Big layoffs at ESPN, including BT reporter Austin Ward



Seems like most of them were hired between 7-8 years ago. A few old-timers and some lower on the pole.

I'm sure their revenue shortfall is driven by many factors including cordcutters but IMO ESPN has really lost its way in recent years. Their most important show Sportscenter has been "meh" for far too long with boring anchors, repetitive highlights and too-short snippets of most teams, leaving me to say why bother? Their web site sucks, period. For years in the 90s/early '00s I used to spend hours reading articles on ESPN.com and now I can't stand to go there because the design is so poor. Bottom line is the leadership is the problem, as is usually the case at any organization that struggles.

Caveat on all this is I have no idea of the ratings of that show or any show on ESPN, or website traffic. In fact I don't watch it much anymore except for football games and baseball games which tells you the value it now has (to me). There have been some bright spots (non-game) here and there with NFL Primetime over the years and some of their other coverage. Hasselbeck, Hoge, and Dilfer have been must see tv as some of the more nuts and bolts guys on tv.

Related to that I will miss opinionated Trent Dilfer. I'm sure his public opinion of Kaepernick's antics didn't win him any brownie points with the social media-sensitive PC brass and perhaps set him up for this.

Media must be a really tough gig these days with all the disruption - feel for all these guys but in reality there are very, very few industries that won't be disrupted over the next decades. What will everyone do for work?
 

I had read an article on Outkick the Coverage that predicted they would be in the red in 2021 based on the commitment they have made in buying game rights. Couple that with cord-cutters and their change in approach (less highlight focus, more discussion and, some would argue, focus on social issues) and ESPN peaked many years ago.

I find that I did stop watching it except for some live events (football), but didn't think much about it since hockey is most important to me and they don't really know it exists. I am part of the problem as I did cut the cord, pay for NHL package, stream other games and drink at my friends for Monday Night Football.

I stopped going to the website when every link of value was "insider".

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-firing-over-a-hundred-employees-today-042617
 

Is ESPN really the main one that's in trouble when it comes to cord cutting, due to they receive the highest fees for their channels? Or are there others that may have the same problems in the next few years?

Is there any danger for someone like BTN?

I'm in the same boat as most here: I watch live games on ESPN & I watch 30 for 30s. I enjoy PTI when it's on because of the nature of the show, knowing they're not going to spend their whole time on one or two specific teams or markets & tackle a bunch of things going on. Other than that, I haven't watched more than a minute or two of Sportscenter at a time.

I agree that they've gotten socially liberal, but I don't think that's the big reason they're in trouble. It's that they grossly overpaid for broadcast rights and people are fed up with having to pay cable bills that keep getting bigger & bigger. ESPN seems to have been the main beneficiary to that method.
 


Is ESPN really the main one that's in trouble when it comes to cord cutting, due to they receive the highest fees for their channels? Or are there others that may have the same problems in the next few years?

Is there any danger for someone like BTN?

I'm in the same boat as most here: I watch live games on ESPN & I watch 30 for 30s. I enjoy PTI when it's on because of the nature of the show, knowing they're not going to spend their whole time on one or two specific teams or markets & tackle a bunch of things going on. Other than that, I haven't watched more than a minute or two of Sportscenter at a time.

I agree that they've gotten socially liberal, but I don't think that's the big reason they're in trouble. It's that they grossly overpaid for broadcast rights and people are fed up with having to pay cable bills that keep getting bigger & bigger. ESPN seems to have been the main beneficiary to that method.

Don't see BTN in danger. Expenses are way different and it is not a piece of most base cable packages.
 



ESPN simply had a huge staff and tons of writers/reporters costing them money for things that didn't bring enough money in these days. Nobody cares which reporter breaks the news of a hiring now. They get eyes on the screen and ears on the radio from the discussion of those things. Highlights are available on youtube and Twitter so people don't watch SC anymore. People complain about their radio hosts/tv shows but those things are unique and do have large followings. Mike and Mike offers nothing for analysis or interesting sports conversations but its popular because many people find it entertaining.
 



Wow:

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

Media must be a really tough gig these days with all the disruption - feel for all these guys but in reality there are very, very few industries that won't be disrupted over the next decades. What will everyone do for work?

Help build the wall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I used to watch a lot more ESPN and I used to visit their website all the time. The main thing that brushed them off my radar was the way they identify their "favorites" (SEC football, Cowboys, Yankees/Red Sox, Lebronn, Johnny Football, etc.) and then mold all their coverage around their agenda. As others have said, visiting the website and finding everything is 'insider' material, or constant reminders how wonderful the SEC is on the B1G blog - and I reduced my ESPN activity to simply watching the games they aired that were of interest to me. Most everything else I grew to distrust because I was always wondering if the material was legit, or pushing forward the "SEC is everything" agenda.
 

ESPN simply had a huge staff and tons of writers/reporters costing them money for things that didn't bring enough money in these days. Nobody cares which reporter breaks the news of a hiring now. They get eyes on the screen and ears on the radio from the discussion of those things. Highlights are available on youtube and Twitter so people don't watch SC anymore. People complain about their radio hosts/tv shows but those things are unique and do have large followings. Mike and Mike offers nothing for analysis or interesting sports conversations but its popular because many people find it entertaining.

I think you are right on. This has less to do with content and more to do with the business changing. That said, I thought it was funny in the article I posted that they stated that most of their complaints come from their political coverage, and then said "we're not changing". Doesn't seem to be a smart business model.
 



ESPN simply had a huge staff and tons of writers/reporters costing them money for things that didn't bring enough money in these days. Nobody cares which reporter breaks the news of a hiring now. They get eyes on the screen and ears on the radio from the discussion of those things. Highlights are available on youtube and Twitter so people don't watch SC anymore. People complain about their radio hosts/tv shows but those things are unique and do have large followings. Mike and Mike offers nothing for analysis or interesting sports conversations but its popular because many people find it entertaining.

Yep. Watch Dan Patrick Show all the time for the similar reasons. The number of people who want 24 hours of constant analysis is getting smaller and smaller. PTI is the only ESPN show I try and see by the way.

FireDaveLee? Appropriate moniker now isn't it? :D

A whole lot of cable companies and content providers are in trouble. If Dish and (At&T owned) Directv get their way a whole lot of content providers are gonna be gone. Nearly every contract dispute between those two and the content providers is because D&D don't want to pay for all the "bundled" channels that nobody watches!

To a bit of research and you'll find Disney owned ESPN isn't as worried about the "cord cutters" as most other providers are. Why? Because ESPN is part of many of those services. The channels that are worried are Discovery, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Esquire etc. They consistently are being left out of the 20 some channels that are normally part of those tv/internet cost cutting schemes.

Sure, ESPN's problem is they paid way too for content. The NBA deal in particular was incredibly stupid and mainly based on a belief that the NBA is gonna continue to grow world wide. That said, people need to take a look at revenue generated by ESPN and ESPN2 and compare it to the revenue generated by all the other channels Disney owns.

Those other channels include A&E, Crime and Investigation Network, FYI, Military Channel, History Channel, ESPN ABC, ABC Family, Disney Channel, Disney Jr., Disney XD, ESPN Classic, ESPN U, 8-9 local TV stations, Longhorn Network, Animal Planet, Discovery Science, TSN channels, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies, Viceland...and there are more.

How many of those will survive if cable, Direct and Dish start winning their crusade to unbundle them from channels they WANT to keep?

And those channel nearly always include ESPN.

One other note. Just look at that list and compare it to the channels the "cut the cable" providers say they will offer. Then think about those other 150+ channels out there.That's why many of the "left out" channels are trying to from their OWN cord-cutting service. If bundling goes they are gone.

Disney's problem with ESPN, certainly isn't the biggest problem out there.

Just remember that all channels are going thru the same thing. In fact it's Disney's 2nd round of big cuts and it's only ESPN's cuts that get all the agony, cheering and dissection.

That's because they are still far and away the most "important" cable network.
 

From what I've read, ESPN faces two issues with cord cutters: 1) they are losing subscribers at a rate that is higher than the overall decline (about twice the average for 2016, per CNBC), and 2) they carry a higher cost structure than all other cable channels.

You can argue the reasons for the first point, but the second point results in a high fixed cost spread over a smaller subscriber base. And that fixed cost is truly fixed - due to the broadcast rights they are locked into. The example I read was that AMC can produce/bankroll fewer shows and play Shawshank another 10 times to reduce costs quickly. ESPN is locked in for the major costs.
 

From what I've read, ESPN faces two issues with cord cutters: 1) they are losing subscribers at a rate that is higher than the overall decline (about twice the average for 2016, per CNBC), and 2) they carry a higher cost structure than all other cable channels.

You can argue the reasons for the first point, but the second point results in a high fixed cost spread over a smaller subscriber base. And that fixed cost is truly fixed - due to the broadcast rights they are locked into. The example I read was that AMC can produce/bankroll fewer shows and play Shawshank another 10 times to reduce costs quickly. ESPN is locked in for the major costs.

That AMC example is an interesting comparison and I never thought of it like that. Thanks for sharing that.
 


They could probably get rid of a couple channels and their related expense (News, Classic, U), and move the best on those channels to ESPN or ESPN2.
 

From what I've read, ESPN faces two issues with cord cutters: 1) they are losing subscribers at a rate that is higher than the overall decline (about twice the average for 2016, per CNBC), and 2) they carry a higher cost structure than all other cable channels.

You can argue the reasons for the first point, but the second point results in a high fixed cost spread over a smaller subscriber base. And that fixed cost is truly fixed - due to the broadcast rights they are locked into. The example I read was that AMC can produce/bankroll fewer shows and play Shawshank another 10 times to reduce costs quickly. ESPN is locked in for the major costs.

Yep, ESPN signed contracts for more than they are worth. Nobody is or should be disputing that. While that's true, AMC is probably not a good comparison because Dish, Directv and the cable operators aren't trying to dump AMC. Those companies are dumping channels and trying to dump a whole lot more.

There already has been a lot of cable channels that have died and there will be more this year and in the future. The vast majority of them have relatively little overhead.

What they don't have is viewers.

And as been said, if bundling of channels is finally allowed to go away, most of those channels will cease to exist.
 

2016 Ratings Overall

Overall, the News Channels did well. Fox was number 1. ESPN was still in second place.

BASIC CABLE RANKINGS 2016
(Total Viewers In Millions)
RANK NETWORK P2+ 2016 P2+ 2015 % CHANGE
1 Fox News Channel 2.48M 1.83M +36%
2 ESPN 1.91M 2.15M -11%
3 USA Network 1.68M 1.82M -8%
4 TBS 1.59M 1.80M -12%
5 HGTV 1.58M 1.50M +5%
6 TNT 1.55M 1.72M -10%
7 Discovery Channel 1.40M 1.55M -10%
8 History 1.33M 1.49M -11%
9 Disney Channel 1.32M 1.72M -23%
10 CNN 1.30M 0.732M +77%
11 AMC 1.26M 1.38M -9%
12 MSNBC 1.113M 0.596M +87%
13 FX 1.109M 1.22M -9%
14 Food Network 1.06M 1.11M -5%
15 Hallmark Channel 1.06M 0.959M +10%
16 Investigation Discovery 0.994M 0.909M +9%
17 Adult Swim 0.991M 1.05M -6%
18 Lifetime 0.955M 1.04M -8%
19 Bravo 0.908M 0.849M +7%
20 TLC 0.877M 0.926M -5%
21 A&E Network 0.847M 0.937M -10%
22 Freeform 0.812M 1.05M -22%
23 Nick At Nite 0.808M 0.814M -1%
24 Spike TV 0.704M 0.779M -10%
25 Syfy 0.692M 0.990M -30%
26 VH1 0.639M 0.639M 0%
27 TV Land 0.620M 0.606M 2%
28 Disney Junior 0.595M 0.617M -4%
29 Nick Jr 0.594M 0.416M +43%
30 Animal Planet 0.593M 0.636M -7%
31 OWN 0.537M 0.584M +9%
32 MTV 0.580M 0.569M -2%
33 Hallmark Movies & Mysteries 0.549M 0.428M +28%
34 Comedy Central 0.529M 0.583M -9%
35 E! 0.521M 0.535M -3%
Source: Nielsen; Live+SD numbers from 12/28

http://deadline.com/2016/12/cable-rankings-network-ratings-fox-cnn-msnbc-1201873996/
 

Cable Rankings of 18-49 Year Olds

This is why ESPN still is the most valuable network to advertisers. Notice that even in an election year, Fox falls from #1 to #19 among the 18 to 49 demo.

1 ESPN 816K 923K -12%
2 TBS 729K 836K -13%
3 USA Network 692K 723K -4%
4 TNT 625K 639K -2%
5 AMC 610K 698K -13%
6 Discovery Channel 575K 669K -14%
7 FX 560K 609K -8%
8 Adult Swim 530K 543K -2%
9 HGTV 476K 466K +2%
10 Bravo 469K 474K -1%
11 Food Network 431K 469K -8%
12 History 417K 476K -12%
13 Lifetime 411K 434K -5%
14 Freeform 408K 527K -23%
15 VH1 396K 400K -1%
16 A&E Network 390K 399K -2%
17 CNN 373K 196K +90%
17 MTV 373K 371K +1%
19 Fox News Channel 354K 234K +51%
20 Spike TV 344K 388K -11%
21 Comedy Central 337K 379K -11%
22 TLC 334K 365K -8%
23 Investigation Discovery 327K 310K +5%
24 Disney Channel 319K 385K -17%
25 Nick At Nite 298K 276K +8%
26 E! 290K 305K -5%
27 Syfy 280K 399K -30%
28 Hallmark Channel 251K 199K +26%
29 TruTV 223K 232K -4%
30 FXX 219K 228K -4%
31 BET 209K 289K -28%
32 MSNBC 207K 104K +99%
33 OWN 202K 185K +9%
34 Fox Sports 1 201K 170K +18%
35 Animal Planet 193K 224K -14%

http://deadline.com/2016/12/cable-rankings-network-ratings-fox-cnn-msnbc-1201873996/
 

Mark May has been added to the list of layoffs
 



4 pages of ???

Free market system. If folks watch, advertisers are happy, things are good. If not, they aren't. If cuts cause more viewers to bail, plan B. If the whole thing collapses and dies, it gets replaced--if the consumer wants it.

Much ado about nothing.
 




Top Bottom