Maybe not live, but both, especially Simmons are going to be doing time sensitive stuff likely. Netflix has never really had anything based around quick turnaround times as far as I know. Unless Simmons is going to stop talking about games the day before or after Netflix doesn't seem like a good fit. Other than 30 for 30 nothing he does really fits that well into the netflix model. It's possible Netflix might set him up in a more Hulu style quick turnaround, but they haven't shown any desire or ability to do that so far.Jnai said:But why do either of those guys need to be live? They just need to have a stable publication platform that's available when they want it to be. No one in their demographic watches anything live other than sports.
DLew On Roids said:I agree that the online subscription model based around personal brands hasn't worked, but I don't think that means that it can't work. Andrew Sullivan didn't have the market that one needs to get the subscription count to make it worthwhile, and while Glenn Beck is probably making money, he's mostly disappeared from the conversation. However, I suspect that's more because he doesn't have a platform with even a toe dipped in the mainstream. His appeal was always to cranks and fanaticists.
minischwab said:Not directly related, but worth putting in here with the discussion of a pay site:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/opinion/zeynep-tufekci-mark-zuckerberg-let-me-pay-for-facebook.html
Mr. Zuckerman points out that Facebook makes about 20 cents per user per month in profit. This is a pitiful sum, especially since the average user spends an impressive 20 hours on Facebook every month, according to the company.
If that's true, then is there ANY way Simmons could generate enough revenue from a free site to make it worth it? My guess is no, he's not generating enough traffic on his own no matter how good his staff is. I still think it makes the most sense for Simmons to sign a TV deal and then do a separate web venture with someone like VICE.
DLew On Roids said:I think they'd do better with a third voice grounded in pop culture--Joel McHale, maybe? Community is over and he's been doing The Soup for over 10 years.
ConigliarosPotential said:
FWIW, Sullivan stopped the Daily Dish because he was burned out from blogging virtually nonstop for years and years, not because he thought his revenue numbers were discouraging - he always seemed upbeat about how well his subscription model was doing. I don't think that's a path Simmons would or could follow, though, so the point is probably irrelevant.
That's what Sullivan said, anyway. His perception and reality haven't always been in alignment. He's still making excuses for giving credence to The Bell Curve.ConigliarosPotential said:
FWIW, Sullivan stopped the Daily Dish because he was burned out from blogging virtually nonstop for years and years, not because he thought his revenue numbers were discouraging - he always seemed upbeat about how well his subscription model was doing. I don't think that's a path Simmons would or could follow, though, so the point is probably irrelevant.
DLew On Roids said:That's what Sullivan said, anyway. His perception and reality haven't always been in alignment. He's still making excuses for giving credence to The Bell Curve.
Nick Kaufman said:Why the hell would jon stewart leave a position in which he s at the height of his powers
DrewDawg said:
Because the "height of his powers" really isn't as high as you may have thought?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-overhyped-reaction-to-jon-stewart-leaving/
DrewDawg said:
Because the "height of his powers" really isn't as high as you may have thought?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-overhyped-reaction-to-jon-stewart-leaving/
Total shit article. TV ratings are the least trusted statistical metric ever, even by people in the TV business. That article can get fucked.DrewDawg said:
Because the "height of his powers" really isn't as high as you may have thought?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-overhyped-reaction-to-jon-stewart-leaving/
Actually, I thought the data was decent, but the point it proves is the opposite of the point the author wanted to make. Stewart's popularity has declined from its peak, but he still regularly draws a large audience of the young, affluent viewers whom advertisers covet most, despite being stuck on a shitty platform. The competing news and late-night talk shows mentioned by the author might draw more viewers, but a lot of them have one foot in the grave; there's a reason no one is trying to replicate the Fox News business model.ifmanis5 said:Total shit article. TV ratings are the least trusted statistical metric ever, even by people in the TV business. That article can get fucked.
Nick Kaufman said:The point is that no matter his ratings, if Stewart wants to do something in which he does funny takes on the news, there's no better place than where he is now. I understand if he's leaving in order to have his creative juices replenished or do something like directing, but going to the web to do the same thing more or less doesn't make sense.
I would be surprised if Jon Stewart had any interference from "corporate network overlords," save perhaps for stories about Viacom itself. Do you know something I don't?Red(s)HawksFan said:
Unless doing it on the internet affords him the opportunity to do it on his own schedule and not on one dictated by a network (wasn't more time for family cited as one of his reasons for leaving?). Not to mention full editorial control rather than having some things shut down by corporate network overlords. His audience will find him wherever he goes, so it's not as though he's beholden to Comedy Central (or another network) to be heard. And it might well be that he's made more than enough money to get by in his time with CC, and isn't concerned about the paycheck if he's being fulfilled by the project.
I don't think there are any topics that are verboten, but he certainly can't go after something like the car industry with the intensity that Oliver can now. A four minute segment about vehicle recalls and the advertisers begrudgingly take their lumps, but I'm sure they'd pull their ads if he did a 15 minute unrelenting expose.maufman said:I would be surprised if Jon Stewart had any interference from "corporate network overlords," save perhaps for stories about Viacom itself. Do you know something I don't?
I could see this happening. At this point though all I miss from Simmons is the podcast. I won't be going out of my way all that much to digest much else he does in the future.minischwab said:Simmons in talks with HBO:http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbos-real-life-game-thrones-802764?utm_source=twitter
Considerably more likely is Simmons, whom the network is said to have made a big play for after his unceremonious booting from the more corporate ESPN. Such a move would be straight out of the HBO playbook, which famously provided a creative reprieve for former ABC flameout Bill Maher many years earlier. Though Simmons is said to have several suitors, insiders say conversations at HBO have focused on a TV show — something Simmons is believed to want — along with heavy digital extensions that make the prolific personality tailor-made for the HBO Now era.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:I think HBO makes too much sense. Not sure how we all missed it.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Really? Why does this make "too much sense"? Because of the three things that Simmons has done: writing, podcasting and being on TV. The latter is probably the thing he is least good at. (I'm not including his producing here because I don't think that HBO would bring Simmons in to just produce shows, that seems kind of dumb). Would he do something like the John Oliver Show only with sports? Because that has been tried numerous times and all have failed (Norm MacDonald being the best one).
I don't think that Simmons has the chops to host a weekly TV show.
I know he doesn't, but I could see him being the creative force behind a show that becomes successful (whatever form it may take).
I think you're forgetting the thing that he's done best, which is organize larger-scale "clearing houses" for sports entertainment. Being editor-in-chief of Grantland and putting together that stable of writers. Heading up 30 for 30 and putting together that group of film-makers.
ifmanis5 said:I think he'd be fine as a host and moderator. Most of those shows involve either a guest or a panel and some taped pieces so the amount of sheer heavy lifting he would have to do alone wouldn't be astronomical. Also HBO is in the Time Warner family which means he could do dome TBS/TNT work for the NBA.
Branding and quality, particularly for HBO. It's hard to do those formats as constituted 'better' than ESPN and Fox News; also difficult to come up with a truely audiance-grabbing spin on them.Hagios said:I think it would be a great deal on both sides. One thing that I don't get in this age of cord cutting is why streaming services like Netflix and HBO don't have the equivalent of Sportcenter and CNN News and perhaps a few shows with shouting talking heads (either sports or politics).