Non sports fans.They are doing a Marvel themed NBA game tonight. Who is this for?
Aside from the Disney tie-in synergy stuff, they're doing it for the same reason that ballparks and arenas have Star Wars night or Seinfeld night: money.
Non sports fans.They are doing a Marvel themed NBA game tonight. Who is this for?
Disney shareholdersThey are doing a Marvel themed NBA game tonight. Who is this for?
The same people who bought those UCLA-themed Red Sox uniforms.They are doing a Marvel themed NBA game tonight. Who is this for?
The Sox were the Wizards of Westwood (Massachusetts).The same people who bought those UCLA-themed Red Sox uniforms.
Two wrongs don't make a right.They did extend Berman today.
Say what you want about him but he is iconic. NFL Primetime, during its original run, was quite possibly the greatest sports show of all time. It was must watch every single Sunday evening. And it wasn’t because of Tom Jackson.Two wrongs don't make a right.
Sorry, the judges will not accept entries lacking a Charlie Steiner punchline.Probably the greatest thing to ever come out of ESPN:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubp_f3J0ZR4
Sunday's Sox loss to the Angels.Depressing. ESPN at one time was so great, but now I consider them completely irrelevant.
Can't remember the last time I tuned in other then to watch MNF or a NBA, MLB game.
.
Get an ad blocker (I personally use uBlock Origin) and live a happier life.The website is a bloated piece of trash. If you try to read articles the text jumps continuously as adds are inserted in between the paragraphs. Pop-up auto play video adds that obscure the media you are trying to read. Move your mouse slightly and the a page obscuring drop down happens but if you try to select a subject within the drop down it disappears before you can click on it.
It has morphed into 90% opinion 10% actual sports information. What a waste of time. I now intentionally block this piece of crap.
If a website supports itself with ads, and you visit the website but block the ads, you're stealing their content.Get an ad blocker (I personally use uBlock Origin) and live a happier life.
Do I have to sit through commercials when I watch TV?If a website supports itself with ads, and you visit the website but block the ads, you're stealing their content.
If you don't want to support ESPN, don't visit the website.
Ethically, you should. Most streaming services have an ad-free version you can pay extra for. If you choose the ad-supported version, you're implicitly agreeing to watch their ads.Do I have to sit through commercials when I watch TV?
Bullshit.Ethically, you should.
TV commercials are one thing. I somewhat agree with NoXinNixon that pretty much my #1 priority when it comes reading an article written online is to support the writer by giving them a click and spending ample time reading the article, so it feels a little dirtier if I'm also denying them their main source of revenue (ads).Bullshit.
I've already paid to have this content, through the supplier of the service. What I choose thereafter to watch or not watch is my decision over a product that I have purchased.
Baked into that price is a discount due to the fact that the programs include commercials, and they get paid to run those commercials because people watch them. If you don't watch them, you're free riding off the people who do.Bullshit.
I've already paid to have this content, through the supplier of the service. What I choose thereafter to watch or not watch is my decision over a product that I have purchased.
LOL ... I'd drop in the Seinfeld leaving the theater gif, but I can't stand SeinfeldBaked into that price is a discount due to the fact that the programs include commercials, and they get paid to run those commercials because people watch them. If you don't watch them, you're free riding off the people who do.
I think it is more likely that the discount is based on a percentage of people who are reachable via commercials in accordance with the market research conducted. I don't see that as free riding.Baked into that price is a discount due to the fact that the programs include commercials, and they get paid to run those commercials because people watch them. If you don't watch them, you're free riding off the people who do.
Havent you given them a click by reading the article? I’m not trying to fuck with people’s livelihoods but I’m also not trying to be annoyed and have my time sucked by a noxious business model or poor marketing.TV commercials are one thing. I somewhat agree with NoXinNixon that pretty much my #1 priority when it comes reading an article written online is to support the writer by giving them a click and spending ample time reading the article, so it feels a little dirtier if I'm also denying them their main source of revenue (ads).
There’s no implicit agreement for something explicitly governed by an end user license agreement, terms of service, or other actual contract. Show me in the terms of use where it says I have to stay glued to my screen during commercials, and you’ll have a point, but I doubt you’re going to find that.Ethically, you should. Most streaming services have an ad-free version you can pay extra for. If you choose the ad-supported version, you're implicitly agreeing to watch their ads.
That is...not how advertising pricing works.Baked into that price is a discount due to the fact that the programs include commercials, and they get paid to run those commercials because people watch them. If you don't watch them, you're free riding off the people who do.
So..... do I have to buy all the products they advertise? What crime is that when I don't buy the advertised products?I agree in principle with @NoXInNixon . The distribution channels need advertising revenue to produce the content you enjoy, and if that advertising revenue goes away, so does the business (and, yes, people's jobs. Lots of them.) It is true that the networks and the advertisers are not assuming 100% attention to 100% of the ads, so that indeed is priced in... but if it goes away altogether, no more business.
What's more problematic (and I work in the commercial TV business, if you didn't already know or guess) than skipping ads is getting illegal streams. Not watching the commercials is like not tipping at the restaurant -- grabbing illegal streams and sharing passwords is dine and dash.
Don't steal content. That's basically it.So..... do I have to buy all the products they advertise? What crime is that when I don't buy the advertised products?
I'm late to the party on this but, certainly this is not true as a legal matter, as ad-blockers are widely and legally available. But it doesn't even make sense as an ethical matter, unless I'm misunderstanding how websites derive revenue from ads. To my understanding, websites either get paid each time someone clicks on one of their ads, or, like TV channels, get paid by advertisers ahead of time based on how many total views they get in a given time period. If it's the former method, you aren't depriving the website of anything by using an ad blocker assuming, as would be the case for me, I would never intentionally click on an Internet ad anyway. And if it's the latter method, you aren't depriving the website of anything by using an ad blocker because you still count as a viewer to the site overall.If a website supports itself with ads, and you visit the website but block the ads, you're stealing their content.
Can you recap for those of us who don't subscribe to the NYTA Storm at ESPN Over Rachel Nichols Comments on Maria Taylor - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
didn't see this anywhere...seems like a story ESPN wanted to get out before not renewing Maria Taylor...been some rumblings about this happening recently
Nichols didn't know how to work Zoom. On a phone call with someone, her Zoom (or whatever) was left on and recorded to ESPN's server. Someone at ESPN found it and leaked it. She complained that Taylor was getting the NBA push that Nichols wanted to keep bc ESPN has had a horrible rep for diversity. Nichols feels she was getting pushed aside so Taylor (a black woman) could be the "diversity" hire. Taylor refuses to work with Nichols so they tape her segments. Now they are requiring all segments with other personalities be taped. Taylor doesn't like this either. Taylor's contract is up very shortly (during the Finals).Can you recap for those of us who don't subscribe to the NYT
I highly doubt ESPN is happy this story was written. They are getting tons of shit over this.A Storm at ESPN Over Rachel Nichols Comments on Maria Taylor - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
didn't see this anywhere...seems like a story ESPN wanted to get out before not renewing Maria Taylor...been some rumblings about this happening recently
Is there something else going on that ESPN2 could be covering?Why are both ESPN and ESPN2 showing the same thing now? (Subway Puke Series)
Anything. I like choices. Seems inefficient to show the same thing.Is there something else going on that ESPN2 could be covering?
I thought the dual simulcast (I assume ESPN2 is doing some sort of statcast deal) was a semi-regular thing for them.
Three interesting tidbits:I highly doubt ESPN is happy this story was written. They are getting tons of shit over this.