ESPN Layoffs

#151
#151
bamawriter said:
No question about that. But I think their problem has way more to do with overpaying for broadcast rights than their political slant.
Click to expand...

If they didn't over pay they might be able to sustain. I 100% agree. But they did, then they went political and now they can't sustain.
 
#152
#152
thegasman54 said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are people who are very turned off, and as such, ESPN has lost viewership on their opinion shows. Heck, they lost my viewership, but that was years ago and had more to do with me finding no value in those shows whether they were politically slanted or not. They definitely lost me on Sportscenter, because highlight shows are obsolete when I have every highlight imaginable available at my fingertips 24/7/365.

My point is that ESPN's problem isn't viewers, it's cord cutters. And I've seen nothing to suggest that a significant number of people are so turned off by ESPN's politics that they are willing to ditch cable or satellite all together. You can disagree with me on that, but the numbers tend to back me up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#154
#154
jakez4ut said:
the cutting the cord has little to do with it. since most cable/satellite providers include ESPN and some variance of it's sister networks in their packages. ESPN is guaranteed revenue just because people pay their bills.

even those that have cut it and go to an internet provider, like sling, you still have to pay for that service, and yes, ESPN is included, so revenue from subscribers isn't the issue.

i would say the negative impact of folks cutting the cord completely and just opting out completely on some form of a basic cable/internet TV package is minimal.

the issue is ratings. people are changing the channel, and yes, getting their content elsewhere. and advertisers are taking notice and either pulling spots, or demanding cheaper prices.

and that's affecting them more than anything else. when you pay top dollar for CFB, NFL, NBA, and your advertising revenue takes a hit (when it should be going the other way as a result of that content they've paid for), the cost/benefit gets out of whack, and decisions have to be made.

and bad news for ESPN employees....those contracts with the big time sports are pretty iron clad.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect. You've got it completely backwards.
 
#156
#156
utvols88 said:
If they didn't over pay they might be able to sustain. I 100% agree. But they did, then they went political and now they can't sustain.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely zero empirical evidence to support the notion that their loss of subscribers has led to a loss in their live sporting event viewership. Viewership for SportsCenter has dwindled but that has nothing to do with any political slant. It is simply an obsolete program. Their ad revenue has never been driven by their programming from noon to 6 pm during weekdays.

It is true that they have overpaid for rights fees and that a loss in subscription revenue has had a major impact. It is not true that a political slant played a role in their loss of subscription revenue. If that was the case, their ratings for their live sporting events would have followed a precipitous drop following the loss in subscribers. Their ratings have been remained constant for live sporting events. The subscribers who left them were never watching anyway.

I know it makes conservatives feel better to believe that the liberal slant of ESPN's opinion based shows has led to a downfall but there is nothing to support that at all... In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
 
#157
#157
bamawriter said:
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.
Click to expand...

utvols88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

BigOrangeMojo said:
In 2016, it was down 9% in both daytime and prime-time programming. MNF was down a little more than that.
Click to expand...
i think the fallacy is trying to pin it all on one smoking gun. the reality is it's a combination of all of this.

while cord cutting is negatively impacting some portion of the revenue stream, there's a % of that revenue that's re-upping with net services like Sling.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-service-seen-exceeding-1-million-subscribers

http://www.tvpredictions.com/sling102716.htm

the attached report on a study says over 1M subscribers have signed up for Sling, that's as of Oct 2016. that said, there's still some debate as to how accurate that is, as Dish doesn't release "sling only" subscriptions, and includes them in the overall dish subscription numbers...so take that for what it is.

HBO has come out and said that since they launched HBO NOW, they have reached over 1M subscriptions to the stand alone app. and it's usually $2-$3 cheaper/month than getting HBO thru your provider.

in the grand scheme, i don't think anyone would say 1M is all that great of a number either way.

but it's still early in all this a la carte business, as many people that may consider doing it, don't have the hardware that may support going full blown on cutting the cord all together. i myself just got ATT fiber in my neighborhood and switched internet providers and as a result saving about $60/month between internet and phone. i backed direct tV down to a more basic package, saving about $60/month. added Netflix and Amazon, for a net savings of about $80/month.

anyway, there's also a % of people out there, as BW alluded, that cut the cord, and didn't re-up with any provider, and probably went to using an antennae and a combination of netflix, hulu and/or amazon for their content. i don't know you could nail that # down.

all that to say, what ESPN is experiencing is a combination of factors....cord cutting combined with a reduction in ratings (for various reasons all spelled out in this thread), has advertisers taking notice. and while the subscription revenue is certainly a large part of the equation, the advertising is where they make their real money.

so a dip in subscription revenue + advertising revenue dip, is probably why they find themselves where they are. and they don't have an answer for each happening at the same time. they're restricted from addressing the a la carte issue due to their contracts with the providers. and they've already signed up for airing the content they've agreed to pay for.

sounds like they grossly underestimated any forecasts for what content would work, and how people would choose to get their content.

and at the end of the day, the majority of cord cutting is a result of end user savings on their monthly bills. why spend $200/month on a service that you may only actually watch 30% of the content available, when you can narrow the content down to just that 30% for 1/2 the price?
 
#158
#158
BowlBrother85 said:
I know it makes conservatives feel better to believe that the liberal slant of ESPN's opinion based shows has led to a downfall but there is nothing to support that at all... In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Yes. Everyone non-sports fan that I know has suddenly started binge-watching SportsCenter and Around the Horn so they can hear ESPN's brilliant political takes on issues.

That was a ridiculous statement.
 
#159
#159
armchair said:
You act like ESPN has never promoted any charitable causes. Does the Jimmy V Foundation/telethon ring a bell? Southerners are such goofs--always getting their undies in a knot for such little, inconsequential things. One has to chuckle. Oh, all the outrage over one transexual person! Better to send my hard-earned money to fraudulent christian preachers and evangelists! This whole discussion about espn's politics is the nonsense. People don't want to pay a lot of money for cable packages nowadays; they can watch the same crap online for less money. That's at the heart of this and not all the idiotic blather about politics from some on this board.
Click to expand...

It's people like you that give non-southerners a bad name. People think we're all stuck-up know-it-all pricks because of statements like yours. That's right, you #@$&-tard, I'm not even FROM the south. You getting all torn up over my comment about a tranny isn't any different than my actual comment. My big point was that with what ESPN did they were CLEARLY pushing an agenda instead of just focusing on sports, which is what most of us want. Just give us sports!.
That's fine, though. Continue to look down your nose at people even thought you can't see past the end of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#160
#160
BowlBrother85 said:
There is absolutely zero empirical evidence to support the notion that their loss of subscribers has led to a loss in their live sporting event viewership. Viewership for SportsCenter has dwindled but that has nothing to do with any political slant. It is simply an obsolete program. Their ad revenue has never been driven by their programming from noon to 6 pm during weekdays.

It is true that they have overpaid for rights fees and that a loss in subscription revenue has had a major impact. It is not true that a political slant played a role in their loss of subscription revenue. If that was the case, their ratings for their live sporting events would have followed a precipitous drop following the loss in subscribers. Their ratings have been remained constant for live sporting events. The subscribers who left them were never watching anyway.

I know it makes conservatives feel better to believe that the liberal slant of ESPN's opinion based shows has led to a downfall but there is nothing to support that at all... In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

BSPN's total viewership has declined by nearly 20% since 2014, which is a greater percentage than households that have cut the cord in that timeframe. Only 4 of the largest 35 cable networks saw bigger viewership decreases in 2016.
 
#163
#163
BigOrangeMojo said:
BSPN's total viewership has declined by nearly 20% since 2014, which is a greater percentage than households that have cut the cord in that timeframe. Only 4 of the largest 35 cable networks saw bigger viewership decreases in 2016.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about ratings for live sporting events which is where their ad revenue lies... SportsCenter has crashed.
 
#164
#164
BigOrangeMojo said:
BSPN's total viewership has declined by nearly 20% since 2014, which is a greater percentage than households that have cut the cord in that timeframe.
Click to expand...

I think you are adding the percentage drop from 14 to 15 to the percentage drop from 15 to 16.

ESPN lost a little less than 15%, on average, from 2014 to 2016. Still significant. That's 350,000 viewers. But close to 5 million people have cut the cord in that stretch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#165
#165
bamawriter said:
I think you are adding the percentage drop from 14 to 15 to the percentage drop from 15 to 16.

ESPN lost a little less than 15%, on average, from 2014 to 2016. Still significant. That's 350,000 viewers. But close to 5 million people have cut the cord in that stretch.
Click to expand...

Per Business Insider, their ad revenue has remained constant since 2011.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#166
#166
jakez4ut said:
i think the fallacy is trying to pin it all on one smoking gun. the reality is it's a combination of all of this.

while cord cutting is negatively impacting some portion of the revenue stream, there's a % of that revenue that's re-upping with net services like Sling.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-service-seen-exceeding-1-million-subscribers

http://www.tvpredictions.com/sling102716.htm

the attached report on a study says over 1M subscribers have signed up for Sling, that's as of Oct 2016. that said, there's still some debate as to how accurate that is, as Dish doesn't release "sling only" subscriptions, and includes them in the overall dish subscription numbers...so take that for what it is.

HBO has come out and said that since they launched HBO NOW, they have reached over 1M subscriptions to the stand alone app. and it's usually $2-$3 cheaper/month than getting HBO thru your provider.

in the grand scheme, i don't think anyone would say 1M is all that great of a number either way.

but it's still early in all this a la carte business, as many people that may consider doing it, don't have the hardware that may support going full blown on cutting the cord all together. i myself just got ATT fiber in my neighborhood and switched internet providers and as a result saving about $60/month between internet and phone. i backed direct tV down to a more basic package, saving about $60/month. added Netflix and Amazon, for a net savings of about $80/month.

anyway, there's also a % of people out there, as BW alluded, that cut the cord, and didn't re-up with any provider, and probably went to using an antennae and a combination of netflix, hulu and/or amazon for their content. i don't know you could nail that # down.

all that to say, what ESPN is experiencing is a combination of factors....cord cutting combined with a reduction in ratings (for various reasons all spelled out in this thread), has advertisers taking notice. and while the subscription revenue is certainly a large part of the equation, the advertising is where they make their real money.

so a dip in subscription revenue + advertising revenue dip, is probably why they find themselves where they are. and they don't have an answer for each happening at the same time. they're restricted from addressing the a la carte issue due to their contracts with the providers. and they've already signed up for airing the content they've agreed to pay for.

sounds like they grossly underestimated any forecasts for what content would work, and how people would choose to get their content.

and at the end of the day, the majority of cord cutting is a result of end user savings on their monthly bills. why spend $200/month on a service that you may only actually watch 30% of the content available, when you can narrow the content down to just that 30% for 1/2 the price?
Click to expand...

I agree it's not just one thing. 100% agree. Politics are one of them. Saving money is one of them. and there are others.

I think we get wrapped up in the political thought because it wasn't a necessary move by espn. It didn't attract anyone. So their arguments to ask you to spend that extra money on their content were already deafened by a large number of people and for what? It was a huge mistake that took away the ability to not have to live off of live TV. Well they overpaid for that live TV and they don't have the outside revenue to mitigate that. jmo though
 
#167
#167
Doberman said:
Saw a funny series of related tweets earlier.....

Paraphrasing:

Jamelle Hill (of ESPN): You people celebrating todays layoffs are sick. These are real people, with real families, etc......

Random Twitter guy: Don't you discuss, and opine, daily about which NBA and NFL coaches should be fired?

:lolabove:


Not that I like to see anyone lose their job, because I don't, however, that tweet by the random guy was a dagger, and the truth.
Click to expand...

I can't understand why Jemelle Hill still has a job. :crazy:
 
#168
#168
Volsfaninva917 said:
How in the hell do Stephen A Smith, Bomani Jones and Myron Medcalf still have jobs???????
Click to expand...

Don't know who Medcalf is but Smith and Jones are still there because they are the epitome of what ESPN wants. Shrill, brash hot takes from Smith and race-baiting/social issue pot stirring/hip pop culture references from Jones.
 
#169
#169
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm talking about ratings for live sporting events which is where their ad revenue lies... SportsCenter has crashed.
Click to expand...

In 2016, the decline in prime time broadcasting was the same as the decline in daytime broadcasting. (Both at -9%).

It's true most of their issues is driven by cord cutting and overpaying for rights.

I don't the liberal slant is causing too many people to cut the cord entirely (there's some due to the fringes). I think more casual sports fans are cutting entirely because their non-live sports programming is awful, contrived, etc AND there's alternative to find the events they want to watch . It's still a very small percentage of cord cutters but it does add up due to their cost structure (each additional subscription is almost 100% pure profit). BSPN's decline is not solely due to cord cutting or its total viewership decline would be more in line with the percentage decline experienced by the other 34 largest cable networks (this decline for the other 34 approximates the % of cord cutting since 2014).
 
#170
#170
Very reliable sources have indicated that the 100 or so ESPN soon to be laid off employees had muted orange clothes in their closets - which HR indicated is grounds for immediate dismissal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#171
#171
bamawriter said:
I think you are adding the percentage drop from 14 to 15 to the percentage drop from 15 to 16.

ESPN lost a little less than 15%, on average, from 2014 to 2016. Still significant. That's 350,000 viewers. But close to 5 million people have cut the cord in that stretch.
Click to expand...

BW,

Thanks for the clarification. I pulled the 18-49 viewership decrease when I should have referenced total viewership decrease

There's nearly a 20% decrease in 18-49 and I see a 17% decrease in overall viewership in that timeframe.

If roughly 5% has cut the cord in that timeframe and there's a 15-17% decrease in total viewership....
 
#172
#172
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.
 
#175
#175
volfanjustin said:
ESPN has turned into garbage. They remind me of MTV, MTV was great when they just played music then they started getting into other stuff. ESPN was great when they just talked sports now they are full of their version The View kind of crap
Click to expand...

Spot on! :rock:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top