Their ratings are down since Skip Bayless who everyone hated as much as SAS left. They still easily beat the FS1 show and would have much worse ratings without SAS.
ESPN layoffs
- Thread starter Untouchables96
- Start date
So you're saying people aren't tuning in to watch blowhard Skip Bayless on FS1 and Stephen A. isn't a big enough draw to keep First Take from sinking so bad it had to be moved from ESPN2 to ESPN and they have to run a First Take commercial every 30 seconds to promote it out of desperation? Almost sounds like SAS doesn't bring ratings.
Her first on air report, she actually froze and could not report. I see her today and she has improved her reporting.Josina Anderson hasn't been let go yet, has she?! Because the world needs another interview on what Michael Sam does in the shower.
I cannot watch her though going forward, as she gives me nothing, like that SportsCenter foursome they're trying to shove down our throat as being entertaining. It's not.
On to the NFL network, the NBA channel, Dan Patrick...anywhere I can get better opinions.
They moved it from ESPN 2 to ESPN to destroy Bayless' show in the ratings, not to save it. Be mad if you want, but there's a reason he makes what he makes and isn't getting laid off.
I agree . Love Bomani . Very funny and very intelligent.No need for this!!
Based on the quality of his work I'd say it's a fair assessment of Jones. You know, the guy who continuously made fun of Russel Wilson and Tim Tebow on air for being abstinate. He's a fine journalist. Smh. You can call someone an idiot regardless of their color or sex. Doesn't make them off limits.
I saw Skip Bayless on at Outback yesterday at lunch after Colin Cowherd. Both were on mute and didn't impact me in the least.
Rarely do businesses do something just because the leaders feel it's the right thing to do. They weren't covering the Michael Sam story for social justice, they were doing it for the money. If they felt the ratings weren't there, they wouldn't have done it. Plus, if their competitor is covering a story, they will also have to cover a story. The market determines what is covered and what is not. If no one cared about a young man coming out as gay right before the NFL draft, it wouldn't have been covered.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/27/espn-poetry-tribute-fugitive-cop-killer/
"ESPN, the sports network that’s hemorrhaging viewers and purging much of its on-air talent, on Tuesday published a poetry tribute to a woman who was convicted of killing a police officer.
One day before the network laid off many of its employees, it published five poems about feminism and political resistance on its website geared toward women, ESPNW."
"ESPN, the sports network that’s hemorrhaging viewers and purging much of its on-air talent, on Tuesday published a poetry tribute to a woman who was convicted of killing a police officer.
One day before the network laid off many of its employees, it published five poems about feminism and political resistance on its website geared toward women, ESPNW."
And as I posted a bit earlier the poem was written by a University of Kentucky professor! You can't make this up!
5 years ago, I would agree with that but not today. Bayless' show on FS1 has been a flop, First Take is struggling. Those guys don't bring in ratings anymore. Ultimately the only thing ESPN has that really brings in ratings is live sports... ironically, the price they are paying for that is one of the reasons their business is dying.
This is why I can't stand ESPN anymore.
Agree. And most on here agree as well, but ESPN makes statement after statement that their decrease in ratings has absolutely nothing to do with their left leaning ways. Watched a bit of SN the other day where they actually joked and mocked the portion of viewership that felt this way.
Talk about biting the hands that feed them when those hands are becoming less and less.
Disagree with this. In a perfect world, maybe.
This is not a knock on Michael Sam or the gay community but to most of the country this was not a big story. And an even higher percentage of ESPN consumers couldn't have cared less and actually became turned off by the story as ESPN made it SO much more than it should've ever been in the first place. So you honestly think ESPN reporting on Sam's shower habits is appealing to the sports enthusiast? There is not a high percentage of public demand from the sports world for social issues.
Last edited:
When the next NFL, NBA, college sports negotiations begin in the coming years when the contracts run out, companies like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix will be the ones winning the programming rights.
As a general rule, yes, this is true. But they make mistakes. Remember the ESPN Phone? How did that go over. Second point, ratings drives many decisions, but not all of them. That story was covered not because they thought a ton of people would watch, but because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Academia (no matter the state) is so far left that it's hard to comprehend how radically insane it has become. This viewset dominates universities, media and entertainment.
A lot of what is said here is anecdotal evidence. The kind of stories that get huge, get that way because the public makes it that way, not because the producer of the story made them that way. These social justice stories get more than enough attention from the public who do want to hear them that it justifies the resources in producing them. If the company feels like there's money to be made, then that's what they're going with. I highly doubt the executives at ESPN are all sitting around thinking up ideas on how they can push the "liberal agenda."
It's almost as if the company consists of way more white people or something.
You guys can stretch as hard and far as you want to make this political, but you'll still be wrong. ESPN is struggling because they extended themselves to a billion networks/stations at a time when everything was growing and they didn't forsee the explosion of streaming services.
Now, people are cutting the cord (and keeping ESPN) but ESPN's contracts are structured to pay them through cable subscribers, not streaming customers.
The reason the product is so weak is because there isn't enough content to fill 24 hour days, 365 days a year, on 8 channels, with content. There just aren't that many games or sports. So you end up with poker and debate shows and fifty mock draft programs because *something* has to be on. Yes, that includes more time for social issues reporting.
Twenty years ago they didn't need to fill all that time, so things like that got pushed to the side more. We also live in an increasingly connected world, and ESPN would be stupid to pretend that people aren't aware of or discussing those issues.
To want someone to be fired is just deplorable (unless they broke the law). Hopefully karma hits those asking for these guys to be fired just because they said something bad about a school you're a fan of or said something you don't like.
You're basically asking for their kids to have to uproot their lives or downgrade the way they live and possibly suffer. When someone gets fired it affects more than just that person
You're basically asking for their kids to have to uproot their lives or downgrade the way they live and possibly suffer. When someone gets fired it affects more than just that person
Exactly. It's not hard to see where ESPN's priorities lay when you compare the lists of those axed to those spared:
1. The beautiful sideline babes were all spared.
2. The loudmouthed bloviating take-screamers were all spared.
3. But it was a bloody MASSACRE for the normal-looking well-trained journalists doing solid professional work without shouting or self-promotion.
Looks like ESPN has basically given up on even pretending to do legitimate journalism. From now on it's only pretty eye-candy and loudmouths like Stephen A screaming their simple-headed "takes" at us.
Last edited:
But that's the thing, it really doesn't matter (in this regard) whether people are actually watching or not. They're paid by cable subscriptions. People are dropping those, so ESPN is losing money. Even if more people were watching than were 10 years ago, thanks to all of the streaming options, ESPN is losing money.
Now, if advertisers were backing away or dropping the rates they're willing to pay ESPN, that would be due partly to the cord cutters and partly to ratings, but that doesn't seem to be part of anyone's argument and it doesn't seem to be the case with all of this numbers analysis being done on ESPN's finances right now.
Viewership in any measurable way is probably down across all networks because of the streaming services, so I'm sure ESPN appears to have fewer viewers than they did 6-7 years ago, but every streaming service I've seen offers ESPN as a major draw to potential subscribers, and I imagine they'll quickly find ways to negotiate and measure those eyeballs properly.
Basically, we're seeing the market adjust to new technology. ESPN is the world's largest train company in 1920. We'll see how they react. My guess is with a giant like Disney behind them, they'll figure it out long-term, but this is a move for investors to make it look like they're doing all they can, because the real money (the TV contracts with the sports leagues) are locked in right now.
Look who they kept and who got the boot.
ESPN is now all-in on entertainment rather than sports news reporting. To be honest I think they are simply following the national trend. Society as a whole is now more concerned with who was offended and what they said about a subject in a tweet, rather than the why's and how's of an event.
ESPN is now all-in on entertainment rather than sports news reporting. To be honest I think they are simply following the national trend. Society as a whole is now more concerned with who was offended and what they said about a subject in a tweet, rather than the why's and how's of an event.
Sad and pathetic. ESPN keeps doing everything wrong.
They'll be out of business soon.
I agree with all this BUT thankfully that ego maniac Britt Mchenry was let go after her draft coverage the next 3 days. She solely had a job because she was easy on the eyes.
Agreed.
...the April 25 ESPNW.com feature “Five Poets on the New Feminism,” which was produced “in honor of National Poetry month…to reflect on resistance, redefining feminism and movement,” according to a site description. But Hill’s poem opened with the dedication “(for Assata Shakur),” honoring the one-time Black Liberation Army member who has been hiding out in Cuba to avoid finishing a prison term for her murder rap.
Defending a cop killer is beyond disgusting and I hope ESPN goes completely under for employing someone like that. Hill is the epitome of why ESPN is sinking.
I hope they go out. Just look at who they got rid of and who they have kept, Not including guys like Bob Ley who has been there over 30 years. I don't watch them and won't unless it's a game or 30 for 30. The rest of their stuff is unwatchable. Way too much PC and that garbage.
Similar threads
