Business Week on ESPN's present and future

[Double Down]

Worth a read/discussion.

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/69258-espn-everywhere-sports-profit-network

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

This was linked elsewhere on the site, but I can't find it, so no harm in starting another discussion.

There are some legit complaints on this site about ESPN's sourcing and heavy-handedness, but I have great admiration for its aggressiveness and desire to grow in a time where most media companies are shrinking daily.

 

[Tom Petty]

bookmark.

 

[Versatile]

My takeaway was, that Business Week writer sure thinks John Skipper is great.

 

[SockPuppet]

ESPN was in the sweet spot. Not saying the network didn't "build that." But it came along at the perfect time and it's ability to get cable systems to pay to carry it made ESPN profitable. Now that it gets over $5 per subscriber and is in 95 million cable homes - not that all 95 homes watch it, but they pay for it - ESPN rakes in $400 million PER MONTH in sub fees. That will buy you a lot of sports programming.

 

[Sammi]

One boo-boo in the story. Skipper was born in Lexington, NC, not Lexington, KY. If only each city name could not be replicated...

 

[BTExpress]

ESPN was in the sweet spot. Not saying the network didn't "build that." But it came along at the perfect time and it's ability to get cable systems to pay to carry it made ESPN profitable. Now that it gets over $5 per subscriber and is in 95 million cable homes - not that all 95 homes watch it, but they pay for it - ESPN rakes in $400 million PER MONTH in sub fees. That will buy you a lot of sports programming.

The thing is, they broadcast so many events that they could easily ignore. Would there be an uproar if they passed on Middle Tennessee vs. Western Kentucky? Or Arkansas-Pine Bluff vs. Alabama State?

But they are covering them --- and paying for the manpower to do so.

Meanwhile, folks in our business slash travel budgets and stop covering the things they should cover.

 

[SockPuppet]

The thing is, they broadcast so many events that they could easily ignore. Would there be an uproar if they passed on Middle Tennessee vs. Western Kentucky? Or Arkansas-Pine Bluff vs. Alabama State?

True. However, it's chicken/egg stuff. With a number of platforms, ESPN needs programming and leagues that don't get that much exposure basically willing to play whenever ESPN says. Yes, ESPN spends a lot of money to staff and produce such events. What's it cost to produce Middle Tennessee-Western Kentucky? $500,000? $750,000? (Experts, weigh in; I have no idea). When you're cashing a $400 million check every month, that's like pocket change.

 

[DanOregon]

The thing about the wall between programming and news is bogus. Is Cincinnati vs. Baltimore, REALLY the top sports story today? The dotcom seems to think so.

 

[Versatile]

The thing about the wall between programming and news is bogus. Is Cincinnati vs. Baltimore, REALLY the top sports story today? The dotcom seems to think so.

The first Monday night game of the season, between division rivals that both made the playoffs last year? Yeah, I'd say it's the day's biggest sports story. And their main carousel item is a feature on Louisiana-Monroe, anyway.