YouTube: The Rise and Fall of ESPN
[video=youtube]https://youtu.be/k5JTXoQqwBk[/video]
Still Hurtn wrote:Sigh. Can't we just keep politics out of a thread like this? Its has zero to do with what happened to ESPN. ZERO. The guy explained what happened and none of it were the dreaded 'progressives'.
ESPN? Start with Disney who owns it. Simply put.. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree (Disney) cannot bear good fruit. Progressives ruin everything the control. Change my mind.
Waterboy wrote:[img]https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/18/92/Quotation-Groucho-Marx-Politics-is-the-art-of-looking-for-trouble-finding-it-18-92-77.jpg[/img]
Politics had zero to do with the demise of ESPN? That's a hilarious and clueless take. [hr] Politics had zero to do with the decline of ESPN? That's a hilarious and clueless take.
JR44 wrote:They've gone from 100 million subscribers to 70 million: to say that's alarming is a major understatement for any business that survives on that number. This is why they sold 10% of their equity stake to the NFL....there was absolutely NOTHING else they could have done to help survive. The NFL Network is garbage, the NFL has been trying to unload it for years. The real part of the deal was the equity stake. Competition for sure is part of it, as it generally is with successful businesses, but as the video illustrates, ESPN cut their own throat in the long game by forcing cable companies to up their price to consumers and then said consumers looked for alternatives (cord cutting). They spent money for a decade like drunken sailors and it came back to bite them.
ESPN has been around for over 45 years, not many businesses are able to stay relevant that long. I would say they are a huge success and it well past the time of being able to define them in rise and fall terms. They didn't just rise, they created something that was never there, the originator of sports news, an all sports network. There was nothing like it at the time. They created a trend and in doing so they not only covered the main stream sports, but brought all kinds of sports and into our living rooms, introducing us to so many incredible athletes and accomplishments. An while doing so they also brought a wonderful and refreshing inclusivity to sports journalism as they featured a cast from various backgrounds. They did so much for the world of sports. I am forever grateful. They paved the way for many more sports networks and programs, many who would not be around today if it were not for ESPN. Obviously, this would create more competition and cut into their net share of the business. A "fall" or just a natural progression of more competition. I find it amazing they are still around. Name a business who has been around for over 45 years who has not made their share of mistakes or have had personnel come in who did not do a great job. They have done their best to stay relevant and stay up with the trends and what feeds the sport audience. Did ESPN create the Stephen Smiths and the Pat McAfee or did the sport fans community create them? They have so many great journalists and analysts that are still currently there. Also, not to mention they just bought NFL Network, so don't think they are falling anytime soon.
purplefaithful wrote:Not a detour at all, my friend....in fact you got this thread back on track from some * cough * interesting sidebars..... :rolleyes:
Nobody will convince me that a large % of the viewer decline is due to "woke influences" from Disney Corp... WOKE is not a derogatory term in my universe. I could honestly give a crap if there is a show where the panel is all black, white or polk dot. ESPN has made mistakes, plenty of them. But it's also a much more fragmented media world vs when they started. That imo is the main driver of decline - there is just not a need for 24 hour news/sports channels. The product gets eroded- just ask Fox or CNN. Sorry for the detour STICKY!
badgervike wrote:No worries, you were just saying your piece.
Edit: And yea..sorry about the detour Sticky..lol.
Zanary wrote:I hate ESPN. Its unwatchable other than the sports for me. The 'talent' is ridiculous, pandering and basically insufferable cheerleaders and dipshits. I don't watch one second of content outside the games themselves and I turn those on 1 minute before gametime.
I only watch ESPN for the games/races that they have locked down. I avoid their bobbleheads as much as possible, which is a great deal. I'd avoid the political commentary, though, as at least one mod will get their thong all knotted.
badgervike wrote:I don't know how old you are, badger, but I'm 59: that means I'm not the target demo and haven't been for awhile. They don't care about us. And this swing to the yelling actors like Stephen A Smith is because thoughtful and intelligent football discussions and shows don't pull in the ratings, 'hot takes' and overreactions get engagement...pro wrestling style. Plus we are the 'hardcores', we'll watch the games regardless. Its not our media world anymore....
I don't either...but doesn't ESPN realize that by now? The only time I'll watch Stephen A. is from an outside post/reference when he says something really stupid. Don't they monitor inter-episode viewership? Go back to Sportscenter, contracted NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL games, Classic game replays and some of the odd ball sports programming (X-games, Soapbox Derby, Diving, etc.). Stephen A. is paid $21M per year by ESPN. Is he really worth that? I personally think he drives away as many viewers as he brings in.
[b]Yup, just like they aren't gonna have Bob Seeger or what's left of the Eagles do the SB halftime. It's gonna be some guy us codgers don't know or don't like or don't care about or don't listen to or all of the above. Then we'll come here and bitch like we don't understand how this world could leave us out in the cold rain like that lol.[/b]
As for ESPN they are ditching anyone who does actual journalism in favor of more of the studio clownshow stuff. Doubling down on stupid might be an apt description of the strategy. Good luck.
[b]One thing Girdley emphasizes is how businesses fail to adapt to disruptive change. Cord cutting has really hit ESPN hard.[/b]
I posted this thread because I thought it was interesting and I thought others might like Girdley's content....not having it turn into this Disney 'woke' bullshit. Its not at all the reason for the decline. And I say this believing that ESPN is incredibly liberal and pushing any narrative the wind is blowing in their direction that day. Today's ESPN, and really for the last 15+ years, is not for me. So guess what? I don't watch the content. But I also understand its not directed at my age group and I don't bitch like some old man from the porch for the kids to get off my lawn because they don't direct it at me. Its fine, I'm old.....lets move on, I have to ability to target entertainment for myself that interests and caters to me and ignore the other stuff. Its not rocket science. ESPN caters to the lowest common denominator because they are by far the easiest to get riled up and outraged, hence that monetized engagement. This isn't a PBS Ken Burns documentary series here they are trying to craft, its sideshow schlock.
Both extremes on each end of the spectrum are the biggest babies in the f-ing world, both softer than Charmin. A wise man once said to me: 'I hate it when a fat bitch calls another fat bitch a fat bitch' if you get my meaning. Its perfectly illustrated below:
[img]https://i.redd.it/bekphnqftcb41.jpg[/img]
I think ESPN has really struggled to adapt to how people consume media now. They had a great run for quite some time but I don't want to watch people yelling back and forth at each other. I absolutely loved Stuart Scott and it was heartbreaking what he went through. I watch podcasts but there is no TV sports coverage, pregame or post-game that is any good. I can just watch short clips from ESPN on YouTube. Considering the demographics that they want to appeal to, the old style is stale and new stuff is doesn't hold my attention. I love Pablo Torre so I watch his podcast. I watch games on ESPN but no actual shows
Pablo has been doing some interesting investigative reporting the last couple months.
I've got a legit question/curiosity:
How would Ed Sullivan be labeled today by those "more conservative?"
Sullivan was legendary for giving Marvin Gaye, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder and myriads of Motown artists an opportunity on his show....
Would that be considered Woke? Virtue Signaling? An unfair advantage to marginalized minorities?
Or was he just a nice white guy trying to improve the chances of black artists to succeed?
[img]https://www.edsullivan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1196/2020/10/25.-Photo-Color-Collage-1-Vandellas-Smokey-Stevie-Wonder-Gladys-Knight-Four-Tops-1-2048x2045.jpg[/img]
The responses to this are going to be awesome.
As per Bo Diddly, Ed Sullivan was racist.
I knew it.
This is all Sticky's fault lol!
Seriously, lets all just step back from the keyboards...
Insults and characterizing all into one lump sum dont get us anywhere - and both sides are plenty guilty of it. I happen to believe peaceful protests are a god given right in this country as much as carrying a gun.
And 1/2 this country did not vote for the current Potus - thats a lot of people who have a different opinion.
Minds will not be changed.
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtXlUco_tA-1hfx1LdM4Slk8TGMx8WjNb9tw&s[/img]
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.