- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Whitlock: How a Gawker-Affiliated Website Made ESPN Politically Correct
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:20 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:20 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Cheers mate
0
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:21 pm to WaltTeevens
quote:
What kind of loser ever watched ESPN for anything but the live sports past the age of 18?
Well I used to watch Sports Center. I think I've watched a combined 10 minutes total of that and SVP's show over the past year.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:24 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
None of those things are in their control.
If they aren't, they it's their own fault for not seeing these things when negotiating.
quote:
The playoffs on NYE was because the Rose and Sugar wanted to remain in the afternoon and night slots on NYD.
So what. These are two of the 3 biggest games of the year. They are bigger than Rose and Sugar bowl. They should be played on a Sunday or Monday or Thursday, the nights that give you the most viewers. I don't think anyone forced them to do it on NYE, that was their choice. They should have been played on the 2nd, which was a Monday, when everyone would be likely still off of work, but returning home for the holidays and what not and ready to get back to work the next day.
quote:
The NFL gave the top prime time games to NBC, it's not like ESPN would pick Jaguars-Bengals over Cowboys-Giants
Well they need to learn how to negotiate. This is where their arrogance comes into play where they just assume people will watch it b/c it's MNF.
quote:
I don't feel like looking it up, but is the start time really later than it used to be? By 30 minutes MAYBE. Game length seems like more of an issue.
The game time ESPN states is 8:30 eastern time. Kickoff is more like 8:50. A good bit of your demographic, 25-45 year old men, have put their kids to bed and aren't that far behind in going to bed themselves. 75% of the country lives on this side of the country. They should start an hour earlier. The vast majority of NFL fans live in the eastern time zone, yet it's close to 11pm when the 3rd quarter starts. Unless your team is playing, most people aren't staying up for that. They also have like 3 hours of pregame crap that no one watches that they think is important. The only reason the SNF pregame show has such great ratings is b/c it's a nice recap to the day since they show the highlights of all the sunday games.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:49 pm to Lou Pai
ESPN is a live sports network. That's where their money is. The rest of their content is filler. The most popular shows barely scratch 500k daily viewers.
So while their move away from sports in their content may have an impact, it is very small.
Their biggest issue is people who never cared about live sports have found ways to get the programming they want without cable. Their business model has always been predicated by making millions off people who don't care about sports. The business model is falling apart.
The liberal slant is a fun talking point, but not their big issue.
So while their move away from sports in their content may have an impact, it is very small.
Their biggest issue is people who never cared about live sports have found ways to get the programming they want without cable. Their business model has always been predicated by making millions off people who don't care about sports. The business model is falling apart.
The liberal slant is a fun talking point, but not their big issue.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 2:54 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
If they aren't, they it's their own fault for not seeing these things when negotiating.
You have made some good points, this is not one of them, it's over simplistic and silly.
quote:
So what. These are two of the 3 biggest games of the year. They are bigger than Rose and Sugar bowl. They should be played on a Sunday or Monday or Thursday, the nights that give you the most viewers. I don't think anyone forced them to do it on NYE, that was their choice. They should have been played on the 2nd, which was a Monday, when everyone would be likely still off of work, but returning home for the holidays and what not and ready to get back to work the next day.
When Jan 1 is a Sunday then Monday Jan 2 is the official holiday and hence the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl got their traditional spots. And it was College Football, (the big conferences and Bowls) that said this is when the game will be, not ESPN. I guess they could have used the 20/20 hindsight to say the games would be ratings disasters and I think they will change it going forward. But bad ratings for any one game is not on and of itself a critical problem. That ratings were down across the board all at once may be a big issue, but still not close to the cord cutting. You yourself said sub fees was 60% of their revenue. When they lose that it's gone, it's not like they got no revenue from ads, any they may have had to give back pales to the cord cutting loses.
quote:
Well they need to learn how to negotiate. This is where their arrogance comes into play where they just assume people will watch it b/c it's MNF.
They grossly overpaid but it was the NFL that wanted the best games on Network TV on Sunday. Besides, live sports long lost money, the networks used to draw viewers for other programmin. Also The ratings for the NFL overall were down last year, that is also not ESPNs fault, you are also grossly over ratings the impact of lost revenue due to bad ratings. They don't expect the same as revenue for MNF that SNF gets for NBC.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 3:10 pm to Roaad
quote:No, but to think that people are cutting the cord to spite ESPN alone is asinine
You don't have to drop the channel to reduce ratings, website subscriptions, and web hits.
There are many ways to hurt ESPN financially. However your reductionist point is amusing as an object lesson in "why not to reduce complex points you don't understand".
Posted on 5/8/17 at 3:13 pm to Lou Pai
Take back are First Take
Posted on 5/8/17 at 5:06 pm to Lou Pai
I don't think that ESPN's really bizarre and obvious SJW crusade of the past 4-5 years is the primary cause for their troubles, but it is a contributing factor, probably even a significant one.
It hasn't hurt their # of subscribers much but it has hurt their ratings among remaining subscribers.
I used to watch ESPN a fair amount here and there, just out of boredom. Outside of live broadcasts of college football, I don't watch ESPN a bit. It's just insufferable, and the hyper-left wing political agenda is one of the reasons it's insufferable (there are many others too).
It hasn't hurt their # of subscribers much but it has hurt their ratings among remaining subscribers.
I used to watch ESPN a fair amount here and there, just out of boredom. Outside of live broadcasts of college football, I don't watch ESPN a bit. It's just insufferable, and the hyper-left wing political agenda is one of the reasons it's insufferable (there are many others too).
Posted on 5/8/17 at 5:11 pm to shel311
quote:
It's basically factual that cord cutting from those who don't even watch ESPN is the biggest reason ESPN is losing subscribers.
Arguing against that is like arguing against me saying 2+2=4.
I tend to agree but I don't don't think old people are cutting the cord. They don't even know what it means.
Younger viewers are cutting the cord but old white men are just changing the channel.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:39 pm to Lou Pai
Here is why the "ESPN is so liberal and that's why their ratings are down" makes no sense. It's not as if you can just call up Cox, Time Warner, etc and say that you want to cancel ESPN and keep all your other cable channels. For example if your cable bill is $120, you can't say you ate the libtards at ESPN but you love watching Skip debate Shannon Shapre and you want to pay $114 a month for cable instead.
So the only way to defend the argument is to say that ESPN's new liberal agenda is so infuriating to hundreds of thousands of people that out of spite they are choosing to cancel their cable packages outright. So ESPN being liberal is so awful that they want to get stop paying for TNT, Disney, FX, Fox Sports, and yes, even Fox News.
This is a stupid argument. It might hold water if more than .1 percent of the population kicked their dogs every time Jemele Hill tweeted about race, but the Tigerdroppings is not indicative of real life. And that's also why there aren't 15 college baseball channels out there.
So the only way to defend the argument is to say that ESPN's new liberal agenda is so infuriating to hundreds of thousands of people that out of spite they are choosing to cancel their cable packages outright. So ESPN being liberal is so awful that they want to get stop paying for TNT, Disney, FX, Fox Sports, and yes, even Fox News.
This is a stupid argument. It might hold water if more than .1 percent of the population kicked their dogs every time Jemele Hill tweeted about race, but the Tigerdroppings is not indicative of real life. And that's also why there aren't 15 college baseball channels out there.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:44 pm to Keys Open Doors
Also, let's look at Frank Whitlock's motivation for writing the article. He used to do whatever he could to win favor with the first batch of Deadspin writers after Will Leitch left. I am referring to the Craggs, Scocca, Petchesky, Daulerio crowd. At this point only Petchesky is left and he is by far the least outrageous and opinionated of the bunch.
Then when he came back to ESPN to run the Undefeated, he went out and recruited their primary race/civil rights guys, at the time their only black employee, an intern named Greg Howard. Howard then wrote a series of articles showing how incompetent Whitlock was at managing the Undefeated, how he was in over his head, and within months, Whitlock was fired and had to go back to Fox Sports for pennies on the dollar.
He is perhaps the least objective person when it comes to Deadpsin who isn't named Hulk Hogan.
Then when he came back to ESPN to run the Undefeated, he went out and recruited their primary race/civil rights guys, at the time their only black employee, an intern named Greg Howard. Howard then wrote a series of articles showing how incompetent Whitlock was at managing the Undefeated, how he was in over his head, and within months, Whitlock was fired and had to go back to Fox Sports for pennies on the dollar.
He is perhaps the least objective person when it comes to Deadpsin who isn't named Hulk Hogan.
Posted on 5/8/17 at 6:55 pm to Lou Pai
Yes ESPN is losing subscribers, but the drop in GRPs (gross ratings points) is an indication that their content is lacking. FS1, also losing subscribers, has increase in GRPs....so there's that....
Posted on 5/8/17 at 10:46 pm to ironsides
quote:
FS1, also losing subscribers, has increase in GRPs....so there's that....
FS1 does not get $5-7 per subscriber like ESPN nor do they owe billions to various sports leagues over the next several years, so there's that.
Also are the ratings for the shows with the SJW content down? Ratings for sports were also down on other networks.
This post was edited on 5/8/17 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 5/8/17 at 10:54 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
Rather than sue Mr. Denton’s bullying internet pirates into submission the way tech billionaire Peter Thiel did
What was ESPN going to sue over?
Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:47 pm to H-Town Tiger
Well FS1 canned Jay and Dan on Fox Sports Live so their ratings have to go up. That show was AWFUL
Posted on 5/9/17 at 8:03 am to Keys Open Doors
quote:
Here is why the "ESPN is so liberal and that's why their ratings are down" makes no sense. It's not as if you can just call up Cox, Time Warner, etc and say that you want to cancel ESPN and keep all your other cable channels.
That is not the argument.
Their gross ratings are down in large part because the quality of their product is diminished. Much of this is culture/politics, in that they have chosen to alienate a large contingency of their base, either directly or indirectly.
Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, ESPN was once thought of as cord-cutting-proof. It is perfectly logical to suggest that this was a last reason for many people to keep cable, since it used to represent, on a per-channel basis, double the price of the next channel. Thus, the marginal effect of this SJW phenomenon, while subtle on the surface, can certainly have an outsized incremental impact.
As I have pointed out from beginning of this thread, it's a complicated issue. Don't really care to entertain your lazy, redneck kicking a dog imagery, since that is pretty simplistic. But throughout this decline for ESPN, many posters on here have dismissed the impact the agenda has had on the network. I don't care if it's Whitlock saying it. Do you think Linda Cohn is also a self-serving clown?
This post was edited on 5/9/17 at 8:10 am
Posted on 5/9/17 at 8:15 am to shel311
quote:
It's basically factual that cord cutting from those who don't even watch ESPN is the biggest reason ESPN is losing subscribers.
Arguing against that is like arguing against me saying 2+2=4.
ESPN's current trajectory sure isn't making possible cord cutters pause and rethink what they're doing...5-7 years ago a lot of people's argument for holding onto cable was because they'd lose ESPN, these days I think ESPN has done a 180 and is actually making that choice easier, if you deny that than you're an idiot.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 8:19 am to StlPoke
quote:
ESPN is a live sports network. That's where their money is
Actually, ESPN became the giant it is based on the complete opposite, they reported on the sports, discussed the sports, and showed end to end highlights on sports...it can be argued that their slight downturn started when they wanted to start gobbling up Live broadcast rights...remember before when the only live sporting events they'd broadcast were lumberjack games, world's strongest man, and watching how far dogs could dive off piers.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 8:54 am to LSUsmartass
quote:
ESPN's current trajectory sure isn't making possible cord cutters pause and rethink what they're doing...5-7 years ago a lot of people's argument for holding onto cable was because they'd lose ESPN, these days I think ESPN has done a 180 and is actually making that choice easier, if you deny that than you're an idiot.
They aren't losing subscribers b/c they are liberal idiots.
People don't watch ESPN now, or before, for their non live sporting events. I'm pretty sure everyone on this planet could go without their non live sports programming.
The reason people 5-7 years ago held onto cable to keep ESPN, is the same reason people today hold on to cable to keep ESPN, and that's to watch college sports, MNF, and NBA/MLB games.
The people that are getting rid of cable, never cared about watching live sports on ESPN, not now, or 5-7 years ago. Them leaving has nothing to do with what and who ESPN is now, and more with the fact that they simply don't watch live sports, mainly college sports, and they can get their tv watching content elsewhere for cheaper.
Yes ESPN is losing money b/c of cord cutters, but it isnt' b/c people are cutting the cord b/c of their programming and liberal agenda.
The same people that watched ESPN 10 years ago, still watch it today. They are simply losing the subscribers that never watched it but paid for it.
Posted on 5/9/17 at 9:03 am to Lou Pai
quote:
ESPN was once thought of as cord-cutting-proof. It is perfectly logical to suggest that this was a last reason for many people to keep cable, since it used to represent, on a per-channel basis, double the price of the next channel. Thus, the marginal effect of this SJW phenomenon, while subtle on the surface, can certainly have an outsized incremental impact.
ESPN was thought to "cord cutting proof" because of live sports, not because of their other programming. Live are harder to "steal" and it's not something you can typically watch "later" like other shows.
For those of you hung up on the ratings, there are 2 separate issues. The shows and other non live sporting event programming and the games. The games themselves do not have much, if any, political content and the games are the ratings that matter. I seriously doubt that the hard core Trump supporting SEC fans cut cable and quit watching SEC games because they are on ESPN because they gave an ESPY to Catlin Jenner. Their overall ratings for non live sports may be down and maybe that's due to the decision to go hard left politics but that has minimal effect on the bottom line. Ratings for the NFL were overall down last year, not just on ESPN. I know the CFB Playoff took a dive from 14 to 15 but was that because ESPN was too left or because the games were on NYE instead of Jan 1? The ratings for the NCG this year were down from last year. Was that because of SJWs in ESPN or because it was a rematch of 2 teams from the South and the rest of the country didn't care?
By far the biggest problem from ESPNs model is that the owe billions for broadcast live sports and their biggest source of revenue is cable fees (not advertising) and more and more people are cutting cable. If their ratings were down while other networks weren't there might be some credibility to the argument that their politics are killing them, but since ratings were down on other networks as well.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News