ESPN is laying off 100 employees today.
Apparently Ed Werder is one of the first to get his pink slip.
After 17 years reporting on #NFL, I've been informed that I'm being laid off by ESPN effective immediately. I have no plans to retire— Ed Werder (@Edwerderespn) April 26, 2017
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or majority on this one, but the sooner that ESPN either makes streaming content a first-class service or they cease to have a chokehold on sports content, the better.
I'd prefer the former, but the latter is alright by me if it means they can't stop competitors from offering better streaming options.
I'm sure you're in the majority. What I don't understand is why ESPN thought they would be successful sticking with the streaming access only available to cable subscribers. Everyone is cutting the cable, cable prices go up as a result, so why make a cable subscription a requirement to view their content? People have and will continue to find ways around it if it's not worth the cost. I pay my parents $20/month in exchange for their online cable access.
looks like i need to swap out for different kids
Saying everyone is cutting cable is a gross exaggeration. While the numbers of subscribers are declining it is not a mass exodus from the platform. You can get access to ESPN's streaming content through cheaper alternatives like PlayStation Vue.
I agree with the former, but I honestly like ESPN's live sports broadcasts more than that of any other network. Their other content (the 6pm sportscenter, first take, etc) has gone downhill. Totally agree with Schefter; they need to move away from opinions (and analyzing cryptic tweets) and back to reporting.
I think that's all anyone wants, I don't know why they keep going farther and farther away from it. OTL when it's something interesting, SVP on SportsCenter, and the Sports Reporters are the only shows left worth watching. Heck, even something like Stump the Schwab was fun, but I don't need programs like E60 which is essentially an hour of the fluff pieces from SportsCenter that I used to change the channel during.
My theory is that this resulted from the initial success of SportsNation (when Cowherd and Beadle were the hosts). It really was an innovative show that was the perfect mix of pop culture and sports. I think ESPN realized this, and attempted to capitolize on it trying to theme the entire network this way. ESPN failed to realize was that so much of SportsNation's success resulted from Cowherd/Beadle's personalities and chemistry. No other show (SportsNation included) has been able to recreate it.
Edit: SVP is also able to walk that line between pop culture and sports, as was Bill Simmons. Still a rare skill.
And here's where my Simmons fanboy-ness exposes itself. His podcast is one of the best out there, IMO, and The Ringer has some super talented Sports and Pop Culture writers/columnists. Very highly recommended
I really like Simmons too, and was pretty excited about his opportunity at HBO. Was sorely disappointed, but I'd place more blame on the 30 min per week format than anything else. He'll land on his feet somewhere.
He's got a great podcast, usually 2-3 episodes/week during football season, although he almost never talks about CFB, even during bowl season.
They've been warning about this for a while, telling everyone who could listen that it was going to be big and it was going to primarily impact on air talent. Should be interesting to see what happens. Already curious that they've already cut one from the NFL staff 2 days before the draft.
I don't get this move at all. I mean last year rounds 4-7 were only beat by NBA playoffs in TV ratings. The first round killed playoff basketball and hockey. ESPN put all their eggs in the NFL basket, seems weird to take some out now.
As hilariously bad as it is to watch Deion Sanders interview draftees, I figured they'd keep some veteran talent.
As much as layoffs are a terrible part of the work environment, I think it's actually far more humane to do one huge layoff instead of several smaller staff cuts. At the very least, one massive bloodletting hopefully prevents people from worrying about job security over a prolonged period.
Even if it seems like bad timing for an NFL reporter to let go, I actually think ESPN did the right thing in letting him go now. Keeping him on for the draft only to lay him off right afterwards sends an even worse message IMO.
I wouldn't be surprised if the timing has more to do with bonuses/extra pay they might have been due for any Draft coverage they had planned
Kind of reminds me of my dysfunctional Redskins cutting their GM just before the combine and now draft
Damn, Ed's one of the few I liked out of the 87,761,359,876 NFL analysts they have
Don't worry, they will keep all of the ones you hate.
This just in: Stephen A Smith extended for 6 years.
Seriously, the one NFL insider/reporter that I actually liked. I guess ESPN is doubling down on Schefty.
Reports are saying around 100 ESPN employees are getting the slip today alone
Man. Ed Werder is a good reporter and seems like a really good guy.
For those that aren't familiar with his family's story, he lost his son-in-law to cancer and his daughter has been battling Stage 4 brain tumors for years:
LINK
So far:
NFL Reporter Ed Werder
Titans Reporter Paul Kuharsky
ESPN.com NHL Columnist Scott Burnside
Hockey Writer Joe McDonald
NHL Columnist Pierre LeBrun
College Basketball Reporter Dana O'Neil
ESPNU Anchor Brendan Fitzgerald
Soccer Writer Mike Goodman
"Additionally, The Hollywood Reporter reports that Karl Ravech, Ryen Russillo, and Hannah Storm will see their roles at the network "significantly reduced.""
running list
Burnsie and LeBrun?
That's ESPN's signal that they officially turned in their last remaining fuck about the NHL. Those were the only 2 guys on their website that legitimately cared. Sure, they'll keep Melrose around, but only in a crazy uncle that everyone laughs at and not with sense.
If it isn't NFL, SEC, or Daily Lebron Update, I don't think ESPN cares at all.
You left out ACC basketball, RedSox, Yankees, and Cubs... but yeah, that's pretty much it
At least now they're going all in with it, and not pretending to care anymore about the rest
I would agree except ESPN has major stakes in all college football, MLB, NBA, NFL, MLS, Men's national soccer team, UEFA, plus they actually own stake in a few bowl games. Throw in the other typically non revenue sports they cover in the US from bowling to cricket and ESPN cares about a lot.
FOX owns the broadcast rights for the US Soccer teams...
ESPN may have the rights to the MLS, but they've been indifferent towards the hype. I say they're still 5-10 years away from being on the ESPN-hype-train
They actually split them.
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/05/12/12/01/140512-ussoccer-mls-tv-...
Which sucks because FOX is awful for soccer broadcasts.
Especially Alexi Lalas...listening to that guy pontificate is like nails on a chalkboard for me. When LFC are on Fox, I put the game on mute.
Watch the Spanish broadcast. You won't hear Lalas, and it makes the games sound way more exciting.
Add Buccigross to that list too. He wasn't strictly Hockey, but he seemed to know his shit in that realm
EDIT:
ESPN still cares about hockey? Seems like the only national network that covers the NHL anymore is NBC.
And now think of the positives. NBC has multiple people they can go after to replace Mike Milbury!
This is an underrated comment. Milbury sucks.
Wouldn't surprise me if most of the cuts are reporters/columnists from the NHL. Too many times I have read their articles and noticed many mistakes where I can tell they did little to no research at all.
To be honest, I have always gave ESPN a shot in hockey news, but with the lack of effort in reporting, I have mainly just gotten my new from NHL.com
It'll have to expand more than that. Even if they let go of every single one of their NHL specific employees, I doubt that would make a dent in their payroll. I don't know where to find numbers, but I don't think they have very many strictly ESPN, non-freelance type employees that cover NHL
Interesting to see how Russillo can take a "significantly reduced" role but have his name on one of the top radio shows for the company?
I think they're doing away with his show altogether. His co-host, Danny Kannell is officailly one of the casualties. They've already given Stephen A his timeslot on the radio
Wow, seriously? Fire one guy and take another off the air so we can listen to more Stephen A. Smith?
Sorry, a correction: they recently moved the show from ESPN Radio on XM to ESPN EXTRA on XM and replaced his slot with SAS. Pretty big downgrade because I think Extra is only on the bigger subscription packages for XM
All you have to do is keep telling them no until they offer you the top package for 6 months for $30. Sometimes I just tell them to offer me that or hang up, and they always offer it.
My dad kept saying no to them no matter the price and then said he was hanging up and they offered to extend his trial. He did this for a few months before they finally just gave up and cut their losses.
I'm sure a new subscriber doesn't cost them much outside of account maintenance and the sales rep that will call you if you don't renew.
They are INSANELY persistent with their calls after you don't renew. I cancelled my subscription a while back (a year+) because I was never driving anywhere and it was just a waste of money. They still call me almost weekly, despite me telling them to stop calling, to ask if I would like to renew. The worst part is they use different numbers each time, so even if I mark them as spam and block them, they just call with a new number.
Interesting, I had 2 XM subs for almost 10 years and recently cancelled. I have received 1 or 2 mailers from them but not one phone call.
I really wish their service was easier to subscribe and cancel like Netflix. I would probably subscribe every now and then when I knew I was going to be driving a lot but I don't want to be locked into a subscription that I know can be a hassle to cancel.
I agree 100%. The fact that I can't subscribe/unsubscribe online is one of the main reasons I haven't gone back. Actually calling to unsubscribe was such a bad experience that I haven't taken advantage of any of their offers because I don't want to go through it again.
Almost makes you wonder if they are going to try to 'get the band back together' and move Russillo back into some sort of role with SVP?
That would be a dream scenario to have them back together. I'd guess Stanford Steve would get the boot if that happened though, and I don't know if SVP would stand for that
You can't lose Stanford Steve - that'd be like losing your bassist or drummer.
Good news I still have something to listen to in the afternoons.
This sounds like what somebody says right before their role is actually reduced. To me, they would have been better off keeping Kanell and losing Russillo.
I could see where Kanell would fit into E$PN's core values (CFB and NFL) better. However for the role of radio Russillo is light years ahead.
Keeping my fingers crossed (but not holding my breath) on Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless (Just checking to see if anyone knew that he is already at Fox...). Please please please.
Skip works for Fox now....
Skip has been gone almost a year bro
You're going to love this breaking news.
http://nypost.com/2016/04/26/espn-is-losing-one-of-its-biggest-loudmouths/
Edit: Cheers Reese and Prripper
Bayless is already at Fox
All of you can Drink
I keep staring at this in awe...
I know...his dances moves are impressive
One minute. You beat me by one minute.
*drinks*
not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Bayless is with Fox now
Hey Dumbass, Bayless already went to Fox. SMDH
In fairness, I'm not sure anyone can tell "First Take" and "Undisputed" apart.
Stephen A. Smith/Max Kellerman/Molly Qerim vs. Skip Bayless/Shannon Sharpe/Joy Taylor...it's essentially the same show. It's like how people were shocked to learn Chris Fowler and Rece Davis weren't the same person.
So who is Rece Fowler?
all jokes aside, they have already confirmed SAS is not one of the ones on the chopping block
Well when you are paying billions of dollars for crap like softball and the llws what exactly do you expect to happen? Mickey needs his $$$$, Minnie has expensive tastes...
Considering how much money I just spent there to go for three days Minnie and Mickey are doing just fine.
ESPN isn't losing money because of the peanuts they spend on softball. Its because of the giant contract they gave monday night football, when ratings have declined.
Sigh. I really liked him.
Wow. That's a surprising one, as he's got tons of sources in the college football world and is always one of the first in the know with breaking news.
One of the greats. Hopefully he can join Bruce Feldman at Fox.
Damn, I really liked McMurphy. His reporting was always great, and really appreciated his handling of the Sandusky Scandal - it was always informative, measured, and tnever a 'hot take'.
Maybe Brian Windhorst can go to, that guy just got lucky that Lebron was born in his coverage territory. Guy has made his entire career covering Lebron, he isn't worth a damn for anything else.
If I were to make a march madness bracket for least favorite ESPN personality, Windhorst and Stephen A. would both be 1 seeds.
whoa whoa whoa let's not gloss over this idea. This should be something that actually happens.
That unfortunatley means he has the safest job at espn
Windhorst is still there yet they just let go of NBA writer Ethan Strauss, who can write circles around that Lebron jock sniffer. SMH
Wow - up until just now, I thought his last name was Lindhorst. Who knew?!
The more you know.
Danny Kanell is gone as well. I was never a big fan of his but it sucks for all of these folks losing their jobs. Luckily, they are for the most part at the highest level of their profession so most will have offers stacked up.
I hate that one because I love Russillo and Kannell. Loved SVP and Russillo before that even more but Kannell fit in nicely. Now I'm worried about what the future of that show is period. Best sports talk show around imo. None of your typical hot take BS, just real, measured sports talk.
It's really going to be interesting come college football time. R&K was a good resource to get other team story lines.
Yeah, it was. DK gets a lot of hate because of his Twitter trolling (and honestly, its sort of deserved) but his actual on air takes, especially on the radio, were all fair, thought out points. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says (like his War on Football rants), but he's not some puppet out there saying whatever a producer hands him. Like when the ACC has been underrated in football, he was out there pointing it out when no one else was. Or when everyone is freaking out over rankings in October, he's always out there saying "relax. It'll work itself out" because it usually does.
Yet they keep Lebaturd...... ESPN radio is officially dead to me
NYTimes Article: https://nyti.ms/2q6catl is keeping a scrolling list of the tweets from people announcing that they've been let go.
It also had this interesting snippet for those of you looking for an ESPN Streaming service
Anybody else been checking Heather Dinich's twitter hoping for an announcement?
I doubt they pay her enough to make a dent and firing her would make too many people happy.
She will likely get a hefty raise and promotion. Seen as a valuable asset to ESPN, she will probably will now co-host a 4 hour debate show with Stephen A. Smith and Brian Windhorst.
Actually, just checked her Twitter and she's on the road covering the CFP spring meetings right now, so no way she will be let go. Then she's retweeting a picture of Chip Kelly meeting with Bronco Mendenhall to observe spring practice this week. Puke. I guess since he can't find a job, he decided he would go do #hardthingstogether with the Hoos.
Wait, what.
Chip was at a Uva practice?
LOL
that'll get their hopes up...losers
Is it bad that I look at this tweet and all I can think is how close we came to internet magic with those tackling dummies almost spelling "LOL".
I don't know what you're talking about.
VTGuitarMan wields some mad dork magic with the slightest provocation.
Be glad he is on our side.
That's a pretty good picture of me. My staff has more CDs on it now, though.
Man ain't technology grand? In my day, if you wanted to get a picture like this, you had to actually sneak onto the field and paint the "T" next their "V" and then take picture from the stands.
I never actually heard (or maybe don't remember) who was responsible for the field painting. Can anyone help me out?
I met a guy who claimed he was part of the group. According to him it was a group of 10 guys who sneaked onto the field at night and did the deed. I can't really corroborate the story though.
Thanks. I knew you would deliver.
She'll probably get promoted to ESPN College Football Lead Expert
I was about to ask that question along with Seth Greenburg....
Trent Dilfer is gone. Not too upset about that one.
Screw ESPN. They made me embarrassed to like sports. And their war against the cord cutters is biting them in the ass. Good effing riddance.
Amen to that. Hate to see people lose their jobs, especially truly talented individuals, but it shows in the twitter comments that those people are all going to land on their feet with another great opportunity.
I've exclusively watched live ESPN content for the past 8 years or so, and can't say I miss a single thing about SC or any other debate-driven show. Just reaffirms my decision to watch other content.
It's sad reading all the tweets from these people I've watched or read their work on ESPN for most of my life.
It always sucks for anyone to lose a job but I don't feel all that bad because all of these guys have the background and experience of working at ESPN where now all, if not most of them probably (will) have job offers stacked up.
ESPN is the victim of advancing social media. Gone are the days where I would purposely wait wherever I am if I saw that SC Top 10 was upcoming or staying up to watch SVP. ESPN has becoming more of reality TV with the random segments talking about entertainment news. Most people (myself included) will just ESPN for the highlights the next day and that's about it. Social media is beating many of these media companies to the punch in giving quick, updated information. Why follow ESPN for sports update when their are live tweeting the game.
Give it 5 years and it'll start affecting the smaller news outlets as well.
I'm not sure how much you can blame ESPN for pivoting... The 11pm Sportscenter used to be the ONLY place to see all the highlights and stats from that night. Now you can just go on youtube or twitter or basically anywhere immediately after (or during) the game. ESPN was forced to create content. They just weren't good (enough) at creating content.
The highlights on Youtube suck. You have to watch both teams highlights and find them. I tried to watch the VT Cuse football firing, and I could only get one sides perspective. It absolutely sucks.
I wish they would put top 10 plays on the App and individual game highlights.
I'm assuming you meant "highlights" or something instead of "firing", but there may be a reason the highlights were one-sided...
I assumed he meant VT Cuse football dumpster fire. In which case it sounds quite accurate as VT and Cuse played in the Carrier Dome.
I meant the highlights, and I could only get a like select few plays and the one sided version from the Cuse perspective. I miss Sportscenter where they give you highlights and give you a feel for how the game swung up until the end.
My memory may have been a bit dulled due to the contents of my beverage that night, but I was at the game and I don't remember more than a "select few plays" that would count as highlights for The Good Guys.
People always say this, but finding highlights from a game afterwards is ridiculously hard online. For CFB I usually have to wait until sunday morning, and for other sports I just never see highlights anymore. There is still a pretty big need there, and no one stepped up to fill it.
Josh Parcell got let go.
Most people probably don't know him, but he graduated from Blacksburg High as well and was my main motivation for pursuing a job in sports media.
Really struggling with all of this today. I grew up wanting to be on ESPN and Sportscenter and I started at Virginia Tech this year with that goal in mind. Now I'm not so sure.
Go for it. Just keep in mind other options and that a dream isn't a permanent destination. And I say this as someone who worked towards a dream job, got it, and for circumstances outside of my control, lost it. But I'm happy I got it because what you realize on the other end is that the destination is just a mile marker, what goes into it is what makes you who you are
Hate to hear that man, I'm just a bit older than you and that was what I originally wanted to do as well. I ended up going a different route in college, but I definitely understand why this would be hitting you especially hard.
I work in the industry for a major network. It beats the heck out of working for a living. That to say, keep going for it. It's worth it.
Josh wrote a quick blog about today, definitely worth the read. He's a great guy and has a big future ahead of him.
https://medium.com/@joshparcell/its-just-a-job-6e53e2ab2939
Thanks for that link. A great short read. We all need that kind of perspective every once in a while.
love that his signature is "I am not Ryan Lochte"
Local guy from Blacksburg. I knew him in school and ESPN was always his dream...
Hopefully he lands on his feet somewhere
Edit: Woops, didnt see Henry Skutt posted this sooner. Given all the news today, I'll gladly take that drink
Just saw that ESPNU is leaving Charlotte and moving to Bristol. So where will ACC network be broadcast from?
John Swofford's basement. Hello, Raycom!
Per Luke DeCock of the News & Observer, the SEC Network is staying in Charlotte and he says that he still expects the ACC Network operations to join them.
He did caveat, that after today, anything's possible.
My industry #sauces say Atlanta is in the mix, especially if they combo that and SEC Network. Charlotte is still the front runner though.
Part of me wonders if there will even be an ACC network/how different it will be from what was originally intended/agreed upon. If the monthly decrease in subscribers stays constant, and ESPN does not offload any existing contracts, they will start losing money in 2021. ACC Network is slated for 2019 IIRC.
I don't blame them for that one. I bet they are getting killed expense wise for having multiple studios across the country trying to make specific sport channels work (ESPNU, conference channels, etc). That's a big contributing factor their financial situation. They foolishly bet big and went bust. It makes little sense to have so many different broadcast locations and its also ridiculous that they have a MASSIVE complex in Bristol that is 25x bigger and fancier than they need. They'll cut quality employees but they just gotta have remote locations all across the country and a cafeteria worth millions. Story of modern day bottom line driven corporations, the executives make stupid decision, never pay the price, and everyone else suffers
I don't think it was that foolish... I don't think that (m)any people predicted the rapid decline of cable subscribers 3+ years ago.
It was very risky at the time though. The speed is debatable, the outcome isn't. It's a market just like any other. At some point, it will correct itself. ESPN acted as if the market would never correct itself. They were making any move they could possibly make. They were outbidding other channels for broadcasting rights by a considerable amount. Then there's stuff like their multimillion dollar campus investment that is essentially a gigantic museum to sports but doesn't really help broadcasting, they setting up ESPN affiliates all across the country trying be a regional sports media at a time when regional sports media was going belly up, and loads of other decisions. They're decisions driven to impress shareholders to give the impression that profits won't just remain steady, they'll always grow. So they make these big, risky moves because they have to show they are doing something, anything to move the line.
Now they face a big problem. The market has started to correct itself and they're too heavily invested. The thing they need to do, restructure their huge contracts, restructure how they deliver their content and eat some losses, is not something they can tell their shareholders because then they will take the hit and in turn, those execs that made those big bets are getting hit. So they are doing short term window dressing things (these layoffs) to appease shareholders, give the impression they are doing something to steady nerves, and hope they can weather the storm. Considering how much the media market is changing in general, I wouldn't count on that.
Jayson Stark, their lead MLB writer got his notice
A few SC anchors got walking papers as well: Jaymee Sire, Chris Hassel, and Jay Crawford
CBB Game Analyst Len Elmore got let go
This.
The concept that Stephen A. Smith is getting paid millions while legitimate journalists are being fired today by what is supposed to be the "World Wide Leader in Sports" is absurd. Fuck ESPN right now.
Whew. Glad for this subthread. I thought I might be the only one. Cut the cable years ago when ESPN was just clearing the ramp of their shark jump. Watched them complete that jump with their online presence while they systematically alienated and attacked fans, players and fellow sportscasters for the most ridiculous of reasons that rarely had anything to do with the box score.
I don't relish anyone losing their job. I work in an industry that has seen far more than it's share of layoffs since 1999. In just the last 10 years, I've worked for a company that has had ritual layoffs for, mainly, stupid decisions by people who should have known better, but instead, merely thought they knew better and didn't ask for the input of others outside their bubble.
It sucks.
But ESPN is teh suck in a world of ways, and while I feel sorry for people who have lost their jobs today, and feel sorry for those who will lose their jobs on some tomorrow as the network doubles down on bad policies, I can't muster the same sympathy for the company as a whole.
ESPN got fat and complacent. They are a little less fat today, by virtue of hatcheting off body parts they hope they can live without, but they are no less complacent. There is a world of media sharks out there circling.
And I'm kinda rooting for the sharks.
I have to assume that Stephan A. brings ratings/viewers. I haven't met anyone who likes him, but business don't shell out millions for no reason.
It doesnt really matter if anyone likes him, enough people will click the 'Stephen A said what?' links just to see what dumb ass thing he's said this time and clicks are all that matter
Of course he does! That's why he has such a huge contract.
But that's what is upsetting about all this. True journalism is going away because people find it more entertaining to watch someone get into a screaming match about Lavar Ball. Which is fine, I understand that. But it sucks to see what used to be a true sports channel with real journalism, be sacrificed for idiots yelling their heads off.
Give me Tom Rinaldi every day of the week. That's what I want to see on ESPN.
You're foolish to think this stops at just ESPN given today's political climate.
You're right.
But we don't talk about politics on here.
And that's why I'm leaving it at that.
I just wish we could go back to the days of Charlie Steiner laughing hysterically. Outside of College Gameday, and live sports coverage, and Outside the Lines, ESPN does not receive any attention from our household.
Andy Katz got fired?
Wow.
Looks like they're waiting until a month after all the other firings to give Greenberg his walking papers.
we'll have to make sure to get a statement from him the morning of saying that he's certainly not getting canned.
Yeah, and they will let him find out about his dismissal from the internet while he's away on assignment.
Not on assignment but this college basketball reporter was on vacation
Wow, on vacation? ESPN just out-Weavered Weaver.
They cut some pretty good MLB guys in Dallas Braden, Raul Ibanez and especially Doug Glanville
They got Jim Caple and Jerry Punch as well.
Its incredibly sad to see them gut themselves of some very good reporters and keep around all the yapping heads who do nothing but churn clickbait articles and soundbites. I knew their direction was bad before, but its very concerning to see who they kept around in lieu who they let go.
makes you wonder if some other benefactor could snap up all the good talent and make a one stop shop for actually good sports reporting...
This would be glorious. I hope NBCSports, FS1, and The Ringer snag every last one of these people
I'm sure each of them will snag a good number of them, but are they really going to do a better job managing them than ESPN did?
it would need an Elon Musk-esque leadership who is willing to lose money hand over fist to advance a product he thinks is worthwhile and he worries about making his money elsewhere. Where's T. Boone-Pickens when you need him? He's big into sports, right?
I mean they're all getting laid off, so can't the question also be: Can any of them do a worse job of managing them?
I know I'm coming late to the party, but I'd say it like this: ESPN may be destroying all that was once great in their empire, but NBC, Fox, and CBS never had anything great to begin with. Once upon a time, Sportscenter was must-see TV, and NFL Countdown & Prime Time, as well as College Gameday weren't far behind. I can't remember the last time I watched a comparable show on any of the other three networks.
So to answer your question, the other three have been doing a demonstrably worse job than ESPN for the last 20 years, and I see no reason to expect that to change even as ESPN's decline accelerates.
Vox/SB Nation has a very diverse team (in terms of skillset/content) of college football writers/bloggers. Steven Godfrey has written some really good deep dive pieces (see the piece on bagmen, NSD with Oregon, piece on the Ole Miss sanctions), is really well connected among boosters and familiar with the political side of big time college football. Bill Connelly (creator of the S&P+) is putting out some great content too. Bill and Godfrey host Podcast Ain't Played Nobody, one of the best CFB podcasts out right now.
Then there's Spencer Hall (aka Every Day Should Be Saturday) and Ryan Nani, who do great humor pieces about college football (Hatin' Ass Steve Spurrier, Shutdown Fullcast Podcast).
Then there Dan & Ty on the Solid Verbal, probably the most listened to college football podcast. Nothing too special about them, just two guys talking college football; no deep dives, but no hot takes either.
I really like how every person/entity can kinda do their own thing at Vox/SB nation. Really hoping they expand their cast.
SBNation is lightyears above the competition right now IMO, especially with College Football. They do well researched, thoughtful stories while also keeping some levity around sports (it's supposed to be FUN). They've been dabbling in media outside of writing/podcasts and with so much talent available (both on air and from the production side that was let go last round) they could do something very interesting in sports reporting.
They've officially let go of their most qualified Reporter
Long over-due, IMO. They should have let her go after her fiasco with that parking attendant
meh. qualifications are in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
I guess that masters in journalism from Northwestern only got her so far.
It didn't get her car out of that tow yard last year
Wonder if she's expanding on her potential employment options today?
Karma would dictate that good 'ol Britt eneds up working at a tow truck shop.
I know this has been mentioned about 100 times already...but I cannot, cannot, CANNOT believe they're letting all the quality reporters (Werder, Punch, etc. etc.) go to keep around the stupid talking fatheads that be (looking at you Dan LeBaturd and Stephen A.). I would honestly rather get a paper cut on my lip then have to listen to First Take or the Dan LeBaturd show.
Honestly I haven't turned ESPN on for anything other than live sporting events in well over a year (SC included, which was my favorite show growing up hands down), and this isn't going to change that. At all.
I'm glad that I work 8-5 and don't even have the opportunity to watch First Take. Total garbage. Other than watching VT football, I'm pretty much done with ESPN.
Dan LeBetard should have been showed the door and his "Highly Questionable" show with his dad is very cringe worthy. Why they thought bringing his dad on the show was pretty useless. That is probably the first show I turn off on ESPN if it pops up on my tv
Agree 100%. I watched about 60 seconds of one of the first Highly Questionable episodes. I'm honestly surprised I made it that long. It's so...bad? Odd? Waste of time? All the above? It's a complete waste of a TV segment, that's for sure.
IMO I am baffled how Jemele Hill isn't gone. She is awful at analyzing/reporting sports and the SC6 she is on with Michael Smith is garbage.
I think I'm in the minority, but I don't really get the hate on SC6. I'm not a huge fan of Jemele individually, but Michael Smith is great and I like their dynamic together. Way better than the way-too-perky Zuban Mehenti who used to host that timeslot
Michael smith isn't as bad. But me personally. I am not interested in anything else but sports. I get it the E in ESPN stands for entertainment but then call it ESPN6 instead of sportscenter6
ANYTHING involving Jemele Hill is awful. Cannot stand her. Immediate channel switch upon hearing/seeing her.
The only show on ESPN I listen or watch is ESPN FC and that's because it's not Bout pop culture or anything like that it's just raw sports talk so I'm hoping my favorite podcast stays intact but I'll say this as someone who's watched good people lose their jobs for poor management or other not well thought out ideas, wishing someone to lose their job is a bit harsh it's a bad day for everyone in he office not just the guys getting let go
ESPN looks at who brings in ad revenue and it's not quality long pieces written or spoken about. It's he same reason your local news and newspaper are struggling and the if it bleeds it leads stories go, because that's what brings in readers/viewers.
Looking at the most recent cuts and the ones from yesterday, it appears they are gutting 3 things: Regional coverage, hockey, and baseball.
There's a pattern here, all three are niche based and don't drive national level ad revenue. Regional, team specific coverage speaks for itself. Hockey, while fun, is niche in the larger American market. Baseball is trending downward, with a older viewer base that advertisers aren't interested in. Plus, baseball is highly territorial. If you dive into the numbers, you'll find most baseball fans only watch their team, not the league itself as is the case with the NFL and NBA. So ESPN is at least protecting the products they believe can still make them money as they basically rearrange deck chairs.
As for some individual cuts, sucks to see Dr. Jerry get laid off but that one is predictable. They've diminished his role for years now. He was primarily a motorsports guy and ESPN has lost the rights to most all of its motorsports (they just have select Indycar races now). Katz getting let go is a bit of a surprise but my guess is he's just a salary casualty; they have to cut some people with larger contracts, his name was the one they drew. What is a bit surprising to me so far at least is they have yet to really trim any fat from their bloated NFL coverage. Yeah, Dilfer, sure, but they could let go probably 5 or 6 others go as well.They have way more people than they need. My gut tells me you might see more of them get cut after the draft (unless your Ed Werder, Poor poor Ed)
This is going the exact opposite way it should be. They should be cutting bait on most of their high profile guys to save money and let up and comers take over. This should be a youth movement.
Oh come on, everyone knows that people only tune in for the personalities, not the content.
/s
There is probably some truth to that. At least, perceived truth that these personalities draw in viewers and the alternative wouldn't be as successful. Disney is required by DE law to take the action that is perceived to be in the best interests of their shareholders. If ESPN would be more successful with Stephen A. than with 5 Danny Kannel-types, then that's what they had to do.
I think there is a lot of truth to it. There are 3 reason why viewers (or readers, or listeners) consume media:
I follow Bill Simmons, Clay Travis, EDSBS, or SVP purely because I appreciate their opinions and their personality. Assuming their personalities stay the same, I'll probably follow them to any media outlet they go to.
There was an interesting article about ESPN on, I think, Forbes or some other business mag, that delved into how ESPN has changed what gets shown on SportsCenter. Producers are VERY focused on what drives social media traffic above basically all else. It was very obvious that they failed to understand that social media isn't a representation of what people like or want, it's just what makes a vocal minority worked up. I think that in the rush to modernize their approach for a new time, they never took the time to consider what people want and instead used the most available metrics (social media clicks/virality) regardless of how valid those metrics were.
mouseover note: "selling sno-cones on the titanic" is a new catch phrase I'm trying to work into meetings
I agree. Social media is largely an echo chamber. As you said, vocal minorities are often times mistaken for being an adequate gauge of public opinion. Just like the old saying, those who speak loudest often know the least.
I can't find it right now, but I read an interesting article on polling and how a lot of new, popular political surveying companies have grown to rely on social media as a cheap way of gauging public opinion. For one example of why this is a pitfall, the article pointed to how many of these services predicted that Clinton would win the election handily. It turns out that the bell curve of twitter posts tends to sit left of center and the algorithms that scanned the posts didn't rely on this. On the other hand, when these polls looked at trends within larger political groupings, they tended to be accurate. So, for instance, if they tried to gauge support for Trump within posts by users who had been already identified as right leaning, they actually meshed up with the results of more traditional polling. So it's not like this technique is going to be abandoned.
TL;DR - whether you're polling twitter or polling in real life, if you don't account for inherent biases in your methodology, you're going to be in for a bad time.
I agree with this. I was hoping most of the outlandish personalities and former jocks would be the ones on the way out. Seems they just trimmed out a bunch of relatively small personalities (probably with small contracts) and that's why the number of layoffs was so high. Of course, severance packages, fear of lawsuits, and fear of public shaming by some of the big personalities might have been a driving factor. I'm sure Stephen A. would have thrown the biggest hissey fit.
I hope when it comes to these personalities, they're just letting their contract run out without renewal instead.
I would tune in to see him doing THAT because he got layed off, but nothing else.
I don't like seeing people lose their jobs (unless they deserve it). He deserves it.
Mark May got the axe as well.
Ohio State fans are probably happy about that.
I would have been more disappointed about that a couple of years ago. I liked the studio stuff with Rece, Holtz, and May, especially College Football Final. But after Lou retired and Rece got promoted, Mark May just got stuck as the third person on ABC, and I rarely saw him.
Football final was the best capstone to a great college football day, now i don't even know if they have it anymore.
I actually didn't mind mark may with listening to him spit all over may and argue was funny as crap
They did, but more often than not, it was on at 2 am or later due to the increased number of nightcap games.
It is entirely relevant, but probably shouldn't be discussed here.
ESPN made an overt move to content that is rightfully avoided in TKP.
It's only a matter of time now before TKPN is on tv and taking all regular sports viewers from ESPN who see sports as a way to escape from the stressors of everyday life.
Shut up. I can dream.
When the posted article has a premise of "ESPN had to do layoffs because its become too liberal", I am not sure how we expect the conversation to proceed without it getting political.
Welp, I'm out.
Exactly. I think the only thing that can save this thread is
My takeaway was that ESPN was innovating early on, but then got complacent and, instead of growing a pair, let itself get bullied into irrelevancy by a company forced into bankruptcy by posting videos of celebs cheating on their wives.
But yeah, on second look, it is pretty heavy on the liberal argument. Sorry. Maybe read, but don't discuss?
seems like a bit of a stretch to blame it on politics. We have reached a point in this country where everyone wants to blame everything on one political side or the other. That is unhealthy in so many ways and it's truly disheartening that established sports writers are resorting to the same tactic. Bipartisan politics in the US is seriously ill because both sides work so hard to dehumanize the other side and lay the blame for anything and everything at the feet of their adversaries. It's a toxic environment that really stifles healthy, intellectual discourse between people on opposite sides.
In short, this article is more a part of the problem than a solution.
I don't know why I'm getting baited into this but here we go; bipartisan politics are not mentioned in the article at all. There is one mention of the word 'liberal' throughout the entire article. No democrat, republican, conservative, 3 instances of 'right' in the word copy right, and 1 instance of 'left' in the context of leaving a company.
This is dealing more with cult of outrage, trial by public opinion, and the transition away from journalism to entertainment. The culture of political correctness and access to your product for nontraditional audiences is also addressed.
The whole article is an insider's view of how content creation changed after ESPN had a smaller company use character assassination to force them into a new style of reporting that was lower effort content that did not stay true to its roots as an innovative sports reporting company. Jason Whitlock is one of only a few people who may have the perspective to write a piece like this.
the article didn't mention bipartisan politics. I did.
The article not-so-subtly implies that "political correctness" had a larger-than-credited impact on the changes at ESPN. To me, the writer is trying to place blame on politics. Politics, I think we can all agree, is a pretty toxic topic. That's why there is a general agreement among members of this site not to discuss it. My point is that we shouldn't be afraid to discuss politics with people who may disagree with us. It shouldn't be that toxic. However, It has gotten to that point. This article just feeds into that. It blames the change of culture at ESPN directly on political pressure. That doesn't help anything, IMO.
I think the big thing (and I haven't read the article) is that nobody wants to hear about politics when they're talking about sports. It's an escape that brings people together, even after politics has driven them apart. I'm 99% sure nobody on this site has all of the same political beliefs as me, and that doesn't matter because VT brings everyone together. I don't even enjoy hearing political commentary that I support when I'm watching sports.
aaand, you lost me there.
Take Whitlock with an entire shaker of salt. He's a hack. He got fired from ESPN because he was massively incompetent. He was suppose to head up The Undefeated, a sports journalism site with an African American angle (dubbed Black Grantland by the internet). It was suppose to launch within 6 months to a year after the announcement. After almost 3 years, Whitlock had nothing to show except giant expenses. "That Gawker Website" (Deadspin) that Whitlock cites in his piece did a series on his massive failure (another axe for him to grind). He's bitter. This is also classic Whitlock. His entire career being a maverick of sorts, railing against a place until he gets hired by that place, then he changes his tune...until he gets fired because he's not very good at writing or commentary, then he goes right back to firing shots. If ESPN decided to give him show, he'd change his tune real quick. He's done it his entire career.
ummmm...... not really... when ESPN decided to jump in one sided politically they alienated 50+ percent of people and are now paying the price for it...
Frat boy culture? Were they pounding beer and hazing new analysts? This is stupid.
There are stories of ESPN (when it was heavily male dominated) playing porn videos throughout the offices and doing other things that made Female employees feel uncomfortable. There's the Mike Terrico saga(s), and other things. I recommend reading 'Those Guys Have All The Fun' - the talk about it a lot.
I think the political coverage and change in content has hurt ESPN's reputation, but the actual issue is their business model. Cable is losing millions of subscribers per year. Each cable subscriber pays ESPN at least $8 (regardless of if said subscriber actually watches ESPN). As a result, ESPN is losing millions of dollars each year. IF the current rate of cord cutting continues, the contractual rights to broadcast sporting events will cost more than than ESPN's subscriber revenue.
Nobody cancels cable (purely) because ESPN's content has gone downhill and/or is too biased/political for their liking. People cancel cable because they are not willing to pay $50+ when they only watch a handful of shows.
I agree, but some people only have cable for ESPN. When ESPN changes too much and loses its appeal, then people do, in fact, cancel their cable subscription just because they no longer like ESPN.
15 million people have cancelled cable since 2011. An average of 10,000 people per month in 2017. I have not heard of any consumer study that suggest that people are canceling cable because ESPN is too politically biased. I'm sure there's a small percentage of people who are, but I would wager <5% of people list ESPN as a contributing factor, and <1% of people think it is a major factor. I would be curious to see actual data that confirms this.
I can't link to the source, but ESPN actually makes more on people buying cable with no interest in their network than they do in people buying solely for the sports. They managed to negotiate a huge chunk of subscription costs (something like $9 a piece). It's the main reason they are slow to move to a streaming platform, their current level of profit is sustained by people who have no interest in their product.
IMO, their biggest issue was the over-the-top salaries. The cable-cord cutting is a problem, but ESPN can get contracts with any type of provider. The future is in TV over IP and not cable or satellite, but ESPN is merely a contractual party to these services and can easily adapt to the future modes of media distribution.
Cord-cutting is a pretty big issue for ESPN. Their primary revenue source is the monthly subscriber fees totaling over $9 now. If they keep losing subscribers at the current rate (which has been increasing over the last 5 years) they will have less revenue than just the broadcast rights contracts. It doesn't matter if they have literally zero production costs at that point, they will be losing water unless they come up with another significant revenue stream.
Yep, macraw83 is right. The costs of their broadcast rights largely outweigh their salary costs.
While this part of the issue, the larger, and more immediate issue is unbundling as a whole. As I said above, each cable subscriber pays ESPN at least $8, regardless of if said subscriber actually watches ESPN (and that's just for ESPN, if you have ESPN2, ESPNU, and SEC Network, you're probably paying ESPN closer to $15). Even if ESPN keeps continues to broadcast content from the NFL, NBA, NCAA, etc, and they let comsumers purchase a stand alone option for $15/month, they are still losing millions in revenue. With this new plan, the only people paying ESPN are the who subscribe to ESPN. Today, everyone with a cable box is paying ESPN.
Cable subscribers don't pay ESPN. Cable subscribers pay their Cable company (or whichever distributor of media). The Media distributors pay ESPN. So, any numbers of cable subscriber pays $X is conflating the process and not actually looking at how the dollars transfer.
Disney does not seem to be paid on a ESPN subscriber number basis. There is absolutely no indication of that in their quarterly reports. It is also noted that ESPN is part of a Disney package to the Media distributors.
ESPN is not losing a lot of revenue (You can find my comment on the quarterly reports here). Cord-cutting, however, is directly affecting cable companies and satellite providers which pay Disney for the right to air their content. So, ESPN is indirectly affected by cable cutting, but not yet seeing revenues drop from it because they don't get paid by a pure subscription number basis.
Thus, I agree cable-cutting is problem. But, Disney and ESPN will be able to surmount this problem. They provide an Entertainment platform but do not provide direct-to-subscriber distribution. As long as people want to watch ESPN, someone will someone will pay Disney to be able to distribute it. ESPN will continue making profits in the future (assuming they don't bloat their overhead so high again).
I read through that quarterly report, and it listed the number of subscribers per channel, and while the total "affiliate fee" revenue increased there were a few reasons for this:
- The SEC Network was created between 2014 and 2015, and debuted in something like 60M homes
- The affiliate fees per-subscriber increased (for example, the carriage fee for ESPN increased from ~$8 to ~$9
I'm not sure where you get your info about how Disney gets paid, but everything I've seen says that it is strictly on a per-subscriber basis. As the cable companies lose subscribers, ESPN immediately loses that revenue.
This article is laughable. Blaming political correctness for monetary losses? What?
Glad a journalist who is best known for co-hosting a show on FS1 with Colin Cowherd can break down a financial decision without any knowledge of accounting or corporate finance.
perhaps it is a bit unfair to claim he doesn't have any knowledge of accounting or corporate finance (we can't possibly know what he knows) but in general I agree with the point you're making. He should stick to writing about sports.
Yea, you're right. He probably doesn't know, but I don't know if he does or not. I should say the article doesn't reference accounting or corporate financing when diagnosing the problem.
It's not beyond the pail to suggest that a rise in content that could potentially alienate a segment of ESPN's consumers might hit them in the wallet.
Fox Sports bias acknowledged. I doubt Whitlock has many charitable things to say about ESPN.
I used to watch ESPN, listen to ESPN radio and read the ESPN website.
I used to do that because sports is an escape and the opportunity to participate in something that is purely recreational.
Then ESPN started on topics other than sports. It entered into politics and pop culture.
I then stopped consuming all ESPN content because I wanted sports, not pop culture and politics.
When I want pop culture (who is kidding here? I never was into pop culture.) I'll watch almost any other channel on TV.
When I want politics, I'll go to The Wall St. Journal and NY Times.
My only outlet for sports is now right here.
The alternative media isn't "taking over", We're being driven to it.
If it ain't a slam dunk or a guy hitting a baseball over the outfield wall, it shouldn't be on ESPN.
(Feel free to add in other sports highlights as desired.)
the best ESPN is Classic ESPN. Give me the "rumblin' stumblin" commentary every day of the year.
I just want good color commentary, smart analysis and someone with gravitas and great catch phrases & nicknaming to do sports in review. I will also take all non-talking head programs.
Don't need the journalism either. Other sports sites are MUCH better at it.
#returnrumblinstumblin
Exactly. They got rid of the Sports Reporters? That was one of the best pure sports show they had. I learned so much about football when I was a little kid by watching NFL Matchup early Sunday morning with my dad. I know a lot of people started to hate Jaws after his MNF stint, but he and Merril Hoge on that show was awesome. I don't even know where or when it's on now because instead of having those shows they have 4 hours of NFL Countdown so I can watch Ray Lewis scream in a language that can't possibly be English.
Lots of fond memories watching NFL Matchup with my dad as well, great show, very much a challenge to find anything of that caliber on ESPN now.
IMO this is the quintessential, "forgot where we came from" scenario. Evolving is great if you evolve to something of substance. ESPN was every fan's sports solace and grabbed the market share for providing what we all wanted: Sports. They were first in and that was bank. In the mainstreaming of sports though, instead of maintaining (and being the best at) the thing that made everyone love them, they attempted to talk the loudest to keep our attention.
Get rid of everyone that only provide opinions. Keep those that talk only sports. Produce content laden programs, like the 30 for 30 series. Simple. If ESPN were to do that it would maintain its strangle hold on sports while every other sports media yells and screams to get attention.
Remember who you are - Mufasa
I think what people don't fully come to grasps with is the sheer volume of media we now have at our disposal. It isn't that ESPN became too political. The reality is, and consumers have spoken, is that ESPN is no longer producing the best content. People are going elsewhere for their daily consumption of sports. I only watch ESPN when games are on. I don't care to watch anything else, for the most part it is poorly produced. It's click bait. It's social driven. It's sensational. And it's poorly done for that. It's not that I don't like social commentary with sports, the two actually go hand in hand. Sports are part of our social makeup. Political movements and sports can intersect. The fabrics of our society and life lessons we teach our children, sports can be a great way to express those.
There is over saturation the market, so you can pick what you like and personalities that you like. I used to listen to Bill Simmons podcast, but now I don't because I found Pardon My Take which I like better and is in the same mold. They just do that type of commentary better. I'll keep listening until something better comes along. ESPN is struggling because there is so many options and they are no longer the only ones doing it.
There is a point to watching ESPN other than during games?
You almost have it.
ESPN got hot when they were sports and just sports. They were good at it and that's what they did.
They started introducing politics and non-sports culture into what should be all sports, all the time. Now, you get a political surprise periodically and it completely destroys my escape from RL.
So, why should I watch it, if I can't use it as an escape?
I think you hit my point on the head, Egbert. It is YOUR opinion that a sports station should be sports all the time. You want a place that you can escape to and just hear sports. There are plenty of options now and you can leave ESPN behind and get your fill.
ESPN hasnt become to political? Theres a reason places like Target and ESPN are losings huge amounts of money...simply because they are trying to make political statements when their business models have nothing to do with politics... hence, pissing off 50+% of people
I think we've found the line for this particular sub-thread.
Just out of curiosity what is wrong with my comment? ESPN was awesome like 10 years ago when they did nothing but highlights, and teenage boys would wake up early to see the sportscenter top 10 from the day before... Just not sure personally what sports and national politics have to do with eachother...
You hit the line when you started expanding your criticism into unrelated areas, e.g. Target. Let's not dive into that hot-button issue or any other. If you want to bemoan ESPN's content not being what it used to, that's fine. But now we're extrapolating into really dicey areas and that's not appropriate for TKP.
I said it earlier and I'll say it now. What gets me the most about these kind of comments is that the people posting them are making a political statement knowing full well that any reply to the message will be shot down by yourself. Keeping the statement about Target up allows that viewpoint to stay without anyone being able to reply. It's subtly showing TKPs acceptance of that viewpoint, even in a completely unintentional way by yourself.
not even remotely
No, it doesn't. It is being identified as unacceptable and publicly stated as such. I could easily just delete the comment or just slam it with a -20 downvote. But I'm not going to. I'm going to use the opportunity to say, "hey let's modify the behavior here because this is a case of what is not allowed." If it persists, I will hit that user with a penalty. If it persists further, that person is banned. End of story. I attempt to use my delegated powers only when needed, and prefer to educate rather than punish immediately.
Wait a second. I thought you only had -10. When did you get a power up?
Long time ago. We found that -10 wasn't enough of a penalty to deter things.
Interesting. I wonder what other secrets the overlords are keeping from us.
Alum is actually VTGM's alt account where he can go off the handle at times.
HEY I TOLD YOU THAT IN CONFIDENCE
This is the first time a gif has actually got me to really belly laugh. Perfect choice!
French loves cheese and Joe has recently developed an affinity for pants.
I knew no one actually hates cheese.
But Joe an affinity for pants? No way, man.
There are dozens of us. DOZENS!
Drew Harris is secretly French.
The bulk of ESPN's revenue comes from cable subscriber fees, which isn't dependent on viewership. Their political statements have a minimal effect on their bottom line.
Also, ESPN, as are other companies, are hurt when people, who may never watch their networks to begin with, drop cable.
Politics has nothing to do with ESPN's predicament. It's a market issue and nothing more. Any place that says otherwise is purposely misleading you by appealing to your own preconceived beliefs to sell you their larger narrative. I've seen places citing studies with "unhappy Republican viewers" and whatnot in efforts to show the two are linked. They all say the same thing. ESPN became more "liberal" or started talking politics and the trend in these unhappy people started falling in 2015 or 2016 so with these falling ratings from disgruntled viewers, ESPN had this massive talent layoff. Well guess what. ESPN also had massive layoffs in 2013, when these people were still "happy". Why'd it happen? Same reason as it is now. Market forces from cord cutting.
ESPN spent HUGE in the time period of 09, 10, 11 on TV rights, talent, infrastructure etc. They did this in a time when streaming services were starting to become a thing. That was a mistake. Their lack of foresight hurt them because their market place has changed dramatically. They can no longer depend on the revenue they get from cable/sat packages. Whether you watch ESPN or not is largely irrelevant because if you have basic level packages, you get ESPN therefore they get money. But a significant number of people have dropped those packages this decade, that money pool shrunk. Now their rate of profits isn't as high as projected (they are still profitable BTW). This ruffles shareholders' feathers. They gotta do something to seem like they have control over the situation to appease the shareholders. So far, they've been doing short term window dressing moves with layoffs that have happened in 2013, 15, and 17. It's a way to weather the storm without making necessary, expensive moves that need to be made like detaching themselves from cable/sat (they've started this recently with rumors abound that stand alone streaming apps, similar to HBO, are coming).
This isn't just an ESPN problem, its a sports problem (and cable in general) as channels adapt to the new market that includes streaming options. FS1, which nobody would claim as "liberal", faces the exact same issue. In fact, they cut their entire news room last year in their round of layoffs. Nobody decried politics at their struggles. This is a market based issue due to cord cutting and streaming services. That is the reality. Everything else is just noise.
I don't watch it as much because its too much talking amongst the people on the shows and a little bit of politics. Max Kellerman is the worst when it comes to always bringing up his political viewpoints. We get it, you don't like Trump, but it seems like any chance he has to bring him or his policies up, he can't resist.
Not a layoff, but an official change. ESPN finally announced that Mike and Mike are breaking up.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/05/mike-greenberg-mike-golic-espn-breakup
Mike Greenberg will leave to host an ESPN morning show next January. Greenberg will get replaced by Trey Wingo. Wingo and Mike Golic will continue on ESPN2 until it eventually gets moved to ESPNU. Mike Golic Jr. will join them for the first hour every morning.
I get the sense that Golic isn't particularly happy about it?
Saw this last night and was confused...why break up one of your most popular shows and put the hosts competing against each other in the same time slot?
From what little I've read, I've concluded that Greenberg was probably asking for his own thing. It certainly doesn't seem like Golic has been too happy about it
Given the rumors of ESPNU being rebranded as the ACCNetwork in 2019, I wonder if this is ESPN's long play to kill off that radio show, and show Golic the door.
From what I've gathered, I think this is more of Greenburg's agent pushing for the career move Greenburg has always wanted.
There's also the rumor that ESPNU would become ESPN3 on air, and ESPNEWS would give way to the ACC Network.
(In which case, they should just go ahead and make the online version THE OCHO.)
As for Golic, I don't think ESPN would give him a new contract last month, in the midst of layoffs if they were wanting to show him the door.
I would dislike showing Golic the door. With Brando claiming that ND may be ACC-bound, he'd be PERFECT in the booth as a color guy.
Many moons ago, prior to this radio gig, I thought Golic was a good game analyst.
Because that is just what the public is clamoring for, more Mike Greenberg. /s
I like their show. They're not perfect and get stuff wrong sometimes (*cough* Battle of Bristol *cough*) but it's good, light-hearted background noise in the morning. If I ever tuned in and saw Golic with a guest host I knew it would still be alright. If I saw Greenie and someone other than Golic I would give it a shot, but inevitably change it to something else.
They are really good at their "Smart Guy-Fancy Lad and Dumb Jock Slob" shtick, but over the years it has become quite clear that Greenberg isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is and quite often Golic ends up being the more measured, reasonable, and intelligent one of the two. I think Greenberg is going to be in for quite the rude awakening when the viewers don't flock to his new show the way that he thinks they will. Meanwhile, Golic will just keeping chugging along with Wingo and Golic Jr. without missing a beat.
Greenberg is destined to eventually leave ESPN for a GMA/Today show type gig, like Josh Elliott did IMO. He's just not who I, or who anyone else I know wants to get their sports info from.
I happened to like Mike and Mike. I enjoyed the insight, as much for entertainment as anything. Not as objective as a real journalist, but not a loudmouth soundboard like SA Smith
For anyone interested (I personally find ESPN's changes in business to be fascinating), Bob Ley and Jeremy Schapp spent over an hour talking about the current state and future of ESPN (business, content, etc) with SI's Richard Deitsch.
Summary:
No news regarding the contract of John Clayton's sick ponytail
Wow I didn't see that one coming. I have to say though that that commercial is definitely one of my all time favorite ESPN commercials.
That's a shame. Clayton was one of the few ESPN guys left that I would actually stop and listen to if I saw him on the screen
On a side note, Lee Corso signed an extension with ESPN today.
Knowing that he's probably getting too old for that job but he really likes the Hokies.
brace yourselves
More Significant Layoffs Are Coming to ESPN
Read the article
Man, the more I think about it, the more I think that the ACC Network is setting up to be a primarily streaming venture with every event having 2 streams, one with an announcing crew of each school that the home fans can choose to stream. Lessens the burden on ESPN, and makes sense when you consider what Whit has been saying about the investment on campus to allow the network to happen.
I wonder how the ACC Network is coming along?
expect more of this...
Yea, who do they put behind the scenes to name Quin Blanding an Impact Player?!
He's certainly good at impacting the ground.
Just because he does it a lot doesn't mean he's good at it. Maybe they were just going off quantity.
They want the schools to do a lot of the behind the scenes work.
Sounds like Sam is safe!
SI: ESPN Lays Off Over 100 Staffers in Latest Round of Employee Cuts
When you are more focused on cutting costs than increasing revenue in business you are bound to fail.
I don't understand ESPN at all. They understand the core problem: cord-cutters (like me). And yet instead of finding ways to supplement revenue, like allowing pay-per-view for games, they seem content to just weather the storm and wait for the cable subscribers to come back.
I would be content to pay $5 to stream a VT game. So if that ends up being, say, 15 games next season ... that's 15*5 = $75. Considering they get $7/cable subscriber, that is almost the same money as getting me back as a monthly subscriber. And if they convince me to pay for VT basketball games or (horrors) some other school's game, it's gravy for them.
But I don't see any kind of creativity like that ... they put out ESPN3 and think that that will be enough to lure me back to a monthly cable subscription. It's not!
As I understood the issue a while ago, the last time espn renegotiated with the cable and satellite companies, espn agreed to not do a la carte sales of programming. Which is why Disney waited so long to get their streaming project started (someone please correct me if I am wrong).
I have not had cable television since 2009, so I am well aware of the reasons and benefits of cord-cutting. However, expect there to be some negative outcomes as well. Expect the price for programming to go up (and be more than $5 per event or require the purchase of a season pass) as cable and the regular cash stream of monthly subscribers (many of whom will not watch sports in an a la carte fashion) goes away. I would also expect to see less of the less popular sports and teams. You will also see salaries of players and staffs and profits go down as the major factor in the growth of salaries since the 90's has been the ever increasing television contract.
One thing I am noticing is the return of league produced content. I am a fan of one of those "niche" sports. I have seen more content on espn3 for olympic and niche sports. The additional content is often produced by the league, meaning contracted production crews who may or may not know the sport or regularly follow the sport. So while I get to see more of the sports I enjoy, the commentating is uninteresting and inaccurate, camera work shoddy (bad equipment and bad personnel who don't know the sports), and overall production is multiple steps down from espn standards.
Lost in all these discussions focused on ESPN is that the majority of media companies are facing a lot of these same issues. And it's not just sports media companies.
For reference, it just came out that BuzzFeed will have to lay off 100 employees due to missing revenue projections.
Fox Sports isn't immune to this either - they laid off pretty much their entire news department earlier this year in their "pivot to video" (before Horowitz was canned) and they've lost 775,000 subscribers since February.
This is just a hard reality of being in the media industry right now.
Wonder when they tell the SEC we are re-negotiating your contract... They promised so many billions to get the work and now don't have a way to recoup those contracts.
Really wish someone would remake the Jim Mora video with "LAYOFFS?!! YOU KIDDIN ME?" and circulate it with every subsequent round of announcements