ESPN cutting on air jobs in latest effort to stop the bleeding.

Redwood Forrest · Mar 6, 2017

Outkick has heard from a variety of different sources that ESPN is cutting up to $100 million in on-air salaries. Yep, on air. This means you're going to know many of the people leaving the network.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-million-in-on-air-talent-030617

ESPN thinks they are ESPN-PC. When they made Finebaum and the others apologize for criticizing Colon Kapernack's sit down I just shook my head. Go ahead, run your customers off. They would lost less if they had let the Colon fans quit ESPN.

The other thing hurting ESPN is the fact that Cable and Satellite keep raising prices and forcing me to purchase over 100 channels I never watch. I got tried of being ripped off four years ago and bought an antenna and Roku box. My wife subscribes to Net Flix and Hulu. Antenna and Roku are paid for. Netflix and Hulu cost us ten dollars each per month. I don't miss those hundred dollar bills at all. As the article points out I can get most of the BIG games over the air and I can keep up with the other on the live updated scoreboards on internet.

I have broken the cord .... and not going back. I hope all the arm twisting, price gouging Cable and Satellites go bankrupt.

CrimsonNagus · Mar 6, 2017

ESPN is the one raising prices, cable and sat providers just pass it on to their customers. ESPN's carriage fee is the most expensive out there, estimated to be approaching $8 per subscriber. Most other channels are less the $1 with a few that are over $1 or $2 but, none come close to ESPN. The problem for ESPN is the always rising billion dollar TV deals with the NFL, MLB, NBA and college conferences. With all the cord cutters cutting into the number of subscribers, causing ESPN to raise their carriage fee faster, which causes providers to pass that fee to their subs, which causes more to cut the cord; these billion dollar deals are just not sustainable for much longer. I really think there is going to be a "TV industry" crash within the next decade where the money dries up for traditional networks but lets things like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon thrive even more. I also think this crash will hit pro sports hard because, without these billion dollar deals they can't afford to pay these athletes their precious $20+ million dollar contracts.

Redwood Forrest · Mar 6, 2017

RollTide1017 said:
ESPN is the one raising prices, cable and sat providers just pass it on to their customers. ESPN's carriage fee is the most expensive out there, estimated to be approaching $8 per subscriber. Most other channels are less the $1 with a few that are over $1 or $2 but, none come close to ESPN. The problem for ESPN is the always rising billion dollar TV deals with the NFL, MLB, NBA and college conferences. With all the cord cutters cutting into the number of subscribers, causing ESPN to raise their carriage fee faster, which causes providers to pass that fee to their subs, which causes more to cut the cord; these billion dollar deals are just not sustainable for much longer. I really think there is going to be a "TV industry" crash within the next decade where the money dries up for traditional networks but lets things like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon thrive even more. I also think this crash will hit pro sports hard because, without these billion dollar deals they can't afford to pay these athletes their precious $20+ million dollar contracts.

ESPN may be driving the ship but the fact remains I was forced to buy over 100 channels I never watched.

B1GTide · Mar 6, 2017

Love my cable, and ESPN sports are the best on the air, but I don't need an on air personality to play the part of Captain Obvious. Still, these are real people with families. I feel for them.

cuda.1973 · Mar 6, 2017

I don't. Millions of us have lost our jobs, and never regained meaningful employment. (Can you say "over-qualified"? I'm sure you can. A lot of us have dropped out of the job market because we are sick of hearing it.) Never saw ESPN worry about us. Just lecture us about.............well, this isn't NS, so I'll stop.

As for carriage fees...............

Yes, ESPN is the worst. But, the other cable networks bundle their garbage, to support the crappy ones by tying them to the one channel that a lot of people want to watch.

Nope, can't feel sorry for any of them.

Especially ESPN. The rotten channel that won't let the Crimson Tide Sports Network stream the audio from the play-off games.

HMM · Mar 6, 2017

I cut the cord last year just before football season. I missed the DVR for the espn games but besides that it was all good. I picked up an over the air DVR so the CBS and ABC games are good to go. I just miss out on espn games now. I can live with that.

DzynKingRTR · Mar 6, 2017

if it were not for football and basketball, I would never watch ESPN. I used to watch Sportscenter every morning before work, I stopped. I sed to watch some of the other gimmicky shows, but stopped watching those too. I even stopped watching gameday. I watch it for football games and when Alabama has a basketball game. If cable companies were smart they would let us pick what channels we want to watch. I doubt that will ever happen and eventually cable and satellite will go away like blockbuster.

deliveryman35 · Mar 6, 2017

This will eventually trickle down to ridiculously over paid athletes--that ultimately is what is driving up the cost of rights fees paid by ESPN. You cannot defy the laws of mathematics.

CrimsonNagus · Mar 6, 2017

DzynKingRTR said:
If cable companies were smart they would let us pick what channels we want to watch. I doubt that will ever happen and eventually cable and satellite will go away like blockbuster.

It's not that easy and it's not completely up to the cable company. Many networks are bundled together. Take Viacom stations, like MTV, TV Land, Comedy Central etc. Cable companies have to provide them all, they can't just take one. The contracts also stipulate which tiers the channels must be offered in, ESPN and ESPN 2 must be in one of the lowest tiers available while the others can be in higher tiers.

This is done so that the networks know roughly how many subscribers will have the channel. Last year ESPN had around 88 million subscribers. With a carriage fee of $8 per sub, that's $704 million per month. Now, if you were able to pick and chose the channels you want, ESPN wouldn't have 88 million subscribers. What if only 30 million decide to pick ESPN? They'd have to charge $23.47 per sub to get the same $704 million per month. Would you really be willing to pay that much just for ESPN? You must do the same for the other networks as well. Your bill wouldn't be much cheaper and you would have far fewer channels.

This is also why these new streaming TV services like Sling TV, Playstation Vue, DirecTV Now and the upcoming Hulu TV and YouTube TV are all still bundling channels together with different tiers. The networks just charge way too much to make an A la carte service feasible. There will have to be a major shift in the industry for that to come about. Basically all the networks would have to be okay with earning a lot less revenue.

JDCrimson · Mar 6, 2017

Almost sounds like pay per view may make a comeback. Let's assume it does for a minute. Many of us have bemoaned the cost of attending games, say at $100 per ticket, compared to the ever increasing temptation to stay at home a watch it on TV from the comfort of our home. But what-if the model continues to move toward a consumptive model like pay per view? How much would you pay to watch Alabama football on TV? Most likely not $100. I am not sure what I would pay. The whole TV experience has become pretty worthless to me now except for watching our games.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

DzynKingRTR · Mar 6, 2017

RollTide1017 said:
It's not that easy and it's not completely up to the cable company. Many networks are bundled together. Take Viacom stations, like MTV, TV Land, Comedy Central etc. Cable companies have to provide them all, they can't just take one. The contracts also stipulate which tiers the channels must be offered in, ESPN and ESPN 2 must be in one of the lowest tiers available while the others can be in higher tiers.

This is done so that the networks know roughly how many subscribers will have the channel. Last year ESPN had around 88 million subscribers. With a carriage fee of $8 per sub, that's $704 million per month. Now, if you were able to pick and chose the channels you want, ESPN wouldn't have 88 million subscribers. What if only 30 million decide to pick ESPN? They'd have to charge $23.47 per sub to get the same $704 million per month. Would you really be willing to pay that much just for ESPN? You must do the same for the other networks as well. Your bill wouldn't be much cheaper and you would have far fewer channels.

This is also why these new streaming TV services like Sling TV, Playstation Vue, DirecTV Now and the upcoming Hulu TV and YouTube TV are all still bundling channels together with different tiers. The networks just charge way too much to make an A la carte service feasible. There will have to be a major shift in the industry for that to come about. Basically all the networks would have to be okay with earning a lot less revenue.

Yet they will still end up bankrupt. I have 258 channels I watch maybe 12 of them, so I really wouldn't notice if I was paying triple for 12 channels. I already do that.

dadleyblane5 · Mar 7, 2017

Good, maybe Kanell will get canned, along with Finebaum and a host of those other idiots ESPN has on air.

B1GTide · Mar 7, 2017

JDCrimson said:
Almost sounds like pay per view may make a comeback. Let's assume it does for a minute. Many of us have bemoaned the cost of attending games, say at $100 per ticket, compared to the ever increasing temptation to stay at home a watch it on TV from the comfort of our home. But what-if the model continues to move toward a consumptive model like pay per view? How much would you pay to watch Alabama football on TV? Most likely not $100. I am not sure what I would pay. The whole TV experience has become pretty worthless to me now except for watching our games.

If I have to pay more than a few dollars per game, I would give up football (college and NFL). I love it, but not enough to pay for it like this, and I have plenty of disposable income. I think that ESPN realizes this, which is why they require that ESPN be a part of the basic cable package as a part of every cable contract.

Redwood Forrest · Mar 7, 2017

Cable Companies. Satellite Companies. Viacom and other providers. Defending these people for price gouging is like defending a restaurant because they made me buy everything on the menu just to get what I wanted to eat. What if Burger King made us all buy a Whopper just because we drove past? Well, we could have stopped and bought one, so why not just make us buy one?

RTR91 · Mar 7, 2017

Pleasantly surprised to see ESPN's channels listed as part of YouTube TV. Wouldn't expect them to be in a package that costs $35 a month.

bamamc1 · Mar 7, 2017

JDCrimson said:
Almost sounds like pay per view may make a comeback. Let's assume it does for a minute. Many of us have bemoaned the cost of attending games, say at $100 per ticket, compared to the ever increasing temptation to stay at home a watch it on TV from the comfort of our home. But what-if the model continues to move toward a consumptive model like pay per view? How much would you pay to watch Alabama football on TV? Most likely not $100. I am not sure what I would pay. The whole TV experience has become pretty worthless to me now except for watching our games.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

On my street, three families get together and watch all of the Bama games together. I'm sure we would pony up $1,500 for all 12 regular season games and I'm sure there would be quite a few others.

The Ols · Mar 7, 2017

Download the Watch ESPN app and borrow a buddies login/PW...Sorry, kinda cheating, but the prices they charge are almost illegal...(With a simple cord you connect your smartphone to your TV and there's zero difference.)

HMM said:
I cut the cord last year just before football season. I missed the DVR for the espn games but besides that it was all good. I picked up an over the air DVR so the CBS and ABC games are good to go. I just miss out on espn games now. I can live with that.

theBIGyowski · Mar 7, 2017

The Ols said:
Download the Watch ESPN app and borrow a buddies login/PW...Sorry, kinda cheating, but the prices they charge are almost illegal...(With a simple cord you connect you smartphone to your TV and there's zero difference.)

I'm not saying I do this...but I'm not saying I don't either.

CrimsonProf · Mar 7, 2017

I've yet to get good coverage when casting to my tv. And the thought of watching a big game with other people sends me into a panic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rgw · Mar 7, 2017

Redwood Forrest said:
Outkick has heard from a variety of different sources that ESPN is cutting up to $100 million in on-air salaries. Yep, on air. This means you're going to know many of the people leaving the network.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-cutting-nearly-100-million-in-on-air-talent-030617

ESPN thinks they are ESPN-PC. When they made Finebaum and the others apologize for criticizing Colon Kapernack's sit down I just shook my head. Go ahead, run your customers off. They would lost less if they had let the Colon fans quit ESPN.

The other thing hurting ESPN is the fact that Cable and Satellite keep raising prices and forcing me to purchase over 100 channels I never watch. I got tried of being ripped off four years ago and bought an antenna and Roku box. My wife subscribes to Net Flix and Hulu. Antenna and Roku are paid for. Netflix and Hulu cost us ten dollars each per month. I don't miss those hundred dollar bills at all. As the article points out I can get most of the BIG games over the air and I can keep up with the other on the live updated scoreboards on internet.

I have broken the cord .... and not going back. I hope all the arm twisting, price gouging Cable and Satellites go bankrupt.

I think the conservative types who think they are running off people due to "PC" are wrongheaded...this is 100% about cordcutting and traditional providers creating options for customers without sports channels (lower cost). Conservatives are taking a completely unrelated trend as a confirmation of the power and "righteousness" of their cause. This is all about live sports being past it's peak and/or outstripping their value with overlarge contracts.

Don't want a politics discussion. I'm just tired of this line of thought...follow the money not the feels, folks.

ESPN cutting on air jobs in latest effort to stop the bleeding.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

All-SEC

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Suspended

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!