OT: Big Layoffs at ESPN

[Knight Shift]

"There's one other possible factor in ESPN's troubles worth mentioning: the general turn in sports reporting to a far more outspoken social liberalism. Setting aside the moral merits, it's certainly true that plenty of sports viewers don't share those liberal politics. That may have produced an extra shove for some customers: "When people begin realizing they can live without your business model, you can't give them more reasons to object to paying for it," as conservative columnist Steve Deace put it.

At the same time, parsing the degree of ESPN's liberalism, or how much it irked some portion of its viewership, is an impossibly subjective question to answer."
http://theweek.com/articles/694772/how-espn-went-from-powerhouse-bloodbath

 

[RU4Real]

"There's one other possible factor in ESPN's troubles worth mentioning: the general turn in sports reporting to a far more outspoken social liberalism. Setting aside the moral merits, it's certainly true that plenty of sports viewers don't share those liberal politics. That may have produced an extra shove for some customers: "When people begin realizing they can live without your business model, you can't give them more reasons to object to paying for it," as conservative columnist Steve Deace put it.

At the same time, parsing the degree of ESPN's liberalism, or how much it irked some portion of its viewership, is an impossibly subjective question to answer."
http://theweek.com/articles/694772/how-espn-went-from-powerhouse-bloodbath

First, great article.

Second, ESPN's moves will have resonating effects. In eliminating a lot of the local beat reporters they're eliminating a major information stream. The next time the Mets are airing nationally on ESPN and the network doesn't have Adam Rubin to kick around anymore I suspect the color commentary will be a whole lot less interesting.

 

[ruready07]

"There's one other possible factor in ESPN's troubles worth mentioning: the general turn in sports reporting to a far more outspoken social liberalism. Setting aside the moral merits, it's certainly true that plenty of sports viewers don't share those liberal politics. That may have produced an extra shove for some customers: "When people begin realizing they can live without your business model, you can't give them more reasons to object to paying for it," as conservative columnist Steve Deace put it.

At the same time, parsing the degree of ESPN's liberalism, or how much it irked some portion of its viewership, is an impossibly subjective question to answer."
http://theweek.com/articles/694772/how-espn-went-from-powerhouse-bloodbath

I'm probably in that group of people who watched less and less espn as more and more of their content was opinion based -

Sensationalizing sports, one of the only real forms of entertainment television we have, just a bad idea that finally bit espn.

 

[Knight Shift]

I'm probably in that group of people who watched less and less espn as more and more of their content was opinion based -

Sensationalizing sports, one of the only real forms of entertainment television we have, just a bad idea that finally bit espn.

I am in that group too. I despise sports radio. I laugh when people post about what Francessa says about Rutgers. People actually listen to him?

There were heavy promos for a Fox Sports show with Shannon Sharpe and some other guy. I found the promos more off putting than Francessa. I have no interest in watching or listening to two idiots yelling at each other, especially about political or social angles of sports. I thought most people watched sports channels to watch sporting events.

 

[RU4Real]

There were heavy promos for a Fox Sports show with Shannon Sharpe and some other guy. I found the promos more off putting than Francessa. I have no interest in watching or listening to two idiots yelling at each other, especially about political or social angles of sports. I thought most people watched sports channels to watch sporting events.

Ya know what always really bothered me about those commercials?

What was the chick sitting in the middle of the table supposed to be doing?

 

[GSGS]

May is entirely competent, but there's something about a Pitt homer that's a little off-putting.

I always liked May because the Pedd Supporters hated him.

 

[dollarbill_rivals328823]

We bought May's horse Charlie Ten Hitch after he went lame in the early 1990's. Our trainer brought him back to life and we made it back to the winner's circle. I spent too much time at Johnson Park watching the trotters during my stint at the river dorms. Glad I got a real job. Thanks for letting me share. $$$$

 

[bac2therac]

thanks for posting...good old days of the Big M....did May have any others

 

[dollarbill_rivals328823]

thanks for posting...good old days of the Big M....did May have any others

I'm not sure, but unfortunately, I did. $$$$

 

[MikeR0102]

Lost 7 million subscribers in the last 2 years that translates to losing $550 million in annual revenue.

Sure, but when you paid 1.9 Billion a year for NFL rights, 1.4 Billion for NBA rights and close to a billion for college sports rights, cutting 100 employees who salaries probably add up to 20 Million or so is little more than shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[RU to the Core]

Why is Scott Van Pelt still there.

 

[Spare130_rivals]

Its amazing how all these people are getting let go but 2 people like Michael Smith and Jamelle Hill, who do nothing but stir racial controversy are still employed. Max Kellerman is another one who needs to get the axe.

 

[FELONIOUSMONK]

Shift So if they would have had Hannity and Limbaugh as their talking heads that would have been ok?

 

[LETSGORU91_]

Get rid of Steven A and the rest of the loud mouths. The TV and radio channels are changed every time I hear their blabbering.

 

[RUforJERSEY]

Its amazing how all these people are getting let go but 2 people like Michael Smith and Jamelle Hill, who do nothing but stir racial controversy are still employed. Max Kellerman is another one who needs to get the axe.

That's the entire premise of the Fox New channel. Funny how you never see anybody calling for any firings there.

 

[BoroKnight]

"There's one other possible factor in ESPN's troubles worth mentioning: the general turn in sports reporting to a far more outspoken social liberalism. Setting aside the moral merits, it's certainly true that plenty of sports viewers don't share those liberal politics. That may have produced an extra shove for some customers: "When people begin realizing they can live without your business model, you can't give them more reasons to object to paying for it," as conservative columnist Steve Deace put it.

At the same time, parsing the degree of ESPN's liberalism, or how much it irked some portion of its viewership, is an impossibly subjective question to answer."
http://theweek.com/articles/694772/how-espn-went-from-powerhouse-bloodbath

That was thoroughly debunked in a piece I read earlier today. Unfortunately I can't remember where. But the main point of it was that all but three cable channels -- including FS1 and FS2 -- lost subscribers, and in the most recent month for which statistics are available FS1 lost MORE than ESPN despite having fewer subsribers. (One of the three which did not was a Spanish channel I've never heard of.)

Think about it. ESPN is on basic cable just about everywhere. It is almost impossible to drop ESPN without cutting the cord entirely. Not many places where you have to pay extra for some tier to get ESPN. Keeping that rather obvious fact in mind, the idea that politics has anything to do with it is just absurd, but typical "thinking" in today's climate.

 

[rucoe89]

if you like a $195 mo cable bill so your team can have Italian marble floors, gold plated faucets, and twenty 75 inch 4K big screen in the locker room, while the assistant coaches make $700,000 a yr and the head coach $5 mil a yr, you have some really f'd up priorities.

Chill out. This is about affect on Rutgers. If you are expecting $40M yearly paydays from the B1G Network in 2021, that goes away. That potentially has a big negative effect on what the school is doing with respect to investing in the future counting on this payday.

 

[rucoe89]

In this country the consumer is an afterthought. Just when you think their consumer are going to catch a break, corporations find a way to stay one step ahead. Corporations pay lobbyists big bucks to influence politicians. Ala carte is just a dream for now and the near future

Ala carte may not end up saving consumers money in long run. It would be great if it could, but what will happen is individual pricing will add up to more than the package. Not that packages are all that great, but still are more economical for households. For single folks the economics are likely different.

 

[rucoe89]

Like firing some employees is the way to save money ... yeah right.

These guys may be losing money but there is also negotiation gamesmanship going on here. Sucks for any conference that has to renegotiate their contract with ESPN soon

Capitalism has evolved to be focused solely on return for shareholders. Everyone and everything else is incidental and fungible. Pros and cons for this approach, regardless of how harsh it may seem.

 

[Hamilton's Cannon]

Never a big fan of May and he always seemed to be a Rutgers antagonist. Good riddance.

 

[Bilderberg_News]

Lost 7 million subscribers in the last 2 years that translates to losing $550 million in annual revenue.

KODI Amazon fire stick jailbreak.

 

[krup]

That was thoroughly debunked in a piece I read earlier today. Unfortunately I can't remember where. But the main point of it was that all but three cable channels -- including FS1 and FS2 -- lost subscribers, and in the most recent month for which statistics are available FS1 lost MORE than ESPN despite having fewer subsribers. (One of the three which did not was a Spanish channel I've never heard of.)

Think about it. ESPN is on basic cable just about everywhere. It is almost impossible to drop ESPN without cutting the cord entirely. Not many places where you have to pay extra for some tier to get ESPN. Keeping that rather obvious fact in mind, the idea that politics has anything to do with it is just absurd, but typical "thinking" in today's climate.

And whatever piece you read is debunked by this actual study (linked below).

I don't think it is a coincidence that the network in the family which had the least loss of conservative viewers was ESPNU, the one that happens to have the least amount of Sportscenter and First Take type shows and the most actual sports.

Specifically, in 2015, the ESPN audience on average skewed Republican across all dayparts, ranging from 12% more Republican (Early News, Late Fringe, Overnight) to 21% more Republican than Democratic (Early Morning).


In 2016, every daypart on ESPN became less conservative, with Daytime being only 2% more Republican than Democratic, while Late Fringe and Overnight programming became 10% and 12% more Democratic than Republican – a 22 and 28 point shift, respectively.


The same is true across other ESPN properties. ESPN2 skewed Republican across most dayparts in 2015; in 2016 all dayparts skewed Democratic. Every daypart also switched on ESPN News from 2015 to 2016.

ESPNU was the only network that retained its mostly Republican audience.

http://www.deeprootanalytics.com/20...political-in-2016-it-lost-republican-viewers/

 

[The_Senator]

And whatever piece you read is debunked by this actual study (linked below).

I don't think it is a coincidence that the network in the family which had the least loss of conservative viewers was ESPNU, the one that happens to have the least amount of Sportscenter and First Take type shows and the most actual sports.

Specifically, in 2015, the ESPN audience on average skewed Republican across all dayparts, ranging from 12% more Republican (Early News, Late Fringe, Overnight) to 21% more Republican than Democratic (Early Morning).


In 2016, every daypart on ESPN became less conservative, with Daytime being only 2% more Republican than Democratic, while Late Fringe and Overnight programming became 10% and 12% more Democratic than Republican – a 22 and 28 point shift, respectively.


The same is true across other ESPN properties. ESPN2 skewed Republican across most dayparts in 2015; in 2016 all dayparts skewed Democratic. Every daypart also switched on ESPN News from 2015 to 2016.

ESPNU was the only network that retained its mostly Republican audience.

http://www.deeprootanalytics.com/20...political-in-2016-it-lost-republican-viewers/

How about getting rid of the sideline reporters to save $$$.
They add absolutely nothing to the 'game experience'.

 

[Knight Shift]

How about getting rid of the sideline reporters to save $$$.
They add absolutely nothing to the 'game experience'.

I respectfully disagree. Former and current sideline reporters:

http://americaswhiteboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/hot-sexy-Britt-McHenry-blue-sundress-bikini-***-tits-boobs-beautiful-ESPN-sideline-reporter-NFL.jpg

But hey, if you'd rather look at this, OK:

 

[shields]

Love Kaylee!

 

[RUtix4me]

People eat out, pay cells phones, Cable just another cost in life. Not sure why so many get fixated on its cost while dirving expensive leased vehicles, carrying credit card debt with high interest...seems like pesronal financial management sometimes focuses on the wrong things

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Sure, but when you paid 1.9 Billion a year for NFL rights, 1.4 Billion for NBA rights and close to a billion for college sports rights, cutting 100 employees who salaries probably add up to 20 Million or so is little more than shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

this, it is all a dog and pony show for stock holders. It will not make a dent. All they are doing is screwing with people's lives.

 

[e5fdny]

That was thoroughly debunked in a piece I read earlier today. Unfortunately I can't remember where. But the main point of it was that all but three cable channels -- including FS1 and FS2 -- lost subscribers, and in the most recent month for which statistics are available FS1 lost MORE than ESPN despite having fewer subsribers. (One of the three which did not was a Spanish channel I've never heard of.)

Think about it. ESPN is on basic cable just about everywhere. It is almost impossible to drop ESPN without cutting the cord entirely. Not many places where you have to pay extra for some tier to get ESPN. Keeping that rather obvious fact in mind, the idea that politics has anything to do with it is just absurd, but typical "thinking" in today's climate.

You're right as it pertains to the flagship but the others you can pick and choose depending what package you get from your provider. With them sometimes doing the "choosing" for you.

And while the leaning this way or that might not be the disease you could put it in the symptoms category.

 

[SHUSource]

Can somebody catch me up....Why is ESPN firing all of these people? What did I miss?

They all refused to dress up like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to promote the parent company...

 

[mdk02]

That's the entire premise of the Fox New channel. Funny how you never see anybody calling for any firings there.

The premise, as you say, of the Fox News channel is news and opinion. So people expressing opinions about the news are true to the channel's premise. People who get political on a sports channel are NOT true to that channel's premise.

I guess May talked too much football for ESPNs liking.

 

[LC-88]

Its amazing how all these people are getting let go but 2 people like Michael Smith and Jamelle Hill, who do nothing but stir racial controversy are still employed. Max Kellerman is another one who needs to get the axe.

Agree. Jay Bilas will be the last to go, and not because of his on air talent.

 

[RU848789]

Don't watch sports talk and don't listen to any talk radio of any kind (music only in my car, lol), so I probably won't miss much here. I do watch actual sports and SportsCenter/College Game Day type highlight shows that focus on sports. So, I'll miss Mark May, as I thought he was quite good, especially back in our old BE days, when he'd routinely defend the BE, for the most part.

 

[RBS05]

Your post implies that this situation represents some shenanigans on ESPN's part.

I think not. This ****'s serious; they're in a world of trouble.

They're in a world of trouble only when comparing future profits to what they were able to make in the past. ESPN will always be in the best position compared to their competitors. Not only do they have a tremendous edge based on ratings already, but they have the most live content and that's pretty much all that matters. I wouldn't want to hold the stock, but people acting like ESPN is going to fail are crazy.

What hurts them the most is their terrible MNF deal.

 

[MozRU]

What hurts them the most is their terrible MNF deal.

...and the NBA contract they paid more than twice what they should have. They paid more than top dollar for many year locked in contracts for the MLB, NFL and NBA at the exact time customers had enough of the cable rate jacking and alternatives were available.

 

[RUschool]

...and the NBA contract they paid more than twice what they should have. They paid more than top dollar for many year locked in contracts for the MLB, NFL and NBA at the exact time customers had enough of the cable rate jacking and alternatives were available.

On the day of the layoffs, DIS shares went up the next two days.

 

[Knight Shift]

On the day of the layoffs, DIS shares went up the next two days.

 

[MozRU]

On the day of the layoffs, DIS shares went up the next two days.

Right. As it should have.

 

[rutgersguy1_rivals]

Well I've read that Disney's cable division operating income was in the vicinity of 800-900M and that mostly comprises of ESPN, so it's not as if it's losing money right now. The problem is that number continues to shrink YoY. Eventually, I think the descent will find an equilibrium and plateau but when that happens who knows.

The other thing is they always talk about subscriber losses but does that take into account what they may be recouping from the streaming services. I know at least ESPN/ESPN2 have found their way into a lot of skinny bundles and I think just one tier up from the bottom might get you ESPNU/ESPN news as well. At least ESPN/ESPN2 are on a lot of the streaming services like SlingTV/DirectTV Now as well and I believe in the upcoming Hulu service. So do those get counted when talking about subscriber losses. Or how about when the roll out the OTT service happens.

It's still seems kind of hard to "rid yourself" of them unless you're completely living off Netflix/Amazon and few of the basic channels or doing something illegal. Not sure what carriage fees they charge on the slim down bundles and streaming services though.

 

[Knight Shift]

Running list here (Beth Mowins still employed- SMH):
http://deadspin.com/a-running-list-of-espn-layoffs-1794664091

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-reportedly-affected/?utm_term=.2c1f1df36f6e

 

[RC1978]

Just wanted to put this here:

http://deadspin.com/no-espn-isn-t-l...source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow