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 (1 Viewer)

Ramblin Wreck said:
You do realize they keep firing people and cancelling shows because they are losing tons of money, right?  Personally, I think one of their problems is the market they target (younger people) don't watch TV as much as guys like us posters here.  I do think the political nonsense has turned people off.  He's right in that people that love live sports aren't cancelling ESPN but he comes off as bragging about them having a contract and ignoring the fact that people have stopped listening to nonsense like Bomani Jones and that's why he just got cancelled.
Click to expand...
They aren't losing money. :lmao:    They just aren't making as much as they did years ago and aren't meeting Disney quarter projections. They are still turning a huge profit. 

Anybody who is angry enough at espn due to politics and who wants to cancel isn't going to do it because then they won't be able to watch their Fox News. The idea that people are just nixing espn and nothing else is flat wrong, impossible and shows a complete lack of knowledge. 

Sure there are probably people cutting cable due to costs, steaming services etc but I can't believe there is but a handful of people getting rid of their entire cable package because of espn. That's just stupid. 

 
facook said:
He's still wrong.  I haven't cancelled Directv because of the politics. But it does annoy me, and I haven't watched ONE thing on their network other than live sports in a few years.  I love SVP and would download his podcast if he was still on radio.  But I don't need him on tv.  And I love college sports, NFL, and golf, so I will still pay the fee to get those sports.  But I guarantee that people have cancelled cable to not give their money to ESPN because they so believe in not supporting Disney politics.
Click to expand...
He's not wrong. Your second sentence is literally what he was saying. Same with your third. It's almost word for word what he said. Lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem for ESPN isn’t people dropping them for some personal reason - that impact is negligible - the problem is people no longer want to pay and people will continue to cut the cord.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walking Boot said:
No, of course it happens. People cut cable because they don't want ESPN (which costs each subscriber close to $8/month on it's own), then replace it with a streaming service which has all the channels they actually do want, but not ESPN, for much, much less per month.

People aren't cutting the cord and just sitting by candlelight reading books. But they are canceling cable and going with non-sports packages with combinations of Vue, Hulu, Netflix, etc. And people will continue to cancel cable until the corporations start to offer ala-carte options.
Click to expand...
The point is those people weren't watching ESPN in the first place, back before they cut the cord. They were paying for it, but not watching it, which is why they are finding cheaper packages that don't include it. 

Those people are the backbone of what ESPN built their entire business model on - being bundled into a package that people paid $8 a month for even if they never turned the channel on. 

 
Capella said:
Do you guys even read the stuff you quote? He said its impossible to cancel espn on itself so anybody cancelling their whole package based off that transgender espy just to get back at espn is too stupid to pray for. 

It's amazing how people just don't bother to read/listen to the whole thing. 
Click to expand...
He is right in that very few people are dropping ESPN about politics. That being said, the product that ESPN puts out is awful. The only thing they have that is worthwhile is other peoples content that they play on their network. Outside of 30 for 30, their content is terrible and people are getting that sports information from sources that do not suck and are leaving in droves. 

And to downplay that this is just a little dip in the market. That they are still hugely profitable and will weather this little thunderstorm is short sighted. They are collapsing under their own bloat and I don't see them righting the ship. They just don't have anything beyond live sports and there's no guarantee they retain them when the rest of their platform is so bad. 

 
TheFanatic said:
He is right in that very few people are dropping ESPN about politics. That being said, the product that ESPN puts out is awful. The only thing they have that is worthwhile is other peoples content that they play on their network. Outside of 30 for 30, their content is terrible and people are getting that sports information from sources that do not suck and are leaving in droves. 

And to downplay that this is just a little dip in the market. That they are still hugely profitable and will weather this little thunderstorm is short sighted. They are collapsing under their own bloat and I don't see them righting the ship. They just don't have anything beyond live sports and there's no guarantee they retain them when the rest of their platform is so bad. 
Click to expand...
I don't dispute its awful. I don't watch any of their programming except for their live sports, which are excellent. 

That said, the reason people are saying they aren't making as much money are just flat wrong. 

 
Capella said:
I don't dispute its awful. I don't watch any of their programming except for their live sports, which are excellent. 

That said, the reason people are saying they aren't making as much money are just flat wrong. 
Click to expand...
The people saying that they aren't making that much money because of politics are wrong. Sure, there are a few knuckleheads cutting the cord but not enough to impact the bottom line. 

Those saying that they aren't making as much money because not enough people are watching due to other providers/the internet/too much of the same crap over and over all day that isn't live sports/no appeal for a younger demographic are absolutely correct. 

 
TheFanatic said:
The people saying that they aren't making that much money because of politics are wrong. Sure, there are a few knuckleheads cutting the cord but not enough to impact the bottom line. 

Those saying that they aren't making as much money because not enough people are watching due to other providers/the internet/too much of the same crap over and over all day that isn't live sports/no appeal for a younger demographic are absolutely correct. 
Click to expand...
Yup

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
You do realize they keep firing people and cancelling shows because they are losing tons of money, right?  Personally, I think one of their problems is the market they target (younger people) don't watch TV as much as guys like us posters here.  I do think the political nonsense has turned people off.  He's right in that people that love live sports aren't cancelling ESPN but he comes off as bragging about them having a contract and ignoring the fact that people have stopped listening to nonsense like Bomani Jones and that's why he just got cancelled.
Click to expand...
Very true.  My daughters and their friends don`t even know what ESPN is and only watch if Michigan or MSU is playing football or basketball on ESPN.  They just think it is a channel that shows their local teams once in awhile

They never tune into Sports Center or the talk shows.  They get all scores on their phones.

 
Interesting to see so many in denial in here.

Cable TV subscription revenues aren't 100% of ESPN's income. They also get income from selling commercial time during their shows. If ratings are down for those shows, the advertisers don't pay much for them. 

I heard someone else say it best, ESPN is the next Blockbuster Video. Neither owns (or owned) any content. All they had was a right to distribute other people's content. And when consumers begin getting that content through other means, their way of distributing it becomes less and less lucrative. 

ESPN is going to fall harder than Blockbuster given that Blockbuster didn't benefit from people paying money to them despite not using them at all, like ESPN does.

 
Da Guru said:
Very true.  My daughters and their friends don`t even know what ESPN is and only watch if Michigan or MSU is playing football or basketball on ESPN.  They just think it is a channel that shows their local teams once in awhile

They never tune into Sports Center or the talk shows.  They get all scores on their phones.
Click to expand...
That's me.  All I watch on ESPN is the live sports so while Cappy and SVP are correct that I'm not dropping them they are also wrong in that many people no longer watch their signature shows because of the political nonsense or just general terrible hosts they have.   Their ratings are dropping which does affect them.  Jemele Hill ended my Sportscenter watching though in fairness twitter highlights and the ESPN app for scores was already largely contributing.  I think the only show I still watch when I'm around is College Gameday and hoping John Skipper doesn't ruin that by replacing Rece, Kirk and Desmond with three awful hosts designed to target a younger audience or whatever they've done with other shows.

 
Da Guru said:
They never tune into Sports Center or the talk shows.  They get all scores on their phones.
Click to expand...
This is -- no shock -- a gigantic deal, isn't it? SC used to be required viewing at the minimum on weekends and Monday mornings to catch up on college & pro football.

As for highlights ... it's easy to find stuff on youtube within hours of a game being over. Sometimes faster than that. But regarding highlights: for 99 games out of 100, I just want to know the score and box-score data -- no desire for immediate video at all. I can look up any Play for the Ages at my leisure later on. I don't think I'm all that atypical among my cohort (busy middle-aged family men).

 
Doug B said:
This is -- no shock -- a gigantic deal, isn't it? SC used to be required viewing at the minimum on weekends and Monday mornings to catch up on college & pro football.

As for highlights ... it's easy to find stuff on youtube within hours of a game being over. Sometimes faster than that. But regarding highlights: for 99 games out of 100, I just want to know the score and box-score data -- no desire for immediate video at all. I can look up any Play for the Ages at my leisure later on. I don't think I'm all that atypical among my cohort (busy middle-aged family men).
Click to expand...
True..then you watch highlights you want to without  music playing over the host talking.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ratings are down for reasons mainly touched upon in here already:

1) Cord cutting, at $8 a month or whatever their charge is, those that never watched aren't being forced to anymore.

2) Their programming has gone downhill, some reasons are their doing, others are out of their control. I don't need Sportscenter to show me scores or highlights when I'm getting them much easier and quicker, that is out of their control. The programming, that is on them, it is has been on a steady decline for quite a while.

3) Politics - I hate dragging it in here, but when your audience facing employees are taking stands or giving opinions, it will rub some of your core base the wrong way. This is why it is always best to remain mum on most issues and just discuss sports. Sometimes it can't be avoided, but it needs to be minimized.

 
Da Guru said:
True..then you watch highlights you want to without  music playing over the host talking.
Click to expand...
Better still: I watch them on my demand -- I don't have to commit to blocked window of time within which I am not sure when the desired highlight will air.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
3) Politics - I hate dragging it in here, but when your audience facing employees are taking stands or giving opinions, it will rub some of your core base the wrong way. This is why it is always best to remain mum on most issues and just discuss sports. Sometimes it can't be avoided, but it needs to be minimized.
Click to expand...
This is soooo true. No matter what stance you take, you are going to piss someone off. Anyone taking a stand on this stuff will not gain any fans, only alienate people that already watch. Just stupid. There is no gain by rallying the base if you piss off the other side because they are not in the business of rallying for one side or another, They are in the business of putting brands products and commercials in front of as many faces as possible. 

 
TheFanatic said:
This is soooo true. No matter what stance you take, you are going to piss someone off. Anyone taking a stand on this stuff will not gain any fans, only alienate people that already watch. Just stupid. There is no gain by rallying the base if you piss off the other side because they are not in the business of rallying for one side or another, They are in the business of putting brands products and commercials in front of as many faces as possible. 
Click to expand...
As Michael Jordan once said, "Republicans buy shoes, too."

 
TheFanatic said:
This is soooo true. No matter what stance you take, you are going to piss someone off. Anyone taking a stand on this stuff will not gain any fans, only alienate people that already watch. Just stupid. There is no gain by rallying the base if you piss off the other side because they are not in the business of rallying for one side or another, They are in the business of putting brands products and commercials in front of as many faces as possible. 
Click to expand...
But the athletes are taking us there! 

-excuse every political ranting sports personality uses. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Interesting to see so many in denial in here.

Cable TV subscription revenues aren't 100% of ESPN's income. They also get income from selling commercial time during their shows. If ratings are down for those shows, the advertisers don't pay much for them. 

I heard someone else say it best, ESPN is the next Blockbuster Video. Neither owns (or owned) any content. All they had was a right to distribute other people's content. And when consumers begin getting that content through other means, their way of distributing it becomes less and less lucrative. 

ESPN is going to fall harder than Blockbuster given that Blockbuster didn't benefit from people paying money to them despite not using them at all, like ESPN does.
Click to expand...
Commercials are not a major player here. The way it has been presented is that commercials pay the production costs and the subs pay the rights. The Profit is in the subs. 

 
AAABatteries said:
The problem for ESPN isn’t people dropping them for some personal reason - that impact is negligible - the problem is people no longer want to pay and people will continue to cut the cord.
Click to expand...
...and because their programming sucks. Their flagship show isn’t necessary anymore, it’s a dinosaur.  They can’t run 14 straight hours of Sportcenter anymore and they’ve filled those timeslots with different versions of The View. 

When I was 12 and home for summer break, I’d watch the same episode of SC probably 4x each day. I couldn’t get enough of it. I haven’t watched 15 minutes of it in over a decade. I can hop on reddit and see all the highlights I need immediately. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
culdeus said:
Politician Spock said:
Interesting to see so many in denial in here.

Cable TV subscription revenues aren't 100% of ESPN's income. They also get income from selling commercial time during their shows. If ratings are down for those shows, the advertisers don't pay much for them. 

I heard someone else say it best, ESPN is the next Blockbuster Video. Neither owns (or owned) any content. All they had was a right to distribute other people's content. And when consumers begin getting that content through other means, their way of distributing it becomes less and less lucrative. 

ESPN is going to fall harder than Blockbuster given that Blockbuster didn't benefit from people paying money to them despite not using them at all, like ESPN does.
Click to expand...
Commercials are not a major player here. The way it has been presented is that commercials pay the production costs and the subs pay the rights. The Profit is in the subs. 
Click to expand...
And that profit is dying. Not only is sports getting consumed now in the same ways that killed Blockbuster, but people who have never consumed sports are finding ways to no longer pay for it. There is still profit to be made in sports media, but not in the distribution of it. The profit is in owning the content being consumed.   

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Ratings are down for reasons mainly touched upon in here already:

1) Cord cutting, at $8 a month or whatever their charge is, those that never watched aren't being forced to anymore.

2) Their programming has gone downhill, some reasons are their doing, others are out of their control. I don't need Sportscenter to show me scores or highlights when I'm getting them much easier and quicker, that is out of their control. The programming, that is on them, it is has been on a steady decline for quite a while.

3) Politics - I hate dragging it in here, but when your audience facing employees are taking stands or giving opinions, it will rub some of your core base the wrong way. This is why it is always best to remain mum on most issues and just discuss sports. Sometimes it can't be avoided, but it needs to be minimized.
Click to expand...
I don't think the reason is politics, but it's pretty obvious, when I do watch, that everyone on these panels supports the players on every situation, particularly on the kneeling, of which most Americans don't agree with that "stance". The "stick to sports" crowd also isn't interested in the Donald Trump rants, the audience is barely interested in their sports opinions.

With all of the options out there, and cheaper ones, why isn't Comcast doing more to keep their audience?

 
Politician Spock said:
And that profit is dying. Not only is sports getting consumed now in the same ways that killed Blockbuster, but people who have never consumed sports are finding ways to no longer pay for it. There is still profit to be made in sports media, but not in the distribution of it. The profit is in owning the content being consumed.   
Click to expand...
Explain this. If there's no profit in distributing sports, why are FOX, CBS, NBC paying what they are paying for it? If they wise up, what is the future of sports broadcasting?

 
cubd8 said:
Explain this. If there's no profit in distributing sports, why are FOX, CBS, NBC paying what they are paying for it? If they wise up, what is the future of sports broadcasting?
Click to expand...
Because FOX, CBS, NBC, and ABC reach the non-cable subscribers, something ESPN can't do... unless they allow local stations to broadcast their channel over the air (antenna). 

If the customer uses cable (or wifi) the owner of the sport doesn't need a distributor anymore to reach those consumers. They can just stream it themselves. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Because FOX, CBS, NBC, and ABC reach the non-cable subscribers, something ESPN can't do... unless they allow local stations to broadcast their channel over the air (antenna). 

If the customer uses cable (or wifi) the owner of the sport doesn't need a distributor anymore to reach those consumers. They can just stream it themselves. 
Click to expand...
ABC and ESPN are both Disney properties.   Some major events (e.g. NBA Finals, Indy 500) are broadcast over the air.

All of their OTA competitors have cable sports network but none are as well established as ESPN.

 
Eephus said:
ABC and ESPN are both Disney properties.   Some major events (e.g. NBA Finals, Indy 500) are broadcast over the air.

All of their OTA competitors have cable sports network but none are as well established as ESPN.
Click to expand...
The owners of sports content don't need any of those entities' cable channels going forward. The over the air channels however still have value to them.

 
Socrates11 said:
Anyone else think Greenberg's new show is going to flop? 
Click to expand...
Think?   It's a guarantee that it's going to bust.  Think about it.  Do sports loving dudes who hover in the left political spectrum watch morning talk shows?   Hell no.  What type of audience is espn really thinking he is going to pull?   Is he pulling viewers from the today show or whatever?

 
I have exposure to Greenberg from watching him at the coffee place I hit in the AM, that he basically couldn't give two ####s about anything but NFL.  

 
So it looks like Disney is about to buy all the regional Fox Sports networks (supposedly as part of a bigger package of Fox assets, but not FS1).  I guess they just got all their content back.  

 
every time someone mentions sports or thinks about a tv disney loses everything it has and also causes home depot to file bankruptcy take that to the bank brohans 

 
I'm not one to rush in and defend ESPN, but this Adrienne Lawrence chick seems full of ####!

https://nypost.com/2017/12/15/espns-aggressive-john-buccigross-defense-release-text-exchanges/

I mean, looking at those conversations, they were clearly friends - I don't even think that is up for debate... Did the guy want to smash that? Probably, but I don't see anything out of line there or him crossing any of those lines. Dollface, fine whatever, but she doesn't seem to mind in her responses. 

#Longlegs - this ##### is complaining about that... Now that I've seen it in the context it was used, I can't think of a better scenario where that phrase is used.

"You can use my office if you need to make a call" Seems like a kind gesture from Buccigross

"Okay, I promise to not adjust your chair :smileyface:" They've prob had some sort of discussion about chair adjusting in the past

"#longlegs" 

Well ####### duh, long legs would be a reason to adjust the chair. 

While harassment is rampant, it is the boy that cried wolf that makes it harder for those who have actually been harassed. She better have something much more significant if she wants anyone to buy this bull####. 

 
Walking Boot said:
I guess the plan was to buy up all the FOX Sports channels. Now they own them, half of YES, and a bunch of other stuff. Kills the competition for licenses in the next round of negotiations a bit, too. Should be able to get rights cheaper now.
Click to expand...
Fox Sports remains part of the Murdoch media empire still, as I understand it.

 
Likely they're not getting the RSNs, per se. They're likely getting the stations - owned & operated (O & Os) - in those markets. With the Sinclair Broadcasting approval, this probably doesn't present the sticking point it once did. Now Disney can run both ABC and Fox in those markets without the Feds getting worked up. 

 
saintfool said:
Likely they're not getting the RSNs, per se. They're likely getting the stations - owned & operated (O & Os) - in those markets. With the Sinclair Broadcasting approval, this probably doesn't present the sticking point it once did. Now Disney can run both ABC and Fox in those markets without the Feds getting worked up. 
Click to expand...
RSN's are definitely part of deal to Disney.  Fox is keeping the O& Os.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SwampDawg
The College Soccer Experience
Replies
31
Views
896
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
Chadstroma
Prime (not Amazon)
Replies
5
Views
446
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