What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ESPN Layoffs (1 Viewer)

I won't miss Rufus Peabody on their gambling podcasts.  Somehow combined analytics twerp with surf's up brah personality and posed as a gambling expert.  

 
Fox Sports is trying to get more in the game, so I could see them snagging a few of the really good ones there that got let go. 

 
How Stephen A?  How do  you keep your job?  I guess this  is the reason they are failing at ESPN.  I grew up watching sports center,  but I don't recognize the channel at all these days.   With the internet giving you the sports headlines no need to sit through 60 minutes of crap.  

 
SHIZNITTTT said:
How Stephen A?  How do  you keep your job?  I guess this  is the reason they are failing at ESPN.  I grew up watching sports center,  but I don't recognize the channel at all these days.   With the internet giving you the sports headlines no need to sit through 60 minutes of crap.  
Click to expand...


The world is failing because we would rather listen to people like SAS, Hannity, etc. loud opinion hacks/trolls that only goal is to shock people.  Then it bleeds over into the real world and you get Trump.

 
culdeus said:
The world is failing because we would rather listen to people like SAS, Hannity, etc. loud opinion hacks/trolls that only goal is to shock people.  Then it bleeds over into the real world and you get Trump.
Click to expand...
The ESPN layoffs are because of Sean Hannity and Donald Trump?  Is that what you're running with?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://therin.gr/u1ItUQA

ESPN has been rubbish for so long.  I think a big part of the reason I stopped caring about sports is how insufferable ESPN made it to follow it.  How the #### do they let go Ed Werder and not Stephen A ####ingSmith?  

 
ESPN is going to go by the wayside due to the internet like Blockbuster rolled over to NetFlix and on demand. This is only an attempt to stop the bleeding, but it's to far gone. They are over extended with so many channels and not enough good content. They still have all those channels and and time to fill, and now they have less people to do it. 

 
TheFanatic said:
ESPN is going to go by the wayside due to the internet like Blockbuster rolled over to NetFlix and on demand. This is only an attempt to stop the bleeding, but it's to far gone. They are over extended with so many channels and not enough good content. They still have all those channels and and time to fill, and now they have less people to do it. 
Click to expand...
Maybe they can show sports?  

 
TheFanatic said:
ESPN is going to go by the wayside due to the internet like Blockbuster rolled over to NetFlix and on demand. This is only an attempt to stop the bleeding, but it's to far gone. They are over extended with so many channels and not enough good content. They still have all those channels and and time to fill, and now they have less people to do it. 
Click to expand...
To expand upon your point--it's not just the number of channels--they are also over extended with billions of dollars worth of commitments to various sports leagues for broadcasting rights.  These rights  aren't paying for themsevles because many people are no longer relying on just TV to watch sports.   The layoffs at espn are hardly a drop in the bucket relative to these crazy large contracts/commitments that they are burdened with.  These layoffs do nothing to solve their fundamental problem--they were mainly done as a way of symbolically showing Disney shareholders that they do care;  essentially the people that were laid off were nothing more than sacrificial lambs to appease shareholders.    While I don't like Stephen A Smith--the reason why he didn't get canned is because he's too important to the network to abandon as one of these sacrificial lambs. Like him or not--he's one of the few media relevant personalities that is still employed at ESPN.  Look at how many people have mentioned his name in the thread--the dude gets noticed--even if it's for the wrong reasons.   In conclusion--I wouldn't be surprised if this layoff trend further continues at ESPN if they don't solve the real problem.  They either need to re-negotiate some of their deals with the big sports leagues, sub-contract or lease out some of those commitments to other companies---or find a way to gain back the millions of paying subscribers that they have lost over the past few years (which I don't think is likely). 

 
They need to bring back Spelling Bees and Scrabble tourneys.  Maybe Chess.......start acquiring distressed assets for nickles on the dollar, promoting them and try to draw ratings with a new demographic. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[ANNOUNCE] PLEASE STOP ASKING WHY STEPHEN A STILL HAS A JOB. HE MAKES ESPN A TON OF MONEY EVEN THOUGH HE SUCKS

tyia

 
Capella said:
[ANNOUNCE] PLEASE STOP ASKING WHY STEPHEN A STILL HAS A JOB. HE MAKES ESPN A TON OF MONEY EVEN THOUGH HE SUCKS

tyia
Click to expand...
I understand that and I'm not whining but, my question is this, who is the SAS audience?  I've never spoken to anybody who says, I really like and appreciate SAS's talent (he says as a white dude in his mid-40s)

 
Ned Ryerson said:
I understand that and I'm not whining but, my question is this, who is the SAS audience?  I've never spoken to anybody who says, I really like and appreciate SAS's talent (he says as a white dude in his mid-40s)
Click to expand...
It's like that quote from the Howard Stern movie. "People that love Howard listen on average for 20 minutes. Those that hate him listen an average of 35 minutes." The problem is, who are the SAS fans? And as a hater myself, who are the haters that are tuning in? As soon as I see that dude (or Skip Bayless), I change the station. Neither of these guys are taking a stand because of their volition. They look at some story unfolding and think, "What stance should I take that has the most shock value? Then I'll rant and rave like an idiot to show I'm really committed to this and get all the interviews I can." 

 
Ned Ryerson said:
I understand that and I'm not whining but, my question is this, who is the SAS audience?  I've never spoken to anybody who says, I really like and appreciate SAS's talent (he says as a white dude in his mid-40s)
Click to expand...
People watch him because they love to hate him. Same reason Mike Francesa gets huge ratings on WFAN in NYC.

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
To expand upon your point--it's not just the number of channels--they are also over extended with billions of dollars worth of commitments to various sports leagues for broadcasting rights.  These rights  aren't paying for themsevles because many people are no longer relying on just TV to watch sports.   The layoffs at espn are hardly a drop in the bucket relative to these crazy large contracts/commitments that they are burdened with.  These layoffs do nothing to solve their fundamental problem--they were mainly done as a way of symbolically showing Disney shareholders that they do care;  essentially the people that were laid off were nothing more than sacrificial lambs to appease shareholders.    While I don't like Stephen A Smith--the reason why he didn't get canned is because he's too important to the network to abandon as one of these sacrificial lambs. Like him or not--he's one of the few media relevant personalities that is still employed at ESPN.  Look at how many people have mentioned his name in the thread--the dude gets noticed--even if it's for the wrong reasons.   In conclusion--I wouldn't be surprised if this layoff trend further continues at ESPN if they don't solve the real problem.  They either need to re-negotiate some of their deals with the big sports leagues, sub-contract or lease out some of those commitments to other companies---or find a way to gain back the millions of paying subscribers that they have lost over the past few years (which I don't think is likely). 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:  The rights fees commitments in the future will be their biggest problem.  And they can't streamline payroll enough nor stick enough Stephen A Smiths in the lineup to overcome the increase in rights fees and the decrease in cable and advertising revenues. A new solution will have to be found and nobody knows what that is yet.

ESPN is not the only event broadcaster that will have this problem, either.

 
roadkill1292 said:
:goodposting:  The rights fees commitments in the future will be their biggest problem.  And they can't streamline payroll enough nor stick enough Stephen A Smiths in the lineup to overcome the increase in rights fees and the decrease in cable and advertising revenues. A new solution will have to be found and nobody knows what that is yet.

ESPN is not the only event broadcaster that will have this problem, either.
Click to expand...
Yeah....the whole SAS conversation is missing the mark.  Just take today...this is ESPN's lineup:

7-10am Sportscenter

10-12 First Take

12-1pm Sportscenter

1-1:30 OTL

1:30 - 3:30 NFL shows

3:30-4 NBA show

4-6 Talk Shows

6-7 Sportscenter

7-8 NFL

8-11 NBA

I mean...I know I'm on an Internet Message Board, but who here is really watching the 10am block of First Take or the 4pm Highly Questionable?  Point being, what people are really saying is Sportscenter and the individual sports show suck.  That's been the problem for awhile and these firings didn't address that problem.  

 
Gonna take some heat for this, but have you guys even watched SAS in the last couple of years? I think most people remember how horrible he used to be and thus turn the channel as soon as they see his face on ESPN. He's actually pretty reasonable these days from what I've seen recently. I only know this because ESPN is often on in the gym and I can't change the channel. I've been forced to watch him a few times recently and was very pleasantly surprised at his viewpoints on most issues.

 
Thunderlips said:
They need to bring back Spelling Bees and Scrabble tourneys.  Maybe Chess.......start acquiring distressed assets for nickles on the dollar, promoting them and try to draw ratings with a new demographic. 
Click to expand...
They own basically the entire Tier 3 NCAA right book.  They just never bother to air that stuff.  I think re-runs of SAS get better ratings than Lacrosse.

 
culdeus said:
The world is failing because we would rather listen to people like SAS, Hannity, etc. loud opinion hacks/trolls that only goal is to shock people.  Then it bleeds over into the real world and you get Trump.
Click to expand...
"the world is failing" :lmao:

 
People aren't going to regret and reverse their cord-cutting decisions because ESPN decided to ramp up its coverage of college wrestling.

 
TheFanatic said:
ESPN is going to go by the wayside due to the internet like Blockbuster rolled over to NetFlix and on demand. This is only an attempt to stop the bleeding, but it's to far gone. They are over extended with so many channels and not enough good content. They still have all those channels and and time to fill, and now they have less people to do it. 
Click to expand...
This is not a good comparison at all.  ESPN has live content on sports that you want to watch live.   People don't want to see an NBA playoff game or a Masters round on tape delay.   That is a major difference from Blockbuster.

 
The draft coverage last night was horrid.  Nothing but mouth diarrhea and commercials as pick after pick came in unacknowledged.  I'm skipping the rest.   

 
Pickles' post in here kinda got glossed-over, but I think he's accurate.

ESPN was at the forefront of the "24-hour news cycle" and built a sports media monopoly.  But in today's market, the traditional ESPN model isn't what it used to be.  You used to have to watch Sportscenter for highlights.  You don't have to do that anymore.  You want at-your-fingertips sports analysis and discussion?  ESPN offers that, but so do Fox, NBC, Twitter, Bleacher Report, and a myriad of other sources.  ESPN is suffering from the same fractured media landscape that TV (cord-cutters), music (streaming/digital), and so on are dealing with as well.

As noted above, these layoffs are really nothing more than sacrificial lambs.  The real issues are their contractual obligations to the various sports leagues.  ESPN wields a ton of power over cable companies and have for years, but with every passing day that power diminishes.  I'm not sure that the "house of cards" will collapse at some point, but I wouldn't expect ESPN to all-of-a-sudden turn their financial picture around after these layoffs.

 
Steve Tasker said:
Pickles' post in here kinda got glossed-over, but I think he's accurate.

ESPN was at the forefront of the "24-hour news cycle" and built a sports media monopoly.  But in today's market, the traditional ESPN model isn't what it used to be.  You used to have to watch Sportscenter for highlights.  You don't have to do that anymore.  You want at-your-fingertips sports analysis and discussion?  ESPN offers that, but so do Fox, NBC, Twitter, Bleacher Report, and a myriad of other sources.  ESPN is suffering from the same fractured media landscape that TV (cord-cutters), music (streaming/digital), and so on are dealing with as well.

As noted above, these layoffs are really nothing more than sacrificial lambs.  The real issues are their contractual obligations to the various sports leagues.  ESPN wields a ton of power over cable companies and have for years, but with every passing day that power diminishes.  I'm not sure that the "house of cards" will collapse at some point, but I wouldn't expect ESPN to all-of-a-sudden turn their financial picture around after these layoffs.
Click to expand...
Thoughtful perspective. I think the ESPN crisis, and maybe even collapse, comes when cable companies, who are also facing shrinking margins, begin offering skinny bundles, some of which don't include any of the sports networks. Sometimes in our bubble here we don't realize that 95% of Americans don't watch an NFL game on a Sunday in October.

 
roadkill1292 said:
People aren't going to regret and reverse their cord-cutting decisions because ESPN decided to ramp up its coverage of college wrestling.
Click to expand...
I think there is some misunderstanding on what cord cutting really means for the majority of cord cutters.

The vast majority of cord cutters still have access to ESPN through a myriad of online services and the amount of choices grows every day.  The problem for ESPN is that they(at least for the moment) can not charge the exorbitant fee to these online services that they have been able to to the cable and satellite services.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292 said:
Thoughtful perspective. I think the ESPN crisis, and maybe even collapse, comes when cable companies, who are also facing shrinking margins, begin offering skinny bundles, some of which don't include any of the sports networks. Sometimes in our bubble here we don't realize that 95% of Americans don't watch an NFL game on a Sunday in October.
Click to expand...
agreed with the bolded, but to go a step further - i think they (cable companies) desperately need to shift to an a la carte offering. 

that still won't get me back as a customer (i lopped the cord and will never look back), but it may save them from losing tons more consumers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because of this thread, I'm watching SAS on First Take right now.  Barely made it through the segment.  He's so bad and all he reminds me of is Trump talking about himself.

 
otb_lifer said:
agreed with the bolded, but to go a step further - i think they (cable companies) desperately need to shift to an a la carte offering. 

that still won't get me back as a customer (i lopped the cord and will never look back), but it may save them from losing tons more consumers.
Click to expand...
A la carte, or pay per view, is definitely one possibility for the future as things evolve. Technology will certainly allow it. I think the question is pricing. The more popular the sport, the higher the game fee? If that becomes the case I'm lucky that my favorite sport is fairly low on the American popularity scale and that I could probably watch several games a day for far less than my current monthly cable package.

Makes for an interesting discussion, albeit maybe for a separate thread -- if you could buy only the television content that you wanted, what would you buy?

 
Warrior said:
"the world is failing" :lmao:
Click to expand...
I agree with him. As a society we care more about what SAS is babbling about, or the Kardasians are posting on Instagram, or the 2 second blurb rather than anyone delving into anything deep. Our attention spans are shot because we are over stimulated from our smart phones, tablets, laptops, and TV's. Look at politics. Both sides just scream at each other and nothing is getting. This is part of a societal issue not just sports. 

 
roadkill1292 said:
A la carte, or pay per view, is definitely one possibility for the future as things evolve. Technology will certainly allow it. I think the question is pricing. The more popular the sport, the higher the game fee? If that becomes the case I'm lucky that my favorite sport is fairly low on the American popularity scale and that I could probably watch several games a day for far less than my current monthly cable package.

Makes for an interesting discussion, albeit maybe for a separate thread -- if you could buy only the television content that you wanted, what would you buy?
Click to expand...
Unbundling is coming. But probably not for a while yet. It is going to do to cable companies and other networks what it has done to ESPN.

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned this earlier in the thread (I haven't been through the whole thing), but cord cutting will eventually have a negative impact on all pro and college sports economics. There has been a massive bubble in TV contract values, salaries (for players and coaches), and pro franchise values. It has all been subsidized by non-sports fans paying significant monthly fees for ESPN, since it was ubiquitous in basic cable packages.

 
roadkill1292 said:
A la carte, or pay per view, is definitely one possibility for the future as things evolve. Technology will certainly allow it. I think the question is pricing. The more popular the sport, the higher the game fee? If that becomes the case I'm lucky that my favorite sport is fairly low on the American popularity scale and that I could probably watch several games a day for far less than my current monthly cable package.

Makes for an interesting discussion, albeit maybe for a separate thread -- if you could buy only the television content that you wanted, what would you buy?
Click to expand...
they could always offer blocks of time, like the cell carriers do with phones. 

example:  a customer purchases 100 hours of viewing time for their billing cycle - flat rate - and, in that alotted/prepaid time, the customer can watch anything ... open it all up, and let them fill that time however they please - network TV, premium channels (HBO, SHO, etc), PPV, On Demand - all services opened up. 

provide customers with a channel that logs how many hours were used, etc ... and have an "overage" fee so folks aren't shut out. 

very rudimentary example, but one i'd love to see implemented. 

 
otb_lifer said:
they could always offer blocks of time, like the cell carriers do with phones. 

example:  a customer purchases 100 hours of viewing time for their billing cycle - flat rate - and, in that alotted/prepaid time, the customer can watch anything ... open it all up, and let them fill that time however they please - network TV, premium channels (HBO, SHO, etc), PPV, On Demand - all services opened up. 

provide customers with a channel that logs how many hours were used, etc ... and have an "overage" fee so folks aren't shut out. 

very rudimentary example, but one i'd love to see implemented. 
Click to expand...
Things like HBO will never be a part of that kind of plan. People who buy HBO generally want to have HBO. That is why HBO's business model is more inherently stable than ESPN's, provided they continue to crank out content that people are willing to pay a premium to get.

 
The Most Popular TV Channels Are the Ones You Can Watch for Free

Rob Wile

Mar 14, 2017

In case you needed another reason to cut your cable cord: A study from Tivo finds that the most expensive channel in your cable lineup is only the 19th-most desired channel people want on their TVs.

In a survey of 3,079 adults, Tivo found that ABC was the most desired TV channel overall, with CBS coming in second place. Mind you, viewers can tune in to both of these channels for free with an antenna, no cable subscription required. In fact, five out of the top 10 most popular channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS) are all available for free viewing via a digital antenna. The most popular pay TV network is the Discovery Channel, followed by the History Channel, A&E, and TNT.

What's interesting is that the channel that adds the highest cost by far to cable subscribers' monthly bills is not even among the top 15 most popular networks. According to a Chicago Tribune report last year, ESPN charges distributors an average of $7.21 per month per subscriber, plus another $.90 for ESPN2. The next priciest channel is in a distant second: Fox News' monthly fee is $1.41. And yet ESPN is only the 19th most popular channel, according to the Tivo survey.

There is also quite a gap between how much ESPN costs and what subscribers believe is a fair price for the channel. The Tivo survey asked how much people would be willing to pay for each channel. Not surprisingly, HBO was No. 1 at $2.81 a month, followed by ESPN at $1.82.

In other words, ESPN's real-life monthly fee is four times what people would be willing to pay for it. PBS (another free broadcast network) and HGTV tied for third at $1.52. Overall, the price people would be willing to pay for 20 channels at all fell by more than 12% compared with Tivo's previous quarterly study.

In a survey released last year, more than 50% of people said that they would happily drop ESPN and ESPN2 from their cable packages if the tradeoff was a monthly bill that's $8 cheaper. Dropping channels a la carte is generally not possible, but the sports giant is losing viewers anyway: ESPN has lost more than 11 million subscribers since 2011.

Still, even if ESPN isn’t the most popular channel, the truth is that sports is what keeps people paying for TV at all. Almost the entirety of the highest-rated programs last year were sports related.

And yet, when it comes to sports on cable, almost every channel, with a few exceptions, is seeing subscriber declines. Between September and December 2016, according to SportsTVRatings.com, ESPN and its sister networks (like ESPN 2) lost more than 4 million subscribers.




2
Click to expand...

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
Things like HBO will never be a part of that kind of plan. People who buy HBO generally want to have HBO. That is why HBO's business model is more inherently stable than ESPN's, provided they continue to crank out content that people are willing to pay a premium to get.
Click to expand...
As currently constructed, yes.  Ultimately, they will have to get there, though...it's just a matter of how to do so with the least pain (for their bottom line).  I mean you can sort of do that already with Sling Orange which is $25 a month.  That's not too far from Sling or ESPN just going...here's an app for $15 a month.  

That being said...once they go a al carte, all the leagues will just follow suit as well and cut ESPN out which is the bigger issue with going a la carte.   Once the splintering starts, the big hook of live sports can be captured by the leagues themselves.  ESPN's real problem is that it doesn't produce it's own content.   

 
Sammy3469 said:
As currently constructed, yes.  Ultimately, they will have to get there, though...it's just a matter of how to do so with the least pain (for their bottom line).  I mean you can sort of do that already with Sling Orange which is $25 a month.  That's not too far from Sling or ESPN just going...here's an app for $15 a month.  

That being said...once they go a al carte, all the leagues will just follow suit as well and cut ESPN out which is the bigger issue with going a la carte.   Once the splintering starts, the big hook of live sports can be captured by the leagues themselves.  ESPN's real problem is that it doesn't produce it's own content.   
Click to expand...
We are moving into a house we are remodeling and I am seriously considering cutting the cable at that time.

The only problem is that the fastest internet connection we can get is from Comcast and they overcharge for high-speed bandwidth a la carte.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Small Scale Farming - Anyone Into It?
2
Replies
67
Views
2K
Peggy
Peggy
TheDirtyWord
Burgeoning Property Dispute: My Trees Were Cut Down...
2
Replies
97
Views
5K
TheDirtyWord
TheDirtyWord
Chadstroma
Brain Storm Help with a Youth Football Program
Replies
29
Views
1K
Chadstroma
Chadstroma

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top