ESPN woes continue

[lockedoutlogic]

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.

When they get on a "story"...they strangle it like a rubber chicken...

But part of that is the model: 5 stations to fill (way too many when the leagues offer the product directly online) and still advertising based.

It's brutal

 

[bladiator]

I guess they're getting paid for every crap channel that they offer out there? (ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNClassic) Because I don't know why you wouldn't consolidate in an attempt to save viewership (i.e., lower costs to cable companies means lower cost to consumers) and maybe you can keep people from dropping over priced cable. I mean, I was holding on to the bitter end about 2 years ago because I loved Cutthroat Kitchen so much. That's right, I was keeping cable because I just wanted to see one TV show! I think that there are a lot of people that are willing to keep cable if they could get ANY kind of noticeable reduction.

But instead .... ESPN is strangling them all for their high rates and killing themselves in the process.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I guess they're getting paid for every crap channel that they offer out there? (ESPNews, ESPNU, ESPN2, ESPN3, ESPNClassic) Because I don't know why you wouldn't consolidate in an attempt to save viewership (i.e., lower costs to cable companies means lower cost to consumers) and maybe you can keep people from dropping over priced cable. I mean, I was holding on to the bitter end about 2 years ago because I loved Cutthroat Kitchen so much. That's right, I was keeping cable because I just wanted to see one TV show! I think that there are a lot of people that are willing to keep cable if they could get ANY kind of noticeable reduction.

But instead .... ESPN is strangling them all for their high rates and killing themselves in the process.

The cable companies are all still subject to bundling...i.e. They are charged for packages put together by the provider and must accept/pay for the whole.

That's another reason why espn is a huge problem: when it was the most in demand channel (by far)...it came with the Disney channels, history, lifetime, soapnet, etc. you didn't have a choice and neither did your cable company. With espn falling, disney has no leverage.

That espn money is as good as gone. Espn should partner up with NFL network, MLB, NHL, etc. now and save what revenue they can.

 

[bladiator]

That espn money is as good as gone. Espn should partner up with NFL network, MLB, NHL, etc. now and save what revenue they can.

Disney's elusive 5th park: NFLAND

 

[umichigan10]

Disney's elusive 5th park: NFLAND

No Fun Land, featuring roger goodell just yelling at you to slow down and be quiet

 

[lockedoutlogic]

No Fun Land, featuring roger goodell just yelling at you to slow down and be quiet

And charging you $300 for it...

 

[umichigan10]

And charging you $300 for it...

As much as people complain about Disney prices, they got nothing on the NFL. Walk around a pro shop and it'll make Disney look like bargain buyer

 

[bladiator]

No Fun Land, featuring roger goodell just yelling at you to slow down and be quiet

Now there's an AA to boo at!

 

[Jim Shuler]

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

My comments are based on actual facts determined by polls, research, and my personal experience. But you are correct that changes are taking place and cable has become very expensive. I detest having to pay for ESPN as part of the package.

 

[Jim Shuler]

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.

Your are correct ESPN has other problems but the fact people are abandoning them for their commentary is as real as the bad deals they have made. But some people do live in their little bubbles and anything outside of that bubble is to be denigrated or ignored.

 

[umichigan10]

My comments are based on actual facts determined by polls, research, and my personal experience. But you are correct that changes are taking place and cable has become very expensive. I detest having to pay for ESPN as part of the package.

What polls/studies? Not trying to sound rude but I've never heard of anything of the sort that's been done

 

[umichigan10]

Interesting espn tidbit, went out last week to buy their fantasy football magazine at Barnes and noble (speaking of places that are considered obsolete) and I couldn't find it on the shelves. EVery other company and their mother was there but no espn. Makes me wonder if they cut it out to save printing costs, although given how big a thing fantasy is for espn, i find that odd

 

[bladiator]

What polls/studies? Not trying to sound rude but I've never heard of anything of the sort that's been done

http://sportsradiopd.com/2017/03/how-sports-fans-view-the-current-state-of-espn/

"Despite Bob Iger’s claims that the network doesn’t exude any political bias, that opinion is not shared by those who participated in this study. 60% of survey members felt that the company has a left-leaning agenda. 39.2% say the political influence on the company’s airwaves is either neutral, undetected or right leaning."

ETA: This is an interesting tidbit that make me chortle:

"Those who enjoy ESPN’s programming more said it was because they Still Love Watching Games, 30 For 30 Is Exceptional Programming, and the channel is Easy To Find on Their Television." LOOOOOL

 

[umichigan10]

http://sportsradiopd.com/2017/03/how-sports-fans-view-the-current-state-of-espn/

"Despite Bob Iger’s claims that the network doesn’t exude any political bias, that opinion is not shared by those who participated in this study. 60% of survey members felt that the company has a left-leaning agenda. 39.2% say the political influence on the company’s airwaves is either neutral, undetected or right leaning."

Appreciate the link. That's interesting, I really don't see it but it could be because I 1. Don't bother with their junk programming and 2. Probably wouldn't notice too much anyways if you catch my drift.

I still don't feel that is any sort of main reason behind the channels suffering

 

[bladiator]

Appreciate the link. That's interesting, I really don't see it but it could be because I 1. Don't bother with their junk programming and 2. Probably wouldn't notice too much anyways if you catch my drift.

I still don't feel that is any sort of main reason behind the channels suffering

I can see it being a part of the problem. I'll get into an awkward conversation here. When Michael Sam (for those not in the know, the first openly gay individual to be drafted into the NFL) came around, they spent as many hours as possible talking about him, even though 95% of the talking heads knew he would never play -- not because of his sexual orientation, but because 7th rounders for the most part .... NEVER PLAY. And yet, they talked about him around the clock and tried to almost start fights about "why won't teams let him play? BECAUSE HE'S GAY PERHAPS????"

This is the kind of "political" conversation that can really sway you away from watching a sports station. (I know that's only one example, but I remember that being one that really turned people off because they were just milking it for all its worth, and there are obviously MANY opinions about that whole topic).

Other than that, they love to employ the "debate" model with loud mouth idiots like Stephen A. Smith. I don't know if I hate his opinions more (which are typically just made up based on what will piss off the most viewers), or the fact that he's making millions a year to have stupid opinions only based on pissing off lots of people. I think between these two things, that killed the ESPN model. I wonder where the direction for these kind of things is coming from.

 

[umichigan10]

I can see it being a part of the problem. I'll get into an awkward conversation here. When Michael Sam (for those not in the know, the first openly gay individual to be drafted into the NFL) came around, they spent as many hours as possible talking about him, even though 95% of the talking heads knew he would never play -- not because of his sexual orientation, but because 7th rounders for the most part .... NEVER PLAY. And yet, they talked about him around the clock and tried to almost start fights about "why won't teams let him play? BECAUSE HE'S GAY PERHAPS????"

This is the kind of "political" conversation that can really sway you away from watching a sports station. (I know that's only example, but I remember that being one that really turned people off because they were just milking it for all its worth, and there are obviously MANY opinions about that whole topic).

Other than that, they love to employ the "debate" model with loud mouth idiots like Stephen A. Smith. I don't know if I hate his opinions more (which are typically just made up based on what will piss off the most viewers), or the fact that he's making millions a year to have stupid opinions only based on pissing off lots of people. I think between these two things, that killed the ESPN model. I wonder where the direction for these kind of things is coming from.

I get what you're saying. I think political opinions aside, the fact is they milk the hell out of stories. Like gee, lebron had a glass of milk today. Steps curry had orange juice. Stephen A will examine the better choice.

Another example that I think is definitely less controversial is the whole deflategate thing. I'm a pats fan so I'm biased, but they literally wouldn't stop with it for about a year. I think even at some point the haters so to speak stoppes caring and they wouldn't stop talking about it! Never mind one or their reporters (mortensen) got the original facts wrong. Another good example of fixation would be johnny manziel or Tim tebow.

I think overall they've lost their credibility as a network. They pride themselves on being the "leader" but their coverage is mediocre at best, and there's really very little depth to any of the debates or conversations they're having

 

[Viva Las Disney]

I rarely watch ESPN because they rarely show sports. ESPN has hour after hour of people talking about sports but I can turn on NBCSN, several Fox sports channels, BeIN, and several other channels at any time and watch Hockey, Soccer, UFC and 1000 other "second tier" sports, it may not be the NFL but it's infinitely better than watching people talk. I can't think of another sports channel that shows so few sports.

 

[bladiator]

Another good example of fixation would be johnny manziel or Tim tebow.

OK, I agree with you. It's a small percentage political, but 75%+ is the fact that that they FIXATE on everything. Of course, I guess that's every sports outlet seeing as how there just isn't anything interesting happening in sports so often that 24 hours of sports coverage is necessary.

We take a grim look at ESPN and their way of doing things, but I don't understand how groups like Fox (FS1) are grabbing up ESPN "talent" and then just rehashing the exact same thing on their channel. Is Fox just hoping that the fan base moves with them and that this isn't a dying business model?

 

[umichigan10]

OK, I agree with you. It's a small percentage political, but 75%+ is the fact that that they FIXATE on everything. Of course, I guess that's every sports outlet seeing as how there just isn't anything interesting happening in sports so often that 24 hours of sports coverage is necessary.

We take a grim look at ESPN and their way of doing things, but I don't understand how groups like Fox (FS1) are grabbing up ESPN "talent" and then just rehashing the exact same thing on their channel. Is Fox just hoping that the fan base moves with them and that this isn't a dying business model?

That's a good question. I truthfully don't know what fox sports 1 is turning as far as profit, but I feel like they can't be doing much better than espn. I think where they benefit is they aren't as big as espn, so they aren't taking the losses like they are.

The biggest tidbit that you said that's 100% truth is that the 24/7 news cycle doesn't work well for sports. Especially this time of year. All it is is MLB until NFL training camp starts at the end of the month, and you really can only talk about that so much. That's where their talking heads nonsense comes in, and it's a proven failure. Outside of their Wimbledon coverage, there's not much to supplement their air time

 

[bladiator]

That's a good question. I truthfully don't know what fox sports 1 is turning as far as profit, but I feel like they can't be doing much better than espn. I think where they benefit is they aren't as big as espn, so they aren't taking the losses like they are.

The biggest tidbit that you said that's 100% truth is that the 24/7 news cycle doesn't work well for sports. Especially this time of year. All it is is MLB until NFL training camp starts at the end of the month, and you really can only talk about that so much. That's where their talking heads nonsense comes in, and it's a proven failure. Outside of their Wimbledon coverage, there's not much to supplement their air time

Maybe I'm just not hip to the watching clips online and such, but I still think that ESPN could be mildly successful if they just turned back to a 24/7 sports highlights channel. Like Headline News, but instead of stories, it's clips from sports every 30 minutes to an hour. I can still remember turning on ESPN in the morning before going to work waiting for some clips of my favorite football team, and then when they got to it, they spent about 20 seconds talking about it, and showed one clip of the winning field goal. If you would just do a 3-5 condensed version of every game in every sport, you could easily keep people interested and tuning in.

Again, I'm no marketer and I haven't run the numbers, but isn't that what put ESPN on the map back in the early days of cable? And now people are always saying "OH YOU CAN'T MAKE MONEY THAT WAY you can see clips way easier on the internet". Well, I don't want to go digging around for clips on the internet, I just want them to be on a loop on TV so I can just turn it on and veg out. It's still the American way!

Even during MLB season, if you did 5 minutes on every game that was played the day before you could fill 30 minutes at LEAST.