You can't judge a book by it's cover.

  If you look at ESPN now, you’d assume that the business is doing great for themselves and by their people. This major company and organization has been in existence since the late 1970s, and has been thriving since. It makes you wonder, aside from all of the investments, loans, general public contribution, and donations, how have they managed to run this extremely large business so well? Well, it turns out they have been taking a turn against their employees to ensure their well being, economically speaking. ESPN was said to have been making lots of cuts in their workforce due to unusual and brutal financial declines.

  Several hundred people, nearly 4 percent of ESPN’s global workforce were affected by their company’s surprise cost cutting measures that were underway back in October. Because of society, or entire country, is so into the material things, we are starting to develop new ways of getting the things we need and want in our life. For example, the amount of money departments stores have been receiving is in a desperate decline. This decline was so tragic that the use of outlet malls had to come into play in order to at least keep these businesses from running into the ground. Society has found cheaper ways of obtaining things that are sold in these departments store, like online shopping and other competitors selling what these stores have, but for a cheaper price. This redirecting of customers is more or less what was, and most likely still is, happening to ESPN.

  After getting a big push from Disney, ESPN’s parent company, requesting that they cut back millions of dollars in order to accommodate the growing numbers of unsubscribes, ESPN figured the only way out for them was to cut some wages and some people’s lives. This economic shift must have been a travesty, going from a nice and well paying job, to filing for unemployment benefits for a while. I believe that ESPN was trying to maintain a proper equilibrium in their supply and demand balances. They figured that in order for them to continue to produce a healthy amount of supplies, they clearly needed to have the money. To have the money, in their case, they had to cut some wages, or cut them completely, increasing their finances to continue to produce in masses for the demands that are still remaining with them.

Other than having to lay people off, I wonder if they could have corrected their economic disadvantages by extending their shares and investments into other corporations, or even taking that stuff out… if they hadn’t tried that already.