MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Herman Cain on April 25, 2017, 05:16:37 PM
-
ESPN laying off a significant amount of talent. This could be positive for MU and the Big East . We are in alignment with Fox Sports and they may be able to pick up some of this talent. Also good people not being cut may jump ship and talent further dispersed. The more viable competitors there are when The Big East contract comes up for renewal the better.
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-layoffs-espn2-mike-greenberg-mike-golic-sportscenter-am-katie-nolan-charissa-thompson-fs1-jamie-horowitz-john-skipper/1qyp55nrppaub1omvedncxtmfg
-
Oh no, now who will send me notifications that Shaq's nephews brother in laws son started his JV high school game?
-
Oh no, now who will send me notifications that Shaq's nephews brother in laws son started his JV high school game?
The guy who started this thread
-
ESPN laying off a significant amount of talent. This could be positive for MU and the Big East . We are in alignment with Fox Sports and they may be able to pick up some of this talent. Also good people not being cut may jump ship and talent further dispersed. The more viable competitors there are when The Big East contract comes up for renewal the better.
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-layoffs-espn2-mike-greenberg-mike-golic-sportscenter-am-katie-nolan-charissa-thompson-fs1-jamie-horowitz-john-skipper/1qyp55nrppaub1omvedncxtmfg
eh...fox has some issues as well.
-
The guy who started this thread
I chuckled
-
Get rid of the dreadful SC6 debacle and that will be a good start.
-
I hope this doesn't affect The Ocho.
-
Benny could replace Myron. Although, I don't know if that's a cost saving for ESPN.
-
I remember the good ol' days when SportsCenter was just two cool dudes narrating highlights and showing a few post-game stats while I had my morning cereal. Now I eat my entire breakfast and they never get back from commercial. When it's actually on, there are like 40 people making jokes and discussing drama rather than any of the actual games that were played. I'd cut the on-air bodies, and spare the few that actually have talent.
-
I remember the good ol' days when SportsCenter was just two cool dudes narrating highlights and showing a few post-game stats while I had my morning cereal. Now I eat my entire breakfast and they never get back from commercial. When it's actually on, there are like 40 people making jokes and discussing drama rather than any of the actual games that were played. I'd cut the on-air bodies, and spare the few that actually have talent.
So true. Get back to the highlights and less drama. Unfortunately, a lot of casual fans are drawn to that garbage. Once baseball season starts, i just watch MLBN and don't even bother with ESPN.
-
I hope this doesn't affect The Ocho.
Unfortunately, Cotton McNight and Pepper Brooks were among the casualties.
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/dodgeball2.gif?w=650)
-
Unfortunately, Cotton McNight and Pepper Brooks were among the casualties.
(https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/dodgeball2.gif?w=650)
Crap. They always get of the best ones first....
Cotton McKnight: I'm being told that Average Joe's does not have enough players and will be forfeiting the championship match.
Pepper Brooks: It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
-
Get rid of the dreadful SC6 debacle and that will be a good start.
Watched it once and was like watching a hip-hop show. Just terrible.
-
ESPN laying off a significant amount of talent. This could be positive for MU and the Big East . We are in alignment with Fox Sports and they may be able to pick up some of this talent. Also good people not being cut may jump ship and talent further dispersed. The more viable competitors there are when The Big East contract comes up for renewal the better.
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-layoffs-espn2-mike-greenberg-mike-golic-sportscenter-am-katie-nolan-charissa-thompson-fs1-jamie-horowitz-john-skipper/1qyp55nrppaub1omvedncxtmfg
eh...fox has some issues as well.
Exactly right ... all sports network are bleeding from the rectum. The format is dead.
This is bad news for college sports including the Big East because when the current contracts expire the athletic departments at these schools will be next to bleed from the rectum when they see the cut in their broadcasting rights will be.
-
Exactly right ... all sports network are bleeding from the rectum. The format is dead.
This is bad news for college sports including the Big East because when the current contracts expire the athletic departments at these schools will be next to bleed from the rectum when they see the cut in their broadcasting rights will be.
The format is not dead. ESPN is still an extremely valuable enterprise. They just overpaid for certain properties.
-
The format is not dead. ESPN is still an extremely valuable enterprise. They just overpaid for certain properties.
That is the definition of a dead format, one that cannot support its cost structure.
-
That is the definition of a dead format, one that cannot support its cost structure.
If you define "the format" as every game, everywhere being on TV, you're right - it's dead. If you define it more broadly as sporting events being on TV, it isn't. They'll buy fewer games for less money and the "sellers" will have to adjust (lower coaching salaries, etc)...but TV sports is here to stay.
-
ESPN laying off a significant amount of talent. This could be positive for MU and the Big East . We are in alignment with Fox Sports and they may be able to pick up some of this talent. Also good people not being cut may jump ship and talent further dispersed. The more viable competitors there are when The Big East contract comes up for renewal the better.
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-layoffs-espn2-mike-greenberg-mike-golic-sportscenter-am-katie-nolan-charissa-thompson-fs1-jamie-horowitz-john-skipper/1qyp55nrppaub1omvedncxtmfg
If it results in FS1 bringing over an ESPNer who will replace Dickey, I'm all for it.
-
If you define "the format" as every game, everywhere being on TV, you're right - it's dead. If you define it more broadly as sporting events being on TV, it isn't. They'll buy fewer games for less money and the "sellers" will have to adjust (lower coaching salaries, etc)...but TV sports is here to stay.
Of course sports on TV is not going away. Although traditional TV might go away and be replaced with streaming, with an Apple TV type device to stream it on the big screen on your wall. This matters because endless streaming options mean the price collapses for the consumer but those that work in "TV" will be in a world of hurt ... like the personalities at ESPN are finding out today.
The "big money" in sports is going away and that is going to be a problem for the sports leagues and big conferences (Power 5) that are structured under the assumption that the seemingly infinite money they have been getting will never stop.
I've said this before ... the peak in sports TV was the moment the Big East broke up. Pitt and Cuse bolting for the ACC for the money grab was the high. The problem for Pitt and Cuse, and the rest of the power 5 is the are spending billions of facilities under the assumption TV money will coming flowing in forever and ever to pay for it. That is ending and in a few years they too will be in a world of hurt.
Milwaukee is going to choke on its new stadium.
-
Exactly right ... all sports network are bleeding from the rectum. The format is dead.
This is bad news for college sports including the Big East because when the current contracts expire the athletic departments at these schools will be next to bleed from the rectum when they see the cut in their broadcasting rights will be.
I will put money on P6 conferences getting more money in their next contract than the contracts they are currently under.
-
Of course sports on TV is not going away. Although traditional TV might go away and be replaced with streaming, with an Apple TV type device to stream it on the big screen on your wall. This matters because endless streaming options mean the price collapses for the consumer but those that work in "TV" will be in a world of hurt ... like the personalities at ESPN are finding out today.
The "big money" in sports is going away and that is going to be a problem for the sports leagues and big conferences (Power 5) that are structured under the assumption that the seemingly infinite money they have been getting will never stop.
I've said this before ... the peak in sports TV was the moment the Big East broke up. Pitt and Cuse bolting for the ACC for the money grab was the high. The problem for Pitt and Cuse, and the rest of the power 5 is the are spending billions of facilities under the assumption TV money will coming flowing in forever and ever to pay for it. That is ending and in a few years they too will be in a world of hurt.
Milwaukee is going to choke on its new stadium.
So much laughable about this.
-
I will put money on P6 conferences getting more money in their next contract than the contracts they are currently under.
And who is going to give them this money? ESPN ... the network that has lost 12 million subscribers and its cutting personalities today? You think twitter and/or facebook are stepping up with the money?
-
So much laughable about this.
Where is your whining that this should be in the superbar?
-
Superbar
-
Can we start a gofundme for ESPN to rehire Skip? So sick of seeing those commercials during MU or football games.
-
If it results in FS1 bringing over an ESPNer who will replace Dickey, I'm all for it.
Just as long as FS1 doesn't replace Dickey with Dookie V.
-
ND sucks
-
I'd be interested in a list of all the stupid sh*t that will "help MU/help recruiting/help the Big East."
-
ESPN on-air talent reportedly offering to take pay cuts to keep jobs at network
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/espn-talent-reportedly-offering-pay-cuts-jobs-article-1.3098244
In March, Jim Miller, who wrote the 2011 book “Those Guys Have All the Fun: Inside the World of ESPN,” told the Sports Illustrated Media podcast that 40 to 50 employees could lose their jobs. This includes well-known TV personalities.
Miller believes that personalities like Mike Greenberg, “SportsCenter” anchors Neil Everett, Scott Van Pelt, Jemele Hill, Michael Smith and Stan Verrett are safe, along with “First Take’s” Stephen A. Smith.
-
ND sucks
Seriously man, get some help.
This is really unhealthy
-
As I see it, the issue isn't that the live sports aren't drawing enough eyeballs, but the "personality based" programming such as SportsCenter and the various debate shows aren't. The live sports are the most valuable asset that ESPN has.
So will they pay as much? We will see. But it will be their predominant programming well into the future.
-
I'd be interested in a list of all the stupid sh*t that will "help MU/help recruiting/help the Big East."
There is none. No recruit is coming to Marquette because Fox Sports might pick up some dropped ESPN personality.
-
... Get back to the highlights and less drama. ...
0 chance of this. Want to see Brewers highlights? They're available on demand with no waiting through NASCAR. Ditto for every highlight for fans of every team. Everything you want with nothing you don't.
The highlights show as appointment tv is dead because streaming lets me cut right to the two minutes I care about and cut out the 58 I don't.
-
I wonder when Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming services start bidding on live sports. On air talent and production personnel would either freelance or be employed by the entity wanting their games broadcast, i.e. NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.
An $8 per month sports pack available a la carte, maybe a slight discount if bundled with nonsports streaming. The cost of internet plus streaming services would replace cable TV bills in the family budget. But there will be more choices and flexibility in the new model versus cables historically all or nothing model. Cable a la carte and streaming TV will be the competition of internet streaming companies like Netflix. It will be interesting to see how the paradigm shift plays out.
-
You're not going to see a lot of high priced talent leaving. What you're going to see is them trimming down their news infrastructure where they may have over-expanded. The days of every NFL team having multiple ESPN beat reporters is probably over.
And its hard to say that ESPN overpaid for rights, those rights are what drives their carriage fees. What they need to do now is balance their expenses. With 100 million subs they could afford to be bloated, with 80-85 million they have to be more responsible.
-
LOL, a good reporter like Ed Werder was just canned and the disastrous SC6, which symbolizes everything wrong with ESPN now, remains.
-
You're not going to see a lot of high priced talent leaving. What you're going to see is them trimming down their news infrastructure where they may have over-expanded. The days of every NFL team having multiple ESPN beat reporters is probably over.
And its hard to say that ESPN overpaid for rights, those rights are what drives their carriage fees. What they need to do now is balance their expenses. With 100 million subs they could afford to be bloated, with 80-85 million they have to be more responsible.
Highlighted is correct but ....
100 million subscribers was 2013 (when Pitt and Cuse bailed on the Big East for the ACC thinking the money in sports rights was infinite so they jumped to get it. Instead they marked the peak in the sports bubble)
85ish million subscribers today.
If subscribers fall to 70 to 75 million by 2022 (5 years), what will ESPN and broadcasting right look like? They will have lost a quarter of their 2013 revenue base. No reason to believe the loss of subscribers is about to stop ... unless ESPN drastically cuts its carriage fees, which also causes them severe costs problems.
They are in a vicious spiral ... either they need to dramatically cut fees or watch subscribers dramatically leave. Either way, they get squeezed badly and eventually squeeze sports broadcasting rights.
-
ND sucks
Seriously man, get some help.
This is really unhealthy
Well, maybe. But ND does suck!
I mean, that's science!!
-
Well, maybe. But ND does suck!
I mean, that's science!!
You don't hate science, do you?
-
LOL, a good reporter like Ed Werder was just canned and the disastrous SC6, which symbolizes everything wrong with ESPN now, remains.
LOL, ESPN knows who carries the ratings and who to cut.
-
A Running List of ESPN Layoffs:
http://deadspin.com/a-running-list-of-espn-layoffs-1794664091?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
-
A Running List of ESPN Layoffs:
http://deadspin.com/a-running-list-of-espn-layoffs-1794664091?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Dana O'Neil is a real shame -- great writer.
-
Seriously man, get some help.
This is really unhealthy
says the man who believes breitbart is not at all neo-nazi propaganda
i'm an ND football fan and i can confidently say ND does suck
-
Seriously man, get some help.
This is really unhealthy
This is one of the dumbest posts you've ever had Heisy. ND does suck.
-
Dana O'Neil is a real shame -- great writer.
I always thought she was fair to Marquette and also she projected an understated sex appeal with that photo in the white turtle neck.
-
Get rid of the dreadful SC6 debacle and that will be a good start.
I hope they keep it and die! ;D
-
Here's the thing with ESPN, no matter how in danger they may be they're still gonna get a ton of people who want to work there. Lay off the expensive talent and hire a bunch of newbies who will work for a lot less.
-
This link has Jeff Goodman
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/espn-to-lay-off-100-people-including-tv-reporters-source-says.html
-
This link has Jeff Goodman
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/espn-to-lay-off-100-people-including-tv-reporters-source-says.html
How's Buzz going to get out passive-aggressive messages to his employers now?
-
I hope Chick's friend isn't on the list.
-
Eammon Brennan on the chopping block.
That is too bad. He's pretty good. And did the Bubble Watch.
-
Whatever decisions they make, I really hope it doesn't deminish the role they've taken on as arbiters of our national conversation on important social issues. I think we can all agree that broadcast sports journalists are our national weathervane for such matters.
-
This link has Jeff Goodman
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/26/espn-to-lay-off-100-people-including-tv-reporters-source-says.html
Strange, as I don't see that tweet on his page (regarding Goodman).
-
ESPN top college football field guy, Brett McMurphy, gone. Wow!
-
Strange, as I don't see that tweet on his page (regarding Goodman).
Well, it is CNBC, so it has to be fake news.
-
Strange, as I don't see that tweet on his page (regarding Goodman).
When you click the link in the article it appears it was from a @GooodmanESPN so CNBC got tricked by a fake account.
-
When you click the link in the article it appears it was from a @GooodmanESPN so CNBC got tricked by a fake account.
THought that may be the case.
-
fake news :D
-
It's such a shame this has to happen to such a nice network.
-
I don't celebrate anyone losing their job, but I would be more ambivalent about it if it were the hot-take a$$holes who were going instead of decent reporters like Brennan and O'Neil and Werder.
As others have mentioned, sports television landscape is very different now than ten years ago. ESPN is not stupid and will keep whatever brings the eyeballs.
-
Dana O'Neil is a real shame -- great writer.
Looks like they're cutting the journalists, reporters, and content creators to go all in on the dumb. Sadly, it probably makes sense on the business side.
-
Looks like they're cutting the journalists, reporters, and content creators to go all in on the dumb. Sadly, it probably makes sense on the business side.
Yep. Sadly, there is a disconnect between what people say they want and what they actually watch. And by people I mean a large group, not individuals.
-
One wonders if ESPN looked at content aggregators and said "man they get lots of traffic with very low personnel costs. I want some of that!" And forgot that the content aggregators are by and large ripping off the reporters they just fired. It's like a prisoners dilemma of the plagiarized trying to emulate the plagiarist.
-
In December I paid for 3 news sources to get articles directly to my facebook feed daily (first time doing this). I did it to get a cross section of daily news and opinions and to put my money/support behind journalism. By in large very happy with this way to consume the news though I worry a bit on how facebook is sorting what I see.
I don't know that I would do the same for an exclusive sports journalism site/publication but I could see some of these writers going back into major newspapers again but covering more stories from a national angle (like ESPN).
-
Something tells me they're catering to a specific audience.....
-
In December I paid for 3 news sources to get articles directly to my facebook feed daily (first time doing this). I did it to get a cross section of daily news and opinions and to put my money/support behind journalism. By in large very happy with this way to consume the news though I worry a bit on how facebook is sorting what I see.
I don't know that I would do the same for an exclusive sports journalism site/publication but I could see some of these writers going back into major newspapers again but covering more stories from a national angle (like ESPN).
Start a few blog and make it on advertising.
-
It's weird. I don't know anyone that DVRs or watches first take on an everyday basis. Everyone complains about Stephen A, but people still watch the show? Still gets ratings, I guess.
-
Goodman still there.
https://twitter.com/GooodmanESPN/status/857242023392411649
Dana O'Neill and Eamonn Brennan were probably two of the better reporters they had.
I'm hoping for Myron to join the list.
-
Goodman still there.
https://twitter.com/GooodmanESPN/status/857242023392411649
Dana O'Neill and Eamonn Brennan were probably two of the better reporters they had.
I'm hoping for Myron to join the list.
That is Goodman's fake twitter. But i doubt he's going anywhere.
-
Jesse Temple gone as well. May be a Badger reporter but he's a good dude. Talked to me a bunch and gave me his contact info.
-
Jesse Temple gone as well. May be a Badger reporter but he's a good dude. Talked to me a bunch and gave me his contact info.
Maybe you should apply at ESPN. Seems like they have 0 employees now.
-
Len Elmore gone as well too bad. FS1 should make a run for him
-
Len Elmore gone as well too bad. FS1 should make a run for him
I think he already was doing work for them. Didn't he do a couple MU games this year?
-
Isn't Jen Lada on the ESPN payroll? Did she make it through the cuts?
-
Len Elmore gone as well too bad. FS1 should make a run for him
Can't tell if you're serious or not. Len Elmore is a terrible color guy. I'm not sure there's anyone worse (non Dick Vitale division).
-
Maybe you should apply at ESPN. Seems like they have 0 employees now.
You kid, but I went straight to their employment website.
-
Can't tell if you're serious or not. Len Elmore is a terrible color guy. I'm not sure there's anyone worse (non Dick Vitale division).
Fun fact. Len's wife was a co-worker of glow's when we lived out in Boston. That was back when he was attending Harvard Law with Marc Marotta.
-
As part of the fun, they are moving their ESPNU studio operation from Charlotte to Bristol and laying off several Charlotte employees.
-
I could see some of these writers going back into major newspapers again but covering more stories from a national angle (like ESPN).
Major newspapers are cutting staff, not hiring. And they certainly aren't hiring top-dollar "content providers."
ESPN "talent" will have trouble finding similar jobs, period. Most who do will take large pay cuts.
-
I wonder when Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming services start bidding on live sports. On air talent and production personnel would either freelance or be employed by the entity wanting their games broadcast, i.e. NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.
Amazon has a deal with the NFL for games next year.
-
Roger Cossack is out as ESPN legal analyst. Hey ESPN i'm available 8-)
-
Len Elmore gone as well too bad. FS1 should make a run for him
He did games for FS1 last year.
-
With nearly every ESPN name released today, you could think about 2-3 competitors that person had just within ESPN. Heck Roger Cossack had to battle it out with Adrienne Lawrence. Why do they need two legal analysts?
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
That's not your quote, I could have sworn I saw that on twitter earlier today. You stole that one word for word from somewhere I just can't remember who said it. Or maybe I'm just having a terrible case of deja vu.
-
That's not your quote, I could have sworn I saw that on twitter earlier today. You stole that one word for word from somewhere I just can't remember who said it. Or maybe I'm just having a terrible case of deja vu.
Who gives a shyt? It's a good point
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
i'd call racism on this....probably the same mentality as those who bashed jackie robinson, rosa parks, etc... back in their day. interestingly enough...little about roger ailes and bill o'reilly. trump proved there are many people that still like to hate on religion, gender, sexual preference and skin color. history says that mentality will continue to fade.
-
Who gives a shyt? It's a good point
yeah...taking credit for other's words is fine. melania did it to michelle. crowley tried.
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
It's become unwatchable unless they are broadcasting a game. Sports used to be the one place you could go to avoid the echo chamber.
-
It's become unwatchable unless they are broadcasting a game. Sports used to be the one place you could go to avoid the echo chamber.
a) in before the lock
b) if you consider ESPN 'political' your sensitivity to political topics is set too low or you are confusing the comments section with the content
c) ESPN became unwatchable because they fell for the tabloid/shock jock/clickbait/saturated fat mentality that most of their consumers love.........it makes the consumer feel good even though they know in the long run it is going to kill them (or make them angry at everyone)
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
You are pushing the false narrative that 15 million viewers dropped ESPN.
In reality, 15 million viewers dropped CABLE.
While the end result is the same, it is not an indictment of ESPN, but rather of the cable industry itself.
I dropped cable 2 months ago - it was NOT because of ESPN, but rather because cable is 100% unresponsive to user's needs.
1. I called the cable company and asked to drop their phone service. I was told that my bill would increase if I did not use their phone service.
2. With 2 TVs, I was paying $35 a month just to rent the modem and two receivers. When I mentioned this, they said "try and find a better deal elsewhere".
I did.
-
i'd call racism on this....probably the same mentality as those who bashed jackie robinson, rosa parks, etc... back in their day. interestingly enough...little about roger ailes and bill o'reilly. trump proved there are many people that still like to hate on religion, gender, sexual preference and skin color. history says that mentality will continue to fade.
Racism. Good lord, I hope your joking.
-
That's not your quote, I could have sworn I saw that on twitter earlier today. You stole that one word for word from somewhere I just can't remember who said it. Or maybe I'm just having a terrible case of deja vu.
Pretty darn close. I recognized it from Dan McLaughlin's article on National Review.
Generally agree that ESPN should get back to sports highlights though.
-
Pretty darn close. I recognized it from Dan McLaughlin's article on National Review.
Generally agree that ESPN should get back to sports highlights though.
We'd all like to remember the old days when ESPN really showed highlights that we wanted. But it ain't gonna happen again. Highlights can be accessed much easier and tailored more specifically by other platforms. Millennials aren't going to sit through an hour of highlights just to see the results of a couple games they are interested in.
While the number don't take into account the growing number of subscribers to skinny platforms, such as Dish Network's SlingTV and Sony's PlayStation Vue, etc., the fact is that ESPN's brass needs to move quicker to keep up with change. They remind me of the record companies 16-18 years ago who ignored change until it was too late.
People are NOT losing interest in sports - just in the antiquated methods of delivery.
-
Pretty darn close. I recognized it from Dan McLaughlin's article on National Review.
Generally agree that ESPN should get back to sports highlights though.
And MTV needs to get back to music videos!
-
And MTV needs to get back to music videos!
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that. That's a pretty good analogy.
-
Racism. Good lord, I hope your joking.
So they're saying 15 million stopped watching espn because espn tried to compare the first openly gay football player to the first black baseball player?
It's such a stupid comment, given that everyone and their mom knows you can't pick individual channels, but hell...lets use it as evidence that people don't want to hear about gay athletes...which leads me to believe the mention of Steven A has to do with more than a big mouth as I'm sure they wouldn't say the same about rush Limbaugh or bill O'Reilly. I think the comment sucks...and stands for everything MU doesn't.
Make ESPN great again...we all know what that means...no need to pretend.
-
New ESPN guidelines recognize connection between sports, politics
Jim Brady, ESPN Public Editor
April 4, 2017, 2:17 AM CT
http://www.espn.com/blog/ombudsman/post/_/id/816/new-espn-guidelines-recognize-connection-between-sports-politics
We wanted to err on the side of transparency and trust with our reporting,” Stiegman said, “but also give our columnists and commentators the freedom to discuss topics relevant to those sports fans who visit our platforms, even if the issues are political or social in nature.
-
Did Beth Winans survive?
So far, looks like she did.
-
espn is an entertainment company. understand that.
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
Please tell us all you are not a Marquette graduate wth your plagerism of such a bigoted and hopelessly ignorant comment.
As for the 15 million number, that's from people cutting cable and thus all networks. You can't just cut one network, unless you're using alternative facts.
-
Please tell us all you are not a Marquette graduate wth your plagerism of such a bigoted and hopelessly ignorant comment.
As for the 15 million number, that's from people cutting cable and thus all networks. You can't just cut one network, unless you're using alternative facts.
Don't know about the quote but the second part here is wrong. ESPN is losing subscribers faster than the overall cable losses.
And, if you think about it, it must be this way. ESPN is the most expensive non-premium (eg. HBO) channel one can buy ($7/month). The primary reason people are cutting the cord is its cost and not because they have suddenly become are uninterested in watching programming. So the most expensive channel has to be losing subscribers faster than average. If it was not, then it means everyone is happy with their cable bill and merely making choices in tastes and not due to economics.
Cable TV is too expensive giving the option of streaming at a fraction of its cost. So the most expensive cable channel, ESPN, is going to feel it the most.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/espn-isnt-the-only-cable-network-that-suffered-this-year.html
-
That's not your quote, I could have sworn I saw that on twitter earlier today. You stole that one word for word from somewhere I just can't remember who said it. Or maybe I'm just having a terrible case of deja vu.
they don't want to be lectured about why Caitlyn Jenner is a hero, Michael Sam is the new Jackie Robinson of sports, and Colin Kaepernick is the Rosa Parks of football. ESPN made the mistake of trying to make liberal social media losers happy and as a result lost millions of viewers.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-firing-over-a-hundred-employees-today-042617
-
they don't want to be lectured about why Caitlyn Jenner is a hero, Michael Sam is the new Jackie Robinson of sports, and Colin Kaepernick is the Rosa Parks of football. ESPN made the mistake of trying to make liberal social media losers happy and as a result lost millions of viewers.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-firing-over-a-hundred-employees-today-042617
From the link above ....
The simple truth of the matter is this -- ESPN spent way too much on sports rights just as its cable and satellite subscriptions began to collapse. On track for $8 billion in programming costs in 2017, ESPN will rack up its 15 millionth lost subscriber since 2011. Every single day so far in 2017 over 10,000 people have left ESPN. The numbers are astonishing and the collapse is rapid. All those lost subscribers add up to big money -- that's over $1.3 billion a year in money that comes off ESPN's books every year. And ESPN is on the hook for billions and billions a year for all the years ahead. That's guaranteed payments to leagues that ESPN can't escape no matter how many employees it fires.
As I've written before, if the current subscriber loss trajectory keeps up ESPN will begin losing money by 2021. And if the subscriber losses accelerate it will happen even sooner than that.
The collapse of the cable bundle is a huge story that will impact every cable channel, but ESPN stands to lose more by itself than 100 other cable channels combined. That's because ESPN standing alone costs more than 100 channels on many cable and satellite packages. ESPN by itself costs nearly five times the second most expensive channel on cable. ESPN's in infinitely worse shape than any other cable network out there too because it makes more than any other channel off the current business model and because those channels don't have the billions in fixed costs that ESPN does. If CNN makes less money on subscriber revenue, they can spend less on news gathering. If AMC makes less money in subscriber fees, they'll pay for fewer shows, but ESPN's entire business is predicated on the billions they owe for sports rights every year into the foreseeable future.
-
Andy Katz...gone. Wow!
Seth GreenbergVerified account @SethOnHoops · 2h2 hours ago
The best teammate I ever worked with was let go yesterday. @ESPNAndyKatz is incredibly talented & the most genuine & sincere person I know.
-
Andy Katz. SMH.
This day has been predicted for the past few years. Many outside-ESPN columnists called it. The shift towards screaming discussion panels over quality insight and content has chased off a plethora of viewers. Couple that with other avenues for fans to get their sports kick, and its no wonder ESPN is declining.
The fact that ESPN fired true and respected journalists and kept its loud and obnoxious ones should be very telling that ESPN is doubling down on its failure.
-
Andy Katz. SMH.
This day has been predicted for the past few years. Many outside-ESPN columnists called it. The shift towards screaming discussion panels over quality insight and content has chased off a plethora of viewers. Couple that with other avenues for fans to get their sports kick, and its no wonder ESPN is declining.
The fact that ESPN fired true and respected journalists and kept its loud and obnoxious ones should be very telling that ESPN is doubling down on its failure.
Who gets shown the door is not necessarily a political or taste decision. It is possible that Katz made more money than someone like Seth Greenberg and they save more dumping Katz and keeping cheaper "screamers" like Greenberg.
Also, many stories said some could stay if they agree to a big pay cut. Maybe Katz decided to leave because he thinks someone else (FS1?) will pay him a similar amount instead of taking less to stay at ESPN.
These are very complicated decisions on who stays nd who goes. The real takeaway is companies that do this are in trouble. Staff layoffs like this are never done from a position of strength.
ESPN is reeling.
-
Who gets shown the door is not necessarily a political or taste decision. It is possible that Katz made more money than someone like Seth Greenberg and they save more dumping Katz and keeping cheaper "screamers" like Greenberg.
Also, many stories said some could stay if they agree to a big pay cut. Maybe Katz decided to leave because he thinks someone else (FS1?) will pay him a similar amount instead of taking less to stay at ESPN.
These are very complicated decisions on who stays nd who goes. The real takeaway is companies that do this are in trouble. Staff layoffs like this are never done from a position of strength.
ESPN is reeling.
Fair enough.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-real-story-behind-espns-wednesday-massacre/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-real-story-behind-espns-wednesday-massacre/)
This passage sums up why I have turned off ESPN permanently. I got sick and tired of trying to watch my sports with a political twist attached to it. ESPN became a joke.
"You want to watch the Lakers game? Okay, but first you’re going to hear about Caitlyn Jenner. Want some NFL highlights? We’ll get to those eventually, but coming up next will be a discussion about how North Carolina is run by racist, homophobic bigots. You want to see the box scores of today’s baseball games? You can watch those at the bottom of the hour, but right now some D-list network talent would like to lecture you about gun control. After that we’ll have a panel discussion about how much courage it takes to turn your back on the American flag."
-
Andy Katz...gone. Wow!
Seth GreenbergVerified account @SethOnHoops · 2h2 hours ago
The best teammate I ever worked with was let go yesterday. @ESPNAndyKatz is incredibly talented & the most genuine & sincere person I know.
Katz to the UW athletic director's PR dept
-
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-real-story-behind-espns-wednesday-massacre/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-real-story-behind-espns-wednesday-massacre/)
This passage sums up why I have turned off ESPN permanently. I got sick and tired of trying to watch my sports with a political twist attached to it. ESPN became a joke.
"You want to watch the Lakers game? Okay, but first you’re going to hear about Caitlyn Jenner. Want some NFL highlights? We’ll get to those eventually, but coming up next will be a discussion about how North Carolina is run by racist, homophobic bigots. You want to see the box scores of today’s baseball games? You can watch those at the bottom of the hour, but right now some D-list network talent would like to lecture you about gun control. After that we’ll have a panel discussion about how much courage it takes to turn your back on the American flag."
You could always just turn on ESPN when the Lakers play and get your highlights and box scores whenever you want them from the internet.
-
It's not that the programming or editorial guidelines leaned left (assuming they did, it never stood out that much to me beyond pandering to whatever was a trending topic in the world at the time) that made me not interested in watching ESPN, it was that the programming they were putting on the screen didn't interest me.
Hot takes programming? Nope.
Highlights on an arbitrary schedule? Nope.
Highlights of things you don't like? Nope.
Live sports? Yep.
Only one of those things can't be solved by not watching or getting your programming elsewhere. I mentioned to friends that I don't think I've watched ESPN for something that wasn't live sports since 2009. It's not that people don't want to watch their crappy political programming; it's that people don't want to watch their crappy programming, or at least don't want to pay so much for it.
-
I really don't think politics has anything to do with this. This all about cord cutting. There are better and cheaper alternatives to cable now. As Heisy pointed out, ESPN is the most expensive cable channel so they will be hurt the most by cord cutting.
The politics stuff is a red herring. I also find it funny that this crowd seems to complain about politics entering sports when it is about Michael Sam and Caitlin Jenner. But no one complains when Trump has an interview in the middle of Super bowl coverage.
-
[...]The politics stuff is a red herring. I also find it funny that this crowd seems to complain about politics entering sports when it is about Michael Sam and Caitlin Jenner. But no one complains when Trump has an interview in the middle of Super bowl coverage.
That sucked every bit as much as the other stuff.
-
That's not your quote, I could have sworn I saw that on twitter earlier today. You stole that one word for word from somewhere I just can't remember who said it. Or maybe I'm just having a terrible case of deja vu.
Sounds like Heisy 2.0
-
"you can't lose games in the NFL and still win games" - Trent Dilfer
-
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!
-
The live sports/TV landscape has changed drastically and ESPN was far too slow to adjust. Even when they did make adjustments, they missed their mark. The network's left-leaning politics played a minor role in ESPN's struggles but wasn't nearly as big a deal as some are making it out to be. It's all about cord-cutting.
-
When ESPN stopped producing sports highlights and sports discussion, and instead focused on pushing political sports stories like making Michael Sam the new Jackie Robinson via Josina Anderson, Caitlyn Jenner as an American hero and Colin Kaepernick as the new Rosa Parks of the NFL, I turned off ESPN and have gone exclusively to Fox Sports. Today's decisions, in keeping personalities like Stephen A. Smith and dismissing Jayson Stark, is indicative of the type of programming they wish to produce. That's fine, but it's not for me (and evidently 15 million more viewers since 2011).
I'm sticking with NFL Network for draft coverage this weekend.
Fox with Cowherd, et. al. is just as bad as ESPN. Nobody really shows highlights or does in depth stuff any longer. That's not what the marketplace wants.
And it isn't political. This trend started long ago.
-
The live sports/TV landscape has changed drastically and ESPN was far too slow to adjust. Even when they did make adjustments, they missed their mark. The network's left-leaning politics played a minor role in ESPN's struggles but wasn't nearly as big a deal as some are making it out to be. It's all about cord-cutting.
Yep. Well said.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-real-story-behind-espns-wednesday-massacre/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/26/the-real-story-behind-espns-wednesday-massacre/)
This passage sums up why I have turned off ESPN permanently. I got sick and tired of trying to watch my sports with a political twist attached to it. ESPN became a joke.
"You want to watch the Lakers game? Okay, but first you’re going to hear about Caitlyn Jenner. Want some NFL highlights? We’ll get to those eventually, but coming up next will be a discussion about how North Carolina is run by racist, homophobic bigots. You want to see the box scores of today’s baseball games? You can watch those at the bottom of the hour, but right now some D-list network talent would like to lecture you about gun control. After that we’ll have a panel discussion about how much courage it takes to turn your back on the American flag."
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Don't know about the quote but the second part here is wrong. ESPN is losing subscribers faster than the overall cable losses.
And, if you think about it, it must be this way. ESPN is the most expensive non-premium (eg. HBO) channel one can buy ($7/month). The primary reason people are cutting the cord is its cost and not because they have suddenly become are uninterested in watching programming. So the most expensive channel has to be losing subscribers faster than average. If it was not, then it means everyone is happy with their cable bill and merely making choices in tastes and not due to economics.
Cable TV is too expensive giving the option of streaming at a fraction of its cost. So the most expensive cable channel, ESPN, is going to feel it the most.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/espn-isnt-the-only-cable-network-that-suffered-this-year.html
Your lack of understanding of the world outside your bubble continues to astound me
-
So they're saying 15 million stopped watching espn because espn tried to compare the first openly gay football player to the first black baseball player?
It's such a stupid comment, given that everyone and their mom knows you can't pick individual channels, but hell...lets use it as evidence that people don't want to hear about gay athletes...which leads me to believe the mention of Steven A has to do with more than a big mouth as I'm sure they wouldn't say the same about rush Limbaugh or bill O'Reilly. I think the comment sucks...and stands for everything MU doesn't.
Make ESPN great again...we all know what that means...no need to pretend.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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."
-
Mostly because they are unwatchable. Not because they are overly political.
I'm sure it's a case of both. Nobody really knows.
-
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.
-
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.
-
She is finally gone!
https://mobile.twitter.com/BrittMcHenry/status/857602447409201155?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
-
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%
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
I have no idea who that is. Why are you happy she got fired?
YouTube search her name, you'll understand.
-
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.
-
The joy so many people seem to be taking in people they have never and will never meet losing their jobs astounds me.
-
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.
-
Whoa ... appears Andy Katz is out.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-bog0lW0AM--uB.jpg:large
-
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
-
(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/we-landed-on-the-moon-jim-carey-dumb-and-dumber.gif)
-
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/
-
Thanks Sherlock
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54230.msg926149#msg926149
Sorey.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPJVjlYHwWsZRxm/giphy.gif)
Dude, how old are you?
-
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.
You can watch programs/events/shows on your big screen without having a cable cord hooked up to it. 90% of our consumption on the big screen is through the internet not through cable.
-
>:( This one sucks...super HOT, may be a b*itch, but hotness supersedes everything else to me. You can fix B*itchy anyway..
I find it stunning that you are no longer married. Stunning!
-
Also have to account for illegal streaming. Not saying its right, but thats the way it is. Why pay extra for more channels when you can easily find it for free on the internet? Think about how many of us used FirstRow or VIPbox this season when we couldnt find Marquette games, and thats just a very small cross section from a specific school.
-
muguru's point is not well thought, but streaming sports is far from acceptable at this point.
I have no problem paying $75/mo to not deal with streaming, lagging, buffering, poor quality, finding streams, and not being in real time when it comes to streaming sports.
-
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.
You know, they have streaming devices that plug into your TV starting for less than $50. Roku, Amazon Fire Stick, Google Chromecast...google them or go ask at Best Buy.
-
muguru's point is not well thought, but streaming sports is far from acceptable at this point.
I have no problem paying $75/mo to not deal with streaming, lagging, buffering, poor quality, finding streams, and not being in real time when it comes to streaming sports.
I have been streaming for 4 years now. Your problem is with live sports availability not quality issues. Streaming Hulu, netflix, or amazon through my tv has none of the quality issues you reference.
-
I have been streaming for 4 years now. Your problem is with live sports availability not quality issues. Streaming Hulu, netflix, or amazon through my tv has none of the quality issues you reference.
Hulu, Netflix and Amazon are all fine. I use two of those, great quality.
-
I have been streaming for 4 years now. Your problem is with live sports availability not quality issues. Streaming Hulu, netflix, or amazon through my tv has none of the quality issues you reference.
I do all this, and have cable basically for sports and sports only. I am not old (that old).
-
I'd also be willing to bet that a majority of the 15 million subscribers that ESPN lost are not sports fans. Just because you had cable doesn't mean you watched ESPN. This is a problem that ESPN can do very little to fix.
-
I'd also be willing to bet that a majority of the 15 million subscribers that ESPN lost are not sports fans. Just because you had cable doesn't mean you watched ESPN. This is a problem that ESPN can do very little to fix.
Being able to subscribe "a la carte" would be huge.
When I was a kid and cable finally came to our area my parents were able to just subscribe to ESPN for me.
The reason I haven't cut the cord is sports.
-
Being able to subscribe "a la carte" would be huge.
For you? Yes. For the networks and the cable companies? No.
-
muguru's point is not well thought, but streaming sports is far from acceptable at this point.
I have no problem paying $75/mo to not deal with streaming, lagging, buffering, poor quality, finding streams, and not being in real time when it comes to streaming sports.
Mmmmhm, he does have a point. Its like the classic threads every game Marquette plays asking where it can be streamed. Just buck up and pay $10 extra a month and get DirecTV and all your problems will be solved.
That said, I am a big fan of an MLB team and I've never lived in that market (my old man brainwashed me at a young age). I watch several games a week, and I've always had MLB.tv. The streaming through an Apple TV, chromecast, PS4, etc. definitely isn't as good as just regular television, but it has improved a lot over the past decade. That's a scenario where the extra several hundred dollars isn't worth it to me to also get MLB extra innings. Because I'd always want MLB.tv so I can watch and listen on my phone when out and about.
-
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.
My roommate and I used to play computer games and stream movies from the computer on his 55" TV and that was a decade ago. Methinks you're a bit behind the times.
-
Mmmmhm, he does have a point. Its like the classic threads every game Marquette plays asking where it can be streamed. Just buck up and pay $10 extra a month and get DirecTV and all your problems will be solved.
That said, I am a big fan of an MLB team and I've never lived in that market (my old man brainwashed me at a young age). I watch several games a week, and I've always had MLB.tv. The streaming through an Apple TV, chromecast, PS4, etc. definitely isn't as good as just regular television, but it has improved a lot over the past decade. That's a scenario where the extra several hundred dollars isn't worth it to me to also get MLB extra innings. Because I'd always want MLB.tv so I can watch and listen on my phone when out and about.
Where can you do this? I live in downtown Indianapolis and have access to Spectrum, Comcast and ATT/DirecTV and none of them would allow me to add cable to my existing internet for only $10/month
-
Don't know about the quote but the second part here is wrong. ESPN is losing subscribers faster than the overall cable losses.
This shows your ignorance on the subject.
People with cable are NOT allowed to drop only ESPN. Since ESPN is part of the cable package, it is all or nothing. ESPN is losing subscribers at the SAME EXACT RATE as overall cable subscribers.
-
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.
Guru, I may not be an actual "cord cutter" as I switched to DirecttV from cable. The Xtra package includes all the sports channels that cable had - plus some extra ones. I am also paying $90 a month less for DirectTV/U-verse than I was with Spectrum so it feels like I cut the cord.
But I am with you - I only get TV this way for sports. Sports streaming on the internet is oftentimes a horrible viewing experience - big screen or small.
-
I find it stunning that you are no longer married. Stunning!
Beat me to it.
-
Where can you do this? I live in downtown Indianapolis and have access to Spectrum, Comcast and ATT/DirecTV and none of them would allow me to add cable to my existing internet for only $10/month
I was referring to in lieu of your existing cable provider. OBviously if you don't have a cable to begin with, its going to be more expensive, and admittedly the $10 was an arbitrary number. But whatever extra doe on monthly basis DTV costs over you local cable provider, if you're a big sports fan, its worth it. By a couple less starbucks that month.
-
Beat me to it.
But he loves women. Respects them more than anyone. Women are tired of being treated so well by him.
-
But he loves women. Respects them more than anyone. Women are tired of being treated so well by him.
And he certainly wouldn't sexually harass or abuse the ugly ones!
-
Is it weird that we're a 'blend'? I can't imagine giving up our dish but we do have roku and stream things frequently.
-
Not weird... we are in the same boat... just waiting for one of the streaming options to have locals and dvr capability. Seems possible in some cities with Youtube tv, others seem to be working on it.
-
And he certainly wouldn't sexually harass or abuse the ugly ones!
Umm..this comment is completely over the top..I never have nor never would sexually harass or abuse ANY woman.
Geez..you guys are a sensitive lot here. Political correctness at it's finest. I said Britt McHenry is hot..because she is. No one else here has ever said a chick was hot or wait..even posted pictures of them, right? Have you accused them of sexually harrassing women? Your comment is completely out of line.
-
Umm..this comment is completely over the top..I never have nor never would sexually harass or abuse ANY woman.
Geez..you guys are a sensitive lot here. Political correctness at it's finest. I said Britt McHenry is hot..because she is. No one else here has ever said a chick was hot or wait..even posted pictures of them, right? Have you accused them of sexually harrassing women? Your comment is completely out of line.
Saying she's hot isn't the problem. The problem is everything you posted immediately after that.
-
Saying she's hot isn't the problem. The problem is everything you posted immediately after that.
Yep the fixing part
-
Yep the fixing part
Actually, I would be interested to hear exactly how he fixes it.
-
Actually, I would be interested to hear exactly how he fixes it.
You sure you want him to go down that road?
-
You sure you want him to go down that road?
It will be highly entertaining
-
Umm..this comment is completely over the top..I never have nor never would sexually harass or abuse ANY woman.
Well....assuming the "fixing" comment wasn't a reference to abuse, I think MU82 was taking a shot at the guy commuting between Mar-a-Lago and Washington every week, not you.
Geez..you guys are a sensitive lot here. Political correctness at it's finest. I said Britt McHenry is hot..because she is. No one else here has ever said a chick was hot or wait..even posted pictures of them, right? Have you accused them of sexually harrassing women? Your comment is completely out of line.
As others have said, it wasn't so much the "she's hot" bit (though your valuing of her for her looks over her ability as a journalist is objectification) it was more everything that came after.
-
Well....assuming the "fixing" comment wasn't a reference to abuse, I think MU82 was taking a shot at the guy commuting between Mar-a-Lago and Washington every week, not you.
Moi?
-
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.
Still have TV as a cord cutter, just not cable. Fire TV, Roku, Smart TV apps, cast your PC/tablet/phone to the TV, grab an HD antenna for the local channels, etc.
-
Actually, I would be interested to hear exactly how he fixes it.
It has ZERO to do with physical violence in anyway. In fact, without getting too personal, I could give anyone that wanted them references from past relationships that would tell you..I'm as sweet and as gentle as they come. Just sayin'.
-
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.
Wait wuhhhhhhh? Is that what you think? Brah, you can still use your tv with the cord cutting services. Why would I want to watch crap on my laptop and not my 60inch?
-
Wait wuhhhhhhh? Is that what you think? Brah, you can still use your tv with the cord cutting services. Why would I want to watch crap on my laptop and not my 60inch?
You'd be surprised by how many do this, and by how many only have internet on their phones. I could never do that. And I can't get rid of Directv...I'm a huge sports guy..I don;t know what I'd do without being able to watch sports live.
-
This shows your ignorance on the subject.
People with cable are NOT allowed to drop only ESPN. Since ESPN is part of the cable package, it is all or nothing. ESPN is losing subscribers at the SAME EXACT RATE as overall cable subscribers.
whoopsie! you can drop espn on some packages by dropping down to a different tier
-
whoopsie! you can drop espn on some packages by dropping down to a different tier
Is this true? Honest question. I thought ESPN was part of the basic package for just about every cable provider.
-
Mostly because they are unwatchable. Not because they are overly political.
https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/857713593856479232
-
https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/857713593856479232
She's mostly wrong.
-
This shows your ignorance on the subject.
People with cable are NOT allowed to drop only ESPN. Since ESPN is part of the cable package, it is all or nothing. ESPN is losing subscribers at the SAME EXACT RATE as overall cable subscribers.
You still need your cable provider for internet access so you still pay for their service into your house. They will then get you to go down to a "limited basic" package that is either free (with internet access) or maybe $10/month that includes local channels, publics access, CNN and one or two others.
The point is the biggest way to cut your bill is to dump the most expensive channel (ESPN) and the third most expensive channel (ESPN2, second is TNT) and that is what you are seeing happening.
You do have choices and since 75% to 85% of cable subscribers do not watch sports, the easiest way to stick over $100/year back into your pocket is get rid of ESPN ... that that is happening, and they want it to happen as explained below.
Would You Cut the Cord on ESPN to Save $8 a Month? Here's How Many People Said Yes
This could be very bad news for Walt Disney.
Daniel B. Kline (TMFDankline) Apr 15, 2017 at 9:00AM
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/15/would-you-cut-the-cord-on-espn-to-save-8-a-month-h.aspx
In the survey, Greenfield asked two questions:
1. "If you could save $8 per month by removing ESPN and ESPN2 from your cable or satellite package, would you do it?"
2. "If ESPN and ESPN2 were only available as a standalone service like Netflix, would you pay $20 per month to subscribe?"
More than half of respondents, 56%, said they would be willing to not have the ESPN channels if they could shave $8 a month off their cable bill. Only 6% of those surveyed said they would be willing to pay $20 a month for a standalone ESPN service.
If ESPN were to launch a streaming service, not tied to a traditional pay-TV subscription, it would trigger clauses in many of its contracts that force cable companies to provide it to a certain (large) percentage of their customers. If pay-TV providers could offer ESPN-free packages, most would, and ESPN would probably not be able to make up that revenue with a streaming service.
"If 15% paid for an ESPN/ESPN2 DTC offering at $20/month, that yields $4.1 billion in revenue, dramatically below the nearly $9 billion the two channels generate from the legacy MVPD ecosystem," Greenfiled wrote. "To make matters worse, as we mentioned above, these DTC subscribers could churn on/off whenever they want (i.e., NFL fans only would have to subscribe for football season). In turn, the actual revenue from a DTC model would be significantly lower than $4 billion."
-
She's mostly wrong.
Why? She is more qualified than you to make this judgment.
-
She's only worked there for 25 years........
https://twitter.com/deeprootx/status/857701320706445314
-
I've seen multiple people bring up ESPN's supposed liberal politics and then bring up Jenner's name specifically as an example of the overbearing nature of this issue yet Jenner is a Republican voter who supported Donald Trump.
This is also the same network that hired Rush Limbaugh for reasons that have never been fully clear. And it's also the network that employs Sage Steele, an outspoken conservative voice in the media, in high profile positions.
Both sides can claim political bias from the network but only the chronically aggrieved would latch like a vulture on a massive wave of layoffs to "prove" they, and their way of thinking, are being persecuted.
-
Why? She is more qualified than you to make this judgment.
Eh. Not really. I don't think she has any clue really.
-
I've seen multiple people bring up ESPN's supposed liberal politics and then bring up Jenner's name specifically as an example of the overbearing nature of this issue yet Jenner is a Republican voter who supported Donald Trump.
This is also the same network that hired Rush Limbaugh for reasons that have never been fully clear. And it's also the network that employs Sage Steele, an outspoken conservative voice in the media, in high profile positions.
Both sides can claim political bias from the network but only the chronically aggrieved would latch like a vulture on a massive wave of layoffs to "prove" they, and their way of thinking, are being persecuted.
Jenner was heralded for coming out transgender and never allowed to promote her politics on the channel. Shew was used purely as a left-wing symbol.
Limbaugh their work there for 5 weeks in 2003. So if that is your argument that "both sides" are represented becuase Limbaugh had slightly more than a month at the station 14 years ago, try again.
-
Eh. Not really. I don't think she has any clue really.
Why do you think that ... because that is what you think about people that do not agree with you?
-
Why do you think that ... because that is what you think about people that do not agree with you?
No because I think she is just generally an airhead who does SportsCenter. I would think the same thing about any of those doofuses that comment on this stuff.
-
Is this true? Honest question. I thought ESPN was part of the basic package for just about every cable provider.
this is just one example-xfinity tv-limited basic=NO espn. expanded basic includes espn
https://www.xfinity.com/support/cable-tv/difference-between-limited-basic-and-expanded-basic-cable/
-
No because I think she is just generally an airhead who does SportsCenter. I would think the same thing about any of those doofuses that comment on this stuff.
Very sexist of you.
-
Very sexist of you.
??? I find most of their on air personalities to be airheads. Both male and female.
-
I've seen multiple people bring up ESPN's supposed liberal politics and then bring up Jenner's name specifically as an example of the overbearing nature of this issue yet Jenner is a Republican voter who supported Donald Trump.
This is also the same network that hired Rush Limbaugh for reasons that have never been fully clear. And it's also the network that employs Sage Steele, an outspoken conservative voice in the media, in high profile positions.
Both sides can claim political bias from the network but only the chronically aggrieved would latch like a vulture on a massive wave of layoffs to "prove" they, and their way of thinking, are being persecuted.
one example of how people were tuning out of espn the whole michael sam stuff. read any article they've had on him online, then read the comment section and you see that people do not care about what shower he uses. they care about sports. they come to sports stations to watch sports. they read sports articles to read about sports. many people gravitate to sports related activities as an escape from all the other b.s.
-
I'm amazed this thread has been able to tip-toe the thread locking line so gracefully for this long.
-
I had forgotten Jenner had won the espy in 2015. That's right about the time I stopped using espn for everything.
-
Seriously man, get some help.
This is really unhealthy
You're the boy who admires them. Really, really sad.
-
Jesse Temple gone as well. May be a Badger reporter but he's a good dude. Talked to me a bunch and gave me his contact info.
Ahhh, networking, eh??
-
I've seen multiple people bring up ESPN's supposed liberal politics and then bring up Jenner's name specifically as an example of the overbearing nature of this issue yet Jenner is a Republican voter who supported Donald Trump.
This is also the same network that hired Rush Limbaugh for reasons that have never been fully clear. And it's also the network that employs Sage Steele, an outspoken conservative voice in the media, in high profile positions.
ESPNW had a piece up praising a woman who killed a cop, and it had to be taken down when twitter got wind of it. They also gave tons of coverage to the women's march, and zero coverage of the pro-life march.
Both sides can claim political bias from the network but only the chronically aggrieved would latch like a vulture on a massive wave of layoffs to "prove" they, and their way of thinking, are being persecuted.
Sage Steele is the single Right-leaning on-air personality on ESPN. And she was demoted to golf coverage.
On the other end of the spectrum you have Kornheiser, Wilbon, Greenberg, Kellerman, S Smith, Jemele Hill, Michael Smith, Sarah Spain, Michelle Beadle, Dan Lebatard, Stu Gotz, Kate Fegan, and Bomani Jones, to name just a few.
ESPNW had a piece up praising a woman who killed a cop, and it had to be taken down today when twitter got wind of it yesterday. They also gave tons of coverage to the women's march, and zero coverage of the women's pro-life march.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/27/espn-poetry-tribute-fugitive-cop-killer/
Regarding Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner, ESPN signaled their immense PC bias when she got the courage award over the girl dying from brain cancer. A true "what the heck" moment.
The bias is crystal clear. That doesn't mean it is the reason for the firings. But it does mean they've chosen a political side. Heck, the commercials for SC6 use "we aren't going to stick to sports" as a selling point.
-
Clearly some cards are uncovered.
-
I'm glad I don't watch espn anymore. It seems to make so many people so angry.
-
I have turned off ESPN on several occasions because they were obviously (annoyingly) telling me how I should think about a given topic.
Then again I stopped watching it for a week plus recently because every time I turned it on they were talking about Lorenzo Ball's moronic dad. I have also turned it off when they go on and on about a minor league baseball player that once played college football.
If there is a remote chance Chris Berman could make an appearance I will preemptively change the channel. I would rather watch Lawrence Welk reruns than Berman discussing any topic.
Huh, turns out I have a lot of reasons for watching less ESPN. Live sports and background noise when I'm on the treadmill are the main reasons I do watch it.
-
it is simply a continuation of Heisy attempting to Make Scoop Great Again
He's a trooper. He wants to make ND great again too.
-
Suzy Kolber still on the NFL draft. She has kept her self up nice all these Years. Joe Namath knew value when he saw it.
-
Its seems many on here think its entirely cord cutting and not the content. While clearly the cord cutting is a major driver to deny the change in content coupled with the political leanings to be a big issue is pure denial. My situation reflects many others. Im older and still watch satellite tv.
I was a religious espn watcher for decades sport enter at night, watched their shows etc. Today i rarely if ever watch sport center. The political leanings are a slight issue but akin to MTV no longer showing music videos, Sportscenter is no longer a highlight show. Its one stupid piece after another, regardless of the political slant i tuned in to watch to see who won the games . The final nail in the coffin was the simply reatrded Scott Van Pelt sportscenter. Is it a comedy hour or a sports higlight show? I never thought he was funny and now an hour of his tongue in cheek non- comedy has turned the must see sportscenter into a will not watch for me.
Im only one guy but it would appear many on this board and in this thread still have cable or satellite and give eapn their $7 a month yet do not tune in to a channel they used to watch alot. Multiply that across a nation and it is undeniable that the arrogance of espn and the ill conceived notion that they could go away from what orginally brought in their viewership was dead wrong.
Peace out
-
Its seems many on here think its entirely cord cutting and not the content. While clearly the cord cutting is a major driver to deny the change in content coupled with the political leanings to be a big issue is pure denial. My situation reflects many others. Im older and still watch satellite tv.
I was a religious espn watcher for decades sport enter at night, watched their shows etc. Today i rarely if ever watch sport center. The political leanings are a slight issue but akin to MTV no longer showing music videos, Sportscenter is no longer a highlight show. Its one stupid piece after another, regardless of the political slant i tuned in to watch to see who won the games . The final nail in the coffin was the simply reatrded Scott Van Pelt sportscenter. Is it a comedy hour or a sports higlight show? I never thought he was funny and now an hour of his tongue in cheek non- comedy has turned the must see sportscenter into a will not watch for me.
Im only one guy but it would appear many on this board and in this thread still have cable or satellite and give eapn their $7 a month yet do not tune in to a channel they used to watch alot. Multiply that across a nation and it is undeniable that the arrogance of espn and the ill conceived notion that they could go away from what orginally brought in their viewership was dead wrong.
Peace out
Well done Chicos Jr.
-
Im only one guy but it would appear many on this board and in this thread still have cable or satellite and give eapn their $7 a month yet do not tune in to a channel they used to watch alot. Multiply that across a nation and it is undeniable that the arrogance of espn and the ill conceived notion that they could go away from what orginally brought in their viewership was dead wrong.
Peace out
Everyone here is a rabid sports fan so $7/month fo ESPN is a deal. The problem is about 80% of the country does not share our passion for sports and don't want to be forced to pay for ESPN (and the other channels they do not want).
-
This shows your ignorance on the subject.
People with cable are NOT allowed to drop only ESPN. Since ESPN is part of the cable package, it is all or nothing. ESPN is losing subscribers at the SAME EXACT RATE as overall cable subscribers.
??
I can downgrade my Spectrum cable package any time to one without ESPN, but still be a TV subscriber. The same appears to be true of other tv providers. How would the rate be the same?
It is isn't the same rate.
http://cordcuttersnews.com/600000-cable-subscribers-canceled-downgraded-october/
Might want to walk back that ignorance comment. ;)
-
??
I can downgrade my Spectrum cable package any time to one without ESPN, but still be a TV subscriber. The same appears to be true of other tv providers. How would the rate be the same?
It is isn't the same rate.
http://cordcuttersnews.com/600000-cable-subscribers-canceled-downgraded-october/
Might want to walk back that ignorance comment. ;)
No Direct TV, ai-na?
-
Very sexist of you.
Oh Heisy, you're just not very good at this, are you?
-
I'd be surprised if 10 real sports fans decided not to watch ESPN because of Jenner/Sam/etc. or any political bent.
I am left-of-center, and I don't watch anything but live sports and the occasional 30-for-30 on ESPN - because it is garbage.
-
one example of how people were tuning out of espn the whole michael sam stuff. read any article they've had on him online, then read the comment section and you see that people do not care about what shower he uses. they care about sports. they come to sports stations to watch sports. they read sports articles to read about sports. many people gravitate to sports related activities as an escape from all the other b.s.
I don't get the anger about the Michael Sam coverage. Well I do if its just people being homophobic or uncomfortable with someone being gay, but I don't get it if people don't have a problem with him being openly gay. He was the first openly gay player to be drafted in any of the four major sports in the US. That is a huge new story worthy of coverage. Anytime a player breaks a barrier like that its big news. Do those same people also get annoyed by Jackie Robinson day?
-
I don't get the anger about the Michael Sam coverage. Well I do if its just people being homophobic or uncomfortable with someone being gay, but I don't get it if people don't have a problem with him being openly gay. He was the first openly gay player to be drafted in any of the four major sports in the US. That is a huge new story worthy of coverage. Anytime a player breaks a barrier like that its big news. Do those same people also get annoyed by Jackie Robinson day?
The coverage didn't bother me, but you do see the minor difference in actual talent between Jackie Robinson and Michael Sam right?
-
No Direct TV, ai-na?
Direct is a very small percentage of the universe and typically price insensitive high end consumers.
-
I don't get the anger about the Michael Sam coverage. Well I do if its just people being homophobic or uncomfortable with someone being gay, but I don't get it if people don't have a problem with him being openly gay. He was the first openly gay player to be drafted in any of the four major sports in the US. That is a huge new story worthy of coverage. Anytime a player breaks a barrier like that its big news. Do those same people also get annoyed by Jackie Robinson day?
first off, it's absolutely not about any phobia! come on tamu, you know that anytime you throw that one out there along with a few others, they are conversation stoppers for many. once again, people do not care which side of the plate he bats from. with ms, it was always about his sexual proclivities FIRST. oh, and by the way he was a football player available in the draft. it became a hot ticking time bomb in their(espn) quest to ask each team if they would take ms were he available when their pick was up.
anytime a business tries to go "political", you are going to alienate approximately 50 % of your customers. jackie robinson vs michael sam? tick tick tick...espn is supposed to have some very smart people, eyyn'a? back in the 50's-60's, i agree that introducing an african american to any major league sport was risky. if ms could sack a qb, stuff a rb(absolutely no puns intended ::)), intercept passes like jr hit the ball, the gay part would have gone away very quickly as well. but we all know how that played out...and once again, i don't think people really carted where mr robinson showered. MOST people are well beyond the "gay" thing today-we are well into the 2000's here. back in the 90's-2000, yeah, this could have been more of a "sticky whicket", but ms was still not a good football player. AND, once again, MOST people came to espn for SPORTS. if jr was both gay and black? now ya got yourself a scoop
this was just ONE example of how espn facked up-we could go on and on, but then i'm pretty sure that would trigger a lock down. that would be unfortunate as this has been a pretty good/informative thread-just trying to keep it "real" :)
-
Any layoff that didn't include Neil Everett was a mistake. The guy is unwatchable.
-
ESPN Layoffs Signify Company 'Metamorphosis In Real Time'
Stephen SingerContact Reporter
April 27, 2017
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-espn-layoffs-continue-20170427-story.html
Layoffs of as many as 100 writers and on-air talent are putting on full display ESPN's struggle to adapt to significant changes created by digital technology, a longtime observer said Thursday.
...
Geetha Ranganathan, a senior industry analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, said the layoffs are "really just a drop in the bucket."
"I'm not sure it's going to make a huge difference," she said.
The move "signals a possible change in structuring programming," Ranganathan said. ESPN may look to pare the network, which could include consolidating the suite of ESPN channels, she said.
A critical problem facing ESPN is the "astronomically high" costs of contracts with sports leagues such as the NFL and NBA to broadcast games as it grapples with a decline in "subscriber momentum," she said.
As more employees of the Bristol-based ESPN tweeted that they have lost their jobs, ESPN announced Thursday a collaboration with MLB Network. ESPN will add MLB Network's studio program, "Intentional Talk," to its afternoon lineup beginning Monday.
The year-round, weekday show will air on ESPN2 during the season and will air as a 30-minute telecast in the offseason. "Intentional Talk" also will continue to air in its regular 5 p.m. time slot on MLB Network.
...
The number of households with ESPN's flagship station has fallen from 99 million to 88 million, a decline of 11 percent, in a little more than three years, according to numbers from Nielsen and ESPN's parent, The Walt Disney Co.
At about $7 per month per subscriber for ESPN, that would be more than $900 million in declining annual revenue over the last several years, if all other revenues remained equal.
And cord-cutting – the decision by subscribers to quit cable – is not slowing, as TV viewers have a growing menu of online "over-the-top" options.
Skipper told employees Wednesday that change sweeping the cable industry "demands an increased focus on versatility and value." The sports network is determining the anchors, analysts, reporters, writers and others who will be "necessary to meet those demands," he said.
-
MOST people are well beyond the "gay" thing today-we are well into the 2000's here.
so past it...so far that you can still be fired for being gay in many states with a couple states have laws saying you can't have a local law prohibiting such behavior. and we're even further past the racism stuff right? like electing a president who hangs with bannon and sessions and hates the thought of having black accountants and tries to bully an american judge based on skin color. so past all that bs.
i personally didn't watch much of the MS stuff...but remember thinking..."nice for the gay community that has and continues to take a lot of sh!t".
i always figure when i die and stand in front of the pearly gates (aka - the wall) god will ask why i was so nice to gays and stuck up for minorities. in fact, i'm sure all those bashing espn would agree...espn should be run more like fox news...now that's the jesuit way.
-
first off, it's absolutely not about any phobia! come on tamu, you know that anytime you throw that one out there along with a few others, they are conversation stoppers for many. once again, people do not care which side of the plate he bats from. with ms, it was always about his sexual proclivities FIRST. oh, and by the way he was a football player available in the draft. it became a hot ticking time bomb in their(espn) quest to ask each team if they would take ms were he available when their pick was up.
anytime a business tries to go "political", you are going to alienate approximately 50 % of your customers. jackie robinson vs michael sam? tick tick tick...espn is supposed to have some very smart people, eyyn'a? back in the 50's-60's, i agree that introducing an african american to any major league sport was risky. if ms could sack a qb, stuff a rb(absolutely no puns intended ::)), intercept passes like jr hit the ball, the gay part would have gone away very quickly as well. but we all know how that played out...and once again, i don't think people really carted where mr robinson showered. MOST people are well beyond the "gay" thing today-we are well into the 2000's here. back in the 90's-2000, yeah, this could have been more of a "sticky whicket", but ms was still not a good football player. AND, once again, MOST people came to espn for SPORTS. if jr was both gay and black? now ya got yourself a scoop
this was just ONE example of how espn facked up-we could go on and on, but then i'm pretty sure that would trigger a lock down. that would be unfortunate as this has been a pretty good/informative thread-just trying to keep it "real" :)
I didn't say it was about homophobia. I said if it's not about homophobia I don't get it.
And if "most people are past the gay thing" than why was this political? What 50% was going to be pissed off by it? Shouldn't this barrier being broken been something most people were happy for and wanted need about?
Of course the news talked about his "sexual proclivities" first. That's the only part of him thats interesting. Other players taken same round as him aren't getting any stories about their talent. You do get stories about unique characteristics of them as people. Do you also get frustrated when people talk about how Mixon punched a woman, or the guy who got picked up by the falcons last night made a promise to his grandma to make the NFL? Shouldn't sports just be about sports? Michael Sam's unique characteristic was being the first openly gay player to be drafted. And frankly, that's a lot more important than any other of those stories
-
The coverage didn't bother me, but you do see the minor difference in actual talent between Jackie Robinson and Michael Sam right?
Well obviously. But why does that matter? Both were the first of their respective identities to play a sport at the highest level in the USA. That's the important part. Robinson was great but frankly, none of us would remember him if he was the second black man to play major league baseball.
-
Well obviously. But why does that matter? Both were the first of their respective identities to play a sport at the highest level in the USA. That's the important part. Robinson was great but frankly, none of us would remember him if he was the second black man to play major league baseball.
http://baseballhall.org/hof/doby-larry
-
none of us would remember him if he was the second black man to play major league baseball.
You do realize Jackie wasn't the first African American to play Major League Baseball right?
-
You do realize Jackie wasn't the first African American to play Major League Baseball right?
I honestly don't. Even if he wasn't the actual first, he's known as the first. That's the only reason we remember him. If he put up the exact same numbers but was a white player or he wasn't known as the first black player, no one would know who he was.
http://baseballhall.org/hof/doby-larry
Never heard of him.
-
first off, it's absolutely not about any phobia! come on tamu, you know that anytime you throw that one out there along with a few others, they are conversation stoppers for many. once again, people do not care which side of the plate he bats from. with ms, it was always about his sexual proclivities FIRST. oh, and by the way he was a football player available in the draft. it became a hot ticking time bomb in their(espn) quest to ask each team if they would take ms were he available when their pick was up.
anytime a business tries to go "political", you are going to alienate approximately 50 % of your customers. jackie robinson vs michael sam? tick tick tick...espn is supposed to have some very smart people, eyyn'a? back in the 50's-60's, i agree that introducing an african american to any major league sport was risky. if ms could sack a qb, stuff a rb(absolutely no puns intended ::)), intercept passes like jr hit the ball, the gay part would have gone away very quickly as well. but we all know how that played out...and once again, i don't think people really carted where mr robinson showered. MOST people are well beyond the "gay" thing today-we are well into the 2000's here. back in the 90's-2000, yeah, this could have been more of a "sticky whicket", but ms was still not a good football player. AND, once again, MOST people came to espn for SPORTS. if jr was both gay and black? now ya got yourself a scoop
this was just ONE example of how espn facked up-we could go on and on, but then i'm pretty sure that would trigger a lock down. that would be unfortunate as this has been a pretty good/informative thread-just trying to keep it "real" :)
If most people were well passed the "gay thing," there would be more openly gay people in locker rooms. There aren't.
Comparing him to Jackie Robinson is accurate. Saying that they are on the same level is not.
-
Oh Heisy, you're just not very good at this, are you?
He doesn't understand logic, or how to formulate an argument
-
He doesn't understand logic, or how to formulate an argument
Well, yes, both true, but specifically in this case he was trying to copy something--quite badly-- that he had seen used elsewhere. Unfortunately he clearly has no concept of what is or isn't sexist, so he simply looked like a fool trying to throw shade in a situation that he completely misunderstood. Not surprising.
-
Well, yes, both true, but specifically in this case he was trying to copy something--quite badly-- that he had seen used elsewhere. Unfortunately he clearly has no concept of what is or isn't sexist, so he simply looked like a fool trying to throw shade in a situation that he completely misunderstood. Not surprising.
"airhead" is a sexist term.
-
Linda Cohn says politics hurting ESPN.
http://www.totalprosports.com/2017/04/28/sportscenter-anchor-linda-cohn-agrees-politics-is-hurting-espn/
Cohn has kept herself up nice over the years, still very appealing.
http://liverampup.com/entertainment/multi-talented-linda-cohn-35-years-in-journalism-her-married-life-divorce-ex-husband-and-boyfriend.html
-
Linda Cohn says politics hurting ESPN.
http://www.totalprosports.com/2017/04/28/sportscenter-anchor-linda-cohn-agrees-politics-is-hurting-espn/
Cohn has kept herself up nice over the years, still very appealing.
http://liverampup.com/entertainment/multi-talented-linda-cohn-35-years-in-journalism-her-married-life-divorce-ex-husband-and-boyfriend.html
Sultan said she doesn't know what she is talking about because she is an "airhead." I've been told that "airhead" is not a sexist term by all the "elders" on this board.
Issue settled, no need to discuss any further.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HsE78tg.png)
-
"airhead" is a sexist term.
How is it a sexist term? I think guys can be airheads too.
Stop deflecting. It's unbecoming.
-
"airhead" is a sexist term.
How is it a sexist term? I think guys can be airheads too.
Stop deflecting. It's unbecoming.
Speaking of head , which is a good thing....
https://www.amazon.com/Cohn-Head-No-Holds-Barred-Account-Breaking-Into/dp/1599211130
-
How is it a sexist term? I think guys can be airheads too.
Stop deflecting. It's unbecoming.
I have never heard a guy being described as an airhead except in very poorly-done expletive dubbing, where it is used instead of "a$$hole". See: High Fidelity
-
If most people were well passed the "gay thing," there would be more openly gay people in locker rooms. There aren't.
Comparing him to Jackie Robinson is accurate. Saying that they are on the same level is not.
that's the thing about "gay" people. most people just do not care including gay people themselves. they prefer it's not even discussed. what they do behind closed doors is their business, not espn's, not yours. not mine. just live. i know a few gay people who shutter every time there is any news singling them out because it's usually perverted crap that makes them ALL look like out of control sexual perverts that only get off on hot wax dripped on...they just want to live, work, have relationships, laugh, cry and be happy. oh, and by the way, brian boitano came out of the closet ?-(
-
that's the thing about "gay" people. most people just do not care including gay people themselves. they prefer it's not even discussed. what they do behind closed doors is their business, not espn's, not yours. not mine. just live. i know a few gay people who shutter every time there is any news singling them out because it's usually perverted crap that makes them ALL look like out of control sexual perverts that only get off on hot wax dripped on...they just want to live, work, have relationships, laugh, cry and be happy. oh, and by the way, brian boitano came out of the closet ?-(
Gay people are gay even when they aren't behind closed doors you know. And I am glad you feel free to speak about what most gay people want.
Here is why it is important:
http://www.theroot.com/michael-sam-what-he-means-to-young-gay-black-men-1790875635
A 2012 study reported by the Black Youth Project found that 43 percent of black gay youths have thought about or attempted suicide. Twenty-six percent reported being the target of anti-gay bullying, and 90 percent listed “family acceptance” as the main factor that could make life more bearable.
Last year a Rutgers University study about African-American gay youths concluded that given the disparate social challenges black boys face in American society, they often feel that being gay only serves to further hurt the image of African-American men. “Gay black males struggle to cope with intersecting oppressions—racism, homophobia and sexism,” explained Michael LaSala, director of the Master of Social Work program at Rutgers. LaSala highlighted research showing that black men and boys experienced more pressure to be hypermasculine—a trait characterized by the absence of overt emotions or the appearance of vulnerability.
Which makes Sam’s ascendance all the more poignant. By simply being himself, he serves as living proof that an African-American gay man need not be divorced from his inherent masculinity. And he need not hide in the shadows for fear of being found out.
-
How is it a sexist term? I think guys can be airheads too.
Stop deflecting. It's unbecoming.
16 Derogatory Words Used To Describe Women
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/16-derogatory-words-used-to-describe-women
1. Airhead, n.
Usually refers to someone, male or female, who is simple-minded and vapid. Now, mainly thanks to the media it’s come to be synonymous with the a type of woman, who aspires to dye her hair yellow (If you've read Bossypants you'll understand why I used yellow and not blonde) with extensive knowledge about celebrity life. Uhh dying my hair and having extensive knowledge about Hollywood celebrity life doesn't make me an airhead.
-
16 Derogatory Words Used To Describe Women
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/16-derogatory-words-used-to-describe-women
1. Airhead, n.
Usually refers to someone, male or female, who is simple-minded and vapid. Now, mainly thanks to the media it’s come to be synonymous with the a type of woman, who aspires to dye her hair yellow (If you've read Bossypants you'll understand why I used yellow and not blonde) with extensive knowledge about celebrity life. Uhh dying my hair and having extensive knowledge about Hollywood celebrity life doesn't make me an airhead.
So your proof is something that says straight out that it usually refers to a male or female?
LOL...thanks for proving my point.
-
Only 175 days until Madness.
-
So your proof is something that says straight out that it usually refers to a male or female?
LOL...thanks for proving my point.
Did you read the second sentence?
Face it, you do this all the time, you dismiss people solely because they disagree with you by arguing they are unqualified to make such judgement. In this case, you used a sexist term.
-
So your proof is something that says straight out that it usually refers to a male or female?
LOL...thanks for proving my point.
Did you intend for the logic of your point to be that calling a woman a "bitch" is no longer derogatory so long as one uses "bitch" as derogatory term for men as well?
Does your logic also extend to race as well, and if so, exactly how many Chinese must be called "porch monkey" before we can start throwing that one around the general populace again?
History is just as material as context. Someone around here said something along those lines once upon a time... I think he was from a place called South Wayne or something.
-
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).
-
Did you intend for the logic of your point to be that calling a woman a "bitch" is no longer derogatory so long as one uses "bitch" as derogatory term for men as well?
Does your logic also extend to race as well, and if so, exactly how many Chinese must be called "porch monkey" before we can start throwing that one around the general populace again?
Uh....the difference is that *by definition,* "airhead" is a term that is used for males or females.
Mirriam-Webster:
a mindless or stupid person
Dictionary.com:
a scatterbrained, stupid, or simple-minded person; dolt
Oxford English:
A silly or foolish person.
As opposed to "bitch":
Mirriam-Webster:
a lewd or immoral woman
a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
Dictionary.com:
a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.
a lewd woman.
Disparaging and Offensive. any woman.
Oxford English:
A spiteful or unpleasant woman.
So are we done here now? Or do I get to own Heisey and you some more before the weekend comes? I'm good with the ownage cause it's a Friday afternoon and I'm kinda bored.
-
As opposed to "bitch":
Mirriam-Webster:
a lewd or immoral woman
a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
Dictionary.com:
a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.
a lewd woman.
Disparaging and Offensive. any woman.
Oxford English:
A spiteful or unpleasant woman.
So are we done here now? Or do I get to own Heisey and you some more before the weekend comes? I'm good with the ownage cause it's a Friday afternoon and I'm kinda bored.
I doubt that's the complete definition of "bitch". Nothing about female dogs?
-
I doubt that's the complete definition of "bitch". Nothing about female dogs?
I edited to use the relevant definitions. There are multiple definitions for airhead too - similar to a "beachhead" in battle.
-
I have never heard a guy being described as an airhead except in very poorly-done expletive dubbing, where it is used instead of "a$$hole". See: High Fidelity
I absolutely have. The only time I've used the word in recent memory is to describe a 21-year-old male co-worker who fits the description to a tee. Don't see it as sexist at all, and honestly more often describes men I know than women.
-
Kan wee get all dis chit like airhead, head, and bitch in gif form. Words are too damn ambiguous and confusin', ai na?
-
Kan wee get all dis chit like airhead, head, and bitch in gif form. Words are too damn ambiguous and confusin', ai na?
-
Kan wee get all dis chit like airhead, head, and bitch in gif form. Words are too damn ambiguous and confusin', ai na?
you can say that again...
-
(https://static1.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/72524/5740761-in+before+the+lock+3.gif)
-
you can say that again...
I see what you did there...Slow clap
-
I have never heard a guy being described as an airhead except in very poorly-done expletive dubbing, where it is used instead of "a$$hole". See: High Fidelity
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!
-
I absolutely have. The only time I've used the word in recent memory is to describe a 21-year-old male co-worker who fits the description to a tee. Don't see it as sexist at all, and honestly more often describes men I know than women.
Sultan disagreed with Cohn's assertion that ESPN is overly leftist in the politics, largely because he agrees with that political viewpoint. So he had to dismiss Linda Cohn's assertion by saying she was unqualified to make such an opinion, despite her being employed at ESPN for more than 25 years and winning numerous journalism awards and considered somewhat of a pioneer in female sports journalism, by calling here an "airhead."
You will not find a more cut and dry sexist remark than this. You're trying to hard to protect your friend and fail to see the plainly obvious.
Added
Sultan here is a better argument ... That's one opinion and she is probably a republican. Plenty of other people at ESPN with 25 years experience see it differently.
-
Well obviously. But why does that matter? Both were the first of their respective identities to play a sport at the highest level in the USA. That's the important part. Robinson was great but frankly, none of us would remember him if he was the second black man to play major league baseball.
While I generally agree with almost all your posts, I don't think you could be any more wrong in this case. Players like Jackie are not forgotten. They are immortalized in the HOF. None of us have a hard time remembering guys like Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Gibson, etc. The greats are not forgotten.
The important part is that Jackie was one of the greatest players to ever play the game, a HOF'er and a guy who would certainly be in the consideration for one of the top 10-20 greatest players of all-time if he wouldn't have had to deal with the racism of the time. Michael Sam was just a guy.
There had been many, many gay players in the NFL before Sam was drafted. The same cannot be said about blacks - or even Hispanics for that matter. Ted Williams - probably the greatest hitter ever - had to hide the fact that his mother was from Mexico out of fear that he would not be allowed to play MLB.
-
Andy Katz got laidoff...come to fox sports
-
While I generally agree with almost all your posts, I don't think you could be any more wrong in this case. Players like Jackie are not forgotten. They are immortalized in the HOF. None of us have a hard time remembering guys like Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Gibson, etc. The greats are not forgotten.
The important part is that Jackie was one of the greatest players to ever play the game, a HOF'er and a guy who would certainly be in the consideration for one of the top 10-20 greatest players of all-time if he wouldn't have had to deal with the racism of the time. Michael Sam was just a guy.
There had been many, many gay players in the NFL before Sam was drafted. The same cannot be said about blacks - or even Hispanics for that matter. Ted Williams - probably the greatest hitter ever - had to hide the fact that his mother was from Mexico out of fear that he would not be allowed to play MLB.
Were there *openly* gay players before Sam? Many came out after their playing days, but *while* they were playing?
-
Kan wee get all dis chit like airhead, head, and bitch in gif form. Words are too damn ambiguous and confusin', ai na?
Yeah, cuz if anyone knows a lot about words..........
-
Were there *openly* gay players before Sam? Many came out after their playing days, but *while* they were playing?
No - they were afraid of losing their careers. Many came out after they retired. Sam was a pioneer in this area as being the 1st openly gay man to attempt to play in the NFL.
-
Uh....the difference is that *by definition,* "airhead" is a term that is used for males or females.
Mirriam-Webster:
a mindless or stupid person
Dictionary.com:
a scatterbrained, stupid, or simple-minded person; dolt
Oxford English:
A silly or foolish person.
As opposed to "bitch":
Mirriam-Webster:
a lewd or immoral woman
a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
Dictionary.com:
a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.
a lewd woman.
Disparaging and Offensive. any woman.
Oxford English:
A spiteful or unpleasant woman.
So are we done here now? Or do I get to own Heisey and you some more before the weekend comes? I'm good with the ownage cause it's a Friday afternoon and I'm kinda bored.
What is this crazy Bizzarro world where Sultan is the one moving goalposts.
Forget the definition... it doesn't matter how people define it today, the origin of "airhead" - in the pejorative sense - has a sexist connotation. Period.
Likewise, the origin of the phrase "owning someone" has a racial connotation. Period.
But your position here is essentially that, over time, the connotations have been diluted as utilization has evolved such that neither is typically considered to be sexist/racist in modern use. Just like how "Redskin" used to be a racial pejorative, but now it's simply a word used to describe a professional football team, n'est-ce pas?
-
This thread is going places.
-
I have never heard a guy being described as an airhead except in very poorly-done expletive dubbing, where it is used instead of "a$$hole". See: High Fidelity
Typically, the word used would be "mimbo" when describing classic "airhead" behavior from a male.
-
Sultan disagreed with Cohn's assertion that ESPN is overly leftist in the politics, largely because he agrees with that political viewpoint. So he had to dismiss Linda Cohn's assertion by saying she was unqualified to make such an opinion, despite her being employed at ESPN for more than 25 years and winning numerous journalism awards and considered somewhat of a pioneer in female sports journalism, by calling here an "airhead."
You will not find a more cut and dry sexist remark than this. You're trying to hard to protect your friend and fail to see the plainly obvious.
Added
Sultan here is a better argument ... That's one opinion and she is probably a republican. Plenty of other people at ESPN with 25 years experience see it differently.
Anybody who does not see that espn has gone way pc in last 10 yrs is simply...an airhead
-
I'm amazed this thread has been able to tip-toe the thread locking line so gracefully for this long.
I believe I spoke too soon.
-
Sultan disagreed with Cohn's assertion that ESPN is overly leftist in the politics, largely because he agrees with that political viewpoint. So he had to dismiss Linda Cohn's assertion by saying she was unqualified to make such an opinion, despite her being employed at ESPN for more than 25 years and winning numerous journalism awards and considered somewhat of a pioneer in female sports journalism, by calling here an "airhead."
You will not find a more cut and dry sexist remark than this. You're trying to hard to protect your friend and fail to see the plainly obvious.
You're wrong. Assuming that only women can be airheads, which is the stance you have taken, is far more sexist than anything Sultan wrote.
-
i don't understand why some here seem to want this thread locked. yes it has wobbled around the original topic, tickled some politics, gotten a little contentious at times, but i don't think it has crossed the line. we have shown some "self-containment" and "internal disciplinary measures" to keep this from getting out of hand, which is the way it should be. just as the job hunting 101 was. all it takes it a little peer pressure to right the ship and bada bing-bada boom, eeen'a?
-
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51YT21NJH9L.jpg)
A movie about stupid (male) criminals (from the not-too-distant past).
I have to admit, though, that I typically think of 'airhead' as being "derogatory" toward women rather than men. And I can't fight my gut that says that if Heisy had used the term, people would have likely jumped all over him.
Anyway. In before the lockaroo.
-
i don't understand why some here seem to want this thread locked. yes it has wobbled around the original topic, tickled some politics, gotten a little contentious at times, but i don't think it has crossed the line. we have shown some "self-containment" and "internal disciplinary measures" to keep this from getting out of hand, which is the way it should be. just as the job hunting 101 was. all it takes it a little peer pressure to right the ship and bada bing-bada boom, eeen'a?
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.
-
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.
skip is either one shrewd mutha or just another annoying bunuvasich. he's so provocative that people want to engage him. he doesn't back down from his opinions regardless of how obtuse they can be. check out his rantings about aaron rodgers sometime, but he is annoying all the way to the bank
-
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
https://www.youtube.com/v/13CSWRyaAgA
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D).
Bayless is an idiot and is in the process of teaching Sharpe everything he knows.
-
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
https://www.youtube.com/v/13CSWRyaAgA
Is that so?
-
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.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTcleAgJxN58iW3g-Yn-XcvRy2MW3_tzJNHVPbb-0zmIIuMiMB)
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
Related. #1 and #2.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/27/these-are-the-10-worst-jobs-of-2017.html
-
We, meaning the U.S.A., tend to use "Gangster of Love", some use the term "Maurice", nobody uses "Moron"
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OQ_5RkQGJVdYM4iFUDamAMDMdbXVsBl-CcGzIq8dFMQ-yAVauRq3W_VqczT7hUJ_N90=w300)
NOW I see what you speak of.
-
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.
-
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? ;D
-
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.
-
Is "female airhead" redundant?
-
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-liberal-bias-bob-iger-disney-jason-barrett-barrett-sports-media/1vkiau005ud0i135hcxdg6wxat (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.
-
http://www.sportingnews.com/other-sports/news/espn-liberal-bias-bob-iger-disney-jason-barrett-barrett-sports-media/1vkiau005ud0i135hcxdg6wxat (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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
they do, do they? well then what went wrong?
-
i don't, but we are analyzing what they did do(the 3 highlighted things) and the outcome wasn't too good.
The outcome could have been worse. Pakuni is spot on. ESPN knows what people are watching. They are having trouble with the economics of cord cutting, and since they charge the highest carriage fees, they are feeling the greatest impact. Changing programming back to what it was isn't going to help that.
-
The outcome could have been worse. Pakuni is spot on. ESPN knows what people are watching. They are having trouble with the economics of cord cutting, and since they charge the highest carriage fees, they are feeling the greatest impact. Changing programming back to what it was isn't going to help that.
i'm not saying that changing the programming back is the answer either. what i'm saying is, if they know what people want or are watching, then do it. if they need to cut costs, cut fees charged, downsize, do it. bottom line-the gurus who get paid to make the game winning decisions need to get it right or step aside. if my company is floundering, i have some decisions to make
-
they do, do they? well then what went wrong?
It's been stated and re-stated here about a dozen times.
Market forces largely outside ESPN's control are costing the network subscribers.
-
they do, do they? well then what went wrong?
Times have changed. 5 years ago, cord cutting was rare, live sports were booming because they were seen as DVR proof, and people were both tuning in to reporters and clicking on content driven articles. Under that reality, spending on live event contacts and the type of talent they had made sense.
In the past 1-3 years, that has changed. There are more streaming options for sports, articles are more bait driven, and the highlight shows are losing appeal as YouTube and other online sources are able to provide high quality a la carte highlights.
ESPN is adjusting to the new reality, but you can't do it overnight when what made sense 2-3 years ago is completely different today.
-
i'm not saying that changing the programming back is the answer either. what i'm saying is, if they know what people want or are watching, then do it.
They are.
if they need to cut costs, cut fees charged, downsize, do it.
They just did.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Mine is that ESPN largely knows what they are doing, but are dealing with macro issues beyond their control.
You could have been the best horseshoe manufacturer in the world 120 years ago, but there was nothing you could do to change the marketplace. That is what ESPN is dealing with.
-
Some people seem to forget the fundamental rule of statistics. Correlation does not imply causation.
-
Times have changed. 5 years ago, cord cutting was rare, live sports were booming because they were seen as DVR proof, and people were both tuning in to reporters and clicking on content driven articles. Under that reality, spending on live event contacts and the type of talent they had made sense.
In the past 1-3 years, that has changed. There are more streaming options for sports, articles are more bait driven, and the highlight shows are losing appeal as YouTube and other online sources are able to provide high quality a la carte highlights.
ESPN is adjusting to the new reality, but you can't do it overnight when what made sense 2-3 years ago is completely different today.
i really wasn't trying to be wise acre, but was merely feeding off what was presented-your explanation makes sense-thanks.
typically however, these large, successful companies have a better pulse for things; an ear to the ground if you will. seems they didn't realize the ship was sinking. better late than never i guess, but a lot of good people lost their jobs...suddenly
-
The outcome could have been worse. Pakuni is spot on. ESPN knows what people are watching. They are having trouble with the economics of cord cutting, and since they charge the highest carriage fees, they are feeling the greatest impact. Changing programming back to what it was isn't going to help that.
Ya mean people won't want to pay the high cost of cable if they ESPN turns back the clock 20 years?
You were pretty much spot-on in your comments.
I'm amazed people have a hard time understanding this. ESPN has been put in the same boat that record companies were in about 20 years ago. They knew change was coming, but that doesn't mean you aren't afraid to chop a couple branches off of the money tree in the yard.
ESPN has to offer a standalone product. That is the future. But they have contracts to worry about, not to mention that a stand-alone product could cause even more people to drop cable.
Eventually, in my opinion ESPN, Fox Sports, CBSSN, and possibly others will band together to offer a product for sports fans who don't want cable. They will fight having to do it for as long as possible, just as the record companies did. But cable will NEVER go back to the number of subscribers it had. There are tens of millions who want the convenience of just one bill per month for cable and internet, but they are dying out fast. the numbers prove that.
Instead, I pay five bills and save $95 every month from when I had Time Warner.
-
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.
Of the shows you mentioned above, the only one I ever watch (and even then only semi-regularly) is PTI. Kornheiser and Wilbon often talk about Tebow. Their general tone has been VERY respectful. They say he was one of the greatest college football players of recent times, they say he wasn't a good pro QB but should have gotten more time to prove himself, they say he is a fantastic TV analyst, and they say they doubt he is a good enough ballplayer to be a big-leaguer.
In all of that talk, they never mocked him. They have mocked some in the media's obsession with him, but that's very different. Indeed, it's what I did in my silly, sarcastic post.
So, given that you were 100% wrong about PTI's take on Tebow, it's easy to dismiss what you say as alternative facts.
I stick by the point of my post: Given his lack of accomplishment on the professional level, the amount of coverage for Tebow has been excessive. But I do "get" it. People are interested in Tebow, and ESPN (and others) give viewers what they want.
Otherwise, count me as one who believes that ESPN's supposed liberal bent probably has cost some viewers but not a statistically important number of them. Economic reasons pretty much always trump all others in these kinds of decisions.
-
They are.
They just did.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Mine is that ESPN largely knows what they are doing, but are dealing with macro issues beyond their control.
You could have been the best horseshoe manufacturer in the world 120 years ago, but there was nothing you could do to change the marketplace. That is what ESPN is dealing with.
While I agree that the political viewpoints of ESPN did not have a major impact on this decline, I would argue that mismanagement was more of a factor than you are letting on. While yes market forces of cord cutters on the surface are causing this, it was the management decisions to accumulate high fixed costs and tying yourself to cable subscriptions at a price that is 5x that of any other station that is the real factor. ESPN leadership made a decision to go all in on live sports content and forced cable companies to pass through an absurd cost structure to their clients to include their station. This was all happening as new technology was coming out and being developed that were allowing a small amount of people to live without cable. I am sure the leaders at ESPN knew about this developing technology and made the decision to completely ignore that segment and double down on the live sports, high fixed cost model.
To me this is more a situation of investing in HD DVD or Blu-Ray. ESPN went all in on the HD DVD solution and now are trying to make it right.
-
While I agree that the political viewpoints of ESPN did not have a major impact on this decline, I would argue that mismanagement was more of a factor than you are letting on. While yes market forces of cord cutters on the surface are causing this, it was the management decisions to accumulate high fixed costs and tying yourself to cable subscriptions at a price that is 5x that of any other station that is the real factor. ESPN leadership made a decision to go all in on live sports content and forced cable companies to pass through an absurd cost structure to their clients to include their station. This was all happening as new technology was coming out and being developed that were allowing a small amount of people to live without cable. I am sure the leaders at ESPN knew about this developing technology and made the decision to completely ignore that segment and double down on the live sports, high fixed cost model.
To me this is more a situation of investing in HD DVD or Blu-Ray. ESPN went all in on the HD DVD solution and now are trying to make it right.
I would agree with you, but I don't necessarily think that the decision to purchase high fee rights deals can yet be considered a bad one. I guess we will see moving forward.
-
I've been on vacation the last 9 days so haven't chimed in but did some reading and thinkin' on this ESPN issue and here are some scattered thoughts that resulted from thinkin' while drinkin':
ESPN has three issues that are all hitting at the same time that are combining to impact them negatively. Those issues are:
1. overpaying for live content (given change in consumption models)
2. over investing in infrastructure/talent (given change in non-live content people want)
3. "stick to sports" paradigm change (could also be called social awareness)
Item number 1 was probably predictable given inevitable change in technology and the fact that many people were concerned with a sports bubble as early as 5 years ago. However, by itself it was entirely survivable if not for items 2 and 3.
ESPN invested a ton of time and effort into upgraded facilities and production capability, specifically around SC at preciously the time the need for SC died. They doubled down on their non-live sports content model at the same time that their viewers went away from that model (for cultural and technology reasons). So basically they should have taken that money ($125mil on an SC set alone) and lit it on fire. They made their digital footprint an extension of their now outdated content model forcing them to re-invest there as well. It's a lot like Kodak not seeing the cell phone camera coming....picture taking has never been more popular but the way we "consume" picture taking changed drastically and they didn't see it coming.
Those two things were probably survivable in combination, but then you layer in the "stick to sports" problem and I'm not sure it is survivable. Culturally (especially in the key demographic of 40 and under) the general public is no longer willing to accept that sports is a thing all to itself that, that somehow it takes place in a vacuum in which the "real" world doesn't intrude. So ESPN can't ignore the shady behavior of athletes or institutions or things going on within society in general....they are all interrelated now. As a consequence they must move to a model of not only reporting on the "non-sports" content but must also opine on it. And therein lies the left/right arguments about ESPN content, ESPN must enter into the "real" world which these days has a left/right aspect to everything. As a result, those who want to "stick to sports" as an escape are pissed. Those who are on the left will be pissed about anything that's perceived as a right leaning view point and Those who are on the right will be pissed about anything that's perceived as a left leaning view point. Further, the content required to retain the key demographic is likely to be very different than what the non-key demographic folks want to see so it creates another fracture point.
Bottom line, there isn't any one thing that is killing ESPN and it's certainly not as simple as well it's a bunch of liberal people putting out liberal content that nobody wants to watch. I'm sure there are biases of all type in the content so there isn't any one that's killing the network.
I don't know if long term ESPN survives this....it's going to require a lot of long term strategic vision that ESPN hasn't demonstrated that they have to date.
-
Any students on here? Do any of you have a cable subscription? Just curious.
-
I would agree with you, but I don't necessarily think that the decision to purchase high fee rights deals can yet be considered a bad one. I guess we will see moving forward.
True, overpaying for live sports might not be a bad one in the long term. However, when you add that cost structure to their revenue model, that is without a doubt a bad decision based on what was happening with new technology. It showed no vision and a fixed mindset. To mu03eng's point they can still make it out of this if the leadership can show some long term strategic vision, but I am skeptical the current group can deliver given they missed the current trend so badly.
-
Any students on here? Do any of you have a cable subscription? Just curious.
It would have to be off-campus students as I think anyone in the dorms/Hump get cable as part of their room and board.
-
It would have to be off-campus students as I think anyone in the dorms/Hump get cable as part of their room and board.
If I could get a sports stream package I would cancel my Direct TV 95% of what I have it for is sports
-
Any students on here? Do any of you have a cable subscription? Just curious.
I didn't have a cable package my junior or senior year. Neither did any of my friends. If we wanted to go watch a big game, we would go to a bar, illegally stream it, or use our parents login to watch the events on our computer. If we wanted sports highlights, we we just go online. Was never a need to pay for a cable package.
-
I've been on vacation the last 9 days so haven't chimed in but did some reading and thinkin' on this ESPN issue and here are some scattered thoughts that resulted from thinkin' while drinkin':
ESPN has three issues that are all hitting at the same time that are combining to impact them negatively. Those issues are:
1. overpaying for live content (given change in consumption models)
2. over investing in infrastructure/talent (given change in non-live content people want)
3. "stick to sports" paradigm change (could also be called social awareness)
Item number 1 was probably predictable given inevitable change in technology and the fact that many people were concerned with a sports bubble as early as 5 years ago. However, by itself it was entirely survivable if not for items 2 and 3.
ESPN invested a ton of time and effort into upgraded facilities and production capability, specifically around SC at preciously the time the need for SC died. They doubled down on their non-live sports content model at the same time that their viewers went away from that model (for cultural and technology reasons). So basically they should have taken that money ($125mil on an SC set alone) and lit it on fire. They made their digital footprint an extension of their now outdated content model forcing them to re-invest there as well. It's a lot like Kodak not seeing the cell phone camera coming....picture taking has never been more popular but the way we "consume" picture taking changed drastically and they didn't see it coming.
Those two things were probably survivable in combination, but then you layer in the "stick to sports" problem and I'm not sure it is survivable. Culturally (especially in the key demographic of 40 and under) the general public is no longer willing to accept that sports is a thing all to itself that, that somehow it takes place in a vacuum in which the "real" world doesn't intrude. So ESPN can't ignore the shady behavior of athletes or institutions or things going on within society in general....they are all interrelated now. As a consequence they must move to a model of not only reporting on the "non-sports" content but must also opine on it. And therein lies the left/right arguments about ESPN content, ESPN must enter into the "real" world which these days has a left/right aspect to everything. As a result, those who want to "stick to sports" as an escape are pissed. Those who are on the left will be pissed about anything that's perceived as a right leaning view point and Those who are on the right will be pissed about anything that's perceived as a left leaning view point. Further, the content required to retain the key demographic is likely to be very different than what the non-key demographic folks want to see so it creates another fracture point.
Bottom line, there isn't any one thing that is killing ESPN and it's certainly not as simple as well it's a bunch of liberal people putting out liberal content that nobody wants to watch. I'm sure there are biases of all type in the content so there isn't any one that's killing the network.
I don't know if long term ESPN survives this....it's going to require a lot of long term strategic vision that ESPN hasn't demonstrated that they have to date.
True, overpaying for live sports might not be a bad one in the long term. However, when you add that cost structure to their revenue model, that is without a doubt a bad decision based on what was happening with new technology. It showed no vision and a fixed mindset. To mu03eng's point they can still make it out of this if the leadership can show some long term strategic vision, but I am skeptical the current group can deliver given they missed the current trend so badly.
I'm down with both of these. Well stated.
-
Are we all actually that shocked that people/organizations were trying to get as much as they could while they could - long term ramifications be damned? That's the American way
-
Are we all actually that shocked that people/organizations were trying to get as much as they could while they could - long term ramifications be damned? That's the American way
That wasn't the problem, the issue was they were trying to grab as much profit as possible while assuming things wouldn't change and pouring millions into capturing those future profits.
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/espn-layoffs-future/524922/?utm_source=atlfb
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/espn-layoffs-future/524922/?utm_source=atlfb
From the article ...
Right now, ESPN produces very little that anybody would want to watch the following week, or following year, aside from its 30 For 30 documentary series. Perhaps ESPN should be spending more on prestigious sports documentaries and dramas that attract new audiences who don’t need a 6 p.m. highlight show.
Exactly correct!
ESPN needs to produce stuff that people want to watch (like 30 for 30) and then keep it to themselves forcing one to go only to them to see it.
The answer is not more blah blah blah sports talk than anyone can get anywhere. Or highlights that can be found in 10,000 places on the net.
The answer is original programming. More "30 for 30" or E-60 style documentaries. Maybe original series shows revolving around sports:
* Make a series around the beginning of the NFL when Curly Lambeau's Packers and George Halas Decatur Staleys were starting something called the NFL
* How about a "re-boot" or the TV series "White Shadow" with Ken Howard from the late 70s/early 80s.
* How about a dramatic movie about Al McGuire and MU in the 1970s!
More stuff like the Showtime series "a season with ...."
Is this stuff expensive? Sure. But consider this (also from the story) ...
ESPN spent $175 million on a state-of-the-art facility whose primary purpose was to update SportsCenter for the multi-screen world. But SportsCenter has faltered in a media environment where highlights and fast analysis are widely available around the internet.
I'm sure this was a "good idea at the time" but today, to have spent that much on repackaging the latest LeBron dunk seems like a disastrously expensive decision.
What I'm describing is MTV. They realized, like 20+ years ago, that music videos were so widely available that they had an effective value of zero for them. So they decided to create original programming for people that like to watch music videos, and kept it for themselves. HBO, Netflix and Hulu also realized that streaming old movies that can be found lots of places was also a low value business. So, they are creating their own original content.
Likewise, ESPN has to realize that everything they do that is not live sports has an effective value of zero. That is the majority of their programming day. So they need to create original programming for people that like live sports, talk and highlights so they will want to come to their network and watch it. And, can only get it on their network.
It is surprising that ESPN has not already done this. They have been around from 37 years, have they ever produced a sports themed dramatic series or movie?
-
ESPN did have Playmakers until the NFL put an end to it.
-
That wasn't the problem, the issue was they were trying to grab as much profit as possible while assuming things wouldn't change and pouring millions into capturing those future profits.
Didn't you and I say the same thing?
-
without re-copying heisy's excellent points above, isn't that what i was trying to say in my comments during my back n forth with sultan and pac-man? i'm not patting myself on the back as i merely nibbled around the edges while heisy hit it out of the park. the "smartest' people in the world, the espns, etc fell asleep at the wheel
the next concern however, are the hackers. yup, the ones who supposedly stole new serries for oitnb and are demanding a ransom for it. is this the wave?
-
without re-copying heisy's excellent points above, isn't that what i was trying to say in my comments during my back n forth with sultan and pac-man? i'm not patting myself on the back as i merely nibbled around the edges while heisy hit it out of the park. the "smartest' people in the world, the espns, etc fell asleep at the wheel
the next concern however, are the hackers. yup, the ones who supposedly stole new serries for oitnb and are demanding a ransom for it. is this the wave?
More people getting what they can, while they can. What's the problem?
-
More people getting what they can, while they can. What's the problem?
that's stealing, eyn'a? then extortion...other than that, i guess it's ok. ?-( with a name that begins with jes...i would think those 2 things would be in, say, your top 5?
-
that's stealing, eyn'a? then extortion...other than that, i guess it's ok. ?-( with a name that begins with jes...i would think those 2 things would be in, say, your top 5?
oh... legality, ethics, morals... becomes murky water to wade into. wonder who/what influences the lawmakers the most?
-
oh... legality, ethics, morals... becomes murky water to wade into. wonder who/what influences the lawmakers the most?
you asked me what the problem was and i responded. you bring lawmakers into it and then it becomes however you want to define "is" is. lawmakers-morals, ethics, legality are oxymorons
-
Had dinner with one of the top Brass at ESPN the other day. They are going to be very selective in the properties they bid for in the coming years. They will be more interested in deals where they can share the risks of what they can sell the advertising for. So lots of lumberjack competitions and things like that.
-
Had dinner with one of the top Brass at ESPN the other day. They are going to be very selective in the properties they bid for in the coming years. They will be more interested in deals where they can share the risks of what they can sell the advertising for. So lots of lumberjack competitions and things like that.
Bring back all those competitions that only got on TV during Wide World of Sports, like barrel jumping and cliff diving.
And Superstars. Gotta bring back Superstars.
-
Had dinner with one of the top Brass at ESPN the other day. They are going to be very selective in the properties they bid for in the coming years. They will be more interested in deals where they can share the risks of what they can sell the advertising for. So lots of lumberjack competitions and things like that.
Do you know a guy named Chicos?
-
Had dinner with one of the top Brass at ESPN the other day. They are going to be very selective in the properties they bid for in the coming years. They will be more interested in deals where they can share the risks of what they can sell the advertising for. So lots of lumberjack competitions and things like that.
This is Super insight. Really raises the Bar for other posters.
-
without re-copying heisy's excellent points above, isn't that what i was trying to say in my comments during my back n forth with sultan and pac-man?
If that is what you were trying to say, you didn't succeed.
-
Any students on here? Do any of you have a cable subscription? Just curious.
Back in the day, we didn't need cable. Our late night programming was back to back M*A*S*H episodes, followed by The Odd Couple, Hawaii 5-0, Twilight Zone, and the Rat Patrol. All brought to you by Ernie Von Schledorn. Phil Tolkan and his singing Pontiacs, and Suburpia.
-
Do you know a guy named Chicos?
No I don't know him. But we traveled in similar circles I think based on some of his scripture over the years.
-
Back in the day, we didn't need cable. Our late night programming was back to back M*A*S*H episodes, followed by The Odd Couple, Hawaii 5-0, Twilight Zone, and the Rat Patrol. All brought to you by Ernie Von Schledorn. Phil Tolkan and his singing Pontiacs, and Suburpia.
That's the way it was and WE LIKED IT!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/vlpVDSAjy6aCk/giphy.gif)
-
I heard rumor g graphics was a sponsor too.
-
Had dinner with one of the top Brass at ESPN the other day. They are going to be very selective in the properties they bid for in the coming years. They will be more interested in deals where they can share the risks of what they can sell the advertising for. So lots of lumberjack competitions and things like that.
Can you explain how a cable channel with $9 to $10 billion a year in revenue thinks it will satisfy is customers expectations with this kind of programming?
-
Had dinner with one of the top Brass at ESPN the other day. They are going to be very selective in the properties they bid for in the coming years. They will be more interested in deals where they can share the risks of what they can sell the advertising for. So lots of lumberjack competitions and things like that.
Oh yeah ... well ... I had dinner with someone who watched ESPN the other day!
-
Oh yeah ... well ... I had dinner with someone who watched ESPN the other day!
Based on recent events, you might be in the minority!
-
Can you explain how a cable channel with $9 to $10 billion a year in revenue thinks it will satisfy is customers expectations with this kind of programming?
They have to fill 24/7/365 worth of content. They will bid on the premium product they need to retain their cachet. The remainder will be heavily biased to content payment is based on the actual ad sales. Obviously your not going to have round the clock lumberjacks, but there will be enough product like where there is a natural TV sponsor , in the Lumberjacks example , a company like Stihl. Triathlons sponsored by Energy products companies etc. One of the reasons Golf is all over sports TV is not because there are lots of people who watch golf. It is because the structure of the PGA Tour is such that the tournament sponsors agree up front to buy so much ads over the course of a year.
-
They have to fill 24/7/365 worth of content. They will bid on the premium product they need to retain their cachet. The remainder will be heavily biased to content payment is based on the actual ad sales. Obviously your not going to have round the clock lumberjacks, but there will be enough product like where there is a natural TV sponsor , in the Lumberjacks example , a company like Stihl. Triathlons sponsored by Energy products companies etc. One of the reasons Golf is all over sports TV is not because there are lots of people who watch golf. It is because the structure of the PGA Tour is such that the tournament sponsors agree up front to buy so much ads over the course of a year.
What about producing more original programming (e.g., scripted dramas with sports themes, documentaries)... the idea was in The Atlantic article that I detailed?
-
What about producing more original programming (e.g., scripted dramas with sports themes, documentaries)... the idea was in The Atlantic article that I detailed?
Clearly they have internal production capacity and could create sports soap operas of some sort. They have been good at creating product over the years.
This is really more a case of realigning their cost structure. As you point out it is still a huge company that has mega profits.
The point my friend made to me was he did not want to bid on Thursday Night Football because the numbers didn't work and we will see more of that behavior from them in the future.
-
Clearly they have internal production capacity and could create sports soap operas of some sort. They have been good at creating product over the years.
This is really more a case of realigning their cost structure. As you point out it is still a huge company that has mega profits.
The point my friend made to me was he did not want to bid on Thursday Night Football because the numbers didn't work and we will see more of that behavior from them in the future.
And if we see more of the bolded part above, wouldn't we also see an acceleration of cord cutting?
As noted here many times, ESPN is the most expensive channel on cable (ESPN2 is the third most expensive). So, one would expect the best programming from the most expensive channels. If they bail on considering Thursday Night Football, and presumably more behavior like this, such as Monday Night Football, NBA, CBB etc. (after their current contracts expire), why wouldn't we see a wholesale cord-cutting flight from ESPN?
-
Bit late to this spectacle but it simply reminded me of a post by the legendary pftcommenter.
http://uproxx.com/ksk/cares-player-gay-1000-word-column/
(Probably not the most safe for work )
-
Oh yeah ... well ... I had dinner with someone who watched ESPN the other day!
I'm guessing you couldn't find anyone who watched FS1.
-
What about producing more original programming (e.g., scripted dramas with sports themes, documentaries)... the idea was in The Atlantic article that I detailed?
So your solution to fix ESPN is to have them take on a third very expensive content development model (first being live sports production, second being sports commentary production) in a market space (Peak TV) that is already very fragmented and saturated?
It also assumes that ESPN has the appetite and strength of courage to produce good scripted TV that may offend their content providers, and if Ballers taught us anything that absolutely do not have that ability. Propaganda for the sports leagues will not be well received.
-
I don't think ESPN has a content problem. They have plenty of live sports to show most of the year and the good news about that content is most of it, while tied up in high fixed costs, doesn't have a great deal of marginal cost.
-
They could double down on dramas like Playmakers. The NFL seemed to have a problem with the storylines, but that was over a decade ago.
A great storyline from episode 2:
The league drug-testing official visits the Cougars in the second episode of Playmakers, and DH finds out that he's on the list. Offensive lineman "Guard Dog" Fredericks tempts Leon with a way to get his mojo back. Olczyk continues to struggle with the ramifications of the devastating hit he made. Speaking of pain, quarterback Derek McConnell sucks down anti-inflammatories like candy. The team doctor is concerned about McConnell's health. It's all part of the effort to keep personal problems from interfering with the game. Guard Dog gets caught and DH goes through a terrible procedure, involving injecting clean urine into his own bladder, to not get caught.
A man is shot outside a club, forcing DH to decide where his loyalties lie—with the team or with his posse.
-
They could double down on dramas like Playmakers. The NFL seemed to have a problem with the storylines, but that was over a decade ago.
A great storyline from episode 2:
The league drug-testing official visits the Cougars in the second episode of Playmakers, and DH finds out that he's on the list. Offensive lineman "Guard Dog" Fredericks tempts Leon with a way to get his mojo back. Olczyk continues to struggle with the ramifications of the devastating hit he made. Speaking of pain, quarterback Derek McConnell sucks down anti-inflammatories like candy. The team doctor is concerned about McConnell's health. It's all part of the effort to keep personal problems from interfering with the game. Guard Dog gets caught and DH goes through a terrible procedure, involving injecting clean urine into his own bladder, to not get caught.
A man is shot outside a club, forcing DH to decide where his loyalties lie—with the team or with his posse.
You think the NFL hated those story lines 15 years ago.....could you imagine if ESPN tried to put that out now? Holy crap, they would folder faster than a tent at the Fyre Festival.
-
And if we see more of the bolded part above, wouldn't we also see an acceleration of cord cutting?
As noted here many times, ESPN is the most expensive channel on cable (ESPN2 is the third most expensive). So, one would expect the best programming from the most expensive channels. If they bail on considering Thursday Night Football, and presumably more behavior like this, such as Monday Night Football, NBA, CBB etc. (after their current contracts expire), why wouldn't we see a wholesale cord-cutting flight from ESPN?
The point that was being made was they view Monday night Football as a premium asset . They did not view Thursday night in the same light.
-
You think the NFL hated those story lines 15 years ago.....could you imagine if ESPN tried to put that out now? Holy crap, they would folder faster than a tent at the Fyre Festival.
The plot hits a little too close to home, me thinks
-
Clearly they have internal production capacity and could create sports soap operas of some sort.
That already exists - it's called the WWE.
-
As noted here many times, ESPN is the most expensive channel on cable (ESPN2 is the third most expensive). So, one would expect the best programming from the most expensive channels.
No, one would expect the best in live sports.
-
Back in the day, we didn't need cable. Our late night programming was back to back M*A*S*H episodes, followed by The Odd Couple, Hawaii 5-0, Twilight Zone, and the Rat Patrol. All brought to you by Ernie Von Schledorn. Phil Tolkan and his singing Pontiacs, and Suburpia.
Those were the days my friend.
-
No, one would expect the best in live sports.
(http://i.imgur.com/yPgGevU.gif)
-
Alternative facts right there. Please tell us you didn't graduate from MU and really believe that.
Tim Tebow will do very well in life no matter what you say.
-
Tim Tebow will do very well in life no matter what you say.
I don't remember anyone saying differently.
I (and others) have repeatedly said that he will do very badly in professional sports.
-
They could double down on dramas like Playmakers. The NFL seemed to have a problem with the storylines, but that was over a decade ago.
A great storyline from episode 2:
The league drug-testing official visits the Cougars in the second episode of Playmakers, and DH finds out that he's on the list. Offensive lineman "Guard Dog" Fredericks tempts Leon with a way to get his mojo back. Olczyk continues to struggle with the ramifications of the devastating hit he made. Speaking of pain, quarterback Derek McConnell sucks down anti-inflammatories like candy. The team doctor is concerned about McConnell's health. It's all part of the effort to keep personal problems from interfering with the game. Guard Dog gets caught and DH goes through a terrible procedure, involving injecting clean urine into his own bladder, to not get caught.
A man is shot outside a club, forcing DH to decide where his loyalties lie—with the team or with his posse.
LOVED that show.
-
interesting article about the direction ESPN is headed. Time to catch up with evolving viewing habits:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/espn-will-look-dramatically-different-1-year-130050254.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb
-
interesting article about the direction ESPN is headed. Time to catch up with evolving viewing habits:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/espn-will-look-dramatically-different-1-year-130050254.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb
It's one thing to say taste and preferences in consuming sports programming are changing. It is quite another thing for ESPN to actually adapt.
-
So your solution to fix ESPN is to have them take on a third very expensive content development model (first being live sports production, second being sports commentary production) in a market space (Peak TV) that is already very fragmented and saturated?
It also assumes that ESPN has the appetite and strength of courage to produce good scripted TV that may offend their content providers and if Ballers taught us anything that absolutely do not have that ability. Propaganda for the sports leagues will not be well received.
Two things about ESPN's business model (both brown bolded) ...
Would You Cut the Cord on ESPN to Save $8 a Month? Here's How Many People Said Yes
This could be very bad news for Walt Disney.
Daniel B. Kline (TMFDankline) Apr 15, 2017 at 9:00AM
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/15/would-you-cut-the-cord-on-espn-to-save-8-a-month-h.aspx
In the survey, Greenfield asked two questions:
1. "If you could save $8 per month by removing ESPN and ESPN2 from your cable or satellite package, would you do it?"
2. "If ESPN and ESPN2 were only available as a standalone service like Netflix, would you pay $20 per month to subscribe?"
More than half of respondents, 56%, said they would be willing to not have the ESPN channels if they could shave $8 a month off their cable bill. Only 6% of those surveyed said they would be willing to pay $20 a month for a standalone ESPN service.
If ESPN were to launch a streaming service, not tied to a traditional pay-TV subscription, it would trigger clauses in many of its contracts that force cable companies to provide it to a certain (large) percentage of their customers. If pay-TV providers could offer ESPN-free packages, most would, and ESPN would probably not be able to make up that revenue with a streaming service.
"If 15% paid for an ESPN/ESPN2 DTC offering at $20/month, that yields $4.1 billion in revenue, dramatically below the nearly $9 billion the two channels generate from the legacy MVPD ecosystem," Greenfiled wrote. "To make matters worse, as we mentioned above, these DTC subscribers could churn on/off whenever they want (i.e., NFL fans only would have to subscribe for football season). In turn, the actual revenue from a DTC model would be significantly lower than $4 billion."
So ESPN had (repeat had) an unbelievable business model. About half their $9 to $10 billion/year is from customers that don't want it and don't use it. No other business can make this claim, that 50% of their business comes from people that don't use their product. Hey, Rocket, you're a dentist (correct?) how much do you make a year from people that sign up for office visits, pay for that visit and then don't actually show up and use your service? I'm guessing that number is very close to zero. For ESPN it is 50%.
Now technology and other pressures are giving those that don't want or need ESPN's service ways to opt out. Above I noted that saying things are changing and actually changing are two very different things. That brings me to the second facts above ...
If ESPN were to launch a streaming service, not tied to a traditional pay-TV subscription, it would trigger clauses in many of its contracts that force cable companies to provide it to a certain (large) percentage of their customers. If pay-TV providers could offer ESPN-free packages, most would, and ESPN would probably not be able to make up that revenue with a streaming service
ESPN knew they had monopoly power and FORCED cable companies to put them on basic for $7/month or they would not get it at all. The cable companies fought back getting clauses in their contract that if WatchESPN became a stand-alone business, they could take it off basic.
What this means is if ESPN does change to the new realities of watching TV and offer WatchESPN as a stand alone, cable companies will take it off basic. They would lower their cable bill by $7/month (or $8 or $9 is they have ESPN2, ESPNU and/ESPNNews on basic) and then immediately offer an "ESPN Premium package." For everyone here that is a big sports consumer we just add that premium package back for the same amount our basic bill was reduced and nothing changes. But for the roughly 50% that do not want or use ESPN, it gives them a way to ditch the most expensive station and save about $100/year. This would devastate ESPN.
So what can ESPN do? They can create programming for the 50% that do not want or use their product. That is original programming like scripted dramas and/or documentaries.
If this is too expensive they can slowly bleed out over the next several years. Because they cannot offer a streaming service to compete with the cable companies that are forced to keep them on basic. And if ESPN allows cable companies to offer them as a premium service to the lower their basic bill, ESPN's revenues collapses.
Not a good place to be.
Oh, they can also slash and burn their broadcasting rights and put that right back onto the leagues and conferences. That would squeeze them resulting is work stoppages by pro-athletes not willing to take less, and see schools with high athletic costs get squeezed as they get less from their conference TV packages.
This is not a good place to be if you rely on ESPN for your revenues (hello ACC, hello NFL).
-
So what can ESPN do? They can create programming for the 50% that do not want or use their product. That is original programming like scripted dramas and/or documentaries.
What makes you think the 50% of people who don't watch ESPN would want to watch sports themed scripted dramas or documentaries? My guess is that most of that 50% are not sports fans so they likely will not tune into anything ESPN is doing. And they would probably piss off the 50% of people who do watch them. The documentaries maybe but scripted dramas?
-
What makes you think the 50% of people who don't watch ESPN would want to watch sports themed scripted dramas or documentaries? My guess is that most of that 50% are not sports fans so they likely will not tune into anything ESPN is doing. And they would probably piss off the 50% of people who do watch them. The documentaries maybe but scripted dramas?
Then ESPN is doomed (over time). They get 50% of their revenues from people that do not want the product but are forced to take it as explained above. As they people get more options (streaming or skinny bundles) they will elect to not give ESPN any more money. ESPN could dramatically cut their fees but that has the same effect.
Yes ESPN is still profitable and if current trends hold, that should stay profitable for a few more years. But the trends are against them. They are on the road to "bleeding out" and they need to do something.
Again ESPN's "big mistake" was not understanding that 50% of their revenues was coming from people that do not want their product and ESPN truly believed they were "stuck" paying them forever so they went out and committed revenues from customers that do not want their product int he form of $8 billion in broadcasting fees per year. Now these "stuck" ESPN customers are finding ways to cut-out ESPN and ESPN appears unable or incapable of doing anything to try and keep this 50%.
-
Then ESPN is doomed (over time). They get 50% of their revenues from people that do not want the product but are forced to take it as explained above. As they people get more options (streaming or skinny bundles) they will elect to not give ESPN any more money. ESPN could dramatically cut their fees but that has the same effect.
Yes ESPN is still profitable and if current trends hold, that should stay profitable for a few more years. But the trends are against them. They are on the road to "bleeding out" and they need to do something.
Again ESPN's "big mistake" was not understanding that 50% of their revenues was coming from people that do not want their product and ESPN truly believed they were "stuck" paying them forever so they went out and committed to $8 billion in broadcasting fees per year. Now these "stuck" customers are finding ways to cut-out ESPN and ESPN appears unable or incapable of doing anything to try and keep this 50%.
Your over analyzing the situation. ESPN is the premier cable network. It will just be a little less profitable. Apple is in discussions to buy Disney primarily because of ESPN and its adaptability across multiple platforms.
-
Your over analyzing the situation. ESPN is the premier cable network. It will just be a little less profitable. Apple is in discussions to buy Disney primarily because of ESPN and its adaptability across multiple platforms.
Apple is buying Disney ... this is a rumor that has been recycled over and over for years. The current rumor has the price at $240 billion.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/13/apple-disney-mega-merger/
There have only been two mergers over $150 billion ever done ... AT&T/Time Warner at $165 billion in 2000 and Vodaphone/Mannesmann at $202 billion in 1999. Both are considered disasters and no one has tried anything like this since because it generally understood that mega-mega mergers are very bad deals.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/an-apple-disney-tie-up-would-smack-of-desperation-1492230023
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2017/04/13/2-reasons-why-apple-isnt-buying-disney.aspx
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4062345-apple-buying-disney-merging-2-overpriced-giants
Netflix for $75 billion makes a lot more sense.
And you're exactly right, ESPN is a premier cable network. That is like being a premier buggy maker a decade after that car was invented.
Streaming (autos) was invented a decade ago and they are squeezing the cable networks (buggy makers) as their business model of forcing people to pay for their product that do not want is what technology is disrupting.
Either ESPN takes it hard or the sports leagues take it hard. Days of getting billions from people that do not want your product are ending. yes, it will take several years to end, but it is ending.
-
Then ESPN is doomed (over time). They get 50% of their revenues from people that do not want the product but are forced to take it as explained above. As they people get more options (streaming or skinny bundles) they will elect to not give ESPN any more money. ESPN could dramatically cut their fees but that has the same effect.
Yes ESPN is still profitable and if current trends hold, that should stay profitable for a few more years. But the trends are against them. They are on the road to "bleeding out" and they need to do something.
Again ESPN's "big mistake" was not understanding that 50% of their revenues was coming from people that do not want their product and ESPN truly believed they were "stuck" paying them forever so they went out and committed revenues from customers that do not want their product int he form of $8 billion in broadcasting fees per year. Now these "stuck" ESPN customers are finding ways to cut-out ESPN and ESPN appears unable or incapable of doing anything to try and keep this 50%.
I don't think they are doomed. I think they will have to adjust how they spend their money....which is what they are doing.
-
Maybe their current business model is doomed because in 20 years the playing field will change, but that doesn't mean the company is doomed. You are assuming they won't adapt and adjust.
-
Maybe their current business model is doomed because in 20 years the playing field will change, but that doesn't mean the company is doomed. You are assuming they won't adapt and adjust.
You are correct ... I meant their current business model but short-handed into just ESPN.
That said, the single hardest thing for a business to do is to change their business model. Entrenched thinking and legacy costs get in the way. That is why businesses constantly get "disrupted" by start-ups and new thinking. Old businesses are just incapable of changing to new ways and new cost structures. Ask retailing (why didn't Walmart or Sears create Amazon), Newspapers (why don't they dominate the internet?) Taxi (why didn't they start Uber), Hotels (why didn't a large hotel change start AirBnB) and finally, ask the large networks (why didn't any one of them start ESPN).
It is will be very difficult for ESPN to change. Based on history you should bet that will not. That means their broadcast right will be won by competitors using different/new platforms and different/new business models.
So, yes many years from now there will be a thing called ESPN broadcasting sports. But what the brand will mean to future TV watchers will mean something different than it does today. And, history suggests that means it will be less valuable.
-
Tim Tebow will do very well in life no matter what you say.
Which has nothing to do with anything discussed.
The glowing Tebow coverage was wall-to-wall. The only thing MORE over discussed by ESPN was Favre's "will he or won't he?" retirement.
-
Which has nothing to do with anything discussed.
The glowing Tebow coverage was wall-to-wall. The only thing MORE over discussed by ESPN was Favre's "will he or won't he?" retirement.
That was the worst. That's what annoyed me about ESPN. Favre comebacks, Tebow mania, Linsanity and months and months of coverage of Vick, Hernandez and Burress long after the trials were over.
-
Fotune places a " greater than 0% possibility on this happening".
-
You are correct ... I meant their current business model but short-handed into just ESPN.
That said, the single hardest thing for a business to do is to change their business model. Entrenched thinking and legacy costs get in the way. That is why businesses constantly get "disrupted" by start-ups and new thinking. Old businesses are just incapable of changing to new ways and new cost structures. Ask retailing (why didn't Walmart or Sears create Amazon), Newspapers (why don't they dominate the internet?) Taxi (why didn't they start Uber), Hotels (why didn't a large hotel change start AirBnB) and finally, ask the large networks (why didn't any one of them start ESPN).
It is will be very difficult for ESPN to change. Based on history you should bet that will not. That means their broadcast right will be won by competitors using different/new platforms and different/new business models.
So, yes many years from now there will be a thing called ESPN broadcasting sports. But what the brand will mean to future TV watchers will mean something different than it does today. And, history suggests that means it will be less valuable.
There is still a need for an entity that will actually produce this content. ESPN Has a huge imbedded cost to cover these events. The competitors are not exactly rushing to create more capacity. The platform may change but the ESPN brand will still dominate. At the end of the day the premium events will have to be guaranteed and ESPN has the capital to do a guaranteed deal.
-
There is still a need for an entity that will actually produce this content. ESPN Has a huge imbedded cost to cover these events. The competitors are not exactly rushing to create more capacity. The platform may change but the ESPN brand will still dominate. At the end of the day the premium events will have to be guaranteed and ESPN has the capital to do a guaranteed deal.
Isn't this legacy thinking ... exactly why it is so hard for companies to change.
Look at what smaller sports do, produce their own content. So couldn't the sports leagues (and conferences) produce it themselves? They already have their own networks.
And as far as guaranteeing deals, that is why ESPN is in trouble. This is now things work now, but might not work in the future.
This is an objective lesson for all of us. Think a second how your business "works" now. Recognize that in 5 or 10 years it will not work that way. Also, recognize that you don't know today how it will work in 5 to 10 years.
Again, this is the single hardest thing for a business to do. Know when to cling to the status quo and know when things are changing and go with it, even if the change hurts them (makes things more competitive.)
Like I said above, the bet is always legacy companies cannot make this change which is why new entrants take their business away.
-
Isn't this legacy thinking ... exactly why it is so hard for companies to change.
Look at what smaller sports do, produce their own content. So couldn't the sports leagues (and conferences) produce it themselves? They already have their own networks.
Why would the leagues want to take on the costs and risks of producing it themselves when they can sell the rights for 5-10 years in the future with a fixed, guaranteed stream of revenue and let someone else take the risk?
Keep in mind, holding NFL rights has benefits to the networks that go beyond whatever advertising revenue they can generate from broadcasting the games. Hell, the entire Fox broadcasting network might not exist today - and certainly not in its present form - if they didn't reap the indirect benefits the NFL platform gave them.
For the leagues, however, these secondary benefits really don't exist. they don't need games to serve as a lead-in for the "The Simpsons." They don't need breaks in the action to serve up a promo for what's upcoming on this week's "CSI: Wauwatosa" or to conveniently show the star of "Chicago Public Works" in the stands.
Both sides still benefit most from the current arrangement. It's no coincidence that the NFL saw fit to share its full slate of Thursday night games with CBS after having them half of them only on NFL Network.
-
The platform may change but the ESPN brand will still dominate. from MU Fan in NY - This is why their seemingly going all in with mixing mainly left wing politics with sports may be a shortsighted strategy. It damages their brand to a huge part of their potential audience and seems to be completely unnecessary - maintaining non political sports content might marginally have lesser ratings than the loud mouth stuff in the current state of the medium but over time I would guess it would pay off by keeping a much larger customer base in play. Guess we'll see,
-
Why would the leagues want to take on the costs and risks of producing it themselves when they can sell the rights for 5-10 years in the future with a fixed, guaranteed stream of revenue and let someone else take the risk?
Keep in mind, holding NFL rights has benefits to the networks that go beyond whatever advertising revenue they can generate from broadcasting the games. Hell, the entire Fox broadcasting network might not exist today - and certainly not in its present form - if they didn't reap the indirect benefits the NFL platform gave them.
For the leagues, however, these secondary benefits really don't exist. they don't need games to serve as a lead-in for the "The Simpsons." They don't need breaks in the action to serve up a promo for what's upcoming on this week's "CSI: Wauwatosa" or to conveniently show the star of "Chicago Public Works" in the stands.
Both sides still benefit most from the current arrangement. It's no coincidence that the NFL saw fit to share its full slate of Thursday night games with CBS after having them half of them only on NFL Network.
This is all 100% correct EXCEPT it is a history lesson.
What you describe worked when cable subscriptions were rising. Now that they are declining, and again, the 50% that pay for sports that don't want it and are finding ways to get TV programming they want without paying for sports, this model, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, has to change.
-
This is all 100% correct EXCEPT it is a history lesson.
What you describe worked when cable subscriptions were rising. Now that they are declining, and again, the 50% that pay for sports that don't want it and are finding ways to get TV programming they want without paying for sports, this model, developed in the 1970s and 1980s, has to change.
The model could change, but the change won't be the leagues doing exactly what the networks are doing today.
And, again, I wouldn't be so sure the model will change, at least not significantly. Networks have shown they're willing to take a loss on broadcast rights having those provide indirect benefits.
-
The model could change, but the change won't be the leagues doing exactly what the networks are doing today.
And, again, I wouldn't be so sure the model will change, at least not significantly. Networks have shown they're willing to take a loss on broadcast rights having those provide indirect benefits.
Too late ...
ESPN slashed a ton of on-air baseball talent. So how are they going to cover baseball? By doing exactly what you said they would not, let MLB produce and pay for the show. (this is the beginning)
ESPN Adds MLB Network’s Intentional Talk To Afternoon Lineup
Intentional Talk to Debut May 1 on ESPN2, Continue to Air on MLB Network
By SVG Staff
Monday, May 1, 2017 - 2:48 pm
http://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/05/01/espn-adds-mlb-networks-intentional-talk-to-afternoon-lineup/
As part of a new collaborative effort between ESPN and MLB Network, the two entities today announced that ESPN will add MLB Network’s popular studio program Intentional Talk to its afternoon lineup starting Monday, May 1. The year-round, weekday show will air Monday through Friday on ESPN2 from 4-5 p.m. ET during the season, and will air as a 30-minute telecast in the offseason. Intentional Talk will also continue to air in its regular 5 p.m. timeslot on MLB Network.
-----------------
Next up is ESPN ditching their football talent to re-broadcast NFLTV shows, then ditch hockey talent to re-broadcast NHLTV talent.
And 50 million people that pay $7/month and don't watch it, will continue to pay for it because now it offers sloppy seconds from the MLB Network?
-
The platform may change but the ESPN brand will still dominate. from MU Fan in NY - This is why their seemingly going all in with mixing mainly left wing politics with sports may be a shortsighted strategy. It damages their brand to a huge part of their potential audience and seems to be completely unnecessary - maintaining non political sports content might marginally have lesser ratings than the loud mouth stuff in the current state of the medium but over time I would guess it would pay off by keeping a much larger customer base in play. Guess we'll see,
We are not allowed to talk politics on this site. The issue you point out is definitely something that is eroding their brand. That can be reversed though .
-
Too late ...
ESPN slashed a ton of on-air baseball talent. So how are they going to cover baseball? By doing exactly what you said they would not, let MLB produce and pay for the show. (this is the beginning)
ESPN Adds MLB Network’s Intentional Talk To Afternoon Lineup
Intentional Talk to Debut May 1 on ESPN2, Continue to Air on MLB Network
By SVG Staff
Monday, May 1, 2017 - 2:48 pm
http://www.sportsvideo.org/2017/05/01/espn-adds-mlb-networks-intentional-talk-to-afternoon-lineup/
As part of a new collaborative effort between ESPN and MLB Network, the two entities today announced that ESPN will add MLB Network’s popular studio program Intentional Talk to its afternoon lineup starting Monday, May 1. The year-round, weekday show will air Monday through Friday on ESPN2 from 4-5 p.m. ET during the season, and will air as a 30-minute telecast in the offseason. Intentional Talk will also continue to air in its regular 5 p.m. timeslot on MLB Network.
-----------------
Next up is ESPN ditching their football talent to re-broadcast NFLTV shows, then ditch hockey talent to re-broadcast NHLTV talent.
And 50 million people that pay $7/month and don't watch it, will continue to pay for it because now it offers sloppy seconds from the MLB Network?
I think this deal you outlined demonstrated ESPN flexibility not the opposite.
-
I think this deal you outlined demonstrated ESPN flexibility not the opposite.
Not when you charge as much as ESPN. You need original programming that makes people want to pay for your product, the most expensive network you can get. Half do not want the product.
Seems like ESPN has concluded they will bleed out over the next few years so they are cutting cost to pocket profits now before the entire thing blows up.
2012 they have 100 million subscribers. Today it is 88 million. When they get under 70 million, they are in real trouble. 5 years away?
-
Not when you charge as much as ESPN. You need original programming that makes people want to pay for your product, the most expensive network you can get. Half do not want the product.
Seems like ESPN has concluded they will bleed out over the next few years so they are cutting cost to pocket profits now before the entire thing blows up.
2012 they have 100 million subscribers. Today it is 88 million. When they get under 70 million, they are in real trouble. 5 years away?
They will lose subscribers. Approximately 99% of the ones they will lose will be beyond their control. If people want to cut cords, ESPN creating original programming isn't going to come close to slowing that down. It will just drive up their costs while people continue to cut the cord
-
They will lose subscribers. Approximately 99% of the ones they will lose will be beyond their control. If people want to cut cords, ESPN creating original programming isn't going to come close to slowing that down. It will just drive up their costs while people continue to cut the cord
Agreed.
-
They will lose subscribers. Approximately 99% of the ones they will lose will be beyond their control. If people want to cut cords, ESPN creating original programming isn't going to come close to slowing that down. It will just drive up their costs while people continue to cut the cord
This is most likely true, and the pro athletes and sports leagues better get ready because around 2022ish they will look backward and realize that that peak sports salary is happening now.
-
This is most likely true, and the pro athletes and sports leagues better get ready because around 2022ish they will look backward and realize that that peak sports salary is happening now.
Yes. I think that's true.
-
This is most likely true, and the pro athletes and sports leagues better get ready because around 2022ish they will look backward and realize that that peak sports salary is happening now.
Yes. I think that's true.
I agree with this Analysis.
-
Still the champion?
ESPN is losing subscribers but it is still Disney’s cash machine
Sports fans are producing their own bootleg highlights
The Economist
May 6th 2017 | BRISTOL, CONNECTICUT
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21721664-sports-fans-are-producing-their-own-bootleg-highlights-espn-losing-subscribers-it
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2017/05/articles/body/20170506_wbc580_580.png)
-
Still the champion?
ESPN is losing subscribers but it is still Disney’s cash machine
Sports fans are producing their own bootleg highlights
The Economist
May 6th 2017 | BRISTOL, CONNECTICUT
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21721664-sports-fans-are-producing-their-own-bootleg-highlights-espn-losing-subscribers-it
This article makes me wonder, first of all, if you even read the stuff you post. Second, it make wonder if you have any clue on this stuff. You rant negatively about ESPN and how they are conducting business for weeks; then you present an article that is positive about the future.
Try picking a side, buddy.
-
You keep saying ESPN is in trouble, isn't that why they are making changes? This is what companies do. They are also a cash cow at this point. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21721664-sports-fans-are-producing-their-own-bootleg-highlights-espn-losing-subscribers-it
Your claim that sports rights fees are going down, will believe it when I see it. Verizon spent $20M yesterday to broadcast ONE NFL game. ONE. The Jaguars, in a NFL Europe game in which half the country over on the west coast will be sleeping for a 6:30am start time. https://www.recode.net/2017/5/3/15533736/verizon-nfl-stream-deal-jaguars-ravens
Amazon paid $50M a few weeks ago for Thursday night games, that's up from the $10M Twitter paid or the same rights last year. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-04-05/amazon-pays-50m-for-nfl-streaming-rights-video
-
You keep saying ESPN is in trouble, isn't that why they are making changes? This is what companies do. They are also a cash cow at this point. http://www.economist.com/news/business/21721664-sports-fans-are-producing-their-own-bootleg-highlights-espn-losing-subscribers-it
Your claim that sports rights fees are going down, will believe it when I see it. Verizon spent $20M yesterday to broadcast ONE NFL game. ONE. The Jaguars, in a NFL Europe game in which half the country over on the west coast will be sleeping for a 6:30am start time. https://www.recode.net/2017/5/3/15533736/verizon-nfl-stream-deal-jaguars-ravens
Amazon paid $50M a few weeks ago for Thursday night games, that's up from the $10M Twitter paid or the same rights last year. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-04-05/amazon-pays-50m-for-nfl-streaming-rights-video
I do wonder when ESPN forays into the eSports arena....would be interesting to see how that changes their model.
-
I do wonder when ESPN forays into the eSports arena....would be interesting to see how that changes their model.
I still find it hard to believe eSports are a thing. I notice Deadspin is devoting more and more articles to it, and I am like, "Really?"
-
This article makes me wonder, first of all, if you even read the stuff you post. Second, it make wonder if you have any clue on this stuff. You rant negatively about ESPN and how they are conducting business for weeks; then you present an article that is positive about the future.
Try picking a side, buddy.
I presented it without comment. I should be closed minded like you and only present one side?
For the record I disagree with them. And my disagreement is simple. I show the chart again below. It has to stop going down before it hits 75 million or they are in deep trouble. Why should this trend stop? Because you want it to stop? That's not a reason, that's hope.
The only reason the chart will stop going down is ESPN massively cuts their fees. But that has the same effect as going to 75 million described above, it puts them in a bad place. They need it to stop at 87 million and still give them the ability to jake up fees. Not happening, that business model died when this chart started down.
ESPN is the old joke (adapted for this case) ... what is the window washer that fell off the 100 millionth floor say as he crossed below the 88 millionth floor? So far so good.
We all know this is going to end in a splat ... just arguing about how many years it will take.
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2017/05/articles/body/20170506_wbc580_580.png)
-
For the record I disagree with them. And my disagreement is simple. I show the chart again below. It has to stop going down before it hits 75 million or they are in deep trouble. Why should this trend stop? Because you want it to stop? That's not a reason, that's hope.
The only reason the chart will stop going down is ESPN massively cuts their fees. But that has the same effect as going to 75 million described above, it puts them in a bad place. They need it to stop at 87 million and still give them the ability to jake up fees. Not happening, that business model died when this chart started down.
It's not going to stop (and I don't think anyone has said its going to stop). And there isn't anything that ESPN can do or could have done in the past to change that fact. Like someone said earlier, the guy making horseshoes in the 1920s was always going to end up losing customers. Nothing to be done. Cutting their fees would do next to nothing. The number of people who are cutting ESPN but not cutting cable is what? 1% of the subscribers they are losing? Cable is outdated. That is not ESPN's fault. They made the correct business decision to maximize their profits for as long as they could. Maybe tried to ride the wave a little too long. Now they need to adapt. They are starting to do that by cutting a lot of dead weight.
-
Dang, thought this dumpster fire of a thread was dying. Guess not!
-
I still find it hard to believe eSports are a thing. I notice Deadspin is devoting more and more articles to it, and I am like, "Really?"
Me neither and I've played video games my entire life.
-
Apple is buying Disney ... this is a rumor that has been recycled over and over for years. The current rumor has the price at $240 billion.
http://fortune.com/2017/04/13/apple-disney-mega-merger/
There have only been two mergers over $150 billion ever done ... AT&T/Time Warner at $165 billion in 2000 and Vodaphone/Mannesmann at $202 billion in 1999. Both are considered disasters and no one has tried anything like this since because it generally understood that mega-mega mergers are very bad deals.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/an-apple-disney-tie-up-would-smack-of-desperation-1492230023
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2017/04/13/2-reasons-why-apple-isnt-buying-disney.aspx
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4062345-apple-buying-disney-merging-2-overpriced-giants
Netflix for $75 billion makes a lot more sense.
And you're exactly right, ESPN is a premier cable network. That is like being a premier buggy maker a decade after that car was invented.
Streaming (autos) was invented a decade ago and they are squeezing the cable networks (buggy makers) as their business model of forcing people to pay for their product that do not want is what technology is disrupting.
Either ESPN takes it hard or the sports leagues take it hard. Days of getting billions from people that do not want your product are ending. yes, it will take several years to end, but it is ending.
Oh, and speaking of Apple ...
Another all-time high for AAPL ... and the iPhone 8 hasn't even come out yet.
Who'da thunk it? (We all know who wouldn'ta thunk it!)
-
It's not going to stop (and I don't think anyone has said its going to stop). And there isn't anything that ESPN can do or could have done in the past to change that fact. Like someone said earlier, the guy making horseshoes in the 1920s was always going to end up losing customers. Nothing to be done. Cutting their fees would do next to nothing. The number of people who are cutting ESPN but not cutting cable is what? 1% of the subscribers they are losing? Cable is outdated. That is not ESPN's fault. They made the correct business decision to maximize their profits for as long as they could. Maybe tried to ride the wave a little too long. Now they need to adapt. They are starting to do that by cutting a lot of dead weight.
Totally agree but it is not 99% of ESPN's losses are total cord cutters. It more than 75% to 80%, the other 20% to 25% are going to skinny bundles without ESPN.
35% of Disney's revenues, and nearly half their profits, are from ESPN. If you are correct, and I think you are, then they are in a world of hurt. A giant part of their business is a giant one-time money grab and then it's gone in a few years.
--------------
Oh, 82, you are right about Apple. Why don't you mention Disney or UnderArmour? To fresh your memory, started a Superbar thread in August 2015 saying Disney was in deep doo-doo when the stock was $122 because of ESPN. Chicos, confidently told me I did not know what I was talking about and he was buying, buying and buying. Today Disney is $111 and the stock market is 14% higher. Disney would have to be at $140 to keep pace with the overall market. At $111 it is saying it agrees that Disney has "issues." Restated, the stock market think Disney sucks.
Disney earnings are out Tuesday (May 9). The 10-Q is over a 100 pages. They have theme parks and movies. But Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) and all the Disney shareholder care about one thing ... ESPN subscriber losses and the forecast for further subscriber losses. Another billion dollar Star Wars movie is nice, but it is not moving the stock.
Underarmour ... down 29% year-to-date making it one of the worst S&P 500 stocks this year. Bottom line, Jordan Speith and Seth Curry are working for Free at UAA (because they took payment in stock). Nice call by their agents!
So yes, start another 150 posts about Apple's new high and remind me I don't know what I'm talking about.
-
Heisy, that's the wrong Curry brother in your post.
-
Totally agree but it is not 99% of ESPN's losses are total cord cutters. It more than 75% to 80%, the other 20% to 25% are going to skinny bundles without ESPN.
35% of Disney's revenues, and nearly half their profits, are from ESPN. If you are correct, and I think you are, then they are in a world of hurt. A giant part of their business is a giant one-time money grab and then it's gone in a few years.
--------------
Oh, 82, you are right about Apple. Why don't you mention Disney or UnderArmour? To fresh your memory, started a Superbar thread in August 2015 saying Disney was in deep doo-doo when the stock was $122 because of ESPN. Chicos, confidently told me I did not know what I was talking about and he was buying, buying and buying. Today Disney is $111 and the stock market is 14% higher. Disney would have to be at $140 to keep pace with the overall market. At $111 it is saying it agrees that Disney has "issues." Restated, the stock market think Disney sucks.
Disney earnings are out Tuesday (May 9). The 10-Q is over a 100 pages. They have theme parks and movies. But Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) and all the Disney shareholder care about one thing ... ESPN subscriber losses and the forecast for further subscriber losses. Another billion dollar Star Wars movie is nice, but it is not moving the stock.
Underarmour ... down 29% year-to-date making it one of the worst S&P 500 stocks this year. Bottom line, Jordan Speith and Seth Curry are working for Free at UAA (because they took payment in stock). Nice call by their agents!
So yes, start another 150 posts about Apple's new high and remind me I don't know what I'm talking about.
If only the Warriors had played such aggressive defense!
Look, Smuggles ... you're the one who admitted you were "smug" - your word - because you are certain about pretty much everything. So when you strongly and surely and expertly opine that only morons would buy AAPL at 90 and then it runs up near 150 in pretty short order, you have to be ready to get a little grief. You want to be Mr. Super Predictor, that goes with the territory.
As for your good calls ... congrats!
BTW, I don't own DIS or UAA. I'm happily long AAPL, though I sure wish I had bought more!!
-
You guys are weird and really should let things go on the internet more.
#lukewarmtake
-
Totally agree but it is not 99% of ESPN's losses are total cord cutters. It more than 75% to 80%, the other 20% to 25% are going to skinny bundles without ESPN.
Do you have data to support this? I made up the 99% number. Was based on the anecdotal fact that I have never met someone who bought a "skinny" bundle. I'm honestly curious.
-
I presented it without comment. I should be closed minded like you and only present one side?
For the record I disagree with them. And my disagreement is simple. I show the chart again below. It has to stop going down before it hits 75 million or they are in deep trouble. Why should this trend stop? Because you want it to stop? That's not a reason, that's hope.
The only reason the chart will stop going down is ESPN massively cuts their fees. But that has the same effect as going to 75 million described above, it puts them in a bad place. They need it to stop at 87 million and still give them the ability to jake up fees. Not happening, that business model died when this chart started down.
ESPN is the old joke (adapted for this case) ... what is the window washer that fell off the 100 millionth floor say as he crossed below the 88 millionth floor? So far so good.
We all know this is going to end in a splat ... just arguing about how many years it will take.
(http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2017/05/articles/body/20170506_wbc580_580.png)
you're one of the most closed minded people on here
-
So this thread is still going after 17 pages. Scoop at its finest.
-
I still find it hard to believe eSports are a thing. I notice Deadspin is devoting more and more articles to it, and I am like, "Really?"
Without sounding terse, why are you still reading, Deadspin?
Magary has this columns, I get, but since the buyout, Gawker properties are DOA.
-
Without sounding terse, why are you still reading, Deadspin?
Magary has this columns, I get, but since the buyout, Gawker properties are DOA.
I only read about 10% of the articles, but I skim the headlines every day.
-
I only read about 10% of the articles, but I skim the headlines every day.
Isn't that the Playboy defense?
-
Isn't that the Playboy defense?
Actually, ot would be the opposite of the Playboy defense.
-
Actually, ot would be the opposite of the Playboy defense.
Jimmy Kimmel had the best line at Hugh Heffner's roast:
"I only read Playboy for the articles. I j*** off to the pictures."
-
Disney reported Q1 2017 earnings after the Stock Exchange closed today. As of this writing, the stock is down more than 2% on the results.
As highlighted below. ESPN is now going backwards for Disney. More subscriber losses and higher costs are coming every quarter into the foreseeable future. No reason to think it is about to stop.
All of Disney's businesses reported good numbers except ESPN and the stock is down after hours. That's because the movies (star wars), broadcast TV (ABC) and theme parks are taking a back seat to ESPN's problems.
------------------
May 9 (Bloomberg) Walt Disney Co. failed to assuage investor concern about its struggling cable division, saying profit in the business slumped last quarter as ESPN continued to lose subscribers and spent more to televise games.
Sales in the cable division totaled $4.06 billion, trailing the $4.2 billion average of analysts’ estimates. The unit’s profit slid 3 percent, the company said, a reflection of higher expenses for NBA games and college football. Disney shares fell in late trading.
The results show Disney struggling to get a handle on the troubles at its largest business -- TV programming. The owner of ESPN and ABC has seen ratings slide as audiences watch more video online, while sports leagues keep demanding more money. The company is paying $600 million more for rights to National Basketball Association games alone, and a shift in college football schedules also lifted expenses.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-walt-disney-results-idUSKBN1852FL?il=0&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Recent earnings reports have raised concern that the pace of cord-cutting is picking up. MoffettNathanson analysts calculated that pay TV distributors lost 762,000 subscribers from January through March, the worst first-quarter result in history.
Disney is working to launch an ESPN subscription streaming service and bought a 33 percent stake in video-streaming firm BAMTech for $1 billion last year.
The future of ESPN has been in focus since August 2015 when Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger acknowledged "modest" subscriber losses at the sports network.
ESPN's television unit is laying off 10 percent of its 1,000 on-air staff, Reuters reported last month, citing a source.
-
Disney reported Q1 2017 earnings after the Stock Exchange closed today. As of this writing, the stock is down more than 2% on the results.
As highlighted below. ESPN is now going backwards for Disney. More subscriber losses and higher costs are coming every quarter into the foreseeable future. No reason to think it is about to stop.
All of Disney's businesses reported good numbers except ESPN and the stock is down after hours. That's because the movies (star wars), broadcast TV (ABC) and theme parks are taking a back seat to ESPN's problems.
------------------
May 9 (Bloomberg) Walt Disney Co. failed to assuage investor concern about its struggling cable division, saying profit in the business slumped last quarter as ESPN continued to lose subscribers and spent more to televise games.
Sales in the cable division totaled $4.06 billion, trailing the $4.2 billion average of analysts’ estimates. The unit’s profit slid 3 percent, the company said, a reflection of higher expenses for NBA games and college football. Disney shares fell in late trading.
The results show Disney struggling to get a handle on the troubles at its largest business -- TV programming. The owner of ESPN and ABC has seen ratings slide as audiences watch more video online, while sports leagues keep demanding more money. The company is paying $600 million more for rights to National Basketball Association games alone, and a shift in college football schedules also lifted expenses.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-walt-disney-results-idUSKBN1852FL?il=0&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Recent earnings reports have raised concern that the pace of cord-cutting is picking up. MoffettNathanson analysts calculated that pay TV distributors lost 762,000 subscribers from January through March, the worst first-quarter result in history.
Disney is working to launch an ESPN subscription streaming service and bought a 33 percent stake in video-streaming firm BAMTech for $1 billion last year.
The future of ESPN has been in focus since August 2015 when Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger acknowledged "modest" subscriber losses at the sports network.
ESPN's television unit is laying off 10 percent of its 1,000 on-air staff, Reuters reported last month, citing a source.
Hopefully the stock will break down and create an entry point.
-
Hopefully the stock will break down and create an entry point.
that's exactly what i did with under armour-figured the falling knives had to stop somewhere. someone will right that ship; under armour is so pervasive in not just our sporting world, but all over. their stuff is comfortable and sharp looking. i threw my hat in the ring at around $17 pps...we'll see i guess
-
Remember there is a big problem with ESPN being sold online. That is why Disney was vague about when and how they are going to offer an ESPN subscription model online, they only acknowledge there is an "inevitability" to it. That sounds like they don't yet have a plan.
For years ESPN was the most important network on cable and the only way for a cable company could get it was to agree to carry it on basic and guarantee a minimum percentage of their cable subscribers would pay for ESPN. So ESPN was forced upon everyone. And for years that was ok because ESPN was the premier "must have" channel on cable. That is changing now.
In exchange for ESPN being forced on cable subscribers, Disney agreed to not compete with them by offering it online. If they did, this allows cable companies to void the agreement.
So, if ESPN offers WatchESPN as a standalone online subscription, that allows cable companies to immediately pull it from basic and lower basic cable fees by the amount of ESPN (and ESPN2, ESPNU et al if they are on basic too). They would then offer these channels for the same amount as a premium service.
So everyone here would see their cable bill go down by $7 to $9 a month and then subscribe to "ESPN premium" for the same amount and nothing changes. The problem is surveys say 50% of basic cable customers would NOT subscribe to ESPN premium and ESPN would lose half their revenues and put Disney in a world of hurt.
Despite Disney being a huge conglomerate, nearly every question on the investor call last night to Disney CEO Bob Iger was about ESPN. No questions on ABC, Movies and/or theme parks. ESPN is half of Disney profits and the takeaway is "they don't know what to do." That is why the stock is down today despite every non-ESPN business Disney owns is booming. Disney might as well change it stock ticker symbol to ESPN because that is how the company is viewed right now.
Disney’s ESPN Looks to an Online Future, as Cable Subscribers Decline
Plans to launch digital subscription services focused on particular sports, teams and regions
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-profit-rises-despite-espn-woes-1494362684
By Ben Fritz
Updated May 9, 2017 10:10 p.m. ET
Faced with subscriber and viewership losses, Walt Disney Co.’s DIS 0.58% ESPN is planning to launch digital subscription services focused on particular sports, teams and regions.
Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger on Tuesday once again spent much of a conference call with Wall Street analysts following the release of financial results discussing the fate of ESPN. The sports channel accounts for the majority of profits in the company’s cable business, which has lost momentum in the past few years while other divisions are booming.
Disney had announced plans to launch this year its first ESPN “over the top” service, similar to Netflix , that will include sports not on the linear network like baseball. Mr. Iger’s comments on services tuned to the narrow interests of particular sports fans indicate many more are in development.
The CEO said there are no current plans to offer a replica of the ESPN cable channel online to those who don’t subscribe to cable, akin to Time Warner Inc.’s HBO Now, but conceded “there is an inevitability to that.”
-
Following on my comment above about how ESPN is forced on everyone whether they want it or not ...
No-Sports TV? Viacom, AMC, Discovery Said Eyeing Web Bundle
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-13/sports-free-tv-viacom-amc-discovery-said-eyeing-online-bundle
Entertainment-only packages could cost less than $20 a month
At least four distributors weigh online bundles without sports
Cable programmers including Viacom Inc., Discovery Communications Inc. and AMC Networks Inc. are in talks with pay-TV distributors about creating new online TV services for consumers who don’t want to pay for sports, according to people familiar with the situation.
The media companies have explored offering entertainment-only packages over the internet with four to six pay-TV providers, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified discussing the private negotiations. The talks are at various stages, but at least one service could be introduced this year, the person said.
Channel owners hurt by subscriber losses want to be part of new web-based video services as people drop pricey pay-TV packages for cheaper options, yet some have been left out of new “skinny” bundles. Viacom and Discovery, for example, aren’t part of YouTube’s live TV service or Hulu’s upcoming package. While sports is the most popular live programming, it’s also the most expensive.
Sports-free TV would cost less than $20 a month, according to one person. That’s about half the expected price of Hulu’s upcoming live TV service and YouTube’s new TV package, which came out last week. Both YouTube and Hulu are offering or looking to offer about 40 channels, including ESPN and broadcasters like NBC, Fox and CBS that rely heavily on sports. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said the service was designed “to be great for sports lovers.”
....
Efforts to create sports-free packages with distributors could trigger a backlash from companies like Walt Disney Co., the owner of ESPN. Two years ago, Verizon tried to sell such a bundle called Custom TV and was sued by Disney for alleged contract violations. Verizon later introduced two low-cost bundles -- one with sports channels and one without.
New online entertainment-only TV packages could violate deals that major media companies like Disney and 21st Century Fox Inc. have with cable and satellite providers, according to Michael Nathanson, an analyst at MoffettNathanson LLC. Those pacts require that their networks be part of the most popular bundles or that a certain share of subscribers must receive their programming. Such terms could cap how many people are allowed to sign up for sports-free TV.
“It’s meant to dissuade distributors from doing something like this,” Nathanson said. “The issue is how many subscribers they can have before the legal questions appear.”
-
Remember there is a big problem with ESPN being sold online. That is why Disney was vague about when and how they are going to offer an ESPN subscription model online, they only acknowledge there is an "inevitability" to it. That sounds like they don't yet have a plan.
For years ESPN was the most important network on cable and the only way for a cable company could get it was to agree to carry it on basic and guarantee a minimum percentage of their cable subscribers would pay for ESPN. So ESPN was forced upon everyone. And for years that was ok because ESPN was the premier "must have" channel on cable. That is changing now.
In exchange for ESPN being forced on cable subscribers, Disney agreed to not compete with them by offering it online. If they did, this allows cable companies to void the agreement.
So, if ESPN offers WatchESPN as a standalone online subscription, that allows cable companies to immediately pull it from basic and lower basic cable fees by the amount of ESPN (and ESPN2, ESPNU et al if they are on basic too). They would then offer these channels for the same amount as a premium service.
So everyone here would see their cable bill go down by $7 to $9 a month and then subscribe to "ESPN premium" for the same amount and nothing changes. The problem is surveys say 50% of basic cable customers would NOT subscribe to ESPN premium and ESPN would lose half their revenues and put Disney in a world of hurt.
Despite Disney being a huge conglomerate, nearly every question on the investor call last night to Disney CEO Bob Iger was about ESPN. No questions on ABC, Movies and/or theme parks. ESPN is half of Disney profits and the takeaway is "they don't know what to do." That is why the stock is down today despite every non-ESPN business Disney owns is booming. Disney might as well change it stock ticker symbol to ESPN because that is how the company is viewed right now.
Disney’s ESPN Looks to an Online Future, as Cable Subscribers Decline
Plans to launch digital subscription services focused on particular sports, teams and regions
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-profit-rises-despite-espn-woes-1494362684
By Ben Fritz
Updated May 9, 2017 10:10 p.m. ET
Faced with subscriber and viewership losses, Walt Disney Co.’s DIS 0.58% ESPN is planning to launch digital subscription services focused on particular sports, teams and regions.
Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger on Tuesday once again spent much of a conference call with Wall Street analysts following the release of financial results discussing the fate of ESPN. The sports channel accounts for the majority of profits in the company’s cable business, which has lost momentum in the past few years while other divisions are booming.
Disney had announced plans to launch this year its first ESPN “over the top” service, similar to Netflix , that will include sports not on the linear network like baseball. Mr. Iger’s comments on services tuned to the narrow interests of particular sports fans indicate many more are in development.
The CEO said there are no current plans to offer a replica of the ESPN cable channel online to those who don’t subscribe to cable, akin to Time Warner Inc.’s HBO Now, but conceded “there is an inevitability to that.”
I agree, Smuggles, that ESPN has become an albatross for Disney. And I think you accurately describe some of the problems going forward.
I would have loved to have bought DIS years ago, but I didn't, and I'm not buying now.
-
I agree, Smuggles, that ESPN has become an albatross for Disney. And I think you accurately describe some of the problems going forward.
I would have loved to have bought DIS years ago, but I didn't, and I'm not buying now.
Let me say something nice about Disney. Ask Warren Buffett who is the best corporate manager working today. Without hesitation, he says it is Bob Iger of Disney.
He is without question right. So while Disney has a seemingly intractable problem in figuring out how to stop the subscriber losses at ESPN, they have possibly the most qualified person on the planet to deal with this issue in Iger.
Now, this does not mean that Iger will figure it out, it could be a problem with no solution. But if Iger died tomorrow, the stock is low to mid-90s next trade ($109 now). That is how much faith people have in his ability to solve this issue.
The question is, can he? No one sees a solution to ESPN subscriber losses, all we have is hope that Iger will figure it out.
-
I love Scoop.
Just sayin'....
-
Let me say something nice about Disney. Ask Warren Buffett who is the best corporate manager working today. Without hesitation, he says it is Bob Iger of Disney.
He is without question right. So while Disney has a seemingly intractable problem in figuring out how to stop the subscriber losses at ESPN, they have possibly the most qualified person on the planet to deal with this issue in Iger.
Now, this does not mean that Iger will figure it out, it could be a problem with no solution. But if Iger died tomorrow, the stock is low to mid-90s next trade ($109 now). That is how much faith people have in his ability to solve this issue.
The question is, can he? No one sees a solution to ESPN subscriber losses, all we have is hope that Iger will figure it out.
Just think of how rich you would be if you went short DIS and put hemlock in Iger's mimosa!
-
Just think of how rich you would be if you went short DIS and put hemlock in Iger's mimosa!
Naah, lot more opportunities to give really bad managers hemlock and go long the stock and watch it soar when they are out of the picture.
I think a lot of them are in the healthcare industry.
-
Naah, lot more opportunities to give really bad managers hemlock and go long the stock and watch it soar when they are out of the picture.
I think a lot of them are in the healthcare industry.
Ha! Also, one is at VZ and another at GE!
-
Maybe we could make a board just for MU82 and Heisenberg?
-
Maybe we could make a board just for MU82 and Heisenberg?
Nah ... it would deprive others of our witty repartee.
Meanwhile ... Disney announced it's rearranging the chairs on the ESPNtanic:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3267322-espn-shaking-sportscenter-lineup-approach
-
So, if ESPN offers WatchESPN as a standalone online subscription, that allows cable companies to immediately pull it from basic and lower basic cable fees by the amount of ESPN (and ESPN2, ESPNU et al if they are on basic too). They would then offer these channels for the same amount as a premium service.
So everyone here would see their cable bill go down by $7 to $9 a month and then subscribe to "ESPN premium" for the same amount and nothing changes. The problem is surveys say 50% of basic cable customers would NOT subscribe to ESPN premium and ESPN would lose half their revenues and put Disney in a world of hurt.
If you think the cable companies are going to drop cable prices $7-9 if they can drop ESPN.... well I've got some DIS stock to sell you.
-
If you think the cable companies are going to drop cable prices $7-9 if they can drop ESPN.... well I've got some DIS stock to sell you.
Why don't you read what was actually written and then revise this to correctly reflect what was said?
And if your incorrect interpretation of what was actually written was correct, then you would want to buy DIS stock, not sell it.
You do realize that a stock you sell you want to go down?
-
Why don't you read what was actually written and then revise this to correctly reflect what was said?
And if your incorrect interpretation of what was actually written was correct, then you would want to buy DIS stock, not sell it.
You do realize that a stock you sell you want to go down?
I sold GE at $25.15 and it is now at $28.18 ... but I'm happy. Why? Why didn't I want it to go down?
Well, because I used my cash from my GE sale to buy MMM at $140. And it's at $197.63. That's a 41% gain. So I don't give a rat's rump that GE didn't go down after I sold it, because I'm well ahead.
Once I sell a company, unless I think I'll want back in someday, I really don't care whether it goes up, down or sideways. I don't sell in a vacuum; I use those funds for other purposes.
-
Will it work?
I say no BECAUSE 50% of the people that are forced to get ESPN on basic (and forced pay for it) don't want it. Why does this make them want it?
--------------------------
ESPN Is Betting on Big Personalities to Restore Its Fortunes
May 17, 2107
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/business/media/espn-is-betting-on-big-personalities-to-restore-its-fortunes.html?ref=business&_r=0
Just weeks after ESPN laid off about 100 journalists and on-air commentators, the “Worldwide Leader in Sports” unveiled a new programming slate on Tuesday filled with big personalities but short on the kind of highlight shows that for many years were the foundation of the network.
The revamped lineup underscores just how much the changing media landscape has unsettled even the world’s most powerful sports company. Once the undisputed king of sports programming, ESPN must now contend with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter, which not only offer statistics and highlights at the click of a button but are also increasingly offering the games themselves.
-
ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).
-
ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).
What does making his hair look more lush protect him from? Bad hair jokes?
It's an odd move (they explain it a headshot template issue), but I'm struggling to see how it's evidence of bias. Explain further.
-
ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).
Huh?
-
What does making his hair look more lush protect him from? Bad hair jokes?
It's an odd move (they explain it a headshot template issue), but I'm struggling to see how it's evidence of bias. Explain further.
They generally brightened his appearance, by enhancing his eyes and hairdo. He looks far less disheveled relative to his actual mugshot. ESPN did that to 'protect' as best they could an important meal ticket. Frankly we see that editorial license taken by almost all new organizations these days. Playing to their base for the purpose of the mighty dollar. The essence of 'fake news'.
https://twitter.com/GeoffShac/status/869225885810925568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2017%2F05%2F30%2Fwhy-espn-used-photoshopped-tiger-woods-mug-shot%2F
-
They generally brightened his appearance, by enhancing his eyes and hairdo. He looks far less disheveled relative to his actual mugshot. ESPN did that to 'protect' as best they could an important meal ticket. Frankly we see that editorial license taken by almost all new organizations these days. Playing to their base for the purpose of the mighty dollar. The essence of 'fake news'.
https://twitter.com/GeoffShac/status/869225885810925568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2017%2F05%2F30%2Fwhy-espn-used-photoshopped-tiger-woods-mug-shot%2F
I sunderstand your assertion. I think it's a bit batty, but I understand it. What I don't understand how - in a lead story about his arrest - making his hair seem less frizzy "protects" him. Please explain.
Also, Tiger is an "important meal ticket" for ESPN like Barry Bonds is an important meal ticket for ESPN. Check the calendar. It's no longer 2006. He hasn't won a tournament in almost three years. He hasn't finished a tournament in nearly two years. Hes played two competitive rounds in 21 months.
And relative to its other assets, golf is not that important to ESPN.
-
They generally brightened his appearance, by enhancing his eyes and hairdo. He looks far less disheveled relative to his actual mugshot. ESPN did that to 'protect' as best they could an important meal ticket. Frankly we see that editorial license taken by almost all new organizations these days. Playing to their base for the purpose of the mighty dollar. The essence of 'fake news'.
https://twitter.com/GeoffShac/status/869225885810925568/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2017%2F05%2F30%2Fwhy-espn-used-photoshopped-tiger-woods-mug-shot%2F
Their "base" is sports fans. This is a non-story - except to the "committee of Oh, my God". ESPN actually showed both versions on the air - but that doesn't fit with the faux outrage here.
-
Maybe I should change the word 'protect' to 'sanitize'. Why would they do that? I'm not going to belabor this but it was deliberately done. ESPN believed it to be in their interest. And I found it interesting.
-
No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.
-
No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.
Maybe they were prettying it up for the cover of Vogue at their request, and it accidentally published it.
-
Will it work?
I say no BECAUSE 50% of the people that are forced to get ESPN on basic (and forced pay for it) don't want it. Why does this make them want it?
--------------------------
ESPN Is Betting on Big Personalities to Restore Its Fortunes
May 17, 2107
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/business/media/espn-is-betting-on-big-personalities-to-restore-its-fortunes.html?ref=business&_r=0
Just weeks after ESPN laid off about 100 journalists and on-air commentators, the “Worldwide Leader in Sports” unveiled a new programming slate on Tuesday filled with big personalities but short on the kind of highlight shows that for many years were the foundation of the network.
The revamped lineup underscores just how much the changing media landscape has unsettled even the world’s most powerful sports company. Once the undisputed king of sports programming, ESPN must now contend with companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter, which not only offer statistics and highlights at the click of a button but are also increasingly offering the games themselves.
Had dinner again with my friend who is among the ESPN board level top brass. He was candid in that have no idea if this new personalities based programming structure makes sense but are going to try it with the hope it gains traction . Also while they have dropped some of the Big Ticket events such as US Open and British Open golf etc ; College Basketball still is core , when asked about the Big East , his view was with 10 years of ratings track record they will be able to make an accurate assessment of value when the contract is up for bid. They were willing to let Fox overbid the first time around. All things being equal they would like to get the Big East back in the fold given the attractive tv markets and performance of the league. Also they make good money with little risk on the sponsor created unique sports events and are looking for more of those .
-
No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.
This. Whether there was anything "shady" in the Tiger Woods reporting is almost irrelevant, it is whether a news organization is appearing to steer coverage in any way that erodes the trust in the news organization.
I don't really think ESPN's probably is a left-right bias thing per se (I'm sure there are people who've stopped watching because of it but that's probably just noise) but how ESPN varies their news coverage based on bias of all types. Just look at their coverage of the Big East, once the contract was no longer theirs BE highlights and discussion was few and far between. Bottom line, I don't need my sports highlights and discussion with a #narrative
-
This. Whether there was anything "shady" in the Tiger Woods reporting is almost irrelevant, it is whether a news organization is appearing to steer coverage in any way that erodes the trust in the news organization.
I don't really think ESPN's probably is a left-right bias thing per se (I'm sure there are people who've stopped watching because of it but that's probably just noise) but how ESPN varies their news coverage based on bias of all types. Just look at their coverage of the Big East, once the contract was no longer theirs BE highlights and discussion was few and far between. Bottom line, I don't need my sports highlights and discussion with a #narrative
Is there any chance that ESPN's "improvement" on his photo was a misguided attempt to avoid the outrage that Time Magazine inspired over their OJ cover?
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/555b576fe4b08f7cf526c752/558afb73e4b02172c1be6c79/558afbd3e4b096519cd3c07b/1435171795903/oj_480x318.jpg)
-
Looks like John Clayton was laid off. That one surprised me.
-
No legit news organization should be altering any picture no matter the reason.
Oh, I agree. It's at best nonsensical, and at worst ethically dubious.
-
Looks like John Clayton was laid off. That one surprised me.
Well, he DID have a face for radio.
(Spoken as a fellow guy with a face for radio.)
-
Well, he DID have a face for radio.
(Spoken as a fellow guy with a face for radio.)
But you also have a voice for mime right?
-
Well, he DID have a face for radio.
(Spoken as a fellow guy with a face for radio.)
And a voice for newspaper
-
Oh, you're such nasty women!
-
ESPN has absolutely photoshopped Tiger's mug shot. While not overly leaning any particular political way, it's evidence of their 'protection' of their own. That's my issue with them. The biased coverage of their guy (Tiger) vs. the other guy (BEast basketball for example).
The immediate question raised by most was why would ESPN go out of its way to improve the appearance of Woods in his mugshot. The conspiracy theory, of course, would be that ESPN was protecting a popular athlete with whom it has a close relationship.
But like many conspiracy theories, there is simpler answer: It may have just been unintentional, sloppy work.
When selecting part of an image in Photoshop to move it to a different background, the most popular methods are the "lasso" tool, which allows the user to select the portion he or she wants by simply drawing a freehand line, or the "magnetic freeform pen," which is similar to the lasso but assists the user by having the line "stick" to edges.
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-tiger-woods-photoshop-mugshot-2017-5
-
The immediate question raised by most was why would ESPN go out of its way to improve the appearance of Woods in his mugshot. The conspiracy theory, of course, would be that ESPN was protecting a popular athlete with whom it has a close relationship.
But like many conspiracy theories, there is simpler answer: It may have just been unintentional, sloppy work.
When selecting part of an image in Photoshop to move it to a different background, the most popular methods are the "lasso" tool, which allows the user to select the portion he or she wants by simply drawing a freehand line, or the "magnetic freeform pen," which is similar to the lasso but assists the user by having the line "stick" to edges.
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-tiger-woods-photoshop-mugshot-2017-5
I don't believe that for a minute.
-
I think it makes a lot more sense than the alternative. That the higher ups in Bristol ordered a graphic designer to make him look better because he is a high level athlete.
There would be much simpler ways to do that. For instance, don't show the mug shot at all.
-
I don't believe that for a minute.
Most likely scenario:
Video Editor: Find me a recent headshot of Tiger and put our standard blue background on it.
Unpaid Intern Replacing Fired Graphic Designer: Um, I've used Photoshop LE a couple of times but I don't really...
Video Editor: DO YOU WANT TO SPEND YOUR SUMMER HERE AT THE WORLDWIDE LEADER OR NOT??
-
I wonder how many of the complainers here also complained when Time darkened OJ to make him more menacing on their cover.
I think the answer is pretty easy to figure out.
-
I wonder how many of the complainers here also complained when Time darkened OJ to make him more menacing on their cover.
I think the answer is pretty easy to figure out.
Unfair too. But he still did it.
-
I think it makes a lot more sense than the alternative. That the higher ups in Bristol ordered a graphic designer to make him look better because he is a high level athlete.
There would be much simpler ways to do that. For instance, don't show the mug shot at all.
Exactly. If ESPN was really attempting to protect Tiger, they easily could have shown any smiling headshot of him instead of his mug shot.
-
ESPN did quite a bit of reporting and commentary about the racial slur that was written on the gate of LeBron's property. As they should have. It was a major story. And LeBron's response to it was eloquent, reasonable and pointed.
On PTI, the only ESPN show I watch aside from live sports and occasionally (very occasionally) SC and Baseball Tonight, Wilbon got pretty emotional discussing the topic, and both he and Kornheiser praised LeBron.
Is that "political"? I happen to think it was a big story and merited significant discussion. The fact that Wilbon is black, and could relate to what LeBron went through, definitely resonated.
So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well.
-
ESPN did quite a bit of reporting and commentary about the racial slur that was written on the gate of LeBron's property. As they should have. It was a major story. And LeBron's response to it was eloquent, reasonable and pointed.
On PTI, the only ESPN show I watch aside from live sports and occasionally (very occasionally) SC and Baseball Tonight, Wilbon got pretty emotional discussing the topic, and both he and Kornheiser praised LeBron.
Is that "political"? I happen to think it was a big story and merited significant discussion. The fact that Wilbon is black, and could relate to what LeBron went through, definitely resonated.
So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well.
I get it and don't disagree, but I think the majority of the "stick to sports" crowd is about escapism. There is a lot stuff going on in the world but sometimes you just want to get away from it.
-
"So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well."
i do not think this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off from espn. this was not only news, but sports news. i did not see much of how it was represented however. now, if they leaned editorializing, and i'm just saying from the standpoint of what turns people off, then people get turned off. next up, people want to see the perps get caught and properly punished. now onto our plays of the day...
btw, weren't there any cameras in the vicinity to catch any suspicious activity?
-
ESPN did quite a bit of reporting and commentary about the racial slur that was written on the gate of LeBron's property. As they should have. It was a major story. And LeBron's response to it was eloquent, reasonable and pointed.
On PTI, the only ESPN show I watch aside from live sports and occasionally (very occasionally) SC and Baseball Tonight, Wilbon got pretty emotional discussing the topic, and both he and Kornheiser praised LeBron.
Is that "political"? I happen to think it was a big story and merited significant discussion. The fact that Wilbon is black, and could relate to what LeBron went through, definitely resonated.
So if this is the kind of "politics" that turns people off of ESPN ... oh well.
I thought that was a big story and was appropriately reported.
-
Bumping this to report that all is not lost for TV sports ...
Game 5 was watched by more than 25 million viewers, wrapping up the most-viewed series since Michael Jordan's last title in 1998. The Warriors' victory on Monday night peaked with 29.5 million viewers and was an increase of 20 percent from the 20.9 million who watched Game 5 last year.
ABC, like ESPN, is owned by Disney. I think the numbers are pretty impressive given the blowouts in Games 1 and 2, which one might have thought would lead some viewers to bag the series.
I guess all it takes is two compelling teams that feature the best player on the planet, the second-best player on the planet and several other stars.
-
Bumping this to report that all is not lost for TV sports ...
Game 5 was watched by more than 25 million viewers, wrapping up the most-viewed series since Michael Jordan's last title in 1998. The Warriors' victory on Monday night peaked with 29.5 million viewers and was an increase of 20 percent from the 20.9 million who watched Game 5 last year.
ABC, like ESPN, is owned by Disney. I think the numbers are pretty impressive given the blowouts in Games 1 and 2, which one might have thought would lead some viewers to bag the series.
I guess all it takes is two compelling teams that feature the best player on the planet, the second-best player on the planet and several other stars.
Yes, the NBA is a star driven league. And as long as the stars are bunched into a couple of superteams the play each other over and over again, the league ratings will do well.
But should the league ever see parity, it will suffer. As I noted in the other thread, the league is best with five or six teams that have a shot at winning the title and 20 teams that play the role of the Washington Generals.
-
Yes, the NBA is a star driven league. And as long as the stars are bunched into a couple of superteams the play each other over and over again, the league ratings will do well.
But should the league ever see parity, it will suffer. As I noted in the other thread, the league is best with five or six teams that have a shot at winning the title and 20 teams that play the role of the Washington Generals.
Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.
-
Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.
I agree with this analysis.
-
Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.
I understand this sentiment but the just finished NBA finals was the highest TV ratings since the Jordan era ... the last time we had a star driven team in the finals year after year after year.
-
I understand this sentiment but the just finished NBA finals was the highest TV ratings since the Jordan era ... the last time we had a star driven team in the finals year after year after year.
What about last year...and the year before?
-
What about last year...and the year before?
The NBA Finals usually outdraws the NCAA championship.
-
The NBA Finals usually outdraws the NCAA championship.
He said the last time the NBA finals had the most star driven teams were during the Jordan years. I'm saying the last 2 years have been the same as this year (minus Durant)
-
I understand this sentiment but the just finished NBA finals was the highest TV ratings since the Jordan era ... the last time we had a star driven team in the finals year after year after year.
In the 5-year stretch from 2000-04, the Lakers reached the Finals 4 times. If you don't consider Kobe and Shaq "stars," I'd like to see your definition. One of those years, they played the Pacers, with Reggie Miller; the next they played the 76ers, with Iverson.
In the 5-year stretch from 03-07, the Spurs reached the Finals 3 times. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili ... not stars? (Not to mention Robinson in 03.) The last of those years, they played the Cavs with a young and EXTREMELY popular LeBron.
In 08-10, Kobe led the Lakers back to the Finals 3 more years in a row. In 08 and 10, they faced the Celtics with Pierce, Garnett and Allen; in 09, they met the Magic with a young and popular (pre-douchebag) Dwight Howard.
From 2011-14, the Heat made it to 4 straight Finals behind LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and later added Allen. Is that not "a star driven team in the finals year after year after year"? They faced the Spurs twice, the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook once, and the Mavs with Dirk once.
-
Different strokes then. That's actually one of the main reasons I rarely watch the NBA. I don't wanna see the Warriors and the Cavs run through the playoffs again. It's so effing boring and everyone knows it's going to be the exact same next season. Give me NCAA basketball any day of the week.
I'm totally with you on this, Chitown.
-
In the 5-year stretch from 2000-04, the Lakers reached the Finals 4 times. If you don't consider Kobe and Shaq "stars," I'd like to see your definition. One of those years, they played the Pacers, with Reggie Miller; the next they played the 76ers, with Iverson.
In the 5-year stretch from 03-07, the Spurs reached the Finals 3 times. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili ... not stars? (Not to mention Robinson in 03.) The last of those years, they played the Cavs with a young and EXTREMELY popular LeBron.
In 08-10, Kobe led the Lakers back to the Finals 3 more years in a row. In 08 and 10, they faced the Celtics with Pierce, Garnett and Allen; in 09, they met the Magic with a young and popular (pre-douchebag) Dwight Howard.
From 2011-14, the Heat made it to 4 straight Finals behind LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and later added Allen. Is that not "a star driven team in the finals year after year after year"? They faced the Spurs twice, the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook once, and the Mavs with Dirk once.
Before the Bulls' run, the Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy) or Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish) won 8 of the previous 11 championships. In 10 of those 11 years, at least one of those teams made the Finals.
It's almost as if a team needs multiple star players to win a championship.
This business about the league having "star-driven teams" teams has been the case in the NBA pretty much always, with only a handful of exceptions.
-
Before the Bulls' run, the Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy) or Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish) won 8 of the previous 11 championships. In 10 of those 11 years, at least one of those teams made the Finals.
It's almost as if a team needs multiple star players to win a championship.
This business about the league having "star-driven teams" teams has been the case in the NBA pretty much always, with only a handful of exceptions.
Correct. There have been a very few exceptions. Otherwise, stars are the rule.
Now, if one wants to say that Jordan transcended even your "run-of-the-mill" superstars, well sure. But to call a team with Shaq and Kobe anything other than star-driven, I don't know what to say.
-
Correct. There have been a very few exceptions. Otherwise, stars are the rule.
Now, if one wants to say that Jordan transcended even your "run-of-the-mill" superstars, well sure. But to call a team with Shaq and Kobe anything other than star-driven, I don't know what to say.
I actually don't know about that Lakers team, sure Kobe was probably the best player in the league during that time and Shaq was up there, but Payton and Malone were long past their prime. Hell, Malone only played in half their games.
-
I actually don't know about that Lakers team, sure Kobe was probably the best player in the league during that time and Shaq was up there, but Payton and Malone were long past their prime. Hell, Malone only played in half their games.
The great Bulls teams had one super-duper-star, one perennial All-Star and a bunch of role players. Horace Grant in the first 3-peat and Rodman in the second were excellent role players, but that's all they were. Was Grant more of a "star" than, say, Ginobili on the star-driven Spurs?
The claim was that the Bulls were a star-driven team that repeatedly made the finals, and that there hadn't been another star-driven team to repeatedly make the finals until these Warriors and/or Cavs - explaining why this was the first series with ratings comparable to the Bulls.
But as many of us agree, there have been several other examples of star-driven teams who have made multiple finals.
-
Correct. There have been a very few exceptions. Otherwise, stars are the rule.
Now, if one wants to say that Jordan transcended even your "run-of-the-mill" superstars, well sure. But to call a team with Shaq and Kobe anything other than star-driven, I don't know what to say.
I would go so far as to say that there has only been one truly superstar-less (i.e., no hall of famers) Champion in NBA history (in recent memory at least), and that is the 03-04 Detroit Pistons.
-
I think that it is possible to win an NBA championship without multiple superstars if you have good chemistry, a solid bench, and great coaching. IMO, since the retirement of David Robinson, the only true superstar that the Spurs had was Tim Duncan (and what a superstar he was).
Rather than relying on pure star power, I think the Spurs success comes down to team chemistry, and every player playing their respective role, i.e., Bowen as a defensive specialist, Parker as a pass-first point guard, etc. And, IMO, the fact that Pop is a great coach who the players respect.
I like LeBron James, but I think his biggest shortcoming is that he doesn't truly respect any of the coaches that he has had.
-
In the 5-year stretch from 2000-04, the Lakers reached the Finals 4 times. If you don't consider Kobe and Shaq "stars," I'd like to see your definition. One of those years, they played the Pacers, with Reggie Miller; the next they played the 76ers, with Iverson.
In the 5-year stretch from 03-07, the Spurs reached the Finals 3 times. Duncan, Parker, Ginobili ... not stars? (Not to mention Robinson in 03.) The last of those years, they played the Cavs with a young and EXTREMELY popular LeBron.
In 08-10, Kobe led the Lakers back to the Finals 3 more years in a row. In 08 and 10, they faced the Celtics with Pierce, Garnett and Allen; in 09, they met the Magic with a young and popular (pre-douchebag) Dwight Howard.
From 2011-14, the Heat made it to 4 straight Finals behind LeBron, Wade and Bosh, and later added Allen. Is that not "a star driven team in the finals year after year after year"? They faced the Spurs twice, the Thunder with Durant and Westbrook once, and the Mavs with Dirk once.
82, all correct
Just trying to say that the worst thing that could happen to the NBA is they get an NFL level of parity. And the worst thing that could happen to the NFL is they get an NBA level of unbalance.
-
I think that it is possible to win an NBA championship without multiple superstars if you have good chemistry, a solid bench, and great coaching. IMO, since the retirement of David Robinson, the only true superstar that the Spurs had was Tim Duncan (and what a superstar he was).
Rather than relying on pure star power, I think the Spurs success comes down to team chemistry, and every player playing their respective role, i.e., Bowen as a defensive specialist, Parker as a pass-first point guard, etc. And, IMO, the fact that Pop is a great coach who the players respect.
I like LeBron James, but I think his biggest shortcoming is that he doesn't truly respect any of the coaches that he has had.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that Duncan, Parker and Ginobili all will end up in the Hall of Fame, so I guess it depends upon how one defines "superstar." And Popovich, of course, will be in the Hall. And maybe Leonard by the time he's done, although it's far too early to say that.
-
I think that it is possible to win an NBA championship without multiple superstars if you have good chemistry, a solid bench, and great coaching. IMO, since the retirement of David Robinson, the only true superstar that the Spurs had was Tim Duncan (and what a superstar he was).
Rather than relying on pure star power, I think the Spurs success comes down to team chemistry, and every player playing their respective role, i.e., Bowen as a defensive specialist, Parker as a pass-first point guard, etc. And, IMO, the fact that Pop is a great coach who the players respect.
I like LeBron James, but I think his biggest shortcoming is that he doesn't truly respect any of the coaches that he has had.
Spo in the MIA is by far been LBJs's best coach...outside of him, he has had multiple bags of hot garbage that been hanging out in that in that PHX heat.
-
If I were a betting man, I'd say that Duncan, Parker and Ginobili all will end up in the Hall of Fame, so I guess it depends upon how one defines "superstar." And Popovich, of course, will be in the Hall. And maybe Leonard by the time he's done, although it's far too early to say that.
Spurs are a classic example of chicken or egg. Are Parker and Ginobili truly hall of famers or were they really good players who benefited from playing with a top 3 all time forward(Duncan, LBJ, and Bird in some order) and for a coach who is probably top 3 all time as well.....or were Parker and Ginobili hall of famers who put Duncan and Pop over the top.
-
Spurs are a classic example of chicken or egg. Are Parker and Ginobili truly hall of famers or were they really good players who benefited from playing with a top 3 all time forward(Duncan, LBJ, and Bird in some order) and for a coach who is probably top 3 all time as well.....or were Parker and Ginobili hall of famers who put Duncan and Pop over the top.
We'll never know the answers to those deep questions!!
-
Will ESPN Dump baseball? This article argues they might.
As Millennials Turn Their Backs on Baseball, Could ESPN Cut the Cord?
ESPN has been cutting costs and will eventually have to renew contracts for both baseball and NFL games. One media analyst wonders whether baseball could be thrown out.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/as-millennials-turn-their-backs-on-baseball-could-espn-cut-the-cord-1498164785?mod=trending_now_3
BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield was intrigued by a recent ESPN survey sent to sports fans, asking about their baseball watching habits. In a note Wednesday, Greenfield wonders whether ESPN is “trying to understand the impact of giving up rights to MLB to help it maintain NFL programming.” ( Disney-owned ESPN will see both its Major League Baseball and National Football League contracts contracts expire in 2021.)
New data suggest baseball is less watched by younger viewers.
-
Will ESPN Dump baseball? This article argues they might.
As Millennials Turn Their Backs on Baseball, Could ESPN Cut the Cord?
ESPN has been cutting costs and will eventually have to renew contracts for both baseball and NFL games. One media analyst wonders whether baseball could be thrown out.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/as-millennials-turn-their-backs-on-baseball-could-espn-cut-the-cord-1498164785?mod=trending_now_3
BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield was intrigued by a recent ESPN survey sent to sports fans, asking about their baseball watching habits. In a note Wednesday, Greenfield wonders whether ESPN is “trying to understand the impact of giving up rights to MLB to help it maintain NFL programming.” ( Disney-owned ESPN will see both its Major League Baseball and National Football League contracts contracts expire in 2021.)
New data suggest baseball is less watched by younger viewers.
First off, baseball is played during the summer months when "younger" folks spend most of their time out doors and the season is 162 games, not 81 or 16 as for basketball or football respectively. Secondly, even if you are an avid fan, especially true for those of us who live on the east coast, I doubt you are going to watch an entire game that starts at 10 pm even on a Friday night. Thirdly, baseball has no where as many teams eligible for the post season. However, baseball attendance is doing quite nicely (I know this has nothing to do about ESPN).
-
Will ESPN Dump baseball? This article argues they might.
As Millennials Turn Their Backs on Baseball, Could ESPN Cut the Cord?
ESPN has been cutting costs and will eventually have to renew contracts for both baseball and NFL games. One media analyst wonders whether baseball could be thrown out.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/as-millennials-turn-their-backs-on-baseball-could-espn-cut-the-cord-1498164785?mod=trending_now_3
BTIG analyst Rich Greenfield was intrigued by a recent ESPN survey sent to sports fans, asking about their baseball watching habits. In a note Wednesday, Greenfield wonders whether ESPN is “trying to understand the impact of giving up rights to MLB to help it maintain NFL programming.” ( Disney-owned ESPN will see both its Major League Baseball and National Football League contracts contracts expire in 2021.)
New data suggest baseball is less watched by younger viewers.
what fills the void? what would millennials tune in to espn for? serious ? lacrosse is popular as a participation sport, but after that, does it go the way of soccer? MMA used to be cool(for me)but lost me when it started to become "WWE" maybe it has captured the millennials a little bit more than it did me
-
what fills the void? what would millennials tune in to espn for? serious ? lacrosse is popular as a participation sport, but after that, does it go the way of soccer? MMA used to be cool(for me)but lost me when it started to become "WWE" maybe it has captured the millennials a little bit more than it did me
We can't even afford ESPN to watch it, thats probably half the problem.
-
I don't know that they drop baseball, like others have asked, what would fill the void? Soccer? WNBA? Give Stephen A Smith an additional time slot? But I would expect that they might not offer as much money for it.
-
I don't know that they drop baseball, like others have asked, what would fill the void? Soccer? WNBA? Give Stephen A Smith an additional time slot? But I would expect that they might not offer as much money for it.
I love baseball, but I only watch it on ESPN if the Red Sox are playing. I think most baseball fans mostly watch only their own team (they have 162 of those games every year, who has time to watch other teams play?). I have the MLB package to because NESN is not offered in my market, and the amount of baseball games I watch that do not involve the Red Sox during the year can be counted on one hand, and they would most likely be games in September that have an impact on the Red Sox playoff chances.
Frankly, I would be happy if ESPN dropped baseball because I hate the 5 or so times a year when the Red Sox play Sunday night. (And I hate the way they broadcast games. They never, ever, ever stop talking.)
-
I love baseball, but I only watch it on ESPN if the Red Sox are playing. I think most baseball fans mostly watch only their own team (they have 162 of those games every year, who has time to watch other teams play?). I have the MLB package to because NESN is not offered in my market, and the amount of baseball games I watch that do not involve the Red Sox during the year can be counted on one hand, and they would most likely be games in September that have an impact on the Red Sox playoff chances.
Frankly, I would be happy if ESPN dropped baseball because I hate the 5 or so times a year when the Red Sox play Sunday night. (And I hate the way they broadcast games. They never, ever, ever stop talking.)
Ditto for me, but only if the Yankees are playing.
They need to get rid of Sunday night games at 8:05pm eastern. Starting a 1 hour early would make a big difference.
-
The profound shift in philosophy here would be pretty incredible - from gathering up every minute of live sports "content" at exorbitant prices, to saying no thanks to the #1 sport in terms of content volume.
As an unrelated aside, I'm really disappointed in how much less written content espn.com carries covering fantasy baseball since the evolution of DFS.
-
I don't know that they drop baseball, like others have asked, what would fill the void? Soccer? WNBA? Give Stephen A Smith an additional time slot? But I would expect that they might not offer as much money for it.
Whatever content it is, it just might be cheaper. And my guess is that ESPN is paying a premium for the playoffs, but those occur at the same time as football season.