10-30-2015, 02:09 PM
ESPN is suspending publication. I really enjoyed their articles.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/espn-stateme...grantland/
BC
http://espnmediazone.com/us/espn-stateme...grantland/
BC
RIP: Grantland
ESPN is suspending publication. I really enjoyed their articles.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/espn-stateme...grantland/
BC
http://espnmediazone.com/us/espn-stateme...grantland/
BC
10-30-2015, 02:19 PM
I'm pretty disappointed, Grantland was consistently very good. I really hope Barnwell lands somewhere and fast, I don't think I can go the rest of the NFL season without his stuff.
10-30-2015, 02:24 PM
I think that's a big loss--that website was the smartest place on the internet for sports and pop culture. I'll miss Rembert Browne, Molly Lambert, and Charles Pierce.
I think that's a big loss--that website was the smartest place on the internet for sports and pop culture. I'll miss Rembert Browne, Molly Lambert, and Charles Pierce.
10-30-2015, 02:40 PM
Worth noting that Bill Simmons left (was pushed out) ESPN in May, and is now at HBO: http://recode.net/2015/07/22/former-espn...ds-at-hbo/ and Wesley Morris, who did their movie reviews also had left for the New York Times.
I have a feeling that ESPN is really starting to find the upper limit of what people will pay for sports and is getting squeezed between leagues demanding higher payment for content, and cable/satellite companies (and their customers) who have reached the limits of what they are willing to pay and/or are dropping cable altogether. It seems the golden goose is no longer laying as many eggs, and as such, ESPN is trying to trim fat (I mean that in an economic way; as I mentioned, I liked Grantland and think ESPN will be lesser for its loss, but it was either poorly profitable or unprofitable). This also might explain their decision to delay the ACC network that WIM posted.
BC
I have a feeling that ESPN is really starting to find the upper limit of what people will pay for sports and is getting squeezed between leagues demanding higher payment for content, and cable/satellite companies (and their customers) who have reached the limits of what they are willing to pay and/or are dropping cable altogether. It seems the golden goose is no longer laying as many eggs, and as such, ESPN is trying to trim fat (I mean that in an economic way; as I mentioned, I liked Grantland and think ESPN will be lesser for its loss, but it was either poorly profitable or unprofitable). This also might explain their decision to delay the ACC network that WIM posted.
BC
Worth noting that Bill Simmons left (was pushed out) ESPN in May, and is now at HBO: http://recode.net/2015/07/22/former-espn...ds-at-hbo/ and Wesley Morris, who did their movie reviews also had left for the New York Times.
I have a feeling that ESPN is really starting to find the upper limit of what people will pay for sports and is getting squeezed between leagues demanding higher payment for content, and cable/satellite companies (and their customers) who have reached the limits of what they are willing to pay and/or are dropping cable altogether. It seems the golden goose is no longer laying as many eggs, and as such, ESPN is trying to trim fat (I mean that in an economic way; as I mentioned, I liked Grantland and think ESPN will be lesser for its loss, but it was either poorly profitable or unprofitable). This also might explain their decision to delay the ACC network that WIM posted.
BC
I have a feeling that ESPN is really starting to find the upper limit of what people will pay for sports and is getting squeezed between leagues demanding higher payment for content, and cable/satellite companies (and their customers) who have reached the limits of what they are willing to pay and/or are dropping cable altogether. It seems the golden goose is no longer laying as many eggs, and as such, ESPN is trying to trim fat (I mean that in an economic way; as I mentioned, I liked Grantland and think ESPN will be lesser for its loss, but it was either poorly profitable or unprofitable). This also might explain their decision to delay the ACC network that WIM posted.
BC
10-30-2015, 03:23 PM
ESPN is under pressure from three forces:
1. Cord cutters
2. Increased rights fees from leagues
3. Online streaming from original rights holders (hasn't really happened yet, but it is coming)
All these things are obviously related, so the ESPN business model is under siege. That doesn't mean they can't reinvent themselves with an "HBO Now" business model, but it's doubtful they can make as much money with an a la carte/on-demand model as they could guaranteed carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
It will be fascinating to see how all this stuff plays out. I know that if I could get Watch ESPN without a cable sub, I'd drop DirecTV, because it will just be a matter of time before all sports are available online and on-demand.
1. Cord cutters
2. Increased rights fees from leagues
3. Online streaming from original rights holders (hasn't really happened yet, but it is coming)
All these things are obviously related, so the ESPN business model is under siege. That doesn't mean they can't reinvent themselves with an "HBO Now" business model, but it's doubtful they can make as much money with an a la carte/on-demand model as they could guaranteed carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
It will be fascinating to see how all this stuff plays out. I know that if I could get Watch ESPN without a cable sub, I'd drop DirecTV, because it will just be a matter of time before all sports are available online and on-demand.
ESPN is under pressure from three forces:
1. Cord cutters
2. Increased rights fees from leagues
3. Online streaming from original rights holders (hasn't really happened yet, but it is coming)
All these things are obviously related, so the ESPN business model is under siege. That doesn't mean they can't reinvent themselves with an "HBO Now" business model, but it's doubtful they can make as much money with an a la carte/on-demand model as they could guaranteed carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
It will be fascinating to see how all this stuff plays out. I know that if I could get Watch ESPN without a cable sub, I'd drop DirecTV, because it will just be a matter of time before all sports are available online and on-demand.
1. Cord cutters
2. Increased rights fees from leagues
3. Online streaming from original rights holders (hasn't really happened yet, but it is coming)
All these things are obviously related, so the ESPN business model is under siege. That doesn't mean they can't reinvent themselves with an "HBO Now" business model, but it's doubtful they can make as much money with an a la carte/on-demand model as they could guaranteed carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
It will be fascinating to see how all this stuff plays out. I know that if I could get Watch ESPN without a cable sub, I'd drop DirecTV, because it will just be a matter of time before all sports are available online and on-demand.
10-30-2015, 03:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2015, 03:37 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(10-30-2015, 03:23 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:ESPN is under pressure from three forces:
1. Cord cutters
2. Increased rights fees from leagues
3. Online streaming from original rights holders (hasn't really happened yet, but it is coming)
All these things are obviously related, so the ESPN business model is under siege. That doesn't mean they can't reinvent themselves with an "HBO Now" business model, but it's doubtful they can make as much money with an a la carte/on-demand model as they could guaranteed carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
It will be fascinating to see how all this stuff plays out. I know that if I could get Watch ESPN without a cable sub, I'd drop DirecTV, because it will just be a matter of time before all sports are available online and on-demand.
I don't like to see any business struggle, but I find it hard to shed a tear for ESPN. They jumped the shark as a legitimate sports network long ago, and have been crafting themselves in the mold of TMZ. I can't remember the last time I watched ESPN for anything other than live sports.
As they downsize, it will be the non-ratings-generating employees who will be laid off. That's the unfortunate part.
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2015, 03:37 PM by ThePassionOfTheChryst.)
(10-30-2015, 03:23 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:ESPN is under pressure from three forces:
1. Cord cutters
2. Increased rights fees from leagues
3. Online streaming from original rights holders (hasn't really happened yet, but it is coming)
All these things are obviously related, so the ESPN business model is under siege. That doesn't mean they can't reinvent themselves with an "HBO Now" business model, but it's doubtful they can make as much money with an a la carte/on-demand model as they could guaranteed carriage fees from cable and satellite companies.
It will be fascinating to see how all this stuff plays out. I know that if I could get Watch ESPN without a cable sub, I'd drop DirecTV, because it will just be a matter of time before all sports are available online and on-demand.
I don't like to see any business struggle, but I find it hard to shed a tear for ESPN. They jumped the shark as a legitimate sports network long ago, and have been crafting themselves in the mold of TMZ. I can't remember the last time I watched ESPN for anything other than live sports.
As they downsize, it will be the non-ratings-generating employees who will be laid off. That's the unfortunate part.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »