Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

ESPN Head Cuts

mphtrilogy

By mphtrilogy
in NY Jets Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply
southparkcpa

southparkcpa

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with competency. It's just that ESPN sees race first which makes their programming sub par. 

There are plenty of amazing black and female reporters. My faves are Wilbon and Jason Whitlock. But ESPN just hires some people based solely on race and/or being a loud mouth with nothing intelligent to say.

They fired Colin Cowherd for a statement about 2-3 years ago stating "How complex can baseball be?  It dominated by Dominicans". It was a joke.  They fired Schilling.  They are the poster child for supporting causes that are extreme far left.

Well...  history has proven, that demographic is not n audience for advertising.  Pretty much all liberal programming is the bottom of the ratings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
win4ever

win4ever

Posted
Posted

It's not ESPN's fault, it's the viewing public that is at fault.  

No one cares about reporting now, it's all sensationalism that's the rage.  ESPN thrived in an era where you had to watch it for actual sports, where if you wanted highlights, you waded through 57 mins of other teams, sports, commercials to see a 45 second recap of your team.  That's no longer the case, you can see extended highlights of your team about an hour after each game on demand.  So in the past, they just had to analyze and show sports to hold your attention, because you really had no other option.  

Once, the internet took off, that was no longer the case.  In the early days of Sportscenter, there was no sidebar telling you what was coming up next.  You sat there and waited because you had no other options.  They implemented the sidebar once the internet took off, because they needed people to stay just a tad bit longer, hoping to entice them with the upcoming topics, praying that one of them is interesting to you.  

Social media pretty much killed ESPN's virtues because you no longer needed ESPN to know what happened.  Twitter already told you what happened, FB told you if your friends were there, Youtube posted clips of anything special before ESPN could finish their production cuts.  So they did, what any sensible business would do, they went into sensationalism.   They know that you are already well informed about the game and what happened.  However, let's throw some race and politics into it, and see how people go nuts arguing over something that can't be proven.  People lap up controversy because everyone has an opinion.  They couldn't care less if you are more educated about sports after watching their shows.  They care if you are angry enough to tweet, snapchat, facebook post about it, build a whole argument and have people joined the movement.  It's no longer "Did you see that play on Sportscenter?", it's "Did you see what they said on First Take?".  As much as people hate the Kardashians, look at how much money they make.  They get clicks, because much like car wrecks, people can't look away from controversy.  Heck, Manish articles are probably one of the most discussed topics here even though everyone but his secret account swears they hate him.  

ESPN may retain people that most of the audience hates, but they are also the ones that drive revenue.  Stephen A Smith says something stupid, I bet it's all over Twitter in an hour with people chiming in.  It doesn't matter if you think he's an idiot, because they get their online revenue from ads and clicks, and how socially popular you are on social media.  Yeah, there will be a subset with #ESPNSucks but not many people go out of their way with hate for a station, but rather discuss the topic at hand.  Once people get angry, ESPN will have someone else disagree with it, and suddenly you become #TeamWilbon or #TeamSmith even though I guarantee you they both collaborated on the subject before taping and knew exactly where they were going with it.  

As to whoever, said ESPN= MTV, it's exactly right.  Back in the day, you watched MTV to see music videos because that was your only option.  With the rise of Youtube and other streaming sites, that's no long profitable.  That's like sitting through CSPAN to hear political news.  So of course they changed the format to as little music as possible and go for as much controversy as they can cram in.  

It's a dying field, and this is just the start, much like you see retail stores cut back.  They just can't hold the people's interest quite as much as before, and they are going to take losses.  It's just that they were such a big company, and under the umbrella of an even bigger company, that they can absorb the changes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jason423

jason423

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bgivs21 said:

I don't think that's whats going on, that's a ridiculous argument. I think it's an all encompassing issue where ESPN moved from sports highlights & insights to making it all about these talking head journalists, basically becoming a TMZ type network when all people wanted were highlights not Skip Bayliss or Stephen A Smiths 'Hot Take'. You combine this with the advances in technology to where people have another option to watch what they want & a few bad investments by ESPN and you're in the spot that ESPN is in. 

I agree with this to some extent but Im not sure if they would have done much better following their older format either. I grew up with Sportscenter and their NFL Sunday coverage. In college I remember guys staying up all night watching those highlights and players certainly were thrilled to make it into the reel. But now we are in an era where highlights are being sent to your phone or on social media during a game. Players hop on twitter after a game to see what people are saying not ESPN to see if the made the show. I just think that was likely going to run its course anyway.

I agree with the other point though about loss of insights. ESPN basically seemed to split into two divisions. The company approach to coverage where everyone is great and can do no wrong and then the other extreme which was the personality based shows that just had contrary opinions for the sake of being controversial. Once NBC got back in the NFL game my ESPN viewing went way down since they took over the prime time recaps on Sunday plus the NFL Networks shows I enjoy more. Even their radio shows have basically nothing there outside of the occasional guests that you dont get elsewhere. I enjoy some of their print work, specifically on insider, but thats a pretty niche audience.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peebag

peebag

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, win4ever said:

It's not ESPN's fault, it's the viewing public that is at fault.  

No one cares about reporting now, it's all sensationalism that's the rage.  ESPN thrived in an era where you had to watch it for actual sports, where if you wanted highlights, you waded through 57 mins of other teams, sports, commercials to see a 45 second recap of your team.  That's no longer the case, you can see extended highlights of your team about an hour after each game on demand.  So in the past, they just had to analyze and show sports to hold your attention, because you really had no other option.  

Once, the internet took off, that was no longer the case.  In the early days of Sportscenter, there was no sidebar telling you what was coming up next.  You sat there and waited because you had no other options.  They implemented the sidebar once the internet took off, because they needed people to stay just a tad bit longer, hoping to entice them with the upcoming topics, praying that one of them is interesting to you.  

Social media pretty much killed ESPN's virtues because you no longer needed ESPN to know what happened.  Twitter already told you what happened, FB told you if your friends were there, Youtube posted clips of anything special before ESPN could finish their production cuts.  So they did, what any sensible business would do, they went into sensationalism.   They know that you are already well informed about the game and what happened.  However, let's throw some race and politics into it, and see how people go nuts arguing over something that can't be proven.  People lap up controversy because everyone has an opinion.  They couldn't care less if you are more educated about sports after watching their shows.  They care if you are angry enough to tweet, snapchat, facebook post about it, build a whole argument and have people joined the movement.  It's no longer "Did you see that play on Sportscenter?", it's "Did you see what they said on First Take?".  As much as people hate the Kardashians, look at how much money they make.  They get clicks, because much like car wrecks, people can't look away from controversy.  Heck, Manish articles are probably one of the most discussed topics here even though everyone but his secret account swears they hate him.  

ESPN may retain people that most of the audience hates, but they are also the ones that drive revenue.  Stephen A Smith says something stupid, I bet it's all over Twitter in an hour with people chiming in.  It doesn't matter if you think he's an idiot, because they get their online revenue from ads and clicks, and how socially popular you are on social media.  Yeah, there will be a subset with #ESPNSucks but not many people go out of their way with hate for a station, but rather discuss the topic at hand.  Once people get angry, ESPN will have someone else disagree with it, and suddenly you become #TeamWilbon or #TeamSmith even though I guarantee you they both collaborated on the subject before taping and knew exactly where they were going with it.  

As to whoever, said ESPN= MTV, it's exactly right.  Back in the day, you watched MTV to see music videos because that was your only option.  With the rise of Youtube and other streaming sites, that's no long profitable.  That's like sitting through CSPAN to hear political news.  So of course they changed the format to as little music as possible and go for as much controversy as they can cram in.  

It's a dying field, and this is just the start, much like you see retail stores cut back.  They just can't hold the people's interest quite as much as before, and they are going to take losses.  It's just that they were such a big company, and under the umbrella of an even bigger company, that they can absorb the changes.  

What are you doing on a Jets site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
win4ever

win4ever

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, peebag said:

What are you doing on a Jets site?

I made bad choices as a kid, and didn't change the channel when the Jets were on.

...It's too late for me, but if any young ones can read this......run, don't look back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peebag

peebag

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, win4ever said:

I made bad choices as a kid, and didn't change the channel when the Jets were on.

...It's too late for me, but if any young ones can read this......run, don't look back.

you seem waaaaay to smart for this hassle....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kdels62

kdels62

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

They fired Colin Cowherd for a statement about 2-3 years ago stating "How complex can baseball be?  It dominated by Dominicans". It was a joke.  They fired Schilling.  They are the poster child for supporting causes that are extreme far left.

Well...  history has proven, that demographic is not n audience for advertising.  Pretty much all liberal programming is the bottom of the ratings.

They fired cowherd because he became expensive. They replaced him with Lebatard and tapped a younger demographic for less cost and equal viewership. 

Liberal programming does less because the news cycle doesn't really exist for liberals especially young liberals. It's a case of using cord cutting and online programming and services to get on demand entertainment rather than accepting what's fed to them. Basically, old white people sit around waiting for Fox News to tell them things that a young liberal read hours ago while pooping. One is an easier metric to gauge and the other has companies scrambling on how to connect with a new audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T0mShane

T0mShane

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

I would be cool with it if everyone could just spew their hate towards ESPN and not at one another.  Also I won't complain  if we keep this from getting too political. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

That's fine, Crusher. But I just want someone to tell me this, below, is evidence of a racist conspiracy because I just don't get it.

 

IMG_0419.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T0mShane

T0mShane

Posted
Posted
Just now, section314 said:

ESPN had done their best to get rid of the middle aged to older male market the past 5 years. I say bring in Rachel Maddow and finish the job.:D

45+ years old males dont go to the mall, don't shop online, and will only buy pickup trucks and beer. To advertisers, they're relatively worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugg

Bugg

Posted
Posted

Basically ESPN/ABC is paying rights fees to the NFL, NBA and NCAA that are not getting covered by ad revenue as much as it is by subscriber fees of a little over $7 per subscriber. With rampant cord cutting those subscriber fees paid through  cable companies who bundle ESPN in their packages are going away rapidly. ESPN has been adamant that they should be part of a basic subscriber tier. But cable providers don't really like that model since many of their subscribers do not want ESPN. Recall Dolan dumped Cablevision on a French company last year because he saw the ala carte cable plus cord cutters coming to take a torch to that business model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugg

Bugg

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

That's fine, Crusher. But I just want someone to tell me this, below, is evidence of a racist conspiracy because I just don't get it.

 

IMG_0419.JPG

Poll-who needs sunlight, vegetables and 45 minutes on a treadmill  daily worse-the old guy on the left or the old guy on the right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rangerous

rangerous

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

They fired cowherd because he became expensive. They replaced him with Lebatard and tapped a younger demographic for less cost and equal viewership. 

Liberal programming does less because the news cycle doesn't really exist for liberals especially young liberals. It's a case of using cord cutting and online programming and services to get on demand entertainment rather than accepting what's fed to them. Basically, old white people sit around waiting for Fox News to tell them things that a young liberal read hours ago while pooping. One is an easier metric to gauge and the other has companies scrambling on how to connect with a new audience.

espn or any media outlet really shouldn't keep anyone for more than 5 or so years.  they need to churn the talking heads just as much as any other organization. plenty of people ready to fill cowherd's or berman's shoes.  sometimes these fossils stay on tv for what seems like centuries like matt lauer or andrea mitchell or lesley stahl.  ever watch 60 minutes?  heck , going by the age of the talking heads it should be renamed 60 minutes from death.  sorry for straying.  what espn is doing is stupid because they are trying to revamp their "culture".  well, that very same culture is what brought them into prominence and when they start to tamper with it they will lose viewers.  they don't have much content because disney won't spend the money especially since it competes with ABC. plus they also over saturated their markets and cost too much for the cable subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kdels62

kdels62

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, rangerous said:

espn or any media outlet really shouldn't keep anyone for more than 5 or so years.  they need to churn the talking heads just as much as any other organization. plenty of people ready to fill cowherd's or berman's shoes.  sometimes these fossils stay on tv for what seems like centuries like matt lauer or andrea mitchell or lesley stahl.  ever watch 60 minutes?  heck , going by the age of the talking heads it should be renamed 60 minutes from death.  sorry for straying.  what espn is doing is stupid because they are trying to revamp their "culture".  well, that very same culture is what brought them into prominence and when they start to tamper with it they will lose viewers.  they don't have much content because disney won't spend the money especially since it competes with ABC. plus they also over saturated their markets and cost too much for the cable subscribers.

Those were simpler times and ESPN was how you took in sports back when they rose to prominence. ESPN is competing with Fox Sports, NBC Sports, BeIn and now Amazon, Facebook and Twitter for live sports rights and the costs are skyrocketing which has proven good for the pockets of sports owners but bad for the networks reliant on consumers that want to pay for content.

For example, if I want to find a mock draft or player analysis I trust, I'd rather go to YouTube and watch Voch Lombardi or read Walter Football than watch ESPN. For Jets and general football information I come here first then I hit twitter. LeBatard makes the point on his show constantly ESPN has to fill 72 hours worth of content a day through its 3 main channels and paying for rights to the major sports networks to fill that would be bad business. Paying talent more than they're worth is also bad business. The old ESPN model is dead and anyone claiming that politics is the reason for the company's failures is trying very hard to expand their biases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rangerous

rangerous

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

Those were simpler times and ESPN was how you took in sports back when they rose to prominence. ESPN is competing with Fox Sports, NBC Sports, BeIn and now Amazon, Facebook and Twitter for live sports rights and the costs are skyrocketing which has proven good for the pockets of sports owners but bad for the networks reliant on consumers that want to pay for content.

For example, if I want to find a mock draft or player analysis I trust, I'd rather go to YouTube and watch Voch Lombardi or read Walter Football than watch ESPN. For Jets and general football information I come here first then I hit twitter. LeBatard makes the point on his show constantly ESPN has to fill 72 hours worth of content a day through its 3 main channels and paying for rights to the major sports networks to fill that would be bad business. Paying talent more than they're worth is also bad business. The old ESPN model is dead and anyone claiming that politics is the reason for the company's failures is trying very hard to expand their biases.

the model may be dead but they still had a schtick that was their own and original.  what i see them doing is trying to cater to the snowflakes when the people who actually care about athletics of all kinds are still the deplorables.  snowflakes also don't shop at places that advertise on espn, the deplorables do. as for their in house culture, they could've dealt with that by churning the talking heads. no reason for any of those clowns to be on air for more than 5 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T0mShane

T0mShane

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, rangerous said:

the model may be dead but they still had a schtick that was their own and original.  what i see them doing is trying to cater to the snowflakes when the people who actually care about athletics of all kinds are still the deplorables.  snowflakes also don't shop at places that advertise on espn, the deplorables do. as for their in house culture, they could've dealt with that by churning the talking heads. no reason for any of those clowns to be on air for more than 5 years. 

I'm no reading savant here, but you seem to be using the term "snowflakes" where you mean "minorities" and "deplorables" where you mean "white males."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HessStation

HessStation

Posted
Posted
Just now, T0mShane said:

I'm no reading savant here, but you seem to be using the term "snowflakes" where you mean "minorities" and "deplorables" where you mean "white males."

No he's not you dick but he's dead wrong. The majority is a little bit of both and hate both of the loud minority extreme ends who won't shut the fuk up.  I.e. Keep that sht to yourself and talk about the ****kng game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...