After one show. They have leash from ESPN so I’m not ready to dance on their graves like so many are gleefully doing right now.Some of the info you want is in the article linked.
I mean, it's a Clay Travis link, it's not great writing, but it's clear the show is a huge ratings disappointment.
This will effectively end both Greenie and Beadle's careers, Jalen never had one to lose. After Cold Pizza died Jay Crawford hung on for dear life at ESPN knowing he would never ever have any other shot at a national gig, laboring in the obscurity of mid-day Sportscenters , until the latest housecleanings. He just accepted the position of "executive in residence" at his alma mater, Bowling Green U. I assume that means 'we'll give you a job but there's no way we can pass you off as any sort of an academic with a straight face'.
For 6.5 mil/year where can they park Greenie ?
They don't 'get' that these days they are just 'normalizing' piracy playing such really stupid games....ESPN+ to Launch with Exclusive 30 for 30 Documentary “The Last Days of Knight” and Full 30 for 30 Library
https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2018/04/espn-to-launch-with-exclusive-30-for-30-documentary-the-last-days-of-knight-and-full-30-for-30-library/
People are pissed this isn’t going to be on tv.
That’s not going to be on regular TV? That sucks. 30/30 is literally the only thing I watch on ESPN anymore.ESPN+ to Launch with Exclusive 30 for 30 Documentary “The Last Days of Knight” and Full 30 for 30 Library
https://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2018/04/espn-to-launch-with-exclusive-30-for-30-documentary-the-last-days-of-knight-and-full-30-for-30-library/
People are pissed this isn’t going to be on tv.
I hope ESPN isn't stupid enough to stop showing new explodes of 30 for 30 on TVThat’s not going to be on regular TV? That sucks. 30/30 is literally the only thing I watch on ESPN anymore.
I mean, neither Francesa nor Russo did. And they had a lot more to lose.He had a staggering run with Golic. Phenomenal in terms of longevity. Sometimes, you just need to know your spot.
None of what Duquette said actually refutes Arod saying he regrets not signing there.Watched the Sunday Night Baseball Game on ESPN last night. A season of A-Rod providing color is really going to be a long one. The nonsense about the Mets was one thing. https://nypost.com/2018/04/09/ex-mets-exec-calls-out-a-rod-over-his-mets-fantasy/
He's just generally not good at it. He was fine on Fox for their Post Season coverage in small doses but that whole crew is very difficult to like on ESPN.
See, I think Beadle is the one who is on the ropes here. If this show fails she will have failed to launch shows on both NBCSN and ESPN, and there's a whole generation of female talent out there that can do what Beadle does but fresher and better. The notion of a good-looking woman who knows sports and seems fun to hang with isn't nearly as novel as it was when Beadle came up. That's why her hiring for this show is a mystery to me. They've got women already on staff who have better journalism chops, or are prettier, or come across as more fun. The next generation is nipping at her heels. Beadle feels like a compromise choice and when paired with Greenie the whole thing has a been there done that feel.Greenie, maybe. Beadle will be fine. Just like a lefty who can get guys out can find a gig until he's 40, an attractive female with a sense of humor who knows a good amount about sports will never have trouble finding a TV sports role, no matter how badly a show she is on does in the ratings.
They also have men already on staff who have better journalism chops, or are prettier, or come across as more fun than Greenberg. What's your point?They've got women already on staff who have better journalism chops, or are prettier, or come across as more fun..
She did well with SportsNation and when she left ESPN brought her back to get that show going again. I'd be interested in what the ratings there have been since they took her off againSee, I think Beadle is the one who is on the ropes here. If this show fails she will have failed to launch shows on both NBCSN and ESPN, and there's a whole generation of female talent out there that can do what Beadle does but fresher and better. The notion of a good-looking woman who knows sports and seems fun to hang with isn't nearly as novel as it was when Beadle came up. That's why her hiring for this show is a mystery to me. They've got women already on staff who have better journalism chops, or are prettier, or come across as more fun. The next generation is nipping at her heels. Beadle feels like a compromise choice and when paired with Greenie the whole thing has a been there done that feel.
I guess I agree that she'll always be able to find some level of work somewhere, but she's done as someone who is in the running for big jobs unless this turns around quickly.
They did. If I remember right, they basically had no commercials during qualifying. Maybe the race too? (was nodding on and off watching that).Credit where it’s due... ESPN cleaned up their Sky F1 stream today and we had a fantastic viewing experience.
250k people is basically all the gyms, bars, restaurants, and undiscerning people that just never change the channel on their TV's from ESPN and use it for background noise. It's pretty much unintentional viewing levels.The news relating to Get Up! keeps getting...worse:
Ratings for the 2nd day dropped and so did the 3rd day, by which time barely 200,000 people were watching.
Get Up (ESPN, Apr. 2-5)
– 0.246 million viewers (-24.2% from SportsCenter 7-10AM on Apr. 3-6, 2017)
Splitting up Mike & Mike has also done serious damage to that program too, it's hard to find national radio stats, but as to the TV side. The last week of the new show before Wake Up! debuted to provide even more competition:
Golic and Wingo (ESPN2, Mar. 26-30)
– 0.127 million viewers (-40.9%)
– 0.056 million adults 18-49 (-49.3%)
The numbers in parenthesis are relative to the same week in 2017.
Hard to image how ESPN could have deliberately wrecked their morning lineups even more if they had actively attempted to do so. This tells me the new guys at the top in Bristol are unlikely to show much patience dealing with such unmitigated disaster, but how do you avoid the appearance of utter panic ?
Exactly! I read this in the paper the other day (yes, I still buy the Post) and thought they totally missed the point. Duquette said it was “revisionist history” as if that was news, A-Rod’s whole point was that he wished in retrospect that he would have lowered his demands enough so that he could have agreed with the Mets. Admittedly easy to say a few hundred million in earnings later, but interesting at least, and not addressed at all by this pointless piece.None of what Duquette said actually refutes Arod saying he regrets not signing there.
Does anyone know 538 exists? Talk about doing commodity workWill anyone even notice? FiveThirtyEight's website gives virtually no clue that it's part of ESPN.
The only time I feel like I hear about 538 is when people bring up how wrong they were about something.Does anyone know 538 exists? Talk about doing commodity work
The fact that ESPN couldn’t find a buyer speaks volumes
Such a stupid take as pointed out by many of the comments. The individual team writers went through game by game. It was not a collaborative effort.
And the start of this spring was brutal for ESPN, costing the network 500,000 subscribers, or nearly 17,000 lost subscribers a day in the month of April. Putting that into context, this is $48 million in revenue that ESPN has lost forever. (That’s $8 a month x 500,000 lost subscribers x 12 months in a year).
The loss in subscribers puts ESPN down to just north of 86 million, which is a precipitous decline from the 100 million subscribers the network had as recently as the end of 2011.
But is this an indictment on ESPN or the Cable Industry in general?The ESPN Subs bloodbath continues...
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-loses-500000-subscribers-april/
It can be a bit of both.But is this an indictment on ESPN or the Cable Industry in general?
That is part of my point. The Cable TV model is becoming obsolete very fast. Not because of the price, but because of what is forcefully included in the price. As with many models before it, Cable has failed to see the changes coming and has somehow made it worse. Case in point, they should have offered a tiered a la carte model years ago. That way they could offer a bare bones local package and then you start adding channels (maybe not one by one but certain packages). It may be too late now as it was for Kodak, for Blockbuster Video, for many retail chains, etc.It can be a bit of both.
No doubt lots of cord cutting is still happening without regard to ESPN's brand popularity. But it's also the case that one of the main factors of high cable bills is ESPN's pass through fees. Average Cable bill pays anywhere from $7 to $9 dollars per month to have ESPN and that is the highest fee out there by far. There is a bit of chicken and egg here as ESPN is actually dragging up monthly cable bill charges. Overall though I would agree, Cable TV is now seen by many as out of date content delivery technology. The only real question left is how far and how fast it takes for it to be dead for good and ESPN isn't totally to blame for that.
It seems to me that the bolded is exactly what ESPN tried to do, and it was at least competitive in each of these areas - taste in postgame analysis and sports talk/discussion is debatable, but its lineup in those departments is sound enough (for the average viewer if not my own taste), and in terms of live sports and great specials like 30 for 30, it's hard to quibble with what they've done. So I'm not sure I follow this line of criticism.What ESPN should have done some time ago is make sure people wanted to watch it. Get access to live sports, make sure to get the best post game analysis for those of us that like to watch that, get some great specials like the 30 for 30 series and land the best people for sports talk and discussion. At one point it could have done that. Nowadays it's been left behind.
They lost relevance largely in part because broadband became mainstream. SC was must watch because it was the only thing available. Same with NFL Prime Time and Baseball Tonight. They were the only show in town. Granted, they were great in the 90's but that could just be nostalgia from my youth.My point is that some time ago ESPN was must watch for sports fans. Sportscenter was must see, it had great stuff.
Then it started to lose relevance. They also started to lose the live sports element. I mean they do have it, but it's less and less relevant. This is where they should have invested money. If the have the rights to one of the Baseball LCSs, or one of the playoff games for the NFL, or more NBA Playoff Games then people might think twice before cord cutting. Also, with the new formats available they can switch their revenue to new sources with the content they have and have people switch to that forum.
Same as with some other companies I mentioned, they did not change with the times. When broadband became mainstream they could have embraced it and joined the fray. And yeah, sports shows like Baseball Tonight and NFL Prime Time and Sportscenter should have transitioned and competed better. Again, they needed to keep being relevant. Make people want to have ESPN and also move into the other platforms before it's too late.They lost relevance largely in part because broadband became mainstream. SC was must watch because it was the only thing available. Same with NFL Prime Time and Baseball Tonight. They were the only show in town. Granted, they were great in the 90's but that could just be nostalgia from my youth.
There may be some nostalgia in there, but you are 100% right that they were the only show in town. Baseball Tonight and NFL Primetime were absolute staples of my teen years.They lost relevance largely in part because broadband became mainstream. SC was must watch because it was the only thing available. Same with NFL Prime Time and Baseball Tonight. They were the only show in town. Granted, they were great in the 90's but that could just be nostalgia from my youth.
It's where we've been for the past 20 years.Tied for 68th on the leaderboard makes you “alive” in 4-letter parlance — if you are Tiger Woods.
So the bar is making the cut, 14 strokes behind the leader, after all the breathless bullshit leading into the Tour season. That’s where we are?
When it’s the best golfer of a generation who pretty much singularly drives ratings, yes. This isn’t unique to ESPN.Tied for 68th on the leaderboard makes you “alive” in 4-letter parlance — if you are Tiger Woods.
So the bar is making the cut, 14 strokes behind the leader, after all the breathless bullshit leading into the Tour season. That’s where we are?
If Eldrick wasn't playing ESPN probably wouldn't even mention golf.Tied for 68th on the leaderboard makes you “alive” in 4-letter parlance — if you are Tiger Woods.
So the bar is making the cut, 14 strokes behind the leader, after all the breathless bullshit leading into the Tour season. That’s where we are?
Today’s round must suck for youPerhaps ESPN is catering to people like me, who think that making the cut on the number and playing every Sunday with a marker is the purgatory he deserves.