ESPN woes continue

[Rusty2rules]

Half of this nation does not agree with the liberalism of ESPN. That is why their numbers will continue to drop. Just can't dump on half the country and think there will be no price to pay.

Huh? That's a totally relevant statement on the discussion. Not.

 

[Nigel Channing]

The NBA deal is really killing ESPN. They are paying $2.66 billion a year for their part of the NBA deal. NBC is paying $200 million a year for the NHL, in comparison. The ratings difference aren't anywhere close to justifying the difference in rights fees.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The NBA deal is really killing ESPN. They are paying $2.66 billion a year for their part of the NBA deal. NBC is paying $200 million a year for the NHL, in comparison. The ratings difference aren't anywhere close to justifying the difference in rights fees.

No doubt...but if you want to make money in sports...you have to pay the ransom for a real NFL contract...they have the discount bargain bin one.

 

[umichigan10]

The NBA deal is really killing ESPN. They are paying $2.66 billion a year for their part of the NBA deal. NBC is paying $200 million a year for the NHL, in comparison. The ratings difference aren't anywhere close to justifying the difference in rights fees.

It's also killing the NBA with their ridiculous contracts. James harden gets to make 50 million a year to not play defense

 

[Jim Shuler]

Huh? That's a totally relevant statement on the discussion. Not.

I believe this forum was discussing the problems at ESPN. I posted what is one of their problems. Not sure why it would in your exalted opinion not be relevant.

 

[Jim Shuler]

That really has little to do with anything...though it gets a lot of play.

It's not about politics...when they go hayseed every Saturday On college football and run NFL shows 24/7 for half the year...does that show a political leaning?

A lot of their product just sucks and people are moving away from packaged cable to streaming choices...that's like 90% of their problem and they haven't adjusted...the rest is ancillary.

And it's not half...FYI...

For many it is about the commentary and of course I was not referring to the broadcasting of games. Many are in denial about the leftward move being a factor. And you are probably right about it is not half...... It is more than half.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

For many it is about the commentary and of course I was not referring to the broadcasting of games. Many are in denial about the leftward move being a factor. And you are probably right about it is not half...... It is more than half.

That's a thing...we understand that...but I think you're overestimating how much impact that has.

 

[umichigan10]

For many it is about the commentary and of course I was not referring to the broadcasting of games. Many are in denial about the leftward move being a factor. And you are probably right about it is not half...... It is more than half.

You're reading into any political impact waaaaay too much. It can be traced to the fact that cable as a whole is becoming too expensive to afford, and there's too much commentary with first take X10 broadcasting every hour

 

[Future_WorldPhonencian]

ESPN needs to offer a streaming-only service... most of my friends and family from 20 somethings to 50 somethings have either cut the cord or have "group" cable accounts (basically sharing one cable logon to access each channel's streaming apps) Everyone pitches in $15-20 a month and we all get to share ESPN, Fox Sports etc... None of us can justify 150 a month to watch just the 2-3 channels we want with commercials on top of that when we can watch Netflix or Amazon on demand with no commercials for a fraction of the cost and free shipping.

From what I hear the thing preventing this is that ESPN has exclusivity deals with Satellite and Cable Providers that prevent US standalone streaming service with ESPN getting paid $3-5 per subscriber. The providers know that if they lose exclusivity from ESPN and other live sports channels almost no one will pay for Cable... In fact I believe ESPN offers a standalone service in Canada and Europe

My guess is that once Disney/ ESPN thinks they can generate more revenue from offering their own standalone streaming service vs taking the handout from cable providers, they will become more cord-cutter friendly, ESPN's TV revenue deal is just sooo profitable they have no incentive to break the deal until things get worse.

 

[Rusty2rules]

Some people have to turn everything into a political football instead of looking at reality, how things are in the world. They need to fit the narrative to match their perception in order for them to have a cognizant argument. When that narrative strays from their perception, they're lost.

ESPN has a couple of really bad deals at the moment, NBA being the worst. How do you think the NBA is able to offer these marginal players these crazy salaries? That's TV money.

Traditional cable is drying up, people are cutting the cord. A streaming only service would be good. Personally, I think if cable companies starting offering an ala carte model that would help. But ESPN is in big trouble and there's no easy answer.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

ESPN needs to offer a streaming-only service... most of my friends and family from 20 somethings to 50 somethings have either cut the cord or have "group" cable accounts (basically sharing one cable logon to access each channel's streaming apps) Everyone pitches in $15-20 a month and we all get to share ESPN, Fox Sports etc... None of us can justify 150 a month to watch just the 2-3 channels we want with commercials on top of that when we can watch Netflix or Amazon on demand with no commercials for a fraction of the cost and free shipping.

From what I hear the thing preventing this is that ESPN has exclusivity deals with Satellite and Cable Providers that prevent US standalone streaming service with ESPN getting paid $3-5 per subscriber. The providers know that if they lose exclusivity from ESPN and other live sports channels almost no one will pay for Cable... In fact I believe ESPN offers a standalone service in Canada and Europe

My guess is that once Disney/ ESPN thinks they can generate more revenue from offering their own standalone streaming service vs taking the handout from cable providers, they will become more cord-cutter friendly, ESPN's TV revenue deal is just sooo profitable they have no incentive to break the deal until things get worse.

Espn missed the chance...they'll never regain a market entering streaming so late against competitors.

That's managements fault...that's bob iger and Shapiro.

Espn reminds me of Kodak...they rejected the new product because they made easy money off the old. Then when critical mass hit and the new product was in demand...they started to reverse course. Too late.

Cable is going to die and when it does (old people don't live forever)...espn will be left by the roadside.

 

[STLstone]

Espn missed the chance...they'll never regain a market entering streaming so late against competitors.

That's managements fault...that's bob iger and Shapiro.

Espn reminds me of Kodak...they rejected the new product because they made easy money off the old. Then when critical mass hit and the new product was in demand...they started to reverse course. Too late.

Cable is going to die and when it does (old people don't live forever)...espn will be left by the roadside.

It's funny that "old people" seem to be the ones clinging to cable. In my day, old people were slow to adopt cable. "I'm not paying for TV shows when I already get them for free!"

 

[Geoff_M]

Espn reminds me of Kodak...they rejected the new product because they made easy money off the old. Then when critical mass hit and the new product was in demand...they started to reverse course. Too late.

Actually, that analogy is unfair to Kodak. Kodak was actually a pioneer in the field of digital photography and started selling professional digital SLRs long before either Nikon or Canon. There were also a big player in the early digital point-n-shoot market with their EasyShare line of consumer digital cameras. The problem is that Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. blew past them in terms of developing their technology as Kodak wasn't able to keep up with them in terms of tech or cost. In 2001 Kodak was #2 in terms of digital camera market share (behind Sony), and in 2007 they had slipped to #4... and kept sliding backwards. That, combined with the double-whammy of the collapse of the film and photo paper business is what did them in.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It's funny that "old people" seem to be the ones clinging to cable. In my day, old people were slow to adopt cable. "I'm not paying for TV shows when I already get them for free!"

I'm apparently of the same carbon date...and as screwy as it is: that's exaclty what happened.

The WW2 generation resisted paying monthly fees for entertainment...you'll
Have to pry it from the baby boomers cold dead hands...the Xers straddle the line but ultimately will abandon it...and the Millenials can't dump cable fast enough.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Actually, that analogy is unfair to Kodak. Kodak was actually a pioneer in the field of digital photography and started selling professional digital SLRs long before either Nikon or Canon. There were also a big player in the early digital point-n-shoot market with their EasyShare line of consumer digital cameras. The problem is that Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. blew past them in terms of developing their technology as Kodak wasn't able to keep up with them in terms of tech or cost. In 2001 Kodak was #2 in terms of digital camera market share (behind Sony), and in 2007 they had slipped to #4... and kept sliding backwards. That, combined with the double-whammy of the collapse of the film and photo paper business is what did them in.

Perhaps...but Kodak chose to stick with high product/profit film because of the supplies They sold...and it killed them when supply was abandoned...

The particulars still get us to the same point.

 

[OSUZorba]

I agree with others that the ESPN product is poor, and IMHO getting worse. But at the end of day it is cable cutting that is killing them. The irony is, the high cost of ESPN is part of what is driving cable cutting. Something interesting is a few years ago cable companies started offering packages without ESPN, so even when people aren't fully cutting cable, many are ditching ESPN to save $20/month.

Main channel ESPN has basically become ESPN News and is the sports version of Headline News. I personally don't like how they've changed Sportscenter. I also don't think they've embraced new/alternative sports enough. There is more to the sports world than basketball and football. I remember 20 years ago they used to show the cheerleading competitions, strongman, softball, etc. Now it is poker, football, basketball and a ton of talk. I think a lot of people hold on to cable for sports and ESPN, but as the product gets worse, more people will cut the cord.

Anyways, I cut the cord in 2009 and now only see ESPN in hotel rooms or restaurants, I don't really feel like I am missing much.

Until ESPN fundamentally changes their business model (i.e. streaming), I think they are in a death spiral.

 

[pogopossum]

This topic caught my attention on so many levels: sports fan, Disney fan/employee, pioneer cord cutter, southern NHL fan , even an employee of other sports programming providers. I have definitely benefited from increased coverage of sports and been a victim of decreased revenues.

ESPN has definitely held on to out of date business practices for too long. Depending on primary revenues from a declining source, hasn't this been the demise of many businesses? I would argue that the same model is dooming newspapers.

At the same time I agree that they have gotten themselves into unfavorable rights agreements with sports leagues. They overpaid for NFL rights, look at the agreements with the other networks, and didn't get rights to broadcast Super Bowl. Most of the profits for broadcasting the league are generated from that one event. The payout to broadcast US Open is astronomical in sports rights fees. CBS was looking at losing money if they had paid what it took to keep rights. They are invested with NBA and NCAA in a way that effectively makes them a partner. They are actually event producer of several low level bowl games. Not sure if cost justifies the investment, attendance at games I have worked has been so-so.

So in a way they are victim of their own actions. But as Pandora found out, the box once opened can never be closed again. Sports leagues are(can) not going to take less for the content. Rising payroll costs tied to revenues will not allow them to. I have heard it posited that Disney will be selling it soon, but are there buyers really lined up to buy a losing venture? As PT Barnum said, "sucker born every minute."

Lastly, ESPN got the moniker of "the worldwide leader in sports" in an era before there was an FS1 or NBCSN. This competition has not seemed to bring out the best in the network. It would seem to me that the turmoil in Bristol does not support theory that success in divisions supports failures of others. I don't think that cuts and increases at parks have as much to do with ESPN as they do with parks division failing to meet expectations of stockholders for that division.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I agree with others that the ESPN product is poor, and IMHO getting worse. But at the end of day it is cable cutting that is killing them. The irony is, the high cost of ESPN is part of what is driving cable cutting. Something interesting is a few years ago cable companies started offering packages without ESPN, so even when people aren't fully cutting cable, many are ditching ESPN to save $20/month.

Main channel ESPN has basically become ESPN News and is the sports version of Headline News. I personally don't like how they've changed Sportscenter. I also don't think they've embraced new/alternative sports enough. There is more to the sports world than basketball and football. I remember 20 years ago they used to show the cheerleading competitions, strongman, softball, etc. Now it is poker, football, basketball and a ton of talk. I think a lot of people hold on to cable for sports and ESPN, but as the product gets worse, more people will cut the cord.

Anyways, I cut the cord in 2009 and now only see ESPN in hotel rooms or restaurants, I don't really feel like I am missing much.

Until ESPN fundamentally changes their business model (i.e. streaming), I think they are in a death spiral.

Spot on...

...but this idea its politics is spawned from other bad cable networks that need to be cut as well...it's a misdirection as always.

Espn just became tedious to even the diehard sports fans that watched everything like I did growing up. I always say that the Internet killed a lot of the appeal of Epcot...well streaming, Dvr, and on demand has killed the appeal of espn. It's just too tedious to watch.

And pushing their nba contract because they paid for it is a huge mistake. It's not the same game as it was and it's a turn off. Espn manages to kill a sport every decade - it seems.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

ESPN has definitely held on to out of date business practices for too long. Depending on primary revenues from a declining source, hasn't this been the demise of many businesses? I would argue that the same model is dooming newspapers.

Complacency in the entertainment market is lethal 9 times outta 10 (gee...that might apply to amusement parks too...)

They got large checks for basically nothing from the cable companies and Madison Avenue and they couldn't get themselves sober from it...rode the train until there was no more track.

That's actually a bigger thing for igers legacy than anything...he being a tv guy it doesn't look good.

 

[OSUZorba]

Espn just became tedious to even the diehard sports fans that watched everything like I did growing up. I always say that the Internet killed a lot of the appeal of Epcot...well streaming, Dvr, and on demand has killed the appeal of espn. It's just too tedious to watch.

That is an excellent way of describing it! It is tedious to watch. Even when they are actually showing sports, the sideline reporting and questions, etc. It is all playbook and repetitive, just show me the sport.

I will say the one thing they do that isn't really political, but in that direction, that really turns me off is when they get into their witch hunt mode. I guess that might fall more in the tedious arena than the political arena. I really have never noticed much politics on ESPN or any other sports broadcast.