Does someone know why this is happening? This is not explained in the article.
I'm not American, don't have a TV and don't like sports but I'd like to know why they're loosing so much subscribers now. Is it the economic situation or people found a better alternative to watch sports?
ESPNs bread and butter is not so much live sports but highlights, commentary, and analysis.
These are replaceable with online sources like Bleacher Report, SB Nation, and even social media.
In the US, watching live sports on TV generally still requires some kind of traditional television access, but over-the-air broadcasters + a regional cable sports network will cover most needs in that regard.
They also do a really terrible job at actually showing highlights and meaningful analysis these days. It's sort of like when MTV stopped showing music videos.
I'm an American with a TV who doesn't like sports. :) So let me be the blind leading the blind here.
There are three factors pinching ESPN and I don't think anybody knows what the exact breakdown is between them to answer the "why" question. But I think the factors are mostly well-known: 1) cable cutters, 2) generational habit differences, and 3) ESPN's inability to home-brew compelling content.
Cable cutters are softer on ESPN's ego than the other two options because they don't have to take responsibility for it. Basically, this factor is people quitting their cable subscription because they prefer Netflix or Hulu or nothing over paying for cable. ESPN licenses their important content (the actual games) and this is expensive, so if enough people leave it will eventually leave them unable to produce their primary product.
Factor #2 is simply that millennials seem less interested in sports or TV generally. But this may be mixed in with the previous one.
Suppose cable cutting is the significant factor. Why isn't it killing Comedy Central and other channels? Because licensing is expensive and the product becomes stale. CC and the other channels don't have to spend as much to make content, their consumers like their home-brew content, and their homemade content is unencumbered and can be repackaged and sold on other media. I might look forward to a new episode of Comedy Central Presents, but if I miss it, I'd still like to see it later. If it's good, I may rewatch it. This doesn't happen with sporting events. Like any product with an expiration date, there is more cost.
Other channels like CC and Cartoon Network started out licensing other people's content and then started producing their own, and their consumers like what they make. Many of ESPN's consumers, by contrast, do not want a 24x7 news cycle about every athlete ever, or talk shows starring athletes, or whatever home-brew content ESPN might come up with. They want to see The Big Game, right now, as it's happening.
So ESPN is having trouble pivoting. CC and Cartoon Network et. al. had no problem making the transition from content licensing to content creation and distribution, but ESPN is unusually encumbered by licensing restrictions and is unable to manufacture significant amounts of cheaper content with a longer shelf life. ESPN grew quite fat and lazy during its heydays when cable bundling was unavoidable and you could count on almost every American as a cable subscriber. This usage pattern is dropping off a cliff and ESPN seems to have run out of workable pivots.
The anti-sports people like me are having a great time watching this whole thing unfold in slow motion, which probably accounts for the fact that this story is here on HN at all.
You kind of touched on it, but the biggest issue ESPN has is that their content goes stale very, very quickly. Sports are the most valuable content when live, above basically everything else. But as soon as you start getting away from that, their value plummets. Full games quickly become highlight clips, from which there are decreasing ways for a channel like ESPN to monetize (especially when the leagues themselves are offering those clips for free view). Past 24-48 hours, even a "condensed" game (cutting out everything but time when the clock is rolling) isn't really a worthwhile value.
By comparison, CC and CN's content can be re-aired for months or years, can be sold on home video, and be sub-licensed to streaming services. It also likely costs less to produce than sports, once you factor in licensing fees.
Not him specifically (covering his actions as matter-of-fact news would be OK IMO) so much as it is the increasing interjection of social and political commentary into their analysis generally. I come to ESPN/Sports as an escape from the real world. I don't want any of that there. Focus on sports: Scores, highlights, coaching and player trades, etc. Period.
I'm not American, don't have a TV and don't like sports but I'd like to know why they're loosing so much subscribers now. Is it the economic situation or people found a better alternative to watch sports?