ESPN vs. Every Other Outlet
ESPN, Media Gossip/Musings March 17th. 2008, 4:53pm
Sports Business Journal, which we would peruse and link up more more frequently if it put all of its work online, has a fascinating read today titled: Taking Aim at Bristol. The subhead’s not bad, either: “Properties, rival networks anonymously take shots, but ESPN contends they miss the big picture.”
So in 2007, the vitriol mostly came from bloggers. In 2008, it is coming from rivals like NBC, FOX and CBS. We’re guessing on those networks; nobody would talk to SBJ on-the-record.
Taking Aim at ESPN (Sports Business Journal)
24 Responses to “ESPN vs. Every Other Outlet”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
You know I’d respond early, LOL. I know everybody knows my song and dance. But I’ll just say one thing. It’s the arrogance that gets me. ESPN is never wrong. Sack up and admit some mistakes, and people wouldn’t give you grief. Like if you would just say “You know, maybe over 1,000 hours of programming dedicated to Roger Clemens so far this year was a little too much.” It’s okay to admit fault. But if you can’t even take your ombudsman’s intelligent, usually spot-on criticisms seriously, then what’s the use?
March 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Geez where have I heard this argument before
/hockey fan
March 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I would like to echo Jay’s criticsm conering the ombudsman. I think that position is more for show and to make an appearance of self-check, when in reality there is none.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
That’s like asking someone if they would prefer a small amount of the highest quality whiskey, then telling them they can have three bottles of two day old rye whiskey in a bucket of ice and they have to like it.
ESPN just doesn’t get it. I know they have the programming space to have three days coverage of the Breeders cup, but the novelty of watching a horse racing event if the big race itself, not the endless coverage beforehand.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Leagues also are critical of ESPN, complaining that ESPN’s vaunted marketing machine does a better job of promoting ESPN rather than its sports.
That’s my favorite so far from the article. It couldn’t be more true.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
ESPN’s vaunted marketing machine does a better job of promoting ESPN rather than its sports.
ESPN, ESPN.com, ESPN the Magazine’s Len Pasquarelli reports that he disagrees with this statement.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Jay, you are the height of too-muchery.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Great article by Sports Business Journal. I appreciate the opportunity to view ESPN from a different angle.
I believe its easy to bash ESPN here (I’ve certainly done it myself from time to time), but I see their point. Just because you have a business relationship with ESPN, don’t expect sunshine and rainbows in their news coverage.
Advertisers are unhappy that they can’t promote more product within shows like Sportscenter? What the heck? if anything, they should stop with crap like “Coors Light Cold Hard Facts,” and “Budweiser Hot Seat.” What a bunch of whiny bastards.
These attacks by competitors and advertisers makes me wonder if it’s weakening ESPN the next time these leagues’ contracts are up. Sports leagues certainly like the coverage and audience that ESPN is able to provide, but they obviously feel that they’re not getting the proper coverage (i.e. positive). One of the reasons for these leagues to start their own channels (besides advertising revenue, of course).
One could look at ESPN as being the fault for declining ratings, but sometimes it works better if one tries looking within first (I’m talking to you MLB, NHL, NBA, NASCAR).
They are right about ESPN’s endless self-promotion though.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The problem is that ESPN thinks that THEY’RE the important aspect of sports. That they are the ones who dictate what the conversation in sports should be and without them, we’d be lost.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
The problem is not the overkill that ESPN does. It’s a 24 hour sports network. TBL just got over Cheryl Cole week, and already he is posting her again. ESPN talks about Clemens for 48 hours because that IS the story. They repeat the same thing over and over again because they have new viewers. They are growing better than every other outlet. They even have bloggers. I really dislike the 4 letter, but they are good at what they do. I check TBL most, but I always hit up the 4 letter. The problem is the opinion, but I guess there just aren’t enough facts to sustain a 96 hour tv platform (all 4 ESPN tv channels)
March 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
What I don’t get is that ESPN either has or has access to hours and hours of videotape for just about every player in every league. So why do they show the same film over and over? For example Pac Man Jones, they show the same film of him walking with a McDonalds cup and his lawyers, then him with his back against the wall chomping on a piece of plastic looking right at the camera, then back to him walking with the cup. The same piece of footage over and over.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
OK, let’s get an opinion about TBL’s use of Cheryl Cole. When you saw her on here, did you say “Yeah, more Cheryl Cole!” or did you say, “Jeez, you just did a whole week of Cheryl Cole, mix it up a little”. I said the latter, but it didn’t disuade me from coming back 12 times a day. Of course, with 10 posts per day, TBL would have to do an awful lot of repeating for me to come here less.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
So Gonzo, you are saying that ESPN needs to feature more Cheryl Cole? What about Jenn Sterger, would that work?
March 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Regarding Sterger – She is “working” in some capacity for ABC, so technically, she is under the Disney umbrella. I am not privy to her contract details, but it seems as if the option could be open for her working in some capacity for ESPN.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
No, I am not saying ESPN should feature Cheryl Cole. as far as I know, they never did. But TBL might look at my comment and say, “Yeah, we already did Cheryl Cole, we could use a break from her”. I would hope ESPN would take that notion about Clemens, Vick, or any other news story that has been drawn out and say “yeah, let’s give it a rest, or tone it down some”.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
By the way, that article has a screen shot of the NASCAR pregame show featuring Rusty Wallace and none other than… Brad Daugherty? Am I missing something here?
March 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Gonzo, if you’re asking why Brad Daugherty is there, he is part owner of some NASCAR racing teams. Brent Musberger, Suzy Kolber, and Erik Kuselias, however…
March 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Thanks Jay. I had no idea he was involved in that capacity. Your knowledge is fruitful.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I feel dirty knowing that.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
My problem with Espn is that during this past summer they did not mention the Rugby world cup which the US had a team playing. Most of the guys on the US team are amateurs while most of the world has paid professionals playing. In Feb their was a tourney in San Diego on the World Cup 7’s circuit where the US team reasonably well and did not mention it. If is was soccer you know that the coverage would have been there.
March 17th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I will say kudos to ESPN for this “Black Magic” movie…this is really, really good
Also, who knew that Jameson + Bailey’s = Excellence? Viva the Irish
March 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
can’t wait till 2morow for irish’s dwight howard and the magic trash talk.. they looked good tonight
March 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
So when/if ESPN gets the rights to the NHL again, how much do you think we’re going to get force fed that? Full disclosure I wouldn’t mind hearing more hockey on there, it’s 100% more interesting than NASCAR.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Gonzo- Daugherty knows almost as much about NASCAR, if not more in some cases, as the talking heads at bthe WWL.