More accurately it's what they think pays the bills, but can't quantify then they wonder why the bills aren't getting paid.
ESPN reminds me of Sony not realizing that engagement means nothing if it's people mocking you and re-releasing Morbius to bomb a second time. That people love to pile on your tweets of clips of Perk or SAS saying something immensely stupid doesn't mean they'll actually watch the show.
Yes. This is better. But as described above (by
@mauf's teenage son), I think they now know that their audience for not-games is hot-take onanists who can't figure out how to work a radio to get the same satisfaction. (insert chicken-and-egg question here). That is obviously a smaller slice of the human pie than "all sports fans, including those who aren't knuckle-dragging morons." ESPN brass *has to* understand that simple math. From that, I think we have to conclude that it's intentional, and they are just trying to significantly lower the cost of producing the blazing hot garbage they spew when games aren't on, which, as the numbers seem to show, actually attract a smaller audience.
As for the games themselves, they are likely right that there really is no need to pay big money for announcers if the viewer can't watch the game anywhere else. If the cheap announcer sucks, people will hit the mute button, but probably not the channel button.