ESPN's Linda Cohn suggested the net "may be losing" subscriber revenue not just because of cord-cutting, but because viewers are "increasingly turned off by ESPN inserting politics into its sports coverage," according to Hannah Withiam of the N.Y. POST. Appearing on N.Y.-based WABC-AM on Thursday, Cohn said, "That is definitely a percentage of it. I don’t know how big a percentage, but if anyone wants to ignore that fact, they’re blind." Cohn "agreed with the argument that certain sports fans may have disapproved of the way ESPN covered polarizing figures such as Roger Goodell, Colin Kaepernick and Caitlyn Jenner." Cohn: "When you work for a big company, you have to follow in line, you have to pay the bills. But you just kind of look in the mirror and do what you think is right no matter what else is going on around you. And that’s what I always tried to do" (N.Y. POST, 4/28). Syracuse AD John Wildhack, previously a longtime ESPN exec, "disputed" the net "intentionally combined sports and politics." Wildhack: "I never sensed that there was any movement or any discussion that we said we had to move to the left or become more liberal with our point of views. That was never a discussion" (SYRACUSE.com, 4/27).
NOT THE CASE: TIME's Sean Gregory wrote behavioral economics, not politics, "drove these ESPN layoffs." An ESPN exec said that internal market research "shows negligible evidence that dissatisfaction with network's politics drove subscribers to tune out or cut the cord." As long as ESPN has the NFL and NBA, it "will have eyeballs." Gregory: "Politics be damned" (TIME.com, 4/26). Author James Andrew Miller said people who have suggested ESPN's layoffs were in response to viewer complaints about liberal personalities are "smoking crack." Miller: "It’s just ridiculous. There is no connective tissue between the two. I spend every day watching, thinking, studying, analyzing ESPN. I don’t see it at all" (SLATE.com, 4/27).
THE REAL REASON(S): In DC, Matt Bonesteel writes a "bigger sign of the network's financial health and future direction will come when it’s time to re-up" with the NFL and MLB, as ESPN’s deals with both leagues run through the '21 seasons. ESPN pays the NFL $1.9B per year for "MNF," nonexclusive rights to the NFL Draft, one wild-card playoff game and access to highlights, and that price "isn't going to go down anytime soon." For instance, ESPN pays MLB $700M per year to televise a slew of games, which was a 100% increase "over the previous annual cost" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/28). Miller said looking at ESPN's layoffs of several baseball writers, MLB may now be looking at ESPN and believe "this is the first sign they don't want to keep us." Miller: "Who knows?" (HARTFORD COURANT, 4/28). In Detroit, Tony Paul writes under the header, "ESPN's Troubles Have Only Just Begun." ESPN "clearly overshot the mark" with their rights deals (DETROIT NEWS, 4/28).
THAT'S WILD: In Syracuse, Chris Carlson wrote ESPN "significantly overpaid" for its NFL and NBA rights, "especially given the direction the industry has headed." Wildhack led ESPN's rights negotiating from '07-'12. But Wildhack "disputed those ideas noting the dominant position in the sports television industry that the deals have ensured." He also noted ESPN "prioritized retaining the rights of certain organizations while allowing some, like NASCAR, to move to other networks." Wildhack said, "ESPN is still incredibly successful. It's incredibly important to the Disney Company. The media segment is still the most profitable segment of the Disney Company. ... When it comes to NFL and NBA, this is must-see content. When you have the opportunity to lock up that content long-term and keep your competitors on the outside looking in, I think those were prudent deals" (SYRACUSE.com, 4/27).
BRAVE NEW WORLD: Miller said that ESPN's layoffs have put on full display the net's "struggle to adapt to significant changes created by digital technology." He said ESPN's audience is "starting to see how ESPN is coping with marketplace challenges." Miller: "It's rare when you look at a company going through a metamorphosis in real time. That's what's going on right now" (HARTFORD COURANT, 4/28). DIGIDAY's Sahil Patel wrote ESPN’s struggles "point to a reality that the rest of the media business -- and especially other TV companies -- have begun to realize." TV is "still the biggest revenue game in town, but the dollars are gradually shrinking." ESPN and other companies "might be able to offset some costs by negotiating for higher fees when contracts are up again, but it won’t be enough" (DIGIDAY.com, 4/27). In Cincinnati, Paul Daugherty writes ESPN "whacked lots of jobs" for a "few big reasons." The biggest is people are "finding other ways to get their sports fixes." Another is the "huge rights fees the network has paid pro leagues." Sports journalism now is "full of lists and charts and how to win your fantasy league." Daugherty: "'Hot takes' rule. It’s a Stephen A. Smith world. ... We love the yelling" (CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, 4/28).
