West Fargo Gopher Fan
Section 114 Row 2
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,494
- Reaction score
- 403
- Points
- 83
ESPN has become a political platform.
I don't feel sorry for the network itself.
Agree with this. Why I dont watch.
ESPN has become a political platform.
I don't feel sorry for the network itself.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Mark May has been added to the list of layoffs
Mark May has been added to the list of layoffs