This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It's fascinating how their Wiki pages are already updated with their release. Earlier this week, it was happening day of. I would google a name to make sure I knew who they were talking about and oftentimes the little blurb from their Wiki page included their release from ESPN.
Lowest common denominator programming, e.g the Bachelor, the Voice, NCIS: Topeka, etc.
probably because people TiVo shows to binge watch, unlike, say, ESPN and Fox News (two networks who were cited in the article) both of which are much better digested live.
That's an interesting point. Letting ESPN handle distribution and coverage was in the leagues' interest back then since it granted national exposure and distribution was arduous.
You're missing the point (and taking SAS out of the conversation)...for ESPN's entire history, they hated stars. The anchors got too big for their britches, they were gone. That's fine when you are a monopoly on content and distribution. That's not fine when distribution fractures and you need content. That's especially not true when distributions fragments and you pay third-parties for your truly unique and valuable content since you've already fired your own unique and desired content.
Kevin Fraser and Tirico are others...point being that what they are trying to do with SVP and the Six...they already had in the past and discarded when they thought they wanted too much money. Turns out talent matters in 2017.
I thought I saw an earlier tweet from SI.com's Richard Deitsch (who Magary of Deadspin brutally teed off on yesterday -- that feels a little like kicking Bambi to me) that said the first day ratings were actually up this year. I'm surprised by that but then Deitsch is also predicting a rebound in ratings for the NFL this season and he knows a lot more about that stuff than I do.
Yeah, I think he's pretty mild. Unless you're Skip Bayless. And even then Deitsch goes after him with humor rather than venom.
Marc Stein? That's ridiculous. Dude was solid and I have a hard time believing he was costly.
They totally gutted their ESPN.com NBA coverage. Sort of sad, but then again their management let that happen. The amount of great non-ESPN written content is staggering.
For a glorified gossip columnist, he comes across as a self important ####### most of the time IMO. I'll listen to his podcast once in awhile though when he has good guests.
I'll bet he wasn't super cheap, especially relative to some of the other writers they've been letting go. But, he was their #1 news guy (maybe #2 in the industry behind Woj); if he was expensive, it was justified.
I think he's pretty benign but then lots of people on this board think I'm a self important blowhole, too. So there's that. I think Bilas is the shiz but if one is on the traditional side of the college amateurism issue, one might think he's a pompous dooshnozzle.
He can yap in his loud voice all he wants about it being about race, but Barkley, another black man prominently in the sports talking head media, is just as opinionated and blunt, and most love him...because he isn't an obnoxious ### who feels the need to shout over everyone to be heard. He simply lacks self-awareness.
Plus with the cable model, ESPN gets subscriber fees from people with no intention of ever watching ESPN. A bunch of people do watch ESPN, but it's a nice subsidy to have millions of people that don't use your product pay for it every month. Having to rely on people to take a look at what your product costs and then make a real decision about whether or not the content justifies that expense is a different ballgame. And I assume, ESPN's already very expensive price tag ($7-8/mo) will only go up as they keep losing non-viewer subscriber subsidies.
I think what Magary was trying to say was that Deitsch was using the "I'm not naming them til they out themselves" thing as self-serving, putting a halo over his (Deitsch's) own head for being so noble in not naming them. I thought Magary was reaching - his wrath seemed too heavy for the evidence he presented - but I think his basic point was solid. And Magary is similarly critical of the same folks you & Deitsch are.
Well they gutted their entire staff besides for Lowe, Pelton and Windhorst (and who knows where they stand at this point). As much as they say this is the market's fault, management screwed up their NBA coverage. It's sad that these guys take the brunt of it.
My brother and I have a running joke about how he and Ramona shelbourn probably hook up.
Well it's a great value when they aren't paying production costs and announcer fees
Which is why I really hope the cordcutting trend slows dramatically. I really like having people that don't mind paying $200 a month for a cable package to help subsidize my internet costs and semi ala carte viewing. I fear the golden age of corduttting has probably already come and is about to go. We're all saving a bunch of money now, but it can't last if a bunch more people do it.
Ncaa rights fees will be the first thing to really feel this.
I can't even get ESPN on the package I have with DIRECTV and I believe I'm one up from the lowest.
Some of that stuff in general is negotiated in broadcasting rights. For example--when the NFL made a deal with ESPN for Monday night football and the NFL Draft--they charged ESPN waaaaaaay more money than they charged other networks for things like Sunday night football--and actually gave ESPN less rights in their contract. For example--in other contracts--like the Sunday Night games--games can actually be flexed in and out if the matchup is not premium. Espn did not get any of those rights. Essentially--many of the major sporting leagues stuck it to ESPN during contract negotiations because they understand that ESPN's content is primarily dependent on their product. A lot of the major networks like NBC do not depend of sports for the majority of their content--so they have less at stake--and are in a better position to negotiate. If you look at what ESPN is paying for their NFL rights versus what many of the other carriers are--they are paying a huge premium. These giant premiums that are locked in for years to come are what is going to make life very challenging and different for ESPN.
I don't think flexing a Monday night game is workable in any situation for any network, but the rest is 100% dead on.
Their MNF deal definitely sucks but I think part of the insane premium are the rights they're getting to use NFL highlights across all ESPN properties, all day, every week. It helps them cover a huge piece of their programming needs.
Oh absolutely--and thats exactly the point that I was making--and it's not just the NFL. Most of the major sports leagues charged ESPN a huge premium for their broadcasting rights because of this very reason. The leagues knew that ESPN was in a terrible negotiating position and took major advantage of this.
They tried that once for an NFL game. Early 80s, Jets game I think. It was an awful experiment.
