ESPN Is Pathetic

mikeot

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2006
6,791
Mayne is a great talent whose airtime has diminished over the years. ESPN's loss, looking forward to accessing whatever platform (if any) he shows up on next.
 

Patriot_Reign

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2011
549
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.
.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,896
Hingham, MA
Two wrongs don't make a right.
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.

Berman can be annoying. Especially on baseball. But you can’t deny his passion.
 

Humphrey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2010
1,781
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.
.
Sunday's Sox loss to the Angels.
ESPN's score ticker doesn't say "Ohtani, two run home run with two outs in the ninth" or something like that.
Instead, it says "Trout scores tying run after singling with two outs in the ninth".
 

Section30

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,175
Portland OR
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.
 

Patriot_Reign

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2011
549
Yeah, their website is trash.
All those videos that are set to autoplay, toggle it to off in the settings yet next time I go to the site they start playing automatically again.
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
5,620
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.
Get an ad blocker (I personally use uBlock Origin) and live a happier life.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,698
Get an ad blocker (I personally use uBlock Origin) and live a happier life.
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.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
49,460
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.
Do I have to sit through commercials when I watch TV?
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
5,620
Yeah, can't bring myself to care about ESPN's ad revenue. If they don't want me to block ads, they shouldn't make them so incredibly obnoxious and obtrusive. And it's not in any way unique to ESPN, either.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,698
Do I have to sit through commercials when I watch TV?
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.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
71,193
Oregon
Ethically, you should.
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.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
16,307
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.
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).
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
4,698
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.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
71,193
Oregon
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.
LOL ... I'd drop in the Seinfeld leaving the theater gif, but I can't stand Seinfeld
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Apr 9, 2007
13,649
Washington
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.
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.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
49,460
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).
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.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
8,096
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.
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.
 

dirtynine

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
6,199
Philly
Website ads are suggested content, just like the story or the video. I make an HTTP request, server X send me what they want to. I’m under no obligation to endure, consume or enjoy any of the information a website sends. Both parties understand that. THAT’s what’s baked in to ESPN’s calculations. If they don’t like it, they can change their offer (put up a paywall, etc).

There are situations that I’ll watch or allow ads I’d rather not, in order to support certain services or sites that I think are worthy of that support. Do I want flyers on the telephone pole in my neighborhood? No. But I’d find a flyer for a kids’ lemonade stand cute and worthy of support, but one for McDonalds next to it would be abhorrent.

ESPN does not meet any criteria I have for supporting ads. If that causes them to change their business model, so be it. No ethical qualms about that.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
7,717
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.
That is...not how advertising pricing works.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
12,828
UWS, NYC
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.
 

Hiller

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
10
The start of the marathon
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.
So..... do I have to buy all the products they advertise? What crime is that when I don't buy the advertised products?
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
50,317
New York City
So..... do I have to buy all the products they advertise? What crime is that when I don't buy the advertised products?
Don't steal content. That's basically it.

The rest of it, you can do what you want. You don't have to buy anything advertised.

I am not sure ad blockers are the same as stealing content and they probably aren't used by that many people, anyway.
 

CarolinaBeerGuy

Don't know him from Adam
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2006
6,453
Kernersville, NC
I resort to illegal streams when the channel a game is on is literally impossible to legally receive in my area. I’m looking at you MASN.
 
Last edited:

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,273
New York City
If a website supports itself with ads, and you visit the website but block the ads, you're stealing their content.
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.

Also, it's really not that hard to set up a website such that you can't use it if you're using an ad-blocker - I know this because numerous websites do this. And when I visit those websites, I either temporarily whitelist them and accept the ads if the content is worthwhile enough, or just move on if the content isn't worthwhile enough. The fact that ESPN doesn't do this means that they don't think some people using ad-blockers is a particularly big deal for them.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,072
Display ads are antiquated. If ESPN chooses that as one of their website revenue streams they get what the deserve. Last numbers I saw was that roughly 25% of people use some form of adblocker. Average click-through-rate for a standard display ad last year was .05%, or 5 clicks per 10,000 impressions.

Screenshot_20210528-004625_Chrome.jpg

I dont use an adblocker, but I dont feel bad if people do when visiting ESPN. Their ad placement and timing seems more thought out then anything else on their site. Those extra accidental clicks are driving up click-through-rates, causing the people paying for the ads to pay for clicks that will have zero chance of converting. Companies are leveraging engagement numbers instead, but there are plenty of marketers that still believe in quantity over quality.

ESPN has spit in the face of current marketing trends. Marketers are creating sponsored ads within content that is often relatable to both the content and reader (almost 9x better engagement rate than traditional display ads). ESPN has opted to double down on marketing strategy from 20 years ago. Fill the page with as many ads as possible. Fuck the consumer and the advertiser. Theyve hedged on their own hubris. A shitty user experience is ok if they make enough ad revenue. People are going to come to the site anyway!

In short, I feel no sympathy for ESPN.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
11,907
South Boston
Can you recap for those of us who don't subscribe to the NYT
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).
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
41,026
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.
Anything. I like choices. Seems inefficient to show the same thing.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
5,666
I highly doubt ESPN is happy this story was written. They are getting tons of shit over this.
Three interesting tidbits:

(1) ESPN leaked a story to the NYP earlier this week about Maria Taylor's salary demands being outrageous. https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/06/30/maria-taylor-espn-face-divorce-after-near-5-million-offer/amp/

(2) Zombie Deadspin was the first place that got the tape (a year ago) and they essentially spiked the story. https://deadspin.com/espn-creep-used-the-jump-video-feed-to-secretly-record-1844398846?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=deadspin_twitter

(3) The guy Rachel Nichols was talking to is some kind of Lebron business associate who comes off very bad in this, complaining about being "exhausted" from #metoo and diversity efforts.