TV Industry an The Future of ESPN

espn-red-logo-large

In todays day an age with technology changing ever so rapidly and consumer trends in media consumption evolving along with the new technology, it is interesting to take a step back and see how the news media industry is changing from its traditional forms to its more modern day trends. One area of the news media industry that has evolved so much and continues to evolve is the traditional TV news industry. The idea of digital disruption has had an enormous impact on the TV industry.

Much of this digital disruption that has completely shaken up the TV and news industry, is in large part due to the new consumer preferences and the habits of younger generations. More specifically, the generation that has had the biggest effect is the generation that most companies try to target for profit, which is the millenials. These new consumer trends have had a major effect on how big media companies distribute their content online as well as on TV. For example, according to a Ypulse.com study, 30% of millennials say their top news source is online news sites, next up at 21% was social media sites.
Screen Shot 2016-04-08 at 1.52.58 PM.png

These two numbers alone show how consumers have abandoned print media and are beginning to leave TV.

This idea of consumers leaving traditional TV and getting access to TV content on other platforms has been a very hot topic and a very worrying topic for media companies over the last couple months. What the media industry is calling cord cutting, or, “the process of cutting expensive cable connections in order to change to a low-cost TV channel subscription through over-the-air (OT) free broadcast through antenna, or over-the-top (OTT) broadcast over the Internet. “(techopedia.com). This trend has had a massive impact on the media company’s revenue, since a large chunk of their revenue comes from TV contracts, cable subscribers, and the ad dollars that come with their content. For example, in the first fiscal quarter of 2015, media analyst Craig Moffett reported that the pay TV companies lost a collective 31,000 subscribers. With these pay TV subscribers disappearing from the traditional TV outlets, TV providers and media companies are forced to distribute their content in new ways that appeal to these customers.

When looking at the pay TV landscape and why subscriber numbers have been on a downward trend, one of the first factors you have to look at is price. According to a Leichtman Research Group study, the average monthly price of a TV subscription is $99.10, which shows a 39% increase since 2010. One of the biggest reason for this increased price is due to the fact that the average TV bundle size has also increased to the point where a basic cable bundles are upwards of one hundred channels. Although this selection of channels may seem nice on the surface, in reality people don’t want to pay for all of the channels, since the average consumer only watches 17 of those channels (WSJ.com). Since subscribers are very selective on what channels they want to watch, they are becoming more and more likely to opt out of big bundle subscriptions and sign up for smaller services like skinny bundles and OTT services such as Sling TV, Apple TV and products like Netflix.

 

Another major factor that contributes to the loss of traditional pay TV subscribers is due to the loss of interest of “live TV’. With the rise of features like recording TV, or on demand, consumers have lost the need to watch TV immediately when a show originally airs. These consumers don’t want to be locked into a specific time to watch a show. Consumers want to build TV into their busy schedules and watch it on their time. Because of this new trend, TV subscribers are beginning to cancel their traditional TV subscriptions and purchase services that allow them to watch TV when they want. Examples of these services would be things such as Hulu, Netflix, etc. these products allow people to watch whenever they want and not be locked into a traditional TV schedule.

 

Advantages/Disadvantages for ESPN

espn-red-logo-large

Knowing that TV subscriptions have become extremely expensive and consumer want more flexibility out of their TV experience, it is interesting to see how media companies are being effected by these new trends. One extremely unique news media company that is very interesting to look at during this time is ESPN. There are many aspects of ESPN as a company that cause them to have advantages and disadvantages over other companies during this turbulent time in the media industry.

One of the biggest advantages that ESPN has over other media companies in terms of retaining subscribers, is the idea that, most of the ESPN content is only available to be watched live since most of their content is live sporting event. By having these live sporting events, it forces consumers to stick with traditional TV subscriptions in order to watch games while they are happening. While much of the ESPN content has the live aspect built in, some of their flagship programs have taken huge hits due to digital disruption. For example, ESPN’s most famous show, SpotsCenter, a sports news and highlight show has taken a hit in terms of viewership due to digital disruption. During my research for the future of ESPN I had the opportunity to interview Olivia Knotts an ESPN employee. I asked her what her thoughts were regarding SportsCenter’s recent low numbers and if it will ever be able to become a popular show again? Olivia stated, “Although the old model of SportsCenter which was strictly game analysis and highlights isn’t working. ESPN has already made strides to get better numbers by making the show more talent based rather then highlights.” In today’s society people are able to get highlights anywhere on any device. Therefor SportsCenter needed to differentiate the show to get people to continue to view it.

 

svp_sc-600x356
Scott Van Pelt SportsCenter

One example of ESPN making their flagship program SportsCenter more personality based like a late night show is how they came up with the SportsCenter midnight show. This SportsCenter edition is hosted by Scott Van Pelt, and it feels more like a talk show rather then a sports show. In a SporsBusinessdaily.com article they say how this new SportsCenter is meant to be broken into segments that can become viral, capitalizing on the digital disruption that hurt them in the first place. Although ESPN continues to try and make SportsCenter more popular, in a survey I conducted asking 50 student athletes about their sports news consumption, most of them don’t utilize SportsCenter for sports news.

Picture1.png

Although ESPN has a major advantage over other media companies on retaining TV subscribers due to their live content, this live content comes at a massive price. The first aspect of this price comes from the TV rights that they have to buy from the sports leagues to air the games. In order to be the leader in the sports TV category it is crucial for ESPN to outbid companies like Fox Sports, NBC Sports, etc., this bidding process ends up causing ESPN to have to write a massive check. For example, in the most recent NBA rights deals, according to an SB Nation article ESPN will pay the NBA $1.4 Billion per year to air NBA games on ESPN channels. With this massive investment ESPN must ensure that they retain subscribers and get great ratings in order to secure ad dollars to pay off these investments.

nba_espn

As a result of the massively expensive TV deals ESPN has become extremely expensive for cable companies to carry them on their cable bundles. Conscious that they have some of the best sports rights, ESPN is able to increase their subscriber price knowing that they most likely wont get dropped from cable companies. For example, in 2014 the estimated price cable providers paid ESPN for each subscriber was $6.04, the next closest was TNT at $1.48 (WSJ.com).

Picture1.png

In the past ESPN was safe doing this because consumers had no other choice for TV. But now with so many viewing options, and live TV not being super popular, many consumers and cable companies are ditching ESPN for other options.

The Future

After doing much research on ESPN and the TV landscape it is hard to say whether or not ESPN will be able to continue to have success. As of now ESPN is in a great spot. With the traditional TV bundle still intact ESPN will still be able to benefit off their insanely high subscriber rate at $6.04. But as the TV industry slides and more and more people leave the traditional bundle ESPN will need to find other modes of content distribution. The problem is that not enough people are willing to pay such a high price for one network. Although the traditional bundle has not completely died yet, more people are favoring the skinny bundle and the streaming service products. But credit ESPN, they have already been proactive in getting their content out there on these new platforms. For example, EPSN already has deals with companies such as Apple TV and Sling TV. Both of which are products that people are turning to instead of traditional TV. Although their content is already on some streaming services, I do see ESPN creating a standalone streaming service for strictly ESPN content. In my interview with Olivia Knotts I asked her for her opinion on an ESPN specific streaming service. She stated, “I think that is definitely something ESPN will invest in, but at the same time I think ESPN will try to stick with the bundle for as long as possible due to the fact they make so much money off the subscriber rate from the cable companies.” Wile ESPN may invest in a ESPN specific streaming service I believe that ESPN could not survive if they only offered ESPN on a streaming service. The reason for that is due to the fact that not enough people want to pay a lot just for ESPN. For example, in a BITG Research survey, analysts found that 56% of respondents would get rid of ESPN/ESPN2 to save $8 on their cable bill. On top of that analysts estimated that ESPN would have to charge $30 per month for a streaming service in order to get a similar revenue stream compared to the traditional TV bundle. In my mind that $30 a month is way to expensive for one network.

Here is a video of Walt Disney CEO Bob Iger stating that ESPN would be able to successfully have their own streaming service outside of the traditional bundle

http://player.cnbc.com/p/gZWlPC/cnbc_global?playertype=synd&byGuid=3000400875&size=530_298

Overall I do think that ESPN is safe for now due to the fact the traditional TV bundle is still intact. But if the traditional TV landscape falls apart it will be interesting to see if ESPN can still be the most successful sports media company out there. When looking back on the digital disruption of ESPN it is clear that it has both helped and hurt the company. Recently the disruption has allowed ESPN to gain more subscribers. But it has also hurt some of the company’s most important shows such as SportsCenter. In terms of the future of the company we will have to wait and see whether or not digital disruption will end up benefiting or hurting EPSN.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/12/07/Media/Sports-Media.aspx

https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/millennials-news/

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/millennial-news/485350

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/analyst-pay-tv-down-31k-subs-q1-its-not-too-early-get-worried-about-cord-cu/2015-05-11

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cord-cutters-weights-on-pay-tv-1438820384

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-cable-tv-bundle-exist-anyway-1433807825

http://www.sbnation.com/2014/10/5/6916597/nba-new-tv-deal-espn-turner-24-billion

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-cable-subscribers-pay-per-channel-1626/

 

 

Millennial Generation “Killing” The News

buzzfeed                         gawker-media-secuirty

The two media companies, Gawker founded in 2003 and Buzzfeed founded in 2006 are known for their whimsical content. They are also known in some people’s eyes as the type of journalism that is ruining the news industry. Although sites like Gawker and Buzzfeed are known for having content in the form of listicles, blogs, quizzes and other viral content this does not necessarily mean that these companies are killing the industry. These companies not only have these new styles of content they also have departments that deal with the traditional long form content that older generations are use to. For example, according to a Huffington Post article they mention how Buzzfeed has brought on board writers such as Mark Schoofs a Pulitzer Prize investigative journalist from Propublica and the Wall Street Journal. By including writers such as Schoofs it shows how Buzzfeed still values traditional journalism along with the newer content styles.  In reality these companies are actually re-building the news industry and adapting the industry to a new style.

By looking at companies like Buzzfeed and Gawker who have whimsical content and traditional news, it makes me believe that these companies are not the ones who are killing the news industry. When in fact it’s the millennial and younger generations who are killing the news industry with their news consumption habits and their reliance on social media. With these new consumption habits, sites like Buzzfeed and Gawker have capitalized on these trends by creating content that works for social media, for example, listicles, quizzes and other creative content.

Going off these new consumption habits and social media reliance, news companies have been forced to adapt to this new industry. For example, in a Pew Research Center article a survey was conducted stating that 50% of social media users share or repost new stories. This stat shows how news companies are forced to create content that is social media friendly in order to get the most views and become a successful business.

Although it is obvious that companies like Buzzfeed and Gawker have completely changed the traditional news industry in terms of how news is delivered and written, these new distribution patterns and content is evidence of adaption to changing preferences of consumers. Knowing this I believe companies like Buzzfeed and Gawker are not the ones “killing” the news industry, but rather it is the changing consumer and the younger generation who are revolutionizing the news industry from an old traditional style to a new modern young industry.

Debate Question:

Has social media and the consumer preferences of the younger generations played a role in “killing” the news industry?

Sources:

State of the News Media 2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunil-rajaraman/how-buzzfeed-mastered-con_b_4369897.html

 

The Unique Voice of Bill Simmons

In this new age of news and media, many media giants have been experiencing revenue losses. With that in mind there have been a lot of things being cut back to reduce those losses. One of the biggest areas that has been affected by this trend is the media company’s talent and journalists. One really prominent example of this is what ESPN did this past summer when they decided to not renew the contracts of journalists and talent such as Keith Olbermann, Colin Cowherd, and maybe most prominent Bill Simmons.

104439564_bill20simmons

Bill Simmons is a sports columnist who had been at ESPN since 2001 and recently left the company in 2015 due to contract disputes. Simmons is most known for his style of sports writing. Much of his work is characterized as blending his sports experience and knowledge with pop culture. This style of writing was definitely a unique style of writing for ESPN. Many of the journalists at ESPN write from more of a traditional journalist point of view. While Simmons gave a different perspective because he wrote more like a intense sports fan.

a-grantland-hp
Screen shot of Grantland.com when it was running 

With his unique style of writing (combining pop culture and sports) came his own sports “blog”, Grantland. Grantland was a section of ESPN where he was the editor in chief. Grantland was an entire section of ESPN that took his unique style of writing and created stories, podcasts and videos.

Although Bill Simmons was a very popular columnist for ESPN and Grantland was very successful, ESPN didn’t see the need to keep him around. It is interesting to see how when the media industry isn’t  doing so hot, big media companies will get rid of aspects of their business that give them a unique voice. In this case ESPN got rid of a distinctive voice in Simmons, but in the end all that matters in the media industry is whether or not the company is turning out a profit.

Variety Article regarding ESPN getting rid of talent

Virtual Reality, Revolutionizing College Athletics

Virtual reality has been an extremely hot topic as of late. The concept of virtual reality has come a long way since it was first introduced. But now many major companies like Facebook, Oculus, Samsung, Sony, and Google, all are starting to come out with virtual reality products that could revolutionize many industries. A lot of the talk surrounding these new virtual reality products surround, changing a lot of the entertainment and movie industry. But another massive industry that virtual reality has already begun to revolutionize is college athletics.

Anyone at the University of Michigan prides themselves on being the leaders and the best in all aspects of life. So of course when a product like virtual reality has potential to be a game changer in college athletics, of course Coach Jim Harbaugh of the Michigan Football team has to be one of the first coaches in the country to hop on the virtual reality train and integrate it into the program.

Michigan football and Los Angeles virtual reality company Headcase teamed up to to bring this technology to the Michigan football program. This technology has the ability to revolutionize many aspects of college athletics from recruiting to fan interaction. The biggest aspect of college athletics that has been affected by virtual reality is recruiting. With this technology sports programs are able to create VR videos that mimic the real world. For example, Michigan has made two experiences for the football team. One of them is a game day experience, where the user feels like he is a part of the team on game day, from being in the locker room hearing Harbaugh speak to running down the tunnel into a packed Michigan stadium. Another video they have is a day in the life. The user of the virtual reality headset has the ability to put on the technology and see what it is like to be a Michigan student. Having this technology is now such an advantage in terms of recruiting. Any Michigan recruits who are not able to make it to campus now have the ability to take a visit to Ann Arbor just from their house. They can be sitting on the couch and see exactly what Ann arbor is like through the eyes of an athlete. Also many times these recruiting visits are incomplete, recruits don’t know exactly what to expect. With this technology recruits can experience even the smallest details of a visit. For example, instead of just going to a game in the big house. Recruits are now able to experience what it feels like actually running down the tunnel.

This virtual reality technology is with out a doubt a game changer in the college athletics industry. From recruiting to fan experiences virtual reality has already made an impact and has the potential to change the industry even further. With that in mind it is obvious that Jim Harbaugh is trying to make Michigan the leader in football programs with virtual reality technology.

Data Visualization: Does Data Help Tell the Story

Almost everyone in their lives have read something so thick and numbers intensive that they had no idea what was going on and had to re-read it over and over. From a science text book to an economic newspaper article, many times people can become very lost with the heavy use of numbers. In terms of sports journalism many articles can become very numbers heavy with a ton of statistical analysis. Although this statistical analysis may be hard to read, these stats are a huge part of the sporting world and are key in many sports articles.fivethirtyeightfox

One site that does an excellent job of incorporating data visualization into very prevalent interesting articles is the ESPN owned website FIvethirtyeight.com. This website does a great job of taking current topics and writing articles in a more data driven way. From politics, sports to economics, FiveThirtyEight.com does a great job covering these genres and using data to back up their points and help the readers understand what going on even more.

Screen Shot 2016-02-14 at 5.51.18 PM

One article that does a great job of this, is the article, Why Alabama is Terrible on Third Down. Many people will just take a topic like this and look at it on a surface level. They will just say that the players aren’t very good or the coaches are calling the wrong plays. But the FIveThirtyEight.com article takes it one step further and incorporates the data behind the plays.

Screen Shot 2016-02-14 at 5.51.25 PM

 

Although the FiveThirtyEight.com articles do a great job of breaking the stories down all the way to the raw data to help the reader get a better understanding of the story. Sometimes it may backfire on the author. In some cases, the data visuals may be too much for the reader, just as James Ball discusses in his Guardian article, The Upshot, Vox and FiveThirtyEight: data journalism’s golden age, or TMI?. These data driven articles may not mean much to the average reader and they might not understand the charts that are given in the article. Overall the idea of data journalism really depends on the reader. Is the reader really into the topic? Is the reader capable of understanding the data? All of these questions really determine whether or not data journalism is successful.