ESPN Layoffs

#176
#176
#177
#177
jakez4ut said:
while i agree that some of the content has leaned left, and that there are individuals that turned it off as a result, i don't think that's THE issue either.

sure, there are individuals that make their own decision on why they tune out. i would bet the majority though are simply trying to save a few bucks on their cable/satellite bills.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is one issue but I do think people and espn are under playing the political part. Problem is we know savers exist. We know political cutters exist. We know subscriber cutter but not cable exist. We just don't know who is what and what plays a bigger part. It's all conjecture on all sides but there are too many people that are stating the political motive to not take it very seriously.
 
#179
#179
utvols88 said:
I don't think there is one issue but I do think people and espn are under playing the political part. Problem is we know savers exist. We know political cutters exist. We know subscriber cutter but not cable exist. We just don't know who is what and what plays a bigger part. It's all conjecture on all sides but there are too many people that are stating the political motive to not take it very seriously.
Click to expand...

i haven't seen it discussed as any more than opinion pieces. there's nothing tangible to point at in this regard.

clay travis had his piece on it a while back, and while it was entertaining, it was still an opinion.

and in a forum like this where you find some like minded folks, of course the ground swell "feels" like it's a reality. and it is, for those people. but even in this group, most of us keep some form of ESPN for live sports. so if it's totally politically motivated, why not cut it all together as BW suggested?

in the end, the broader you get, the more you'll find that it's mostly an effort to save some money by end users, and a realization that the programming is simply obsolete.

i think it's gone left myself. but it's not the reason i did what i did...
 
#180
#180
jakez4ut said:
i haven't seen it discussed as any more than opinion pieces. there's nothing tangible to point at in this regard.

clay travis had his piece on it a while back, and while it was entertaining, it was still an opinion.

and in a forum like this where you find some like minded folks, of course the ground swell "feels" like it's a reality. and it is, for those people. but even in this group, most of us keep some form of ESPN for live sports. so if it's totally politically motivated, why not cut it all together as BW suggested?

in the end, the broader you get, the more you'll find that it's mostly an effort to save some money by end users, and a realization that the programming is simply obsolete.

i think it's gone left myself. but it's not the reason i did what i did...
Click to expand...

It's not just this forum. It's all over social media. Though using social media as a primary gauge is foolish, it's like the Wikipedia for marketing. You can use it to get your focus groups and brand surveys ready so you can uncover anything you otherwise wouldn't have prior.
 
#181
#181
Having problems discerning facts from alternative facts. The right created the alternative fact industry, they'd rather swallow a camel than swat a gnat. :popcorn:
Blaming the libs for everything is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#182
#182
BigOrangeMojo said:
If roughly 5% has cut the cord in that timeframe and there's a 15-17% decrease in total viewership....
Click to expand...

Because of the numbers in both pots, you can't compare percentage. A 15% drop in ESPN viewership equates to 350,000. A 5% drop in cable/satellite subscribers equates to a little less than 5 million. The pots are totally different in size, and only a small number of individuals are members of both pots. ESPN has lost only a little bit in overall ad revenue, but that 5 million subscriber drop accounts for close to half a billion in lost annual revenue.

It's not that the declining viewership isn't important, because it certainly is, but where the drop is occurring does matter. College football is not losing viewers. College basketball is not losing viewers. The NBA is not losing viewers. Monday Night Football is losing viewers, and given that they spend $1.9 billion a year on MNF, that's a big deal for ESPN.

That 1.9 billion number is staggering in the light of the subscriber losses. In just two years, ESPN has lost a quarter of what they need in order to pay for 17 weeks of MNF. And it doesn't make a bit of difference if those subscribers watched MNF or not; either way the half a billion is still gone.
 
Last edited:
#183
#183
bamawriter said:
Because of the numbers in both pots, you can't compare percentage. A 15% drop in ESPN viewership equates to 350,000. A 5% drop in cable/satellite subscribers equates to a little less than 5 million. The pots are totally different in size, and only a small number of individuals are members of both pots. ESPN has lost only a little bit in overall ad revenue, but that 5 million subscriber drop accounts for close to half a billion in lost annual revenue.

It's not that the declining viewership isn't important, because it certainly is, but where the drop is occurring does matter. College football is not losing viewers. College basketball is not losing viewers. The NBA is not losing viewers. Monday Night Football is losing viewers, and given that they spend $1.9 billion a year on MNF, that's a big deal for ESPN.

That 1.9 billion number is staggering in the light of the subscriber losses. In just two years, ESPN has lost a quarter of what they need in order to pay for 17 weeks of MNF. And it doesn't make a bit of difference if those subscribers watched MNF or not; either way the half a billion is still gone.
Click to expand...

I saw that nba was losing viewers. Are you sure about that one? I can't find the article but it was a month ago.
 
#184
#184
orangeluvr said:
Having problems discerning facts from alternative facts. The right created the alternative fact industry, they'd rather swallow a camel than swat a gnat. :popcorn:
Blaming the libs for everything is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

BOTH sides have alternative facts goin full steam ... one is as bad as the other . You are naive if you think otherwise. We desperately need a 3rd party in this country.
 
#185
#185
utvols88 said:
I saw that nba was losing viewers. Are you sure about that one? I can't find the article but it was a month ago.
Click to expand...

I was browsing and didn't see anything that indicated a significant dip. If I missed it, my bad.

Thru the first couple of weekends, the playoffs are up quite a bit over last year.
 
#186
#186
bamawriter said:
Because of the numbers in both pots, you can't compare percentage. A 15% drop in ESPN viewership equates to 350,000. A 5% drop in cable/satellite subscribers equates to a little less than 5 million. The pots are totally different in size, and only a small number of individuals are members of both pots. ESPN has lost only a little bit in overall ad revenue, but that 5 million subscriber drop accounts for close to half a billion in lost annual revenue.

It's not that the declining viewership isn't important, because it certainly is, but where the drop is occurring does matter. College football is not losing viewers. College basketball is not losing viewers. The NBA is not losing viewers. Monday Night Football is losing viewers, and given that they spend $1.9 billion a year on MNF, that's a big deal for ESPN.

That 1.9 billion number is staggering in the light of the subscriber losses. In just two years, ESPN has lost a quarter of what they need in order to pay for 17 weeks of MNF.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. Obviously, the subscriber loss is what's driving ESPN's decline. What I am saying is that the total viewership decline of ESPN is growing at a faster rate than the number of people who are cutting the cord. While not as vital as subscription revenue, ESPN has not been able to enjoy ad revenue increases that has been evident in the Cable TV space the past 6 years due to viewership declines. ESPN's total viewership is declining at a faster rate than other cable companies. The average viewership decline of the other 34 largest cable networks almost exactly aligns with the percentage of people cutting the cord.

Well, I am out for now. It's been interesting. Hope you have a good rest of the day.
 
#189
#189
BigOrangeMojo said:
I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. Obviously, the subscriber loss is what's driving ESPN's decline. What I am saying is that the total viewership decline of ESPN is growing at a faster rate than the number of people who are cutting the cord.
Click to expand...

"Total" viewership isn't terribly important. Ad rates aren't based on total viewership; they are set per program.
There are specific programs that drive ad revenue, and those are the ratings that truly matter. Losing 5% of the viewership for a primetime SEC football game would be a way bigger deal than losing 30% of the viewership for PTI.
 
#191
#191
good read here
http://theweek.com/articles/694772/how-espn-went-from-powerhouse-bloodbath
First off, ESPN's personnel costs are unusually expensive. Shows like SportsCenter, for instance, feature a raft of well-paid anchors. Stars at the network often earn anywhere from $1.5 million to $3 million. Hundreds of reporters and analysts get paid handsomely to gab on ESPN. All that hot air costs a lot of dough.

The next problem was falling revenue, thanks to a collapse in subscribers.

After peaking around 100 million in 2011, ESPN subscribers fell to 88 million in the most recent quarter, largely because of cord-cutting, or when customers abandon paid cable and TV packages for viewing options on the internet. Each subscriber pays as much as $7.21 per month — it's a basically invisible charge baked into your cable TV bill — which means the overall decline adds up to something like a $900 million drop in annual revenue for Disney, ESPN's parent company.

"ESPN seems to be bleeding money because of cord-cutting, so my salary was unattractive to them," Adam Rubin, who used to cover the New York Mets for ESPN, explained to The 30. "And the new MLB editor at ESPN wants to get away from 'thorough' beat coverage — that's the precise word she used — and I suppose I was the sacrificial lamb to hammer home that point."

And then there's the third force driving ESPN's troubles: the rising costs of broadcasting sporting events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#192
#192
thegasman54 said:
BOTH sides have alternative facts goin full steam ... one is as bad as the other . You are naive if you think otherwise. We desperately need a 3rd party in this country.
Click to expand...

The right invented alternative facts and that's a fact. In fact the past eight years was a a conspiracy to bring America down according to them.
Any who some folks never miss an opportunity to inject politics into every aspect of life, the result is threads like this that pit Americans against each other . Russia (putin) loves it.
 
#193
#193
It's a fact streaming services are syphoning viewers away from cable. Much cheaper and the audience is growing daily.
 
#195
#195
The problem is the model ESPN used to contract with the cable and SATELLITE providers.

They never expected this generation to have the TV habits they have.
 
#197
#197
If you ever wonder how we got to the place we are now read some of the incredible naivety here. It's still staggering to realize there's a segment of society that still has no clue what's really going on. I try not to be terribly hard on them because there was a time I walked in complete ignorance and immaturity as well. What's the ole saying..."when I was 21 I was a blind bleeding heart liberal but at the age of 41 I was a wide eyed rock solid conservative"....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#198
#198
VolnJC said:
good read here
http://theweek.com/articles/694772/how-espn-went-from-powerhouse-bloodbath
First off, ESPN's personnel costs are unusually expensive. Shows like SportsCenter, for instance, feature a raft of well-paid anchors. Stars at the network often earn anywhere from $1.5 million to $3 million. Hundreds of reporters and analysts get paid handsomely to gab on ESPN. All that hot air costs a lot of dough.

The next problem was falling revenue, thanks to a collapse in subscribers.

After peaking around 100 million in 2011, ESPN subscribers fell to 88 million in the most recent quarter, largely because of cord-cutting, or when customers abandon paid cable and TV packages for viewing options on the internet. Each subscriber pays as much as $7.21 per month — it's a basically invisible charge baked into your cable TV bill — which means the overall decline adds up to something like a $900 million drop in annual revenue for Disney, ESPN's parent company.

"ESPN seems to be bleeding money because of cord-cutting, so my salary was unattractive to them," Adam Rubin, who used to cover the New York Mets for ESPN, explained to The 30. "And the new MLB editor at ESPN wants to get away from 'thorough' beat coverage — that's the precise word she used — and I suppose I was the sacrificial lamb to hammer home that point."

And then there's the third force driving ESPN's troubles: the rising costs of broadcasting sporting events.
Click to expand...

good stuff...thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#199
#199
orangeluvr said:
The right invented alternative facts and that's a fact. In fact the past eight years was a a conspiracy to bring America down according to them.
Any who some folks never miss an opportunity to inject politics into every aspect of life, the result is threads like this that pit Americans against each other . Russia (putin) loves it.
Click to expand...

And you are obviously a person that feels the democratic left wing does no wrong, which only adds to the problem. When people wake up and realize that both sides are terrible w each as bad as the other ... we may actually get something that represents what we all need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top