ESPN Cutting Employees Today

[PurplePride92]

Did you read my post at all?

 

Of course. You never said who you were talking to specifically and I admittedly lean left so I responded. Obviously you don't fall into the category of people who think Left Leaning ESPN laid off 100 people because their politics suck because you admitted that their left leaning ways wasn't their downfall. Reading through many posts on here politics was their downfall according to some.

[PurplePride92]

Call me whatever, but I'm old enough to remember when why'd show sports from different countries around midnight. I also did what many did and watched rerun after rerun before school. I'm now 34 with three kids, so the main reason is not enough time. I only watch tv for UK sporting events, PBS, and college and pro football. ESPN has little to do with it.

 

I also agree that ESPN, like MTV, got way far away from its roots. We'd stay up just to watch Head Bangers ball on Saturday nights. How many talking head shows can one channel have? And they all cover the same topics. Mike and mike could be the same as PTI. It also hurts in my opinion that they cover the NFL almost forceably when there isn't anything to cover.

 

Plenty of reasons, and I'd say then beating dead horses, more options for viewers and mega contracts, instead of politics is what did them in.

 

All of this.

[woodsrider]

Personalities didn't get fired. Reporters did.

 

Outside of Jay Crawford (who is probably a bit of both), I agree.

Danny Kanell

[woodsrider]

It didn't help them and cost viewers.

Do you know anyone that cancelled their cable or satellite service because of the ESPN's liberal leanings? As long as you have some form of TV service that provides ESPN to your home ESPN is getting your money regardless if you watch the channel.

[CincySportsFan]

Do you know anyone that cancelled their cable or satellite service because of the ESPN's liberal leanings? As long as you have some form of TV service that provides ESPN to your home ESPN is getting your money regardless if you watch the channel.

 

There is a difference between subscribers and viewers. You may be a subscriber because ESPN is included in that level of service you have. Doesn't mean you actually watch it.

 

Subscribers' money is what they are losing to cord cutters.

 

Advertisers' money is what they could lose to fewer viewers (ratings).

[PurplePride92]

There is a difference between subscribers and viewers. You may be a subscriber because ESPN is included in that level of service you have. Doesn't mean you actually watch it.

 

Subscribers' money is what they are losing to cord cutters.

 

Advertisers' money is what they could lose to fewer viewers (ratings).

 

Absolutely. And yet these same people upset with ESPN's left leanings sure aren't going FS1 or the Dan Patrick Show because they also both lean left and talk about all of the same things that ESPN does so unless folks are cutting the cord completely they are now still paying for not one but three networks that lean left and all are losing money to ratings.

[UKMustangFan]

Absolutely. And yet these same people upset with ESPN's left leanings sure aren't going FS1 or the Dan Patrick Show because they also both lean left and talk about all of the same things that ESPN does so unless folks are cutting the cord completely they are now still paying for not one but three networks that lean left and all are losing money to ratings.

 

I'm not upset about it, but I do think it's part of why some have stopped tuning in. I'm one (maybe the minority) that has switched over to FS1.

 

Clay Travis, Rich Eisen, Gottlieb, and Cowherd.....Far better lineup than what ESPN Radio offers IMO, and they seem to have quite a bit less of the political/social issue stuff.

[PurplePride92]

I'm not upset about it, but I do think it's part of why some have stopped tuning in. I'm one (maybe the minority) that has switched over to FS1.

 

Clay Travis, Rich Eisen, Gottlieb, and Cowherd.....Far better lineup than what ESPN Radio offers IMO, and they seem to have quite a bit less of the political/social issue stuff.

 

Shannon Sharpe is way more social and political than anyone on ESPN has ever been. He's the gold standard right now for sports/social/political personalities in the sports media world.

[UKMustangFan]

Shannon Sharpe is way more social and political than anyone on ESPN has ever been. He's the gold standard right now for sports/social/political personalities in the sports media world.

 

He might be. Can't say I've ever watched or listened to him though. I don't watch any of it whether it be ESPN, FS1, etc. I solely listen on radio.

[PurplePride92]

He might be. Can't say I've ever watched or listened to him though. I don't watch any of it whether it be ESPN, FS1, etc. I solely listen on radio.

 

He does a damn good job. Very thoughtful with pretty much everything he says. Plus he's with Skip Bayless so he gets a boost up next to him. Give me Shannon over Stephen A. Smith 8 days a week. Stephen A. Smith is a talented journalist/personality but Shannon just seems to have more substance and credibility behind his thoughts.

 

I liked Michael Smith and Jemele Hill's podcast but now hat they have the 6pm SportCenter and that ESPN Radio pretty much doesn't exist anymore they no longer do it.

[All In]

]I'm not upset about it, but I do think it's part of why some have stopped tuning in. I'm one (maybe the minority) that has switched over to FS1.

[/b]

Clay Travis, Rich Eisen, Gottlieb, and Cowherd.....Far better lineup than what ESPN Radio offers IMO, and they seem to have quite a bit less of the political/social issue stuff.

 

I have as well for quite awhile now and by the way my favorite personalities/reporters/whatever they're called on FS1 are Sharpe(when doesn't get political),Chris Carter and Chris Broussard, like Ryan Clark as well, but think he is still at ESPN. All these 4 know their stuff and always like what they have to say. ESPN could have fired a lot more(but fired several of the ones I remotely liked) or could basically close down their network all together and would make no difference to me. MLB,NFL and FS1 have been my big 3 to go to for sports news am interested in

[Randy Parker]

Yeah him. Who is Dan Dickau? I know that name for some reason. :lol2:

 

Dan Dickau

Knott Central County

[woodsrider]

Personalities didn't get fired. Reporters did.

 

There is a difference between subscribers and viewers. You may be a subscriber because ESPN is included in that level of service you have. Doesn't mean you actually watch it.

 

Subscribers' money is what they are losing to cord cutters.

 

Advertisers' money is what they could lose to fewer viewers (ratings).

I know what the difference is. The cord cutters is the main driver in this.

[Voice of Reason]

I see it as even more than cord cutters. People today get their entertainment in a lot more forms than they ever did in the past with all the technology, smartphones, media through their computer, etc. I still have cable but I watch less TV today than I ever have in my life and the bulk of TV programming I watch is live sports. I was a Sports Center groupie 10 years ago and I can't even remember the last time I watched a full sports center.

[neilman1234]

Exactly.

 

ESPN has been slower than anyone to keep up with the times because they got fatter than everyone else by having their massive fees added to every basic cable and dish household in the country.

 

Where they royally screwed up is not getting out in front of things and finding digital and streaming options that allowed them to adjust with the market. They said screw it, and were willing to go down with the ship. Titanic is sinking right under their feet...

 

Exactly. Remember a few years ago when Netflix ticked off a lot of people by changing their structure from DVD's to internet only? Couple that with a pricing adjustment and they took a PR hit. Now, I'd say that was an insightful, strategic move. My son is 16 and plays sports. He LOVES sports. But I rarely see him watching any sporting event on TV for more than 5 minutes. Most of my kids don't even watch TV. They are constantly on their devices, watching Youtube. This is a paradigm shift. ESPN is the first big domino to fall and you'll see other TV networks facing similar challenges. I wonder how I'll be watching TV & sports in 2-5 years and how much will it cost me?