ESPN

[dublinirish]

‘No one worse than Sam Ponder’: ESPNer/Barstool tension grows | New York Post

 

[IrishLax]

‘No one worse than Sam Ponder’: ESPNer/Barstool tension grows | New York Post

ESPN continues to stick their dick in the wood chipper for absolutely no reason.

 

[IrishLion]

It's bordering on open mutiny and rebellion for ESPN from all sides lol.

Conservatives at the company are scared to share their beliefs and views; Liberals at the company are rebelling for the treatment of Jamele Hill and now for Sam Ponder.

The company wants to take the moral high ground when it suits them, but they want to appeal to the non-PC folks by hiring Katie Nolan and starting "Barstool Van Talk."

They have no direction at the moment. It's like a Chinese fire drill.

 

[STLDomer]

It's bordering on open mutiny and rebellion for ESPN from all sides lol.

Conservatives at the company are scared to share their beliefs and views; Liberals at the company are rebelling for the treatment of Jamele Hill and now for Sam Ponder.

The company wants to take the moral high ground when it suits them, but they want to appeal to the non-PC folks by hiring Katie Nolan and starting "Barstool Van Talk."

They have no direction at the moment. It's like a Chinese fire drill.

And all anyone actually wants is the games and the highlights. I could do without ALL personalities. Just give me the highlights of yesterday’s game.

 

[dublinirish]

And all anyone actually wants is the games and the highlights. I could do without ALL personalities. Just give me the highlights of yesterday’s game.

you can find highlights on the NFL youtube page anytime you want though. they need the personalities to create "original content". People don't watch ESPN/SC for highlights anymore

 

[STLDomer]

you can find highlights on the NFL youtube page anytime you want though. they need the personalities to create "original content". People don't watch ESPN/SC for highlights anymore

I disagree. I don’t want to to go to my computer and click on different links. I’d rather turn on my tv in the morning and watch sportscenter with a lukewarm host.

Ex. When analysis is provided, in short, I’d rather listen to Todd McShay who has no huge personality than Mel Kiper.

I DON’T watch sportcenter because I don’t want to go 20 minutes without seeing a real highlight. Or care what schtick Barry Melrose has for the 3 minutes of NHL coverage.

EDIT: color commentators is a different story, I’m talking their shows and the hosts.

 

[NDdomer2]

im with STL on this. i couldnt believe getting home after ND vs Temple, hoping to catch highlights of opening week of all the games to only find special interest stories and hot takes on social issues. lame.

 

[Cali_domer]

im with STL on this. i couldnt believe getting home after ND vs Temple, hoping to catch highlights of opening week of all the games to only find special interest stories and hot takes on social issues. lame.

Agreed, I can do without all the political or special interest stuff.

 

[dublinirish]

im with STL on this. i couldnt believe getting home after ND vs Temple, hoping to catch highlights of opening week of all the games to only find special interest stories and hot takes on social issues. lame.

Agreed, I can do without all the political or special interest stuff.

go on youtube then. get youtube app on your smart tv if you have to

 

[STLDomer]

The hilarious part of Barstool getting an ESPN show is PFT has said the way he became popular is satirically mocking Skip Bayless and other “hot takes” from network tv hosts.

 

[NDohio]

I do miss the days of being able to turn on a single channel and get caught up with all the sports of the day.

George Michael's sports machine was my favorite show as a kid...

 

[IrishLax]

you can find highlights on the NFL youtube page anytime you want though. they need the personalities to create "original content". People don't watch ESPN/SC for highlights anymore

The fatal flaw with ESPN non-live-sports programming is that they wholeheartedly believed this, and abandoned their old SportsCenter model accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's mostly correct because on-demand highlights made it such that you didn't need to watch SC anymore to see what happened the previous day, etc.

But they looked at how "embrace debate" shows were pulling good ratings and said "this is what we need!" and scrapped everything else that made SC an institution.

They lost a huge part of their core constituency by chasing other constituencies. Their core constituency used to be the kind of people that sign up for places like 247 or this one: sports-centric people, mostly age 18-40. Those people almost exclusively has stopped watching ESPN non-live sports programming because they don't want E! ... they want some damn sports delivered in a fun/entertaining way.

ESPN should have stayed out of politics and "culture" and "debate" for their flagship programs. For politics and culture people already have their channels. For "debate" that works a lot better on daytime radio/TV than when people are trying to relax after work... you can't run straight from PTI and Around the Horn into even more arguing.

Their current success with SVP's SC should be the blueprint... entertaining and engaging personality focused on sports with a significant amount of time dedicated to discussion "highlights" of recent sporting events. Discussing bad beats in the weekend's games... fun, entertaining, and appealing to the core constituency. Discussing the racial overtones of some writer's criticism of Cam Newton... no one in the core constituency gives a shit or wants to listen to that. There's no issue with a commentary driven program but once you cross over from it being sports commentary to lifestyle/politics/culture commentary its just another dime-a-dozen cable program.

 

[connor_in]

The fatal flaw with ESPN non-live-sports programming is that they wholeheartedly believed this, and abandoned their old SportsCenter model accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's mostly correct because on-demand highlights made it such that you didn't need to watch SC anymore to see what happened the previous day, etc.

But they looked at how "embrace debate" shows were pulling good ratings and said "this is what we need!" and scrapped everything else that made SC an institution.

They lost a huge part of their core constituency by chasing other constituencies. Their core constituency used to be the kind of people that sign up for places like 247 or this one: sports-centric people, mostly age 18-40. Those people almost exclusively has stopped watching ESPN non-live sports programming because they don't want E! ... they want some damn sports delivered in a fun/entertaining way.

ESPN should have stayed out of politics and "culture" and "debate" for their flagship programs. For politics and culture people already have their channels. For "debate" that works a lot better on daytime radio/TV than when people are trying to relax after work... you can't run straight from PTI and Around the Horn into even more arguing.

Their current success with SVP's SC should be the blueprint... entertaining and engaging personality focused on sports with a significant amount of time dedicated to discussion "highlights" of recent sporting events. Discussing bad beats in the weekend's games... fun, entertaining, and appealing to the core constituency. Discussing the racial overtones of some writer's criticism of Cam Newton... no one in the core constituency gives a shit or wants to listen to that. There's no issue with a commentary driven program but once you cross over from it being sports commentary to lifestyle/politics/culture commentary its just another dime-a-dozen cable program.

 

[Cali_domer]

The fatal flaw with ESPN non-live-sports programming is that they wholeheartedly believed this, and abandoned their old SportsCenter model accordingly. Don't get me wrong, it's mostly correct because on-demand highlights made it such that you didn't need to watch SC anymore to see what happened the previous day, etc.

But they looked at how "embrace debate" shows were pulling good ratings and said "this is what we need!" and scrapped everything else that made SC an institution.

They lost a huge part of their core constituency by chasing other constituencies. Their core constituency used to be the kind of people that sign up for places like 247 or this one: sports-centric people, mostly age 18-40. Those people almost exclusively has stopped watching ESPN non-live sports programming because they don't want E! ... they want some damn sports delivered in a fun/entertaining way.

ESPN should have stayed out of politics and "culture" and "debate" for their flagship programs. For politics and culture people already have their channels. For "debate" that works a lot better on daytime radio/TV than when people are trying to relax after work... you can't run straight from PTI and Around the Horn into even more arguing.

Their current success with SVP's SC should be the blueprint... entertaining and engaging personality focused on sports with a significant amount of time dedicated to discussion "highlights" of recent sporting events. Discussing bad beats in the weekend's games... fun, entertaining, and appealing to the core constituency. Discussing the racial overtones of some writer's criticism of Cam Newton... no one in the core constituency gives a shit or wants to listen to that. There's no issue with a commentary driven program but once you cross over from it being sports commentary to lifestyle/politics/culture commentary its just another dime-a-dozen cable program.

As a 39 yr old I am in that Demographic.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It's the impact of social media and the inability to avoid co-mingling of sports with other thoughts/opinions of one's self.

Think about it for a second...NBA.com has their NBA Pulse. Twitter and the like is the new virtual bar, where everyone watches, comments and talks sports and everything else. ESPN, NBA, NFL, etc all want their piece, as the NBA has the blue print of how to grow during the social media age. Who has had the largest growth since Twitter was founded? NBA. Hell the game ball for the NBA literally has @NBA on it.

Now think about what Twitter does....it weaves sports and personality together. People comment not just on the dunk or touchdown run, but on what clothes are rep'd post game or what sun glasses the athletes wear. They debate, and often harass, but it's all about the personality, not just the sport itself.

Now think about demographics....these are all the core audiences that ESPN and everyone else wants to capture....18-40. So if you were ESPN and you needed to capture the entire media revenue stream, not just TV views, what would you do?

 

[IrishLax]

It's the impact of social media and the inability to avoid co-mingling of sports with other thoughts/opinions of one's self.

Think about it for a second...NBA.com has their NBA Pulse. Twitter and the like is the new virtual bar, where everyone watches, comments and talks sports and everything else. ESPN, NBA, NFL, etc all want their piece, as the NBA has the blue print of how to grow during the social media age. Who has had the largest growth since Twitter was founded? NBA. Hell the game ball for the NBA literally has @NBA on it.

Now think about what Twitter does....it weaves sports and personality together. People comment not just on the dunk or touchdown run, but on what clothes are rep'd post game or what sun glasses the athletes wear. They debate, and often harass, but it's all about the personality, not just the sport itself.

Now think about demographics....these are all the core audiences that ESPN and everyone else wants to capture....18-40. So if you were ESPN and you needed to capture the entire media revenue stream, not just TV views, what would you do?

Hopefully they'd be smart and realize that normal people don't actually use Twitter and it's a horrible barometer for what people in this country actually care about. It's mostly fake accounts, bots, teenagers, "activists," and -- most importantly -- media that still actively use Twitter. Only because those inside the media bubble still use Twitter as some sort of de facto scoreboard does it even continue to exist.

Therein lies the problem... in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, ESPN (and they're far from the only ones doing this) decided to lean heavily on what works for digital platforms. And most specifically on the platforms "young" people use while ignoring the inconvenient fact that a platform like Twitter has extremely little buy-in from anyone 30+. They literally killed their flagship TV program to chase teenagers and people outside of their core constituency in order to be modern and try to appeal to people they didn't care about before... the end result was plummeting ratings/approval, and the irony is that now that they're trying to pivot back the other direction they're pissing off the people they spent so much money/time attracting while struggling to regain the people they chased away.

 

[NDohio]

Hopefully they'd be smart and realize that normal people don't actually use Twitter and it's a horrible barometer for what people in this country actually care about. It's mostly fake accounts, bots, teenagers, "activists," and -- most importantly -- media that still actively use Twitter. Only because those inside the media bubble still use Twitter as some sort of de facto scoreboard does it even continue to exist.

Therein lies the problem... in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, ESPN (and they're far from the only ones doing this) decided to lean heavily on what works for digital platforms. And most specifically on the platforms "young" people use while ignoring the inconvenient fact that a platform like Twitter has extremely little buy-in from anyone 30+. They literally killed their flagship TV program to chase teenagers and people outside of their core constituency in order to be modern and try to appeal to people they didn't care about before... the end result was plummeting ratings/approval, and the irony is that now that they're trying to pivot back the other direction they're pissing off the people they spent so much money/time attracting while struggling to regain the people they chased away.

Yep. My viewing habits have changed. I don't see me going back.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Hopefully they'd be smart and realize that normal people don't actually use Twitter and it's a horrible barometer for what people in this country actually care about. It's mostly fake accounts, bots, teenagers, "activists," and -- most importantly -- media that still actively use Twitter. Only because those inside the media bubble still use Twitter as some sort of de facto scoreboard does it even continue to exist.

Therein lies the problem... in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, ESPN (and they're far from the only ones doing this) decided to lean heavily on what works for digital platforms. And most specifically on the platforms "young" people use while ignoring the inconvenient fact that a platform like Twitter has extremely little buy-in from anyone 30+. They literally killed their flagship TV program to chase teenagers and people outside of their core constituency in order to be modern and try to appeal to people they didn't care about before... the end result was plummeting ratings/approval, and the irony is that now that they're trying to pivot back the other direction they're pissing off the people they spent so much money/time attracting while struggling to regain the people they chased away.

It's a lose lose game. The old business model is quickly becoming a dinosaur and the people the grew up on watching sc reruns all morning are married and having kids. It's unsustainable either way.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Hopefully they'd be smart and realize that normal people don't actually use Twitter and it's a horrible barometer for what people in this country actually care about. It's mostly fake accounts, bots, teenagers, "activists," and -- most importantly -- media that still actively use Twitter. Only because those inside the media bubble still use Twitter as some sort of de facto scoreboard does it even continue to exist.

Therein lies the problem... in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, ESPN (and they're far from the only ones doing this) decided to lean heavily on what works for digital platforms. And most specifically on the platforms "young" people use while ignoring the inconvenient fact that a platform like Twitter has extremely little buy-in from anyone 30+. They literally killed their flagship TV program to chase teenagers and people outside of their core constituency in order to be modern and try to appeal to people they didn't care about before... the end result was plummeting ratings/approval, and the irony is that now that they're trying to pivot back the other direction they're pissing off the people they spent so much money/time attracting while struggling to regain the people they chased away.

Can confirm. Am weird AF and use Twitter

 

[greyhammer90]

Yep. My viewing habits have changed. I don't see me going back.

Its crazy how much I don't watch ESPN when I think about how much I used to. Part of that was being in college, and living with three other male roommates, but it's remarkable for me to think that other than college gameday on the first weekend of the football season, I have not watched one minute of non-live sports on ESPN in over a year. Don't really miss it either. I left during the beginnings of the "embrace (Tebow) debate", and it sounds like its gotten worse and worse.

 

[STLDomer]

It's a lose lose game.

Sure you can win. You don’t have to get rid of big personalities completely. Sportscenter should be the way it used to be. Give Stephen A Smith his show. Give other people’s shows as well. I probably won’t watch. But others will, I’ll admit I do watch First Take sometimes knowing I’ll disagree. Blending of the two is the problem. Give me highlights/news when highlights/news are supposed to be on and “takes” on shows meant for “takes”. Don’t blend the two for 24 hours straight though. Don’t report news with a agenda or show highlights with only a dum shtick attached to it

Sportsnation was decent in its prime. First Take certainly draws an opinion from you. Sports Reporters and Around the Horn have their moments. Maybe Katie Nolan’s or Barstool’s show is funny. All of those show are/were/could be shows that draw decent ratings but don’t pretend to be Sportscenter.

Third edit lol: MLB whiparound on MLB Network is so dope if you like baseball. Highlights just keep rolling. I’d love more of that.

 

[Desolation Angel]

ESPN's business model is not original content or highlights and hasn't been for decades. They have been working the rent seeking model hard. It is the highest portion of your cable/satellite bill, somewhere around $6.70 per month whether you watch it or not. They never cared if you watched it as they made 30 to 40 MILLION a month off people who never actually viewed their content.

 

[Irish YJ]

you can find highlights on the NFL youtube page anytime you want though. they need the personalities to create "original content". People don't watch ESPN/SC for highlights anymore

Only because highlights aren't there..

Agreed, I can do without all the political or special interest stuff.

YUP. Big yup.

I do miss the days of being able to turn on a single channel and get caught up with all the sports of the day.

George Michael's sports machine was my favorite show as a kid...

I used to wake every morning with SC. Not at all now. Mike and Mike occasionally, but only because Golic is an ND homer. Green dog not bad either.

Sure you can win. You don’t have to get rid of big personalities completely. Sportscenter should be the way it used to be. Give Stephen A Smith his show. Give other people’s shows as well. I probably won’t watch. But others will, I’ll admit I do watch First Take sometimes knowing I’ll disagree. Blending of the two is the problem. Give me highlights/news when highlights/news are supposed to be on and “takes” on shows meant for “takes”. Don’t blend the two for 24 hours straight though. Don’t report news with a agenda or show highlights with only a dum shtick attached to it

Sportsnation was decent in its prime. First Take certainly draws an opinion from you. Sports Reporters and Around the Horn have their moments. Maybe Katie Nolan’s or Barstool’s show is funny. All of those show are/were/could be shows that draw decent ratings but don’t pretend to be Sportscenter.

Third edit lol: MLB whiparound on MLB Network is so dope if you like baseball. Highlights just keep rolling. I’d love more of that.

Agreed. They can certainly win. Get back to their core. It's like MTV when MTV stopped showing M. They could keep personalities, but put them / air them complimenting the core, not in place of it. If they'd limit politics and crap to a show or two, that would be fine, but they need to play both sides of the spectrum, not just the left. Sometimes it feels like CNN Sports Network.

 

[wizards8507]

ESPN's business model is not original content or highlights and hasn't been for decades. They have been working the rent seeking model hard. It is the highest portion of your cable/satellite bill, somewhere around $6.70 per month whether you watch it or not. They never cared if you watched it as they made 30 to 40 MILLION a month off people who never actually viewed their content.

Factually untrue. ESPN has two main revenue streams. Affiliate revenue, which you're describing, is one of them. But ad sales is still huge.

 

[Irish YJ]

Factually untrue. ESPN has two main revenue streams. Affiliate revenue, which you're describing, is one of them. But ad sales is still huge.

ad sales not declining? or at least growth slowing?

Thought I read where Disney's stocks fell due to ESPN's declining ad sales.

 

[wizards8507]

ad sales not declining? or at least growth slowing?

Thought I read where Disney's stocks fell due to ESPN's declining ad sales.

I won't comment specifically but suffice it to say, ad sales in sports can be very volatile. Something like a sweep versus a seven games series in the NBA Finals can have a MAJOR impact.

 

[Irish YJ]

I won't comment specifically but suffice it to say, ad sales in sports can be very volatile. Something like a sweep versus a seven games series in the NBA Finals can have a MAJOR impact.

Wiz, are you running for office?

 

[irishog77]

I won't comment specifically but suffice it to say, ad sales in sports can be very volatile. Something like a sweep versus a seven games series in the NBA Finals can have a MAJOR impact.

Very true. Or having teams from small/bad markets. And those things are out of their control.


Having shit content on for most hours of the day also has an impact on ad sales. Since that is something espn can, in fact, control, maybe they should offset that volatility by offering programming people will watch.

 

[wizards8507]

Having shit content on for most hours of the day also has an impact on ad sales. Since that is something espn can, in fact, control, maybe they should offset that volatility by offering programming people will watch.

Hot takes rate better than news and info shows. I don't like it either, but it's true.

SC6 is kind of the exception. It worked when it was His & Hers because that's what the show was supposed to be. But it's off brand for SportsCenter, you won't hear an argument from me on that point.

 

[SonofOahu]

And all anyone actually wants is the games and the highlights. I could do without ALL personalities. Just give me the highlights of yesterday’s game.

I just want the games.