ESPN

[RangerNole]

Paranoia running a bit high this morning? They "seem" like republicans with "prevlidged" backgrounds? Funny b/c I'd say DK is prob a democrat.

Regardless, you can pretty much guarantee no one was fired based on personal politics that seem so vague to the viewer we can't definitively tell.

The bottom line is there's (apparently) no need for so many personalities across three 24 hour sports networks. Look at CNN and fxnews, they run 24 hour "news" networks and have half or fewer the on-air personalities, it was stupid for ESPN to load up so much in the first place.

It sucks for DK b/c he's a Nole, but honestly, I have no beef with ESPN laying off so many on-air personalities. What disappoints me is all the local analysts they let go, those folks were the only real "journalists" ESPN had and they're gone, which tells us a bit about the direction they want to head in

While I doubt people were let go based on political preference; espn leaning left and getting involved in social issues is something that many people feel. Whether it is real or just some paranoia many people do think espn has gone to far on political statements. You can read about it on message boards or articles and again whether or not you agree this is what a bunch of people seem to think and even if only 20% of your audience believes this it is a problem.

 

[MIKE_G]

There have been many threads even here on how to cut cable. Big info: the majority of the country does NOT give a rip about sports on their TV. People also want to cut escalating cable bills. Pretty simple to add up.

Politics? Goodness. People will believe all kinds of crap.

I fit right in their demo and do not give one rip about 99% of their non-game programming and the same with 95% of their live games either.

This is a good post. ESPN isn't losing subscribers, cable/satellite companies are losing subscribers. Mainly because of escalating costs due to networks like ESPN, which garners the highest carriage rate to these providers. ESPN had to keep upping their price because of all the huge contracts they signed for the rights to carry NBA/college football, Monday Night Football, etc. Once non-sports fans were presented with alternative options to get the tv they were interested in without being forced to buy the sports-bundled cable/satellite packages, they jumped ship. Now you can get your Game of Thrones and Walking Dead and Housewives of whatever without footing the bill for sports you don't care about. ESPN can no longer rely on the old business model to keep them flush with cash. They have moved ahead with digital providers, ensuring they are part of all the new services coming out. Perhaps they'll go even further and break from bundling altogether, like HBO and Showtime have done. It might be harder because they don't carry all sports that people care about anymore, so many sports fans would still need a cable/satellite/streaming bundle to get say NHL or soccer or Big 10 Network.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

Perhaps they'll go even further and break from bundling altogether, like HBO and Showtime have done. It might be harder because they don't carry all sports that people care about anymore, so many sports fans would still need a cable/satellite/streaming bundle to get say NHL or soccer or Big 10 Network.

Good post. espn / disney invested about $1bn in BAMtech, MLB's now spun off streaming tech, and are looking to use it for a direct-to-consumer streaming product. However, puzzling that they don't plan on hosting any of their linear networks (espn/espn2/espnu/etc...) in this product. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/di...rect-to-consumer-streaming-service-2016-08-09)

IMO longterm they'd be better off going direct to consumer, even if that means lowering their per subscriber fee to cable companies. Based on the above, it would appear they're going to create/acquire even more content, makes no sense considering the inherent costs of doing so.

 

[Hayduke GW]

Having loud mouth liberal hosts spew stories of how bad certain races have it in America could possibly be a contributing factor to declining viewership..

You seem very angry.

 

[Hayduke GW]

Good post. espn / disney invested about $1bn in BAMtech, MLB's now spun off streaming tech, and are looking to use it for a direct-to-consumer streaming product. However, puzzling that they don't plan on hosting any of their linear networks (espn/espn2/espnu/etc...) in this product. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/di...rect-to-consumer-streaming-service-2016-08-09)

IMO longterm they'd be better off going direct to consumer, even if that means lowering their per subscriber fee to cable companies. Based on the above, it would appear they're going to create/acquire even more content, makes no sense considering the inherent costs of doing so.

I'm no expert at this stuff but it certainly seems like the end game is going to have to be direct, a la carte streaming to subscribers/buyers. Sling and the new direct tv package are basically doing that now.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

I'm no expert at this stuff but it certainly seems like the end game is going to have to be direct, a la carte streaming to subscribers/buyers. Sling and the new direct tv package are basically doing that now.

IMO Sling/DirecTV Now/PS Vue/etc... are precursors to a true B2C era of content distribution.

Imagine a future, maybe 7 years out, where you don't even subscribe to channels (like we do now w/ HBONow) but you simply pay for what you watch, ie, you subscribe to content rather than the provider. So I'd subscribe to a season of Silicon Valley, ACC football, etc... essentially removing 'channels' and 'cable companies' from the equation and simply having consumers purchase from a platform that works directly with production companies. Kinda like how iTunes works but with even fewer interlopers.

Could be interesting.

 

[Fijimn]

How long before the arm's race of facility upgrades and coaching salaries slows down?

Probably why Jam is scrambling to get his $100,000 truck and Fifth wheel....money train making less stops.....(I keed, I keed)

 

[Hayduke GW]

IMO Sling/DirecTV Now/PS Vue/etc... are precursors to a true B2C era of content distribution.

Imagine a future, maybe 7 years out, where you don't even subscribe to channels (like we do now w/ HBONow) but you simply pay for what you watch, ie, you subscribe to content rather than the provider. So I'd subscribe to a season of Silicon Valley, ACC football, etc... essentially removing 'channels' and 'cable companies' from the equation and simply having consumers purchase from a platform that works directly with production companies. Kinda like how iTunes works but with even fewer interlopers.

Could be interesting.

I think that's where we're going but there is so much money invested in the old system that there's a lot of money fighting it.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

One thing I've always found interesting is how these ESPN reporters and personalities are constantly distributing news content via their Twitter accounts and other social media. If I'm getting constant updates on my favorite topics straight from the reporters, why do I need to watch ESPN?

 

[FSUTribe76]

I'm no expert at this stuff but it certainly seems like the end game is going to have to be direct, a la carte streaming to subscribers/buyers. Sling and the new direct tv package are basically doing that now.

Yeah and I'm all in flavor of that (a la carte). I watch a lot of tv because I work from home so I'll turn on series I wouldn't bother with and play it as basically background noise. But I basically watch just the 4 premium channels (for their shows and not movies, I see those in theatres or on Redbox), the 5 broadcast channels, and then AMC, FX, FXX, History, Food, Travel, Syfy, Comedy Central and that's it for the most part. During college football season I watch the sports channels but outside of that four or five month period I don't watch sports other than physically going to some and some MMA and boxing. So 7-8 months out of the year I'd need just 17 channels and the rest I'd just need some ESPN and other sports channels package.

 

[funksouljon]

Yeah and I'm all in flavor of that (a la carte). I watch a lot of tv because I work from home so I'll turn on series I wouldn't bother with and play it as basically background noise.

Me too. Right now they re showing how they build a Porsche Panamera. Looks simple enough. It is surprising how early in the process they paint. Bet they have a no belt buckle rule in the assembly plant.

I have 150 channels. My family watches 20 at most. I wonder if the a la cart model would simply make for smaller bundles or picking single channels. Only issue with single channels is sometimes channels have shows that I stumble across and love. For the a la cart model. Do we count full shows or partial shows or time spent on channel and give access to all. Lots of variations in the solution but I would definitely rather move to a more on demand model. Assuming it saves me money.

 

[kc78]

Interesting to note that they let what looks like all of their NHL talent go. The only other surprise to me aside from Kannel and Dilfer was Jayson Stark. Stark was probably the single most knowledgeable person on staff for baseball, but he's not exciting. One of the headlines I saw said that ESPN opts for style over substance and I think that appears to be true. They're not interested in having great in depth reporting, simply entertainment. If that works for them, then great. But it makes me less interested in watching, not more.

Fox Sports should really jump at getting some really knowledgeable and interesting talent for cheap. I think they could look at differentiating themselves by focusing on the sports ESPN doesn't really focus on like NHL and Soccer while also bringing in some of the smartest guys to really delve into the content of the other sports.

 

[DFSNOLE]

"Hi. I'm ohio#1nolefan. I try to get threads locked."

He didn't but the next similar post will make an otherwise good thread go away.

 

[funksouljon]

He didn't but the next similar post will make an otherwise good thread go away.

Just make him go away. To timeout.

 

[funksouljon]

Interesting to note that they let what looks like all of their NHL talent go. The only other surprise to me aside from Kannel and Dilfer was Jayson Stark. Stark was probably the single most knowledgeable person on staff for baseball, but he's not exciting. One of the headlines I saw said that ESPN opts for style over substance and I think that appears to be true. They're not interested in having great in depth reporting, simply entertainment. If that works for them, then great. But it makes me less interested in watching, not more.

Fox Sports should really jump at getting some really knowledgeable and interesting talent for cheap. I think they could look at differentiating themselves by focusing on the sports ESPN doesn't really focus on like NHL and Soccer while also bringing in some of the smartest guys to really delve into the content of the other sports.

My FIL and I discussed this yesterday. They are keeping entertainment and letting analysis go. If Fox (or other) can be the anaylsis leader, they'd have a edge IMO. Wonder what ESPN views as thier flagship program moving forward. Surely a once a day highlight program that just shows what has already been posted on twitter isn't the flagship of the future.

 

[seminole97]

You seem very angry.

 

[ReliableOstrich]

My FIL and I discussed this yesterday. They are keeping entertainment and letting analysis go. If Fox (or other) can be the anaylsis leader, they'd have a edge IMO. Wonder what ESPN views as thier flagship program moving forward. Surely a once a day highlight program that just shows what has already been posted on twitter isn't the flagship of the future.

At some point the pendulum may swing back to the side of analysis, not just at espn but across the media landscape. Eventually people will grow tired of commentators and panels of 4 idiots screaming hyperbole past each other.

But the question is will the analysis-based content be made available by the espn's of the world or other new-media platforms? I tend to think the latter. I think we're already seeing that trend manifest itself in the podcast world and across newer sites like Vox (not saying Vox doesn't have biases or do some fluff stories).

MTV has spun itself into obscurity and live game coverage aside, I see espn and most cable news going in the same direction eventually.

 

[funksouljon]

.....Eventually people will grow tired of commentators and panels of 4 idiots screaming hyperbole past each other.

.......

MTV has spun itself into obscurity and live game coverage aside, ....

Eventually?
What? You don't tune into Pimp my Ride and The Real World?

 

[ReliableOstrich]

Eventually?
What? You don't tune into Pimp my Ride and The Real World?

Used to watch both, but I'm 36 now and TV takes a back seat to work and having a social life.

I do miss Xzibit tho.

 

[LLOYD72]

I wonder if this is connected to E$ECPN's deal with the mighty $EC??

 

[DukeFan1]

Now that the dust is settled from the recent blood-letting of on-air personnel, it appears that ESPN is now adding replacement talent: Chip Kelly will be added as a studio analyst for college football (Danny Kanell's old slot?):

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...espn-work-studio-analyst-college-football-nfl

 

[OrlandNole]

Now that the dust is settled from the recent blood-letting of on-air personnel, it appears that ESPN is now adding replacement talent: Chip Kelly will be added as a studio analyst for college football (Danny Kanell's old slot?):

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...espn-work-studio-analyst-college-football-nfl

My guess is that they were able to get him at a deep discount.

As a condition of his contract with San Francisco, Kelly's salary from ESPN will be deducted from what he was still owed by the 49ers, a source told ESPN's Darren Rovell. Kelly had three years left on a four-year, $24 million deal when he was fired in January.

 

[Mugsy101]

The main problem is that cable and content providers are in bed together and consumers are forced to pay higher costs to subsidize content they don't want. I would guess if they actually changed their pricing model to smaller channel bundles such as sports, news, DYI/HI, movie/entertainment (TNT/TCM/AMC/USA) consumers might pay a higher cost per channel but a lower overalls price. For example, I only listen to maybe 10 or so of my sirius stations on dish, but I am paying for all 80 or so.

If cable providers were honestly interested in providing to their customers what they wanted, you would probably see a lot of these channels go out of business.

 

[seminole97]

I have 150 channels. My family watches 20 at most.

I think I have 20 channels on directv that sell the Shark Vacuum alone.

 

[kc78]

I think I have 20 channels on directv that sell the Shark Vacuum alone.

You're most likely not paying for those channels. I think most content providers like Comcast either get a small fee for hosting those channels or are offered them at no cost. It's why QVC is available on even your most basic cable package.