Disney to spin off ESPN?
- Thread starter Tampa8
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 85
- Views 8K
Right, and the NFL coverage was essentially shifted there to increase relevance of the ESPN brand.
But, cable channels are the ones I was referring to about wishing for the "lower" ratings.
Tampa8
Supporting Founder - I'll stand up and say so
Original poster
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Somewhat misses the point. Ad revenue is the driving force, those networks paid huge, bigley amounts to be able to carry NFL games if viewership drops so does ad revenue and harder for the Networks to pay. ESPN is already on thinner ice with Cable/Sat over their cost if viewership is eroding they have an even harder time justifying their cost. Remember ESPN already has had rounds of layoffs, and more my opinion than fact before I stopped watching them much it seemed to me actual sports reporting was watered down. So it's all relative, you are correct ratings are still high compared to most other offerings but not a good sign when Baseball beats them no matter the reason or they have continued drops with too many uninteresting match ups and games. I can't find it but besides not as many watching far more are not watching the whole game or at times even most of it like they used to.
Here’s my issue with ESPN and what they’ve become. Their talking heads bring up, and rehash the same junk over and over ad nauseum and spend days and days talking about ‘polarizing figures’. Brett Favre and his will he/won’t he retirement, the saga of Tim Tebow, Tom Brady and deflategate and probably dozens of other examples. I miss when ESPN and ABC carried the NHL, and the first time they had NASCAR. I used to watch NHL 2Night, RPM 2Day and RPM2Night religiously. Sunday nights were always a depressing time of the week, a few hours left in the weekend and then back to school/work. Chris Berman and Tom Jackson capped off my weekend with NFL Primetime for about 20 Sundays a year. I don’t care about high school girl type drama, I don’t care what someone posted on Tweeter, I don’t care about an idiotic Instagram picture. I want to see highlights of things that happen on the field/ice/court/track not the media driven drama that surrounds it.
With each of the four major leagues having their own networks, I think that was a big blow to the ESPN. And it seems like once ESPN is no longer a broadcast partner with a league, that sport is basically dead to ESPN.
With each of the four major leagues having their own networks, I think that was a big blow to the ESPN. And it seems like once ESPN is no longer a broadcast partner with a league, that sport is basically dead to ESPN.
ESPN's challenge comes down to this. In the soon becoming bygone era "everybody" had "cable" (please don't knitpick, not literally "everybody" and here "cable" can mean dishes as well). A cable bill is really just a pass through to the channels (of course, yes, the cable company makes a profit just like any business). Everybody got, and paid for, ESPN.
And ESPN, likewise, is really just a pass through to the leagues, and thus the players and coaches.
Now, or very soon, people will be able to receive TV elsewise. And simply put, there are a lot of people who simply do not like sports, either at all or not that much. So these people are not willing to pay. And to maintain the current levels, the amount that the people who do like sports would need to pay is not realistic ($40 or $50/month).
So ESPN is stuck with all of these long term deals with leagues, which are becoming toxic to Disney as a corporation. The most toxic being not the NFL one, but its recent MASSIVE over-bid for the NBA. And ESPN is also stuck with all of these daytime talking heads who are paid just WAY too much money. And with 5 layers of empty suit executives as well.
Spinning off a division with toxic assets as a stand alone company is an old Wall Street trick. Will it happen? Maybe. But what will happen is that the amount of dollars passing through cable to ESPN (et al) and on to billionaire athletes is about to get much smaller.
If you listen very closely, you will hear the world's smallest violin playing. My heart just breaks for these people.
And ESPN, likewise, is really just a pass through to the leagues, and thus the players and coaches.
Now, or very soon, people will be able to receive TV elsewise. And simply put, there are a lot of people who simply do not like sports, either at all or not that much. So these people are not willing to pay. And to maintain the current levels, the amount that the people who do like sports would need to pay is not realistic ($40 or $50/month).
So ESPN is stuck with all of these long term deals with leagues, which are becoming toxic to Disney as a corporation. The most toxic being not the NFL one, but its recent MASSIVE over-bid for the NBA. And ESPN is also stuck with all of these daytime talking heads who are paid just WAY too much money. And with 5 layers of empty suit executives as well.
Spinning off a division with toxic assets as a stand alone company is an old Wall Street trick. Will it happen? Maybe. But what will happen is that the amount of dollars passing through cable to ESPN (et al) and on to billionaire athletes is about to get much smaller.
If you listen very closely, you will hear the world's smallest violin playing. My heart just breaks for these people.
Their absurd contract with soccer isn't helping either, just under $45 million a year. Historically soccer ratings have been ho-hum and have not come anywhere near meeting projections but John Skipper is a soccer fan so the recent combined TV agreements tripled the previous one even though there were no solid marketing projections to back it up. When Disney started putting the pressure on ESPN last year to cut expenses the first thing they should have done was give Skipper the boot. He's putting personal likes ahead of sound business reasoning.
While I've had issues for a few years with a declining ESPN what really pushed me to turn them off and leave them off were two primary things: emphasis on Fantasy and on Twitter. To me, focusing of Fantasy is taking away from the sport. I know people who would rather their qtr back throw 3 td's and loose than throw just 1 and win. Instead of rooting for their team they are rooting for the personal success of individuals spread across numerous teams. I don't see that as a healthy direction for any sport. While ESPN is preaching what a terrible thing gambling is and Pete Rose should never be reinstated, on the very next show they'll tell you who you should bet on in the upcoming game(s). The major pro sports have now climbed in bed with the gamblers thanks in large part to ESPN's fantasy hype and I don't see that as healthy either. And 2nd, I don't give a crap what some twit tweeted on Twitter and yet ESPN has gone so far as to allow tweets to dictate highlights, discussions, and programming. It must be nice to get paid millions a year to make programming decisions and then just let Twitter make the decision for you.
While I've had issues for a few years with a declining ESPN what really pushed me to turn them off and leave them off were two primary things: emphasis on Fantasy and on Twitter. To me, focusing of Fantasy is taking away from the sport. I know people who would rather their qtr back throw 3 td's and loose than throw just 1 and win. Instead of rooting for their team they are rooting for the personal success of individuals spread across numerous teams. I don't see that as a healthy direction for any sport. While ESPN is preaching what a terrible thing gambling is and Pete Rose should never be reinstated, on the very next show they'll tell you who you should bet on in the upcoming game(s). The major pro sports have now climbed in bed with the gamblers thanks in large part to ESPN's fantasy hype and I don't see that as healthy either. And 2nd, I don't give a crap what some twit tweeted on Twitter and yet ESPN has gone so far as to allow tweets to dictate highlights, discussions, and programming. It must be nice to get paid millions a year to make programming decisions and then just let Twitter make the decision for you.
Yeah but people actually watch football. 
On the other hand there's soccer. 
Here are the numbers:
MNF - avg 11-14 million viewers per game
MLS - avg 315 thousand viewers per game
On the other hand there's soccer. Here are the numbers:
MNF - avg 11-14 million viewers per game
MLS - avg 315 thousand viewers per game
Assuming Yespage is correct, you need to do some more math.Yeah but people actually watch football.
Here are the numbers:
MNF - avg 11-14 million viewers per game
MLS - avg 315 thousand viewers per game
Football: $111Million to get 14million viewers = $7.92 per viewer.
Soccer: How many games does ESPN show? Let's say 20... that would be $2.25million/game. To get 315K viewers, that's $7.14/viewer. If it's more than 20, that cost drops. So which is the better use of money?
Let's not get into how slow football is, ESPECIALLY the NFL.
It's not the cost per viewer that matters, it's the revenue advertisers are willing to spend for the size of the viewing audience so figure it out, would you rather reach 11 million or 300 thousand and for which one do you think ESPN can charge a higher rate? Believe me they are doing much better at getting their investment back on each MNF game than they are on any MLS match.
Well, obviously they're charging more per spot for MNF than MLS. But without knowing numbers, you have no idea whether they are getting their investment back on ANY league. I'd hazard to say they're having problems getting their investment back on everything... hence their problems (layoffs, etc).
I agree with both of you. $7+ per viewer is outrageous and unsustainable for any league. Instead of "tax and spend", we've got "spend and extort". What a load of irresponsible horsecrap.
You are missing a point here. Why did Disney have to pay $1.9 billion for MNF in the first place? You are talking about how the NFL draws revenue, yet it is ESPN who sees their rates rising every year because they over bid for broadcast rights. ESPN doesn't cost a fortune because they show soccer.
They've definitely lost their focus on sports, but it's most likely being pushed on them from higher-up. I remember before the last Star Wars came out and ESPN had a segment about the movie during Monday Night Football ! Now mind you, I love Star Wars, but was like, "why is this on ESPN?". Then I remembered that Disney owns ESPN and Disney owns Star Wars.
Also, if you go to their website (it's worse on the mobile version, as I recall) and scroll down a bit, there's an opinion piece. Not about sports, but "Gregg Popovich on (insert-politicians-name-here): 'You can't believe anything that comes out of his mouth'". Further down, there's an "Election 2016" section !
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 2)
Latest posts
-
-
T
-
TOne of the Most 'Terrifying Expansion of Government Surveillance' in History! Ron Wyden Speaks Out
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network
-
