OT: Big Layoffs at ESPN
- Thread starter RUtix4me
- Start date
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.c...ms-to-emerge-unscathed-from-espn-shakeup/amp/
Per the NY Post, they are actually putting by her back on Sports Center
Per the NY Post, they are actually putting by her back on Sports Center
Maybe that is why one of my favorites in Kaylee hartung went to CNN.
She has been absent from that show. But no, they haven't gotten rid of her. She was reassigned.
You patronize people who did nothing wrong but to get gobbled up by a changing media world. ESPN changed the course of sports reportng and the games themselves and made a lot of $$ for a whole lot of people.A WHOLE lot for a WHOLE lot...Same thing with MTV They started a revolution that ran it's course but still resonates.The cycle of historical media revolutions has become an almost yearly event. Hop on board but do not demean those who were once hip and made it all possible. What is hip and ground breaking today will be sold to American Pickers in a few years.
Can't say I've watched any programming on ESPN other than a 30 for 30 or a game in almost 15 years, but perhaps they've come to the realization that they can't compete with MLB TV, NBA TV, NFL Network and all of the other sports-focused outlets that they are going all in on the social sports entertainment focus.
Personally I have no interest, but I really have little interest in Sports TV outside of the actual games. I guess as someone mentioned earlier, MTV changed drastically and ESPN might be doing similar.
Personally I have no interest, but I really have little interest in Sports TV outside of the actual games. I guess as someone mentioned earlier, MTV changed drastically and ESPN might be doing similar.
Maybe that is why one of my favorites in Kaylee hartung went to CNN.
Damn. That's a whole lot of talent right there.
I'm glad Mike Greenberg is still around and I'm glad he doesn't have to deal with that dolt Mike Golic anymore. Sounds like Greenberg might be teaming up with Sage Steele.
I don't know that I've ever disagreed with the opinion of one person more frequently than I did Golic.
My wife knows them as the "smart" Mike and the "dumb" Mike.
I don't know that I've ever disagreed with the opinion of one person more frequently than I did Golic.
My wife knows them as the "smart" Mike and the "dumb" Mike.
Did I miss that Golic was canned today? When did they announce he was leaving the show?
This is the problem with this discussion. ESPN doesn't have a problem competing with MLB TV or NFL Network. Go look up the actual revenue at those channels, and compare them to ESPN. Go look at the ratings for those other channels, and compare them with ESPN. I'll guarantee you ESPN is not getting beaten by those other channels.
For some reason, people can't get it through their heads that this is an industry-wide problem. The other networks are being affected as well. The reason ESPN makes news is because they are the biggest name right now. It's not newsworthy to report any troubles with FS1, because that network is not prominent to begin with.
I'm talking competing in content. Those other formats are less cable dependent as well (league TV channels).
You are cherry picking comments from the thread to make a point (which seems to be that none of this is ESPN's fault since others may also be affected). This point ignores that ESPN made bad long-term deals that lacked any foresight or business sense. No other network has done this like ESPN has. Moreover, they've done nothing else to raise their revenue like offer other cheap live content like they once did instead of paying high-priced "talent" to be anchors of polarizing and decreasingly popular programs or a better website. Instead, they've doubled down on a bad strategy.
Yes, the whole industry is affected. That doesn't change the fact that ESPN is in the poor position today because of a combination of hubris and complacency which resulted in their complete failure to recognize what was easy for anyone else to see in recent years let alone come up with an effective strategy to adapt to said changes.
The viewpoint that ESPN's present situation is "not their fault" is the same type of thinking that has led to many companies going out of business as times change. The smart ones think steps ahead and find ways to beat trends. That clearly has not happened here. In fact, the opposite happened.
And you're still wrong. Let's take NFL network. They aren't beating ESPN in content. The only thing they really have are a handful of games (the Thursday night matchups). The rest of their "content" is replays and studio shows, and maybe some behind-the-scenes stuff. They aren't making a killing off of that, not in any stretch of the imagination. It's just filler programming. That's not beating ESPN.
It's also not less cable dependent either. Their streaming platform isn't any more advanced than WatchESPN. They also face the same problem from other streaming services. People can opt for skinny bundles that don't include sports. That's what's really killing ESPN, and it's hurting the other channels as well.
The difference is, NFL Network probably isn't paying $1 Billion per year for that content.
Profitability is what is important, not revenue, viewership, content, or anything else. You simply can't make a profit when you negotiated against yourself to get the bad deals ESPN has for years to come.
What's "killing" ESPN isn't skinny bundles. Everyone saw this coming years ago. It is their lack of foresight that is killing them.
I'm not cherrypicking from anything. You are just way off on your analysis. ESPN didn't make "bad" business deals. ESPN is a sports network. They have to have sports to broadcast. ESPN made deals with the NFL, NBA, MLB, and the major conferences. If you are a sports network, then that's basically all you can do.
Also, this "cheap live content" isn't the answer. These talking head shows get higher ratings than alternative live sports. The reason ESPN scrapped the "cheap live content" is because the content doesn't make as much money as the talking head stuff.
Yes, it does change the fact about ESPN's "poor decisions." ESPN's problem is due to one reason: the business model has simply changed. That's it. The cable industry is in the same position the music industry was in 10-12 years ago. The consumer base has simply shrunk. There frankly isn't anything ESPN can do about that, just like there was nothing the record companies could do about it a decade ago.
And NFL Network isn't making more profit than ESPN either. You're right that NFL network isn't paying $1 billion for their content.......and they aren't making that much either. NFL network isn't making a big profit because they don't have the content to attract big numbers of consumers.
NFL network simply isn't doing better than ESPN. NFL network isn't in better shape than ESPN. NFL network has the same problems as ESPN. NFL network's just aren't as pronounced because they are starting from a smaller position than ESPN.
You seriously like Greenberg?? Or is this tongue in cheek. God awful!
Exactly, these league specific networks can stick to the meat and potatoes and do enough financially. ESPN is in such a difficult position financially they seem to think they now have to cater to the casual and non-sports fan. These other outlets can stick to their core, which is a good thing for the die hard fans, because they are often the last one accounted for.
The 30 for 30: Requiem for ESPN is starting to look more and more like a reality.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-has-lost-7-million-subscribers-the-past-two-years-112515
ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers in the last 2 years which equals $550 million in revenue. ESPN also has guaranteed contracts with college football, NFL and other sports of $6 billion a year. They need to cut cost as much as they can. Are you really going to stop watching if an analyst is terminated?
The lost subscribers is due mainly to people cutting their bundled cable services. When the sport contracts expire, the bids will be substantially lower.
ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers in the last 2 years which equals $550 million in revenue. ESPN also has guaranteed contracts with college football, NFL and other sports of $6 billion a year. They need to cut cost as much as they can. Are you really going to stop watching if an analyst is terminated?
The lost subscribers is due mainly to people cutting their bundled cable services. When the sport contracts expire, the bids will be substantially lower.
And of course the very idea of social justice is terrible to those of your mindset.
You are a mysoyounist. There are a lot of women doing good calling of sports and should be given a chance. And oh! I think Beth Mowins sucks. Don't like her.
Your last paragraph speaks to exactly the point I was making about the "overpaid" angle. ESPN just extended their NBA deal last year, for another nine years, tripling the amount they were paying the NBA. They are paying NFL-type money for a sport that doesn't have near the interest of the NFL. What the NBA does have is a younger fanbase and ESPN was betting that would keep younger people compelled to pay for their channels. Instead, cord-cutting is accelerating.
I'm not saying that ESPN made the wrong move in paying huge rights fees, because it was the only thing they could do to try and save their monthly carriage fee model. It is just that those moves didn't work, and the problem for them is that now the rights fees deals they signed will make it harder for ESPN to transition to the new delivery models.
This is a sample...100 people were cut, i could give a partial list with 100% women cut, you really need the full list.
Understood but that's what I've seen reported. I'm sure we'll get a more comprehensive list today or in the coming days
People are getting too hung up on the racial and gender composition of these layoffs. The important distinction is that they have leaned towards being people involved in getting deeper into the details of particular sports, so it looks like if anything ESPN is doubling down on the superficial, sensationalist approach to sports TV that has turned so many sports fans off.
Last edited:
In no particular order:
1.) Expensive content deals
2.) Unbundling of cable packages
3.) The rise of the blogosphere
4.) DVR
5.) Changing consumer sports consumption habits
6.) Competing networks
7.) Low budget talk shows
Just the perfect storm.
Just go back to the old formula of cramming in as many highlights and one-liners as you can in half an hour and loop it and edit it as you go every morning. That's what I used to watch it for.
Now it takes an hour just to get to your 2 min segment -- forget that. I'll just check my smart phone.
1.) Expensive content deals
2.) Unbundling of cable packages
3.) The rise of the blogosphere
4.) DVR
5.) Changing consumer sports consumption habits
6.) Competing networks
7.) Low budget talk shows
Just the perfect storm.
Just go back to the old formula of cramming in as many highlights and one-liners as you can in half an hour and loop it and edit it as you go every morning. That's what I used to watch it for.
Now it takes an hour just to get to your 2 min segment -- forget that. I'll just check my smart phone.
I remember when Stuart Scott died a few years ago and for some reason his compensation package became public. I couldn't believe he was making several million per year. He did a nice job but he was a sports anchor. The job entails having a nice personality to engage in pleasant on-air banter, having slightly above average looks, having basic sports knowledge and reading sports headlines. You literally can find millions of Americans who, with minimal training, could perform the same role with 80 plus percent utility.
Hearing how much ESPN was paying sports anchors made me realize the money spigot was flowing. Treating them as if they were entertainers with specialized talent.
Hearing how much ESPN was paying sports anchors made me realize the money spigot was flowing. Treating them as if they were entertainers with specialized talent.
Bring back Demolition Derby and Roller Derby and I'll consider getting cable. Love the WHIP!
Diversity in hiring, but not firing. It's 2017, everything in our society is going to be evaluated on racial and gender composition. That's just how it is. Also, it is much safer for ESPN to let Jayson Stark go, when the worst backlash they will get from the public is "damn that sucks." While if they let a personality like Stephen A. go, ESPN would have to defend themselves against inevitable accusations that it was somehow racially motivated and because of Stephen A.'s political views. I know this won't be a popular comment but that's just the way it is. Too many of the general public wake up every day thinking "what can I be offended about today?" The Jayson Starks of the world don't have the juice to trigger anyone.
White people are paid more and ESPN has to get rid of as many high paid employees.
RuMoose in another thread said that he never sees a white male announcer anymore when he turns on ESPN so there really aren't many white males to terminate.
Last edited:
Maybe save some money by not having a reporter in Italy to follow Michigan. Watching a report on ESPN where the reporter is blowing Harbaugh and Michigan. Great move by Michigan.