What more evidence ESPN is lost?

[OCinBuffalo]

Apparently ESPN hasn't gotten the word...Cowherd is now going to be part of their Sunday pre-game programming. I can't tell you how much I loathe Cowherd...I couldn't overstate it...yet, like Whitner, he has his supporters!

 

I think it is funny, the people who like him always defend him by saying he is "different", or is "too high brow" for the usuasl sports talk radio neandrathal (me, I guess!)....I think that is a crock of ****, and these people are just buying the snake oil that Cowherd is selling. He is terrible...to me he represents, as much as any one person in sports media, everything I hate about the modern "business of sports"...just a souless demon spawn of ambition and ESPN. The same adoptive parents of people like Skip Bayless. He is the worst...

When Buftex and I agree on anything? The space/time continuum pauses, and real truth is born.

 

Perhaps ESPN should ask CNN or MSNBC what happens when FOX sees weakness? (There ends the agreement with Buftex. Come on...I had to do it, we are talking about the space/time continuum here. That's serious stuff! )

By who?

It's "By whom?". Just to dot the "i" on making sure that Buftex and I remain in disagreement. All is back to normal.

 

not because ESPN is ripe for picking.

Hilarious that Kelly the Dog(who used to be called something else in his days on another board here) would show up....

 

So, same question: What happened to CNN the last time FOX saw weakness?

 

I'm not saying anything other than: does anybody deny FOX's ability to win? You want to talk about success stories? Is there a more unlikely story than FOX, beginning with taking the NFL from CBS?

 

If that can happen, why can't they beat ESPN?

[Kelly the Dog]

When Buftex and I agree on anything? The space/time continuum pauses, and real truth is born.

 

Perhaps ESPN should ask CNN or MSNBC what happens when FOX sees weakness? (There ends the agreement with Buftex. Come on...I had to do it, we are talking about the space/time continuum here. That's serious stuff! )

 

It's "By whom?". Just to dot the "i" on making sure that Buftex and I remain in disagreement. All is back to normal.

 

 

Hilarious that Kelly the Dog(who used to be called something else in his days on another board here) would show up....

 

So, same question: What happened to CNN the last time FOX saw weakness?

 

I'm not saying anything other than: does anybody deny FOX's ability to win? You want to talk about success stories? Is there a more unlikely story than FOX, beginning with taking the NFL from CBS?

 

If that can happen, why can't they beat ESPN?

I know that FOX is putting an enormous investment into trying to compete with ESPN. I expect them, over a few years, to do very well. They most always seem to. I have no idea what the outcome may be and wouldn't even hazard a guess.

 

I was only commenting on the idea that people often tend to bash ESPN for being so out of touch or lousy or way worse than they were, when they are constantly getting bigger and bigger and more successful. I don't watch it much myself, but there is really no arguing that it's a massive ongoing success, and you were off base IMO saying that FOX and NBC was preying on a weakness, they are trying to grab a chunk of its enormous success. ESPN is doing as well as ever for the most part, as evidenced by its revenues and growth rate.

[Kirby Jackson]

I don't know, Whitner isn't great but he is a pretty good football player. If he was not taken instead on Ngata there would be nowhere near the hate. Remember a lot of people wanted Leinart that year too. Whitner wasn't even our worst selection that round. He is respected around the league and is an able average starter in this league. Is he the 64th best defensive player in football? I don't think but I do not think that he is the worst player that we have had.

 

P.s. We also took Aaron Merz 4 picks ahead of Marques Colston. Fun little fact

Edited August 22, 2013 by Kirby Jackson

[OCinBuffalo]

I know that FOX is putting an enormous investment into trying to compete with ESPN. I expect them, over a few years, to do very well. They most always seem to. I have no idea what the outcome may be and wouldn't even hazard a guess.

 

I was only commenting on the idea that people often tend to bash ESPN for being so out of touch or lousy or way worse than they were, when they are constantly getting bigger and bigger and more successful. I don't watch it much myself, but there is really no arguing that it's a massive ongoing success, and you were off base IMO saying that FOX and NBC was preying on a weakness, they are trying to grab a chunk of its enormous success. ESPN is doing as well as ever for the most part, as evidenced by its revenues and growth rate.

Then why did they lay off 400 people due to their live programming tanking?

 

I'm not saying that their "divided and conquer" approach didn't have short term upside. The short term is over. In the long run, the direction ESPN is going is clear: they've destroyed their own credibility for far too many people, just like CNN did. In doing so they've opened the door.

 

If this opportunity existed at any point in the past, FOX would have been all over it. Come on, are you trying to say they didn't have the $/motivation? This is about tensile strength/brand loyalty. FOX has now seen enough weakness in both to make the marketing #s match the $s.

 

It's the same pattern. I am sure that the execs at CNN had plenty of financial statements to back up their failed agenda, and probably kept referring to them when FOX started as well. This isn't going to happen in 6 months. However, whistling past the graveyard that is making Skip Bayless and Steven A Smith get more air time than John Clayton and Ron Jaworski? Telling more than half the country that their teams don't matter? Living in this magical thinking world that says the only thing that matters is the East/West coast, and believing that the best sports consumers live there?

 

We've seen all of this before.

 

In the end, the agenda people always lose. Or: It's been 19 years since LA has had an NFL team.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

What more evidence ESPN is lost?

 

did you mean Want more evidence ESPN is lost? and no I have enough evidence. Hell these idiots still make you "pay"

for the same news you can get on half a dozen other websites.

[Kelly the Dog]

Then why did they lay off 400 people due to their live programming tanking?

 

I'm not saying that their "divided and conquer" approach didn't have short term upside. The short term is over. In the long run, the direction ESPN is going is clear: they've destroyed their own credibility for far too many people, just like CNN did. In doing so they've opened the door.

 

If this opportunity existed at any point in the past, FOX would have been all over it. Come on, are you trying to say they didn't have the $/motivation? This is about tensile strength/brand loyalty. FOX has now seen enough weakness in both to make the marketing #s match the $s.

 

It's the same pattern. I am sure that the execs at CNN had plenty of financial statements to back up their failed agenda, and probably kept referring to them when FOX started as well. This isn't going to happen in 6 months. However, whistling past the graveyard that is making Skip Bayless and Steven A Smith get more air time than John Clayton and Ron Jaworski? Telling more than half the country that their teams don't matter? Living in this magical thinking world that says the only thing that matters is the East/West coast, and believing that the best sports consumers live there?

 

We've seen all of this before.

 

In the end, the agenda people always lose. Or: It's been 19 years since LA has had an NFL team.

The answer is in the article I linked. Even though it is a year old, the answer is the same.

 

They also laid off people in 2009 and yet continued to grow and grow.

 

Here is another article on its layoffs as well as its continued success.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/layoffs-hit-espn-record-revenue-526212

[iinii]

If I never hear Cowherd's voice again my life will be pretty much the same, but I'll be looking fore the mute button less

[mattsox]

Whitner was a hard worker and good player for us. He took alot of crap from fans here because he was not Ronnie Lott. It wan't his fault he was drafted so high by the Bills. He got the last laugh though. He got paid and plays for a superbowl contending team.

 

Everyone was pissed off because he wasn't Ngata!!!!

[OCinBuffalo]

The answer is in the article I linked. Even though it is a year old, the answer is the same.

Yes, and I wish I could link to FOX's marketing data cubes. Then we'd see the real answer. But I can't.

 

All I can do is ask: what is truly different about now, vs. 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago? Was ESPN doing well financially/growing in each of those timeframes? Yes. Yes. and Yes. Thus: not different.

 

You don't move into a business sector that is dominated by a competitor unless you either have a disruptively superior product, or, you think the market is going to grow so much larger that there will be space for you, or, that competitor is weak.

 

In order:

1. Is FOX/NBC going to do something that is so much better/innovative than ESPN? Doubtful. The last time around all FOX did was counter a stupid agenda by bringing in proven ratings getters, and turning them loose on that stupid agenda.

2. You are talking to me on a Bills message board. The market for sports info/content is inundated. Where is the growth going to come from? There is always some growth, but, enough to support 2 other ESPN-type products? No way.

 

That leaves:

3. The competitor is weak. FOX/NBC thinks they can take market share, and, enough of it to make their investment worth the risk.

 

Risk is what this is about. The risk has come down, so, the shot is worth taking.

[DDD]

Everyone was pissed off because he wasn't Ngata!!!!

 

The Bills got great value trading back into the first round to draft McCargo.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, and I wish I could link to FOX's marketing data cubes. Then we'd see the real answer. But I can't.

 

All I can do is ask: what is truly different about now, vs. 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago? Was ESPN doing well financially/growing in each of those timeframes? Yes. Yes. and Yes. Thus: not different.

 

You don't move into a business sector that is dominated by a competitor unless you either have a disruptively superior product, or, you think the market is going to grow so much larger that there will be space for you, or, that competitor is weak.

 

In order:

1. Is FOX/NBC going to do something that is so much better/innovative than ESPN? Doubtful. The last time around all FOX did was counter a stupid agenda by bringing in proven ratings getters, and turning them loose on that stupid agenda.

2. You are talking to me on a Bills message board. The market for sports info/content is inundated. Where is the growth going to come from? There is always some growth, but, enough to support 2 other ESPN-type products? No way.

 

That leaves:

3. The competitor is weak. FOX/NBC thinks they can take market share, and, enough of it to make their investment worth the risk.

 

Risk is what this is about. The risk has come down, so, the shot is worth taking.

There are all kinds of examples of say, Burger King moving across the street from McDonalds, directly competing and hoping to oust them off the top perch, and then both prospering. Or a new bar.

 

Why do you think there are always new football leagues coming in? It's not because they think they are going to necessarily bury the NFL, it's because they see an enormous market and think they can make a profit from it, always in the back of their mind thinking they will one day be as big or bigger? When ESPN has become the most profitable network in the history of TV in its relative short existence, no wonder others are coming in and wanting some of those enormous dollars. The point is, they are thriving, not falling.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Kelly the Dog

[stony]

I find it ironic that all the people who criticize ESPN so much, watch ESPN so much.

 

Yes, and I wish I could link to FOX's marketing data cubes. Then we'd see the real answer. But I can't.

 

All I can do is ask: what is truly different about now, vs. 5 years, 10 years, 15 years ago? Was ESPN doing well financially/growing in each of those timeframes? Yes. Yes. and Yes. Thus: not different.

 

You don't move into a business sector that is dominated by a competitor unless you either have a disruptively superior product, or, you think the market is going to grow so much larger that there will be space for you, or, that competitor is weak.

 

In order:

1. Is FOX/NBC going to do something that is so much better/innovative than ESPN? Doubtful. The last time around all FOX did was counter a stupid agenda by bringing in proven ratings getters, and turning them loose on that stupid agenda.

2. You are talking to me on a Bills message board. The market for sports info/content is inundated. Where is the growth going to come from? There is always some growth, but, enough to support 2 other ESPN-type products? No way.

 

That leaves:

3. The competitor is weak. FOX/NBC thinks they can take market share, and, enough of it to make their investment worth the risk.

 

Risk is what this is about. The risk has come down, so, the shot is worth taking.

 

NBC is betting big-time on the continued growth and popularity of soccer in the US. If this does succeed, and all indications are it will over time, it will be a nice little slice of the pie. Laugh all you want about soccer, but it has the potential to be big in 5-10 years.

[BobChalmers]

Whitner was a hard worker and good player for us. He took alot of crap from fans here because he was not Ronnie Lott Haloti Ngata. It wan't his fault he was drafted so high by the Bills. He got the last laugh though. He got paid and plays for a superbowl contending team.

 

Fixed.

[Gordio]

Cowherd is merely a symptom, and so is Bayless. Neither is the disease.

 

Feeling has nothing to do with this. This is about thinking. Specifically, it's about marketing thinking. I know bad marketing when I see it. The worst is that ESPN has screwed themselves with this approach, and you can bet that they know it. You know who else knows it: FOX and NBC. That's why they are now putting their 24/7 sports channels forward.

 

The ONLY reason that the NFL hasn't suffered the same fate as MLB and NBA? ESPN doesn't have the same level of control over the NFL.

 

The most ironic thing: Reporters in Boston are writing articles about why Dallas and the Jets are getting so much attention even though both teams suck. http://bostinno.stre...-team-receives/ They don't realize that they will be in the exact same place as Dallas and the Jets, after Brady leaves(and Belechick right after).

 

What ESPN does good is there offsite stuff. College Gameday for both Football & Basketball are top notch programs. Fox 1 Sports is trying to compete against College Gameday this fall. All I got to say is good luck. But your right, their in studio programing sucks.

[biglukes]

 

 

What ESPN does good is there offsite stuff. College Gameday for both Football & Basketball are top notch programs. Fox 1 Sports is trying to compete against College Gameday this fall. All I got to say is good luck. But your right, their in studio programing sucks.

Other than games, College Gameday before the football games is pretty much the only thing I really watch on ESPN. You're dead on about the studio programming sucking big time.

[Gordio]

Other than games, College Gameday before the football games is pretty much the only thing I really watch on ESPN. You're dead on about the studio programming sucking big time.

 

I love College gameday & that is pretty much the only thing I watch except for the games on ESPN. It is worth the view just to get a glimpse of Samantha Ponder. The College Gameday for basketball is great too.

[OCinBuffalo]

There are all kinds of examples of say, Burger King moving across the street from McDonalds, directly competing and hoping to oust them off the top perch, and then both prospering. Or a new bar.

 

Why do you think there are always new football leagues coming in? It's not because they think they are going to necessarily bury the NFL, it's because they see an enormous market and think they can make a profit from it, always in the back of their mind thinking they will one day be as big or bigger? When ESPN has become the most profitable network in the history of TV in its relative short existence, no wonder others are coming in and wanting some of those enormous dollars. The point is, they are thriving, not falling.

You really don't get what I'm saying, do you?

 

Burger King was made because the market would support it, and the market hadn't even begun to grow, hence Wendy's, Taco Bell, Subway. The sports entertainment market today != the fast food market in the 1960s. No. Both markets of today are actually: the same. Ask Quiznos about whether there's enough growth for another fast food chain. Ask Dominoes if there's enough growth to support crappy food and service, and what happened to their market share.

 

This analogy is therefore false. Here's a better one: ESPN is "thriving" the same way CNN was.

 

Lack of real competition, just like it ALWAYS does, means laziness, disrespect of the customer, and hubris. Again, in order:

1. Laziness: how often have we commented on a piece of work from ESPN, that talks about players that aren't on our team anymore? How often has it been clear that the person who produced the work hasn't seen any more of our team than we have. Is this even uncommon anymore?

2. Disrespect of the Customer: The Dallas Cowboys have been much less relevant than the Indianapolis Colts, for decades, yet who is always getting 3-5x more coverage? They do this because it makes them $. They think the customer is a moron, who will keep paying them regardless.

3. Hubris: ESPN believes that no one can touch them. Everything in your article suggests this is so. It's not that ESPN can be beaten, no, they have a constant "internal struggle" to decide if they should put their business interest ahead of that of their customer, and no outside force will ever affect that higher decision-making. Hubris.

 

The hugeness of the existing market is irrelevant if the only player in it has been weakened by lack of competition.

 

In fact, that just makes it easier for the new players to gain a beachhead and start driving in-land.

[H2o]

He single handedly cost the 49ers the Super Bowl with his lapses in coverage that allowed 3 TD's. Say what you will after that. Rank him wherever, but I for one am glad he is not on our roster anymore.

[Tiberius]

I don't know football that well, but I watched him play and I focused on him as much as I could and thought he stunk. But the 49ers think different and they would know more than me...

[BuffaloBob]

Hehehe....I kept telling BillNYC that Donte Whitner was a good draft pick, but did he listen? Oh no.

 

 

 

 

Any opportunity to bash ESPN will be taken by me until they go back to being the quality brand they once were. No people in history talk about their "brand" more, while simultaneously being more blind to the fact that their brand is crap.

 

Yes, let's have some more Skip Bayless. Let's have some more Colin Cowherd.

 

I'd much rather listen to Andrew Peters stutter and burp his way through 2 hours, than ever have to listen to Cowherd say "I'm not a company man", and then spend his next two hours talking about why hockey sucks. How embarrassing for him. How embarrassing for the ESPN execs to have their agenda made so transparent.

 

Andrew Peters is interesting, because for all his insecure goofiness, he is: SINCERE.

 

And, this isn't over. ESPN is going to have some real competition very soon. We'll see if they can continue to get away with their horrible "divide and conquer" marketing strategy, which has taken the air out of both Baseball AND the NBA. Look at it: ESPN covering the big markets, and belittling the small, has destroyed people's interest in both sports. Ratings are down, and ESPN is laying people off because they've destroyed their own market interest in live programming. That's what happens when you divide and conquer: everybody stops caring.

 

"Divide and Conquer" is the ONLY reason that Donte Whitner is even on that list at all.

 

I like Petey as well. He is not educated, but I think he's certainly street smart if not generally intelligent. And he's learning the radio host job on the fly. I give him a lot of credit. He has improved over time in his delivery, and he often has some very good insights as a former player.

 

I remember last summer, I was out of town and settled on listening to Cowherd on the radio while I was driving. He opened his show by insisting that he wouldn't talk about Tebow, then spent about 15 minutes saying why he wouldn't talk about Tebow. I got out of the car or changed stations or whatever, but when I checked back in after about 90 minutes, he was still talking about Tebow. He's an imbecile.

 

I never had much of a problem with Whitner, but I also didn't mind it that he left.

 

Don't worry, he spent the time in between on his knees for his idol Lebron!