Sorry that I stink at headlines but I really hate them. In fact, if I ever get a job at a newspaper I think the first thing I will tell my employer is that I am sorry I cannot do headlines.
But quite possibly that may be my demise because as you know, in the entertainment business industry ( which is what news is at the end of the day) its all about the image. The sensational, appealing headline is what sells the product, in my particular case, an article. Crappy headline= no readers.
ESPN knows all about image. In fact, they present don't only give fans sports information but they give them sports personalities. Think about guys like Linda Cohen, Rachel Nichols, Erin Andrews, Scott Van Pelt, Stuart Scott, all employees who are sometimes bigger than the stories they report. In fact. ESPN doesn't hide the fact that they market their guys like sports leagues market their players as opposed to teams. When I interned at ESPN radio in Los Angeles this summer one of the first things my supervisor told me was that ESPN radio is just as much about selling sports personalities as it is about selling sports analysis.
But what does this have to do with anything? On Wednesday, baseball insider for ESPN, Steve Phillips, admitted that he had an affair with a 22-year-old ESPN programming employee ( http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/espn_suspends_steve_phillips_after_BqI2i7uj46oLDZSWhxsGvK)
and as a result was given a leave of absence by ESPN.
The people at Disney, who own ESPN, were probably not happy with Philips reaction, as bad publicity = bad image, especially for a company owned by a mouse( I really meant that, just think about it) As a result, ESPN was put into a sticky situation of whether or not they should actually report on their own. In the end they did, probably because they felt it would be hypocritical to report on other athletes and coaches affairs but not their own ( http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2009/10/21/espn-addresses-steve-phillips-brooke-hundley-affair-reported-su/)
With the story out a ton of criticism came pouring in from the public media, like rumors from deadspin.com (http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2009/10/22/espn-responds-to-deadspins-despicable-rumor-mongering/) and a New York Post columnist who used his space to get back at Philips who he has an altercation with several months ago.(http://www.nypost.com/p/vac_whacks_thursday_edition_8aB048Jeie4TbN6OOnee3I)
To put it simply, after coming off of a record setting month in September, revenue wise, ESPN does not need this.
But lets get back to the main point about image. ESPN does this to themselves. They build up their employees, to the point where they are bigger than the sports news themselves. Everywhere you look on ESPN Erin Andrews is doing every sideline game ( Dont they have anyone else) and Rachel Nichols is always the one behind the scenes at mini camps and practices. All over their website they have columns with the writers face blown up, not the name and every sports center commercial tries to equate athletes to the same status as Sports Center anchors who cover them ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntglBWwjiEQ) The point is this, is ESPN does not want the scrutiny of their employees than they should probably place less emphasis on the image of everyone who writes, reports or broadcasts something for them.
In a day in age where self branding is what gets sports people like myself in the door, I understand where ESPN is coming from. Sure Steve Philips may not be a household name, but he was a former coach of the New York Mets and you can bet your Sunday ticket package that ESPN hired him, like many of their employees, because they are already big sports figures.
But if ESPN continues to hire the big name guys and promote their journalists like rock stars than instead of reporting the headlines, they will continue to be part of them. And trust me, those will be much easier to understand than mine.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Stick to Sports
Michael Wilbon, a co-host on one of ESPN's daily sports debating shows called Pardon the Interruption, was in some hot water this last week.
When controversial conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh's bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams was denied last week, Wilbon made a bad ( but understandable) mistake and missquoted, along with numerous other television cable news shows, that Limbaugh had said years ago that, "Slavery built the south, I am not saying we should bring it back I am just saying we should acknowledge its merits."
Note: When reports came out ten days ago that Limbaugh wanted to buy the Rams, The St, Louis dispatch along with USA Today and other media outlets picked this slavery quote up from Wikipedia. The quote had ended up there from a book that was published three years ago. However, Limbaugh denies the comments and there is no proof that he ever made those comments. Wilbon admits that he was given those comments minutes before he went on air.
Additionally, On his PTI show on October 9th Wilbon said, "I dont know whether Limbaugh is a straight up bigot or he simply plays one on tv and radio, but he is universally reviled by black people in this country."
In regards to his first comment pertaining to slavery, Wilbon apologized directly to Limbaugh. " That’s a journalistic no-no. What? If I had checked and found out the information that we had basic access to every day on deadline, I might have done it anyway. Still, that’s wrong and a journalistic no-no, and I said that to him."
Than, on Sunday October 18th, Wilbon went on CNN and said that he stood by his comment that many black people dispise Limbaugh. http://www.mediaite.com/print/espn-reporter-apologizes-for-slandering-limbaugh-rush-rubs-it-in-with-journal-op-ed/
Whether or not Wilbon is right or wrong and whether or not Limbaugh deserves to have a team, which is certainly debatable, Wilbon made a mistake that a 17-year Washington Post Columnist should not make, especially one that represents the most trusted brand sports media outlet in the world. Wilbon fused sports and politics, something that ESPN should try to stay far away from.
Honestly, I am not really concerned with Wilbon getting the facts wrong or misquoting someone more than I am worried about his agenda. Clearly Wilbon is not a fan of Limbaugh, but the problem lies in the fact that I know that. I am a sports fan, and when I watch ESPN I watch it because I want sports, not the bull I get on cable news.
Off course ESPN should urge Wilbon and his co-host Tony Kornheiser to comment on the Limbaugh controversy but they should make sure to stick to the perspective of the NFL.
For instance, nationally syndicated ESPN radio host, Colin Cowherd, commented on his show last Thursday that Limbaugh should not believe he is being targeted because he stands for conservative views, but rather the NFL is simply trying to protect its image. Said Cowherd, " Larry Flynt, who is liberal and owns a porno magazine would also be denied." While Cowherd is giving a somewhat heavily loaded political opinion, he is giving it from the view of the NFL, not his own personal beliefs.
Wilbon should have been smarter. In my opinion Wilbon has a good point, but as a sports fan the last thing I want is to look at my favorite sports network, ESPN, and think of their reporters as guys with a political agenda. If Wilbon wants to advocate for what he believes in that is totally fine, but ESPN is a brand the tries to stick with the facts and provide fans with sports information, analysis and opinion from an unbiased point of view.
From such a well respected journalist and veteran of the game, Wilbon made a rookie mistake.
While one may argue that comments such as these add a sensational aspect to ESPN, which would in return add more viewers and maybe allow ESPN to matter more to the outside world, I would agree that partially that is true. But I can guarantee you that if ESPN continued to have their personality hosts allow their personal beliefs to seep in to their reporting, there would be many viewers who would turn away. Sports fans are human, and many of them have strong political opinions as is. The last thing ESPN wants is some fan saying " Aw gosh Wilbon keep your dam opinions to yourself," and than change the channel.
Just take a look at exhibit A, a comment posted on www.mediaite.com; ChrisNH says:
October 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Reason #344 why people hate journalists (most of them, anyway): They act all ‘high-and-mighty’ about their ‘ethics’ and ‘code of conduct.’ They act as though they sit on some throne above everyone else. I mean, they act as though a J-School degree (those who have them) is somehow on the same plane as a doctorate degree. And then! Then, they don’t even practice what they preach! They act as ”elite, professional journalists’ while breaking every tenet in the book. Next time, Wilbon, keep that in mind when someone rolls their eyes every time you say something. Don’t act as though your next act of heroism will be to cure cancer or something."
Sure it is only one person and one comment, but for ESPN's sake, and the sake of their millions of viewers who pay for their mortgages, one is too much.
They can thank Wilbon for that.
When controversial conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh's bid to purchase the St. Louis Rams was denied last week, Wilbon made a bad ( but understandable) mistake and missquoted, along with numerous other television cable news shows, that Limbaugh had said years ago that, "Slavery built the south, I am not saying we should bring it back I am just saying we should acknowledge its merits."
Note: When reports came out ten days ago that Limbaugh wanted to buy the Rams, The St, Louis dispatch along with USA Today and other media outlets picked this slavery quote up from Wikipedia. The quote had ended up there from a book that was published three years ago. However, Limbaugh denies the comments and there is no proof that he ever made those comments. Wilbon admits that he was given those comments minutes before he went on air.
Additionally, On his PTI show on October 9th Wilbon said, "I dont know whether Limbaugh is a straight up bigot or he simply plays one on tv and radio, but he is universally reviled by black people in this country."
In regards to his first comment pertaining to slavery, Wilbon apologized directly to Limbaugh. " That’s a journalistic no-no. What? If I had checked and found out the information that we had basic access to every day on deadline, I might have done it anyway. Still, that’s wrong and a journalistic no-no, and I said that to him."
Than, on Sunday October 18th, Wilbon went on CNN and said that he stood by his comment that many black people dispise Limbaugh. http://www.mediaite.com/print/espn-reporter-apologizes-for-slandering-limbaugh-rush-rubs-it-in-with-journal-op-ed/
Whether or not Wilbon is right or wrong and whether or not Limbaugh deserves to have a team, which is certainly debatable, Wilbon made a mistake that a 17-year Washington Post Columnist should not make, especially one that represents the most trusted brand sports media outlet in the world. Wilbon fused sports and politics, something that ESPN should try to stay far away from.
Honestly, I am not really concerned with Wilbon getting the facts wrong or misquoting someone more than I am worried about his agenda. Clearly Wilbon is not a fan of Limbaugh, but the problem lies in the fact that I know that. I am a sports fan, and when I watch ESPN I watch it because I want sports, not the bull I get on cable news.
Off course ESPN should urge Wilbon and his co-host Tony Kornheiser to comment on the Limbaugh controversy but they should make sure to stick to the perspective of the NFL.
For instance, nationally syndicated ESPN radio host, Colin Cowherd, commented on his show last Thursday that Limbaugh should not believe he is being targeted because he stands for conservative views, but rather the NFL is simply trying to protect its image. Said Cowherd, " Larry Flynt, who is liberal and owns a porno magazine would also be denied." While Cowherd is giving a somewhat heavily loaded political opinion, he is giving it from the view of the NFL, not his own personal beliefs.
Wilbon should have been smarter. In my opinion Wilbon has a good point, but as a sports fan the last thing I want is to look at my favorite sports network, ESPN, and think of their reporters as guys with a political agenda. If Wilbon wants to advocate for what he believes in that is totally fine, but ESPN is a brand the tries to stick with the facts and provide fans with sports information, analysis and opinion from an unbiased point of view.
From such a well respected journalist and veteran of the game, Wilbon made a rookie mistake.
While one may argue that comments such as these add a sensational aspect to ESPN, which would in return add more viewers and maybe allow ESPN to matter more to the outside world, I would agree that partially that is true. But I can guarantee you that if ESPN continued to have their personality hosts allow their personal beliefs to seep in to their reporting, there would be many viewers who would turn away. Sports fans are human, and many of them have strong political opinions as is. The last thing ESPN wants is some fan saying " Aw gosh Wilbon keep your dam opinions to yourself," and than change the channel.
Just take a look at exhibit A, a comment posted on www.mediaite.com; ChrisNH says:
October 18, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Reason #344 why people hate journalists (most of them, anyway): They act all ‘high-and-mighty’ about their ‘ethics’ and ‘code of conduct.’ They act as though they sit on some throne above everyone else. I mean, they act as though a J-School degree (those who have them) is somehow on the same plane as a doctorate degree. And then! Then, they don’t even practice what they preach! They act as ”elite, professional journalists’ while breaking every tenet in the book. Next time, Wilbon, keep that in mind when someone rolls their eyes every time you say something. Don’t act as though your next act of heroism will be to cure cancer or something."
Sure it is only one person and one comment, but for ESPN's sake, and the sake of their millions of viewers who pay for their mortgages, one is too much.
They can thank Wilbon for that.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Laughter is genious
Sports and comedy are not always synonymous, and are usually never used together to make money.
In fact, I cannot really think of any two comedic products and sports products that are intertwined. Sure, sports events may throw in some humor every once in a while, ( think Kiss Me Camera on Scoreboard)and ya content may be funny now and then and broadcasters are probably to corny sometimes in an effort to create a laugh, but rarely ever do sports outlets give fans an entire product that's sole purpose is to make people crack up.
Not until ESPN began the Bill Simmons column, who is formerly known as " The Sports Guy."
A former writer for " The Jimmy Kimmel Show" Simmons has been writing a column for ESPN.com since 2002. The column, which is called " Page 2" is absolutely hilarious. While the columns themselves can be very lengthy, taking a side an hour to read it will cheer anyone up. Simmons style is very pessimistic, and he makes fun and takes stab at any athlete or owner who deserves it ( and some that don't) Check out his most recent column making Oakland Raiders Quarterback Jamarcus Russell look like a Pee Wee player.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/091009
Many times, Simmons won't even talk about sports, but things that have very little to do with actual X's and O's. In the same column linked, Simmons answers an e-mailer’s questions about what she should wear for Halloween so she could piss off her fellow New Yorkers. Simmons then gives her numerous choices of athletes and gimmicks, including dressing up like Derek Jeter with a syringe in his arm to imply he does steroids (Anyone that knows baseball knows that's not true.)
Simmons is also a native of Boston, and he usually gives hilarious anecdotes associated with his Boston’s sports passion, like how he took a four hour walk with his dog and got lost after a Celtics loss.
What was once actually on a separate link form the ESPN.com home page ( hence the name Page 2) is now and for the last year or so, on the home page of ESPN.com In fact, right next to Rick Reilly's column ( one of the greatest sports writers of all time), the only other column featured on the home page is Bill Simmons'.
But of all things, why does Simmons deserve such an honor? Wouldn't a more insightful column appear on the first page, as opposed to a comedic piece that is more entertainment than informative?
That's like movies.com putting Dumb and Dumber on its all time movies list? Good movie but not all time.
So why does ESPN believe in Simmons so much? Well, for one, The Sports Guy's column has great numbers and is the most read sports column on the site and maybe in the world.
Side note, ESPN has also had friction with Simmons. Remember Disney owns ESPN, and Simmons sometimes can say too much of what is on his mind, so there is not the biggest love relationship there.
( http://deadspin.com/248853/bill-simmons-isnt-going-anywhere)
So why than did ESPN sign Simmons until 2010?
Or better question, why do so many people read Simmons?
The meaning is in the humor. Listen, I am not a Psychologist, but I am a really smart sports person who knows when content is good and why it is good.
Simmons is great not only because he makes you laugh but he makes fans think. How many times have you seen a movie that really makes you laugh but also has a profound effect on you? ( I.e. Sideways)
Simmons anecdotes are so easy to relate to as a sports fan, and many of his pieces are extremely insightful. Sometimes, humor columns make me think more than serious opinion’s one can.
The best quality of Simmons is that he says what is on his mind, putting the reader inside his head. All the negative things that writers hold back from writing, or perhaps just say in a politically correct way, Simmons never refrains from saying. As a reader, you are always wondering what he is going to say next.
To prove that Simmons is not all about fun and games, he once had a forty page debate with media scholar Malcolm Galdwell ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090513/part1) debating topics such as the role of leadership in sports. To keep it simple, Simmons proved he could THINK about sports as well.
Listen, ESPN knows what it is doing. Humor and sports is great, if it is done well.
And hey, its sports, lighten up and laugh, even if you think Simmons is a jerk.
In fact, I cannot really think of any two comedic products and sports products that are intertwined. Sure, sports events may throw in some humor every once in a while, ( think Kiss Me Camera on Scoreboard)and ya content may be funny now and then and broadcasters are probably to corny sometimes in an effort to create a laugh, but rarely ever do sports outlets give fans an entire product that's sole purpose is to make people crack up.
Not until ESPN began the Bill Simmons column, who is formerly known as " The Sports Guy."
A former writer for " The Jimmy Kimmel Show" Simmons has been writing a column for ESPN.com since 2002. The column, which is called " Page 2" is absolutely hilarious. While the columns themselves can be very lengthy, taking a side an hour to read it will cheer anyone up. Simmons style is very pessimistic, and he makes fun and takes stab at any athlete or owner who deserves it ( and some that don't) Check out his most recent column making Oakland Raiders Quarterback Jamarcus Russell look like a Pee Wee player.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/091009
Many times, Simmons won't even talk about sports, but things that have very little to do with actual X's and O's. In the same column linked, Simmons answers an e-mailer’s questions about what she should wear for Halloween so she could piss off her fellow New Yorkers. Simmons then gives her numerous choices of athletes and gimmicks, including dressing up like Derek Jeter with a syringe in his arm to imply he does steroids (Anyone that knows baseball knows that's not true.)
Simmons is also a native of Boston, and he usually gives hilarious anecdotes associated with his Boston’s sports passion, like how he took a four hour walk with his dog and got lost after a Celtics loss.
What was once actually on a separate link form the ESPN.com home page ( hence the name Page 2) is now and for the last year or so, on the home page of ESPN.com In fact, right next to Rick Reilly's column ( one of the greatest sports writers of all time), the only other column featured on the home page is Bill Simmons'.
But of all things, why does Simmons deserve such an honor? Wouldn't a more insightful column appear on the first page, as opposed to a comedic piece that is more entertainment than informative?
That's like movies.com putting Dumb and Dumber on its all time movies list? Good movie but not all time.
So why does ESPN believe in Simmons so much? Well, for one, The Sports Guy's column has great numbers and is the most read sports column on the site and maybe in the world.
Side note, ESPN has also had friction with Simmons. Remember Disney owns ESPN, and Simmons sometimes can say too much of what is on his mind, so there is not the biggest love relationship there.
( http://deadspin.com/248853/bill-simmons-isnt-going-anywhere)
So why than did ESPN sign Simmons until 2010?
Or better question, why do so many people read Simmons?
The meaning is in the humor. Listen, I am not a Psychologist, but I am a really smart sports person who knows when content is good and why it is good.
Simmons is great not only because he makes you laugh but he makes fans think. How many times have you seen a movie that really makes you laugh but also has a profound effect on you? ( I.e. Sideways)
Simmons anecdotes are so easy to relate to as a sports fan, and many of his pieces are extremely insightful. Sometimes, humor columns make me think more than serious opinion’s one can.
The best quality of Simmons is that he says what is on his mind, putting the reader inside his head. All the negative things that writers hold back from writing, or perhaps just say in a politically correct way, Simmons never refrains from saying. As a reader, you are always wondering what he is going to say next.
To prove that Simmons is not all about fun and games, he once had a forty page debate with media scholar Malcolm Galdwell ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090513/part1) debating topics such as the role of leadership in sports. To keep it simple, Simmons proved he could THINK about sports as well.
Listen, ESPN knows what it is doing. Humor and sports is great, if it is done well.
And hey, its sports, lighten up and laugh, even if you think Simmons is a jerk.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
SELLING SEX THE RIGHT WAY
I thought about it and thought about it some more until I realized that ESPN has done it better than Sports Illustrated, at least for this time.
Long competing rivals for sports fans, or maybe just two companies who sell a similar product who actually help each other out, ( remember good things come in pairs from "Knocked up?") do, like all magazines, create "special issues" in order to create more buzz and really to sell more ad's to companies who love magazine specials because they typically get the most amount of readers. All this according to a recent New York Times Article
( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12adco.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=espn%20body%20issue&st=cse)
While ESPN the Magazine can never compete with Sports Illustrated Magazine, mainly because SI specializes in their magazine and ESPN specializes in television ( for those of you who do not know SI has a website as well)However, ESPN did something last week that I find to be more upstanding then SI; It created the annual Body Issue, the answer to SI's annual Swim Suit Special.
The Swim Suit Special, which has been SI's number one rated issue for over twenty years, features beautiful models in some remote, tropical Island in sexy swimsuits and some of them are only left with body paint on. The only connection SI makes to sports is that they have a section featuring athletes beautiful wives. But for the most part, the issue is about sex, beautiful models and very little connection to sports. It sells, by all means I love it, and it is great for college dorm rooms and for the old man to peer through when the wife is not around.
But ESPN the magazine, from an intellectual stand point, maybe not so much from a business stand point, has picked a different angle to sell sex and grab advertisers attention; they feature athletes themselves. ESPN the Body Issue, (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4526351) while showing athletes huge physiques these days, also has stories analyzing how far women athletes should go when advertising their bodies. They have another section showing off athletes scars, which makes one have an appreciation for how far athletes go today towards success. There is even a column by the famous Rick Reilly, who describes the reality that reporters go through when having to report players when they are nude in the locker room. In all, the issue gives fans an inside depth of how art, beauty and the body contributes to the shaping of athlete, especially in today's society.
Sure, the women may not be as sexy, and ya, most of my buddies and yours will probably prefer Si's Swim Suit edition. But if you really want to see some cool pics of your favorite athletes, and maybe even think a little bit, than ESPN The Body Issue is the way to go.
Long competing rivals for sports fans, or maybe just two companies who sell a similar product who actually help each other out, ( remember good things come in pairs from "Knocked up?") do, like all magazines, create "special issues" in order to create more buzz and really to sell more ad's to companies who love magazine specials because they typically get the most amount of readers. All this according to a recent New York Times Article
( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12adco.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=espn%20body%20issue&st=cse)
While ESPN the Magazine can never compete with Sports Illustrated Magazine, mainly because SI specializes in their magazine and ESPN specializes in television ( for those of you who do not know SI has a website as well)However, ESPN did something last week that I find to be more upstanding then SI; It created the annual Body Issue, the answer to SI's annual Swim Suit Special.
The Swim Suit Special, which has been SI's number one rated issue for over twenty years, features beautiful models in some remote, tropical Island in sexy swimsuits and some of them are only left with body paint on. The only connection SI makes to sports is that they have a section featuring athletes beautiful wives. But for the most part, the issue is about sex, beautiful models and very little connection to sports. It sells, by all means I love it, and it is great for college dorm rooms and for the old man to peer through when the wife is not around.
But ESPN the magazine, from an intellectual stand point, maybe not so much from a business stand point, has picked a different angle to sell sex and grab advertisers attention; they feature athletes themselves. ESPN the Body Issue, (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4526351) while showing athletes huge physiques these days, also has stories analyzing how far women athletes should go when advertising their bodies. They have another section showing off athletes scars, which makes one have an appreciation for how far athletes go today towards success. There is even a column by the famous Rick Reilly, who describes the reality that reporters go through when having to report players when they are nude in the locker room. In all, the issue gives fans an inside depth of how art, beauty and the body contributes to the shaping of athlete, especially in today's society.
Sure, the women may not be as sexy, and ya, most of my buddies and yours will probably prefer Si's Swim Suit edition. But if you really want to see some cool pics of your favorite athletes, and maybe even think a little bit, than ESPN The Body Issue is the way to go.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
SEX SELLS, EVEN IN SPORTS
Last week ESPN the Magazine came out with the body issue, which features semi-nude pictures of half-naked athletes, although none of the pictures are to revealing.
An article from the New York Times points out that the reason ESPN decides to come out with an issue as risque as as " The Body Issue" is because advertisers are usually prone
An article from the New York Times points out that the reason ESPN decides to come out with an issue as risque as as " The Body Issue" is because advertisers are usually prone
Saturday, October 3, 2009
ESPN's obsession with Favre
ESPN has done it again. They have created enough buzz around one guy and one game to attract enough viewers to support an entire country.
There is no question in my mind that ESPN knows exactly what it is doing. There like con artists who suck the viewer in, plant a ticking time bomb in fans heads and before it is too late they pull the lever.
This Monday night the buzz created by ESPN over Brett Favre will allow them to cash in on their over extensive coverage of Favre, proving that they are no different than any other media business in the world.
Some stories are worthy enough to give extensive coverage to, such as Kobe Bryant being accused of rape in Colorado, or Alex Rodriguez, one of the best baseball players of all time, being caught for taking steroids. But extensive coverage, for two summers in-a row of a 40-year-old quarterback, half way over the hill who keeps retiring and un-retiring to join other teams can only mean one thing; ESPN knows how to lay out its cards.
Sure the Brett Favre saga was something worth noting, covering and analyzing but ESPN spent the last two summers covering Favre's drama with his old team, the Packers, to his new team, The Jets, to another retirement to un retiring to his new, new team, the Vikings, as much as cable news network’s covered 9/11 on 9/12.
For two summers Favre's latest tweet, most recent text, recent flight plans and even what he ate for lunch was reported on ESPN radio, magazine and was constantly the headline on ESPN.com and Sports Center.
Summer time is never a big time for sports fans. Plenty of golf and summer baseball, but certainly not enough action to get fans watching, listening, and reading ESPN as much as they do during the most of the year.
So, ESPN has to find a way to suck fans in, attract viewers and keep the advertisers coming.
Three summers ago it was the Michael Vick dog fighting story and every summer there will always be some story that ESPN will blow up.
Sometimes, it is hard to differentiate between whether or not fans think a story is a big deal or the story itself receives a lot of attention simply because it is blown up by ESPN; think, what came first the chicken or the egg?
I once learned that TV tells viewers what topics they should care about, not the other way around.
If ESPN gave little attention to Favre this off-season would fans complain? Sports Illustrated obviously got sick of the Favre attention, coming out with an issue in August that had a headline on the top right that said “Favre-free issue."
Whether or not the Favre saga received enough attention or not is debatable, but what can be concluded is that ESPN, while promising to " Serve sports fans wherever sports is read, heard or watched," is also in the business of making fans become obsessed with a certain story, thus increasing their ratings. Yes, my friend, even sports can get twisted, biased and unfair.
Let's not simply blame ESPN, however. Cable news coverage will also hope on the train of a certain story and ride it as long as it has legs in hopes of sucking in viewers and driving up ratings, especially during slow news months. Think; famous kidnappings, Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton.
But ESPN? You betcha.
This Monday night, ESPN will cash in on its Favre Coverage (by the way I forgot to mention that ESPN had a bottom ticker in the summer called " Favre.")
This Monday night ESPN will feature the Vikings ( Favre’s new team) against the Packers ( his old team that he played for, for over fifteen years, won a Super Bowl and three MVP's with).
So why is this a big game? Note: Favre was probably more known in Green Bay in his playing days there than the governor of Wisconsin.
The game will be nationally televised on Monday Night Football on ESPN, and advertisers have probably payed millions of dollars for spots during the game. There will probably be about 30 million people watching the game and maybe even more.
What ESPN does so well is create " Buzz." Throughout this week ESPN has had reporters at both teams’ practice facilities, asking players on both sides how Favre's first match against his former team will affect the overall game.
Through all this ESPN successfully creates buzz, as if they needed to anymore. While a fan may even be sickened by the amount of Favre coverage, they can’t help but watch on Monday night. Even my mom, who barely watches sports, knows the significance of Monday night’s game.
What ESPN has the luxury of, as opposed to regular news, is that the story they are covering has longevity. Sometimes in news a story dies and the network has to pick another news story to give extensive coverage to. For instance once a crazy murder happens if the killer is not captured than eventually the news has to stop covering it.
But with ESPN, coverage of a story almost always turns into reality. ESPN can talk about Michael Vick going to jail for several months, and then when he gets out of jail for several more and then spend several weeks talking about his first game. Sometimes, a story like that can last for years.
On Monday night the Favre saga will once again come to fruition for ESPN. All of it’s over obsessive coverage will pay off, as millions of viewers will stay tuned.
No matter what the outcome, ESPN has created enough buzz to make sure that it always wins just like a bad movie can create enough buzz that people will show up and see it anyways. Think Transformers 2.
So next time you see a story on the number one network for sports, just realize that ESPN is no different than Fox News, CNN or your local news outlet.
While they all may be serving us, in the end, they're just making sure their wallets get fatter.
Maybe ESPN should send a thank you card to Favre after Monday’s game.
There is no question in my mind that ESPN knows exactly what it is doing. There like con artists who suck the viewer in, plant a ticking time bomb in fans heads and before it is too late they pull the lever.
This Monday night the buzz created by ESPN over Brett Favre will allow them to cash in on their over extensive coverage of Favre, proving that they are no different than any other media business in the world.
Some stories are worthy enough to give extensive coverage to, such as Kobe Bryant being accused of rape in Colorado, or Alex Rodriguez, one of the best baseball players of all time, being caught for taking steroids. But extensive coverage, for two summers in-a row of a 40-year-old quarterback, half way over the hill who keeps retiring and un-retiring to join other teams can only mean one thing; ESPN knows how to lay out its cards.
Sure the Brett Favre saga was something worth noting, covering and analyzing but ESPN spent the last two summers covering Favre's drama with his old team, the Packers, to his new team, The Jets, to another retirement to un retiring to his new, new team, the Vikings, as much as cable news network’s covered 9/11 on 9/12.
For two summers Favre's latest tweet, most recent text, recent flight plans and even what he ate for lunch was reported on ESPN radio, magazine and was constantly the headline on ESPN.com and Sports Center.
Summer time is never a big time for sports fans. Plenty of golf and summer baseball, but certainly not enough action to get fans watching, listening, and reading ESPN as much as they do during the most of the year.
So, ESPN has to find a way to suck fans in, attract viewers and keep the advertisers coming.
Three summers ago it was the Michael Vick dog fighting story and every summer there will always be some story that ESPN will blow up.
Sometimes, it is hard to differentiate between whether or not fans think a story is a big deal or the story itself receives a lot of attention simply because it is blown up by ESPN; think, what came first the chicken or the egg?
I once learned that TV tells viewers what topics they should care about, not the other way around.
If ESPN gave little attention to Favre this off-season would fans complain? Sports Illustrated obviously got sick of the Favre attention, coming out with an issue in August that had a headline on the top right that said “Favre-free issue."
Whether or not the Favre saga received enough attention or not is debatable, but what can be concluded is that ESPN, while promising to " Serve sports fans wherever sports is read, heard or watched," is also in the business of making fans become obsessed with a certain story, thus increasing their ratings. Yes, my friend, even sports can get twisted, biased and unfair.
Let's not simply blame ESPN, however. Cable news coverage will also hope on the train of a certain story and ride it as long as it has legs in hopes of sucking in viewers and driving up ratings, especially during slow news months. Think; famous kidnappings, Michael Jackson and Bill Clinton.
But ESPN? You betcha.
This Monday night, ESPN will cash in on its Favre Coverage (by the way I forgot to mention that ESPN had a bottom ticker in the summer called " Favre.")
This Monday night ESPN will feature the Vikings ( Favre’s new team) against the Packers ( his old team that he played for, for over fifteen years, won a Super Bowl and three MVP's with).
So why is this a big game? Note: Favre was probably more known in Green Bay in his playing days there than the governor of Wisconsin.
The game will be nationally televised on Monday Night Football on ESPN, and advertisers have probably payed millions of dollars for spots during the game. There will probably be about 30 million people watching the game and maybe even more.
What ESPN does so well is create " Buzz." Throughout this week ESPN has had reporters at both teams’ practice facilities, asking players on both sides how Favre's first match against his former team will affect the overall game.
Through all this ESPN successfully creates buzz, as if they needed to anymore. While a fan may even be sickened by the amount of Favre coverage, they can’t help but watch on Monday night. Even my mom, who barely watches sports, knows the significance of Monday night’s game.
What ESPN has the luxury of, as opposed to regular news, is that the story they are covering has longevity. Sometimes in news a story dies and the network has to pick another news story to give extensive coverage to. For instance once a crazy murder happens if the killer is not captured than eventually the news has to stop covering it.
But with ESPN, coverage of a story almost always turns into reality. ESPN can talk about Michael Vick going to jail for several months, and then when he gets out of jail for several more and then spend several weeks talking about his first game. Sometimes, a story like that can last for years.
On Monday night the Favre saga will once again come to fruition for ESPN. All of it’s over obsessive coverage will pay off, as millions of viewers will stay tuned.
No matter what the outcome, ESPN has created enough buzz to make sure that it always wins just like a bad movie can create enough buzz that people will show up and see it anyways. Think Transformers 2.
So next time you see a story on the number one network for sports, just realize that ESPN is no different than Fox News, CNN or your local news outlet.
While they all may be serving us, in the end, they're just making sure their wallets get fatter.
Maybe ESPN should send a thank you card to Favre after Monday’s game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
