring the logic and economic truths of sand and buckets to Scoop.

That said, the majority of people in this country are better suited to employment at a casino than the likes of GE (or even more so, UTC), and CT is no exception.  Perhaps we should be thankful that we don't live in an alternate world where affirmative action exists not for the benefit of race but strictly for those with inferior intelligence... the otherwise common blackjack dealer might have been the one working quality control on the the power plants for said airframes you've flown.  In which case, God only knows what we'd be talking about right now.

In short, I like casinos.

I am not a gambler so Casinos have never held any appeal for this old Warthog driver. We used to go to Nellis AFB outside of LV for Red Flag exercises. They housed us off base in the big casino hotels which the Capts and Lts loved as The Strip was certainly a Target Rich Environment for a 26 year old fighter puke (they enjoyed playing a different form of slots...)

Anyhow, I hated having to walk all through the casino to get to the hotel elevators. The air was so thick with cigarette smoke that your eyes would burn and our nomex flight suits soaked up all that rich tobacco aroma so that we stunk like ashtrays. But man, the flying in a Red Flag was the most Sh1t Hot aviating this side of combat. God help me but I love it so.

[Benny B]

I am not a gambler so Casinos have never held any appeal for this old Warthog driver. We used to go to Nellis AFB outside of LV for Red Flag exercises. They housed us off base in the big casino hotels which the Capts and Lts loved as The Strip was certainly a Target Rich Environment for a 26 year old fighter puke (they enjoyed playing a different form of slots...)

Anyhow, I hated having to walk all through the casino to get to the hotel elevators. The air was so thick with cigarette smoke that your eyes would burn and our nomex flight suits soaked up all that rich tobacco aroma so that we stunk like ashtrays. But man, the flying in a Red Flag was the most Sh1t Hot aviating this side of combat. God help me but I love it so.

Man... you AF flyboys are way too classy and eloquent.  I can only imagine how flowery your anti-exposure suits must be.  

Someone tipped me off prior to my taking of the ASTB in the early 2000s that answering the questions as though you were a former juvenile delinquent - particularly affirmative responses to the ones about "do you ocassonally speed just for the thrill of it" and "does taking a risk excite you" - would actually yield a better OAR score.  I'm sure Vegas isn't a fan of it, but maybe there's logic in having Nellis right outside town but Fallon a few hours away.

[keefe]

Man... you AF flyboys are way too classy and eloquent.  I can only imagine how flowery your anti-exposure suits must be.  

Someone tipped me off prior to my taking of the ASTB in the early 2000s that answering the questions as though you were a former juvenile delinquent - particularly affirmative responses to the ones about "do you ocassonally speed just for the thrill of it" and "does taking a risk excite you" - would actually yield a better OAR score.  I'm sure Vegas isn't a fan of it, but maybe there's logic in having Nellis right outside town but Fallon a few hours away.

I hear you Navy guys usually use crayons for the ASTB so anyone using a pen gets extra credit... My favorite was the Psych battery test. The more psychotic you were the better airframe you got. An example of the obtuseness of the questions is, "I loved my mother."

I've logged time at Fallon. Warthogs fly aggressor strike missions out of there for Red Flag. I know a lot of the younger guys got their Mustang Ranch qual while at Fallon. I did a SAR run one night for some Captains who had a sudden attack of conscience.

[Benny B]

I hear you Navy guys usually use crayons for the ASTB so anyone using a pen gets extra credit... My favorite was the Psych battery test. The more psychotic you were the better airframe you got. An example of the obtuseness of the questions is, "I loved my mother."

I've logged time at Fallon. Warthogs fly aggressor strike missions out of there for Red Flag. I know a lot of the younger guys got their Mustang Ranch qual while at Fallon. I did a SAR run one night for some Captains who had a sudden attack of conscience.

To be clear (and to not purport to be something I'm not), I only took the ASTB; I was booted during my pre-comm at Great Lakes...  evidently, my right eye wasn't quite as sharp as I thought it was (20/50).  Incidentally, I came to find out much later that the USAF would have welcomed me with open arms when my cousin - who was reserve USMC during college and has worse vision than I do - got accepted to OTS.  So instead of being a grunt in a Jump Jet, he's now a KC-135 bus driver, and I'm just damn good at giving him sh%# about it.  He's on deployment right now, so I appreciate you helping me keep my skills sharp.