ESPN's New Daytime Lineup - . Jan 2, 2018

[Wbbfan1]

ESPN makes changes to weekday programming in 2018

Those changes are most dramatic in the new weekday lineups that will debut on ESPN and ESPN2. No matter how ESPN execs want to spin it, they have sent a message to the marketplace that SportsCenter is no longer the television sports show of record. Instead, ESPN is banking on opinion-driven dialogue for its most-watched channel in an era of declining cable subscribers and viewership. The new ESPN daytime lineup in 2018 will begin with a Mike Greenberg-fronted morning show that will premiere on Jan. 1. The still-untitled daily program will originate from a studio in Manhattan and will air live from 7-10 a.m. ET on ESPN, and re-air each day at 10 a.m. ET on ESPN2.

 

[BigBird]

The CEO speak from ESPN execs was mostly rubbish. How about being dedicated to actual sports events, as opposed to nattering and bickering about "who is gonna win."

ESPN has become a leading example of what Tom Peters called "pollution of purpose."

In the same way that Sirius-XM radio can't muster the courage to muzzle the announcers and just played the damned music, ESPN keeps giving us debaters instead of sports events. And the subscribers continue to walk away.

 

[NHFan]

I remember when ESPN talked sports and MTV played music videos. The good old days

 

[Wbbfan1]

ESPN Cancels Mike & Mike. ESPN cancels 'Mike & Mike' radio show after 17 years

Goes along with the Revised Daytime schedule for ESPN.

 

[Vowelguy]

The CEO speak from ESPN execs was mostly rubbish. How about being dedicated to actual sports events, as opposed to nattering and bickering about "who is gonna win."

ESPN has become a leading example of what Tom Peters called "pollution of purpose."

In the same way that Sirius-XM radio can't muster the courage to muzzle the announcers and just played the damned music, ESPN keeps giving us debaters instead of sports events. And the subscribers continue to walk away.

Uhh, have you considered you have the causation backwards?

ESPN would love nothing more than air Sportscenter all day. News shows are cheap to produce. But why would anyone wait for 6pm or 11pm to get Sports highlights when they can get them almost instantly on their phone? Thus the move to provide content that only ESPN has.

Subscribers are not walking away from ESPN. They are walking away from cable. No one is giving up their 300 channels just because ESPN has more opinion shows. ESPN makes a ton of money on carriage feeds 5-10x more than most major channels. So every person who cuts a cord has a bigger impact on its revenue.

As for your Sirius example, I'm sure they too recognize that they cant compete in the music-only game with competitors like Spotify and Pandora, which are cheaper and can be used anywhere.

 

[BigBird]

Uhh, have you considered you have the causation backwards?

ESPN would love nothing more than air Sportscenter all day. News shows are cheap to produce. But why would anyone wait for 6pm or 11pm to get Sports highlights when they can get them almost instantly on their phone? Thus the move to provide content that only ESPN has.

Subscribers are not walking away from ESPN. They are walking away from cable. No one is giving up their 300 channels just because ESPN has more opinion shows. ESPN makes a ton of money on carriage feeds 5-10x more than most major channels. So every person who cuts a cord has a bigger impact on its revenue. As for your Sirius example, I'm sure they too recognize that they cant compete in the music-only game with competitors like Spotify and Pandora, which are cheaper and can be used anywhere.

Of course I have considered the causal relationships. You missed a key point, perhaps. Studio shows are cheap. Broadcast rights and game-site production costs are not. We get ever fewer actual competitive events or games; instead we get the talk/debate stuff.

And yes, audience preferences are dynamic. So are technology shifts. While I could not happily watch an NBA game on my Iphone 5, my larger Iphone 7 makes that possible for me. Things change.

As to subscribers moving away from "cable," they are moving, where possible, into tiers that do not contain ESPN. Whether it's basic (statuatory) cable or lowest tier satellite, the effect is the same. For many young families, the kind of jack I spend on cable and SATV is out of range. If I had to cut my costs of living, I'd start there, no doubts.

As to Sirius-XM, they got big because early on, they were clearly an alternative to the yapping local DJ, whether the AM or FM style (once upon a time, there was actually a difference). They understood back then that they were subscription radio, making it annoying and unnecessary to continually ID themselves. I know who I am listening to when I'm paying for the priviledge. And who needs an announcer when the same information about the songs or programs is more concisely provided on the screen in the center console? But they plod on into the past. The technology has changed, and they have not.

I have wondered if their use of announcer/DJ's is an attempt to squeeze out more dollars. The more copyrighted music you play, the more you typically have to pay out for rights. Talk more, less music, lower costs. Just a possibility.

Finally, before you decide that ESPN isn't experiencing audience "fatigue," please note the ratings and share data. Ratings may be down because of dwindling subscriptions. Share, on the other hand, measures how often potential viewers actually choose ESPN versus the competing channels. Both are down as of the last time I saw numbers for them. But again, things can change.

BTW...Nice post, VG.

 

[Blakeon18]

Mike and Mike will be over: taking its place...Both Golicks and Trey Wingo.

 

[iamcbs]

ESPiN used to be about sports highlights, sports talk and live events. Now it's about sensationalism and opinions. They promote personalities instead of solid sports talk and the worst example is Stephen A. Smith.