ESPN Layoffs

[SinceThe70s]

6 hours ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

I'm not a fan of ESPN, but seeing anyone lose their job is never something to celebrate 

 

Over the years I've made it through a ton of layoffs at the companies I've worked for and there was only one occasion when I was vindictively happy about someone losing their job. That person was evil incarnate and had been the cause of many better people losing their jobs for their own gain. But I also saw other people that I thought were either ineffective or flat out @ssholes get laid off and even though I was glad they were gone  I still had compassion when they were shown the door.

[djp14150]

The thing in TV sports is that experts can easily be replaced with cheaper labor ( the recently retired athletes like thry were).

 

same with print media. The reason you might keep 20 year veterans is because of something you can measure like resdship or page hite or something else that can drive subscription fees.

 

some columnists have good writing skills and has established insider relationships to get info….which can be hard to do.

 

those beat writers generally covering the team can get churned over because basic skill sets don’t advance much with age/ experience.

 

thr big problrm I have is with long time personalities like Suzy Kolber and Neil Everett…these peop,e have bern on ESPN for a long time.  Out of respect they should be able to go in a way better than a tweet.

[stevestojan]

We need a ChatGPT API to summarize threads. 

[pigpen65]

There's still lots of names missing

[Airseven]

2 hours ago, BUFFALOBART said:

A bunch of loudmouths talking over one another, is what 'isn't sustainable'.

It could be if it weren’t so obviously scripted. 

[jwhit34]

There are several fundamental flaws in the business model for ESPN and most network sports departments:

 

1. Studio shows: With the exception of TNT's NBA show with Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley, Shaq and Ernie Johnson, they are all horrible and pretty much unwatchable. Networks have loaded up these shows with ex players and coaches with bloated salaries. This would be one of the first areas I would cut. The challenge ESPN has vs. the others that just air the games is they have 24 hours of airtime to fill every day. 

 

Halftime shows are a joke. If you have a 15 minute halftime (and NFL is 12) on TV there is about 6 minutes of commercials, another 1-2 minutes cut in back to the game before the 2nd half resumes. That leaves about 4-5 minutes on NFL games, maybe 7 for the NBA or college hoops. If you have 4-5 people on the broadcast, and go around 3 times so each person gets about 20-30 seconds to make a point. Hardly in-depth analysis.

 

I'd go with showing highlights, update scores around the league and be done with it. Pre-game shows I would reduce to no more than 30 minutes and simply preview the games. 

 

2. Game commentators: Virtually no one watches a game to hear what the commentators have to say, they are watching the game. Viewers want competency, not name recognition in their broadcasters. So I'd get rid of the high-priced, high-profile no value add commentators. The other aspect of broadcast crews is the sheer number on a game. Lots of 3 person booths, sideline reporters which contribute nothing meaningful, and of course the Gene Steratores or the world deciphering officials' calls. Bloated booths have to go. You could easily go from a crew of 5 to 3 at most. 

 

The coaches/managers interviews in football, basketball and baseball are awful. Coaches hate it, they never say anything of substance. 

 

3. Simulcasts: Every game is shown on TV and there is a radio broadcast too. You end up with 3 broadcast crews: one for TV and a radio crew for each team. The stars of the game are not the broadcasters, it's the players. If I was a TV network, I would use the local radio crews for the TV feed, with the visiting team's crew doing the first half and the home team crew doing the 2nd half and any overtime. This would save a ton of money not only with the on-air talent but there has to be savings on production costs. 

 

4. "Experts": Huge overkill. Do you need both Todd McShay and Mel Kiper? Are they really any better at predicting drafts than anyone doing some modest level of research online today? I would get rid of a lot of them and instead of having a lot of these guys under contract throughout the year you could do per-diem or contract employee (1099) deals. They would become part-time employees and in addition to reducing the annual wage outlays you could eliminate benefit costs since part-timers and 1099 employees don't get benefits (and 1099 employees the company doesn't pay payroll taxes). 

 

These are major changes in the business model but when the current model is broken, you have to make major changes. 

 

[machine gun kelly]

I stopped watching anything ESPN except the Manning cast, NFL Matchup, and MNF.  The rest is hot take crap and does no real analysis of football or any other sport.

[Einstein]

11 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

That Netflix-type success won't happen again in streaming

 

It already has. I’m guessing you didn’t read my  post - you just responded. Disney already has more subscribers than Netflix. They have around 234M subscribers across their streaming platforms. Netflix has around 232.5M. Disney has been hurting Netflix quite a bit over the past two years and slowing their growth.

 

Disney+ took off like gangbusters and Hulu was already a moderate success. When they release the ESPN streaming, I won’t be surprised to see them go over 300M subs, which would put them well above Netflix.

 

If Disney+ keeps gaining ground, they will begin to erode Netflix’s market share. There are even rumors that Disney may buy out Netflix. That would create what is essentially a monopod, with Disney owning Disney+, Hulu and Netflix.

 

11 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

--the whole industry is in crisis.  

 

Iger unretired to retake the CEO job at Disney.

 

 

I am a Disney stockholder and fanatic. Iger did not unretire because of streaming. He unretired because Chapek was an absolute disaster and botched several things, such as the parks response to Covid, actor and actress pay, and HB1557. 

 

Literally zero to do with streaming, which has been Disney’s most successful venture in decades (outside of Marvel, which they are now steaming).

 

Disney is playing this very wisely. They are creating custom content, which they can both give to their subscribers and license on the back end, not to mention put in their theme parks. That costs cash, but it’s a snowball - it gets better in time - just like Netflix did.

[K D]

I haven't watched ESPN in years. I see I haven't missed much 😄

[DasNootz]

Whether is sports analysis or entertainment - producers are giving away better content on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, etc for free.  There's no need for a fan to be glued to ESPN for updates and analysis.  There are simply too many sources of information now for that model to work.  

[Einstein]

4 hours ago, jwhit34 said:

There are several fundamental flaws in the business model for ESPN and most network sports departments:

 

1. Studio shows: With the exception of TNT's NBA show with Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley, Shaq and Ernie Johnson, they are all horrible and pretty much unwatchable. Networks have loaded up these shows with ex players and coaches with bloated salaries. This would be one of the first areas I would cut. The challenge ESPN has vs. the others that just air the games is they have 24 hours of airtime to fill every day. 

 

Halftime shows are a joke. If you have a 15 minute halftime (and NFL is 12) on TV there is about 6 minutes of commercials, another 1-2 minutes cut in back to the game before the 2nd half resumes. That leaves about 4-5 minutes on NFL games, maybe 7 for the NBA or college hoops. If you have 4-5 people on the broadcast, and go around 3 times so each person gets about 20-30 seconds to make a point. Hardly in-depth analysis.

 

I'd go with showing highlights, update scores around the league and be done with it. Pre-game shows I would reduce to no more than 30 minutes and simply preview the games. 

 

2. Game commentators: Virtually no one watches a game to hear what the commentators have to say, they are watching the game. Viewers want competency, not name recognition in their broadcasters. So I'd get rid of the high-priced, high-profile no value add commentators. The other aspect of broadcast crews is the sheer number on a game. Lots of 3 person booths, sideline reporters which contribute nothing meaningful, and of course the Gene Steratores or the world deciphering officials' calls. Bloated booths have to go. You could easily go from a crew of 5 to 3 at most. 

 

The coaches/managers interviews in football, basketball and baseball are awful. Coaches hate it, they never say anything of substance. 

 

3. Simulcasts: Every game is shown on TV and there is a radio broadcast too. You end up with 3 broadcast crews: one for TV and a radio crew for each team. The stars of the game are not the broadcasters, it's the players. If I was a TV network, I would use the local radio crews for the TV feed, with the visiting team's crew doing the first half and the home team crew doing the 2nd half and any overtime. This would save a ton of money not only with the on-air talent but there has to be savings on production costs. 

 

4. "Experts": Huge overkill. Do you need both Todd McShay and Mel Kiper? Are they really any better at predicting drafts than anyone doing some modest level of research online today? I would get rid of a lot of them and instead of having a lot of these guys under contract throughout the year you could do per-diem or contract employee (1099) deals. They would become part-time employees and in addition to reducing the annual wage outlays you could eliminate benefit costs since part-timers and 1099 employees don't get benefits (and 1099 employees the company doesn't pay payroll taxes). 

 

These are major changes in the business model but when the current model is broken, you have to make major changes. 

 

 

This plan would strip all character from the network. It would be an absolute disaster. Changes need to be made, but this is not it.

[BADOLBILZ]

19 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Only one that surprises me there is Todd. He will get snapped up.

 

Doesn't surprise me at all.  He's been reduced to being the butt of jokes on ESPN.   Kiper is popular and likable and Todd always ends up looking dumb AND petulant about it.   Gotten to the point that even when he's on set with college football jagoffs that barely follow the NFL like David Pollock......when he is supposed to be the expert in the discussion.......they make him look like he's a joke.    I don't know if he can scout at all but he needed a change of scenery for sure.

[I'm Spartacus]

20 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Susy Kobler had 27 years.

She can do in-home senior care for Joe Namath now.

[BADOLBILZ]

14 hours 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.

 

 

So merikin's aren't just turning their back on Disney?   We have some people on TSW who are so nestled into their little corners that they are clueless about what has broad appeal and what does not. Like the people that think nobody follows the NBA.......you know......because they don't. 

 

 

14 hours ago, JakeFrommStateFarm said:

David Pollack was laid off.

 

This is getting serious...

 

Because he's terrible.  He was their college version of Steve Young.

56 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

I haven't watched ESPN in years. I see I haven't missed much 😄

 

 

So you've skipped all the Bills games on ESPN?  

[Nextmanup]

3 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

I stopped watching anything ESPN except the Manning cast, NFL Matchup, and MNF.  The rest is hot take crap and does no real analysis of football or any other sport.

That's actually quite a lot of ESPN programming you watch! 

 

I wouldn't even THINK of turning on ESPN, for anything, other than a live sporting event I want to watch, and know is on an ESPN channel.  At this time of year, F1 motor racing is a good example.  I'll be watching (recorded) the Austrian GP tomorrow on ESPN. 

 

That's it.  Now and again big soccer matches appear on ESPN, and they have MNF....I think that's about the extent of my ESPN viewing.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

24 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

It already has. I’m guessing you didn’t read my  post - you just responded. Disney already has more subscribers than Netflix. They have around 234M subscribers across their streaming platforms. Netflix has around 232.5M. Disney has been hurting Netflix quite a bit over the past two years and slowing their growth.

 

Disney+ took off like gangbusters and Hulu was already a moderate success. When they release the ESPN streaming, I won’t be surprised to see them go over 300M subs, which would put them well above Netflix.

 

If Disney+ keeps gaining ground, they will begin to erode Netflix’s market share. There are even rumors that Disney may buy out Netflix. That would create what is essentially a monopod, with Disney owning Disney+, Hulu and Netflix.

 

 

I am a Disney stockholder and fanatic. Iger did not unretire because of streaming. He unretired because Chapek was an absolute disaster and botched several things, such as the parks response to Covid, actor and actress pay, and HB1557. 

 

Literally zero to do with streaming, which has been Disney’s most successful venture in decades (outside of Marvel, which they are now steaming).

 

Disney is playing this very wisely. They are creating custom content, which they can both give to their subscribers and license on the back end, not to mention put in their theme parks. That costs cash, but it’s a snowball - it gets better in time - just like Netflix did.

 

I read yours.   And, no, Netflix type success isn't happening.  I gave you an article to read to help you see what's going on, which as I already pointed out: growth in subscribers isn't moving the needle in profits.  You should have noticed this with the 29% drop in your stock price over the past year.  

 

Netflix has 232.5, Amazon has 200 million.  Disney 157.8./Hulu 48.1.

 

Streaming services hemorrhage money under their current model of cheap subscription and massively expensive content production.  Subscription growth powered stock value until recently.  The whole sphere is now in turmoil as investors no longer are impressed with growth but with profits---and the streamers are bleeding tons. 

 

Iger came back because Disney's streaming business is sapping the profits out of the company and your stock value cratered. In Q1 it lost 659 million (another 1.1 billion in Q1 last year). If Chopak had made Disney+ into a big money maker, no one would care or remember how he handled Covid or HB1557---and they certainly would not have gone begging to Iger.  

 

This much is clear:  Waal Street is punishing your company for bleeding money on its streaming service.  Nobody cares about subscribers anymore because their subscription fees can't possibly cover the cost of providing content. 

 

Amazon (#2) and HBO Max (#6) have nearly 300 million subscribers.  Disneys problem is that those streams are owned by companies who don't rely on their profits to remain profitable.  They are fun side hustles for massive tech companies who aren't otherwise tethered to the entertainment business.  If Amazon stream or Max simply fold up shop--both companies would still dwarf Disney.   Apple is by far the top valuation company in the world.  Amazon is #5. Disney is #68.

 

Subscribers aren't meaningful in this business model--which is in crisis across the board.  "Creating custom content" (which they all do) is exactly what has put them in this position--there's way too much expensively produced content and not enough people watching any particular original show.  They are all scaling back and canceling projects because the simple math says subscriber dollars can't pay for them. 

 

If you must hold blue chips over time, dump your Disney and move up the list. 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

54 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Doesn't surprise me at all.  He's been reduced to being the butt of jokes on ESPN.   Kiper is popular and likable and Todd always ends up looking dumb AND petulant about it.   Gotten to the point that even when he's on set with college football jagoffs that barely follow the NFL like David Pollock......when he is supposed to be the expert in the discussion.......they make him look like he's a joke.    I don't know if he can scout at all but he needed a change of scenery for sure.

 

You think Mel is likeable? Crikey. I respect Mel and I get why he is popular because he is the original draft talking head. But I don't find him likeable in the least really.

[K D]

42 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

So you've skipped all the Bills games on ESPN?  

They are on local TV. I haven't had cable for at least a decade.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

I am a Disney stockholder and fanatic. Iger did not unretire because of streaming. He unretired because Chapek was an absolute disaster and botched several things, such as the parks response to Covid, actor and actress pay, and HB1557. 

 

Literally zero to do with streaming, which has been Disney’s most successful venture in decades (outside of Marvel, which they are now steaming).

 

Disney is playing this very wisely. They are creating custom content, which they can both give to their subscribers and license on the back end, not to mention put in their theme parks. That costs cash, but it’s a snowball - it gets better in time - just like Netflix did.

 

Protecting the lives of people and taking a stand against hate and discrimination isn't an absolute disaster... it was the right thing to do.

[BADOLBILZ]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You think Mel is likeable? Crikey. I respect Mel and I get why he is popular because he is the original draft talking head. But I don't find him likeable in the least really.

 

 

Not really even debatable that Kiper is very likeable to his audience.   They don't watch him for.....or even care about........his success rate.   McShay though is a total heel and some of his takes have been notably deplorable.    That year he was championing Andre Woodson as a first overall pick all fall (2007 season).........and then he goes in round 6 and is quickly out of the league.   Yeesh.   Unforgettably bad.   He needed a change of scenery a decade ago.   Since then it's gotten increasingly painful to watch.   He's become the object of jokes for everyone who squeezes onto the screen.

16 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

They are on local TV. I haven't had cable for at least a decade.

 

ABC sports = ESPN