ESPN to cut 100 on air / online employees

[ISiddiqui]

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/D...ESPN-cuts.aspx

Following the cuts a few years ago when 200 behind the scenes folks were fired. This seems to have been feared for a while now, as declining ratings and high sports rights fees have combined to create an unsustainable situation.

Some big names too, like Ed Werder.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/D...ESPN-cuts.aspx

Following the cuts a few years ago when 200 behind the scenes folks were fired. This seems to have been feared for a while now, as declining ratings and high sports rights fees have combined to create an unsustainable situation.

Some big names too, like Ed Werder.

I got a subscription to ESPN Mag/insider for $5 for two years and a few days ago a renewal for $39.99 a year was offered. When I called and said I would be willing to pay $10-15 for the insider the guy said $39.99. Seems like the business practice my old landline company used before they basically became obsolete. I actually had gotten used to the insider articles and information and found it somewhat useful. Wonder how many people they are missing out on with just dumb deals like this?

[BYU 14]

Not a big surprise and I was talking about how bloated their on air staff was and you have some folks that probably make upwards of 100-200K for a few weeks of work each year.

I can see them cutting analysts and having other staff do more full time work vs. seasonal stuff.

Just curious where you saw Werder's name?

[cuervo72]

Too. Many. Worthless. Ex. Jocks.

[albionmoonlight]

Wonder if this will eventually trickle down to the leagues. If ESPN isn't there spending like a drunken sailor during the bidding process, it would seem like the rights fees for lots of sports leagues will go down (or at least stop growing so quickly)

[cuervo72]

You would have to think that would happen eventually.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by panerd

I got a subscription to ESPN Mag/insider for $5 for two years and a few days ago a renewal for $39.99 a year was offered. When I called and said I would be willing to pay $10-15 for the insider the guy said $39.99. Seems like the business practice my old landline company used before they basically became obsolete. I actually had gotten used to the insider articles and information and found it somewhat useful. Wonder how many people they are missing out on with just dumb deals like this?

Of course some people are going to feel differently but $3.33/month for insider is a nice deal on its own. I remember the days when Id have to pay for magazines/newspapers to get a small percentage of the stuff we get now for a lower rate.

For comparison if I remember correctly KenPom costs $20/year. Pro Football Focus is even more expensive(cant remember the exact rate cause they have so many add ons). Wall Street Journal online is over $30 month until every month I try to cancel they give me a $1 offer to stay.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Just curious where you saw Werder's name?

He tweeted it:

Ed Werder on Twitter: "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"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Wonder if this will eventually trickle down to the leagues. If ESPN isn't there spending like a drunken sailor during the bidding process, it would seem like the rights fees for lots of sports leagues will go down (or at least stop growing so quickly)

Well that's a big part of it. Rights fees are so astronomical that any bump to revenue (and even though a small amount of folks, percentage wise, are cutting the cord, it's enough to make a dent) is going to cause issues.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I remember the days when Id have to pay for magazines/newspapers to get a small percentage of the stuff we get now for a lower rate.

That's the other shoe... if you can get specialized analysis from the internet or watch highlights on webpages, why pay for magazines or watch folks on Sportscenter or other shows explaining things?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Of course some people are going to feel differently but $3.33/month for insider is a nice deal on its own. I remember the days when Id have to pay for magazines/newspapers to get a small percentage of the stuff we get now for a lower rate.

For comparison if I remember correctly KenPom costs $20/year. Pro Football Focus is even more expensive(cant remember the exact rate cause they have so many add ons). Wall Street Journal online is over $30 month until every month I try to cancel they give me a $1 offer to stay.

If you've still got a student email, shop that around on prices. Washington Post is free, WSJ is $49/yr, etc.

[CrescentMoonie]

ESPN has been losing about 300k subscribers per month for a couple of years now and that accelerated to over 1 million combined for October and November last year. A pace of 3 million per year is noticeable. If it gets to 5-6 million per year then eventually the model has to die and be replaced by something else.

[Arles]

From what I've seen on twitter, it looks like ESPN will be gutting hockey coverage.

[Arles]

Here's the list of people laid off that I've seen:

Tennessee Titans beat writer Paul Kuharsky
Ed Werder
anchor John Buccigross
College basketball reporter Dana O’Neil
ESPNU anchor Brendan Fitzgerald
Soccer writer Mike Goodman
Austin Ward, Big Ten reporter
NHL guys:
Scott Burnside
Joe McDonald
Pierre LeBrun

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

if you can get specialized analysis from the internet or watch highlights on webpages, why pay for magazines or watch folks on Sportscenter or other shows explaining things?

The specialized analysis I get - I don't need to watch people talk about sports on TV (or podcasts) because I can consume that information so much more quickly and efficiently online. There's a few exceptions, like I enjoy PTI and one or two sports podcasts, but I have no use for the hundreds of talking heads.

But I've never really found a highlight replacement for what SportsCenter and the old NFL Primetime show used to be. Where I can get a 1-3 minute mini re-telling of the story of the game, with highlights, and banter and commentary to provide comedic and dramatic effect. On MLB.com I can get 8 30 second clips of every game. I'll check that out if I hear of a particularly crazy play I want to see, but it doesn't do what a good highlights package does.

I'm curious how other people consume sports news and highlights these days. I've never been a big watcher of games outside of my own teams. And these days, I'm only watching big games involving my teams - maybe 1 game a month. So now, without SportsCenter, I pretty much just hear the big bullet-point headlines - and it seems like 80% of those are more social/political stories involving athletes. (was this comment sexist, should that guy stand for the anthem, etc.) So I'm just not as immersed in what's going on on the on-field aspects as I used to be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm curious how other people consume sports news and highlights these days.

probably 95% (or more) of what I "watch" is just having a live boxscore open in a tab, during CFB season more than one at a time. My nerves haven't handled actually watching traditionally very well in a number of years, and it's gotten worse.

I'll hit their .com for headlines, click a handful of stray stories over the course of checking 2-3 times briefly during the day. And that's as briefly as I can manage usually, since all the non-sports/social crap isn't just clutter to me, it's outright annoying (and sometimes more like distractingly anger-provoking).
ESPN.com in particular has a knack for taking the joy out of sports for me & making it just another rage-inducing political avenue.

[Arles]

Just saw this as well:

Other ESPN personalities are seeing their roles "significantly reduced," a person with knowledge of the situation told The Hollywood Reporter. They include Baseball Tonight's Karl Ravitch, ESPN Radio's Ryen Russillo and Hannah Storm, who has been a mainstay at ESPN for a decade and hosted various iterations of flagship SportsCenter

Russillo was really the only radio guy left I could stand. I also have always liked Ravitch. I'm wondering at what point people just start hitting the NFL network/Fox in NFL season, MLB network over the summer and NHL network for the hockey playoffs. Outside of maybe college football/basketball (but fox sports and CBS are decent options there), I'm not sure what sport ESPN is actually the best option for.

I guess they are really banking on everyone loving Stephen A and Jemele Hill.

[Logan]

I don't think I know a single person who watches ESPN or the sport-specific channels for highlights anymore. Maybe just my 70 year old father.

[cuervo72]

I really don't pay attention anymore. I don't go to ESPN other than to check the score bar or schedules (and half the time I just google it instead). Don't listen to ESPN radio. I'll search for baseball games to put on in the background, but really I'm browsing or doing whatever on my laptop (games, simming FOBL/FOFL, etc). So really, cut away.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm wondering at what point people just start hitting the NFL network/Fox in NFL season, MLB network over the summer and NHL network for the hockey playoffs.

I think that point is a fair distance away yet.

I literally can't tell you within 20 spots where any of those sport-specific channels are on my Dish receiver (300s somewhere, probably? 400s maybe?) Hell, I can't tell you with absolute certainty which of them are/aren't included in my current programming package.

I'd say they're still similarly obscure to a pretty sizable number of people, whereas even my non-sports fan mom in her 70s knows where ESPN is on the dial.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

But I've never really found a highlight replacement for what SportsCenter and the old NFL Primetime show used to be. Where I can get a 1-3 minute mini re-telling of the story of the game, with highlights, and banter and commentary to provide comedic and dramatic effect. On MLB.com I can get 8 30 second clips of every game. I'll check that out if I hear of a particularly crazy play I want to see, but it doesn't do what a good highlights package does.

I'm curious how other people consume sports news and highlights these days.

I think that a lot of people aren't necessarily interested in the banter and commentary. I see a lot of (on social media) "Just get to the highlights!" type of mentality.

Then again, folks on social media are not fans of the yelling talk shows on ESPN... but they aren't actually tuning in for informative shows (or are tuning in less than the yelling talk shows).

[Logan]

Wow, Brett McMurphy is out.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Logan

Wow, Brett McMurphy is out.

Ravech and Hannah Storm will have their roles significantly reduced.

Anything to keep paying Stephen A. Smith to annoy the public.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Anything to keep paying Stephen A. Smith to annoy the public.

At least he's right once in a (too rare) while.

Jemele Hill on the other hand ...

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At least he's right once in a (too rare) while.

Jemele Hill on the other hand ...

John you can't agree with Stephen A at all. Not even in a too rare while.

This will screw my entire world view.

[ISiddiqui]

Well Smith does get the ratings. People apparently like blowhards (Skip Bayless gets great ratings somehow).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

(Skip Bayless gets great ratings somehow).

Not anymore. Literally. He gets a 0.0 rating in many markets.

[Kodos]

Pretty much I just watch the games for my teams these days. No pre-game shows, no highlight shows, no sports debate shows. And the sports that I do watch, I generally watch on delay so I can skip commercials. Advertisers must love me.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well Smith does get the ratings. People apparently like blowhards (Skip Bayless gets great ratings somehow).

Just like women never go for the nice guy... men never go for the "nice" radio host. They like to listen to guys who piss them off and then complain about them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

John you can't agree with Stephen A at all. Not even in a too rare while.

This will screw my entire world view.

It happens now & then honestly. He had one of those last week, when he loudly called for Phil Jackson to be o-u-t OUT in NY.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well Smith does get the ratings. People apparently like blowhards (Skip Bayless gets great ratings somehow).

http://www.sbnation.com/2017/4/5/151...undisputed-fs1

Was curious about this and I found out through Google that Richard Deitsch is doing God's work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Every time Skip Bayless says something dumb, his sad TV ratings get thrown in his face - SBNation.com

Was curious about this and I found out through Google that Richard Deitsch is doing God's work.

Okay, I have no clue what their backstory is but those comparisons are GOLD.

(And right up my alley too, I used the same sort of thing to keep TNA's rating in some perspective)

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just saw this as well:

Russillo was really the only radio guy left I could stand.

I guess they are really banking on everyone loving Stephen A and Jemele Hill.

Agreed with both of these. Despite ratings for the shows featuring those two tanking, they're willing to go down with the ship with them but Rusillo gets cut out? I enjoy LeBatard for the absurdity of it, but can't stand his sports commentary.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think that a lot of people aren't necessarily interested in the banter and commentary. I see a lot of (on social media) "Just get to the highlights!" type of mentality.

I'm not a fan of the banter and commentary BETWEEN highlight packages. The NBC Sunday Night football pre-game show actually does pretty good highlights, they're just surrounded by useless thoughts from Tony Dungy or boring sit-down interviews.

For me though, those old-style story-telling format of highlights was THE way I knew what was going on in a league, who the important players were, and why they were good. Now, I probably couldn't name 10 MLB players that aren't on the Red Sox or used to play for the Red Sox. I can still picture Mark McGwire's or Mike Schmidt's swing, but I don't think I've ever seen Bryce Harper hit. And I certainly wasn't watching A's or Philles games back in the day. Unless you're clicking on dozens of un-narrated highlight clips, I guess the only way to become familiar with these players in 2017 (in terms of how they actually play the game), is to watch the games. And I'm not going to do that.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Logan

I don't think I know a single person who watches ESPN or the sport-specific channels for highlights anymore. Maybe just my 70 year old father.

I'm getting up there, but not quite 70 yet

One show I always watch is MLB tonight for the highlights, banter and live look ins. I think they have a really good formula that is well balanced, especially with 5-10 minutes snippets of live games.

I definitely don't watch ESPN for highlights at all anymore though, don't really like the format, as it seems they are trying way too hard to be the hipster sports network. It seems like they are on a path to TMZ to me.

I will watch Max and Stephen A on occasion as I actually like their show, sometimes Smith annoys me to death, others I agree with him. I think Max fits with him much better than Skip.

[CrescentMoonie]

I'm at the point that ESPN is on the TV if they're covering a game I can't really find another option to. I check out the league specific networks for anything informative or google it. I don't even watch the ESPN version of the NFL draft anymore as NFL Network does a much better job covering it.

[Toddzilla]

Trent Dilfer gone
Jim Bowden gone
Jayson Stark gone

[Toddzilla]

Jane McManus gone

[miami_fan]

Danny Kanell is gone

[JonInMiddleGA]

Eamon Brennan & David Ching both axed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At some point it may get easier to name the people who are left

[dawgfan]

I'm guessing a lot of the ESPN.com writers got axed. Ted Miller (Pac-12 football) was one of them.

[Toddzilla]

Len Elmore gone
Jay Crawford gone (!!)

[miami_fan]

A couple of TV people: Jay Crawford and Len Elmore

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At some point it may get easier to name the people who are left

I read this morning that it would be about 100 people, 50 behind the scenes, 50 names we'd recognize, 20 of which would be surprising. We are approaching that now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I read this morning that it would be about 100 people, 50 behind the scenes, 50 names we'd recognize, 20 of which would be surprising. We are approaching that now.

I think Stark might be the one so far that surprised me most.

[Arles]

Looking at this list, baseball and hockey will be skeleton crews

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Every time Skip Bayless says something dumb, his sad TV ratings get thrown in his face - SBNation.com

Was curious about this and I found out through Google that Richard Deitsch is doing God's work.

His program is basically #1 at Fox Sports 1. It's probably a bit disingenuous to compare it to other networks in terms of why Bayless is so valued at Fox Sports.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

His program is basically #1 at Fox Sports 1. It's probably a bit disingenuous to compare it to other networks in terms of why Bayless is so valued at Fox Sports.

But that's a lot like being one of the taller midgets in the room. It doesn't make you an NBA center just because you're the pygmies "big man".

ESPN, A18-49 for 2016 ... #1
FS1, A18-49 for 2016 ... #34 (roughly 1/4th the audience)

And that's a year where FS1 saw 18% growth in total viewers.
The same growth rate for all of 2017 would move them to ... 29th.

edit to add: in keeping with the comical theme from earlier. That audience is 50% smaller than Investigation Discovery. It's 10% smaller than something called FXX ... which I'm not sure I've even heard of until seeing it on the list. (that's not a typo, it's apparently the much smaller sister network to FX)

[Logan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

His program is basically #1 at Fox Sports 1.

Like being the skinniest dude at a fat camp.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But that's a lot like being one of the taller midgets in the room. It doesn't make you an NBA center just because you're the pygmies "big man".

Well, of course, but Fox is going to value their king of ratings, even if it's much less than those at other networks. He's still getting million dollar contracts because of what he means to the network itself.

It is somewhat like (but not an exact comparison) when AMC kept renewing "Mad Men" even though the ratings were terrible (around 1.0).