(09-21-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:24 PM)goofus Wrote:  oh, poor ESPN, all those people who don't want to watch sports, or more accurately, pay to not watch tv personalities talk about sports, actually have the gall to cancel their cable tv so they don't have to pay for something they don't watch.

Disney told them to cut costs; ESPN has to drill down and pay only for the things that people actually are watching. Anything that costs them a lot of money and doesn't bring them a lot of viewers or page hits might be gone soon. And maybe we've seen the last of ESPN moves like the upcoming NBA contract, where ESPN paid rights fees that are triple the previous contract just to keep Fox from getting a slice.

Firing most of their "personalities" would be a good start.

(09-21-2015 02:00 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:19 PM)panama Wrote:  They have 7000 employees...

thats a 3% to 4% reduction. so they are trimming a little fat, not chopping off a limb or anything.

Too bad. I have a axe and a chain saw in the shed I could lend them.

(09-21-2015 08:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 02:00 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:19 PM)panama Wrote:  They have 7000 employees...

thats a 3% to 4% reduction. so they are trimming a little fat, not chopping off a limb or anything.

Too bad. I have a axe and a chain saw in the shed I could lend them.

A rusted hacksaw is somewhere in my garage.

(09-21-2015 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 02:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:24 PM)goofus Wrote:  oh, poor ESPN, all those people who don't want to watch sports, or more accurately, pay to not watch tv personalities talk about sports, actually have the gall to cancel their cable tv so they don't have to pay for something they don't watch.

Disney told them to cut costs; ESPN has to drill down and pay only for the things that people actually are watching. Anything that costs them a lot of money and doesn't bring them a lot of viewers or page hits might be gone soon. And maybe we've seen the last of ESPN moves like the upcoming NBA contract, where ESPN paid rights fees that are triple the previous contract just to keep Fox from getting a slice.

It's kind of funny because ESPN gives Disney more profit than any other division. But like most parent companies, instead of rewarding their cash cows, they "punish" them by demanding more of them, instead of the lesser performing units.

What makes you think Disney HQ is letting "lesser performing units" off the hook in terms of cutting costs and raising revenue? That's a silly idea.

People who understand business, know what I am talking about. When a unit has a profit margin well over what ever other unit has, you don't make them trim costs unless you are asking them to "cut costs," to make up the difference from other units. Combine that this comes not too long after reports of some of their studios underperforming and you can... that's okay, too much for one sitting for you to digest. SMH. You make this statement, and have the nerve to talk about someone else's intelligence? Quite down: grown ups are speaking now.

Reminds me of places I have worked where the high performing workers (not me, lol) are asked to do more to generate more revenue to cover non or low performing workers.

That may not make sense, but I have seen it often.

That is "easier" for some management types than firing people.

(09-21-2015 08:02 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:24 PM)goofus Wrote:  oh, poor ESPN, all those people who don't want to watch sports, or more accurately, pay to not watch tv personalities talk about sports, actually have the gall to cancel their cable tv so they don't have to pay for something they don't watch.

Disney told them to cut costs; ESPN has to drill down and pay only for the things that people actually are watching. Anything that costs them a lot of money and doesn't bring them a lot of viewers or page hits might be gone soon. And maybe we've seen the last of ESPN moves like the upcoming NBA contract, where ESPN paid rights fees that are triple the previous contract just to keep Fox from getting a slice.

Firing most of their "personalities" would be a good start.

Maybe NBC could pick up a few.......their announcers need some personality.

(09-21-2015 08:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  Maybe NBC could pick up a few.......their announcers need some personality.

NBC needs a good bit more than a few personalities.

This isn't about the impending doom of ESPN, it is about trying to get the Wall Street happy ride as long as possible.

You want to be "sexy" for Wall Street throwing up crazy numbers. There are plenty of boring stocks out there, companies that produce good income but the stock rises slowly.

If you are in management and your bonuses and options are quarterly or annual you make decision to maximize your income and that means quarterly and annual gains (Apple leadership mostly gets options vesting five years).

Here locally Acxiom (they hold more data on you than you care to know) does regular layoffs. My nephew went there and before he took the job I warned him they regularly lay people off, sure enough couple years later he's gone. They get a stock bump every time they announce a layoff yet their total people employed is rising. Wall Street rewards them for culling the lower producers and laying people off and later rehiring many to move them to sections needing more staffing.

I've told this story before but a radio station gave up the rights to a MLB team, the reason was the return on investment for canned music was better than the ROI for baseball even though there was more profit in baseball. No big rights fees, no travel costs, production costs, on air talent, less commission to ad sales people, etc. The company was under fire from Wall Street for their profit margin, improving their ROI bumped the stock and the corporate suite folks got nice bonuses.

What? You guys don't like Tom "Walking Cadaver" Hammond?

He will be back in the booth on Saturday calling the ND game.

My sons and I enjoy and are looking forward to seeing how much makeup they put on his big "Walking Dead" head and how much he "close talks" Doug Flutie on the booth camera shots.

(09-21-2015 05:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 04:09 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I hope ESPN does commercials of people getting fired and removed from the office. Getting tired of seeing all of
the athletes in their uniforms and such.

Do it American Idol-style: Let the viewers vote on which personalities should get the boot. Then run a "This Is SportsCenter" commercial showing team mascots or athletes in uniform escorting Skip Bayless out of the building.

I've certainly been part of the corporate game where both sides get played. When your unit underperforms, there are layoffs and small or no raises because your unit underperformed. When your unit exceeds expectations and goes past (usually quite aggressive) growth and profit targets, there are layoffs and small or no raises because ("unfortunately, and we feel really badly about this....") they have to take your unit's profits to cover shortfalls elsewhere.

In the meantime, scarce conference room space gets converted into private offices for executives who spend precious little time in the office (and who are often based elsewhere), many of whom could be replaced with nothing more than an out-of-office-autoreply that reads "Do more with less." without any change in their unit's profitability. There are definitely executives that make a difference and who earn their keep, but there's also a hell of a lot of them who don't.

(09-21-2015 08:11 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  People who understand business, know what I am talking about. When a unit has a profit margin well over what ever other unit has, you don't make them trim costs unless you are asking them to "cut costs," to make up the difference from other units.

Reminds me of places I have worked where the high performing workers (not me, lol) are asked to do more to generate more revenue to cover non or low performing workers.

That may not make sense, but I have seen it often.

That is "easier" for some management types than firing people.

Makes perfect sense to me. Can't speak for others.

(09-21-2015 07:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 03:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 02:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It's kind of funny because ESPN gives Disney more profit than any other division. But like most parent companies, instead of rewarding their cash cows, they "punish" them by demanding more of them, instead of the lesser performing units.

What makes you think Disney HQ is letting "lesser performing units" off the hook in terms of cutting costs and raising revenue? That's a silly idea.

People who understand business, know what I am talking about. When a unit has a profit margin well over what ever other unit has, you don't make them trim costs unless you are asking them to "cut costs," to make up the difference from other units.

IOW's you don't have a clue about what Disney is demanding of its other units, you are just once again talking out of your arse cluelessly,

Actually I do know. And know rather specifically. They have some badly run other units, an under performing movie unit, and have to answer to Wall Street for the Lucas Films debts until they shows income a year or two from now. The bottom line looks fine, but it's all about how good it looks compared to this quarter last year. When in doubt, you announce a job reduction pr cost reductions, and share prices go up. movie units can't really be trimmed, because their budgets are already kept in line. So you look at the TV units. ABC is finally recovering and regaining share, so they don't mess with them. So they looked to the cash cow, to make the bottom line look better. That is why I said it. Because I know it for a fact. From people who work there.

Don't confuse your own lack of knowledge on the subject, and obviously business in general, with others. It will help keep you from looking like a tool. I. actually know what I am talking about

Might be amazing if we moved from a quarterly/annual economy to a five year economy.

(09-21-2015 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 02:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:24 PM)goofus Wrote:  oh, poor ESPN, all those people who don't want to watch sports, or more accurately, pay to not watch tv personalities talk about sports, actually have the gall to cancel their cable tv so they don't have to pay for something they don't watch.

Disney told them to cut costs; ESPN has to drill down and pay only for the things that people actually are watching. Anything that costs them a lot of money and doesn't bring them a lot of viewers or page hits might be gone soon. And maybe we've seen the last of ESPN moves like the upcoming NBA contract, where ESPN paid rights fees that are triple the previous contract just to keep Fox from getting a slice.

It's kind of funny because ESPN gives Disney more profit than any other division. But like most parent companies, instead of rewarding their cash cows, they "punish" them by demanding more of them, instead of the lesser performing units.

What makes you think Disney HQ is letting "lesser performing units" off the hook in terms of cutting costs and raising revenue? That's a silly idea.

As you note below, ESPN has fat, and so it makes sense to cut that fat. Doesn't tell us anything about what Disney is demanding of its other units. Sheesh!

There is a major boycott going on right now that people mostly women have on ABC and any Disney owned channels. Why? They are doing the boycott until they bring back All My Children and One Life To Live. ABC's ratings have fallen ever since, and on some nights in certain time slots, they came in last place. Disney is trying to combined ABC, Disney and ESPN by having people appearing on each channel. Some General Hospital actors appeared on the Disney Channel shows, some ESPN personalities are appearing on ABC like Robin Roberts and some others including Dancing with the Stars. ESPN have the Epsy's which people like Bruce Jenners would appear on Dancing With The Stars to appear on there. Disney is mixing sports with entertainment like having rap artists appearing on their shows. It is killing what ESPN was about in the first place. Concentration on sports, not entertainment. I could see the likes of country music artists like Kenny Chesney or Sam Hunt to appear on Game Day because they played college ball. Kenny Chesney at East Tennessee State and Sam Hunt at UAB. They would know what college football is like than Katy Perry.

Don't worry, there is no sports media rights-bubble and cord-cutting is totally a mirage. We will all be paying $1,000 a month for sports whether we want to or not. The Big Ten deserves more and more and more. Congress should institute a new mandatory sports tax and all of it should be destined to a small royal power group with a blank check to do whatever they want.

.

Well, they're experimenting around w/ a one-man SC...they've got Van Pelt tryin' to do a Jon Stewart-- and failing miserably. I mean it is a Terrible show!

(09-21-2015 01:52 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Over pay for the NBA? That's laughable. It's the pro sports league with the best demographics for advertisers, ratings are up and the reach is global. It was an excellent property to keep.

I still haven't watched 5 minutes of it since Jordon left ! Boring !!!!!!!!

(09-22-2015 05:19 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 01:52 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Over pay for the NBA? That's laughable. It's the pro sports league with the best demographics for advertisers, ratings are up and the reach is global. It was an excellent property to keep.

I still haven't watched 5 minutes of it since Jordon left ! Boring !!!!!!!!

The last NBA game I watched was in 1985.

Maybe ESPN will get rid of those woman announcers that know nothing about football, and ask stupid questions to the coaches.

ESPN ratings have been down since the 1990s. They had a much better programming back then. You don't see auto racing on there anymore. Thursday Night Thunder and all that. They used to had PRCA which is rodeo which is not on there anymore. You have seen more FCS football games on ESPN and ESPN2. They had scuba diving, hunting and fishing programs. Now you see the hosts of those channels on The Outdoor Channel or The Sportsman Channel. They need to get rid of all those airheads in the morning like Skip Bayliss and some of the guys from Around The Horn.

(09-22-2015 07:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  ESPN ratings have been down since the 1990s. They had a much better programming back then. You don't see auto racing on there anymore. Thursday Night Thunder and all that. They used to had PRCA which is rodeo which is not on there anymore. You have seen more FCS football games on ESPN and ESPN2. They had scuba diving, hunting and fishing programs. Now you see the hosts of those channels on The Outdoor Channel or The Sportsman Channel. They need to get rid of all those airheads in the morning like Skip Bayliss and some of the guys from Around The Horn.

You are truly absolutely clueless. Just the college football playoffs last year were the highest rated programs for ESPN EVER.