ESPN Layoffs

[78thealltimegreat]

2 hours ago, jkeerie said:

Part of the problem with ESPN of late, which makes it less enjoyable to watch, is all the bias among commentators.  I won't watch the morning shows because of that bias.  Mike Greenburg is insufferable with his Jets fandom.

You aren’t kidding if you literally became rip van winkle and took a 3 month nap you can almost guarantee Get Up will chronically talk about the Jets and Cowboys and they’ll wonder what Lebron had for breakfast 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

Well, it can be ALL of these things, and some things we never even imagined. 

 

Oh! Looking at some show I’m not familiar with on YouTube TV (because I’m often gonna need them to get my Bills games) and they are doing a segment on the BILLS! I miss ESPN even less.

 

They (ESPN) were ground breaking game changers back in the day. They are now dinosaurs, the love child of the slide rule and the Kodak film empire.  The world is moving on, and ESPN has not done a great job of staying ahead of the game. 

 

.

 

 

They have outlasted any and all competition in their niche.  Sure cable may have been dying na slow death, but ESPN has been all alone in national sports broadcasting for 50 years.  Still are. But hey, Disney doesn't have infinite cash.  They took a huge bad gamble on streaming content exclusively on their own streamers and they got clobbered. Now they are crawling back to the legacy streamers (Netflix, Max) again offering licensing deals to stream their IP.

 

Vna Gundy is the only pro sports analytics guy worth listening to.  Dumping him and keeping Mark Jackson makes zero sense.  Jackson was only there to argue with Van G.  They made an entertaining pair.

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

David Pollack was laid off.

 

This is getting serious...

[wppete]

This is Great news! Kellerman, Keyshawn and Rose were unbearable to listen to to. Divisive and negative people. Hopefully they are replaced with decent people. 
 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by wppete

[BillsDad51]

1 hour ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Keyshawn was nails on the chalkboard.  No loss there.

According to NY Post (via PFT) Keyshawn signed multi-year $18 million contract last year. He gets paid anyway despite layoff. Who at ESPN negotiated  that kind of deal?

[jkeerie]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

I'm surprised by how many people actively hate ESPN and want them to fail. Me, I don't care about them at all one way or the other. There are vastly superior ways to consume sports news these days than turning on a television channel. All TV journalism is going to suffer the same fate eventually. It simply isn't profitable anymore. It's been replaced by a more consumer-friendly product.

 

I don't want them to fail.  They were a much better network before bringing in all these ex-sports figures.  They were fun and objective.  I still remember when they used to cut up and laugh uncontrollably when something absurd happened.  Who was the guy that lost it when Carl Lewis sang the national anthem?  Charlie????

[BillsPride12]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

Well, it can be ALL of these things, and some things we never even imagined. 

 

Oh! Looking at some show I’m not familiar with on YouTube TV (because I’m often gonna need them to get my Bills games) and they are doing a segment on the BILLS! I miss ESPN even less.

 

They (ESPN) were ground breaking game changers back in the day. They are now dinosaurs, the love child of the slide rule and the Kodak film empire.  The world is moving on, and ESPN has not done a great job of staying ahead of the game. 

 

.

I actually think at some point an executive decision was made at the top to turn ESPN into a more "hip and edgy" Network catering to the youth but all it did was fail miserably and alienate it's core audience 

[JimBob2232]

Gameday is going downhill.  Corso has at most 2 years left (and arguably should have zero left).  Pollock is now gone.  Bear is gone.  Never a big fan of Desmond Howard....

 

Herbstreit is great. But he is now doing NFL stuff too.

 

I am not a big McAfee fan.  Will be interesting to see where this goes.

 

 

[Einstein]

49 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Disney doesn't have infinite cash.  They took a huge bad gamble on streaming content exclusively on their own streamers and they got clobbered. Now they are crawling back to the legacy streamers (Netflix, Max) again offering licensing deals to stream their IP.

 

Not sure why you thought that but Disney’s streaming has been a massive success. Across their streaming platforms they have over 230 Million subscribers. That’s more than Netflix.

 

What you may be referring to is their negative cash flow on the streaming side, but that is to be expected with all new streaming platforms. Netflix lost money for half a decade before reporting a profit.

 

Therefore, while Disney's streaming platforms might not be as profitable as they could be right now, it doesn't mean they aren't successful. They've captured a huge portion of the market and continue to grow. In terms of their financial performance, it's likely that they're following a long-term strategy where they'll eventually become profitable as they continue to add subscribers and increase their average revenue per user. This is a common strategy in tech-oriented businesses and not necessarily a sign of weakness or failure.

 

Now that they have a massive subscriber base, they can rent some IP to other providers and make money on both ends.

[LittleSammy]

6 hours ago, davefan66 said:

McShay gone.  
 

Hate Kolbet is gone.  Love her!

Joe Namath said the same thing!

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

ESPN and their parent company forgot what made them successful.  For ESPN, it was good sports coverage and excellent sports news content.  They provide little of that anymore.  Somewhere along the line they felt it was their duty to instruct all of us on their view of social morality whether the viewers wanted it or not.  People didn't fight them, they merely found a different source of their sports entertainment.  As the cost of content from the professional/college sports leagues went up and viewership went down, advertising revenue and cable fees could not keep pace.  Their economic model is increasingly unsustainable.

[Augie]

36 minutes ago, BillsPride12 said:

I actually think at some point an executive decision was made at the top to turn ESPN into a more "hip and edgy" Network catering to the youth but all it did was fail miserably and alienate it's core audience 

 

They came out with ESPN the magazine, right?  Went into print right before print died. One bad decision after another. I don’t want to sound like Bills basher, but that’s a lot of whiffs!   😂 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

6 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Correct.

 

But the other side of the coin is networks can no longer demand the fees from cable/satellite providers that they need to float. Cable/satellite is hemorrhaging from people moving to internet based media.

 

I have a subscription to Hulu/ESPN+, Paramount, and Peacock all with commercials.  I also have a subscription to YTTV mainly for content from ESPN/ESPN2, etc.  Watch a little bit of TNT, etc, but mainly have it for the sports.  I have a TIVO DVR with an antenna hook up that I use to record shows on network TV. 

 

I was saying the other day, I could for likely much less money switch Hulu, Paramount, and Peacock to the commercial free version and dump YTTV.  But I don't mainly so I can watch live coverage of games on ESPN.  I can watch the live game via the ESPN app, but you need to list who your cable/streaming provider is to show that you have existing access to ESPN in order to watch it.

 

So my question is why doesn't ESPN come out with it's own streaming service of all the ESPN channels.  Say $20 a month gets you the 4 or 5 ESPN stations.  What is legally, practically, or financially preventing them?

[Nextmanup]

How does the creepy bald guy with the glasses manage to avoid all these layoffs, and remain the face of the network?  What photographs is he in possession of?

 

 

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

So my question is why doesn't ESPN come out with it's own streaming service of all the ESPN channels.  Say $20 a month gets you the 4 or 5 ESPN stations.  What is legally, practically, or financially preventing them?

 

Your wish is their command.

[WotAGuy]

3 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

I have a subscription to Hulu/ESPN+, Paramount, and Peacock all with commercials.  I also have a subscription to YTTV mainly for content from ESPN/ESPN2, etc.  Watch a little bit of TNT, etc, but mainly have it for the sports.  I have a TIVO DVR with an antenna hook up that I use to record shows on network TV. 

 

I was saying the other day, I could for likely much less money switch Hulu, Paramount, and Peacock to the commercial free version and dump YTTV.  But I don't mainly so I can watch live coverage of games on ESPN.  I can watch the live game via the ESPN app, but you need to list who your cable/streaming provider is to show that you have existing access to ESPN in order to watch it.

 

So my question is why doesn't ESPN come out with it's own streaming service of all the ESPN channels.  Say $20 a month gets you the 4 or 5 ESPN stations.  What is legally, practically, or financially preventing them?

Maybe their agreements with the cable companies and other entities that carry ESPN want to ensure that viewers are forced to use their venue to watch?  If ESPN went to their own platform, they would only be paid for viewers that specifically want to watch.  As it is now, they get paid by a lot of cable subscribers that never turn ESPN on. Just spitballing here…

[Since1981]

Happens at companies everyday. I’ve had to argue with a teacher that they can fire me for wearing a green shirt. Teacher just couldn’t comprehend “employment at will” 

[Dr.Sack]

Hot take: Pat McCafee is to blame. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

18 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Your wish is their command.

 

17 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Maybe their agreements with the cable companies and other entities that carry ESPN want to ensure that viewers are forced to use their venue to watch?  If ESPN went to their own platform, they would only be paid for viewers that specifically want to watch.  As it is now, they get paid by a lot of cable subscribers that never turn ESPN on. Just spitballing here…

 

Good article!  Don't like the suggested price though, not sure it would make sense to go that high, then would be cheaper to keep what I have.  That's their challenge will have to still make it cheap enough that keeping a cable/streaming subscription with all the additional content isn't still cheaper or close enough that not worth switching.

[Mr. WEO]

42 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Not sure why you thought that but Disney’s streaming has been a massive success. Across their streaming platforms they have over 230 Million subscribers. That’s more than Netflix.

 

What you may be referring to is their negative cash flow on the streaming side, but that is to be expected with all new streaming platforms. Netflix lost money for half a decade before reporting a profit.

 

Therefore, while Disney's streaming platforms might not be as profitable as they could be right now, it doesn't mean they aren't successful. They've captured a huge portion of the market and continue to grow. In terms of their financial performance, it's likely that they're following a long-term strategy where they'll eventually become profitable as they continue to add subscribers and increase their average revenue per user. This is a common strategy in tech-oriented businesses and not necessarily a sign of weakness or failure.

 

Now that they have a massive subscriber base, they can rent some IP to other providers and make money on both ends.

 

That Netflix-type success won't happen again in streaming--the whole industry is in crisis.  They created tons of expensive content yet they are maxed out on subscribers.  Wall street initially heavily rewarded their growth (subscription)...until investors woke up and said no money is being made.

 

This is a solid piece:https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streaming-industry-netflix-max-disney-hulu-apple-tv-prime-video-peacock-paramount.html

 

"It’s easy to see this now as self-immolation, but at the time, investors rewarded the spending as an investment in the future and a hedge against the trend of cord-cutting. Disney’s share price — which had been trading in the $100 range when the company announced its streaming strategy — flirted with $150 in the weeks after Disney+’s launch. COVID further juiced the value of companies whose primary market is serving shut-ins. Netflix added 36.6 million subscribers in 2020 — its biggest annual gain ever — and Disney+ did even better, finishing its first full year of operations with 86.8 million customers. Iger retired on the last day of 2021. All that was missing was a MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED banner.

 

For the company’s rivals, Netflix’s woes begot a mix of Schadenfreude and relief: Maybe sanity had prevailed. But what at first looked like a Netflix correction was in fact a streaming correction. Investors started punishing Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and other Netflix wannabes. “Wall Street woke up and said, ‘Actually, profitability is the only metric,’” says a senior executive at a major streamer. “The idea that you could have the optics of success, where you could add 5 million subscribers and you gained 10 percent in value? It was over.”

 

Iger unretired to retake the CEO job at Disney.

 

" And six years after Iger convinced most of Hollywood to lock up their library titles on their own platforms, Disney and others have said they’re open to licensing some shows again — even to their old nemesis Netflix."