HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

ESPN to experience massive layoffs of on air talent

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-09-2017, 06:16 AM
  #101
ArGarBarGar
Global Moderator
Defense Please
 
ArGarBarGar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 35,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnashville View Post
Bomani Jones wore a shirt stereotyping white people with "Caucasians" on it, and ESPN supported him. They fire others for doing less than that, and turn around and preach diversity.
Glad you missed the point.

Also ESPN asked him to cover up the shirt after a certain point.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/07/espn-t...ucasian-shirt/
Quote:
"As the show progressed, we felt Bomani had made his point and had openly discussed why he was wearing the shirt, and we wanted to keep the focus to the topics of the day."
By the way, wearing a shirt making a point about a CURRENT BASEBALL TEAM'S NAME AND FORMER LOGO is sports-related.

ArGarBarGar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 08:49 AM
  #102
ForumNamePending
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,901
vCash: 500
The most amusing thing about the Jones/Caucasians t-shirt "incident" is that many of the people who take offense to it manage to both miss Jones' point and validate it all at the same time.

ForumNamePending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:16 AM
  #103
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArGarBarGar View Post
Glad you missed the point.

Also ESPN asked him to cover up the shirt after a certain point.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/07/espn-t...ucasian-shirt/


By the way, wearing a shirt making a point about a CURRENT BASEBALL TEAM'S NAME AND FORMER LOGO is sports-related.
The point in this case is not about the objective legitimacy of a thing or god forbid the enforceability of it in a court though, but merely a battle from the souls of the viewers who can be a subjective and annoyable bunch.

As an analogy taken to very extreme, if you have a Facebook friend who you have come to know as a somewhat raving antisemite, and he one day adopts a pro-Palestine platform and starts posting articles about that, you may be a slightly suspicious about his motives behind it and if he is being pro-something or rather using the freebie to get to be anti-something, and maybe ponder if unfriending at this point would be the best way to go.

Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:25 AM
  #104
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,160
vCash: 1020
But you guys are all talking about that incident, which is good news for ESPN. If you're talking about it, that means you're basically giving ESPN free advertising. Which means they make more money in the long run.

^ This is literally the entire rationale that ESPN uses to make these decisions. It also applies to basically the rest of the television industry. The whole game is basically about triggering as much emotion as possible in the audience so that the network can sit back and capitalize on social media activity, ratings bump, hashtag hits, whatever.

On a very fundamental level, live cable television programming is no longer about reporting events.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:37 AM
  #105
fulmine
Original 31 Fan
 
fulmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Meanwhile, said network lost 422K viewers last month.

https://sportstvratings.com/how-much...stimates/7680/

fulmine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:38 AM
  #106
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
But you guys are all talking about that incident, which is good news for ESPN. If you're talking about it, that means you're basically giving ESPN free advertising.
I'm not actually sure Oscar Wilde applies in a thread titled "massive layoffs".

Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 12:20 PM
  #107
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,160
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
I'm not actually sure Oscar Wilde applies in a thread titled "massive layoffs".
I fully agree... I didn't intend that to be an endorsement of the mentality. I think it's an incredibly foolish business model in the long run, that trades a network's credibility for a Kardashian-like short term role in the social media limelight. And virtually all of the cable networks (including sports and news) have gone in this direction.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 12:55 PM
  #108
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
On my Facebook feed, one raving Pens fan aside, only thing NHL hockey I've seen was the news about Tortorella commenting that if any of his players sits the anthem, he sits the game. It would be hateful if sports and sports networks were to align themselves by the political divide.

Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 07:20 PM
  #109
HajdukSplit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NJ
Country: Croatia
Posts: 7,939
vCash: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrier View Post
My favorite show on the ESPN networks is ESPN FC. Beyond that, ESPN has become an overexposed phalanx of talking heads and meaningless college basketball games.
When I first read this news I pictured a lot of the pundits on ESPNFC would be on the chopping block, though I doubt they make anything near what some of the other analysts make. My guess they will cut a lot of the Deportes staff?

HajdukSplit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2017, 11:17 PM
  #110
XX
One More
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tipplandia?
Country: United States
Posts: 41,449
vCash: 500
Boycotting them until Stephen A goes away. I'm guessing he'll be the absolute last person out the door.

XX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 01:45 AM
  #111
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I fully agree... I didn't intend that to be an endorsement of the mentality. I think it's an incredibly foolish business model in the long run, that trades a network's credibility for a Kardashian-like short term role in the social media limelight. And virtually all of the cable networks (including sports and news) have gone in this direction.
That's their business though, and they probably are the ones with the biggest amount of and most accurate intel to inform the business decisions they make. The social media craze as is hopefully is short-lived, but in long-term the old business models too have huge challenges in the viability. The days of you getting to dictate what every household is watching in Saturday at 8 pm are past.

Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 06:30 AM
  #112
Bluefan75
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I fully agree... I didn't intend that to be an endorsement of the mentality. I think it's an incredibly foolish business model in the long run, that trades a network's credibility for a Kardashian-like short term role in the social media limelight. And virtually all of the cable networks (including sports and news) have gone in this direction.
And let's not forget being part of a publicly traded company means decisions are not made thinking some years down the road, but based on how the next quarter will look so that the bonus gets paid out, share price might jump, etc.

The problem they don't realize is that the negative talk now will subside at some point, but short of the games themselves, people will have been driven away from ESPN.

Bluefan75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 07:03 AM
  #113
ArGarBarGar
Global Moderator
Defense Please
 
ArGarBarGar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 35,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
The point in this case is not about the objective legitimacy of a thing or god forbid the enforceability of it in a court though, but merely a battle from the souls of the viewers who can be a subjective and annoyable bunch.

As an analogy taken to very extreme, if you have a Facebook friend who you have come to know as a somewhat raving antisemite, and he one day adopts a pro-Palestine platform and starts posting articles about that, you may be a slightly suspicious about his motives behind it and if he is being pro-something or rather using the freebie to get to be anti-something, and maybe ponder if unfriending at this point would be the best way to go.
I'm not sure I follow how this hypothetical example fits in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I fully agree... I didn't intend that to be an endorsement of the mentality. I think it's an incredibly foolish business model in the long run, that trades a network's credibility for a Kardashian-like short term role in the social media limelight. And virtually all of the cable networks (including sports and news) have gone in this direction.
Is it foolish, though? I wouldn't say cable is failing because of this kind of mentality. I would say this mentality is the last hurrah of cable before these types of programs no longer become viable.

ArGarBarGar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 08:56 AM
  #114
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArGarBarGar View Post
I'm not sure I follow how this hypothetical example fits in.
As I understand it he had been previously tagged down as a chip-on-the-shoulder type of guy. So when he goes on to make yet another (adopted) case against the usual suspects, even a legit one, some portion of the audience may conclude that it's really this particular offender rather than the offence itself that he yet again has the beef with.

Whether it's here or there in the objective sense doesn't really matter, because the members of the audience are within their rights to subjectively tune out and opt out of a subscription if they so choose. And many seems to be choosing. Which is, potentially, the actual problem the ESPN has here and which brings us to the topic of the thread.

The objective legitimacy of such cause is not the issue for ESPN as a business entity, if it sells or costs them subscriptions is.


Last edited by Lempo: 03-10-2017 at 09:02 AM.
Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 09:29 AM
  #115
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,160
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
That's their business though, and they probably are the ones with the biggest amount of and most accurate intel to inform the business decisions they make. The social media craze as is hopefully is short-lived, but in long-term the old business models too have huge challenges in the viability. The days of you getting to dictate what every household is watching in Saturday at 8 pm are past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArGarBarGar View Post
Is it foolish, though? I wouldn't say cable is failing because of this kind of mentality. I would say this mentality is the last hurrah of cable before these types of programs no longer become viable.
Oh, there's no doubt that the big picture here is a fundamental shift in the economy of sports entertainment. Cable "anything" is going to be in for a rough ride over the next decade and I would be surprised if the TV landscape is still recognizable after that.

But in terms of ESPN as a larger brand, I think they've played their hand very poorly over the past 10-15 years. At one point they basically had the entire American sports world eating out of their hand, and it's not like they've dealt with particularly stiff competitors in FOX and NBC. By all rights they ought to have a brand comparable to Coke or Google, companies people just flat-out love. Instead they've gone for being "controversial", and openly self-dealing in their programming, which means a lot of people flat-out hate them or are ambivalent on a good day.

Basically they've trashed their brand instead of building it. I think that's a really dumb move in a digital marketplace where monolithic brands are extremely hard to build.

IMO, for an explanation of this short-sightedness you need look no further than:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
And let's not forget being part of a publicly traded company means decisions are not made thinking some years down the road, but based on how the next quarter will look so that the bonus gets paid out, share price might jump, etc.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 03:33 PM
  #116
Bart9349
Registered User
 
Bart9349's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Sadly, hockey has become a weird afterthought for ESPN.

After John Saunders' passing, any hope of a hockey mention on "Sports Reporters" had disappeared.

I can get better political debate on other channels. Without any hockey coverage on ESPN, however, my reasons to watch are few and far between.

Bart9349 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 03:42 PM
  #117
nothingbeatshockey
Registered User
 
nothingbeatshockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 557
vCash: 500
Couldn't happen to a better, more deserving network. If I wanted politics I'll turn to MSNBC or Fox.

Arrogance and condescension has a price.....and ESPN is paying it. Good riddance!!!

nothingbeatshockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 03:49 PM
  #118
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 859
If we're going to discuss the ESPN thing from a business sense, we've almost got to touch on the fact that they have spread themselves pretty thin from a business standpoint.

The number of networks Disney has under the umbrella is one thing, the number that ESPN has under their specific charge is something completely different.

They're working with the mothership network, ESPN2, ESPN3/WatchESPN, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, The Longhorn Network, SEC Network, I'm pretty sure they've got a piece of the ACC's Network, plus they've got all the Spanish coverage as well on ESPN Deportes.

They've got all that infrastructure, all those channels to program, the need for more and more content with which to fill the networks, and then they've got to fight the changing landscape of how people are consuming sports events.

While this whole thing may have a little to do with the content of their sports commentary, I think a lot of it just has to do with the changing world of television. That's the real discussion that should take place when things like this happen, at least from a business perspective. The fact that they have determined they'd like to provide some additional commentary that could be perceived as politics may be a poor business decision since they're running the risk of alienating a portion of an already shrinking potential viewership group, but I doubt it's the main reason these things are happening. The world is changing.

__________________
Signed: Cranges McBasketball

Last edited by BattleBorn: 03-10-2017 at 03:57 PM.
BattleBorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 10:22 PM
  #119
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
They've got all that infrastructure, all those channels to program, the need for more and more content with which to fill the networks, and then they've got to fight the changing landscape of how people are consuming sports events.
This paints a pretty horrible picture of the modern TV network business: masses and masses of channels, shortage of anything sensible to fill them all with, and the emerging issue of finding a paying audience for them all.

I feel, on general level and with emphasis on my own content-providers, if they didn't have the must-have sports content that they can package all the crap with and then force-sell it to the audience who is in reality only interested of the must-have sports content, they would have collapsed a long time since.

Gotta chuckle at it though: sports and comicbooks, the two traditional male bastions, becoming the adopted platform of commentary on social justice. I wonder if they have any on Cosmo?


Last edited by Lempo: 03-10-2017 at 10:40 PM.
Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2017, 11:21 PM
  #120
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 50,160
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
I feel, on general level and with emphasis on my own content-providers, if they didn't have the must-have sports content that they can package all the crap with and then force-sell it to the audience who is in reality only interested of the must-have sports content, they would have collapsed a long time since.
That's the whole business model at this point. Force people to buy a "premium" experience in order to get the core product.

And some of this stuff is unimaginably bad filler material. I always have a good chuckle when I end up at a sports bar during a weekday, and see them showing 10 screens of college volleyball, billiards, and little league baseball. Like holy **** just turn the TVs off and play music or something.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2017, 03:07 AM
  #121
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
That's the whole business model at this point. Force people to buy a "premium" experience in order to get the core product.

And some of this stuff is unimaginably bad filler material. I always have a good chuckle when I end up at a sports bar during a weekday, and see them showing 10 screens of college volleyball, billiards, and little league baseball. Like holy **** just turn the TVs off and play music or something.
Not unlike the private consumers at home, they too have paid the applicable business fees for showing the channels at the bar on the whole of the loot, and gosh dangit they're gonna show it. Turning off the TVs and playing music instead would mean they would have to pay yet more for the music rights too.

Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2017, 03:41 AM
  #122
spintheblackcircle
...so that happened.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 46,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulmine View Post
Meanwhile, said network lost 422K viewers last month.

https://sportstvratings.com/how-much...stimates/7680/
"ESPNís losses were in-line with overall cable losses"

__________________
Changes come. Keep your dignity. Take the high road. Take it like a man.
spintheblackcircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2017, 12:05 PM
  #123
adsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lempo View Post
This paints a pretty horrible picture of the modern TV network business: masses and masses of channels, shortage of anything sensible to fill them all with, and the emerging issue of finding a paying audience for them all.

I feel, on general level and with emphasis on my own content-providers, if they didn't have the must-have sports content that they can package all the crap with and then force-sell it to the audience who is in reality only interested of the must-have sports content, they would have collapsed a long time since.

Gotta chuckle at it though: sports and comicbooks, the two traditional male bastions, becoming the adopted platform of commentary on social justice. I wonder if they have any on Cosmo?
"fifty-seven channels and there is nothin on" - Bruce Springsteen in 1992

TV is "a vast wasteland" - Newton Minow, former FCC Chairman in 1961

adsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2017, 05:40 PM
  #124
Zeta16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 98
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
If we're going to discuss the ESPN thing from a business sense, we've almost got to touch on the fact that they have spread themselves pretty thin from a business standpoint.

The number of networks Disney has under the umbrella is one thing, the number that ESPN has under their specific charge is something completely different.

They're working with the mothership network, ESPN2, ESPN3/WatchESPN, ESPNU, ESPN Classic, The Longhorn Network, SEC Network, I'm pretty sure they've got a piece of the ACC's Network, plus they've got all the Spanish coverage as well on ESPN Deportes.

They've got all that infrastructure, all those channels to program, the need for more and more content with which to fill the networks, and then they've got to fight the changing landscape of how people are consuming sports events.

While this whole thing may have a little to do with the content of their sports commentary, I think a lot of it just has to do with the changing world of television. That's the real discussion that should take place when things like this happen, at least from a business perspective. The fact that they have determined they'd like to provide some additional commentary that could be perceived as politics may be a poor business decision since they're running the risk of alienating a portion of an already shrinking potential viewership group, but I doubt it's the main reason these things are happening. The world is changing.
It has turned me off the commentary. I used to turn it on when I got up and watched it in the morning then at dinner and later at night. I know longer do at all, it is a turn off and makes me go out of my way not to watch it. Could careless about anyone's political or social take, but some how they think we care.

Zeta16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2017, 11:13 PM
  #125
Lempo
Sugar-Crumbs
 
Lempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 1351
Quote:
Originally Posted by adsfan View Post
"fifty-seven channels and there is nothin on" - Bruce Springsteen in 1992
Fair enough I guess.

Though I did say emphasis on my own content-providers, and in 1992 I had three channels and resonated well with the programming.

Lempo is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.