Problems @ ESPN

[Mr. WEO]

Ah wrong there is always some race, soccer game, cricket, baseball, hockey game even basketball going on somewhere in the world and vid has become a lot cheaper.

 

So a network that is in financial difficulty should spend even more for the rights to broadcast leftover sporting events few people want to see?

 

That sounds like a very clever solution to their problem.

 

Holy cow...

[Mark Vader]

When ESPN started they used to broadcast stuff like Australian Rules Football late at night. That was a blast to watch. They'd be way better if they'd go back to that kind of thing rather than doubling down on Hot Takes!

 

 

Australian Football, motor sports, cliff diving, anything but talk. C'mon man!

I remember when they used to show Equestrian, Rodeo, Yacht Racing and Cheerleader Competition.

 

Heck, they even had those crazy Strongest Man in the World competitions. If it was sports related, they showed it.

[Prickly Pete]

ESPN, which started out as a fantastic idea, has devolved into a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. It's now little more than a gossip station designed primarily for self promotion, with some badly over-produced games mixed in. It is by far the worst network for the NFL and awful for baseball compared to any local baseball network I've seen. Ditto for college football. SportsCenter and the rest of the blathering talking head shows have been unwatchable for years (I still miss the SportsReporters, which died with Dick Shaap).

 

I couldn't give a rat's ass if ESPN disappeared forever. In fact, it would probably be a good thing.

 

"Applause"

 

Remember when MTV had music videos? It's kinda the same thing. Maybe it's the corporate structure that demands growth, that ruins these once great media outlets? They have something good going, then try to expand on their audience, and it kills what made them great.

ESPN reminds me of MTV back in the day. It was great back when they only did music videos. Once it turned into 24 hour a day reality shows, it sucked. ESPN is the sports version of reality shows. They rarely show live sports, except the NBA, which is the only major sport that I don't watch. Even the talk shows seem to be more about hip-hop than sports.

yep

[Mark Vader]

I have ESPN for NCAA Football and the NFL games. If it weren't for those two I would have clipped cable as well. Plus my kids still "have to have" all of their Nickelodeon and Cartoon channels at the age they are now. I have Netflix for movies and 5 RedBox locations within a 3 mile radius. Cable could be very expendable in a few years.

Me too. ESPN is still the best network when it comes to college football.

[North Buffalo]

So a network that is in financial difficulty should spend even more for the rights to broadcast leftover sporting events few people want to see?

 

That sounds like a very clever solution to their problem.

 

Holy cow...

Ok then ESPN will continue its decline.... just saying, ESPN originally provided cheap wide ranging sports programing hiring young less expensive announcers. Now they are going downhill so you tell me the the answer. I no longer watch espn unless at a bar. Again your solution is more of the same drivel Edited June 1, 2016 by North Buffalo

[Mr. WEO]

Ok then ESPN will continue its decline.... just saying, ESPN originally provided cheap wide ranging sports programing hiring young less expensive announcers. Now they are going downhill so you tell me the the answer. I no longer watch espn unless at a bar. Again your solution is more of the same drivel

 

 

You ask me what the answer to their decline is and then conclude that my solution is "more of the same drivel"?

 

I love it here!

 

Anyway, they are already firing the old, expensive announcers. As for "cheap wide ranging sports programming" go ask Fox1 Sports and NBCSN how that is working out for their market share.

 

Their best bet is to continue to cut cost, increase ad revenue and push for increases in per viewer per month charges to the cable companies, who have to guarantee them at least 80% penetration of their customers' monthly plans.

 

Who knows what will happen, but they are backed by a massive and profitable corporation and have no real competition from any other sports network. Reverting to unpopular and gimmick sports to fill programming hours makes absolutely no sense at all. None.

[BUFFALOKIE]

 

So a network that is in financial difficulty should spend even more for the rights to broadcast leftover sporting events few people want to see?

 

That sounds like a very clever solution to their problem.

 

Holy cow...

You are just trolling again. If ESPN showed "24 hour sports", many, many people would tune in.

[Mr. WEO]

You are just trolling again. If ESPN showed "24 hour sports", many, many people would tune in.

 

 

Trolling? Look if what you are saying is true, Disney would have told ESPN to do just that.

 

How did you come to that conclusion? On what other network is that succeeding? NBCSN has reruns of Equestrian World Cup, World Rugby, UCI BMX Championships, World Volleyball Tour, Monaco Grand Prix, Motorcycle racing, Track and Field--all filling time between their annual big events (Stanley Cup--most games on regular old NBC, French Open) and NASCAR. No one is watching that channel! Fox1 has old golf reruns, D list soccer tournaments, Rodeo, UFC reruns, Drag Racing, Rugby---all the stuff you say YOU want to see. Are you watching that channel?

 

 

Those networks provide the content you are talking about and they are getting crushed every month by ESPN (and sometimes ESPN2 as well).

 

It's not "trolling" when someone points out ridiculous comments.

[vorpma]

 

I completely agree with your sentiment.

ESPN, which started out as a fantastic idea, has devolved into a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. It's now little more than a gossip station designed primarily for self promotion, with some badly over-produced games mixed in. It is by far the worst network for the NFL and awful for baseball compared to any local baseball network I've seen. Ditto for college football. SportsCenter and the rest of the blathering talking head shows have been unwatchable for years (I still miss the SportsReporters, which died with Dick Shaap).

 

I couldn't give a rat's ass if ESPN disappeared forever. In fact, it would probably be a good thing.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/[/url]

 

Personally, if I could get NFL Sunday ticket a la carte I'd probably cut the cord. I might soon anyway. We pretty much just watch sports (80-90% football), FoodNetwork, HGTV, Comedy Central and regular network programming (ABC/NBC/CBS). We have Netflix and Prime and use those sometimes.

Cord cutter of 8 years here with $44 fios/mo (internet only). Sunday ticket a la cart is available and continues to improve in terms of qos and pricing, probably 2-3 months of no cable tv pays for it. I've been watching the games with Sunday ticket for over 5 years. PS3, pc video out or AirPlay from an apple device all work fairly well.

 

The Internet is changing tv forever.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports.

 

 

I spend way too much on TV

 

 

I hardly watch TV anymore.

 

 

TV has ruined the game

 

What's a TV?

[gomper]

I would have cut the cord long ago if it wasn't for the ability to get CBC. Must have Hockey Night In Canada, especially now during the playoffs. Simple basic $16 cable package. I wouldn't pay a dime for ESPN. Funny, I was having this conversation last weekend. Live sports is the only thing keeping cable afloat

[Dante]

Last time I watched ESPN was for Top Rank Boxing. That's how long ago that was. It became annoying when every talking head became a two bit comedian with smarmy little quips all the time.

[Augie]

They paid too much for some big contracts and have too many channels to fill with content. Most of it is garbage, but the CFB I enjoy. It was easier when there was less competition. They deny leaning towards the conferences they are affiliated with, but..... (Full disclosure, I follow Big East hoops closely, but now that they are with Fox Sports they think much less of them in general. I get the changes, but still.) I'll hate them just a little less when Skip Bayless is gone.

[Kemp2Warlick]

I would cut the cord in a NY minute...but it keeps the wife busy so I can be online...lol

[iinii]

Let's get back to my rant. I think the N.F.L. should take control of the actual game back from the Networks and their Sponsors. They could start by shortening up the length of commercial breaks. Before you go crazy hear me out. Instead of all of the 3 minute breaks every 30 seconds, cut it to one minute on change of possession and triple the price. They consumer wins because the commercials become more Super Bowl like and shorter. The Red Zone has a niche because you can "watch" multiple games at once because there is rarely anything going on at the same time even if you have 6 games going. The advertisers win because the consumer is more focused. Simple question: How many of you pause a game so you can then zip through the commercials and wind up finishing roughly when it is over anyway? Or just put a gag order out, record the game and watch sans commercials later?

I believe the N.F.L. could strengthen their brand and spread the games out a bit if they would package them better. Attention spans aren't interested in 15 FanDuel commercials per game along with the competing 15 other products and their 15 spots per.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

The three reasons I keep DTV in order are:

 

The DVR, hardly watch anything live or with commercials

 

Sports ala ESPN

 

Sunday Ticket

 

I could live without Sunday Ticket, could go with Sling TV for ESPN, but still want the DVR function. Yeah you can stream, but a lot more buttons to click and more restrictions as to what and when you can get shows and programming.

[nucci]

Let's get back to my rant. I think the N.F.L. should take control of the actual game back from the Networks and their Sponsors. They could start by shortening up the length of commercial breaks. Before you go crazy hear me out. Instead of all of the 3 minute breaks every 30 seconds, cut it to one minute on change of possession and triple the price. They consumer wins because the commercials become more Super Bowl like and shorter. The Red Zone has a niche because you can "watch" multiple games at once because there is rarely anything going on at the same time even if you have 6 games going. The advertisers win because the consumer is more focused. Simple question: How many of you pause a game so you can then zip through the commercials and wind up finishing roughly when it is over anyway? Or just put a gag order out, record the game and watch sans commercials later?

I believe the N.F.L. could strengthen their brand and spread the games out a bit if they would package them better. Attention spans aren't interested in 15 FanDuel commercials per game along with the competing 15 other products and their 15 spots per.

These networks and sponsors pay the NFL billions of dollars. They are not giving up control of anything

[Ohiostyle]

IMO it's needs to go ala carte, like HBO has, and many others will soon follow. The fact that the avg cable subscriber pays something like $7 month for it, when only a small percentage would do so knowingly, is pretty damning. I however would absolutely pay $10 ala carte like Netflix because of the enormous amount of college football, SC (which is devolving as we know it, so more like ESPNEWS). I cut the cable many years ago, but without their app (and a few family members logins), I probably would have gone back.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

 

 

I remember when they used to show Equestrian, Rodeo, Yacht Racing and Cheerleader Competition.

 

Heck, they even had those crazy Strongest Man in the World competitions. If it was sports related, they showed it.

 

Its tricky though, because i think late night tv is dominated by on demand and netflix now. Why would i watch yacht racing (assuming im not into yachting), when I could watch like anything else.

 

Re-airing in house shows they already filmed is probably cheaper.

[Mr. WEO]

Let's get back to my rant.

 

You mean the one where you say the NFL should just forfeit billions of network contract revenue.

 

 

Let's not.

[ndirish1978]

I haven't had cable for years. I pay for Sunday Ticket, Netflix, Bein and Amazon Prime. I don't need anything else.

[TPS]

ESPN, which started out as a fantastic idea, has devolved into a representation of everything that sucks with TV sports. It's now little more than a gossip station designed primarily for self promotion, with some badly over-produced games mixed in. It is by far the worst network for the NFL and awful for baseball compared to any local baseball network I've seen. Ditto for college football. SportsCenter and the rest of the blathering talking head shows have been unwatchable for years (I still miss the SportsReporters, which died with Dick Shaap).

 

I couldn't give a rat's ass if ESPN disappeared forever. In fact, it would probably be a good thing.

MTV started out as a nice idea too...

[DasNootz]

MTV started out as a nice idea too...

That sums it up perfectly, and I've said the same thing for years. Once they lost their core focus and started dumbing down content and sexing up the staff it all went to hell.

[DriveFor1Outta5]

Isn't the decline of ESPN's quality all a result of the Internet age though? As someone who grew up with ESPN in the 90's I constantly catch my self turning it to Sportscenter with the expectation of catching some highlights, only to be reminded it's simply become a bunch of talking heads ala Fox News. Sportscenter really made ESPN because at one time it was the only outlet to catch highlights of sports everyday. Now all you have to do is hop on the Internet. This means they have rebranded themselves into a talk format. They are trying desperately albeit poorly to do whatever it takes to stay relevant. We live in an age were networks think they need to be bombastic to be noticed. That's why the network is filled with guys like Bayless and Stephen A. They love the controversies because it keeps their network in the limelight.

[stony]

 

 

Trolling? Look if what you are saying is true, Disney would have told ESPN to do just that.

 

How did you come to that conclusion? On what other network is that succeeding? NBCSN has reruns of Equestrian World Cup, World Rugby, UCI BMX Championships, World Volleyball Tour, Monaco Grand Prix, Motorcycle racing, Track and Field--all filling time between their annual big events (Stanley Cup--most games on regular old NBC, French Open) and NASCAR. No one is watching that channel! Fox1 has old golf reruns, D list soccer tournaments, Rodeo, UFC reruns, Drag Racing, Rugby---all the stuff you say YOU want to see. Are you watching that channel?

 

 

Those networks provide the content you are talking about and they are getting crushed every month by ESPN (and sometimes ESPN2 as well).

 

It's not "trolling" when someone points out ridiculous comments.

I tend to agree with your position here regarding ESPN.

 

You do fail to mention the positive, albeit slow, ratings growth the EPL has brought to NBCSN. Smart and savvy pick up by them.

 

FS1 is predominantly garbage, but they really don't play "d-list soccer" tournaments. They have Champions League, Europa League and many of the smaller league cups in England. While the latter doesn't move the needle, I can't argue with the strategy given they acquired the broadcast rights for the next couple World Cups. Smart long term plan IMO.

[Mr. WEO]

I tend to agree with your position here regarding ESPN.

 

You do fail to mention the positive, albeit slow, ratings growth the EPL has brought to NBCSN. Smart and savvy pick up by them.

 

FS1 is predominantly garbage, but they really don't play "d-list soccer" tournaments. They have Champions League, Europa League and many of the smaller league cups in England. While the latter doesn't move the needle, I can't argue with the strategy given they acquired the broadcast rights for the next couple World Cups. Smart long term plan IMO.

 

When your glamour product line is the thousands of different international soccer leagues/tournaments/cups (CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, FA, FIFA, DFL, MLS, UEFA, USMNT..), well, NOONEREALLYCARESTOTUNEIN.

 

And as for the rest of their live content, Fox1 and NBCSN simply rip off SportsCenter, because they have to.

 

Viewers may cut the cord to their cable. But for those who keep cable, there simply is no competition against ESPN. There never will be in this format.

[yungmack]

I posted this as a reply in another thread but thought it'd be worth discussing separately.

 

I read an article about ESPN's problems almost a year ago. By the end of last year Disney (ESPN's parent company) was one of the most shorted stocks on the NYSE. It is all due to ESPN dragging it down as the Disney business is doing very well. It is why ESPN nixed their new, big, expensive NYC studio and office project. It is also why they've been letting their expensive personalities walk. Cost cutting is severe and ongoing. The situation is basically this:

 

- ESPN has spent a lot of money on long term sporting event contracts. That includes dramatically overpaying for their NFL contract and several expensive college contracts. The strategy was to make ESPN indispensable to sports fans.

- ESPN has used this leverage to charge quite a lot for their channels. That's not just profit as the above has driven their expenses through the roof. The flagship station is the most expensive non-premium station on cable/dish. Collectively their stations are a disproportionately huge part of your cable/dish bill.

- In 2014 ESPN cost cable providers (not customers) $6.04/month. The median price of a station was 14¢. 2018 estimates are that ESPN will cost $8.37/month. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/

- The expense is pretty reasonable if you love sports, but sucks if you don't. And most people don't. Many of those people - along with those who can't afford the ever growing cable bills - are cutting the cord.

- ESPN is retaining most of the people who love sports, but they've lost some of them along with a lot of casual viewers

- Fewer cable subscribers sends less direct revenue to ESPN and fewer viewers equates to less advertising revenue.

 

The cycle of revenue loss leading to cost cutting is continuing as more and more people cut the cord. But those expensive long-term contracts ESPN signed are still in place and they are dragging the network under. Soon there won't be much more to cut. ESPN is already becoming the network of "hot takes" because they've cut out so much of their more expensive good programming. As a sports lover I can say honestly that the only reason I haven't cut the cord is sports, but I really only care about games - college football and the NFL primarily. Something major is going to happen with ESPN and how sports programming reaches viewers in the coming few years. This could go a number of ways, but it has to change.

 

I'm sitting here wondering how this is affecting everyone else and how you are all reacting. Personally, if I could get NFL Sunday ticket a la carte I'd probably cut the cord. I might soon anyway. We pretty much just watch sports (80-90% football), FoodNetwork, HGTV, Comedy Central and regular network programming (ABC/NBC/CBS). We have Netflix and Prime and use those sometimes.

It is my feeling that pro football has peaked within the US and further growth must come elsewhere. It might be that domestic revenue growth has also peaked and will grow largely through inflation. It might even begin to fall as even hard core fans seem to have reached a financial limit if the dismal failure of Time Warner's Dodger deal is any indication.

 

Anecdotally, it also appears that the audience is greying. And with the FCC changes coming in the set-top box area, and the opening up of access across providers and subscriptions apparently coming near fruition (which will give us one-app access to all our programming), and the acceleration of cord cutting, the business model is in flux. Once unbundling gets rolling, the absence of those cable subscribers who've been essentially subsidizing the sports fans will, it seems, force up prices for those of us who want to keep our (paid) access to sports programming. It's likely to be a huge jump in our individual costs and that might drive away a significant percentage of sports fans. All of this adds up to continuing problems for ESPN.

[iinii]

 

You mean the one where you say the NFL should just forfeit billions of network contract revenue.

 

 

Let's not.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-television-deals-nfl-plays-by-its-own-rules-1409797802

 

Exactly where did I say they should forfeit anything?

[26CornerBlitz]

@Ourand_SBJ

ESPN is not cutting costs when it comes to the Big Ten: Bristol agrees to a 6-year, $1.14B deal with the conference. http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/06/20/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten.aspx

[hondo in seattle]

I currently pay for Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu mostly to keep the family happy. I pay for NFL Sunday Ticket to make me happy.

 

I'm vaguely aware I have ESPN tho' pretty much never watch it - so I can't speak to the quality of their broadcasts though obviously they're not offering anything I really want.

[GunnerBill]

I tend to agree with WEO here. Sky Sports in this country has the same issue. It has 4 premium channels that operate 24/7. Now it needs 4 because at any one time during the soccer season it is often broadcasting 2 or 3 soccer games at the same time and still needs a channel for live golf, live Rugby, live tennis, live NFL etc. Even in the summer (when they don't have soccer most of their weekend programming is live sport.

 

But a quick look at tomorrow's schedule reveals they have two live cricket matches (England v Sri Lanka and West Indies v Australia) and one live Junior Golf tournament. The rest is NFL Network style re-runs of "greatest ever", "sporting years" and "classic matches." The week day shchedules are not live sport heavy in other words.

 

Now there was a point when Sky had a bit more sport to show in the daytime because it would show more minority sports and was bidding against nobody for UK rights. But now there is competition in the market from an expanded Eurosport and particularly from BT Sport and Sky have taken a strategic decision not to get into bidding wars over minority sports.

 

Which is where WEO is right. Channels have to focus on what drives their revenues. For Sky it is the Premier League and for ESPN it is NFL and College Football. They have to continue to maximise the revenue streams related to those products. Does that lead to some annoying gimmicky talking head shows - yes (more so over your side of the pond) but it is a much better option than spending rights money on sports that don't drive viewing figures and therfore advertising revenues.

[machine gun kelly]

Good info from the OP. I get more of my NFL info on NFLN and NFLR, as well as print or Internet. I lost interest in ESPN a long time ago. Their analysts I found not to have in-depth takes and interesting ideas. They just regurgitated other sound bite positions. Just my opinion so not asking people to agree.

[dpberr]

Cable news is going the way of ESPN - its all pundits, lots of shouting, very little newscast.

 

When you compare cable news and ESPN from even ten years ago - you had a lot more traditional newscasting and stories. Now it's just wall to wall pundits regardless of the channel.

 

I don't watch NFLN NBA or MLB for the same reason. Too much opinion, not enough news.