Samson's Flow Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 ESPN was designed for highlights. There still isn't a good avenue to get highlights like they used to show. Instead they went on to become analysts and entertainment. There is a massive void in the market for just sports highlights, and I can't understand why they just don't go back to it. ESPN will never match the analysis of websites and the like that do it 24/7 for free, tailored to your team and your sport. And yet still they try. And even that market is being saturated by sport-specific networks. If a fan wants baseball highlights they can go to MLB Network, and no longer need to watch Sportscenter for an hour +, they can get what they want in a more targeted format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Now, a rep from ESPN said they aren't worried, as the 'younger people' are going to things like Sling TV, Playstations TV service, or other streaming packages....where ESPN is often included so they are still getting there $25 a month per subscriber. HOWEVER, the write of the article went on to say there are a lot of those younger people who say they would subscribe to those packages instead of cable...but they aren't doing that BECAUSE they do not want to be foced to pay for ANYTHING they don't use. No way it's $25 per month. Maybe $25 per year. Maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 No way it's $25 per month. Maybe $25 per year. Maybe. It's about $6 / mo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 And even that market is being saturated by sport-specific networks. If a fan wants baseball highlights they can go to MLB Network, and no longer need to watch Sportscenter for an hour +, they can get what they want in a more targeted format. ...or just go to MLB.com and see them on demand. It's about $6 / mo. Even that sounds amazingly high, unless it's for a package of all ABC content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Buccigross would be a nice addition to the PSE Lineup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) ...or just go to MLB.com and see them on demand. Even that sounds amazingly high, unless it's for a package of all ABC content. It's not, and apparently it's over $7 / mo. now. ESPN is incredibly expensive and takes up an amazingly disproportionate part of your cable / satellite bill: http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/ Edited April 26, 2017 by Eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 I read an article talking about ESPN needing to cut costs due to decling revenues, it was about a month ago..the article was from a financial publication (Forbes, WSJ, Marketwatch..one of the big ones) http://fortune.com/2017/03/08/espn-cost-cutting/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 ...or just go to MLB.com and see them on demand. Even that sounds amazingly high, unless it's for a package of all ABC content. It's not, and apparently it's over $7 / mo. now. ESPN is incredibly expensive and takes up an amazingly disproportionate part of your cable / satellite bill: http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/ At one time, ESPN was the gorilla in the room and had cable providers over a barrel. Back in the day when there were only 50-60 channels on your average cable they had huge ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 I didn't even realise that they still had a hockey department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 It's not, and apparently it's over $7 / mo. now. ESPN is incredibly expensive and takes up an amazingly disproportionate part of your cable / satellite bill: http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/ That's really depressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Jayson Stark tweeted he's gone. That's an actual shame, he was good at writing about the baseball. I assume he'll pop up somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Only thing good about ESPN is the stats section on their website. Tons of basic stats if you need something quickly. That's, if it's working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) http://fortune.com/2017/03/08/espn-cost-cutting/ And my student renter geeks up at umass find work arounds for the whole pay per view or online subscription deals. Doubt legal but the things ESPN misses is they are a prime group to indoctrinate is avoiding this model, going back to elacticity in price and demand issues that ESPN and others overestimated. Probably gets worse until online goes back to an advertising model with minimal or no subscription fees. Edited April 26, 2017 by North Buffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Jayson Stark tweeted he's gone. That's an actual shame, he was good at writing about the baseball. I assume he'll pop up somewhere. They're cutting all of their actually talented writers and reporters. Cut Kannel and reduced Russillo but that clown LeBetard is still on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 I'll never understand when people get into an uproar about their lack of hockey coverage. They don't broadcast the game (one or two week tourneys don't count) so they gain absolutely nothing from pushing it. So of course most of their hockey guys were going to be at the top of the chopping block for these layoffs. No one here turns to ESPN for hockey information anyway, so no one is losing anything. Those who are worthwhile will catch on with another organization and will be probably wind up gaining more readers/viewers/listeners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Buccigross would be a nice addition to the PSE Lineup I'd love to see him in Buffalo. I have a vague recollection that he was briefly with Empire Sports. Any one else remember if he was or wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Yeah, and MTV was designed to play music videos. And Discovery Channel used to present real science shows. And History channel used to air history documentaries. All the cable specialty channels went after the easy buck and got away from their core specialty missions. It's a damned shame. The internet is a better platform for replays anyway. If you're interested in only certain teams you go right to their highlights on the league's web site and watch what you want, without having to sit through the stuff you don't want to see, or possibly missing the highlights you want cuz you had to go to the john or something. Highlights are better in an on-demand setting. I don't want highlights like that though. I like having an hour long highlight reel of a variety of games, with some enthusiastic commentary in the background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 I don't want highlights like that though. I like having an hour long highlight reel of a variety of games, with some enthusiastic commentary in the background. I understand, and there's value in that- I used to love Chris Berman's NHL highlights and always watched the ESPN highlights without fail during football season, but I think the market for that is no longer a mass market. Having said that, look at all the catering to niche markets. I think there'd be enough interest in a show like that to draw viewers and advertisers. And I'd also add that ESPN could draw internet traffic by breaking up the segments of such a show to individual game highlights that would autoplay together in a loop, with an enthusiastic announcer doing the voiceover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Only thing good about ESPN is the stats section on their website. Tons of basic stats if you need something quickly. That's, if it's working. For as little as ESPN cared about hockey, their hockey section is still far more functional than that of NHL dot com. Funny, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 I'd love to see him in Buffalo. I have a vague recollection that he was briefly with Empire Sports. Any one else remember if he was or wasn't. Purely from memory.. He was from the central part of NY. Grew up a fan of Bills, Sabres and Yankees. Had a nice show on Empire for about 2 years then moved on to bigger and better things. Now I will Google..... My memory sucks. Pittsburgh guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 The timing of these firings is absurd too. Why not do this in March or a time of the year when sports are dead, not, literally, the busiest month of sports Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 For as little as ESPN cared about hockey, their hockey section is still far more functional than that of NHL dot com. Funny, really. I prefer their fantasy hockey interface as well. A lot of times I use ESPN's stats pages while drafting in Yahoo leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 The timing of these firings is absurd too. Why not do this in March or a time of the year when sports are dead, not, literally, the busiest month of sports Disney/ESPN's Q2 Earnings call is in early May (5/9 IIRC), and these moves are being made in advance of that. Has nothing to do with sports timing and everything to do with shareholder communication and stock price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 Disney/ESPN's Q2 Earnings call is in early May (5/9 IIRC), and these moves are being made in advance of that. Has nothing to do with sports timing and everything to do with shareholder communication and stock price. Sounds like the same rationale that ruined Kodak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 (edited) Sounds like the same rationale that ruined Kodak Kodak thought that digital photography was a passing trend. ESPN/Disney seem to be able to see the writing on the wall. Edited April 26, 2017 by Woods-Racer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.