ESPN Layoffs

[RikidyBones]

I am not saying that their editorial decisions have always been wise, but no one is cutting the cord because ESPN went left. Ratings are still strong for their key programming, so ad revenue is holding steady. The loss in revenue is primarily due to cord cutting.

You are ignoring millions of people who say otherwise. Millions.

A large amount of people chose to not cut cords because of espn. Now that they don't hold the loyalty, they are cutting it. There are way too many people who advise on that decision to simply ignore it.

 

[bamawriter]

You are ignoring millions of people who say otherwise. Millions.

Who are these "millions"? Just on this site we've had numerous discussions on this topic, and while several posters have said they've quit watching ESPN outside of the games, I can't recall anyone saying they've completely cut the cord due to ESPN's liberal slant. And this site is packed with ESPN's key demographics.

Again, ESPN has lost little to nothing in the way of viewers. What they've lost is subscribers.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

The bold is the issue. No one is cutting ESPN. You can't just cut ESPN. You cut cable all together. And no one's decision to cut the cord hinges on their enjoyment of ESPN's daytime programming.

BW,

I know how cord cutting works. Again, you are looking at the margins and those people at the margins are important for BSPN due to their cost structure. BSPN's programming can hit on the following margins:

- Those casual sports fans that are right wing whack jobs that want to sock it to BSPN. Heck, look at Target's sales decline after their bathroom fiasco. There are a lot of whack jobs (on both ends of the spectrum).
- Those casual sports fans that watch sports but hate the programming and only keep cable for the occasional sporting event they watch. They realize there are other avenues to watching. The other programming is too bad for them to keep cable so they cut.

Even if those people are 1% of the total population, that's still a significant chunk of change for ESPN.

 

[golfballs]

Five Poets on the New Feminism | ESPN

They're on top of their poetry game today. One which is dedicated to a cop killer.

MSESPN

 

[RikidyBones]

Who are these "millions"? Just on this site we've had numerous discussions on this topic, and while several posters have said they've quit watching ESPN outside of the games, I can't recall anyone saying they've completely cut the cord due to ESPN's liberal slant. And this site is packed with ESPN's key demographics.

Again, ESPN has lost little to nothing in the way of viewers. What they've lost is subscribers.

All day yesterday, I know this isn't infallible, but an overwhelming majority of comments on espn on social media advised either "I haven't watched espn since <insert a socially left decision>" or "I cancelled cable after I stopped watching espn."

The perception of espn is the new MTV is reality. Cord cutters are one thing because you might be able to maneuver around it with content, loyalty and a new strategy with streaming but with loyalty gone and a negative perception with a large group of people, espn is screwed unless they turned 180.

In my opinion, without the political perception espn could offer a streaming package with Amazon, hudl, etc. But with the perception, it wouldn't give the full return as loyalty doesn't exist with a large amount of their target group.

It matters. Ignoring it will be the downfall of espn.

 

[bamawriter]

Your point is well-made. This issue is that these segments are hard to quantify for a few reasons.

- Those casual sports fans that are right wing whack jobs that want to sock it to BSPN. Heck, look at Target's sales decline after their bathroom fiasco. There are a lot of whack jobs (on both ends of the spectrum).

These folks may exist. But it's different from the Target situation because they are targeting one company by boycotting Target. By cutting the cord, you aren't only sacrificing ESPN, you are sacrificing any other cable programming you might have watched. It would be the equivalent of boycotting Target by never going to any retailer, period.

I suppose there may be folks who had cable or satellite for no other reason than watching ESPN, and in this case their cord cutting is more targeted, but again, that's a segment that is difficult to quantify.

- Those casual sports fans that watch sports but hate the programming and only keep cable for the occasional sporting event they watch. They realize there are other avenues to watching. The other programming is too bad for them to keep cable so they cut.

What are the other avenues to watching? Beyond pirating, how are you going to watch the games?

 

[thegasman54]

I am not saying that their editorial decisions have always been wise, but no one is cutting the cord because ESPN went left. Ratings are still strong for their key programming, so ad revenue is holding steady. The loss in revenue is primarily due to cord cutting.

You are completely wrong ... cord cutting matters but the liberal agenda is a huge turnoff. I am as independent as it gets , I would turn it off it was a GOP agenda as well. I love sports esp cfb and one of the reasons is it gets away from politicos. If political agendas are involved I will be turning it off , apparently Millions of others agree

 

[RikidyBones]

Your point is well-made. This issue is that these segments are hard to quantify for a few reasons.



These folks may exist. But it's different from the Target situation because they are targeting one company by boycotting Target. By cutting the cord, you aren't only sacrificing ESPN, you are sacrificing any other cable programming you might have watched. It would be the equivalent of boycotting Target by never going to any retailer, period.

I suppose there may be folks who had cable or satellite for no other reason than watching ESPN, and in this case their cord cutting is more targeted, but again, that's a segment that is difficult to quantify.



What are the other avenues to watching? Beyond pirating, how are you going to watch the games?

Sport Bars, friends log in for watch espn, friends house. They don't get subscription money or 7% of cable/satellite money and ratings are diluted.

 

[bamawriter]

All day yesterday, I know this isn't infallible, but an overwhelming majority of comments on espn on social media advised either "I haven't watched espn since <insert a socially left decision>" or "I cancelled cable after I stopped watching espn."

So, just to be clear, you believe that there are sports fans who stopped watching sports because of liberal bias in ESPN's non-sports content?

 

[RikidyBones]

So, just to be clear, you believe that there are sports fans who stopped watching sports because of liberal bias in ESPN's non-sports content?

Stopped watching sports through cable. See above suggestions on how to watch without cable or satellite. It's easier than you think.

MLB, NHL and nba have their own packages or are on local fox stations and can be streamed.

 

[bamawriter]

Sport Bars, friends log in for watch espn, friends house. They don't get subscription money or 7% of cable/satellite money and ratings are diluted.

Communal viewing has always been a factor, and it's baked into the ratings model. That does not affect ad revenue.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Who are these "millions"? Just on this site we've had numerous discussions on this topic, and while several posters have said they've quit watching ESPN outside of the games, I can't recall anyone saying they've completely cut the cord due to ESPN's liberal slant. And this site is packed with ESPN's key demographics.

Again, ESPN has lost little to nothing in the way of viewers. What they've lost is subscribers.

BW,

In the key 18-49 demographic, ESPN's viewership fell 12% in 2016 and 9% in 2015. Total viewership fell 11% in 2016 and 7% in 2015.

 

[bamawriter]

You are completely wrong ... cord cutting matters but the liberal agenda is a huge turnoff. I am as independent as it gets , I would turn it off it was a GOP agenda as well. I love sports esp cfb and one of the reasons is it gets away from politicos. If political agendas are involved I will be turning it off , apparently Millions of others agree

Have you noticed any kind of political agenda during ESPN's sports broadcasts? If you have, you are apparently way more attuned to it that I am.

 

[bamawriter]

BW,

In the key 18-49 demographic, ESPN's viewership fell 12% in 2016 and 9% in 2015. Total viewership fell 11% in 2016 and 7% in 2015.

Where was the overall decline in viewership? Which programs? Which times of day?

Again, their live sports broadcasts have lost little to nothing, and that's ESPN's bread and butter. The one exception is Monday Night Football, but I challenge you to pin that drop on anything other than absolutely abysmal matchups.

 

[RikidyBones]

Communal viewing has always been a factor, and it's baked into the ratings model. That does not affect ad revenue.

Its naturally diluted. If you consider bars have an extra 10 people added for ratings but that number is increasing to 15 or 20, then all of the viewers aren't being accounted for. If you have an increase to 3 per home but the reality is 4 or 5 then you aren't quantifying all the viewers. Ad revenue during live games are fine because that will sustain itself but when the ratings to espn2 is down 30 something percent, that's a problem.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Where was the overall decline in viewership? Which programs? Which times of day?

Again, their live sports broadcasts have lost little to nothing, and that's ESPN's bread and butter. The one exception is Monday Night Football, but I challenge you to pin that drop on anything other than absolutely abysmal matchups.

In 2016, it was down 9% in both daytime and prime-time programming. MNF was down a little more than that.

MNF was down for the following reasons:
1. Bad matchups
2. Political drama
3. Decline in subscribers (the rest of BSPN was down so that impacts this too)
4. Decline of daily fantasy football

 

[bamawriter]

Its naturally diluted. If you consider bars have an extra 10 people added for ratings but that number is increasing to 15 or 20, then all of the viewers aren't being accounted for. If you have an increase to 3 per home but the reality is 4 or 5 then you aren't quantifying all the viewers. Ad revenue during live games are fine because that will sustain itself but when the ratings to espn2 is down 30 something percent, that's a problem.

So, you're assuming or guessing that communal viewing numbers are close to doubling projections?

 

[RikidyBones]

So, you're assuming or guessing that communal viewing numbers are close to doubling projections?

It's unknown but there's no way they are getting it right. It's impossible.

I'll give you an example. Bama football is yalls bread and butter. If Bama football is continually 8-4 and 9-3 and all other sports are trash what do you think is going to happen?

Take away SECN money because espn doesn't get a chunk of money without expense and labor.

 

[bamawriter]

In 2016, it was down 9% in both daytime and prime-time programming. MNF was down a little more than that.

The listing I see says 11% overall, which equates to a 240,000 viewer drop, on average.

More than 2 million people cut the cord last year.

It's difficult to know how many of the 240,000 viewers lost actually cut the cord, and how many are still subscribers who were simply watching something else. Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all had massive gains in viewership due to the election, so one has to assume that at least some of the 240k were tuned to another channel. We won't really have any concept of that number until 2017's ratings roll in.

Either way, ESPN lost 10 times more subscribers than viewers in 2016.

 

[bamawriter]

If Bama football is continually 8-4 and 9-3

Well now you're just being silly.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

By total viewership...

Of the largest 35 cable companies, only 4 had a larger viewership percentage drop in 2016 than BSPN

Disney Channel, TBS, SyFy, and Freeform

 

[RikidyBones]

The listing I see says 11% overall, which equates to a 240,000 viewer drop, on average.

More than 2 million people cut the cord last year.

It's difficult to know how many of the 240,000 viewers lost actually cut the cord, and how many are still subscribers who were simply watching something else. Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all had massive gains in viewership due to the election, so one has to assume that at least some of the 240k were tuned to another channel. We won't really have any of that number until 2017's ratings roll in.

Either way, ESPN lost 10 times more subscribers than viewers in 2016.

I think we can all agree that espn has a major problem. I don't think they are making the correct strategy moves to mitigate the loss. I do think they are digging the hole deeper.

 

[RikidyBones]

Well now you're just being silly.

Liked because I appreciate the humor. &#128077;

But the answer is you become Tennessee. HEY-O :gone:

 

[bamawriter]

I think we can all agree that espn has a major problem. I don't think they are making the correct strategy moves to mitigate the loss. I do think they are digging the hole deeper.

No question about that. But I think their problem has way more to do with overpaying for broadcast rights than their political slant.

 

[thegasman54]

No question about that. But I think their problem has way more to do with overpaying for broadcast rights than their political slant.

It is both , but make no mistake people are very very tired of the political agenda. You are quite naive or just plain obstinate if you believe anything else