HotelVitale wrote:dhsilv2 wrote:HotelVitale wrote:
You're not wrong but maybe missing or glossing over a few things. First espn just puts its TV content on youtube so they're not really spending $ at all on YT content. Them not performing that amazing at it is fine since it's sort of like a bonus (I know that's exaggerating the situation and cutting some corners but you get what I mean).
It's also fairly difficult and expensive to identify and develop good quality content creators. You need people out there looking for creators and can also foster and develop them over time and put them to work right away too. Same thing with record labels (for non-pop music), used to have big A&R and talent development teams and that was a big part of their business model, now a lot of them don't bother with that stuff or only do it superficially. In part because they no longer have a monopoly on exposure and bands aren't willing to sign with them on bad deals rather than just doing their own thing in more direct-to-consumer ways.
For espn and for bigger music companies, it's comparatively easy and profitable enough to just churn out a simple popular formula and focus on that rather than quality. And for higher quality content creators, they can start doing their own thing on their own terms and maybe let it be attached to a larger entity at some point (like Thinking Bball), but also have the option to make it profitable while DIY too.
In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if espn was like 'we could try to have a presence in the quality and more niche markets but it's not a great investment and complicates our staff a lot, and we defintely shouldn't bother crossing streams of our mainstream schlock and a more quality guy like Lowe.' But I can also see your point, and could see them kicking themselves in another couple years when their thing's shrinking and the niche market's growing and they don't have any way to get themselves into that game.
ESPN had before anyone else a paid web model with creators. Then they had grantland which admittedly didn't make money but that was due to them trying to hire every award winning writer under the sun. ESPN has their radio format as well.
The reality is ESPN started cutting costs to the point they've just left a once locked up market wide open and left a huge amount of money on the table. Nobody is denying that talented development is hard, in any industry. From accounting to sports. But ESPN had that infrastructure already too. Their cost slashing, which was needed, has gone too far and has left the company with a product that seemingly could just keep declining. ESPN is still profitable for now, but their revenue and profitability keep dropping. But what's confusing is that this was driven by cable TV's fall. But ESPN had all the opportunity for other sources of income before anyone else. And they've seemingly just walked away from it all.
I don't know what espn will be up to in their next phrase but I don't think it's just 'cutting costs' rampantly, I think it's that they intentionally decided they didn't really need Zach Lowe or the current older bball nerd crowd that follows him. Like you said they've tried to capture the more quality writing/analysis crowd for many years and never seemed to make it profitable or sustainable. Before Grantland there was TrueHoop to get in on the blogger crowd (which had some good content but was never that amazing) and before that there was like espn page 2 or something like that, where they put longer pieces form journalists/actual writers (guys like Scoop Robinson and Michael Wilbon). So I don't think they're new or inexperienced about the idea of trying to make better-quality content work, just think they're both aware of what goes into going for that and that it wasn't right for them now and/or a new approach was needed.
Also seems like well before Zach Lowe they got out of the talent-development game. Maybe because of poor management or bad timing with key people leaving or whatever else, but at this point it hasn't been a thing for them. Who's the last new young writer you remember coming up through their ranks?
Also firing Lowe doesn't mean they won't try to start something new. Lowe isn't fresh or new or at all at this point, and I think he was also bristling at the expectations ESPN had for him. So if you have one guy who's getting older (as are his followers), who's not really liking his job or the direction you're taking it, maybe it's better to cut bait on that and come up with a new plan.
ESPN has been cutting costs for close to a decade. That's why so many of the terrible take group has ALSO left ESPN. They've been dropping everyone from on air talent to staff level people. The last round of these was about this time last year, July I believe. Where they dropped 20 something on air people. But before that they've just been on a never ending cycle of this.
You talked about talent development...but part of that was Page 2 and Grantland and so on. ESPN argued for years that podcasts aren't profitable...then Bill Simmons takes his podcast and build a half billion dollar company around it.
Again my point is that ESPN has had a monopoly on this profitable market, but they never could figure out how to actually profit off it. And now to your point, they've cut off their talent generation portal which were those writers and potential digital media people. I guess my point isn't that Zach is the end of the world. But that ESPN's focus on TV as the market outside is growing and their push away from developing real sports talent is short sighted. This compounds when they're effectively putting on air talent out there who actively discourages people about the current NBA
If you spend a billion bucks on the NBA or NFL or whatever. You'd think it's worth a few million to have on air talent that helps educate people on what's happening and why something is good. It's just a good investment imo. I certainly know I'd have NEVER figured out the NFL without Madden and the likes. My parents didn't watch football so I was on my own.
