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!

The Rise and Fall of ESPN (2 Viewers)

culdeus said:
Nfl network has a standalone product offered by streaming and doesn't pay rights fees. 

Nfln is more like HBO than ESPN.  
Click to expand...
Where I live it is part of a package that relies totally on NFLN though, unfortunately can no longer purchase by itself. Much easier to cut the cord on than ESPN which makes their ratings and performance that much more impressive.

 
Technology has passed ESPN by.  There are very few people that are interested in watching a channel that covers all the sports - and those of us who like a few sports can get all the content we need elsewhere.

Does espn.com still make you pay a subscription for "insider" articles?  LOL

 
ScottNorwood said:
Technology has passed ESPN by.  There are very few people that are interested in watching a channel that covers all the sports - and those of us who like a few sports can get all the content we need elsewhere.

Does espn.com still make you pay a subscription for "insider" articles?  LOL
Click to expand...
They do. And they bought one of my favorite hoops websites (draft Express) so now i can't read their stuff anymore...

 
GoBirds said:
Where I live it is part of a package that relies totally on NFLN though, unfortunately can no longer purchase by itself. Much easier to cut the cord on than ESPN which makes their ratings and performance that much more impressive.
Click to expand...
Actually this cuts the other way. ESPN's problems can largely be traced to the rights fees it pays- they shelled out a ton of money assuming they'd be able to recover it in cable subscriptions because pretty much every package included the massively expensive ESPN networks and people used to just hand over the money without thinking.  The problem is they didn't see into a future of cord-cutting, and now they're stuck paying those massive fees without recovering tons of cash through pass-through on cable subscriptions.  In contrast, NFL Network is losing relatively little to streaming because (1) they don't have massive right fee obligations, and (2) its customer base has always been people who sought it out and were willing to pay extra for expanded sports programming rather than basically every cable TV subscriber.

 
ESPN sucks.

But whoever is in charge of commercials for NFL games is even suckier. If I have to watch that GMC Sierra truck commercial one more gawddamm time I'm gonna puke on my Chiefs tube socks:

Me and you sittin on a train,

Me and you this song is in my brain.

Me and you eating cheerios,

Me and you gonna go get some ho's.

Me and you drive the same truck,

Me and you now I don't give a fook. 

Blah blah blah me and you and me and you and you and me and me and swc take that to the puke bank brohan. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Actually this cuts the other way. ESPN's problems can largely be traced to the rights fees it pays- they shelled out a ton of money assuming they'd be able to recover it in cable subscriptions because pretty much every package included the massively expensive ESPN networks and people used to just hand over the money without thinking.  The problem is they didn't see into a future of cord-cutting, and now they're stuck paying those massive fees without recovering tons of cash through pass-through on cable subscriptions.  In contrast, NFL Network is losing relatively little to streaming because (1) they don't have massive right fee obligations, and (2) its customer base has always been people who sought it out and were willing to pay extra for expanded sports programming rather than basically every cable TV subscriber.
Click to expand...
Agree they definitely signed some bad deals and the fees they committed to are significant, ratings was more what I meant. Even NFLN is off the 2013 high but not much. 

 
Just my take... I'm sure there are some individuals who have tuned out because of views of PC-ness.  But I think overall it's a pretty small factor compared to others that have been shared like people using other mediums for their sports news.

I think looking at the thread here reinforces that a bit. I skimmed from the beginning and noticed that though the OP threw out PC as an idea, we went pretty much 2 1/2 pages without support that it was a factor.

It seemed more like a couple of users showed up later who contribute a lot of volume on topics of PC-ness. That's just the sense I get. While it may be dominating the thread now, it feels more like it's a lot of volume from a few who debate hotly anytime something related to PC presents itself.

 
Moe. said:
Right, that's the point. If you still pay for cable but don't watch ESPN - you aren't hurting them at all. They make their money off you whether you watch the network or not. That was basically the business model. They made crazy fees off every cable sub regardless of whether or not those people watched a single second of ESPN. 
Click to expand...
I will say that I've subscribed to traditional cable for two brief periods since 2012, but I've mostly been a purely internet/non-cable TV consumer for that period.

I currently subscribe to fubo.tv, which doesn't have ESPN at all.

 
GregR said:
Just my take... I'm sure there are some individuals who have tuned out because of views of PC-ness.  But I think overall it's a pretty small factor compared to others that have been shared like people using other mediums for their sports news.

I think looking at the thread here reinforces that a bit. I skimmed from the beginning and noticed that though the OP threw out PC as an idea, we went pretty much 2 1/2 pages without support that it was a factor.

It seemed more like a couple of users showed up later who contribute a lot of volume on topics of PC-ness. That's just the sense I get. While it may be dominating the thread now, it feels more like it's a lot of volume from a few who debate hotly anytime something related to PC presents itself.
Click to expand...
Even what they do cover caters to the Boston-New York-Chicago-LA markets. Case in point: The Indians are on an historic 22-game winning streak and all ESPN cares about are the Dodgers (who were on a massive LOSING streak, BTW) :rolleyes:  Meanwhile, MLB network was giving them all the love they could possibly muster.

Who do you think I'm going to for real baseball coverage? I'm going to the sport-specific network, that's who.

 
Brady Marino said:
I will say that I've subscribed to traditional cable for two brief periods since 2012, but I've mostly been a purely internet/non-cable TV consumer for that period.

I currently subscribe to fubo.tv, which doesn't have ESPN at all.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Yeah if I didn't care about college football I would use fubo instead of PS Vue. I did a free trial of it a few weeks ago so I could watch the away USMNT World Cup qualifier and was pretty impressed with the service.

 
rodg12 said:
The other ironic thing is if you trace the decline back to the start it was during Tebowmania!!!!  Nobody was complaining about his politics and non sports stuff being covered.  Yet, that's when the decline started.
Click to expand...
Anti Christian much?

 
ChiefD said:
ESPN sucks.

But whoever is in charge of commercials for NFL games is even suckier. If I have to watch that GMC Sierra truck commercial one more gawddamm time I'm gonna puke on my Chiefs tube socks:

Me and you sittin on a train,

Me and you this song is in my brain.

Me and you eating cheerios,

Me and you gonna go get some ho's.

Me and you drive the same truck,

Me and you now I don't give a fook. 

Blah blah blah me and you and me and you and you and me and me and swc take that to the puke bank brohan. 
Click to expand...
Not as bad as JETS IN L.A.!

 
Moe. said:
Right, that's the point. If you still pay for cable but don't watch ESPN - you aren't hurting them at all. They make their money off you whether you watch the network or not. That was basically the business model. They made crazy fees off every cable sub regardless of whether or not those people watched a single second of ESPN. 
Click to expand...
today.  but the lack of viewers will hurt them when it comes time to renegotiate their contract with the cable providers. Plus, advertisers know who and how many people are watching any particular network and will/will not place their ads based on it. 

so technically you're right, ESPN is getting my money today...but looking long term, it's another story.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37 said:
today.  but the lack of viewers will hurt them when it comes time to renegotiate their contract with the cable providers. Plus, advertisers know who and how many people are watching any particular network and will/will not place their ads based on it. 

so technically you're right, ESPN is getting my money today...but looking long term, it's another story.
Click to expand...
For sure. But what will hurt them even more is the drop in total subs. I don't think we are disagreeing or anything, but the subs dropping is what's killing them, not the ratings. It's not like anything other than their live events drew huge ratings anyhow.   

 
GregR said:
Just my take... I'm sure there are some individuals who have tuned out because of views of PC-ness.  But I think overall it's a pretty small factor compared to others that have been shared like people using other mediums for their sports news.

I think looking at the thread here reinforces that a bit. I skimmed from the beginning and noticed that though the OP threw out PC as an idea, we went pretty much 2 1/2 pages without support that it was a factor.

It seemed more like a couple of users showed up later who contribute a lot of volume on topics of PC-ness. That's just the sense I get. While it may be dominating the thread now, it feels more like it's a lot of volume from a few who debate hotly anytime something related to PC presents itself.
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums it up. The increase of non sports content obviously leads to people tuning out. No way around it. People tuning out leads to less financial gain. Is it the only reason people have tuned out? No freakin way. Is it the biggest? Nope. Not even close. I think people are less interested in sports these days and they are more interested in getting info on their phones. Two things against espn. 

The content, perception, and delivery absolutely matters though. So for several in this thread to brush it off and say it doesn't matter is very misinformed. Basically you are arguing it doesn't matter who or what you put on the air. That's pretty silly. 

 
Ghost Rider said:
There are reports out there that they wanted to replace her, but that her co-host, Michael Smith, threatened to bail if they axed her. No clue is those reports are true, but it wouldn't surprise me. If nothing else, I would give him props for his loyalty, even if she doesn't deserve it. 

This is potentially a major disaster for ESPN because Trump is now going in hardcore on ripping them, and his hardcore fans (zealots) love to try and take down anyone or anything Trump criticizes (look at how Megyn Kelly's popularity has fallen off since their spat), and with already being worried about falling ratings and subscriptions, can ESPN really take a chance on losing a big chunk of their viewership because of one host (who is mediocre at best anyway)? I guess we will see. 
Click to expand...
Megyn Kelly basically gave the finger to her base when she railed against Trump and then turned around and tried to hug the people she used to give the finger to as a host on Fox News. Turning on her base and trying to embrace the other side is not a recipe for success. Neither side wants to listen to her. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
General Malaise said:
Have you been to ESPN's fantasy sports section recently?  You have to actively seek out written articles hidden amongst all the freaking videos.  So dumb.  This is why I gladly pay a few bucks a month to The Athletic.  I just want to read my sports like an old person.
Click to expand...
This is a fair point.  Berry's been all about video and crap this year and it started filtering in a couple years ago.  Infuriating.  Chasing these video ad dollars is so short-sighted.

I'm just glad ESPN still has the Zach Lowe and Bill Barnwells of the world on staff.  I hope The Athletic remains successful.  There is a market for high quality writing like that.

I mean, Ken Rosenthal had to freaking write articles on FB for a time when FoxSports pivoted to video.  That was insane.

 
rodg12 said:
This is a fair point.  Berry's been all about video and crap this year and it started filtering in a couple years ago.  Infuriating.  Chasing these video ad dollars is so short-sighted.

I'm just glad ESPN still has the Zach Lowe and Bill Barnwells of the world on staff.  I hope The Athletic remains successful.  There is a market for high quality writing like that.

I mean, Ken Rosenthal had to freaking write articles on FB for a time when FoxSports pivoted to video.  That was insane.
Click to expand...
I know.  I'm a devoted reader of Stuart Mandel and consider him the gold standard for college football writing.  Fox booting him for video was just asinine.  The only subscription I've ever purchased for internet access was for FBG years ago.  Athletic is the only one I pay for now.  Well worth the monthly fee (I did month to month to see if I liked it; I'll probably buy the discounted annual price soon).  It's really well done.  Love the layout - looks like a good old fashioned sports page from a major city's newspaper.  No ads, no videos, no clutter just let me read your well written words!

 
I am with you GM, I can't stand the videos for everything and the auto play ones on SI are just as bad.

Having to see Berry's smug face and huge head on every thing ESPN Fantasy drives me crazy. And the stupid skeleton/muscle costume guys he had on his show the other day were just beyond cheesy. The female doctor shows on the skeleton guy where the player's bone would be broken. I do hope they bring it back to have her show Gronk's groin injury and where it effects him. Now that would be entertainment 

 
rodg12 said:
This is a fair point.  Berry's been all about video and crap this year and it started filtering in a couple years ago.  Infuriating.  Chasing these video ad dollars is so short-sighted.

I'm just glad ESPN still has the Zach Lowe and Bill Barnwells of the world on staff.  I hope The Athletic remains successful.  There is a market for high quality writing like that.

I mean, Ken Rosenthal had to freaking write articles on FB for a time when FoxSports pivoted to video.  That was insane.
Click to expand...
I just read a Brett McMurphy post on SEC football schedules on his Facebook page.

 
Tom Servo said:
Still a lousy number. Reruns on Discovery Channel probably get that.
Click to expand...
Hate to ruin the narrative but those shows are doing well and making plenty of money for espn. 

@sportstvratings

Most-watched telecast on cable last week:

Pioneer Woman: 1.097mm
Murder She Wrote: 673K 
Gunsmoke: 668K
Andy Griffith Show: 648K

Ranges last week:

SC6:  379K-492K
First Take: 371K-673K
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella said:
ok

edit: they aren't paying Stephen A Smith 4 mil a year because they are losing money on him guy. 
Click to expand...
Obviously, they are very savvy in contract negotiations from what I here. Job security there is great too.  :lmao:

Clearly they are making Plenty!

 
GoBirds said:
Obviously, they are very savvy in contract negotiations from what I here. Job security there is great too.  :lmao:

Clearly they are making Plenty!
Click to expand...
You honestly think espn isn't turning huge profits still? I can't imagine the level of sunken capacity it would take to think that. 

 
Capella said:
Timeslot 
Click to expand...
I wonder how much a 30 sec. national ad goes for during weeknight sports talk programming.  :shrug:

Cable fees are a bigger source of revenue for ESPN than advertising but the latter still matters.  The network used to be able to reliably deliver a male audience for advertisers.

 
Eephus said:
I wonder how much a 30 sec. national ad goes for during weeknight sports talk programming.  :shrug:

Cable fees are a bigger source of revenue for ESPN than advertising but the latter still matters.  The network used to be able to reliably deliver a male audience for advertisers.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the ad rates are, but I remember reading in the past that first take prints money for espn. Fs1 is really really struggling though, just an awful network. 

 
ESPN's downfall is essentially the same thing that happened to MTV.

MTV - Stop playing music, and put on a bunch of reality and talk shows.  Over pay for crappy content and hosts.  Music moves to VH1 and other channels.

ESPN - Stop playing sports, and put on a bunch of talk shows.  Over pay for crappy content and hosts.  Sports moves to national networks and specialty channels.

And yes, there is a PC slant to it.  The U.S. is about 13.3% African American.  ESPN and MTV are far, far beyond that as far as air time.  Does it make them more "hip" and "cool".  Maybe.   But the vast majority of the money in this country still lies with a different population group.  And that's who advertisers want to capture.  The people with the money.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SwampDawg
The College Soccer Experience
Replies
31
Views
905
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
Chadstroma
Prime (not Amazon)
Replies
5
Views
447
Chadstroma
Chadstroma
rockaction
Argumentum Ad Personam - An Explanation of the Fallacy and Its Tactical Use
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem

Users who are viewing this thread

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