ESPN Laying Off Additional On-Air Personalities

[jdoggivjc]

I thought netflix would have way more than 100M subs

Why? That's 1 of 3 people in America, perhaps 1 of 7 people in North America And Europe. Does China even allow access to it? Does India have access to it? How many Netflix subscriptions do you think a family would have? My family only has one.

 

[Mr Janny]

and Cheap Seats!

God I miss that show. I even got my wife to watch it.

 

[3GenClone]

I thought netflix would have way more than 100M subs

That first article I posted was from Jan. Netflix is expected to reach 100M this month:

Netflix (NFLX, Tech30) added 5 million members globally in the first quarter of 2017, bringing its total subscriber base to just shy of 99 million users. That comes on the heels of Netflix's biggest quarter for new subscribers ever.

"We expect to cross the 100 million member mark this weekend," Netflix wrote in its letter to shareholders Monday. "It's a good start."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/17/technology/netflix-subscribers/

 

[buf87]

A contract is a legal document. Both parties must honor the terms or risk litigation. I'm not sure what you are driving at there.

Aren't all reduction in labor force actions by companies called "lay offs" these days? I wouldn't read too much into that label (if that is what you were asking about).

I thought I read somewhere that some of the people getting laid off were still under contract and would have to be paid. If that is the case, why lay them all off right now?

 

[Rabbuk]

I thought I read somewhere that some of the people getting laid off were still under contract and would have to be paid. If that is the case, why lay them all off right now?

Most contracts have severance clauses in them.

 

[buf87]

Most contracts have severance clauses in them.

So they can lay them off at a discount to their contract?

 

[Mr Janny]

So they can lay them off at a discount to their contract?

probably. Benefits probably end as well.

 

[Incyte]

I find this somewhat staggering:


Netflix: 100M subscribers X $10 month = $1B revenue/month

ESPN: 90M subscribers X $7.21 subscriber fee = $649M/month

 

[Mr Janny]

I find this somewhat staggering:


Netflix: 100M subscribers X $10 month = $1B revenue/month

ESPN: 90M subscribers X $7.21 subscriber fee = $649M/month

and all of those Netflix subscribers actually want the product they're paying for.
I wonder how many of ESPN's subscribers actually watch ESPN, and how many just have it as part of their cable package.

I've said it before, ESPN's model was great when cable was the only option. It isn't anymore, and so they have to evolve.

 

[ricochet]

I thought I read somewhere that some of the people getting laid off were still under contract and would have to be paid. If that is the case, why lay them all off right now?

Any time you do a layoff you want to do it and get it done. If you wait for contracts to expire you drag it out for months and everyone spends half their time wondering if they are going to get laid off and the other half gossiping on the latest news of who just got canned. It just doesn't make a good work environment if people don't know one way or the other.

 

[3GenClone]

I don't know if it was pointed out, but Dr. Jerry Punch was let go on Wednesday. He seemed to be the go-to sideline guy for Iowa State football games in the mid 00s.

 

[capitalcityguy]

According to 25 yr ESPN employee and Sportcenter anchor Linda Cohn,

Appearing on 77 WABC’s Bernie and Sid Show, Cohn said one reason for the cutbacks was the political nature of the network’s programming. She stated, “That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage, but if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind.”

When asked if ESPN’s coverage of athletes such as Colin Kaepernick and Caitlyn Jenner was a factor in the network’s plunge, Cohn agreed[/quote

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15835/espn-anchor-admits-network-failing-because-hank-berrien

 

[Mr Janny]

According to 25 yr ESPN employee and Sportcenter anchor Linda Cohn,

Again, it only makes sense if people are so mad about ESPN's politics that they're cancelling cable entirely. Because ESPN's lost viewers aren't going to their competition. FS1 has been losing more subscribers than ESPN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ratings/fs1-lost-more-households-february-espn.html

The political angle makes for a nice talking point, but the data shows that it just doesn't hold water.

 

[Doc]

Again, it only makes sense if people are so mad about ESPN's politics that they're cancelling cable entirely. Because ESPN's lost viewers aren't going to their competition. FS1 has been losing more subscribers than ESPN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ratings/fs1-lost-more-households-february-espn.html

The political angle makes for a nice talking point, but the data shows that it just doesn't hold water.

Yeah, I can definitely understand the Caitlin Jenner thing annoying people. Heck, it annoyed me. But it just doesn't make sense that it would be a big factor in people cutting the cord.

 

[Mr Janny]

Yeah, I can definitely understand the Caitlin Jenner thing annoying people. Heck, it annoyed me. But it just doesn't make sense that it would be a big factor in people cutting the cord.

exactly. I'm not discounting that people are annoyed by the non sports, social stuff. I am too. But people aren't cancelling their entire cable package because of ESPN's political views. Not in significant numbers, anyway. That's illogical. It's just not the reason for the drop in subscribers.

 

[Clonefan32]

Again, it only makes sense if people are so mad about ESPN's politics that they're cancelling cable entirely. Because ESPN's lost viewers aren't going to their competition. FS1 has been losing more subscribers than ESPN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ratings/fs1-lost-more-households-february-espn.html

The political angle makes for a nice talking point, but the data shows that it just doesn't hold water.

This is exactly right. Personally, I've watched ESPN less-and-less since they've became, in my opinion, politicized. It's just one of many reasons I dislike their content. However, I still have Direct, and it's still on my cable plan. I guess a dip in viewership could hurt ad dollars, but that doesn't seem to be where the deficiency is coming from.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Again, it only makes sense if people are so mad about ESPN's politics that they're cancelling cable entirely. Because ESPN's lost viewers aren't going to their competition. FS1 has been losing more subscribers than ESPN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ratings/fs1-lost-more-households-february-espn.html

The political angle makes for a nice talking point, but the data shows that it just doesn't hold water.

I think ESPN beating way beyond the dead horse over the Kapernick and Jenner stories and other political angles are a big part of the negative perception toward ESPN (look, I get that they're stories that need to be covered, but did it need to dominate every single show for months on end?). However, unless people are cancelling their cable subscriptions over it I highly doubt it played a part. Perhaps it affected their ad revenue, for while people may not cancel their cable subscriptions they will change the channel and that will affect ratings and that could affect what companies are willing to pay for ad space. But then how imporant is ad revenue compared to cable fees?

 

[Farnsworth]

This is exactly right. Personally, I've watched ESPN less-and-less since they've became, in my opinion, politicized. It's just one of many reasons I dislike their content. However, I still have Direct, and it's still on my cable plan. I guess a dip in viewership could hurt ad dollars, but that doesn't seem to be where the deficiency is coming from.

This is exactly right indeed. I'm still paying the subscriber fee to them through my cable package, but my viewership of their content goes down every year. Now I'll only watch for live sporting events. Most of the other material I can still stand I can catch for free through podcasts (PTI, jalen and jacoby, etc).

 

[carvers4math]

I wonder if some of the same people complaining about the weird non-sports content on ESPN are devotees to KXNO shows like Murph & Andy. Any time I have tried to listen to them, especially this time of year, it is mostly garbage totally unrelated to sports. Or Hawk crap.

 

[Farnsworth]

I wonder if some of the same people complaining about the weird non-sports content on ESPN are devotees to KXNO shows like Murph & Andy. Any time I have tried to listen to them, especially this time of year, it is mostly garbage totally unrelated to sports. Or Hawk crap.

Eh, I think those are two different things. I personally enjoy Murph & Andy for more of the off topic type material. It's the same reason I like Cyclone Fanatic so much. It's not always just about the sports, it's also to get takes about all sorts of topics from like minded people (iowa state fans, sports fans, midwest people/values, laid back/less pc community, etc).

If you look at the front page, Off Topic articles are just as popular if not more popular than on topic Cyclone related sports material during this time period as well. It doesn't mean that traffic stops.