Disney CEO Bob Iger on how big will sports be for ABC in the coming years?
- Thread starter TMC1982
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 17
- Views 2K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
It was a smart business decision to make ESPN relevant and necessary for providers to carry by grabbing up all the major sports contracts they could, even if it meant overpaying for them.
Because they're both own by the same company that rather sticks it to the consumer and make them pay for ESPN.
Last edited:
While some events were pretty crazy, it was actually called 'Wide World of Sports'....
While some events were pretty crazy, it was actually called 'Wide World of Sports'....
Because it makes no sense to pay for 2 brands when one is just fine. Why have 2 sports departments, 2 studios, market 2 brands, pay for 2 staff.
I think they are either closing the LA office or remodeling because they are not broadcasting there right now.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
So then they would need 4 stupios. 2 for abc 2 for espn. Either way it just makes financial sense to have one brand.
But how much different do you think it would actually be? Unless they quit sharing their announcers like Kirk Herbstreit between college football on ESPN and college football on ABC there wouldn't be any difference outside of the logo and screen graphics. Sports fans recognize the ESPN brand even if they didn't know ESPN and ABC were part of the same company. Calling it ESPN on ABC adds some brand recognition that wouldn't otherwise exist. I wouldn't care if they started showing an ABC Sports logo instead of ESPN but I don't believe it would make any positive difference either.
Basically, the lack of union contracts is what keeps ESPN branding itself on ABC's sports telecasts. I think what Bob Iger and company don't seems to fully understand in this regard when it comes to sports programming on ABC (in recent years) is the overall lack of creation of prime-time programming and more importantly, the unique relationship w/ the affiliate stations. Do you seriously think that ABC's affiliates (especially the owned and operated ones), really appreciate having another, non-ABC branded channel like ESPN (somewhat confusingly, regardless of it also being owned by Disney) taking precedent on programs that in the past, were branded as ABC's. Much of ABC in recent years has for better or worse, functioned as a glorified infomercial for Disney's brands/channels (and not a true-blue TV network). In Bob Iger's world, cable and satellite MSOs (like those providing ESPN) are pretty much loosely considered affiliates.
Without a proper male delivery system so to speak, like live sporting events (e.g. the NFL and what not), it most definitely hurt ABC's bottom-line. You need live-sports to serve as a platform to promote new programming and to train at large, younger viewers to tune into ABC's stations.
Last edited:
