What philosophy do you think they should use?
Their content is terrible regardless.
Having Ryan Clark and Mark Schlereth and every other former player in every single sport just say "Whoever plays with discipline and heart and intensity in the 4th quarter is going to win" and other assorted empty platitudes just has lost it's luster to people.
If they go more Xs and Os heavy then no one is going to want to watch that either.
Their content is terrible regardless.
Having Ryan Clark and Mark Schlereth and every other former player in every single sport just say "Whoever plays with discipline and heart and intensity in the 4th quarter is going to win" and other assorted empty platitudes just has lost it's luster to people.
If they go more Xs and Os heavy then no one is going to want to watch that either.
That's how to make their business smaller and downsize.
Why would that get them more viewers? Your just listing cutting expenses. Obviously they should be doing that, their business is getting smaller.
Going after a niche strategy is probably the correct move. It can be debated which niche to go after but the days of huge cable audiences are over for a variety of reasons.
If they stop the politics stuff, what they gonna replace it with? Chauncey Billups telling us that the playoffs is about playing with urgency?
Probably some things they can do at the margins but I'm not really watching either way besides live events.
Less people follow every sport now because there is more to do, so it is tough to have a TV network that covers every sport equally.
So you just figure out the best niche to get and then cater to it. For them, that niche is people home at noon on a Tuesday that want to hear Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless scream nonsensically about nothing towards one another.
FS1 does the same thing.
If they talked about Xs and Os or had some expert on the draft on breaking down how correlated wingspan was to defensive ability, people would change the channel. Just like if a cable news network spent an hour talking about Far East trade agreements and had a panel to discuss it.
Catering to idiots is probably the correct strategy for them, it is for most opinion shows.
So you just figure out the best niche to get and then cater to it. For them, that niche is people home at noon on a Tuesday that want to hear Stephen A Smith and Skip Bayless scream nonsensically about nothing towards one another.
FS1 does the same thing.
If they talked about Xs and Os or had some expert on the draft on breaking down how correlated wingspan was to defensive ability, people would change the channel. Just like if a cable news network spent an hour talking about Far East trade agreements and had a panel to discuss it.
Catering to idiots is probably the correct strategy for them, it is for most opinion shows.
This is spot on. Most sports fans watch sports for the love of the game. If you want to hear some PC bs watch fox news, cnn, or msnbc.
Its amazing how stupid the people running the network are.
I quit watching espn when all the Michael Sam crap came out. It was on 24/7 for the longest time. Lost a lot of viewers there. Just show sports.....its not that hard.
What content should they have? Should they be more just highlights (which you can geton your phone in 30 seconds), more sports opinions (theirs are terrible IMO)
If they stop putting Michael Sam or Kaepnerick on air, what should they then put on air to gain them more viewers? I think people underestimate that they were going to lose viewers regardless and shifting left was a way to carve out a niche, which is what all the cable news networks do.
It's just going to be 2 guys screaming at each other if Aaron Rodgers sideline demeanor shows he isn't a leader or some BS.
I don't watch cable news either but I recognize that those networks do pretty good ratings by catering to what a niche segment of people want to hear. That's just a reality.
If they stop putting Michael Sam or Kaepnerick on air, what should they then put on air to gain them more viewers? I think people underestimate that they were going to lose viewers regardless and shifting left was a way to carve out a niche, which is what all the cable news networks do.
It's just going to be 2 guys screaming at each other if Aaron Rodgers sideline demeanor shows he isn't a leader or some BS.
I don't watch cable news either but I recognize that those networks do pretty good ratings by catering to what a niche segment of people want to hear. That's just a reality.
There are studies on this topic. The average sports fan is a Conservative male that doesn't want to hear about politics. ESPN is not catering to their target audience by highlighting Michael Sam, Kaepernick or Bruce Jenner. They are driving people away. Their coverage presents the opposite effect and IMO, they don't care. As long as Disney is there to bail their ass out when their ratings drop, why would they care?
Mike and Mike? What a fucking terrible show. CK most likely listens to that show wearing his turtleneck.
But is the average sports fan that is conservative going to watch if it isn't political content? My guess is they just want to hear news about their own team, 1 or 2 sports. I don't think they're dying to listen to most of the sports content (non-political) that ESPN has.
I think ESPN as a business knows it is going to be shrinking regardless because of cord-cutting, sports viewing becoming more niche, technology and because of that, they're then catering more to blacks or a left-leaning audience to retain some viewership.
So basically I think their shift is an effect of what is happening, rather than a cause.
And I think a lot of people like to say "I stopped watching because XYZ" but really they kinda just stopped watching because they follow a lot less sports, got sick of hearing the same platitudes, etc
I used to watch PTI 10-12 years ago, I don't know why, don't ask me why, but you would have to pay me to watch that garbage today. And that has nothing to do with politics. It's just awful.
I think ESPN as a business knows it is going to be shrinking regardless because of cord-cutting, sports viewing becoming more niche, technology and because of that, they're then catering more to blacks or a left-leaning audience to retain some viewership.
So basically I think their shift is an effect of what is happening, rather than a cause.
And I think a lot of people like to say "I stopped watching because XYZ" but really they kinda just stopped watching because they follow a lot less sports, got sick of hearing the same platitudes, etc
I used to watch PTI 10-12 years ago, I don't know why, don't ask me why, but you would have to pay me to watch that garbage today. And that has nothing to do with politics. It's just awful.
ESPN's audience is not black Pats. The only black viewers tune in to watch NBA coverage. Most tune in to watch NASCAR, golf and football.
They are catering to the wrong audience. That's why they are failing.
You take these two bumbling idiots Hill and Smith and put them on primetime and ESPN's majority audience doesn't want to see them or hear their opinions.
