💬 ESPN Layoffs: Tebow has contract extended by ESPN

[Argo]

I dont like Schillings because I think he is a right wing nut but I didnt agree with Schillings being fired but its still their company and they can fire people that say things they dont like, welcome to the USA.

And they also have the right to lose a shit ton of viewers because of it and other decisions like it.

Again, I don't think it's solely because of politics. There are a lot of variables in play.

 

[planomateo]

It's safe to say there is a problem, it's not a Nieslen ratings problem either as some have suggested...Disney acknowledged loss of subscribers in their recent earnings call a month ago.

 

[PCRammer]

I think this is more of an issue of us regular folk tired of paying a buck-fitty a month for Direct/Cable whatever. Im building a new house and none of that shit is going to be allowed. I'll do sling (and pick-up ESPN during football season only) or YouTube or something different. Its time for a change and all these companies better keep up because they are pricing themselves out of the market share.

 

[Argo]

So long as ESPN is in the business of broadcasting live sporting events they are going to make money.

 

['65 Cobra]

It's really simple, revenue vs expenses. They'll eventually have to start losing out on some of the bigger broadcasting rights they have.

If my numbers are right, ESPN makes ~$700M a month in subscriber fees...mind boggling. Losing ~3M subscribers a year is costing them ~$3M a year (average cable customer is paying ~$100 year to ESPN)

Perhaps it's a typo, but isn't losing ~3M subscribers per year costing them ~3 HUNDRED million a year?

 

[planomateo]

Perhaps it's a typo, but isn't losing ~3M subscribers per year costing them ~3 HUNDRED million a year?

Could be, I went off $8 a month per subscriber based on what I've read. $8 x 12 months = $96 x 3,000,000 = ~$300,000,000

 

[planomateo]

I think this is more of an issue of us regular folk tired of paying a buck-fitty a month for Direct/Cable whatever. Im building a new house and none of that **** is going to be allowed. I'll do sling (and pick-up ESPN during football season only) or YouTube or something different. Its time for a change and all these companies better keep up because they are pricing themselves out of the market share.

Found this out the other day, apparently you can suspend service with DirecTV for up to 8 months. Granted that's alot more than slingTV, but an option some might consider.

 

[JoshB]

And they also have the right to lose a **** ton of viewers because of it and other decisions like it.

Again, I don't think it's solely because of politics. There are a lot of variables in play.

Sure, but most people couldnt care less about Schilling or what he said. The majority of people watch ESPN for the live games and nothing else.

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

Of course they'd get rid of Olbermann a couple years ago.

He was a blowhardy libtard hack (still is), disguised as a sports journalist.

 

[bamafan4ever]

Sure, but most people couldnt care less about Schilling or what he said. The majority of people watch ESPN for the live games and nothing else.

I agree 100%. I used to really love SportsCenter and all of the college football coverage but especially last year, I found myself turning on the TV at game time and flipping around at halftime. Spared myself a lot of anguish from listening to Kannell and Fuckeye boy.

 

[bradenob]

I dont like Schillings because I think he is a right wing nut but I didnt agree with Schillings being fired but its still their company and they can fire people that say things they dont like, welcome to the USA.

You dont like hearing women talk about sports? Like seriously? A woman cant be a commentator because why? She didnt play linebacker? Good lord. That's not chauvinist, its just ignorant.

Once again (no, more like almost always) you miss the point. Obviously a woman CAN be a commentator. But I don't know how they became qualified to do so. I like GUYS commentating on sports that are ONLY played by guys - football, baseball. In the same way, at a party, or the gym, or a bar, I don't look to talk to women about sports - I like talking to guys about sports. That's just me. There is nothing wrong with the fact that I LIKE that, and that I don't like women telling me why they think that a certain player will excel against a certain team in football. Heather Dinich being treated like an expert on the CFP Committee's opinions and thoughts - really guys??? They can have their opinion, and I can have the right to turn them off. I was just voicing an honest opinion, however politically incorrect it may be. But can you say that the influx of women talking about football and baseball on ESPN has NOTHING to do with their lower ratings? Because it might.

Look up the definition of ignorant - you're not using it correctly. And no, being a player does not qualify one for being a commentator, but it helps to have played the sport and been involved in it.

 

[JoshB]

I agree 100%. I used to really love SportsCenter and all of the college football coverage but especially last year, I found myself turning on the TV at game time and flipping around at halftime. Spared myself a lot of anguish from listening to Kannell and Fuckeye boy.

I watch all the ESPN documentaries and when Im working at home Ill have sportscenter on in the background but yea games are pretty much the only other thing I watch.

Once again (no, more like almost always) you miss the point. Obviously a woman CAN be a commentator. But I don't know how they became qualified to do so. I like GUYS commentating on sports that are ONLY played by guys - football, baseball. In the same way, at a party, or the gym, or a bar, I don't look to talk to women about sports - I like talking to guys about sports. That's just me. There is nothing wrong with the fact that I LIKE that, and that I don't like women telling me why they think that a certain player will excel against a certain team in football. Heather Dinich being treated like an expert on the CFP Committee's opinions and thoughts - really guys??? They can have their opinion, and I can have the right to turn them off. I was just voicing an honest opinion, however politically incorrect it may be. But can you say that the influx of women talking about football and baseball on ESPN has NOTHING to do with their lower ratings? Because it might.

Look up the definition of ignorant - you're not using it correctly. And no, being a player does not qualify one for being a commentator, but it helps to have played the sport and been involved in it.

You dont dont how they became qualified? Seriously? The majority of them went to school like the majority of other commentators and pundits. You sound incredibly ignorant.
Ignorant = lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Re-read your post, I used it 100% correctly.

 

[footballer]

ESPN has too many channels. One or two should suffice. With so many channels, they fill air time with a bunch of nonsense and other programming other than sporting events like poker. That's when I began ignoring them for the most part.

 

[TerryP]

Once again (no, more like almost always) you miss the point. Obviously a woman CAN be a commentator. But I don't know how they became qualified to do so

You dont dont how they became qualified? Seriously? The majority of them went to school like the majority of other commentators and pundits. You sound incredibly ignorant.

I'm a bit amused with the word ignorant as a descriptor when you're asserting they're qualified due to going to school. Qualified to be in front of a camera? Sure. Qualified to offer analysis? Meh.

@bradenob Earlier I mentioned Samatha Ponder. Her dad is currently coaching overseas. His resume includes football and basketball on a professional level. (We'll leave her husband out of this but I'd love to hear one of their dinner conversations about football sometime.) Growing up in that house, following her dad's every move? Yah, she's got a pretty solid foundation in commenting on football, IMO.

There are guys that I don't think belong in the booth. Hell, I've heard Matt Millen say idiotic things more in one game than I've heard from Ponder her entire career.

 

[TerryP]

3 of 4 who watch ESPN are between 17-29. The median age of those paying the cable bill; 44. Hrrmm.

Again, I don't think it's solely because of politics. There are a lot of variables in play.

Losing viewers and losing subscribers are two different things, right? Politics, like those voiced by some of their personalities, will cause people to change the channel, sure.

BUT.

They keep losing subscribers...

I really don't care for their format, I haven't in probably 6-8 years if I had to guess, perhaps longer.

Interesting read on ESPN's subscriber numbers over the last few years

@TUSKstuff This is another one of those misinformation reports that leaves me shaking my head. I'm not disagreeing with any of the views here. As example, I'm not a fan of the way they are doing the 6PM SC now--Jamele Hill has a delivery style I don't care for.

The "narrative" we see being told from a lot of outlets is how ESPN is losing subscribers. The "narrative" we aren't seeing is "the cable companies are losing subscribers" which leads to "ESPN losing subscribers." They've got the biggest portion of the pie, I get that. I don't see reports on how many people, who don't watch sports, cancel cable resulting in a loss for ESPN.

 

[alabama mike]

ESPN lost me a long time ago. I will watch a ballgame now and then but Sportscenter was at one time, a daily staple. I cant stomach it anymore.

 

[planomateo]

@TerryP it's not necessarily cable company losing subscribers, as customers can just move to the lowest plan (and that's a hit to ESPN and other channels subscriber base). There working to address that (they have a stake in BAMtech, could that be ESPN's future digital platform?). With all the long term deals, they can't continue losing subscribers. Hell, I doubt my kids will have cable TV when they head out on their own, they haven't used a TV in years... The customer is changing, they'll have to adapt.

Another interesting read, https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/27/espn-spends-more-on-content-than-anyone-else-inclu.aspx.

When I cut the cord a few years ago it was primarily to cut costs, I got tired of paying $150-$200 month for internet/tv. I need the internet, I don't need tv. I grew tired of having to call both providers yearly to reduce the bill by $20/months. I'm in an area where I have two choices, U-Verse or Suddenlink internet and in addition to them for TV I could use Directv/Dish. So I cut the cord, and get my sports fix via another means (just moved to directvnow from slingtv).

Like I said, I stopped watching ESPN a long time ago. My viewpoints have changed and ESPN's business model has changed, they're trying to attract a new audience and I'm now longer interested in their product. I'm just there for the live sports at this point.

 

[rick4bama]

Well a lot of you know I don't have cable. But I do get to see some of the ESPN on regular TV since ESPN and ABC are own by Wold of Color. But back in the early days when ESPN was just a baby on the TV. The only football games that was shown was PAC-8/10/12. I can remember one team that was shown regularly and that was University of California. That was because of their coach at that time. Coach Joe Kapp, I think he may have been the first to make the QB only in the backfield. Also who not see this play that beat John Elway Sanford team. "Kapp was the coach during The Play, the famous five-lateral kickoff return by the Cal team to score the winning touchdown on the final play of the 1982 Big Game against archrival Stanford."

 

[TUSKtimes]

@TUSKstuff
This is another one of those misinformation reports that leaves me shaking my head. I'm not disagreeing with any of the views here. As example, I'm not a fan of the way they are doing the 6PM SC now--Jamele Hill has a delivery style I don't care for.

The "narrative" we see being told from a lot of outlets is how ESPN is losing subscribers. The "narrative" we aren't seeing is "the cable companies are losing subscribers" which leads to "ESPN losing subscribers." They've got the biggest portion of the pie, I get that. I don't see reports on how many people, who don't watch sports, cancel cable resulting in a loss for ESPN.

Perhaps the worst case scenario for ESPN is when they became the stepchild of the Disney company. You would have thought that the far left is almost the mandatory position to survive in that type of ownership position. In the fiscal first quarter, Disney's revenue fell 3% and profits sank 14%. ESPN has lost 12 million viewers since it's peak viewership in 2011.

That's real enough and it's true there is always a ton of misinformation that is out there, but some of the leading ESPN personalities, present, and past, have said plenty about the ongoing political agenda of the company and the intense liberalism they feel they have to adhere to or else. Curt Schilling has been alluded to numerous times in others post, mainly because of his "out their" conservative views and it cost him his employment. Ryan Russillo recently stated in frustration, "I don't know what the job is anymore....If I was doing the anti-Trump show 3 days a week, would I have 90% support from coworkers? Because that's what it feels like right now."

Put all that aside and just listen to sports fans talk about their feelings about ESPN broadcast content. Jocks and sports geeks who absolutely love sports are tired of the product and I feel the same way. It's just not fun overall and that's a big future problem. I think pushing social issues in the name of sport is a failing strategy. I mean do we have to be made to watch a 65-year-old Bruce Jenner pick up a "courage ESPY" in his new evening gown cause he decided to come out, nationally? At that point, you're just begging the national public to make a point of their own, the hard way.

Makes you wonder if ESPN truly understands that we already get CNN?

 

[Destiny's Child]

As a guy who works in the media... I can tell you they have lost focus on who their market is which is surprising. I hate CNN and MSNBC but they continually pander to their market demographic that they want to deliver to their advertisers and while both of their numbers have been tanking over the last several years, they still make big bucks from their base advertisers. Fox news is the same way they know who pays their bills and they make sure not to rock the boat with that crew.
ESPN is now targeting the 18-34 year old hip hop market as their base demographic and those guys don't spend the kind of money they need, nor do the majority, buy cable, own a home, buy luxury cars ect.ect.. Some do but the vast majority do not. The guys that watch sports that they need to focus their programming on is the 25-54 year old male, who has a job. a house, a family and a checking account. This up until the last few years was their focus entirely and what put them on the map. Now not only is everything pointed to a young, hip hop type viewer but the liberal agenda forced out by Disney and ABC comes thru in everything they do.. and again that does not fit who they need their base to be.

Home Depot wants to reach more home owners, mercedes wants to reach established people with a job and credit, Airlines want to reach people who need to travel and have a functioning credit card... those are the type companies with money and they had that audience in the bag at one time.

I dont care how good your product is, if you bail out on your base advertising demographic, create other products to compete with yourself in the exact same markets and lose your identity in your message and programming you will eventually go tits up.

ESPN has a huge money making possibility, so what I would look for is an investment company to buy it from Disney for an "undisclosed" or under market value price and take it back to what it was and stop trying to appease the women, gays and leftists of the word and just focus on sports. I would also bet ESPNU, ESPN Classic, Longhorn Network and all go bye bye. The only viable spin off has been SEC Network and I believe it could survive on its own. If they keep ESPN, ESPN news, ESPN 2 and SEC they have 4 channels plus the ESPN 3 to show games. They reduce their overhead and the number of additional personalities and cut out competing with themselves for viewers.

As long as Disney owns them they will continue to struggle in my opinion.