Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 109

Thread: Bloodletting at ESPN

  1. #31
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    13,420

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    Amazon Prime is going to do (some) Thursday night NFL games this season so Netflix may get in the game.
    After watching what has happened with ESPN, why on Earth would you jump into this rat race?
    Cincinnati Here We Go.
    26 Years and Counting...

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    39,016

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    After watching what has happened with ESPN, why on Earth would you jump into this rat race?
    They have to see if it's going to make financial sense. Twitter did it last year but you can't watch Twitter on your TV. Amazon is a rival for programming. I'm a cordcutter and the Dolphins are my team. If they are on Thursday night football, my choices are to go to a bar and watch or stay at home and watch on my TV with Amazon Prime. That means I'm not watching Netflix. Maybe they don't jump into the NFL with both feet. Maybe they try it out with a NCAA game of the week or something. If there aren't any problems, maybe they talk to the NFL and see if they can work something out. Netflix has a goodly amount of money they can throw at the NFL to show one game a week.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    I was wrong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    Chip is right

  4. #33
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    35,919

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    For a long time I was convinced that internet providers (most of whom are also cable providers) would fight back against streaming video by imposing bandwidth caps and/or charging more money for faster access -- to the point where it would just make more sense to subscribe to a cable package as well.

    There's just so little competition in the space (I have a whopping two choices when it comes to high speed internet service) that I just assumed prices would remain high.
    They're trying to get rid of net neutrality again so they can do exactly that. If they get their way, they'll be throttling capacity and putting up toll booths all over the place.
    Wait until the year after next year.

  5. #34
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    13,420

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    They have to see if it's going to make financial sense. Twitter did it last year but you can't watch Twitter on your TV. Amazon is a rival for programming. I'm a cordcutter and the Dolphins are my team. If they are on Thursday night football, my choices are to go to a bar and watch or stay at home and watch on my TV with Amazon Prime. That means I'm not watching Netflix. Maybe they don't jump into the NFL with both feet. Maybe they try it out with a NCAA game of the week or something. If there aren't any problems, maybe they talk to the NFL and see if they can work something out. Netflix has a goodly amount of money they can throw at the NFL to show one game a week.
    Netflix doesn't need it -- they're putting their money (correctly, IMO) into new original content to replace all the old content that's being pulled off due to studios and networks realizing that these old shows can be monetized on their own streaming services in the future. They've got 50 million users already at a solid price point -- if they bid on the NFL, how many more people are realistically going to add Netflix to watch games? That's the calculus they've gotta do, and if they can't make up the cost of the bid in new subscribers, it means they'll have to either cut back on adding programming elsewhere (a catastrophic mistake) or raise prices (also a mistake).

    Amazon? Maybe -- but again, do they really need the NFL to push their prime services? Also, you have to remember that one of the driving forces behind networks bidding up the NFL content packages was to use the games as a platform to push other things -- it's why you're stuck with endless live reads about the new episode of "2 Broke Girls" or "Prison Break." Networks are OK writing off some portion of the NFL as a "loss" because they believe they can make it up on the back end by pushing viewers to other places on the TV network. When the games are on a subscription service like Amazon, what else are they pushing? The games don't add value to the service the way they do to the "Big Four" networks.
    Cincinnati Here We Go.
    26 Years and Counting...

  6. #35
    Overton Window Breaker WrongVerb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    American Canyon, CA
    Posts
    11,206

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    Netflix doesn't need it -- they're putting their money (correctly, IMO) into new original content to replace all the old content that's being pulled off due to studios and networks realizing that these old shows can be monetized on their own streaming services in the future. They've got 50 million users already at a solid price point -- if they bid on the NFL, how many more people are realistically going to add Netflix to watch games? That's the calculus they've gotta do, and if they can't make up the cost of the bid in new subscribers, it means they'll have to either cut back on adding programming elsewhere (a catastrophic mistake) or raise prices (also a mistake).

    Amazon? Maybe -- but again, do they really need the NFL to push their prime services? Also, you have to remember that one of the driving forces behind networks bidding up the NFL content packages was to use the games as a platform to push other things -- it's why you're stuck with endless live reads about the new episode of "2 Broke Girls" or "Prison Break." Networks are OK writing off some portion of the NFL as a "loss" because they believe they can make it up on the back end by pushing viewers to other places on the TV network. When the games are on a subscription service like Amazon, what else are they pushing? The games don't add value to the service the way they do to the "Big Four" networks.
    Didn't you just kind of answer your own question about Neflix in your second paragraph? If Netflix sees adding football games as a loss-leader to push people to other programming (and then can justify a rate increase (btw, I'd pay $30-$40/mo for full access to Netflix's entire library)) that would make reasonable sense for them to do it.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov

  7. #36
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    13,420

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by WrongVerb View Post
    Didn't you just kind of answer your own question about Neflix in your second paragraph? If Netflix sees adding football games as a loss-leader to push people to other programming (and then can justify a rate increase (btw, I'd pay $30-$40/mo for full access to Netflix's entire library)) that would make reasonable sense for them to do it.
    Not really.

    If you're watching the NFL on Netflix, you're already subscribing to Netflix -- they've got you as a customer. The Networks rely on ratings to drive advertising revenue -- if they have 15 million people watching an NFL game, they want to push part of that audience to other shows to increase ratings and increase ad rates for those shows. If live-reads for a show during an NFL game drives viewers to a show who otherwise wouldn't watch or the audience from an NFL game stays around to watch the next piece of network programming, those extra eyeballs translate to more advertising money for the network. That's why the networks jam as many commercials and live-reads for their own products into games.

    Netflix doesn't have advertising and they don't rely on ratings for revenue; they don't care if you watch Orange is the New Black or the MST3K reboot -- they just care that they have enough content to keep you paying $10-$15 per month for your account. So the "audience push" value for Netflix is precisely nil, unless they radically change their business model away from flat-rate pricing (which would be a huge mistake, IMO).
    Last edited by Caveat Emperor; 04-28-2017 at 01:38 PM.
    Cincinnati Here We Go.
    26 Years and Counting...

  8. #37
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    35,919

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Though Netflix could make make advertising revenue off of live sports. I believe the WWE Network is now making some real money off of advertising.
    Wait until the year after next year.

  9. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Social media has kinda upended things. Everyone with a smartphone is a journo, every journo is a normal person. Not a secret that journos lean way too the left, but a social media feed just kinda magnified it to everyone. Of course they're real people who are entitled to their own opinions on whatever, but for the sake of these outlets I think everyone would be better off with professional and personal accounts. If Random Joe follows college basketball writer Seth Davis, they're doing so for college basketball news. When Seth Davis spends the better part of a year pushing an agenda to try and get his favorite candidate elected, people lose trust not only in him, but the profession. Journalism is a disaster right now because social media opened up a window into the personal opinions of people we're supposed to trust as objective messengers.

    ESPN chose a side and injected polarizing topics into an entertainment outlet. That's gonna lose every time.

    I don't care how reporters and pundits feel about politics, I just wish everyone would get back to sports. I liked when it was a getaway, now I avoid everything that isn't live sports. It sucks.

  10. Likes:

    Joseph (04-29-2017)

  11. #39
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    39,016

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    John Clayton has gotten the ax.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    I was wrong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    Chip is right

  12. #40
    A Pleasure to Burn Joseph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Avenue
    Posts
    8,611

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Hope his mom can keep him in the basement a while longer.

    Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
    Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
    Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13, 15
    University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
    Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98


    “Everything that happens before Death is what counts.”
    ― Ray Bradbury, Something Wicked This Way Comes

  13. Likes:

    Assembly Hall (05-31-2017),Chip R (06-01-2017),Revering4Blue (06-02-2017),Slyder (06-01-2017)

  14. #41
    Moderator cumberlandreds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Sterling VA
    Posts
    12,832

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    John Clayton has gotten the ax.
    Do they have any actual reporters left?
    Reds Fan Since 1971

  15. #42
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    11,794

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    John Clayton has gotten the ax.
    I like Clayton, I think he always gave some good insight. But when you break it down, does it make sense to keep a guy on like Clayton and his seniority, especially when he is based in Seattle? At the end of the day, its ESPN, don't you think they can get someone in there 20 years younger who can do just as good of a job?

    ESPN had operated for years under the impression that SC was bigger than any anchor/personality, but they continued to keep some of the old soldiers around has ceased to be useful. Not that Clayton ceased to be useful, but its always nice to get a fresh perspective in there.

  16. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Utilizing Catholic Moral Code
    Posts
    3,395

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post
    I like Clayton, I think he always gave some good insight. But when you break it down, does it make sense to keep a guy on like Clayton and his seniority, especially when he is based in Seattle? At the end of the day, its ESPN, don't you think they can get someone in there 20 years younger who can do just as good of a job?

    ESPN had operated for years under the impression that SC was bigger than any anchor/personality, but they continued to keep some of the old soldiers around has ceased to be useful. Not that Clayton ceased to be useful, but its always nice to get a fresh perspective in there.
    It would be funny if someone in ESPN management wrote a memo to this effect prior to the firings and some of the elder statesmen got a sweet age discrimination lawsuit to boost their severance pay.

  17. #44
    We are back! Assembly Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Warsaw, IN
    Posts
    1,987

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post

    ESPN had operated for years under the impression that SC was bigger than any anchor/personality, but they continued to keep some of the old soldiers around has ceased to be useful. Not that Clayton ceased to be useful, but its always nice to get a fresh perspective in there.
    I will agree with part of that. Guys like Berman, Vitale, and Kiper's "schtick" wore off along time ago. But I liked Katz and Clayton. In the end, I really don't watch ESPN that much. If I do it is for a game or I catch "Mike and Mike"(which has went to hell in a hand basket as well). If I want MLB talk, I watch the MLB network. Same goes for the NFL network. Somewhere down the line ESPN just lost what they had.
    ...and this one belongs to the Reds.

  18. Likes:

    redsfanmia (06-01-2017)

  19. #45
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    39,016

    Re: Bloodletting at ESPN

    This isn't bloodletting but life imitating art.

    http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-re...?sf103527323=1
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    I was wrong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    Chip is right

  20. Likes:

    *BaseClogger* (08-04-2017)


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | JaxRed | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | The Operator