ESPN belt tightening due to cord cutting..........

[Knight_Light]

Honestly, this whole "cord-cutting" phenomenon might be one of the most positive things to ever happen to America.

Why do you ask?

Because it opens people up to actually live their lives rather than be glued to an electronic box in the corner of their living room. Granted obviously, a large portion of people cutting the cord are just switching from TV to the laptop and watching Netflix or whatver.... BUT there is a large portion of people cutting the cord purely on the fact that they realize what a negative influence the habit of watching TV can have on a person's productivity and overall life.

I used to think families that did not have TV's back in the day WERE CRAZY. I would wonder how the heck do they not have a TV? But it is funny how looking back THEY WERE TOTALLY ON TO SOMETHING and they were way ahead of the curve. (Oh and a side note....the 2 boys I knew in that family who had no TV would read and read and read..... and they both received full rides to college haha. Guess that family wasn't so crazy after all!)

People are now more GLUED to their phones/tablets much more so than anyone had ever been glued to their TV...as once you left your home...your TV was left behind....but now, people are addicted to their cell phones/tablets and some can't go without 5 mins looking/playing with their phones.

Not sure that is better for "life".

 

[LC-88]

I think ESPN lost it's way when they went from reporting sports to personality based reporting.

There was a time when it seemed they couldn't go 5 minutes without mentioning the latest on Favre, Lebron, or Kobe. "The decision" may have been the all time low.

E$PN lost it's way when Disney/ABC purchased them. All about $$$$$$$ and control.

 

[Upstream]

E$PN lost it's way when Disney/ABC purchased them. All about $$$$$$$ and control.

ESPN debuted in Sept 1979. It was purchased by ABC about 4.5 years later in May 1984.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

The problem wasn't when ABC purchased ESPN, but when Disney purchased both in the 90s. Disney is all about making a dollar.

 

[Upstream]

The problem wasn't when ABC purchased ESPN, but when Disney purchased both in the 90s. Disney is all about making a dollar.

That was still 20 years ago. Are you saying that ESPN was good for only its first 15 years and bad for the last 20?

I actually think the problem with ESPN is that they faced no direct competition for so long that they became arrogant,. After NBC Sports and Fox Sports started to position themselves as real competition, ESPN tried to use its market dominance to keep viewers away from the competition (e.g.., things like not talking about hockey, since ESPN didn't broadcast hockey). That doesn't really have anything to do with ownership, but more about ESPN's culture of arrogance.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

That was still 20 years ago. Are you saying that ESPN was good for only its first 15 years and bad for the last 20?

I actually think the problem with ESPN is that they faced no direct competition for so long that they became arrogant,. After NBC Sports and Fox Sports started to position themselves as real competition, ESPN tried to use its market dominance to keep viewers away from the competition (e.g.., things like not talking about hockey, since ESPN didn't broadcast hockey). That doesn't really have anything to do with ownership, but more about ESPN's culture of arrogance.

I think it's a little of both. Disney is all about getting max profit. Those in charge of ESPN have become complacent and everything they do reflect it.

 

[MikeRU1766]

People are now more GLUED to their phones/tablets much more so than anyone had ever been glued to their TV...as once you left your home...your TV was left behind....but now, people are addicted to their cell phones/tablets and some can't go without 5 mins looking/playing with their phones.

Not sure that is better for "life".

Not a bad point at all.

 

[RUhasarrived]

ESPN can be watched for free online through many streaming services,though I can't find for a link the Big 10 Network yet.Still,when my 2 year Verizon contract expires,I'll drop back to the local and news channels.

 

[Knight Shift]

People are now more GLUED to their phones/tablets much more so than anyone had ever been glued to their TV...as once you left your home...your TV was left behind....but now, people are addicted to their cell phones/tablets and some can't go without 5 mins looking/playing with their phones.

Not sure that is better for "life".

Are your sure about that?

 

[Knight_Light]

Are your sure about that?

Reminds me of a story of addicted cell phone users that would go out to dinner...everyone would put their phones in the middle of the table...and the first one that reached for their cell phone had to pay the tab.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Kinda hard to take WSJ seriously when they are probably more likely to go sideways than ESPN. Since when does a WSJ writer serve as a liasion for negotiations platform for some of ESPN's higher profile employees??? Does anyone really think the contract negotations of Tirico, Shefter etc has anything to do with cost.......and dropping Olbermann isn't cost-cutting, it's just not good enough content for what he provided on the air.

I think (know) that if you give the younger generation something viable to watch on ESPN, they will find a way to tune in. That means other stock like soccer, UFC and World Series of Poker.......the older audience that likes golf, tennis, horse racing and baseball are going to find other places to watch content.

Someone needs to direct this writer to how wildly popular college football is in the south and Atlantic seaboard and the midwest.....The main problem with Disney/ABC and TV is that there isn't a show on regular TV worth watching...when your most popular shows are Celebrity Family Feud, the Batchelor, the Batchelorette and your whining about ESPN not advertising yours shows, then whose actually failing??

We are a month away from NFL training camps opening and network executives are too dumb to understand what drives sports consumers to watch more content....needless to say it's actual content of what people want to see, not crossover advertising for shows that have no value. If you showed training camp content of actual NFL practices, College football and basketball practices or background of the recruits etc for each of the respective schools, ratings would be through the roof. Half this board was watching a 7 on 7 in shorts of high school kids all-stars last week, but the general public isn't aware of who Buchele, Russo, Haskins and Claypool are......I'd like to think that networks that have football, would like more details on how things are done, more player profiles etc.

Soccer is wildly popular overseas because fans get details beyond what the games offer. Once execs here figure that out, content and rates go up, not down.

 

[Ty Webb]

You are harping on minor issues and missing the bigger picture.

The fact ABC is pissed ESPN won't do the same advertising for them isn't the point. It doesn't matter that ABC has crap product to advertise. It's what that move symbolizes - that ESPN is now having to shift elsewhere for revenue so they start cutting free spots for sister channels in order to find more paying advertisers. Largely because they are losing millions a month as more people cut the cord.

 

[RURM85]

SIAP. Another interesting article attached offering a writer's opinion from the previous reporting.

My question is with the Big ten TV contract coming due in 2 years and ESPN's need to cut their costs, do they activiely pursue the Big Ten business or do they stand pat with their investment in the SEC and ACC, thus, leaving the business for Fox or someone else to jump in the opportunity?

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo.../is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

 

[Ty Webb]

SIAP. Another interesting article attached offering a writer's opinion from the previous reporting.

My question is with the Big ten TV contract coming due in 2 years and ESPN's need to cut their costs, do they activiely pursue the Big Ten business or do they stand pat with their investment in the SEC and ACC, thus, leaving the business for Fox or someone else to jump in the opportunity?

http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo.../is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215

Just my sense is that ESPN still wants good content, which the BIG is. It seems the cost cutting is coming from areas outside primary, live content. But it will be interesting to see what they do with the contract.

 

[sherrane]

My prediction is that the providers will soon make you pay for a cable subscription in order to activate internet service, like some are starting to do with phone services. With Verizon, you can't open a new account with internet unless you also pay for their phone service. If they don't make it mandatory, they incentivize paying for the outdated phone service by making the price for only internet higher. The problem is that there is virtually no competition between these companies. Instead of competing with each other, they agree not to invade on each other's turf so that most people have only one choice of cable provider unless they go to satellite. This lack of competition hinders innovation and allows them to force us to buy these outdated technologies in order to get internet since there is virtually no alternative to the cable company's grip. My roommate and I are dropping our DirecTV subscription on Sunday because it has gotten too expensive to the point where it isn't worth what we are paying. Fortunately for now at least, we can still get internet on its own from Optimum.

That's already happened. In Georgia I could not move to Comcast internet last May because I did not want their cable TV offering.

 

[sherrane]

This is exactly correct. The cable companies got fat and sloppy on all that free, network produced, high quality content they were sending over their wires. Then the networks demanded payment.. so they just raised our bills instead of tightening their belts and cutting all that frivolous wasteful spending they became so known for.

On another front, but related, I saw a story on one of the morning shows today about.. I think it was the Niners' stadium.. adding all kinds of wifi friendly services and cushy seats in hopes of luring people to the game off their couches in front of their beautiful giant TVs.

I do wonder if your first paragraph isn't a chicken-egg scenario. Networks such as USA Network, TNT, AMC, FX, etc. were established by showing reruns and old movies that added value to cable packages for pennies per month per subscriber. Both the cable company and content provider made money. Now even WGN has added original content in order to make their network more attractive and to give them a chance to exist in a post-cable TV world and pennies per month per subscriber is no longer economically viable. The last two seasons of the Walking Dead has featured commercials where AMC is in a carriage negotiations with Dish and DTV. All their original content has required them to demand higher carriage fees, which is then passed on to the subscriber.

 

[MikeRU1766]

Honestly, this is possibly one of the most positive trends ever in America. Even being pessimistic and assuming that only a small portion are truly "cutting the cord" or at least keeping to a minimum of like 1 hour a day on the internet..... THIS IS STILL HUGE! There are so many people out there in this country who have the skills and the ability to start their own business, or volunteer to a be a kid's sports coach, or can go and clean up the environment, or any of a MILLION different activities that are way more beneficial than watching TV!

And now as more and more people cut the the cord, I think more and more people will realize what a waste of a precious life it is to just go to work everyday, come home and watch TV all night, and then do it all over again with the occasional "event' thrown in that shakes up the schedule.

This country has been struggling for a couple of years now and I truly believe the less people watch TV the better off the productivity (and health) of the country. CUT THOSE CORDS BABY!

 

[Knight_Light]

Kinda hard to take WSJ seriously when they are probably more likely to go sideways than ESPN.

Really? So that's what your going with?

Why not just read the article (and others like it) and form your own opinion vs locking in what where the article was published?

The loss of cable/sat subscriber actually impacts every subscriber channels that is seeing their monthly paid customer base dropping...let alone the loss of $$$ for cable/sat companies too.

 

[cRURah]

Cable is a dying industry. I pulled the plug earlier this year and don't miss it one bit. Everything you could ever want to watch is available through Apple TV or Amazon Prime. or Tablet.

 

[billhobo]

Anyone really going to miss Olbermann or Fitzsimmons that much? ESPN seems to hire anyone with a pulse that played pro sports, and before long NFL Countdown's main set is going to look like the Last Supper -- 13 guys sitting around outdoing each other for attention.

 

[bitnez]

FWIW Colin Cowherd is leaving too. Going to Fox

 

[srru86]

NY Times
ESPN, Already Battling Rising Costs, Faces a Talent Drain

 

[studed]

You guys can certainly speak better on this than I can but wasn't the real goal of the BTN to get to a point where they were on a basic cable package or bundled with other sports stations so you would essentially have people paying for it who want it but also people paying for it that don't necessarily want it or need it?

If people start unbundling and cable companies start going ala carte, how do content specific networks like the SECN, BTN, even places like Golf Channel and ESPNU survive?

espnu will survive because when the ala cart happends you will have to pay for all of espn to get it. wont be able to just order espn and not espnu. it will survive beccause they will charge more to watch their channel. espn could charge $30 a mont just to watch them

 

[derleider]

Kinda hard to take WSJ seriously when they are probably more likely to go sideways than ESPN. Since when does a WSJ writer serve as a liasion for negotiations platform for some of ESPN's higher profile employees??? Does anyone really think the contract negotations of Tirico, Shefter etc has anything to do with cost.......and dropping Olbermann isn't cost-cutting, it's just not good enough content for what he provided on the air.

I think (know) that if you give the younger generation something viable to watch on ESPN, they will find a way to tune in. That means other stock like soccer, UFC and World Series of Poker.......the older audience that likes golf, tennis, horse racing and baseball are going to find other places to watch content.

Someone needs to direct this writer to how wildly popular college football is in the south and Atlantic seaboard and the midwest.....The main problem with Disney/ABC and TV is that there isn't a show on regular TV worth watching...when your most popular shows are Celebrity Family Feud, the Batchelor, the Batchelorette and your whining about ESPN not advertising yours shows, then whose actually failing??

We are a month away from NFL training camps opening and network executives are too dumb to understand what drives sports consumers to watch more content....needless to say it's actual content of what people want to see, not crossover advertising for shows that have no value. If you showed training camp content of actual NFL practices, College football and basketball practices or background of the recruits etc for each of the respective schools, ratings would be through the roof. Half this board was watching a 7 on 7 in shorts of high school kids all-stars last week, but the general public isn't aware of who Buchele, Russo, Haskins and Claypool are......I'd like to think that networks that have football, would like more details on how things are done, more player profiles etc.

Soccer is wildly popular overseas because fans get details beyond what the games offer. Once execs here figure that out, content and rates go up, not down.

If you showed training camp ratings would be basically nothing. Just like the ratings for all of the coaches shows in the BTN and ancillary content. You are severely overestimating the draw of this stuff to non-die hards. Even on this board, the number actually watching any of the 7on7 was probably well under 50% of the actual paying customers on this board (people who are paying just to talk about RU football.)

People want to watch meaningful sporting events, not side content- and there just arent that many.

ESPN shows WSoP and UFC already I think. It certainly shows soccer. But people are slowly but surely realizing that TV isnt everything. Once you have to actively seek out the content you want on demand, then all of a sudden, the idea of turning on your TV just because its there is less attractive. That goes for sports and non-sports. Indiana vs Northwestern might be something you watch at noon on a Saturday if you are already paying for cable and you just flip through the channels. When you have to actively seek it out - all of a sudden - maybe you will just rather play video games instead.

Or to put it another way - I would never plan to watch hours of Law and Order reruns. I would never pull up Hulu or Netflix just to watch them. And yet, before I had kids, there were plenty of rainy Satrudays' where I did exactly that, because - well because it was on - all I had to do was flip around until I found something that was remotely watchable.

Sure CFB is very popular. That takes care of about 20 out of 330 days in a year.

The interesting thing to me is - thing about how much time and money gets wasted on filler, because the current setup requires content 24/7 (or at least roughly 18 hours a day - alot of networks switch over to paid ads after midnight or so.) Yes ESPN gets some ratings for its NFL and CFB analysis shows - but in a PPV world, are they worth it? In a world where people are mostly just watching on demand, is there really demand for those kinds of shows. Are people pulling up the ESPN App in the future JUST to watch people over analyze every last detail of the sport they like or are they mostly watching it now basically because its on?

 

[BoogieKnight]

Are your sure about that?

Wow. These pictures are so sad.