ESPN to cut 100 on air / online employees

[CU Tiger]

Cameos and crowd shots aren't MY issue. I can't speak for others.
But when I watch Sportscenter and we have have a "segment" dealing with police violence, or drug abuse, or insert cause of the day here...That is a turn off for ME.

I guess the best way I can explain my thoughts is this. I tend to have groups of friends, not unlike most folks. Mine tend to clump by hobbies.
I honestly have 3 major recreational interests.
1) College Football
2) Cars (and trucks, jeeps, ATVs...etc)
3) Hunting and Fishing

For example I think most know I am extremely passionate about college football and follow Clemson almost to a point of obsession. I have a fishing buddy that everytime we go fishing insists on talking college football even though he never watches the game. Ever. He reads about it and then makes half baked attempts at analysis based on someone else's summary. That leads to him making half baked nonsensical arguments. As a result he and I rarely fish together anymore. Despite the fact that out of 5 or 6 friends he is probably the best fit for me from a pure fishing standpoint. We have the same pace, knowledge, styles and fish well together. But because he insists on talking about football almost the entire time and in an ignorant manner it makes the encounter uncomfortable for me to the point of unbearable. Because I either have to listen to ignorant drivel (that Bama player had an Uzi in his car and Saban said it was his 2nd amendment rights. That's why Bama wins they pay off everyone. or Spurrier intentionally cut all the Gamecocks good players then quit to make his legacy better. Now since they were cut NCAA doesn't allow SC to reinstate them - these are 2 actual arguments) or constantly correct him and make the entire evening an argument. With ESPN I cant even engage a dialogue. I am force fed whatever amount of propoganda they serve. So I turn them off.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

For me, and for the record I'm openly very conservative among this crowd (not so much among other circles Im in) my problem isnt the Bruce Jenner coverage, per se, it is the mention of it at all.

Let me phrase it this way, I consider myself a Christian. But if during an NBA game I hear, "Lebron saves the ball from going out and passes to Kyrie, and speaking of saving things just a reminder that Jesus Christ died to save your soul, now back to the action as Curry steal the ball..."

I'm equally as out.
If I am watching the 6 oclock news I expect a variety of topics and coverage. If I tune to Bloomberg TV, or Fox Business I dont expect or want sport highlights. Sports are a distraction or an entertainment item for me. Business if more about financials and a different mind set. It is the entire genesis and reason for niche channels. The reason I want a sports channel is I want that channel to be SPORTS. That's it. If I want politics I will tune to a political channel. Forcing me to consume one while seeking another costs you my business.

But Bruce Jenner was an Olympic gold medal athlete. Even as a kid I knew who Bruce Jenner was for what he did in the Olympics.

So, the Bruce Jenner story did have a pretty strong sports angle to it. Like I said, I don't watch too much ESPN, so I have no idea how much time they spent on this story, but given that he is a very famous U.S. gold medal winner, ESPN would be derelict in their duty as a "The World Leader In Sports" if they DIDN'T cover it.

If Bruce Jenner was just some actor or some random person in Hollywood, like, say, the Wachowski brothers, then, yes, I would say it would be a "outside the lines' (pun intended) if ESPN spent any amount of time covering the story. But given Jenner's Olympic pedigree and fame for being an athlete, this WAS a sports story and deserved at least some amount of coverage on the network.

Just because the story itself makes you uncomfortable or they way they reported on it doesn't conform to your political or "moral" beliefs, doesn't make it not a sports news story.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

But Bruce Jenner was an Olympic gold medal athlete. Even as a kid I knew who Bruce Jenner was for what he did in the Olympics.

So, the Bruce Jenner story did have a pretty strong sports angle to it. Like I said, I don't watch too much ESPN, so I have no idea how much time they spent on this story, but given that he is a very famous U.S. gold medal winner, ESPN would be derelict in their duty as a "The World Leader In Sports" if they DIDN'T cover it.

If Bruce Jenner was just some actor or some random person in Hollywood, like, say, the Wachowski brothers, then, yes, I would say it would be a "outside the lines' (pun intended) if ESPN spent any amount of time covering the story. But given Jenner's Olympic pedigree and fame for being an athlete, this WAS a sports story and deserved at least some amount of coverage on the network.

Just because the story itself makes you uncomfortable or they way they reported on it doesn't conform to your political or "moral" beliefs, doesn't make it not a sports news story.

The story doesnt make me uncomfortable and it has nothing to do with morals.

I am not sure where you got that from my post. And it isnt JUST about the Jenner thing. I dont care about former NFL player turned congressman and how he voted on a random bill in the house. Despite the fact that he played sports once upon a time. His political career isnt a sports story.

I dont watch ESPN for human interest pieces. I watch it for SPORTS news. Id rather someone read me the box score than editorialize and tell me their beliefs on, well...anything. I dont care what Michael Jordan thinks about global warming. Ill go to scientist for their take. I do care about how MJ shoots the ball.

That's my point.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

For me, and for the record I'm openly very conservative among this crowd (not so much among other circles Im in) my problem isnt the Bruce Jenner coverage, per se, it is the mention of it at all.

Let me phrase it this way, I consider myself a Christian. But if during an NBA game I hear, "Lebron saves the ball from going out and passes to Kyrie, and speaking of saving things just a reminder that Jesus Christ died to save your soul, now back to the action as Curry steal the ball..."

I'm equally as out.
If I am watching the 6 oclock news I expect a variety of topics and coverage. If I tune to Bloomberg TV, or Fox Business I dont expect or want sport highlights. Sports are a distraction or an entertainment item for me. Business if more about financials and a different mind set. It is the entire genesis and reason for niche channels. The reason I want a sports channel is I want that channel to be SPORTS. That's it. If I want politics I will tune to a political channel. Forcing me to consume one while seeking another costs you my business.

Why exactly was Jenner used as such an example for 'other things than sports reduce ratings', but Tebow wasn't? Your second paragraph is basically in the background of all the Tebow stories, right (and FTR, I've defended Tebow quite a bit)? I know people complained about how much time they spent on Tebow, but no one is claiming that ESPN has lost viewers because they focus so much on 'the Christian agenda' (or what have you).

I think the real reason is what Rainmaker pointed out so succinctly: "People aren't watching SportsCenter because the internet exists."

They may not enjoy some of the takes that ESPN original programming takes on issues, but that isn't the main reason they aren't watching SC.

I mean, think about it, College Gameday (the one show I do tend to watch... mostly because it's on after a game I just saw) has very little political stuff (mostly due to how a political thing affected whether a college player is playing today), but it's ratings are down as well. Why? As Childish Gambino would say: Because the Internet.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I dont care about former NFL player turned congressman and how he voted on a random bill in the house. Despite the fact that he played sports once upon a time. His political career isnt a sports story.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why exactly was Jenner used as such an example for 'other things than sports reduce ratings', but Tebow wasn't? Your second paragraph is basically in the background of all the Tebow stories, right (and FTR, I've defended Tebow quite a bit)? I know people complained about how much time they spent on Tebow, but no one is claiming that ESPN has lost viewers because they focus so much on 'the Christian agenda' (or what have you).

By the same logic, Pat Tillman's death and legacy shouldn't be covered either.

[CU Tiger]

Maybe I missed part of the argument, and if so I apologize.

I am not suggesting in any way that all or even a majority of viewership decline is because of political issues. Cord Cutting is the MAJOR reason. But it is A REASON.

Its a tired argument, but 10 years ago there were hours a day that a TV in my home or office was tuned to either CMT or MTV for background music. As both of those channels branched out away from music and music videos, I cant even tell you what channel number they are.

I think thats the argument I was trying to make.

[molson]

Lots of cable networks have had variations of these complaints - ESPN strays too far from sports, the History Channel moved away from history, MTV stopped showing music videos.

I'm sure these channels have metrics and cost analysis about what content drives viewers, interest, clicks, social media, etc. There are reasons they evolved the way they did. Obviously that turns off a lot of people, but change always will.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

But Bruce Jenner was an Olympic gold medal athlete. Even as a kid I knew who Bruce Jenner was for what he did in the Olympics.

So, the Bruce Jenner story did have a pretty strong sports angle to it. Like I said, I don't watch too much ESPN, so I have no idea how much time they spent on this story, but given that he is a very famous U.S. gold medal winner, ESPN would be derelict in their duty as a "The World Leader In Sports" if they DIDN'T cover it.

If Bruce Jenner was just some actor or some random person in Hollywood, like, say, the Wachowski brothers, then, yes, I would say it would be a "outside the lines' (pun intended) if ESPN spent any amount of time covering the story. But given Jenner's Olympic pedigree and fame for being an athlete, this WAS a sports story and deserved at least some amount of coverage on the network.

Just because the story itself makes you uncomfortable or they way they reported on it doesn't conform to your political or "moral" beliefs, doesn't make it not a sports news story.

Completely disagree. Not all stories about athletes are sports stories, hence the reason why things like OTL were created. Forcing those same discussions into places where it's clear that people don't want to hear about them is the problem. I don't care about Brent Musberger's opinion on Joe Mixon and I damn well don't want to hear him prattling on about it during a football game where he's supposed to be doing play by play.

It actually is possible to have Sportscenter and game broadcasts that don't spend large chunks of their time pushing one agenda or another.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

Lots of cable networks have had variations of these complaints - ESPN strays too far from sports, the History Channel moved away from history, MTV stopped showing music videos.

I'm sure these channels have metrics and cost analysis about what content drives viewers, interest, clicks, social media, etc. There are reasons they evolved the way they did. Obviously that turns off a lot of people, but change always will.

It's just like the Super Bowl having so much crap these days that is there to appeal to people who don't like football. It ruins the game to some degree. I try to combat it by recording and then skipping through all the crap, but I can't do that when other people are watching.

[jbergey22]

Some very interesting conversations going on in this thread had me thinking.

I rarely watch ESPN these days and I was trying to put a finger on why and I think many of you have nailed the reasons perfectly.

*They spend more time talking with people rather than showing highlights on Sportscenter.

*They used to do a nice job of hooking you to keep watching(on Sportscenter) where as now the hook is something I dont give a rats ass about.

*While PTI may draw ratings I simply can not stand that show or shows like it. It all seems set up because Skip couldnt have possibly been as stupid as some of the comments he made.

The shows I like/liked College Gameday, NFL Matchup, NFL Primetime arent an every day show so ESPN gets me to watch 3 shows plus sports. Not really a ratings driver.

Perhaps they spread themselves too thin with all of the different ESPN networks and took too much content that people liked off the major network to fill in gaps on the deuce or ESPN U?

Maybe ESPN forgot who their primary fanbase is in order to try to get more Mainstream. Moving the NFL draft from Saturday/Sunday to Thursday/Friday/Saturday still annoys me. Certainly not a move made to please the hardcore sports fans. How much input ESPN had on this move who knows?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People aren't watching SportsCenter because the internet exists. And people got fired because ESPN spent a crapton of money on broadcasting rights to the major sports leagues.

I'm sure there are a handful of people who want a safe space and won't watch ESPN over some politics but that's got to be a minuscule number.

Agree 100%

I'm torn on this. I will watch every 30-for-30 the moment it comes out and have liked over 75% of them. It's one of my favorite things that ESPN is doing right now. But, I would love to be able to watch a 30 minute recap of the NBA/NHL playoff highlights without having to sit through numerous panels and human interest stories. So, I like the deep dives on 30-for-30 and even some OTL episodes, but I don't want that at 9:30 when I just want to turn my brain off and watch highlights. I think this is why I struggle watching much ESPN.

As an aside, I love the Premiere League review show on NBCSN. It's one hour and gives highlights on ever match over the weekend. I usually just watch Man U games, so seeing a quick highlight for each of the other matches is perfect. I'd love something like that for baseball, NBA playoffs or NHL playoffs (or multiple grouped together).

[ISiddiqui]

I also tend to wonder if one of the things that folks here claim is a feature in their viewing of SportsCenter is something that tended to annoy others and they couldn't do anything about it until the internet was ubiquitous - the fact that you had to sit through highlights, scores, analysis of leagues you weren't all that into.

I know people have said they enjoyed that, but I do remember being slightly annoyed that SC was going on and on about NBA scores when I couldn't give a damn about the sport. And now, I don't have to sit through half a show of NBA scores when I was just waiting for the rest of the baseball highlights.

[Kodos]

For me, BTN is a much better value. I easily watch 20x more stuff on BTN that I do ESPN. ESPN is games only for me at this point.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Kodos

For me, BTN is a much better value. I easily watch 20x more stuff on BTN that I do ESPN. ESPN is games only for me at this point.

You can get your Harbaugh fix on ESPN, too, btw.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Completely disagree. Not all stories about athletes are sports stories, hence the reason why things like OTL were created. Forcing those same discussions into places where it's clear that people don't want to hear about them is the problem. I don't care about Brent Musberger's opinion on Joe Mixon and I damn well don't want to hear him prattling on about it during a football game where he's supposed to be doing play by play.

It actually is possible to have Sportscenter and game broadcasts that don't spend large chunks of their time pushing one agenda or another.

Is it really clear that people don't want to hear about those stories?

What agendas do they spend large chunks of time pushing exactly?

As I've said, I don't watch too much ESPN any more, but based on my viewing the agendas they spend large chunks of time trying to push are: LeBron James, the Dallas Cowboys, LeBron James, Tim Tebow (back in the day), LeBron James, the NFL, LeBron James, the NBA, LeBron James, college football, LeBron James, baseball, and LeBron James.

[JPhillips]

If any of the dropoff in viewers is due to politics, and I'm not convinced it is, it is all about Schilling. I saw a poll recently that tracked ESPN favorability by party ID and Jenner caused a small GOP dip that quickly rebounded, but the Schilling firing led to a steady downward slope.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

What agendas do they spend large chunks of time pushing exactly?

Between some of the 538 stuff, Undefeated, and the editorializing of ESPNW, the website is pretty clear about pushing a left-wing agenda.

I couldn't tell you how much of that crap makes it to TV.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Between some of the 538 stuff, Undefeated, and the editorializing of ESPNW, the website is pretty clear about pushing a left-wing agenda.

I couldn't tell you how much of that crap makes it to TV.

Back to this word. So let's look at it a little more. I just went to ESPN.com (for the first time in who knows how long). Here's what I see as I scroll:

- Scores up top
- Main story image and headline in the center - Tony Parker
- To the right of that, top headlines: Cutler, Richard Sherman trade potential, Crosby, Logano, Vegas McGregor/Mayweather, DeRozan/LeBron, Kiper
- To the left, I see quick links - top to bottom: NBA playoffs, NHL playoffs, Derby odds, Boxing, "Play Fantasy Football"
- Below that, a list of my Favorite teams
- Below that, a Fantasy section - Streak, Baseball, Football, etc
- Now we're in the middle again, news tailored to my favorites
- Below the fantasy menu, a list of ESPN Sites - 538, Undefeated, Doubletruck, espnW, ESPNFC, X Games, etc
- On the right - On this date, "stopping Steph Curry", Watch "We the Fans"
- Back to below the left-side Fantasy menu, the ESPN app menu
- Below that, other ways to follow ESPN: Twitter, Facebook, IG, etc

So the bolded there qualifies as "pushing a left-wing agenda" to you?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Back to this word. So let's look at it a little more. I just went to ESPN.com (for the first time in who knows how long). Here's what I see as I scroll:

Must display differently on different platforms and/or at different times.

My quick links are top/header links for example, there's really no "left" here.
What you're calling "middle" is essentially both left & middle frames for me.
My list of favorites is suddenly on the right today, typically on the left/center

Undefeated was actually in the middle of my various "favorites" headline stories when I opened the page just now to compare. After a GT football story, before any of the others.

Page refresh, Undefeated drops down & ESPNw "section" is ahead of the NFL, as is 538.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Must display differently on different platforms and/or at different times.

My quick links are top/header links for example, there's really no "left" here.
What you're calling "middle" is essentially both left & middle frames for me.
My list of favorites is suddenly on the right today, typically on the left/center

Undefeated was actually in the middle of my various "favorites" headline stories when I opened the page just now to compare. After a GT football story, before any of the others.

Page refresh, Undefeated drops down & ESPNw "section" is ahead of the NFL, as is 538.

Maybe you are really into ESPNw and Undefeated and it positions it likewise?

I just checked for me, and the first ESPNw article is WAAAAAY down - I even have articles on the Capitals and Oilers above it (and I don't care for hockey). And the 538 article (even lower) is about Lebron James.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Maybe you are really into ESPNw and Undefeated and it positions it likewise?

I just checked for me, and the first ESPNw article is WAAAAAY down - I even have articles on the Capitals and Oilers above it (and I don't care for hockey). And the 538 article (even lower) is about Lebron James.

Like the old saying goes, reality is 95% perception and only 5% reality. Some want to see ESPN pushing some far-left wing agenda and, thus, that's what they see when they go to the website.

When I open up ESPN, my experience is much like Logan's. It's all sports. No agenda that I can see.

That said, I don't even know what "The Undefeated" purports to be and I don't think I've ever been to the ESPNW site.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That said, I don't even know what "The Undefeated" purports to be and I don't think I've ever been to the ESPNW site.

ESPN said the publication will combine long-form and short-form storytelling, original reporting and provocative commentary aimed at African American consumers as well as those sports fans seeking a deeper understanding of black athletes, culture and related issues.

In other words, a collection of race-card hacks, looking for something to whine about more often than not.

edit to add: Maybe the problem here is that their targeting algorithms just really suck.

[Thomkal]

some sad news for Chris Berman:

Cookies are Not Accepted - New York Times

[Easy Mac]

I really want to make the "Cookies Not Accepted" joke, but I'll hold off given the sadness of the news.

[Thomkal]

yeah I kinda cringed when I saw that, but was too lazy to edit. Chris Berman's wife killed in a car accident in case anyone wanted to know.

[Ramzavail]

First thing I thought of, was "You're with me, leather"

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ramzavail

First thing I thought of, was "You're with me, leather"

Ditto

[stevew]

Thank god Bettis got fired. He added nothing to the broadcast.

[bhlloy]

Nothing will get me to change the channel faster than these Dear Mom segments Sportscenter is doing right now. Where are the focus groups that told them sports fans wanted to see more of that?

[Arles]

The same ones that said the "his and hers" format for the 6 PM Sportscenter is a winner. SVP has the best sportscenter format and he's buried at midnight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

John Clayton out at ESPN | ProFootballTalk

[stevew]

Long live the Cryptkeeper

[Atocep]

Hated Clayton. He was such a Seahawks homer it had gotten obnoxious over the past few years. He always tried to seem impartial but his constant praise of bad Seahawks draws and free agent signings was terrible.

[NobodyHere]

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/05/ha...football-theme

So now ESPN is a conservative network?

[Arles]

I think they are just grasping at anything to improve Monday Night ratings. "Bring ol Hank back and the good ol boys will come back to watch on monday night!"

[cuervo72]

“It was the original," Druley said.

I mean...no.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think they are just grasping at anything to improve Monday Night ratings. "Bring ol Hank back and the good ol boys will come back to watch on monday night!"

Us good ol' boys have a phrase that seems to fit this scenario: wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.

I've seen this story linked 4 times today on social media, (including my own share of it). 3 of those 4 shares carried some variation of my own comment about how it's nice but isn't nearly enough to get me to care about MNF again.

[Arles]

Yeah, it will be interesting the see how the bidding for MNF goes. With Sunday night and Thursday night, it has kind of lost its luster. Plus, the games have mostly been dog sh*t. I'm surprised they don't use the college football format and let the stations "draft" matchups each week. IE, for week 4, Sunday night gets the first pick, Fox afternoon the 2nd, MNF the third, Thursday the 4th and CBS afternoon the 5th. Maybe have a limit of twice for a team to be on MNF as well.

[Kodos]

How about just abandoning the stupid song intro and starting the game 3 minutes earlier?

[Ragone]

Still in utter shock Matthew Berry survived layoff's.. he's overpaid, not good, or even personable. Basically a shill for himself in anything he actually does on espn.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Still in utter shock Matthew Berry survived layoff's.. he's overpaid, not good, or even personable. Basically a shill for himself in anything he actually does on espn.

I think the fantasy stuff is one of the more profitable parts of their online division.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the fantasy stuff is one of the more profitable parts of their online division.

Yeah, I don't know the numbers, but I get the sense that fantasy is a pretty good moneymaker compared to the other stuff they do.

Also, it is harder for a reporter to go out and find another national platform for which to work. A guy like Berry could easily spin himself off to his own platform or go work for lots of other places, and he would take viewers/listeners with him.

[Arles]

He already has it. Check out rotopass.com

[Ksyrup]

Heard ESPN was making some significant cuts today. Just saw Ivan Maisel is one.

[PineTar]

Trying to remain objective and unemotional as I learn of the @espn team members laid off today. Not possible. Not as I see countless decades of journalistic experience, and expertise jettisoned. Just when we need it most. Enjoy the DIS stock price and your NFL football.

— Bob Ley (@BobLeyESPN) November 5, 2020

[NobodyHere]

I will enjoy my football tonight, thank you.

[Vegas Vic]

This is not confined to ESPN, and it's going to continue to happen as millions of Americans continue to dump cable and satellite TV subscriptions. The chickens have come home to roost, and these networks can no longer ride the gravy train, raping and pillaging the subscribers with outrageous, escalating carrier fees.

[Ksyrup]

I know most of the cuts are behind the scenes, but any other notable names other than Maisel? I haven't seen any, but then again, my Twitter feed is kinda overwhelmed with something else right now.

[Ksyrup]

I'm guessing Golic may be on the non-renewal list. That was already rumored to be the likely outcome well before the cuts.

[bob]

Golic would be best served working the sideline for Notre Dame games.