Movies and TV ESPN reportedly slated for another huge round of layoffs - Page 4

Eleazar · 03-06-2017, 03:45 PM

ESPN is reportedly preparing for another round of cost-cutting — and this time, the cuts could be even more significant, at least in terms of name recognition.

Michael Rand
March 6, 2017

http://strib.mn/2lPzMix

News of layoffs in the media industry have become all-too-familiar in recent years, owing to declining user rates and hollowed out advertising revenue.

Even sports media behemoth ESPN hasn’t been immune to the trend; we’re barely a year removed from a round of layoffs during which the company shed about 300 employees.

And now ESPN is reportedly preparing for another round of cost-cutting — and this time, the cuts could be even more significant, at least in terms of name recognition. SI’s Richard Deitsch has some of the details in a recent column:

SI has learned that ESPN will have significant cost-cutting over the next four months on its talent side (people in front of the camera or audio/digital screen). Multiple sources said ESPN has been tasked with paring tens of millions of staff salary from its payroll, including staffers many viewers and readers will recognize.

The reasons offered by Deitsch are familiar: ESPN’s subscriber base is shrinking — from 100 million early in 2011 to less than 88 million in a February estimate. Every lost subscriber costs the company more than $8 a month in lost revenue between ESPN and ESPN. That’s roughly $100 a year per subscriber. Multiply that by 12 million lost subscribers in the last six years and you see a $1.2 billion (per year) deficit from where ESPN could have been if the subscriber base had stayed flat.

Combine that with declining ad revenue — which caused the stock of Disney, ESPN’s parent company, to tumble at its last reporting date last month — and you have a dangerous mix that leads to layoffs.

That said, the reported layoffs also seem a little disingenuous — a move designed to appease shareholders more than something truly necessary in the moment.

I say that because even though ESPN’s subscriber base has declined steadily in recent years, their fee per user has gone up significantly in the same span. As of mid-2016, the fee for ESPN alone was $7.21 per month — up more than a dollar from 2014 and more than double what it was in 2007. Basically, ESPN is offsetting lost revenue from lost subscribers by making those who still get the network pay more.

This math is over-simplified with round numbers, but it’s still relevant: 88 million subscribers paying $7 a month ($616 million) is more revenue than 100 million subscribers paying $6 a month ($600 million).

Continuously cranking up that fee might be a dangerous game to play since there is a risk of accelerating the spiral of those ditching cable (and therefore ESPN) because of high fees. But sports are a major part of the reason subscribers stick with cable/satellite packages. What’s another dollar or two to die-hard fans? We’ll find out.

Frazod · 03-06-2017, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

This is a big part of their problem. ESPN has positioned itself as a network for (a) people who religiously follow the NBA and (b) people who aren't really sports fans, like millennial SJWs

Cable TV is what it is, it's a dying business, but ESPN is doing themselves no favors by pissing off every workaday sports fan out there.

Remember when it was all highlights and stats and it didn't seem like you'd tune in and ever see the same thing twice? When they showed sports besides basketball more than every once-in-a-while?

Yep. Of course, I remember when MTV actually played music, too.

They're shitting all over the main group of people who might actually watch their TV shows because they actually still watch TV.

**Easy 6** · 03-06-2017, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frazod

Yep. Of course, I remember when MTV actually played music, too.

They're shitting all over the main group of people who might actually watch their TV shows because they actually still watch TV.

Lotsa truth in that second part... everyone wants the young demographic, but kids are into 1001 other things and barely watch their shows at all no matter how "with the times" they try to be

Its why I hate SNL now, Lorne Michaels the old fool thinks he is staying relevant by going hard left SJW... but twenty-somethings arent watching that ****ing show

**Bearcat** · 03-06-2017, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

These articles always pop up focused on ESPN, and the hate spews (i.e., this thread).

This is going on across the entire cable industry and has little to do with the content of that one channel. ESPN is probably one of the safest commodities in television.

I'd think with sports, especially... that bubble will burst eventually.

Frazod · 03-06-2017, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Lotsa truth in that second part... everyone wants the young demographic, but kids are into 1001 other things and barely watch their shows at all no matter how "with the times" they try to be

Its why I hate SNL now, Lorne Michaels the old fool thinks he is staying relevant by going hard left SJW... but twenty-somethings arent watching that ****ing show

Same reason NFL viewership is down. The damned agenda-pushing is just ridiculous. Prior to last year, unless it was a playoff game or close to Veteran's Day, they never showed the National Anthem before a game. They did it last year and kept panning the sidelines looking for players who would kneel, hoping to stir controversy. It was obvious and pathetic. I just want to watch the damn game. I'm also sick to death of the hot pink accessories the players are forced to wear for a full month - yeah, I know it's a cancer awareness thing, but I also believe there are people at the top who just think it's funny to make a bunch of alpha males parade around wearing hot pink clothing and shove it down our throats. And then, of course, at the end of the season, the same goddamn teams with the same goddamn goldenboys win the championship year after year after year.

Stop preaching, stop glorifying the assholes who hate America, write a check to the National Cancer Society for all the money you spend on the pink shit, and maybe, just maybe, allow somebody not named Brady, Manning or Roethlisburger to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl for once.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-06-2017, 07:45 PM

It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with cord-cutting and ala carte TV packages. This is happening to every cable network.

O.city · 03-06-2017, 07:57 PM

During basketball season they show too much basketball. Huh, weird.

saphojunkie · 03-06-2017, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

ESPN has shifted too far left for mainstream America.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mainstream America is left.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-06-2017, 08:02 PM

You know what ESPN shows a lot of? Good teams, and teams with large fanbases. Since both tend to overlap, you tend to get a lot of coverage of those teams. Yeah, it sucks, but did you ever hear them talk about the Warriors before 2014? Have they systematically ignored the Spurs despite them winning five NBA titles?

Did they suddenly start talking about Carolina and Seattle when they were dominant NFC teams? Is there also a marked absence of Seattle Mariners baseball and the Denver Nuggets, despite the other teams in those metros receiving a ton of coverage? Why might that be?

The Steelers were great for years and they got coverage. The Pirates weren't and they didn't. Both exist in the same market. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The Packers get a ton of publicity despite being smack in the middle of America while they never talk about the Brewers anymore.

It isn't some conspiracy against flyover country.

Frazod · 03-06-2017, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Mainstream America is left.

Right. That's why Hillary Clinton was elected president.

tk13 · 03-06-2017, 08:08 PM

The even bigger issue is rights fees. The politics don't make a lick of difference, and the loss of the cord cutters definitely hurts... but ESPN charges a ton of money to cable companies.

A big problem is they are paying billions for the rights to broadcast these sports. $2 billion for the NFL, over a billion for the NBA. Nearly a billion for baseball. And that doesn't include half a billion for the College Football Playoff and hundreds of millions with all these individual conferences they broadcast in both football and basketball. They've been shedding talent for a while now. I'm really interested to see what they do when some of these TV contracts expire. Will they stop broadcasting quite as many sports as they do now?

KChiefs1 · 03-06-2017, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahiMike

This is exactly what they need to do; show the obscure stuff.

Definitely!

There are so many things out there they could show instead of two douchebag's arguing with each other.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chromatic · 03-06-2017, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with cord-cutting and ala carte TV packages. This is happening to every cable network.

Bingo.

I was able to cut my cord in late 15' and was able to save up to 50+ dollars a month. Just got a Roku box with Netflix and Hulu and bought a HD OTA antenna for football and live network stuff. Since I don't watch cable that much anymore and just spend more time online, it made sense.

Youtube is coming out with a TV package in the next few weeks and it's going to have all these channels for 35$ a month.

Cable in the traditional sense is a dodo at this point.

Al Bundy · 03-06-2017, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You know what ESPN shows a lot of? Good teams, and teams with large fanbases. Since both tend to overlap, you tend to get a lot of coverage of those teams. Yeah, it sucks, but did you ever hear them talk about the Warriors before 2014? Have they systematically ignored the Spurs despite them winning five NBA titles?

Did they suddenly start talking about Carolina and Seattle when they were dominant NFC teams? Is there also a marked absence of Seattle Mariners baseball and the Denver Nuggets, despite the other teams in those metros receiving a ton of coverage? Why might that be?

The Steelers were great for years and they got coverage. The Pirates weren't and they didn't. Both exist in the same market. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The Packers get a ton of publicity despite being smack in the middle of America while they never talk about the Brewers anymore.

It isn't some conspiracy against flyover country.

This times 100.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-06-2017, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

The even bigger issue is rights fees. The politics don't make a lick of difference, and the loss of the cord cutters definitely hurts... but ESPN charges a ton of money to cable companies.

A big problem is they are paying billions for the rights to broadcast these sports. $2 billion for the NFL, over a billion for the NBA. Nearly a billion for baseball. And that doesn't include half a billion for the College Football Playoff and hundreds of millions with all these individual conferences they broadcast in both football and basketball. They've been shedding talent for a while now. I'm really interested to see what they do when some of these TV contracts expire. Will they stop broadcasting quite as many sports as they do now?

I think everyone knows that the rights fees was a bubble that was eventually going to burst. IMO, it was a desperate move by companies to keep people on cable/satellite roles, b/c if you maintain your subscriber base you can pump up your profits in the short-term.

None of these properties are worth what ESPN, Viacom, etc. paid for them.

**notorious** · 03-06-2017, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chromatic

Bingo.

I was able to cut my cord in late 15' and was able to save up to 50+ dollars a month. Just got a Roku box with Netflix and Hulu and bought a HD OTA antenna for football and live network stuff. Since I don't watch cable that much anymore and just spend more time online, it made sense.

Youtube is coming out with a TV package in the next few weeks and it's going to have all these channels for 35$ a month.

Cable in the traditional sense is a dodo at this point.

Holy shit, that's awesome.

03-06-2017, 03:45 PM
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	ESPN reportedly slated for another huge round of layoffs ESPN is reportedly preparing for another round of cost-cutting — and this time, the cuts could be even more significant, at least in terms of name recognition. Michael Rand March 6, 2017 http://strib.mn/2lPzMix News of layoffs in the media industry have become all-too-familiar in recent years, owing to declining user rates and hollowed out advertising revenue. Even sports media behemoth ESPN hasn’t been immune to the trend; we’re barely a year removed from a round of layoffs during which the company shed about 300 employees. And now ESPN is reportedly preparing for another round of cost-cutting — and this time, the cuts could be even more significant, at least in terms of name recognition. SI’s Richard Deitsch has some of the details in a recent column: SI has learned that ESPN will have significant cost-cutting over the next four months on its talent side (people in front of the camera or audio/digital screen). Multiple sources said ESPN has been tasked with paring tens of millions of staff salary from its payroll, including staffers many viewers and readers will recognize. The reasons offered by Deitsch are familiar: ESPN’s subscriber base is shrinking — from 100 million early in 2011 to less than 88 million in a February estimate. Every lost subscriber costs the company more than $8 a month in lost revenue between ESPN and ESPN. That’s roughly $100 a year per subscriber. Multiply that by 12 million lost subscribers in the last six years and you see a $1.2 billion (per year) deficit from where ESPN could have been if the subscriber base had stayed flat. Combine that with declining ad revenue — which caused the stock of Disney, ESPN’s parent company, to tumble at its last reporting date last month — and you have a dangerous mix that leads to layoffs. That said, the reported layoffs also seem a little disingenuous — a move designed to appease shareholders more than something truly necessary in the moment. I say that because even though ESPN’s subscriber base has declined steadily in recent years, their fee per user has gone up significantly in the same span. As of mid-2016, the fee for ESPN alone was $7.21 per month — up more than a dollar from 2014 and more than double what it was in 2007. Basically, ESPN is offsetting lost revenue from lost subscribers by making those who still get the network pay more. This math is over-simplified with round numbers, but it’s still relevant: 88 million subscribers paying $7 a month ($616 million) is more revenue than 100 million subscribers paying $6 a month ($600 million). Continuously cranking up that fee might be a dangerous game to play since there is a risk of accelerating the spiral of those ditching cable (and therefore ESPN) because of high fees. But sports are a major part of the reason subscribers stick with cable/satellite packages. What’s another dollar or two to die-hard fans? We’ll find out.
Posts: 80,659

03-06-2017, 07:45 PM	#50
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7999572	It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with cord-cutting and ala carte TV packages. This is happening to every cable network. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 74,831

03-06-2017, 07:57 PM	#51
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2644064	During basketball season they show too much basketball. Huh, weird.
Posts: 81,322

03-06-2017, 08:02 PM	#53
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7999572	You know what ESPN shows a lot of? Good teams, and teams with large fanbases. Since both tend to overlap, you tend to get a lot of coverage of those teams. Yeah, it sucks, but did you ever hear them talk about the Warriors before 2014? Have they systematically ignored the Spurs despite them winning five NBA titles? Did they suddenly start talking about Carolina and Seattle when they were dominant NFC teams? Is there also a marked absence of Seattle Mariners baseball and the Denver Nuggets, despite the other teams in those metros receiving a ton of coverage? Why might that be? The Steelers were great for years and they got coverage. The Pirates weren't and they didn't. Both exist in the same market. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The Packers get a ton of publicity despite being smack in the middle of America while they never talk about the Brewers anymore. It isn't some conspiracy against flyover country. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 74,831

03-06-2017, 08:08 PM	#55
tk13 ... Join Date: Nov 2001 Casino cash: $1882500	The even bigger issue is rights fees. The politics don't make a lick of difference, and the loss of the cord cutters definitely hurts... but ESPN charges a ton of money to cable companies. A big problem is they are paying billions for the rights to broadcast these sports. $2 billion for the NFL, over a billion for the NBA. Nearly a billion for baseball. And that doesn't include half a billion for the College Football Playoff and hundreds of millions with all these individual conferences they broadcast in both football and basketball. They've been shedding talent for a while now. I'm really interested to see what they do when some of these TV contracts expire. Will they stop broadcasting quite as many sports as they do now?
Posts: 54,967