Mr. WEO Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 Let's get back to my rant. You mean the one where you say the NFL should just forfeit billions of network contract revenue. Let's not.
ndirish1978 Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I haven't had cable for years. I pay for Sunday Ticket, Netflix, Bein and Amazon Prime. I don't need anything else.
TPS Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 ESPN, which started out as a fantastic idea, has devolved into a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. It's now little more than a gossip station designed primarily for self promotion, with some badly over-produced games mixed in. It is by far the worst network for the NFL and awful for baseball compared to any local baseball network I've seen. Ditto for college football. SportsCenter and the rest of the blathering talking head shows have been unwatchable for years (I still miss the SportsReporters, which died with Dick Shaap). I couldn't give a rat's ass if ESPN disappeared forever. In fact, it would probably be a good thing. MTV started out as a nice idea too...
DasNootz Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 MTV started out as a nice idea too... That sums it up perfectly, and I've said the same thing for years. Once they lost their core focus and started dumbing down content and sexing up the staff it all went to hell.
DriveFor1Outta5 Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 Isn't the decline of ESPN's quality all a result of the Internet age though? As someone who grew up with ESPN in the 90's I constantly catch my self turning it to Sportscenter with the expectation of catching some highlights, only to be reminded it's simply become a bunch of talking heads ala Fox News. Sportscenter really made ESPN because at one time it was the only outlet to catch highlights of sports everyday. Now all you have to do is hop on the Internet. This means they have rebranded themselves into a talk format. They are trying desperately albeit poorly to do whatever it takes to stay relevant. We live in an age were networks think they need to be bombastic to be noticed. That's why the network is filled with guys like Bayless and Stephen A. They love the controversies because it keeps their network in the limelight.
stony Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 Trolling? Look if what you are saying is true, Disney would have told ESPN to do just that. How did you come to that conclusion? On what other network is that succeeding? NBCSN has reruns of Equestrian World Cup, World Rugby, UCI BMX Championships, World Volleyball Tour, Monaco Grand Prix, Motorcycle racing, Track and Field--all filling time between their annual big events (Stanley Cup--most games on regular old NBC, French Open) and NASCAR. No one is watching that channel! Fox1 has old golf reruns, D list soccer tournaments, Rodeo, UFC reruns, Drag Racing, Rugby---all the stuff you say YOU want to see. Are you watching that channel? Those networks provide the content you are talking about and they are getting crushed every month by ESPN (and sometimes ESPN2 as well). It's not "trolling" when someone points out ridiculous comments. I tend to agree with your position here regarding ESPN. You do fail to mention the positive, albeit slow, ratings growth the EPL has brought to NBCSN. Smart and savvy pick up by them. FS1 is predominantly garbage, but they really don't play "d-list soccer" tournaments. They have Champions League, Europa League and many of the smaller league cups in England. While the latter doesn't move the needle, I can't argue with the strategy given they acquired the broadcast rights for the next couple World Cups. Smart long term plan IMO.
Mr. WEO Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I tend to agree with your position here regarding ESPN. You do fail to mention the positive, albeit slow, ratings growth the EPL has brought to NBCSN. Smart and savvy pick up by them. FS1 is predominantly garbage, but they really don't play "d-list soccer" tournaments. They have Champions League, Europa League and many of the smaller league cups in England. While the latter doesn't move the needle, I can't argue with the strategy given they acquired the broadcast rights for the next couple World Cups. Smart long term plan IMO. When your glamour product line is the thousands of different international soccer leagues/tournaments/cups (CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, FA, FIFA, DFL, MLS, UEFA, USMNT..), well, NOONEREALLYCARESTOTUNEIN. And as for the rest of their live content, Fox1 and NBCSN simply rip off SportsCenter, because they have to. Viewers may cut the cord to their cable. But for those who keep cable, there simply is no competition against ESPN. There never will be in this format.
yungmack Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I posted this as a reply in another thread but thought it'd be worth discussing separately. I read an article about ESPN's problems almost a year ago. By the end of last year Disney (ESPN's parent company) was one of the most shorted stocks on the NYSE. It is all due to ESPN dragging it down as the Disney business is doing very well. It is why ESPN nixed their new, big, expensive NYC studio and office project. It is also why they've been letting their expensive personalities walk. Cost cutting is severe and ongoing. The situation is basically this: - ESPN has spent a lot of money on long term sporting event contracts. That includes dramatically overpaying for their NFL contract and several expensive college contracts. The strategy was to make ESPN indispensable to sports fans. - ESPN has used this leverage to charge quite a lot for their channels. That's not just profit as the above has driven their expenses through the roof. The flagship station is the most expensive non-premium station on cable/dish. Collectively their stations are a disproportionately huge part of your cable/dish bill. - In 2014 ESPN cost cable providers (not customers) $6.04/month. The median price of a station was 14¢. 2018 estimates are that ESPN will cost $8.37/month. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/ - The expense is pretty reasonable if you love sports, but sucks if you don't. And most people don't. Many of those people - along with those who can't afford the ever growing cable bills - are cutting the cord. - ESPN is retaining most of the people who love sports, but they've lost some of them along with a lot of casual viewers - Fewer cable subscribers sends less direct revenue to ESPN and fewer viewers equates to less advertising revenue. The cycle of revenue loss leading to cost cutting is continuing as more and more people cut the cord. But those expensive long-term contracts ESPN signed are still in place and they are dragging the network under. Soon there won't be much more to cut. ESPN is already becoming the network of "hot takes" because they've cut out so much of their more expensive good programming. As a sports lover I can say honestly that the only reason I haven't cut the cord is sports, but I really only care about games - college football and the NFL primarily. Something major is going to happen with ESPN and how sports programming reaches viewers in the coming few years. This could go a number of ways, but it has to change. I'm sitting here wondering how this is affecting everyone else and how you are all reacting. Personally, if I could get NFL Sunday ticket a la carte I'd probably cut the cord. I might soon anyway. We pretty much just watch sports (80-90% football), FoodNetwork, HGTV, Comedy Central and regular network programming (ABC/NBC/CBS). We have Netflix and Prime and use those sometimes. It is my feeling that pro football has peaked within the US and further growth must come elsewhere. It might be that domestic revenue growth has also peaked and will grow largely through inflation. It might even begin to fall as even hard core fans seem to have reached a financial limit if the dismal failure of Time Warner's Dodger deal is any indication. Anecdotally, it also appears that the audience is greying. And with the FCC changes coming in the set-top box area, and the opening up of access across providers and subscriptions apparently coming near fruition (which will give us one-app access to all our programming), and the acceleration of cord cutting, the business model is in flux. Once unbundling gets rolling, the absence of those cable subscribers who've been essentially subsidizing the sports fans will, it seems, force up prices for those of us who want to keep our (paid) access to sports programming. It's likely to be a huge jump in our individual costs and that might drive away a significant percentage of sports fans. All of this adds up to continuing problems for ESPN.
iinii Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 You mean the one where you say the NFL should just forfeit billions of network contract revenue. Let's not. http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-television-deals-nfl-plays-by-its-own-rules-1409797802 Exactly where did I say they should forfeit anything?
26CornerBlitz Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 @Ourand_SBJ ESPN is not cutting costs when it comes to the Big Ten: Bristol agrees to a 6-year, $1.14B deal with the conference. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/06/20/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten.aspx
hondo in seattle Posted June 20, 2016 Posted June 20, 2016 I currently pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu mostly to keep the family happy. I pay for NFL Sunday Ticket to make me happy. I'm vaguely aware I have ESPN tho' pretty much never watch it - so I can't speak to the quality of their broadcasts though obviously they're not offering anything I really want.
GunnerBill Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 I tend to agree with WEO here. Sky Sports in this country has the same issue. It has 4 premium channels that operate 24/7. Now it needs 4 because at any one time during the soccer season it is often broadcasting 2 or 3 soccer games at the same time and still needs a channel for live golf, live Rugby, live tennis, live NFL etc. Even in the summer (when they don't have soccer most of their weekend programming is live sport. But a quick look at tomorrow's schedule reveals they have two live cricket matches (England v Sri Lanka and West Indies v Australia) and one live Junior Golf tournament. The rest is NFL Network style re-runs of "greatest ever", "sporting years" and "classic matches." The week day shchedules are not live sport heavy in other words. Now there was a point when Sky had a bit more sport to show in the daytime because it would show more minority sports and was bidding against nobody for UK rights. But now there is competition in the market from an expanded Eurosport and particularly from BT Sport and Sky have taken a strategic decision not to get into bidding wars over minority sports. Which is where WEO is right. Channels have to focus on what drives their revenues. For Sky it is the Premier League and for ESPN it is NFL and College Football. They have to continue to maximise the revenue streams related to those products. Does that lead to some annoying gimmicky talking head shows - yes (more so over your side of the pond) but it is a much better option than spending rights money on sports that don't drive viewing figures and therfore advertising revenues.
machine gun kelly Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Good info from the OP. I get more of my NFL info on NFLN and NFLR, as well as print or Internet. I lost interest in ESPN a long time ago. Their analysts I found not to have in-depth takes and interesting ideas. They just regurgitated other sound bite positions. Just my opinion so not asking people to agree.
dpberr Posted June 21, 2016 Posted June 21, 2016 Cable news is going the way of ESPN - its all pundits, lots of shouting, very little newscast. When you compare cable news and ESPN from even ten years ago - you had a lot more traditional newscasting and stories. Now it's just wall to wall pundits regardless of the channel. I don't watch NFLN NBA or MLB for the same reason. Too much opinion, not enough news.
Recommended Posts