• The KillerFrogs

ESPN Hemorrhaging

4 Oaks Frog

Active Member
Sounds like “Get Up” never did...get up, that is. So sorry to hear it for those [ Finebaum ]s.

GO FROGS!
BEAT tosu!
Spit Blood~~<~< and [Baylor asshoe]!!
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
If you look at what they are apparently offering for that $5 / month, the logic behind it becomes far more clear. Compare what you get for Netflix ($7.99), Amazon ($8.99), or Hulu ($7.99). Then look at what ESPN+ is offering.

If they were offering the stuff that I actually watch on ESPN, even at double the price point, it might be worth considering. Instead, they are basically offering like Tier-4 / not-quite-good-enough-for-ESPN3 content for stuff that I just don't really care about.

Your Netflix cost $8 a month? Mine is $12.
 

Deep Purple

Full Member
Sounds like “Get Up” never did...get up, that is. So sorry to hear it for those [ Orgeron ]s.
I've fallen and I can't Get Up!

life-alert-mom-large-5.jpg
 

Eight

Member
Interesting...probably not a good sign for those who want ESPN to get back to sport

http://deadline.com/2018/05/keith-olberman-expands-espn-role-1202398126/

Keith Olbermann is taking on an expanded role at ESPN as part of a new deal with the network. Under the pact, Olbermann, who has contributed to various ESPN shows since January, will make additional appearances across ESPN platforms and programs in 2018.

unless, they are bringing olbermann on to "get up" to help save it which pretty much would drive the final nail into that show's coffin
 

Chongo94

Active Member


Been saying this the whole time but no one seemed to believe it...

“Anybody who is getting an ESPN paycheck right now — outside of the communications department — who is spending their time trying to debunk the narrative that ESPN is losing subscribers because of a political agenda should be punished," says author and THR contributor James Andrew Miller.
It's been litigated to death. There is absolutely no definitive correlation that has ever been presented. And a ton of other evidence suggesting that that’s not the case. Enough is enough.”
 

Zubaz

Member
Been saying this the whole time but no one seemed to believe it...

“Anybody who is getting an ESPN paycheck right now — outside of the communications department — who is spending their time trying to debunk the narrative that ESPN is losing subscribers because of a political agenda should be punished," says author and THR contributor James Andrew Miller.
It's been litigated to death. There is absolutely no definitive correlation that has ever been presented. And a ton of other evidence suggesting that that’s not the case. Enough is enough.”
Yep, it was never really politics, and the only evidence ever suggested was anecdotal. It was far more basic: Their issues are the shifting way that content is delivered.

That's actually far more troubling for ESPN. If it was just their "liberal bias" then that can be rectified, just change the tone of the shows back to sports. Easy peasy. But if your issues are "Why would I wait for Sportscenter when I can watch all the highlights I want on my phone immediately?" or "Cable / Satellite has gotten too expensive and I don't want to pay for it anymore", that's a lot harder to solve.
 

FBallFan123

Active Member
Been saying this the whole time but no one seemed to believe it...

“Anybody who is getting an ESPN paycheck right now — outside of the communications department — who is spending their time trying to debunk the narrative that ESPN is losing subscribers because of a political agenda should be punished," says author and THR contributor James Andrew Miller.
It's been litigated to death. There is absolutely no definitive correlation that has ever been presented. And a ton of other evidence suggesting that that’s not the case. Enough is enough.”

I think this conflates two separate issues....which is subscriber losses and ratings.

They're related, and they overlap, but they're different.

I don't think I've seen anybody say 13 million subscribers cancelled ESPN due to politics.

That's due to things like cord-cutting, aging cable subscribers who are dying and not being replaced by younger customers, etc.

But ESPN critics do suggest politicsl/social commentary as possible reasons why things like Sc6 with Hill and Smith don't get bigger audiences.
 

Chongo94

Active Member
I think this conflates two separate issues....which is subscriber losses and ratings.

They're related, and they overlap, but they're different.

I don't think I've seen anybody say 13 million subscribers cancelled ESPN due to politics.

That's due to things like cord-cutting, aging cable subscribers who are dying and not being replaced by younger customers, etc.

But ESPN critics do suggest politicsl/social commentary as possible reasons why things like Sc6 with Hill and Smith don't get bigger audiences.

Well sure. But many on here seem to equate the political issues as the main reasoning and that is just not the case whatsoever.

I found it an interesting article. I also found it interesting ESPN won’t release their figures for ESPN+ but say it’s doing better than expected...I refuse to believe that. If that were true, why not release the figures? That or they didn’t have a very high bar to leap from the beginning in their minds.
 
Top