Bell Media Cuts hit YYC hard

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

People don't have the expendable income they once used to have to throw at things like a newspaper subscription as well.

Not true. People today spend far more on eating out, going to see concerts, and airplane vacations than they did 30 years ago. Families with two working adults have much more discretionary income than a typical family with one working adult had back in the 80s. Which is why they spend so much money on kids - clothes, eating out, sports activities, trips to Mexico etc. than their own parents did. It used to be so uncommon for a kid to go on a vacation to somewhere like Mexico or Hawaii that teachers would ask those rare few to share the exotic experience with the rest of the class when they returned.

You also have far more adults with full-time jobs but no kids today than we used to. Which is why you see high-end bars and restaurants packed with 27 and 32 year olds, which was almost unheard of back in the 80s and 90s.

Not only that, but most of the stuff we buy today is much cheaper. Clothes, electronics, appliances, furniture, pretty much anything you can buy at a big-box store - globalization has made all that stuff cheaper. Ever wonder why old people are so frugal? Why they'll keep a toaster around for 12 years, or complain when a coffee-maker breaks down after only 3 years? Because those things used to cost real money.

Look at music. In the early 90s a CD cost about $15, and tickets for a major act at the Saddledome cost $30. The live show cost twice what the recorded music cost. Today (assuming you even pay for it at all), recorded music will run you $13 for a 15-song album in iTunes. A ticket to a major act at the Saddledome will run you $130 for an average seat, or ten times the cost of the recorded music.

No, the issue isn't disposable income. It's the expectation that any entertainment or information that can be accessed digitally should be free.

[jammies]

Just as a clarification, single-income families (in 2 parent families) were no more common now than they were in the 80s. The 50s, sure. Not the 80s. The 60s were about more than free love and cheap weed, wives started getting jobs as a matter of course, especially in the lower middle and upper working classes. By the 80s only the wealthy could realistically afford to have only one earner, just like now.

What is different is that interest rates were north of 15% a year, so borrowing wasn't nearly as affordable, and consumer debt was therefore not nearly as high. That's where the increase in "disposable income" comes from - people are much more able to spend their future earnings, and enthusiastically do.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

Just as a clarification, single-income families (in 2 parent families) were no more common now than they were in the 80s. The 50s, sure. Not the 80s. The 60s were about more than free love and cheap weed, wives started getting jobs as a matter of course, especially in the lower middle and upper working classes. By the 80s only the wealthy could realistically afford to have only one earner, just like now.

I'm not convinced. I grew up middle middle-class in Calgary, and half my friends had stay-at-home moms right through high school. My elementary school circa 1978 to 1981 had no provisions for students staying in at lunch - kids were locked out and sent home every day. As we grew older, more moms did go to work. But only once kids were old enough to get themselves off to school and make their own lunches at home - around grade 4 or 5.

It was tough for a mom with young kids to even get a job - at least a normal day job. When my mom interviewed for a job at a downtown stationary department around 1980, the guy doing the hiring asked what was she going to do if her kids got sick. She had to assure him that she would never take a day off if her kids were sick or had to go to the dentist. And she didn't. We looked after ourselves if we were sick, and took the bus to the dentist and doctor's appointments by ourselves.

And the jobs the moms had were crappy. Secretaries, files clerks, and retail mostly. It was extraordinarily rare for there to be two educated professionals in a family. Today, when teachers marry software developers, and accountants marry engineers, you have a whole new class of affluent families.

[Drake]

@CTVGCAMPBELL:

I'm back, just wanted to let everyone know I'm back at CTV Calgary and couldn't be Happier. I will be covering sports stories. Hooray!CTVGCampbell:

[Ashasx]

ESPN just let Lebrun, Burnside, and McDonald go, so I guess if you were still paying for ESPN Insider, you really have no reason to anymore. Hockey coverage on ESPN is dead.

[Hockey]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

ESPN just let Lebrun, Burnside, and McDonald go, so I guess if you were still paying for ESPN Insider, you really have no reason to anymore. Hockey coverage on ESPN is dead.

John Buccigross too. Sad to see


Apparently not yet.

[GirlySports]

sounds like lots of NFL and college football people too

Deadspin is keeping a running list

[Komskies]

I suppose this doesn't surprise me, I remember reading last year that ESPN was hemorrhaging subscribers at an astronomical rate. Still sucks to see people out of work. I'm sure TSN or SN would consider picking up LeBrun if he so desired.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

ESPN just let Lebrun, Burnside, and McDonald go, so I guess if you were still paying for ESPN Insider, you really have no reason to anymore. Hockey coverage on ESPN is dead.

Wow. LeBrun and Burnside were their key contributors and they are doing this in the playoffs. LeBrun will find work fairly quickly if TSN doesn't offer him an expanded role. ESPN still IMO has by far the best NFL coverage but after that they really force the NBA down visitors throats at their website.

[bubbsy]

it's interesting. Sports Leagues are making more $$$ than ever before, however, we aren't seeing the trickle down to the derivative/related industries.

The big content providers and big service providers (in many cases in N. America, are both the same) seem to be hitting the same conundrum. Though they are critical in the landscape, their ability to monetize the means in which customers consume their product is reducing year by year.

For the service providers (bells, rogers, etc), they are becoming more and more just a utility/'pipe' and are not able to monetize on the content itself. Hence, as a whole the big service providers are seeing their revenues plateau and they are having to diversify (Iot, healthcare, etc), and as a result the across the board cost restructuring is seen even in the sports media side of things.

For the content provider, consumers are going leaning less and less to the traditional means of not only consuming the games (less and less cable subscriptions) but also how they are consuming content (bye bye sports section of the news paper). 10 years ago, my daily routine on getting caught up on flames was: tsn.ca, sportsnet.ca, calgaryherald.com, calgarysun.com, calgaryflames.com, hockeybuzz.com.

That has completely changed today. CP forum, Twitter and hf boards (read only, when bored). I am actually using twitter less and less thanks to CP (sureLoss). It's realtime, more efficient from a time perspective, and it's interactive with a group of people that have a shared interest and passion level for the topic.

I think there is a real opportunity to figure out the new age of sports media content that gets fans what they really want (team day to day stories, insider info, rumours, etc) more in line with the ways in which fans want to consume this content. If i had more links into theses sports media personalities i would love to get into it, as i think i have some ideas

[Erick Estrada]

Fan forums, twitter, websites like the Bleacher Report, etc and there's so many places fans can get their news now. I sympathize with people losing their jobs but the landscape has changed.

[dustygoon]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

it's interesting. Sports Leagues are making more $$$ than ever before, however, we aren't seeing the trickle down to the derivative/related industries.

The big content providers and big service providers (in many cases in N. America, are both the same) seem to be hitting the same conundrum. Though they are critical in the landscape, their ability to monetize the means in which customers consume their product is reducing year by year.

For the service providers (bells, rogers, etc), they are becoming more and more just a utility/'pipe' and are not able to monetize on the content itself. Hence, as a whole the big service providers are seeing their revenues plateau and they are having to diversify (Iot, healthcare, etc), and as a result the across the board cost restructuring is seen even in the sports media side of things.

For the content provider, consumers are going leaning less and less to the traditional means of not only consuming the games (less and less cable subscriptions) but also how they are consuming content (bye bye sports section of the news paper). 10 years ago, my daily routine on getting caught up on flames was: tsn.ca, sportsnet.ca, calgaryherald.com, calgarysun.com, calgaryflames.com, hockeybuzz.com.

That has completely changed today. CP forum, Twitter and hf boards (read only, when bored). I am actually using twitter less and less thanks to CP (sureLoss). It's realtime, more efficient from a time perspective, and it's interactive with a group of people that have a shared interest and passion level for the topic.

I think there is a real opportunity to figure out the new age of sports media content that gets fans what they really want (team day to day stories, insider info, rumours, etc) more in line with the ways in which fans want to consume this content. If i had more links into theses sports media personalities i would love to get into it, as i think i have some ideas

It's cord cutting. ESPN is slow to adapt but they will figure out OTT. People want to watch sports and will pay something. Maybe not $7 per month but something.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

ESPN is letting 100 people go? Wow, that's a lot. Hope that means a lot more of Lebrun on TSN.

[habernac]

Lebrun also works on RDS, see him on the Habs broadcasts all the time.

[GirlySports]

Shows where people yell at each other still gets the highest ratings.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Shows where people yell at each other still gets the highest ratings.

Independent bloggers are cheaper, they generate more clicks and controversy creates cash.

All you need is some cheap attractive talking head to set them off.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Shows where people yell at each other still gets the highest ratings.

Doesn't ESPN also have a weekly emoji segment?

They're really just giving into the market. It seems people want TMZ for sports, so that's what they're going to get.

[Jordan!]

Feel bad for those cut, some are much better than others but it's pretty obvious that you don't need that many people doing to same damn job.

[Resolute 14]

ESPN is paying over $7 billion this year alone in rights for content. And ever person who cuts cable is another cut they take.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

If/when NetFlix or something similar starts live streaming sports events, look out. For me, sports is really the only thing left truly keeping me from cutting the cord.