Jump to content

ESPN Layoffs


plenzmd1

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Classic ESPN. Hemorrhaging money because your content sucks and barely qualifies as sports anymore, so who do you cut? Some of the best actual, you know, reporters that you have. Meanwhile the abortion that's on at 6 now with Michael and whatshername with the latest reports on where NBA players' girlfriends are going on vacation continues. Not to mention giving LeBetard his own TV spot with the mannequin that sits next to him. Some people weren't made for TV.

 

Good !@#$in' riddance, ESPN. Hurry up and die.

 

Edited to add: you know what? They should go to a 24-hour loop of classic sportscenter. Get two anchors who can actually talk sports with highlights and the occasional sports news from some actual reporters. Re-shoot every 12 hours. I'd watch that until I fell asleep every night.

 

better yet - how about 24-hour loop of LIVE sportscenter. Have them do 24 hour shifts... let them curse. eat lunch. smoke. etc.

 

get real weird with it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

better yet - how about 24-hour loop of LIVE sportscenter. Have them do 24 hour shifts... let them curse. eat lunch. smoke. etc.

 

get real weird with it!

 

Make that lunch a wet lunch for them and I'd pay $7 a month for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real reason ESPN and others are cutting back is tanking revenue. And that's tanking because there is waning viewership. And there's waning viewership because the most passionate fans are "aging out" and not being replaced by passionate younger fans in large enough numbers.

 

I believe the growth in fans, and with them the ever-increasing fees sports can charge broadcasters, has peaked. For the last 20 years or so, much of the growth has been lateral; that is, new purveyors trying to get a piece of live television for a long list of reasons, thus driving up fees through competition.

 

New technological delivery methods have lent an air of growth in viewership though some of the figures I've seen indicate that is more of an illusion, that the total "pot" of viewers isn't really growing, merely the way they choose to consume it. The creation of NFLN, MLB, Golf channels, NBS, NHL, etc. further splits the pool of viewers that an ESPN and the old legacy broadcasters used to "own," making it more difficult to turn a profit (or at least the out-sized ones they used to be able to count on).

 

It appears to me that the leagues have about squeezed the lemon dry and the next few re-negotiations will show a decline in the growth curve of those fees, followed by a contraction in the actual inflation-adjusted dollars paid for those rights. The Time-Warner/Dodgers contract was a harbinger of exactly that. In spite of not being in the World Series since 1988, the Dodgers remain wildly popular and extremely well-supported in the region (Up to 4 million annual attendance at gouging-level price) which is likely why T-W paid an exorbitant fee (8.25 billion) for the master broadcast rights believing, foolishly as it turns out, that all the other local outlets -- ATT, Charter, Directv, Dish, etc. -- would have no choice but to sign on and fork $5 a month for every subscriber. But they didn't and likely never will, having determined that the number of people who'd be willing to pay was smaller than the numbers who not only weren't willing to pay, but were mightly, vocally pissed about it. At this point, I'm not certain even something like an additional $2 a month would be acceptable to the majority of subscribers.

 

Professional sports are not going away. But the day of the leagues being able to extract ever-increasing amounts of money based on a declining viewer base very will might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed that they have Adam Schefter doing sideline interviews on NBA playoff games...

 

Honestly, other than actual NFL games (I do watch the NBA regular season, mainly from January on), I don't think I have watched ESPN in any regular way, in about 10 or 12 years.

Edited by Buftex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real reason ESPN and others are cutting back is tanking revenue. And that's tanking because there is waning viewership. And there's waning viewership because the most passionate fans are "aging out" and not being replaced by passionate younger fans in large enough numbers.

 

I believe the growth in fans, and with them the ever-increasing fees sports can charge broadcasters, has peaked. For the last 20 years or so, much of the growth has been lateral; that is, new purveyors trying to get a piece of live television for a long list of reasons, thus driving up fees through competition.

 

New technological delivery methods have lent an air of growth in viewership though some of the figures I've seen indicate that is more of an illusion, that the total "pot" of viewers isn't really growing, merely the way they choose to consume it. The creation of NFLN, MLB, Golf channels, NBS, NHL, etc. further splits the pool of viewers that an ESPN and the old legacy broadcasters used to "own," making it more difficult to turn a profit (or at least the out-sized ones they used to be able to count on).

 

It appears to me that the leagues have about squeezed the lemon dry and the next few re-negotiations will show a decline in the growth curve of those fees, followed by a contraction in the actual inflation-adjusted dollars paid for those rights. The Time-Warner/Dodgers contract was a harbinger of exactly that. In spite of not being in the World Series since 1988, the Dodgers remain wildly popular and extremely well-supported in the region (Up to 4 million annual attendance at gouging-level price) which is likely why T-W paid an exorbitant fee (8.25 billion) for the master broadcast rights believing, foolishly as it turns out, that all the other local outlets -- ATT, Charter, Directv, Dish, etc. -- would have no choice but to sign on and fork $5 a month for every subscriber. But they didn't and likely never will, having determined that the number of people who'd be willing to pay was smaller than the numbers who not only weren't willing to pay, but were mightly, vocally pissed about it. At this point, I'm not certain even something like an additional $2 a month would be acceptable to the majority of subscribers.

 

Professional sports are not going away. But the day of the leagues being able to extract ever-increasing amounts of money based on a declining viewer base very will might be.

 

 

Oldtimer sports fan in my life and family have been proclaiming Armageddon and "this is it!!!" for high prices for salaries, tickets and what not since 1973.

 

Now I'll get a front row seat for the World Series for 50 cents and athletes will get minimum wage and have to work itinerant farm labour just to survive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rather enjoyed the NBC jets game back in the day with no announcers.

 

I know the media wrote the story a week before the game how it was a flop, typically.

 

Or I would like the power to have an announcer(s) muted at my choosing at any time in a broadcast, that would be a nice advance.

 

Would enjoy seeing just whom fans don't want to listen to that is foisted on us all the time by CBS and others....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From 1957-1967, Johnny Unitas worked as a steelworker at Bethlehem Steel (Sparrows Point) to earn extra money for his family.

 

Maybe all had to work in the offseason until the free agent era?

 

Some had to go back and coach or do media work as well.... shudder...

 

Those I knew in the CFL had jobs to make ends meet a few years ago, a few teachers and car salesmen, practice restrictions make this possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...