2017 The Stuff About Sports Media Thread

[Zimbra]

NBA writer Ethan Sherwood Strauss is out.

[WholeFnMachine]

Can they please, please, please get rid of Steven A. Smith, I don't even care about basketball, I just cannot stand that clown. 

[Gonzo]

1 minute ago, WholeFnMachine said:

Can they please, please, please get rid of Steven A. Smith, I don't even care about basketball, I just cannot stand that clown. 

If there was one person at ESPN that I could virtually guarantee will have a job at the end of the day, it's Screamin' A. He's the perfect representation of their move from professional journalism to professional screaming.

[Brian Fowler]

Judging from all the various team beat reporters, I'd say the whole ESPN does your local sports page thing is finally 100% dead.

[supremebve]

4 minutes ago, Gonzo said:

If there was one person at ESPN that I could virtually guarantee will have a job at the end of the day, it's Screamin' A. He's the perfect representation of their move from professional journalism to professional screaming.

There is no reason they are getting rid of Steven A. Smith.  Like him or not, he is legitimately one of the most talented people on their payroll.  In a job where you have to be able to formulate an opinion about anything at a drop of a hat, he has the ability to build an impassioned argument about any damn thing.  Not only that, his reporting is generally spot on.  He's someone that people in sports, especially basketball, are willing to talk to and give information.  Not only that, he gets ratings in a timeslot where people don't watch TV.  

[EdA]

Just now, Brian Fowler said:

Judging from all the various team beat reporters, I'd say the whole ESPN does your local sports page thing is finally 100% dead.

Yeah.  With hockey completely gutted and a lot of local beat people killed I was going to say ESPN.com is going to go with a lot of AP stories rather than their own coverage.  Not saying that is good or bad, just saying.

Of course, this kinda hammers home how much bloat ESPN had - and probably still has.  I'm also going to guess the some of the bigger contract people are going to play out the string and not get renewed going forward.

One now has to wonder if these ESPN cuts is the pinprick that begins the eventual burst in the TV sports money bubble.

[EdA]

Also, this is kind of interesting about the root cause of the ESPN layoffs.

More than 70 percent of the most widely distributed channels have lost subscribers in the last year, according to Nielsen data. Most television network owners have a channel that has done as bad or worse than ESPN's percentage loss since December 2015.

Overall, the number of households with cable or satellite hookups in the U.S. fell by 1.6 percent — those are people who disconnected entirely, so that figure represents a sort of minimum loss for widely distributed networks like ESPN (if you're already in every cable household, there's nowhere to go but down).

What makes ESPN unique among cable networks is the extremely high fees it charges distributors to offer the channel to customers. While that high price can be attributed to unique costs related to sports programming, it has also made the channel a target in slimmed down cable packages that aim to offer cheaper bundles with more personalized options.

As of November, [ESPN]'s average Nielsen viewership numbers for the year (viewers aged 18 to 49) showed a drop of about 10 percent. Again, that's not outstandingly bad — about a quarter of channels did worse than that, and ESPN is still the No. 1 network — but it looks bad when you're charging $7.21 per month per subscriber. That's nearly four times more than the next most expensive channel, TNT at $1.82.

 

[supremebve]

3 minutes ago, EdA said:

Yeah.  With hockey completely gutted and a lot of local beat people killed I was going to say ESPN.com is going to go with a lot of AP stories rather than their own coverage.  Not saying that is good or bad, just saying.

Of course, this kinda hammers home how much bloat ESPN had - and probably still has.  I'm also going to guess the some of the bigger contract people are going to play out the string and not get renewed going forward.

One now has to wonder if these ESPN cuts is the pinprick that begins the eventual burst in the TV sports money bubble.

I think this has much more to do with people cutting cable than the TV sports money being inflated.  It can be argued, that the price for content is going to go up with people cutting cable.  Television is still about selling advertising, and sports are pretty much the only thing that people don't DVR.  Honestly, how much are advertisers willing to pay for commercials that people aren't going to see?  People watch commercials during sporting events, therefore the networks are going to be willing to pay billions for their exclusive rights.  These firings are about cable television being a dying industry, not evidence that sports programming is failing.  

ESPN is pretty much a 1:1 comparison for how cable is doing.  You cannot buy cable and not pay for ESPN, whether you watch it or not.  If your basic cable bill showed the price of each channel ESPN would be the most expensive by far.  They aren't playing the same game as every other network.  The only way they could fail is if the cable industry as a whole fails.  People are cord cutting, and it is affecting their bottom line, but as long as they have the rights to so many games they are going to be OK.  You can hate Stephen A., you can not watch SportsCenter...dammit EdA pretty much posted what I was trying to say better than I could say it.

[odessasteps]

My former college newspaper colleague ashley fox also got hit today. 

--- if a la carte ever gets made an option, espn will really be in trouble. How many non sports fans will want to pay that carriage fee? 

 

[Tabe]

2 hours ago, Brian Fowler said:

Judging from all the various team beat reporters, I'd say the whole ESPN does your local sports page thing is finally 100% dead.

I never knew that was a thing. Was puzzled when I saw all these team reporters getting the ax. 

[Brian Fowler]

1 hour ago, Tabe said:

I never knew that was a thing. Was puzzled when I saw all these team reporters getting the ax. 

It started several years back, never fully developed, and has been slowly dying ever since. This feels like the very end though.

[WholeFnMachine]

Luke Thomas on Stephen A. spoliered for size 

Spoiler

100 jobs today are being slashed at ESPN. Anchors, writers, reporters and the like are all losing their jobs, some with tenure approaching 20 years. All of this is somewhat expected, but terribly sad. Yet, I keep hearing anger being directed at ESPN for allowing Stephen A. Smith to keep his job. I fundamentally do not understand these complaints.

I do not consume Smith's work, nor do I like it. However, lots of ESPN's viewers do. Despite that fact, there is some bizarre worldview being shared by media members today that it's a shame talented journalists are losing their jobs (it is), especially given that Smith is not. I don't understand how this is confusing or even really connected.

Smith isn't on ESPN by accident. Here is there because ESPN's audience has shown an affinity for him (or, at least, a significant part of ESPN's audience). ESPN isn't keeping Smith employed and putting him on the air *despite* what the audience metrics show; he's there precisely *because* they show him favorably received.

Whether he should be on screen as often as he is or whether his salary could be less to give space to journalists doing reporting is a somewhat different matter. There is also some evidence to suggest Smith's drawing power has somewhat diminished over the years. We can quibble about the margins.

But it should not be seen as scandalous that Smith is a coveted figure inside Bristol. The 'E' in ESPN stands for 'entertainment'. ESPN does some journalism, but for a business that is letting 100 people go because of cost concerns and a declining subscriber base, putting premiums on those the company sees as most beneficial to their product's visibility is critical.

Whether you or I like Smith and his work is irrelevant. There is a legitimate segment of ESPN's audience that has shown an affinity for his work. I cannot be mad at ESPN for responding to their consumer base.

 

[Spritenaut 32]

Smith is legitimately talented.  He should be on TV somewhere.  It's a shame the 'Screaming A' routine is what made him a star.  

Eh, for that matter, Skip used to be really talented.  Maybe still is?  I thought he was a great sportswriter back in the days when he was just a Dallas newspaper reporter/columnist (he was named Texas Sportswriter of the Year three times in about eight years).  His books on the Cowboys were quite good.  He's slipped into a parody of... God, I don't even know what.... since joining ESPN.

 

[supremebve]

1 hour ago, Horton Hears a Wooo!!! said:

Smith is legitimately talented.  He should be on TV somewhere.  It's a shame the 'Screaming A' routine is what made him a star.  

Eh, for that matter, Skip used to be really talented.  Maybe still is?  I thought he was a great sportswriter back in the days when he was just a Dallas newspaper reporter/columnist (he was named Texas Sportswriter of the Year three times in about eight years).  His books on the Cowboys were quite good.  He's slipped into a parody of... God, I don't even know what.... since joining ESPN.

 

Seriously, I have never watched a single minute of First Take, but I've seen plenty of clips of Stephen A. saying something ridiculous.  I don't care what anyone says, him saying that he would have won the OJ trial is about as good as anything I've ever heard on a sports show.  

[RIPPA]

Names are still coming out

Like some of the newest known ones are Andy Katz and Jim Caple

[RIPPA]

Add Britt McHenry to the list

And like Werder - she was already out on assignment for the Draft (she is covering the Cards)

However - unlike Werder - she said she will be working the draft and then is done

[RIPPA]

Also per Big Lead - ESPN will start showing "Intentional Talk".

Yes the Chris Rose/Kevin Millar MLB Network show

http://thebiglead.com/2017/04/26/espn-expected-to-start-airing-mlb-networks-intentional-talk-to-save-production-costs/

So they laid off a shit ton of folks. Are starting to air other networks content. Yet they still have a fucking magazine and will run the ESPYS

[odessasteps]

A magazine i still get mailed even though i stopped being an insider years and years ago and have asked at least four times to not have  sent to me. 

[Tabe]

2 hours ago, RIPPA said:

Also per Big Lead - ESPN will start showing "Intentional Talk".

Yes the Chris Rose/Kevin Millar MLB Network show

http://thebiglead.com/2017/04/26/espn-expected-to-start-airing-mlb-networks-intentional-talk-to-save-production-costs/

So they laid off a shit ton of folks. Are starting to air other networks content. Yet they still have a fucking magazine and will run the ESPYS

Laid off a ton of folks so they could air other networks' TERRIBLE content.  I've tried watching "Intentional Talk" a few times and it's just awful.

[sabremike]

13 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

A magazine i still get mailed even though i stopped being an insider years and years ago and have asked at least four times to not have  sent to me. 

If they aren't charging you for it why bother to tell them not to send it to you? Do you actually hate the magazine so much that you don't even want it for free? I just can't believe it could be THAT bad.

[Brian Fowler]

I'm subscribed only because it got me insider for like a couple bucks. They literally only charge like a buck or three to subscribe to it. I almost never open the damn thing.

[Spritenaut 32]

How does this actually affect ESPN's coverage and content?  Are they going to rely on other organizations to break stories?  Hire people to fill the spots at a cheaper wage? 

I watch a fair bit of ESPN, but mostly just live events & Mike and Mike.  I recognize a lot of the names but not sure their contribution actually matters to me.

[supremebve]

11 minutes ago, sabremike said:

If they aren't charging you for it why bother to tell them not to send it to you? Do you actually hate the magazine so much that you don't even want it for free? I just can't believe it could be THAT bad.

I used to subscribe, and I really liked it.  The biggest problem is that it is an oversized magazine that comes out every two weeks.  It wasn't long before I felt like they were taking over my house.  

[odessasteps]

46 minutes ago, supremebve said:

I used to subscribe, and I really liked it.  The biggest problem is that it is an oversized magazine that comes out every two weeks.  It wasn't long before I felt like they were taking over my house.  

Thought i was also quoted mike's post but didnt. My reasons:

1. The principle of the thing. I asked you not to send it. Why are you?

2. Environmentally wasteful.

3. Without proof, i wonder if they do it to boost their subscription numbers.

 

[Dolfan in NYC]

1 hour ago, odessasteps said:

Thought i was also quoted mike's post but didnt. My reasons:

1. The principle of the thing. I asked you not to send it. Why are you?

2. Environmentally wasteful.

3. Without proof, i wonder if they do it to boost their subscription numbers.

 

Mark, just do what I did, call the subscription office (888-267-3684) and tell them you want to donate your subscription the Armed Forces.   

They'll send the magazine to a military outpost/ship at no cost to you.