7. "Maybe they reduced salaries to save on costs?" In response to Reply # 0
Old talent was demanding too much money
_______________________________________ You ain't the only one whose got problems. You ain't the only one who knows pain. Get up off your ass and just solve them. You still got a chance to try to change, try the shit again. Devin tha Dude
So, then, what was the point? The memo released this morning by ESPN president John Skipper is instructive. It was hollow and buzzword-laden in the precise way that is meant to speak to Disney investors who want to be assured that ESPN is still capable of “navigating changes in technology and fan behavior in order to continue to deliver quality, breakthrough content.” That’s what today appears to have been really about—assuring Disney stakeholders that ESPN is taking things very seriously and is prepared to keep itself lean and competitive. Don’t think too much about how we’re going to continue to pay rights fees with sustained subscriber loss! We’re making cuts! We have a handle on things!
13. "Talent cuts save costs, but that's not their major outlay or motivation" In response to Reply # 11
They have to cover all those broadcast deals that were signed when cord cutting wasn't perceived to be the threat that it has become, when they paid big bucks and signed away their own rights to offer online broadcasts of certain leagues. Cutters both erodes their subscriber base from cable/satellite providers and shrinks their advertising base. The cuts were both to save money but also some horribly directed attempt to woo cutters back, as if some fresh from college, underpaid broadcaster talking about sports gambling or fantasy for 30% of a broadcast was the panacea to entire generations finally saying "fuck cable tv".