• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

More layoffs hitting ESPN

FreddyE1977 said:
Whether Disney is a mega-corporation or not, the numbers are the numbers.

The next time rights fees negotiations take place they are likely to scale back.
This is going to trickle down into payroll budgets for teams, leading to potential work stoppages, etc.
Click to expand...

The other side of it is that ESPN is trying to build its ESPN+ streaming service, and it's competing against YouTubeTV and Amazon. Those two services have much smaller personnel budgets. So ESPN is scaling back on its on-air staffing, while converting their content for streaming. At some point, they're going to put more of their content behind a pay wall that consumers can only view by subscription.

The point is ESPN is negotiating with the same teams and leagues for streaming as they air for the channel. So I don't expect the teams or leagues will be experiencing any cut in rights fees, as long as there are other platforms for their content.
 
CTListener said:
Let me explain yet again. The ACC expanded into nontraditional markets because it wanted to make more money. It can make more money by attracting advertisers who want to reach a wider range of potential customers than the ones in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida who've been following the ACC for years. It lost Maryland to the Big Ten, so that was even more incentive to reach for new territory to the north. Yes, Pitt is the No. 2 football school in Pennsylvania by a huge margin, but it's far better for the ACC to have some interest in the western part of the state than none at all should Pitt have affiliated elsewhere.

Likewise, Boston is a weak market for college sports, but clearing ACCN there puts it in a top 10 market. That's all that matters on Madison Avenue: clears. Why do you think the Big Ten just had to have Rutgers, a joke of a program in just about all sports but the only top-level football school in the New York metro area? A 0.4 in a top 10 market is likely worth much more to the advertisers than a 3.4 in Tallahassee or High Point.

Also, unless you are still in elementary school, you really should be farther along in all aspects of written English than you now seem to be. Google "capitalization," "there/their," and "What is the plural of priority?", please.
Click to expand...

Alright that puts it into better perspective as to why theyd want to have more interest in smaller schools.
 
kidrauhl said:
Alright that puts it into better perspective as to why theyd want to have more interest in smaller schools.
Click to expand...

Pitt has the fifth-highest enrollment in the ACC, behind only Florida State, Virginia Tech, NC State and North Carolina. It's a bigger school than Virginia, Georgia Tech, Clemson and Miami. So there are plenty of Pitt alumni out there to market the conference to. Boston College, on the other hand, is the second smallest of the conference's football schools, behind only tiny Wake Forest, but Boston is just too big and affluent a market to ignore, even if the alumni aren't known as being particularly devoted to their alma mater's sports teams.

What would really help the conference, and ACCN, tremendously would be getting the conference's lone non-football school on board, even though it would become the new second-smallest university in the conference by enrollment and it's not in a top media market. It has football, but plays as an independent, and does OK with it. You've heard of Notre Dame?
 
These announcements will become somewhat routine, sadly. Cord cutting will continue to adversely impact ESPN performance and they will have to cut costs as a result. Unlike some once prominent cable news channels that really have no reason to continue to exist and should be sold or liquidated, ESPN still contributes to Disney's financial performance, just not to the degree it once did.
 
kidrauhl said:
You dont know that. Acc has sports they can broadcast exclusively on ACC Network they have the televised rights to a lot of their sports. You must not know much about how exclusive networks for conferences work. They have some of the biggest colleges in the country in the acc exclusive to that network.
Click to expand...
ESPN will not shoot themselves in the foot by giving marquee matchups to ACCN. They will keep those games on ESPN or ABC.

There is a reason you see Alabama every week on CBS and not the SEC Network.
 
Live sports is still the driving force behind ESPN. About 6 million people watched the Miami-Florida game Saturday night. About 3 million watched Yankees-Dodgers baseball on Sunday night. There may have been a time when those games might have attracted twice that number, but not any more. Still those shows attract more than twice what other cable shows get, and it's 5 to 10 times what ESPN's regular sports talk shows attract. They need those marquee events to keep them going.
 
Don CT said:
ESPN will not shoot themselves in the foot by giving marquee matchups to ACCN. They will keep those games on ESPN or ABC.

There is a reason you see Alabama every week on CBS and not the SEC Network.
Click to expand...

The sports that will be exclusive to ACCN will be baseball, soccer, lacrosse, wrestling, gymnastics, etc. -- sports for which there is no broadcast network interest, and, for baseball, ESPN interest in carrying on one of its cable properties during the postseason. Regular season ACC baseball the past two seasons has been available to ESPN3/ESPN+ viewers through the now-defunct ACC Sports Extra online-only channel.
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/espn-may-be-key-disneys-13-streaming-bundle-1234566

and Now ESPN+ is discussed as part of the Disney Bundle with Hulu and Disney+ though.

ESPN+ offers a selection of pro sports (including MLB, NHL and MLS games) along with ESPN Films.

Some 42 percent of millennials say they'd be likely to subscribe to the offering of Hulu, Disney+ and ESPN+, a Hollywood Reporter/Morning Consult survey finds.
On Aug. 6, Disney unveiled a new weapon to take on its streaming competitors: a plan to bundle its forthcoming Disney+ streamer with both Hulu and ESPN+ for the price of $12.99, the same as a standard subscription to Netflix.

The bundling offer could be a draw for millennials, a new Hollywood Reporter/Morning Consult poll finds. Some 42 percent of the age group spanning 23 to 38 said they'd be likely to subscribe to a bundle featuring ESPN+, Hulu and Disney+, which outpaces the younger Generation Z (36 percent likely) and older Generation X (31 percent likely) and Boomer (13 percent likely) age groups, the nationally representative survey found.
Click to expand...
 
TheBigA said:
Live sports is still the driving force behind ESPN. About 6 million people watched the Miami-Florida game Saturday night. About 3 million watched Yankees-Dodgers baseball on Sunday night. There may have been a time when those games might have attracted twice that number, but not any more. Still those shows attract more than twice what other cable shows get, and it's 5 to 10 times what ESPN's regular sports talk shows attract. They need those marquee events to keep them going.
Click to expand...

I dont recall a regular season mlb game bringing in 6 million viewers.
 
TheBigA said:
Live sports is still the driving force behind ESPN. About 6 million people watched the Miami-Florida game Saturday night. About 3 million watched Yankees-Dodgers baseball on Sunday night. There may have been a time when those games might have attracted twice that number, but not any more. Still those shows attract more than twice what other cable shows get, and it's 5 to 10 times what ESPN's regular sports talk shows attract. They need those marquee events to keep them going.
Click to expand...

Stephen a smiths talk show brings in a lot of viewers though.
 
TheBigA said:
Do you have Nielsen numbers? He's on weekdays from 1 to 3. Most people are at work at that time.
Click to expand...

"Brings in a lot of viewers" probably means "A couple of my friends and I watch it."

The TV show is simulcast on radio, and I listen to the first half hour of the show on radio on the way to the office, either on the local ESPN Radio affiliate or on SiriusXM. I'd be very surprised if there are more television viewers than radio listeners to a midday sports talk show, especially since Stephen A.'s style is unlikely to appeal to many older folks who are retired and home watching TV at that time of day -- and, of course, female viewership of most sports programming is negligible, so that eliminates whatever stay-at-home moms still exist in this millennium.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Seems to me the runaway #1 rated talk radio guy is on at the same time. Fellow from Missouri.
What was his name again? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Limbaugh is on radio, with no TV simulcast. Kid's assertion was about the alleged popularity of Smith's TV show. Much easier to listen to radio that to watch TV at work, plus, if he were to try a TV simulcast, Rush has a large potential geriatric, homebound viewer base that Smith doesn't, and he talks about politics, which interests more people than sports.
 
CTListener said:
"Brings in a lot of viewers" probably means "A couple of my friends and I watch it."

The TV show is simulcast on radio, and I listen to the first half hour of the show on radio on the way to the office, either on the local ESPN Radio affiliate or on SiriusXM. I'd be very surprised if there are more television viewers than radio listeners to a midday sports talk show, especially since Stephen A.'s style is unlikely to appeal to many older folks who are retired and home watching TV at that time of day -- and, of course, female viewership of most sports programming is negligible, so that eliminates whatever stay-at-home moms still exist in this millennium.
Click to expand...

What I know what im talking about Stephen A is the number one show in his timeslot sports talk show wise. Beating out fs1 programming recently.Im tired of people acting like just cus im younger than them I dont know what the Hell im talking about on here.
 
kidrauhl said:
What I know what im talking about Stephen A is the number one show in his timeslot sports talk show wise. Beating out fs1 programming recently.Im tired of people acting like just cus im younger than them I dont know what the Hell im talking about on here.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the Top 150 cable shows, and I don't see Stephen A Smith anywhere on the list. Beating FS1 or the smaller sports channels isn't hard to do.

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...cable-originals-network-finals-8-23-2019.html
 
kidrauhl said:
Im talking about daytime sports talk shows not cable evening or mainstream talk shows.
Click to expand...

The daytime shows are in there. They just get lower ratings than the nighttime shows.

There's a lot of ESPN in there, but no Stephen A Smith. Because he show gets lower ratings than anything else at that time of day. The Golf Channel's afternoon coverage is in that list. Doug Gottleib's sports talk show on FS1 is #128 on that list. ESPN's morning show "Get Up" is #52 on that list. First Take is in that list. So there are daytime sports shows in the list. Just not the one you say is #1 in his timeslot.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom