Looking for some assistance for a school paper.
I’m polling answers regarding ESPN. The more responses, the more helpful. Feel free to be as descriptive as you want, Id even prefer some of the more “controversial” responses if that’s how you feel about it.
1. Do you regulary watch ESPN?
2A. If you do, are there specific programs?
2B. If you do not, did you ever?
2C. If you not longer watch, what turned you away?
3. Do have subscribe to ESPN+ (streaming)?
4. Viewership has declined steadily since 2011. Do you believe they can be saved? Or do you think they are slowly going towards eventual bankruptcy?
5. What would you like to see changed?
I’m polling answers regarding ESPN. The more responses, the more helpful. Feel free to be as descriptive as you want, Id even prefer some of the more “controversial” responses if that’s how you feel about it.
1. Do you regulary watch ESPN?
2A. If you do, are there specific programs?
2B. If you do not, did you ever?
2C. If you not longer watch, what turned you away?
3. Do have subscribe to ESPN+ (streaming)?
4. Viewership has declined steadily since 2011. Do you believe they can be saved? Or do you think they are slowly going towards eventual bankruptcy?
5. What would you like to see changed?
1) No
2b) Yes, 90's / early 200s
2c) nothing but talk shows, unwatchable personalities
3) Not currently - had it in Disney+ bundle but did not use Espn part
4) there's a lot in between failing and bankruptcy ..
5) It is beyond repair now, they have 1 hour of highlights a week, 9000 hours of talking.. that will not change because if 1 segment fails they simply change the faces but it's still a talk show
2b) Yes, 90's / early 200s
2c) nothing but talk shows, unwatchable personalities
3) Not currently - had it in Disney+ bundle but did not use Espn part
4) there's a lot in between failing and bankruptcy ..
5) It is beyond repair now, they have 1 hour of highlights a week, 9000 hours of talking.. that will not change because if 1 segment fails they simply change the faces but it's still a talk show
Thanks for the feedback.
im in a similar position. Watched much more during the 90’s-00’s. Have ESPN+ but only watch live sports and even that is kind of rare.
the talking heads/hot take/ no highlights has been a common response.
I agree on the bankruptcy part. I really just meant the death of ESPN.
The competition has been a huge problem as well. People can get highlights on n other places and without the analysis added plus the biased coverage of certain markets hurts ESPN.
Only thing i stop is SVP. That guy is great entertainment- everything else is a keep it moving
I’m taking note to those specific call outs. I like SVP too. I’m fortunately his show could be 30 minutes, not in the middle of the night, and stick to him only and be much more successful. He is one of the personalities that I’d keep if I was running the content shifts. Bad beats is a great segment.
1) Yes/No
2a) only watch during football season, and just games.
2c) It turned into every other news channel; screaming, yelling, opinion-driven, speculation about personal matters, hype machine.
3) Yes. Part of the bundle. I only use ESPN+ for the articles (no, I swear honey, I only read the articles)
4) Saved? I’m not sure what that means. I doubt they go away completely, but with the way media is trending, I don’t see how they exist as they are now.
5) I don’t know. I’d like to think that I want it the way it used to be, but they would surely go bankrupt if they tried that. There’s just too much competing content and no accountability. I don’t blame ESPN, I blame society.
2a) only watch during football season, and just games.
2c) It turned into every other news channel; screaming, yelling, opinion-driven, speculation about personal matters, hype machine.
3) Yes. Part of the bundle. I only use ESPN+ for the articles (no, I swear honey, I only read the articles)
4) Saved? I’m not sure what that means. I doubt they go away completely, but with the way media is trending, I don’t see how they exist as they are now.
5) I don’t know. I’d like to think that I want it the way it used to be, but they would surely go bankrupt if they tried that. There’s just too much competing content and no accountability. I don’t blame ESPN, I blame society.
General responses has been similar, live sports or bust.
Good reference for the old Playboy mags too.
I think saved is an appropriate way to say it. It’s either going to live on in some sort or die with many ways they could die. You mention the roundabout version of cord cutting, a serious issue for the network AND all the competition that popped up during their demise.
I think the idea of turning back the clock can work…..for some content.
Sportscenter was a staple and easily THE show that helped ESPN thrive for their first 25 years. Get back to the basics for that specific show. Lose the talking heads, hot takes, and bias of highlights, Sportscenter can thrive.
for the rest of the content, start cutting the argumentative TV to maybe 1-2 shows. You lose some bloated contracts in that process.
They’ve already “outlawed” political stances, sort of, finish that off to sports. IF they must tackle it, put it on ESPN News with GOATed shows like the other “news” channels. I’m against it entirely though.
I also think they can tap into all the independent sports content creators. They have a streaming service, no issue with people making 10-15 minute videos that can be streamed. Maybe team with Google/YouTube to maximize that.
overall, society plays a role. It’s tough to argue people that MUST click the bait and comment on bad takes are helping ruin sports content.
1. neyt
2A.
2B. Yes. pre woke 4 letter network
2C. dont watch leftist bovine scatology
3. get it with something. nothing of any value to me there
4. dont care if they can be saved or if they go bankrupt
5. shut up and dribble
sidebar - I had DISH remove espn from my package. I literally do not pay for it
2A.
2B. Yes. pre woke 4 letter network
2C. dont watch leftist bovine scatology
3. get it with something. nothing of any value to me there
4. dont care if they can be saved or if they go bankrupt
5. shut up and dribble
sidebar - I had DISH remove espn from my package. I literally do not pay for it
I read an article about the cost for ESPN vs other channels for cable or satellite.
ESPN gets $7.86 per subscription.
Every other channel avg $2 per subscription.
I hope your removal got you at least that amount of difference on your bill.
if they could prove a return/ elimination of “woke”, any consideration to returning?
yeah I had them remove all the espn crap... was like $10 a month...
I would never know about stopping the woke and politics cause I dont bother with espn. See SC at the bar occasionally... no volume of course.
IF espn brought back espn classic that showed old school wrasslin late night, and of course other older programming the other times. Man I loved watching that old school wrasslin from back in the day... so entertaining
Nope
The shows are annoying and it happened a long time ago. It feels like it's more about dude bro culture and trendy culture crap which I find annoying and cringey.
I was also put off by the obsessive way they covered some stories or sports celebrities. I.E. I remember Doug Gottlieb, after he left, being told at one time that they could not talk about Tim Tebow enough. Basically told to obsess over him nonstop.
And I don't like how they seemed to move away from sport specific experts and shows to shows with loudmouths who are supposed to be experts on all players, on all teams in all leagues. I.E. Colin Cowherd listing a dead man in a ranking of current QBs.
Nope, its probably just the same crap that is on regular ESPN
I'm not the best person to ask as I watch very little TV. I will say there is zero chance of them going bankrupt as they are owned by Disney. It would be more a case where Disney shuts them down. Which I doubt happens but it could. Their website and ESPN Radio (which I used to love) have also gone in the toilet
Cut back on these broad panel discussions on several completely different topics. move to smaller discussions, and interviews, on a specific sport/league with people who spend a lot of time covering it and can speak intelligently about it.
But again, I'm probably not the best person to ask.
====================
Disclosure on my own personal weirdness. When it comes to news and opinion, both sports and regular, I prefer reading to watching or listening. If I click on a sports/news story and it's a video instead of text it piśses me off. Recently someone sent me the link to a good Sam Harris podcast to listen to and instead I found the transcript and read it. There are various reasons for this which are probably of little interest to anyone.
So unless it's live sports I'm not looking to watch anything
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t think it’s that weird to want to read vice watching them say things. On rare occasion can you lose some sort of inflection that emphasizes a point that you can’t get reading but I think reading can also limit any “convincing” that might happen with body language and inflection on a bad point.
common responses overall. No one seems to like the opinionated pieces or at least to the extreme amounts. Same thing regarding who gives the opinion. Lot of comments on these former athletes that have bad takes or just takes no one wants.
And Bankrupt is probably not the right word. I ultimately mean it’s death in some fashion.
Yeah, I much rather read an article than watch someone talk about a subject in a video clip. Probably a generational thing, but I feel like people have the time to think about what they are writing in a way that speaking on a show doesn’t allow. Of course, there are increasingly more examples of that not being true, necessarily.
For much it is a preference built around learning style. I like the ability to easily skim and skip, also I like going back to read over certain parts.
