ESPN cost cutting continues: got rid of Joe Schad

[Highlander]

This is a classic public company move. So concerned about near term margins, they don't realize that by diminishing the quality of the product, they are simply going to accelerate the subscription downturn.

Bye, bye, ESPN.

 

[Colorado Track Fan]

They keep cutting talent. Ties in with what's coming on rates fees, but I wonder if they're being short-sighted and zigging when they should be zagging. If we're going to be paying for streamed content, we only do it for quality. Becoming the lowest denominator as an amalgamator of other stories a la Sports Center isn't something anyone is willing to pay for.

Schad was ESPN's national reporter for college football.

Announced with this is that they also cut Robert Smith from its talent lineup. Not as big of a loss there since he didn't actually break news and wasn't all that entertaining, but it is another case of cost cutting at ESPN.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/04/18/espn-joe-schad-robert-smith-part-ways

"Journalists" are a dime a dozen

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

"Journalists" are a dime a dozen

They aren't getting rid of journalists. They are getting rid of talented personalities.

 

[Buffnik]

They aren't getting rid of journalists. They are getting rid of talented personalities.

Actually, they're getting rid of both on-air talent and their investigative journalists. They're gutting anyone who was bringing quality journalism or entertainment to the network because those people cost too much.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Actually, they're getting rid of both on-air talent and their investigative journalists. They're gutting anyone who was bringing quality journalism or entertainment to the network because those people cost too much.

Fair enough. I'm not as familiar with the Investigative Journalists

 

[BuffTuba]

I would argue that Tirico and Bermann were not adding anything. I mute the TV anytime I hear or see them on. Dilfer was tolerable but he didn't add too much. I will miss Schad and some of the other more thorough reporters they have lost recently (not Bayliss or Cowherd).

 

[Colorado Track Fan]

Personally, I only watch espn for the actual games. I never watch sports "news" or opinions. Worthless in my view.

In that same vein, I truly appreciate a great play by play broadcaster. Vin Scully, the Dodgers long time radio guy, is the gold standard for me. I enjoy Kirk Herbstreit in college football. Chris Fowler as well...a Buff, of course.

 

[BuffNut99]

 

[Darian3Hagan]

You're with me, unemployment.

 

[skibum]

I can't believe I'm going to agree with track fan, but probably 85-90% of ESPN's value is the live games themselves, and another 10-15% is the pre, post, and in game show / announcing. All the rest of their "programming" accounts for <5% of their value.

Cutting expenses on that 5% is a pretty smart business decision.

 

[Buffnik]

I can't believe I'm going to agree with track fan, but probably 85-90% of ESPN's value is the live games themselves, and another 10-15% is the pre, post, and in game show / announcing. All the rest of their "programming" accounts for <5% of their value.

Cutting expenses on that 5% is a pretty smart business decision.

I think they went overboard with the hirings. All networks did. They had this windfall of revenue and tried to find ways to spend it. So we ended up with studio shows that included 3, then 4, then however many people NBC had for its Sunday Night Football broadcasts (a dozen?). There was definitely excess.

But once again they are thinking short-term. Just as overspending was short-term thinking before, removing the personalities and investigative journalists that provided a face of the network and/or provided legitimate news has resulted in the removal of all value outside of a live broadcast. I'll pay for HBO streams to get Bill Simmons, for example. With ESPN, it's going to be nothing more than PPV games or game packages in the future. That's worth a lot of money, but it's no longer a network. Which is also why, when I look long-term, I can see things going this direction and say that I think the Pac-12 made the right long-term business decision by maintaining 100% ownership of its content.

 

[BlackNGold]

I think they went overboard with the hirings. All networks did. They had this windfall of revenue and tried to find ways to spend it. So we ended up with studio shows that included 3, then 4, then however many people NBC had for its Sunday Night Football broadcasts (a dozen?). There was definitely excess.

But once again they are thinking short-term. Just as overspending was short-term thinking before, removing the personalities and investigative journalists that provided a face of the network and/or provided legitimate news has resulted in the removal of all value outside of a live broadcast. I'll pay for HBO streams to get Bill Simmons, for example. With ESPN, it's going to be nothing more than PPV games or game packages in the future. That's worth a lot of money, but it's no longer a network. Which is also why, when I look long-term, I can see things going this direction and say that I think the Pac-12 made the right long-term business decision by maintaining 100% ownership of its content.

On the other hand, a lot of these guys are bringing down a big paycheck and it is time to give newer talent a shot. From the financial side they are doing the right thing - the future holds less revenue is cord cutting is real and costs (rights fees) are going up. So in your business what do you do when revenue goes down and costs go up...

 

[Buffnik]

On the other hand, a lot of these guys are bringing down a big paycheck and it is time to give newer talent a shot. From the financial side they are doing the right thing - the future holds less revenue is cord cutting is real and costs (rights fees) are going up. So in your business what do you do when revenue goes down and costs go up...

Find new revenue streams by leveraging my best assets and capabilities. You can't cut your way to success.

 

[skibum]

I think they went overboard with the hirings. All networks did. They had this windfall of revenue and tried to find ways to spend it. So we ended up with studio shows that included 3, then 4, then however many people NBC had for its Sunday Night Football broadcasts (a dozen?). There was definitely excess.

But once again they are thinking short-term. Just as overspending was short-term thinking before, removing the personalities and investigative journalists that provided a face of the network and/or provided legitimate news has resulted in the removal of all value outside of a live broadcast. I'll pay for HBO streams to get Bill Simmons, for example. With ESPN, it's going to be nothing more than PPV games or game packages in the future. That's worth a lot of money, but it's no longer a network. Which is also why, when I look long-term, I can see things going this direction and say that I think the Pac-12 made the right long-term business decision by maintaining 100% ownership of its content.

I think over expansion was a problem, and a correction was due, but I think that is a small problem compared to the major business issue: in the modern environment, no one has really figured out how to make a sustainable profit from quality journalism.

If I were ESPN, I don't think I would be presumptuous enough to think that I could figure out a profitable model where so many others either have failed, or are failing.

Maybe they could do it; I wouldn't bet on it though.

The safer, more reliable route to profits is the ppv type model - or, more likely, something like we already with the pro sports: you pay a fee for a collection of channels that are only active when there are active games.

And you're right: if that's where we're going to end up (and I think it's the most likely scenario), the Pac-12 was pretty smart in how they've structured their media rights.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Brad Nessler will leave ESPN for an NFL gig with CBS, until Verne Lundquist is done