Since the inception of what we now know as "The Worldwide Leader in Sports" in 1979, during the days when ESPN aired slow pitch softball games, and Chris Berman was a little-known sports anchor from Greenwich, Connecticut, no one could have imagined how big the network would one day become. Thirty years later, ESPN has tentacles in just about every aspect of sports coverage and entertainment here in the US, and increasingly around the world, as it has grown into one of the most profitable media companies in modern history. Each week, some 107 million people consume a form of ESPN media content ranging from television to radio to print and the Internet. ESPN is unequivocally a true force to be reckoned with not only in sports, but on our ever-changing culture and society. It may now be the right time to ask, how big is too big?
In an era of financial bailouts, consolidation and inefficient, bloated super-companies, ESPN has escaped, for the most part, any widespread criticism for the sheer size of its company, which with each passing year, grows beyond our wildest imaginations (ESPN Ocho might be an hilarious joke, but give it a few years, and it might not be so funny anymore). ESPN employs more than 6,000 employees (10 percent of the entire Bristol population), annually schedules some 70,000 hours of programming over eight channels, and produces more than 600 original pieces of sports news, opinion, video, and blog content each day. It has changed forever the way how American public think and digest sports news. When Walt Disney Company purchased an 80 percent stake in ESPN in 1996, it was almost an afterthought, but over a decade later, according to a 2008 analysis from Barron Magazine, ESPN is worth over 40 percent of Disney's entire net worth.
Which brings us to the question, is there a plausible solution to limiting ESPN's seemingly infinite drawing power? One may start with increased competition. A blog group wrote last week about the NBC-Comcast merger and how it may pose the first legitimate competition to the Worldwide Leader. Yet, this depends on Versus' ability to evolve into a major cable sports network (at this point, doubtful) and financial capability to compete with Disney/ESPN on coverage rights to the most popular sports (NFL, MLB, NBA) in our country. At this point, Versus' central programming spread of NHL hockey, cycling, and UFL football aren't quite cutting it. In addition, any potential Comcast/NBC/Versus growth or success could lead to increased ESPN expansion, compounding the problem further.
Another potential solution would be going local and breaking up the national market into smaller segments in order to appeal to local populations more effectively, in essence circumventing ESPN' iron grip on national coverage. Yet, when it comes to television, this strategy has been exhaustively explored already. There are roughly 40 regional sports networks operating in major media markets across the country, and over half (26) are owned by Comcast SportsNet and Fox Sports Net. Additionally, ESPN has the Internet local market cornered, and is in the midst of engineering a master strategy to provide local fans with the increased in-depth coverage of their local teams which they crave and desire. Starting with the launch of ESPNChicago.com in April 2009, and continuing with local websites based in major cities like Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, each site draws a minimum of 700,000 visitors per month and that number stands only to grow. Essentially, the local sports water well has been drawn from many times over, and certainly wouldn't represent a very effective counter to ESPN's massive drawing power, both nationally and locally.
Which brings us back to square one. To clarify, I'm not calling for the downfall of ESPN, only a slightly smaller ESPN, as there is only so much sports content within a 24 hour cycle that can be covered. If you've tuned in to watch ESPN's coverage of the Super Bowl this week, it seems as if every show is dedicated to uncovering every unturned rock and then some. Many shows (Mike & Mike, Scott Van Pelt show, Jim Rome, PTI, NFL Live, Sportscenter) are broadcasting live on-site and the endless stream of irrelevant chatter makes one wish for the kickoff already. If you notice, ESPN is the only national sports channel doing this. Compare this with coverage of say, a political convention, and you could expect to turn on CNN, MSNBC or FNC, and watch blanketed coverage of the event. At least when it comes to politics, there are different nationally-recognized cable networks serving as viewing options, but when it comes to sports, ESPN is in a league of one.
Without a question, ESPN is here to stay, but in a country of 300 million people, there has to be more to sports than watching it through ESPN-tinted sunglasses. Competitors need to be creative, innovative and offer the audience an aspect of sport that ESPN doesn't, starting and growing from there. Beating ESPN at its own game would be virtually impossible, but by establishing a niche or even inventing their own, a competitor could make headway and draw initial interest. Until then, the Worldwide Leader will continue growing, and all of its competitors will continue scrambling for the bread crumbs for years to come.
Leave a comment