John Skipper Reveals . . .

[lcjjdnh]

Didn't even realize Skipper said that "The people who've traded down have tended to not be sports fans, and have tended to be older and less affluent" back in 2012. Wow. What a clueless, graveyard-whistling, myopic asshat. Yeah, I'm not paying $200 a month for cable not because that's simply ridiculous and my dollars would be better spent elsewhere, but because I'm old white trash with no money. That's the ticket. Keep telling yourself that while you sit around in pointless meetings all day lamenting about why nobody wants to watch your dumb Get Up show that you burned north of $25 million on. Losers.

Wonder how many upper middle class sports fan parents read that comment and said "Wow, fork you."

I have no idea whether what he said was true, but what on earth are you so upset about? Nowhere does he say that everyone who has cancelled fits on those categories, or labeled everyone who has cancelled as such. It would surprise you to learn that of the people who have downgraded their cable package, they "tend[]" not to sports fans, or "tend[]" to be older and less affluent? That makes perfect sense to me. If anyone read that and said "Wow, fork you," I'd have questions about their basic logical reasoning abilities and reading comprehension skills.

(He also, as you know, said this in 2012, so I'm not sure what Get Out up has to do with it; I'd also imagine he's not in meetings thinking about that since he doesn't work at ESPN anymore.)

 

[tapintoamerica]

The Journal story whines about libruhl bias and implies that it's causing ESPN's woes. It fails, of course, to point that out that from May 2017 to May 2018, sacred cow Fox News Channel lost nearly as many subscribers as ESPN and ESPN2 combined according to Awful Announcing's tracking. In that time span, four networks/channels lost subscribers for every one that gained.

 

[lcjjdnh]

The Journal story whines about libruhl bias and implies that it's causing ESPN's woes. It fails, of course, to point that out that from May 2017 to May 2018, sacred cow Fox News Channel lost nearly as many subscribers as ESPN and ESPN2 combined according to Awful Announcing's tracking. In that time span, four networks/channels lost subscribers for every one that gained.

I saw a similar criticism on Deadspin, but where does the article say politics has anything to do with ratings decline, other than when expressing concerns of people inside the company (e.g. Linda Cohn)? In fact, the article suggests the causation goes the other way—the industry problems have caused the political issues because of efforts to reach new audiences. It pretty clearly attributes the decline in subscribers to cord cutting more generally.

I don't disagree with you about ESPN's problems, I don't think—but I'm also not sure you're offering a fair critique of this WSJ story.

The president's tweet was hyperbolic, but it tapped into real anxiety at ESPN. What was the way forward for a company shaken to its foundations by the cord-cutting revolution?

Executives at the sports-media giant wanted to seek out new audiences by spicing up shows with opinionated analysis and debate, including on SportsCenter, its struggling news and highlights franchise.

But the amount and intensity of political expression generated sharp internal disagreements over whether ESPN was appropriately taking part in the broader national conversation, or whether top executives were encouraging a divisive company culture and giving too much leeway to hosts to promote left-leaning views, both on air and on social media.

Well before Ms. Hill's tweet controversy, network icon Bob Ley had approached Mr. Skipper to say "there was a problem with balance internally," people familiar with the matter said. Reached for comment, Mr. Ley said Mr. Skipper "was always extremely receptive."

Linda Cohn, one of ESPN's most prominent female anchors, in April 2017 gave a radio interview opining that ESPN's politics were pushing away viewers and the network had overpaid for NBA rights. Mr. Skipper called to berate her on both counts, people familiar with the call said.


Why ESPN found itself torn up by the nation's partisan politics traces back to its fundamental business challenge. Its status as cable TV's most expensive channel had become a liability. As consumers grew fed up with their monthly cable prices, big cable distributors began offering discounted packages that didn't include the network. Many consumers opted for those offers, while others cut the cord entirely, leading ESPN to shed 16 million subscribers over seven years.

What's more, it actually quotes them talking about ratings being up despite the political issues. And then again goes back to addressing the larger cord cutting problem.

Mr. Pitaro has said that despite the political debates roiling the network last year, total day ratings were up 1% in 2017 from the previous year, in a largely bleak cable-TV landscape.

ESPN has struck new deals with some cable companies ensuring it gets a share of the monthly bills paid by at least 85% of their subscribers, regardless of how many sign up for packages that include ESPN, people familiar with the terms said. And it has added back 2.4 million subscribers thanks to growth in the past few years from new streaming cable TV services such as Hulu and Sling TV.

 

[Ice9]

I have no idea whether what he said was true, but what on earth are you so upset about? Nowhere does he say that everyone who has cancelled fits on those categories, or labeled everyone who has cancelled as such. It would surprise you to learn that of the people who have downgrade their cable package, they "tend[]" not to sports fans, or "tend[]" to be older and less affluent? That makes perfect sense to me. If anyone read that and said "Wow, fork you," I'd have questions about their basic logical reasoning abilities and reading comprehension skills.

(He also, as you know, said this in 2012, so I'm not sure what Get Out up has to do with it; I'd also imagine he's not in meetings thinking about that since he doesn't work at ESPN anymore.)

Sorry, I mighta just been a little too wound up after reading that. But Skipper's reaction to cord-cutting as described in this story -- saying most of the cutters are old or poor, spinning data to convince investors this is just a fad -- underscores the way of thinking over there that led this company to the shape it's in. Skipper thinks burning $125 million on building new studios, money in hindsight that perhaps should have gone towards developing an OTT platform to get ahead of the curve, was a good business decision probably when they were flush with cash.

Many cord-cutters are millennials who don't have the disposable income to pay $160 a month to watch yapping heads argue about MJ vs LeBron, or young families who need that money to stretch. It's not just "old people or the poors".

 

[lcjjdnh]

Sorry, I mighta just been a little too wound up after reading that. But Skipper's reaction to cord-cutting as described in this story -- saying most of the cutters are old or poor, spinning data to convince investors this is just a fad -- underscores the way of thinking over there that led this company to the shape it's in. Skipper thinks burning $125 million on building new studios, money in hindsight that perhaps should have gone towards developing an OTT platform to get ahead of the curve, was a good business decision probably when they were flush with cash.

Many cord-cutters are millennials who don't have the disposable income to pay $160 a month to watch yapping heads argue about MJ vs LeBron, or young families who need that money to stretch. It's not just "old people or the poors".

(1) If you read the interview, he's clearly aware of cord-cutting trends.

(B) The particular quote you're referring to is not about people who cut the cord entirely (or never subscribe to cable in the first place)--he's specifically talking about people who have traded down to "lighter cable packages." I doubt millennials represent a large portion of such individuals, and would be willing to bet that he is correct the people in this bucket do indeed "tend[]" to be people who aren't sports fans, and who are older and less affluent.

(III) In any event, he never says it's only old or poor people.

(iv) In this very same interview, he talks about delivering ESPN content in many different ways, including OTT.

(ɛ) I should correct one erroneous statement in my earlier response (that you were incorrect about, too): he made these comments in 2016, not 2012.

ESPN's John Skipper Plays Offense on Cord-Cutting

WSJ: Would it be feasible to offer the entire ESPN network online to cord-cutters? Some analysts estimate you'd need to charge $30 a month.

Mr. Skipper: We are still engaged in the most successful business model in the history of media, and see no reason to abandon it. We're going to be delivering our content through the traditional cable bundle, through a lighter bundle, through Dish's Sling TV, through new over-the-top distributors, and through some content that is direct-to-consumer.

WSJ: What kinds of direct-to-consumer offerings?

Mr. Skipper: Last year, we tested this model when we sold the Cricket World Cup direct-to-consumer. We sold 100,000 subscriptions for a hundred dollars apiece. It worked beautifully. We are interested in "multisport"—aggregating a bunch of content and delivering it over the top and charging a subscription fee, or an individual price for an individual game or season.

WSJ: Was the cricket offering profitable?

Mr. Skipper: Yes.

 

[kleeda]

If you're a Gen-Xer, like me, you quickly discover once you cut the cord that there's about as much sports content on free TV as there was when you were a kid and fell in love with sports in the first place. And I can get it with a homemade McGuyver antenna that cost me about 10 bucks. It's amazing how easy it is to go from 500 channels to 20 plus a couple of streaming options and be completely satisfied.

 

[cjericho]

If you're a Gen-Xer, like me, you quickly discover once you cut the cord that there's about as much sports content on free TV as there was when you were a kid and fell in love with sports in the first place. And I can get it with a homemade McGuyver antenna that cost me about 10 bucks. It's amazing how easy it is to go from 500 channels to 20 plus a couple of streaming options and be completely satisfied.

In what market would that be? In the NYC area, the Yankees and Mets are rarely on free TV. Don't have the exact numbers, but for the Yankees would think at least 70% of the games are
on YES network or ESPN. IIRC the first cable channel to show the Yankees was MSG. In the early 80s the Yankees still had a good amount of games on channel 11, free TV.
The Mets were on channel 9 and think sportschannel was the first cable channel they were on. Had friends who were Mets fans and and didn't have cable in the 80s and they
still watched a decent amount of games on channel 9. For hockey and basketball I don't think the Nets and Knicks are ever on free TV, aside from the times they play a good team
and it's on TBS or ESPN. Can't remember exact numbers, but in the 80s both were on free TV a lot more than they are now.

 

[Ice9]

(1) If you read the interview, he's clearly aware of cord-cutting trends.

(B) The particular quote you're referring to is not about people who cut the cord entirely (or never subscribe to cable in the first place)--he's specifically talking about people who have traded down to "lighter cable packages." I doubt millennials represent a large portion of such individuals, and would be willing to bet that he is correct the people in this bucket do indeed "tend[]" to be people who aren't sports fans, and who are older and less affluent.

(III) In any event, he never says it's only old or poor people.

(iv) In this very same interview, he talks about delivering ESPN content in many different ways, including OTT.

(ɛ) I should correct one erroneous statement in my earlier response (that you were incorrect about, too): he made these comments in 2016, not 2012.

ESPN's John Skipper Plays Offense on Cord-Cutting

I understand all that. But you also shouldn't be insulting your customers like that either. That's like if you send back a steak at a restaurant because it's over or under-cooked, and the manager comes out and instead of offering to comp you just says "Whatever, you're probably a vegan anyways".

 

[Reddy235]

I wonder if it had been a black or hispanic CEO who had been found to have been a cocaine addict, whether he would have found such a soft landing as Mr. Skipper did in whatever bullshirt entity he's working with now?

 

[Slacker]

I wonder if it had been a black or hispanic CEO who had been found to have been a cocaine addict, whether he would have found such a soft landing as Mr. Skipper did in whatever bullshirt entity he's working with now?

Your head will explode if he turns up at The Athletic.