ESPN lays off 10% of US staff

[KeithE4]

This is directly related to profit margin. The Northeast Worldwide Leader just paid big bucks for the US Open (tennis) and other expensive sports rights, and had to cut people in order to make its numbers. The body count is rumored to be 300-400, but that includes open positions that now will not be filled. No word on whether any on-air folks are affected.

When 65% of your parent company (meaning The Mickey Mouse Outfit. Minority-owner Hearst is privately held) is owned by institutional investors, this is what happens.

Link: Business Insider

 

[KML0224]

ESPN = Empties Subscribers' Purses Nightly

Thank you. That is all.

 

[davideduardo]

When 65% of your parent company (meaning The Mickey Mouse Outfit. Minority-owner Hearst is privately held) is owned by institutional investors, this is what happens.

"Institutional Investors" does not mean investment banker or venture capitalists. It means, for the most par, pension and retirement funds set up to benefit millions of working class Americans.

In fact, about 10% of DIS is owned by different Vanguard mutual funds... a large part in folks 401-k and retirement accounts.

The fact that Disney is considered an attractive investment means that those pension funds and mutual funds will commit heavily to the shares. That's a good thing.

 

[Joseph_Gallant]

A case can be made that some large institutional investors only care about the stock price of a company, and will relentlessly pressure a company to keep cutting costs to boost stock price.

There may be another angle: Could ESPN be forced (under pressure from Washington and/or consumer groups) to cut the rate it charges cable and satellite operators to pick-up its programming??

Supposedly, ESPN gets $5 a month (or thereabouts) per subscriber.

I think the time may be near when some popular cable networks may have to cut the rates they charge operators to pick up their services out of fear that otherwise, people will downgrade their cable and satellite service or drop such service entirely.

 

[KeithE4]

When 65% of your parent company (meaning The Mickey Mouse Outfit. Minority-owner Hearst is privately held) is owned by institutional investors, this is what happens.

"Institutional Investors" does not mean investment banker or venture capitalists. It means, for the most par, pension and retirement funds set up to benefit millions of working class Americans.

In fact, about 10% of DIS is owned by different Vanguard mutual funds... a large part in folks 401-k and retirement accounts.

Yes, that's correct. I should have made that more clear. The ownership info is readily available on Yahoo Finance.

The fact that Disney is considered an attractive investment means that those pension funds and mutual funds will commit heavily to the shares. That's a good thing.

The profits that are taken by these investors is profit that is not going back into the business. In Disney/ESPN's case, there is of course plenty of money going into improving the product (rights fees would be considered "improving the product"). But in some cases, and I don't mean just in broadcasting, but other industries as well, the profits are taken mostly by the owners - both for the investors' own clients (401K's, et al), and to service debt. I've worked for a couple of those companies and have seen what happens when at least some of the profits aren't put back into improving the business.

And it doesn't matter if the company is publicly traded or 100% private. The investors are the owners, and they can do what they want with the profits. There's nothing us poor, unwashed employees can do about that except hope for a decent severance package when it's our turn to go (and Disney is being quite generous in this regard, BTW).

 

[MarcB]

Here's an article from The Bristol Press:

http://bristolpress.com/articles/2013/05/22/news/doc519c31c5165d0241778177.txt