OT: Fox Sports 1

[whaler11]

If it resulted in the disposition of select ESPN bloggers I could see an incremental improvement (and by the way, in the spirit of hyperbole, I do believe they will survive). What I do disagree with is the suggestion that ESPN and ESPN.com are wholly separate entities, or that ESPN.com is a substantial subset of broadcast ESPN. There is an ongoing merging of the "two" entities. Right now, ESPN.com is an important place holder and incubator for the future methodology, delivery and consumption of their product. Eventually the ESPN content will be perceived as one and the same by the average viewer. ESPN3 will eventually become ESPN. The same goes for every major network.

Lastly, there is a reason why social based companies are valued at such an exponential rate. I can see by the number of your posts you are engaged with this site. ESPN has a vested interest in garnering the same level of interaction, which provides them with more opportunities to generate revenue. Yes, TV revenue, as it's defined today, still outpaces "web" revenue, but it's changing, and will continue to change.

While ESPN's future may be 'online' it won't have much to do with their current web portal. They already moved any quality writing they have to Grantland who turned off commenting immediately.

Most 'news' sites are better when they turn off commenting. Do you really believe there is a positive economic value to drawing the dregs of the internet commenting anonymously?

You'd actually have a success on your hands when you can have conversations that aren't so terrible people would put their names on them.

 

[itgoeslike]

While ESPN's future may be 'online' it won't have much to do with their current web portal. They already moved any quality writing they have to Grantland who turned off commenting immediately.

Most 'news' sites are better when they turn off commenting. Do you really believe there is a positive economic value to drawing the dregs of the internet commenting anonymously?

You'd actually have a success on your hands when you can have conversations that aren't so terrible people would put their names on them.

It's not that ESPN's future will be "online" (as you put it), but rather "tv' will become more interactive and preference-driven. There will only be one version of content.

 

[whaler11]

It's not that ESPN's future will be "online" (as you put it), but rather "tv' will become more interactive and preference-driven. There will only be one version of content.

And it will have nothing to do with the garbage that is currently on ESPN.com.

 

[itgoeslike]

While ESPN's future may be 'online' it won't have much to do with their current web portal. They already moved any quality writing they have to Grantland who turned off commenting immediately.

Most 'news' sites are better when they turn off commenting. Do you really believe there is a positive economic value to drawing the dregs of the internet commenting anonymously?

You'd actually have a success on your hands when you can have conversations that aren't so terrible people would put their names on them.

- No, there are many news sites that have really good, insightful commentary that add value and perspective to a story.
- Yes, unfortunately, the dregs do generate some level of economic value. Many people frequent ESPN.com not read the article, or comment on the article, but rather to take in the mud slinging that goes on. Just look at highest rated shows on cable these days.
- I do agree that when people are "known" they tend to converse more respectfully, but it's only a success if people show up to converse. Media revenue and brand development is driven by numbers. I just think ESPN bungled the transition.

 

[zls44]

Anonymous commenting was a cesspool on ESPN.com. Heaven forbid we have accountability for idiocy!

 

[itgoeslike]

While ESPN's future may be 'online' it won't have much to do with their current web portal. They already moved any quality writing they have to Grantland who turned off commenting immediately.

Grantland allows comments on their blogs, they are just utilizing the facebook login that ESPN is now using.

 

[whaler11]

- No, there are many news sites that have really good, insightful commentary that add value and perspective to a story.
- Yes, unfortunately, the dregs do generate some level of economic value. Many people frequent ESPN.com not read the article, or comment on the article, but rather to take in the mud slinging that goes on. Just look at highest rated shows on cable these days.
- I do agree that when people are "known" they tend to converse more respectfully, but it's only a success if people show up to converse. Media revenue and brand development is driven by numbers. I just think ESPN bungled the transition.

I think you highly overvalue the internet version of monkeys throwing feces at each other and how they are monetized in the long run.

I'd love to see your examples of where the comments add insightful commentary. As far as I can that does not exist.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I actually loved the comments section due to the sheer idiocy of it all. The only time I would go to ESPN.com was to sort by most liked comment on the 100,000+ comment articles. Always got a good laugh.

If only there was some place else on the intent where anonymous idiots could make a comment about sports and other anonymous idiots could "like" them. Oh well.

 

[Chin Diesel]

ESPN looks at the comments section this way. They could care less what anyone is writing.

What they care about is that anyone who is commenting on articles or blogs is actively using their web pages, meaning that the advertisers on that page are getting views and that the fans commenting aren't using anyone else's web pages.

ESPN has to decide how much value there is in having a captive audience and how valuable are those who make up the comments demographics.

 

[whaler11]

ESPN looks at the comments section this way. They could care less what anyone is writing.

What they care about is that anyone who is commenting on articles or blogs is actively using their web pages, meaning that the advertisers on that page are getting views and that the fans commenting aren't using anyone else's web pages.

ESPN has to decide how much value there is in having a captive audience and how valuable are those who make up the comments demographics.

If they didn't care what people were writing, they wouldn't have shut anon off.

 

[itgoeslike]

If they didn't care what people were writing, they wouldn't have shut anon off.

The only thing ESPN cares about is revenue (they are a business). One of the reasons they transitioned to a facebook login is that they believe it would provide greater reach for their content. We'll see if that holds true for the demographics associated with their site.

 

[Chin Diesel]

If they didn't care what people were writing, they wouldn't have shut anon off.

You're half correct and we agree.

It's a pain in the arse to have to manage the comments section and I'm sure there is some level of liability of having people post random thoughts on ESPN websites. They have to balance that against a potential loss of advertising dollars due to lower verifiable traffic levels and time spent on web pages.

 

[whaler11]

You're half correct and we agree.

It's a pain in the arse to have to manage the comments section and I'm sure there is some level of liability of having people post random thoughts on ESPN websites. They have to balance that against a potential loss of advertising dollars due to lower verifiable traffic levels and time spent on web pages.

They clearly know what the exact trade off is - and they still did it - so maybe they know more than random message board posters and their decision is a bit more informed?

 

[itgoeslike]

They clearly know what the exact trade off is - and they still did it - so maybe they know more than random message board posters and their decision is a bit more informed?

I'm sure Coke new the tradeoffs when they changed their formula. I was simply making the point that ESPN's facebook login decision may have been a mistake. You can't maintain a blog with zero comments.

 

[Chin Diesel]

They clearly know what the exact trade off is - and they still did it - so maybe they know more than random message board posters and their decision is a bit more informed?

I'm sure Coke new the tradeoffs when they changed their formula. I was simply making the point that ESPN's facebook login decision may have been a mistake. You can't maintain a blog with zero comments.

Same thoughts here. ESPN surely did a cost/benefit analysis. But even the best of companies miscalcualte sometimes.

 

[zls44]

Same thoughts here. ESPN surely did a cost/benefit analysis. But even the best of companies miscalcualte sometimes.

I agree. But not here. Not in the least.

 

[whaler11]

Same thoughts here. ESPN surely did a cost/benefit analysis. But even the best of companies miscalcualte sometimes.

Sure they do. But they do have the Grantland experience recently.

 

[Fishy]

Anonymous comments and their authors are nothing but a headache for large sites.

The comments have to be moderated and it's an expensive hassle. Moving to a Facebook log-in will reduce the sheer volume of posts, but almost certainly improve the quality of them and will also whack the moderation mountain down to a very small hill.