ESPN Cutting 350 Roles
- Thread starter Caliknight
- Start date
There were articles this summer about restructuring and redistributing resources, but they claimed it didn't necessarily mean they were cutting job. Anyone who works in corporate America knew, however, that meant they were going to be cutting jobs.
I realized I rarely watch ESPN. Any highlight I want to see I can find on the Internet without watching SportsCenter. I'll watch some Monday Night football and an occasional bowl game or baseball game, I avoid college basketball because when they have a big game Dick Vitale is certain to spoil it. Once ESPN was a must-have. No more. Besides ESPN turned the Mike Rice story into the crash of the Hindenberg, and I cannot forgive them for that
I think they're fine but just have to get their cost structure right. The largesse of the past needs to be trimmed but whenever they get that fixed I think they'll be fine. This is the most lucrative channel out there, if you think they're having major issues just imagine what other content providers must be feeling.
I've said this before. I think the cable companies will be fine and I think the content providers who provide content that everyone wants will also be fine. They'll have to adapt but they'll be okay. The minutiae and such will likely disappear.
I've said this before. I think the cable companies will be fine and I think the content providers who provide content that everyone wants will also be fine. They'll have to adapt but they'll be okay. The minutiae and such will likely disappear.
The guys getting fired likely have nothing to do with your reasons to hate espn.
Cant believe people are happy here about 350 families being ruined.
Cant believe people are happy here about 350 families being ruined.
Cord cutters will change cable forever! The days of a 125.00 cable bill and 500 channels is close to an end. The percent of households that ESPN is in vs. the amount of viewers it has was never a sustainable model. As Margret Thatcher said about socialism, sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.
I keep reading about this but don't quite understand yet what I need to do here. Sounds like a digital signal will be broadcast for free pretty much like the old days of just getting a signal with an antenna? (not to hijack this thread)
also, I'm right there with you 32Mine..same here.
I know what I don't like about the network, but I don't if that translates to the masses and ad dollars. They have become shameless self-promoters with regard to sports that they cover (NBA), conferences they have hooks with, personalities that want to make names for themselves (Stephen A Smith), and reporters trying to create attention for themselves. They've gotten away from their core - letting the pure sports dominate the programming. IMO, it has become hard to watch.
Charging 80% of NJ for the BTN when maybe 2% actually wants it isnt sustainable either.
The real issue for ESPN is going to be the issue of broadcasting by content owners vs aggregators. If aggregation continues to be the norm, ESPN will make out fine. They might have to cut back, but in a world where most of the premier sports events are still through ESPN or its online version, then ESPN is cool.
The issue for them is if the leagues basically take most or all of their content and decide they dont need ESPN to get it out to people.
And of course in reality we will just pay $125 for the broadband connection instead and instead of 500 channels we will have basically infinite channels via the internet.
Cord cutting doesn't mean digital is free except of course the main broadcast channels (ABC, NBC, etc..) it means not getting those bundled cable packages that include CNN, ESPN, Disney, Nickolodeon, Discovery, etc... and instead switching over to streaming media like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Go etc...
But to me it's all overblown in terms of cost savings and threats to the big cable companies and content providers. Unless you really trim back your viewing habits all your doing is changing to whom you're paying your bills. Instead of paying as big a bill to Comcast you'll be paying a bill to Netflix/Hulu/Prime etc..
People act like those companies will never raise prices and all their original content is somehow created for free or that they acquire their content libraries for free. They most certainly will raise prices. A couple weeks ago a I was discussing this same thing here and literally the same day Netflix came out with an increase of price on their service to new subscribers and for that same price increase to hit existing subscribers October next year. Just a few days ago on their earnings call they said expect more increases in the future. BTW their US subscriber growth wasn't so hot, international was better. Do you think Prime/Hulus etc..won't do the same? Of course they will.
As far as the "old guard" content providers, as long as they control content people want they're fine. The over the top stand alone HBO Go is 15 bucks/month. If these other guys like ESPN can't distribute their network to the entire subscription base you don't think they'll raise their prices and find a price model that works for their smaller distribution. They most likely will. Maybe they charge pay per view for events as well. Who knows but as long as they have content people want to see they'll adapt and find the pricing model that works. So in the end you'll likely end up paying more for less.
As far as the cable companies, if people start forgoing their tv packages and don't take those "triple/double play" packages at greater numbers I can see them charge higher rates for internet usage and possibly tiers with greater rates for high bandwith users. Just like the cell phone companies did going from minutes/texts to data. I didn't save any money on that switch over. They may also offer slim down versions of their tv packages but I think the pricing model for internet usage is where they're likely to adapt most.
The only threat I'd see is if the wireless companies are ever able to bring super fast wireless speeds into the home then you'll have real competition. Right now you have usually 2 or 3 at most competitors for the pipes in most markets. Satellite and then one of the big cable providers, occasionally a FIOS or something like that. If the wireless companies can ever bring that high speed across the country not just select markets then you'll have real competition which would bring prices down.
It's sort of like what TMobile has done to ATT/Verizon. They're losing money to gain market share but they're providing real competition which the other two have to address and at times match.
They reviewed and are cutting six figure earners. These are likely the people who are driving stories/agendas.
http://thebiglead.com/2015/10/20/espn-layoffs-begin-tomorrow-350-employees-six-figure-earners/
People get fired everyday. Stories they pushed and built up bigger than they were helped people get fired. What comes around goes around. They should do their jobs more responsibly.
The problem for ESPN is that a) its locked into alot of long term high money contracts and b) when they run out, they dont really own their content, so its no sure thing.
Te flip side is - there is an argument to be made for leagues to stick with ESPN as their primary source, since people might rather pay $25 a month to get the best MLB/NFL/CFB/etc games rather than $10 for MLB and $20 for NFL and $10 for the BTN and $10 for SECN, etc.
Agree that the end game is you either pay more, or you have fewer choices. I think for right now, alot of people will take the fewer choices option.
Yes ESPN is an aggregator of content not an owner but I don't know if the leagues would want to change that model any time soon. It is a threat to ESPN but I don't know how real a threat. That would mean the leagues would have to build out their own networks, all that entails and the cost of doing so? Do they really want to do that and are they willing?
As far as trim down, well people could do that now too. There are tiers of tv packages and likely to be even more slimmed down versions. So if you're one who is inclined to do that, you've had options to do so but now you have more with the streaming services but cost wise is it that much different? Those prices are also only going to go up in the future and already have in some cases.
No the BTN model doesn't work either, it's the same as ESPN's. The major content providers realize the only way to slow down the theft of their content is to provide what the viewer wants and only what they want at a fair cost. It's simple supply and demand, over price a product and you create a black market or competition. Right now the black market is just registering on the providers radar, soon to cut into top line and bottom line. Paying 125.00 either to cable or the internet provider for content you don't want is also unsustainable, you haven't moved the 125.00 needle. In reality the next gen is not willing to pay 125.00 and they will drive the market.
The big problem for ESPN is that the profitability of their NFL and NBA contracts are completely based on the bundled model. They need to make almost $3 a month from every household in the US to cover the costs of those contracts.
On the other hand, all of the rights fees ESPN is paying for their huge amount of college football content (including the playoff) don't add up to what ESPN is paying the NFL for one crappy MNF game a week and a few playoff games.
On the other hand, all of the rights fees ESPN is paying for their huge amount of college football content (including the playoff) don't add up to what ESPN is paying the NFL for one crappy MNF game a week and a few playoff games.
yes thanks for that. Somewhat what I was thinking (too good to be true is indeed too good to be true).
I will just be happy to be able to go ala cart and get rid of stuff. Right now paying for a regional sports package I NEVER watch. And can't remove it , etc.
Problem is, you will pay full freight for each channel instead of bundled bulk package prices. Instead of paying $125 for 500 channels and unlimited internet, you will pay $95 for the 100 channels you want and metered internet service.
I don't think most of the premier sport events ARE thru ESPN anymore( well be most I mean less now than before). Certainly they still have lead market share but it is getting more fragmented and I find plenty prime time to watch on other channels..and happy about that.
The only thing that will truly work for cable providers and content aggregators, in the long term, is a metered service. It's easy enough to implement, since the cable providers already know what channels you're watching at any given moment. Charge $.01 a minute, bill the customers accordingly and pay the content providers the same way.
Once they crossed the line of being just a portal to watch a sporting event to actually manufacturing it, they became a ***** of sorts.
When you stop evaluating a particular product from a totally neutral position to one of being concerned that it is better than what you make, the lines of truth become pretty blurred.
I firmly believe they did all they could to devalue Rutgers and a lot of other programs that were not under their corporate thumb. I am not talking about everything that had to be addressed, just when they took cheap shots that were simply unnecessary.
Nothing lasts forever, ESPN is not immune to the natural curve that is life. I will not shed any tears for them having some hard times.
When you stop evaluating a particular product from a totally neutral position to one of being concerned that it is better than what you make, the lines of truth become pretty blurred.
I firmly believe they did all they could to devalue Rutgers and a lot of other programs that were not under their corporate thumb. I am not talking about everything that had to be addressed, just when they took cheap shots that were simply unnecessary.
Nothing lasts forever, ESPN is not immune to the natural curve that is life. I will not shed any tears for them having some hard times.