‘ESPN’s next two years are probably the most critical in its history’
By Zach Braziller
May 4, 2017 | 5:48pm |
ESPN’s massive cuts are only the beginning. The future is uncertain, and the next two years will reveal what that future is, according to ESPN oral history author James Andrew Miller.
“The 300 people who were let go two years ago, the 100 people that were laid off this month, this doesn’t solve their bigger problem,” Miller said on a podcast with Sports Illustrated. “This is just one domino that has to happen in a continuum in order for them to reinvent their business to be in a better position. It’s no mystery that Disney has called out ESPN for being a drag on its earnings in the media group.”
Miller wondered how long Disney will give ESPN to improve its financial standing, and how many people will lose their jobs as a result.
“The question is how much time does ESPN have to get things on a better trajectory and also create a narrative where people understand it is a growth story and that that they have a positive future,” Miller said. “How patient will Disney be? … I think that the next two years of ESPN are going to be probably two of the most critical years in its history because the next two years are going to in some way inform what the network will look like for the next 10 years.”
SEE ALSO
Colin Cowherd: This 'awful' day is only the beginning for ESPN
Miller thinks ESPN overreacted to Fox creating a sports network, and it led to overspending for talent and sports right. And it has forced them to make moves the network may not have had to do so otherwise.
“As much as they are trying to push the words versatility and value, I think in some ways they have cut off their nose to spite their face,” Miller said. “Because they are really taking important people who were able to give the audience and people on the web real detailed and deep background on certain sports.
“Andy Katz on college basketball, Jayson Stark on baseball, and the list goes on and on and on. So as a result, you start to think that was a level of expertise the network had that I think people were brought to and attracted to and now they are not going to have that.”
By Zach Braziller
May 4, 2017 | 5:48pm |
ESPN’s massive cuts are only the beginning. The future is uncertain, and the next two years will reveal what that future is, according to ESPN oral history author James Andrew Miller.
“The 300 people who were let go two years ago, the 100 people that were laid off this month, this doesn’t solve their bigger problem,” Miller said on a podcast with Sports Illustrated. “This is just one domino that has to happen in a continuum in order for them to reinvent their business to be in a better position. It’s no mystery that Disney has called out ESPN for being a drag on its earnings in the media group.”
Miller wondered how long Disney will give ESPN to improve its financial standing, and how many people will lose their jobs as a result.
“The question is how much time does ESPN have to get things on a better trajectory and also create a narrative where people understand it is a growth story and that that they have a positive future,” Miller said. “How patient will Disney be? … I think that the next two years of ESPN are going to be probably two of the most critical years in its history because the next two years are going to in some way inform what the network will look like for the next 10 years.”
SEE ALSO
Colin Cowherd: This 'awful' day is only the beginning for ESPN
Miller thinks ESPN overreacted to Fox creating a sports network, and it led to overspending for talent and sports right. And it has forced them to make moves the network may not have had to do so otherwise.
“As much as they are trying to push the words versatility and value, I think in some ways they have cut off their nose to spite their face,” Miller said. “Because they are really taking important people who were able to give the audience and people on the web real detailed and deep background on certain sports.
“Andy Katz on college basketball, Jayson Stark on baseball, and the list goes on and on and on. So as a result, you start to think that was a level of expertise the network had that I think people were brought to and attracted to and now they are not going to have that.”
