[valentine]

 ESPN is in serious danger, and that huge TV deal with the NBA looks like really, really bad business. 

Nielson ratings show that ESPN lost 621k subscribers in October. And we all know why. Consumers are cutting the cord.

 

I can’t help but feel like there’s less people watching basketball overall, even though its hard to judge based on the different viewing options worldwide.

But casual NBA fans who have ESPN as part of their cable package (but mostly watch movies, Gilmore Girls etc) probably won’t get an NBA option once they cut the cord and switch to netflix.

Now the NBA product is solid and they can sell league pass for a price that substantially exceeds what they get from ESPN on a per-viewer basis. However, even though they swindled Disney on this deal, they still want to maximise ratings and a lot of people are skeptical about League Pass.

I’ve written similarly themed threads in the past and got a mixed range of opinions, but many think ESPN is so big that they are immune from financial crisis. I wonder if this is still the case?

So no Hype trash talk in this thread. No outragous statements. 

Just an open forum on the future of the ESPN/NBA relationship.

[EndlessknightParticipant]

Source?

Given the growth of the game world wide NBA viewership is probably at an all time high. Wasn’t increased TV money the main reason the cap skyrocketed is year?

I’m a “cord-cutter” and I still watch a lot of basketball via stream channels/apps

[Hype Machine]

 My source is Nielson ratings. Worldwide industry standard in gathering media ratings data.

Available for public consumption on their website http://www.nielson.com

 

ESPN dispute them…for what its worth. 

 

[EndlessknightParticipant]

I’m well aware of the Nielsen company, even served as a Nielsen family twice. You need to check your link because it does point anywhere relevant.

[losnopesosParticipant]

ESPN has been losing subscribers steadily for about two years now.  Think about how ESPN has turned into a tabloid show where they scroll "news" about the Kardashians.  They’re simply trying to expand their market as their core market is contracting.  

[Hype Machine]

The garbage programming and lack of on-air talent is a concern. Losing guys like Simmons, Torrico, Cowherd, Bayless really hurt the product.

I wouldnt be surprised if Kellerman leaves as he surely cant be happy on First Take. He appears to be ESPNs most versatile guy at the moment.

I love NBA but I wont waste my time with horrible shows like the Jump or Jalen and Jacoby.

 

 

[losnopesosParticipant]

 there’s this model now where they have two guys argue and a woman mediating it.  filling in their PC quotas, i suppose.  whatever the reason, i don’t watch ESPN unless i’m watching a game.  i find highlights of games i want to see online.

[Robb_CParticipant]

 ESPN buried themselves giving Bruce Jenner an ESPY.. It reeked of promoting an agenda where political agendas should be no where near.. One of the reasons we embrace professional sports is it  allows us to escape from everything that is happening in the world.. ESPN is continually framing and forcing feeding its  political agendas onto us through sports media.. I dont blame anyone that wants to stop watching ESPN, I did years ago.

[losnopesosParticipant]

The real problem IMO comes from the businesses those that own the networks.  Disney owns something like 80% of ESPN.  Makes sense that it would behoove ESPN to extoll the virtues of whatever Disney is invested in, and I think we’re seeing that now. 

[LA12Participant]

 Also at some point in the summer they ran a thirty minute or so Clinton campaign program as part of the loop they run throughout the day, and it was on air almost every other hour. I’m here to watch sports news, not political news.

[rongataParticipant]

Just want to upvote this gold comment

[Robb_CParticipant]

I miss the NBA on NBC… The presentation/broadcast was on another level..

[ChrispyParticipant]

 best theme music, too!

[Mr. 19134Participant]

 Thats because theyre a trash mainstream news establishment.  

[JordoParticipant]

 ESPN over saturated thier market no? ESPN 1-3, ESPNU, ESPN news, ESPN deportes. I barely tune into ESPN 1 unless a game is on. I really have no reason to even want to click on the other channels honestly.

[Robb_CParticipant]

One of the primary reasons ESPN has multiple channels is to create unique marketing opportunities among each channel at any given time.. While you may not be tuning into espn1, some stay at home mom might be and you better believe ESPN is well aware of this and plans its programming/advertising accordingly.

 

[SlickBouncePassParticipant]

has made poor programming moves.  From letting Tirico go (MNF is terrible), to letting all their established NFL guys walk, to pushing Bill Simmons on TV for too long, in addition to Jalen Rose who may be professional and display a solid bball IQ, but I just can’t stand him for some reason.  Same with Mark Jackson who ABC shoves down our throats like he is necessary.

Gimme Bill Walton over Mark Jackson anyday, "man down hands down" or whatever it is.

FS1 is way better programming than the diluted ESPN format. Its trite.  

  

  

[mcbaileyParticipant]

 FS1 is ESPN without the variety. That said, the network that has both Bayless and Cowherd will always be the worst.

[CynthiaParticipant]

The real reason has more to do with how people are growing more savvy about the internet as time goes by. People are finding alternative ways to watch games online, like streaming. Streaming is free and is widely accessible now days.

Back in the day finding a legitimate stream was time consuming and stressful, so the average internet user either didn’t know it existed, or didn’t want to go through the trouble. Now there are so many stream sites that even your parents are catching on. It’s not just sports, I know people in their 50s and 60s who exclusively watch movies & TV shows from stream sites. You know it’s easy when your parents/grandparents are doing it now.

Again, this isn’t just a sports thing nor an ESPN thing. Movies, TV Shows, music, etc. have all been falling the last few years due to the internet and alternate forms of watching things without having to pay a dime.

Personally I don’t mind it, being a small business owner I’m not exactly a fan of big corporations & media.

[goldie92689Participant]

 If ESPN is losing subscribers…so is every other cable network. If Clinton pays for air time on ESPN..so be it…Trump could have bought spots on ESPN also. As for viewership…Sportcenter sucks..its super cheesey and the dunk or 3 pointer highlights suck. Highlights are out of context and usually youre lucky of you see more than 2 plays from a game. 

[Reptilian MonkParticipant]

 As technology continues to grow, the expansion of media content being available on the internet, the tv cable model in general is losing its appeal, the internet is slowly becoming the norm for the new generation in getting information/content. The Tv was the main norm for content in the 60/70’s and is slowly dying off. 

[Memphis MadnessParticipant]

 The NBA cashed those checks, right?

If so, it’s all good.

Although ESPN is still in big trouble.

Long-term, ESPN will probably need to GROW its on-air talent instead of overpaying for "bought" talent.

Man, ESPN vs. Fox Sports is like WWE vs. WCW.

They are waging a war for people with mediocre talent…

However, if sports viewing is in a terminal decline, then ESPN is the canary in the coal mine, along with bad TV ratings for the NFL earlier in the year, and you will soon see it with NBA ratings, MLB ratings (the Cubs WON — what happens after that? all down hill…?), and NHL ratings.

Depends on who has the best cost-structure.  Who knows… could be the NHL and MLS — whoever contains costs best, grows top-line organic growth, and can subsist on DIEHARDS and walk-up ticket sales (plus "gear" merchandising sales).

Right now, I wanna see the ratings for all the Bowl Games.  Could be the killing fields…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts