ESPN Lost 500,000 Subscribers in April

[T J]

ESPN Lost 500,000 Subscribers in April

ESPN lost half-a-million subscribers in the month of April, adding to a massive hemorrhaging of customers which now hovers around 14 million over the last seven years.

While the numbers were catastrophic across the board for the national networks, only NBCSN lost more households than ESPN.

These are not out-of-season drops, but drops at a time while those networks have some of their best content. So there are certainly some things to worry about there.”

Those worries are exacerbated by the fact that ESPN launched their brand new morning show Get Up! in April. A show which takes place in a studio that reportedly cost $35 million to build, and is hosted by three personalities who make nearly $15 million a year.

Most networks consider launching an expensive new show while losing 17,000 subscribers a day, to be less than ideal.

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2018/05/02/espn-lost-500000-subscribers-april/
​

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Seems a little understated to me.....

 

[Nitt1300]

I tried Get Up twice, found it unwatchable

and Golic and Wingo is nearly as bad- ESPN is the Titanic an hour after hitting the iceberg

 

[dailybuck777]

Too bad, it wasn't 1,000,000

 

[ChiTownLion]

#JemeleKnew

 

[919_Lion]

ESPN, Or NBASPN?

 

[bxle]

 

[fairfaxlion2]

Yay

 

[Mister Magoo]

But, Dey woke

 

[Connorpozlee]

So maybe the idea the network had of forcing politics into sports wasn’t such a great idea?

 

[PS4814]

More lumberjack, less talk

So maybe the idea the network had of forcing politics into sports wasn’t such a great idea?

More lumberjacks! Less lobbyists!

 

[SaquonCappelletti]

There's far too much important journalism being done by ESPN to celebrate its "downfall." I wish the best for the reporters, producers, people with hands in the figurative dirt. But it's clear there's a problem with their upper-management. I mean, this is just downright irresponsible.

Those worries are exacerbated by the fact that ESPN launched their brand new morning show Get Up! in April. A show which takes place in a studio that reportedly cost $35 million to build, and is hosted by three personalities who make nearly $15 million a year.

In the long run, though, ESPN will be fine. It has too much content and programming that's indispensable to so many people. Plus, it has Disney's backing. Did you just see what AVENGERS grossed in its opening weekend?

 

[CattyGuy51]

I think that if Disney could they would dumb ESPN. It's a money pit these days and I don't see it improving.

 

[Nitwit97]

ESPN, Or NBASPN?

SECSPN

 

[JoeLion]

As far as I am concerned ESPN sold thier soul to the NBA. They miscalculated the overall interest in the NBA at the expense of other sports. The only thing worth watching are some of th games they broadcast the programming is awful.....IMHO.

 

[fairfaxlion2]

As far as I am concerned ESPN sold thier soul to the NBA. They miscalculated the overall interest in the NBA at the expense of other sports. The only thing worth watching are some of th games they broadcast the programming is awful.....IMHO.

Yes, and I am not sure how they made such a dumb move. There had not been a great deal of interest in the NBA since the mid 1990s. In fact I would say that interest fell off a cliff at the end of the Bulls’ run and never returned.

 

[Tri-Power65]

In the long run, though, ESPN will be fine. It has too much content and programming that's indispensable to so many people. Plus, it has Disney's backing. Did you just see what AVENGERS grossed in its opening weekend?

Ah, so ESPN is too big to fail?

 

[razpsu]

I tried Get Up twice, found it unwatchable

and Golic and Wingo is nearly as bad- ESPN is the Titanic an hour after hitting the iceberg

I like this and let’s keep it going.

Espn are the confederates after they hit the wall at Gettysburg. Their high water mark.

Espn is happy days after the fonz jumped the shark.

Espn is Dallas after jr was shot.

Espn is...

 

[heckmans]

There's far too much important journalism being done by ESPN to celebrate its "downfall." I wish the best for the reporters, producers, people with hands in the figurative dirt. But it's clear there's a problem with their upper-management. I mean, this is just downright irresponsible.



In the long run, though, ESPN will be fine. It has too much content and programming that's indispensable to so many people. Plus, it has Disney's backing. Did you just see what AVENGERS grossed in its opening weekend?

You mean like the important journalism where they didn't ask any questions or look at any facts and perpetuated a story that took down JVP and almost took down PSU athletics? Sorry, not sorry. They are not journalists. They are lazy talking heads like the majority of the MSM. I'm rooting for ESPN to continue the decline and die a slow prolonged death for their transgressions. I'm happy to be counted among those that no longer feed the machine in Bristol.
Their programming is not "indispensable". Their model(and that of other cable properties) has been to force oversubscription so they stay fat and flush with cash, but streaming has killed the model which inflated cable package costs and has accelerated the decline of the cable companies. The decline in revenues will force ESPN to shed costs and dilute programming which will become less compelling. Their ability to pay ridiculous amounts to secure sports programming are over. I for one can't wait for them to be fully emaciated as a broadcasting power. Once that happens, you will see the TV market flourish. There will be a ton more (sports) content available from so many more sources. The cable monopoly will be over and consumers will have so much competitive choice. When 5G networks proliferate, it will accelerate the decline of wired cable/internet companies further. I for one, have a big bucket of popcorn and am enjoying the show!

 

[GreggK]

ESPN Lost 500,000 Subscribers in April

ESPN lost half-a-million subscribers in the month of April, adding to a massive hemorrhaging of customers which now hovers around 14 million over the last seven years.

While the numbers were catastrophic across the board for the national networks, only NBCSN lost more households than ESPN.

These are not out-of-season drops, but drops at a time while those networks have some of their best content. So there are certainly some things to worry about there.”

Those worries are exacerbated by the fact that ESPN launched their brand new morning show Get Up! in April. A show which takes place in a studio that reportedly cost $35 million to build, and is hosted by three personalities who make nearly $15 million a year.

Most networks consider launching an expensive new show while losing 17,000 subscribers a day, to be less than ideal.

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2018/05/02/espn-lost-500000-subscribers-april/
​

I am sure that you want to think that this is because people are tired of ESPN's politics.
Maybe that is some of it, but the real answer is people are watching less sports all together.

I just hate their overall douchey clown vibe. It is always a breath of fresh air to watch analysts in England talk about soccer. It serious, well presented and informative. Not a bunch of ex jocks trying to crack one liners.

I tried to watch the Pirates game last night. The color commentator was just HORRID. All he did was try to be funny the whole entire time. I get it, baseball is boring, but it is like trying to watch game with an old annoying uncle.

 

[Art]

There's far too much important journalism being done by ESPN to celebrate its "downfall." I wish the best for the reporters, producers, people with hands in the figurative dirt. But it's clear there's a problem with their upper-management. I mean, this is just downright irresponsible.



In the long run, though, ESPN will be fine. It has too much content and programming that's indispensable to so many people. Plus, it has Disney's backing. Did you just see what AVENGERS grossed in its opening weekend?

And those people are being subsidized by cable subscribers who have little or no use for ESPN and outnumber them by a large multiple. So when the day comes, and it's coming fast, when ESPN is offered to you at an unsubsidized price and you still find it "indispensable," knock yourself out.

 

[Lion84]

There's far too much important journalism being done by ESPN to celebrate its "downfall." I wish the best for the reporters, producers, people with hands in the figurative dirt. But it's clear there's a problem with their upper-management. I mean, this is just downright irresponsible.



In the long run, though, ESPN will be fine. It has too much content and programming that's indispensable to so many people. Plus, it has Disney's backing. Did you just see what AVENGERS grossed in its opening weekend?

I think the best journalism being one at ESPN is the 30 for 30 and that isn't even done by them - they just fund the outside producer who make them. Outside of live sports they are horrid.

 

[Cletus11]

it is not like they are dumping ESPN only, they are dumping cable TV. Then when/if they sign back up via Hulu or YouTube or whomever, they are not getting the sports package with ESPN in it. That model is only going to continue to increase monthly as the rate people are leaving traditional cable TV is only going to get larger on a monthly basis and that means more ESPN (and BTN and every other cable station) loss in subscribers. The entire TV model in the next 18-24 months is going to have to drastically change as tipping point is fast approaching when the cable companies will no longer be able to pay for the channel programming they currently have and at that point, major change will have to occur.

 

[Alphabets]

I guess technically I'm a subscriber...ESPN is included with my PSVue streaming package. I'm even about to dump that and go to the $20 Sling package during the football off-season.

That being said, I have not watched a minute of ESPN (outside of PSU related sporting events) in years. I say that proudly.

Die, you evil son of a b1tches, die!!!

 

[Op2]

The link in the OP that says ESPN is losing 500 K subscribers per month is from Breitbart, a political site. The link on the Breitbart site to the actual info is to a site named Outkick The Coverage. The Outkick the Coverage site links to a tweet by an outfit with the title Sports TV Coverage (the tweet was on April 30) and from the tweet it's not clear what they mean.

Here is a look at ESPN from late last year from a non-political outfit. Their conclusion is the amount of money ESPN is making is still growing but at a much slower clip than previously

http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-is-making-more-money-than-ever-off-of-subscribers-2017-12

I just got rid of Sling TV (which has ESPN). But come fall I'll probably pick it up again. I dislike just about everything about ESPN, including how they cover games, but the problem is that with regards to a lot of games they have a monopoly (because they bought the rights) and thus the only viewer options are to (a) pay for ESPN or (b) not watch the games.

I wish sports entities sold their games to two or more broadcasters so I'd have a choice. They did that with the NFL draft last week and I (with no cable) was thus able to watch. Otherwise I'd have just not watched the NFL draft.

 

[Op2]

I guess technically I'm a subscriber...ESPN is included with my PSVue streaming package. I'm even about to dump that and go to the $20 Sling package during the football off-season.

That being said, I have not watched a minute of ESPN (outside of PSU related sporting events) in years. I say that proudly.

Die, you evil son of a b1tches, die!!!

The $20 per month Sling package that I just got rid of has ESPN (and ESPN2).

You hit on the problem with the part about "I only watch ESPN when it has the games I want to see." The problem is, when ESPN them nobody else has them and you have no choice.

 

[Art]

The link in the OP that says ESPN is losing 500 K subscribers per month is from Breitbart, a political site. The link on the Breitbart site to the actual info is to a site named Outkick The Coverage. The Outkick the Coverage site links to a tweet by an outfit with the title Sports TV Coverage (the tweet was on April 30) and from the tweet it's not clear what they mean.

Here is a look at ESPN from late last year from a non-political outfit. Their conclusion is the amount of money ESPN is making is still growing but at a much slower clip than previously

http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-is-making-more-money-than-ever-off-of-subscribers-2017-12

I just got rid of Sling TV (which has ESPN). But come fall I'll probably pick it up again. I dislike just about everything about ESPN, including how they cover games, but the problem is that with regards to a lot of games they have a monopoly (because they bought the rights) and thus the only viewer options are to (a) pay for ESPN or (b) not watch the games.

I wish sports entities sold their games to two or more broadcasters so I'd have a choice. They did that with the NFL draft last week and I (with no cable) was thus able to watch. Otherwise I'd have just not watched the NFL draft.

As Disney doesn't break out ESPN results separately, it's impossible to know how it's doing financially. But loss of subscribers and, more tellingly, employee layoffs are signs that expectations are not being met. Macro trends are not in its favor.

 

[Op2]

it is not like they are dumping ESPN only, they are dumping cable TV. Then when/if they sign back up via Hulu or YouTube or whomever, they are not getting the sports package with ESPN in it. That model is only going to continue to increase monthly as the rate people are leaving traditional cable TV is only going to get larger on a monthly basis and that means more ESPN (and BTN and every other cable station) loss in subscribers. The entire TV model in the next 18-24 months is going to have to drastically change as tipping point is fast approaching when the cable companies will no longer be able to pay for the channel programming they currently have and at that point, major change will have to occur.

I have been without cable for almost four years. (I get Sling TV in the fall and sometimes winter though for sports on ESPN and ESPN2.) The cable company offers to me have gotten more and more desperate. At this point they're sending me offers saying that for $22 per month (and there's probably taxes and maybe fees on top of that) I can get all local channels plus any ten (my pick) of cable channels (among a batch of 65 or so that look to be the big ones). So come this fall I may do that instead of doing Sling TV again.

But the interesting thing is, the deals the cable company are offering are getting better and better because they have to offer a better deal because they're losing customers.

ETA: Here's an article describing what Spectrum is currently offering me.

https://www.techhive.com/article/32...arte-tv-streaming-but-restrictions-apply.html

 

[tboyer]

I hated ESPN 20 years ago because their football broadcasts were so packed with promos they were just miserable to watch. It was the sports network that cared about itself more than it cared about your game.

I hated them because ESPN came to represent everything wrong with sports. And then the Sandusky scandal and ESPN's lies and sanctimoniousness gave all of us another big reason to hate them.

But have to say, now that ESPN is the favorite whipping boy of Breitbart, neo-Fascists and white supremacists, it kind of takes the fun out of hating ESPN. You hate ESPN now, you're in the company of scoundrels. It won't make me stop hating ESPN but it does give me pause.

 

[Art]

I hated ESPN 20 years ago because their football broadcasts were so packed with promos they were just miserable to watch. It was the sports network that cared about itself more than it cared about your game.

I hated them because ESPN came to represent everything wrong with sports. And then the Sandusky scandal and ESPN's lies and sanctimoniousness gave all of us another big reason to hate them.

But have to say, now that ESPN is the favorite whipping boy of Breitbart, neo-Fascists and white supremacists, it kind of takes the fun out of hating ESPN. You hate ESPN now, you're in the company of scoundrels. It won't make me stop hating ESPN but it does give me pause.

Kinda amusing to observe the dichotomy of views on the travails of the BTN and ESPN. Neither are good for PSU athletics.

 

[tboyer]

Kinda amusing to observe the dichotomy of views on the travails of the BTN and ESPN. Neither are good for PSU athletics.

I'm not sure it's really true. Has it made college athletics better that teams get $30 million a year in TV money? The money just goes into a stadiums/facilities/coaching salaries arms race. Doesn't benefit the players or the university as a whole. What good does it do Northwestern that they're building the most ridiculous gold-plated college football training facility I've ever heard of?

What if the college TV business model crumbles and teams only get $15 million in TV money instead of $30 million? Maybe the training facilities will be silver plated instead of gold plated. Maybe, over time, a few coaches make $5 milllion a year instead of $7 million a year. I think life goes on.

 

[Cletus11]

I'm not sure it's really true. Has it made college athletics better that teams get $30 million a year in TV money? The money just goes into a stadiums/facilities/coaching salaries arms race. Doesn't benefit the players or the university as a whole. What good does it do Northwestern that they're building the most ridiculous gold-plated college football training facility I've ever heard of?

What if the college TV business model crumbles and teams only get $15 million in TV money instead of $30 million? Maybe the training facilities will be silver plated instead of gold plated. Maybe, over time, a few coaches make $5 milllion a year instead of $7 million a year. I think life goes on.

I agree... instead of 6 S&C coaches there would be 2. Instead of a new 100" TV in the lounge, there would be a 3 year old 70". Arms race in college athletics is really out of hand.

 

[Art]

I'm not sure it's really true. Has it made college athletics better that teams get $30 million a year in TV money? The money just goes into a stadiums/facilities/coaching salaries arms race. Doesn't benefit the players or the university as a whole. What good does it do Northwestern that they're building the most ridiculous gold-plated college football training facility I've ever heard of?

What if the college TV business model crumbles and teams only get $15 million in TV money instead of $30 million? Maybe the training facilities will be silver plated instead of gold plated. Maybe, over time, a few coaches make $5 milllion a year instead of $7 million a year. I think life goes on.

Tell me why it is that the nabobs who run college sports don't think along the lines you do? Is it so difficult to envision a world as you outline and plow the resultant surplus into the university's general fund?

Why? Because people like Barbour, and to a lesser extent Fats, are entirely incapable of thinking in those terms. So when the shit inevitably hits the fan the result won't be a right-sized athletic program, it's going to be pain in areas that will be difficult to rationally justify. That's the short and intermediate-term forecast. Long-run? Ask Keynes about the long-run?

 

[Art]

I agree... instead of 6 S&C coaches there would be 2. Instead of a new 100" TV in the lounge, there would be a 3 year old 70". Arms race in college athletics is really out of hand.

Before those things happen, they'll roll up the golf team.

 

[Osprey Lion]

I'm not sure it's really true. Has it made college athletics better that teams get $30 million a year in TV money? The money just goes into a stadiums/facilities/coaching salaries arms race. Doesn't benefit the players or the university as a whole. What good does it do Northwestern that they're building the most ridiculous gold-plated college football training facility I've ever heard of?

What if the college TV business model crumbles and teams only get $15 million in TV money instead of $30 million? Maybe the training facilities will be silver plated instead of gold plated. Maybe, over time, a few coaches make $5 milllion a year instead of $7 million a year. I think life goes on.

The people who are rooting for ESPN to fail are either not sports fans or crazy. I know into which
category the OP falls.

 

[Alphabets]

The $20 per month Sling package that I just got rid of has ESPN (and ESPN2).

You hit on the problem with the part about "I only watch ESPN when it has the games I want to see." The problem is, when ESPN them nobody else has them and you have no choice.

Grr...I can't avoid them at any cost!!! Lol. Yep, no doubt they have me by the b@lls when it comes to PSU events. No getting around it other than not paying myself and just going out or over to family/friends homes to watch the games. That being said, cutting the cord has saved me about 800/year. Wish i had done it sooner.

 

[Op2]

The people who are rooting for ESPN to fail are either not sports fans or crazy. I know into which
category the OP falls.

I don't agree with that. Just because a network covers sports doesn't mean you have to like them. And just because you like some sports doesn't mean you have to like all of them.

I have disliked ESPN for a long time, long before the political stuff started, and the reason is their coverage just plain stinks, both of actual events and their "talk" shows. And part of the problem is that they are ALWAYS marketing and selling instead of just covering and analyzing.

Can anyone tell me why, in the age when everybody has access to all info at all times, ESPN has to have stuff constantly going across the bottom of the screen when you're watching a college football game? And it's not only college football scores, but every other sport. So when you're watching a college football game you're subjects to pre-season NBA coverage and Ryder Cup or whatever else is going on.

Know why? BECAUSE ESPN IS SELLING EVERY SPORT 24/7. They extra sell events that are or will be on their networks (which at this point is ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN Classic, ESPN News, ABC and maybe others), but they sell them all.

When I tune into Game X, why is it unreasonable for me to expect good coverage of Game X?

 

[T J]

I guess technically I'm a subscriber...ESPN is included with my PSVue streaming package. I'm even about to dump that and go to the $20 Sling package during the football off-season.

That being said, I have not watched a minute of ESPN (outside of PSU related sporting events) in years. I say that proudly.

Die, you evil son of a b1tches, die!!!

Just scanned Sling options. SEC Channel is listed among Sports upgrade for $5. How do you get the BTN and at what cost? Thanks

 

[Lion84]

The people who are rooting for ESPN to fail are either not sports fans or crazy. I know into which
category the OP falls.

I just want them to bring back Australian Rules Football - Dammit!

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

Anyone watching the Stanley Cup playoffs has probably noticed that once or twice during the games, they break to a split screen and show a commercial while play is still going on. The result of this sort of broadcasting has been that the games (barring OT) are over in less than 3 hours (2:45 in some instances).