Eight days ago, I predicted that pro athletes would soon be banned from taking part in Twitter. And thanks to more than one Twitter-related reprimand during the first week of NFL training camp, some sort of formal embargo appears to be right around the corner.
(’Guys, would you be cool with putting a washing machine on the desk?’)
But the draconian policy ESPN recently dropped on its staff, forbidding them all from Tweeting anything sports-related, surprised even the cynic in me.
But then I remembered 1998.
It was in 1998 that George Bodenheimer, a career ESPN ad sales guy, began overseeing all programming at Bristol. Not coincidentally, Disney gave Bodenheimer the reins after Fox Sports launched a rival national sports network that same year - the first (and only) true competition ever lodged against ESPN.
Previously, ESPN had exploded in popularity under the guidance of Steve Bornstein, whose background was in programming. So why did Bodenheimer suddenly take over from Bornstein, who to that point had steered ESPN to wild success? Disney saw that Fox Sports Net was coming after ESPN’s advertisers, and wanted to have a salesman running the entire operation in order to best protect profits.
If you’ve ever worked in media, you know of the eternal battle between sales and programming. Sales wants to dumb down content to make it a more palatable commodity for advertisers, while programming wants to produce provocative content that will draw viewers/listeners/readers. I worked at innumerable radio and TV stations doing sports over 16 years, and I saw this fight play out at every single one of my stops.
So what does that all have to do with Twitter? A whole lot.
Before Bodenheimer came along, you didn’t have the obscene number of ad placements across all ESPN platforms. The content was what drove the shows. But now, it’s the opposite. ESPN sales comes up with concepts for advertisers, and if the advertisers agree, you get “THE BUDWEISER HOT SEAT!!!”.
Mind you, that regular interview segment on SportsCenter mostly likely would never have existed if sales hadn’t gotten Bud to sign off on the concept.
In other words, the tail is wagging the dog at ESPN.
That’s precisely the reason why after Bodenheimer took over, you saw the network reposition what it promoted. During Bornstein’s reign, SportsCenter and its anchors were the focus - and they were presented as celebrities. But when Bodenheimer came in, he knew that there was more ad revenue to be made from ESPN’s broadcast properties, like the NFL, MLB and the NBA, so the network reversed its programming course dramatically.
The guys who made ESPN the wildly-popular property that it was under Bornstein, Craig Kilborn, Rich Eisen, Keith Olbermann and even Dan Patrick were treated like cogs in a machine by Bodenheimer - and eventually were nudged out the door.
But what about Chris Berman, how did he surive? As he was cloaked in ESPN’s top ad revenue-generating property, the NFL, he was left alone.
Now what do you see on SportsCenter? The same guy, over and over and over again. Back in the mid-to-late ’90s, every dude I knew could name all the SportsCenter anchors, easy. Now? Forget it.
It’s clear that the primary focus of ESPN’s upper management is making money by selling advertising - and hitting their numbers every quarter. Sales trumps programming, which is why you see the network with a much more vanilla presentation today than it had 10-15 years ago. And why the games, which produce a huge portion of the net’s overall ad revenue, take precedent over ESPN-originated properties like SportsCenter.
With that in mind, since ESPN’s broadcast properties are the most valuable asset Bristol has, you can bet the network is very careful not to report negative news about its broadcast partners (see Ben Roethlisberger and the NFL and 2003 steroid list and MLB.)
This all dovetails into ESPN’s seemingly absurd approach to Twitter. You would think that the network would want on-air staff to get breaking sports news out there as soon as possible. But if you are managing with a sales perspective, you know that individual personalities don’t drive revenue at ESPN anymore. All you want to do is keep your clients happy, so why chance having a Tweet go out that, though true, could be damaging to one of ESPN’s broadcast partners and/or advertisers? Not to mention if an ESPN on-air person gets a Tweet wrong, and Maytag cancels its pro bowling ad deal!
The scariest part of all this is Bodenheimer has in many cases indoctrinated ESPN editorial with that mindset. And those who believe that programming is what’s most important are clearly now in the minority at Bristol. It’s all about the sale, not breaking the story.
Of course, the only thing that will change all this is if a legitimate competitor emerges to challenge ESPN’s blander-by-the-day programming. If that happens, you can bet Bristol will go back to serving its viewers/listeners/readers first, and advertisers second.
10:46 pm on August 5th, 2009
good work dude. home-run.
10:56 pm on August 5th, 2009
Great read.
I think this is crazy. I don’t even follow the ESPN twitter feed. But I do follow several ESPN personalities, and I will click on mostly anything they put in their feeds. So even though I rarely read ESPN anymore, I will if prompted by TSG or Jemele Hill. (yeah, I’m a sheep.)
11:01 pm on August 5th, 2009
I have a feeling anyone who’s worked in any form of media recently will just read that, nodding their heads over and over.
One thing I’ll toss out there: I think CNNSI failed just as hard as Fox did to create an ESPN competitor.
11:17 pm on August 5th, 2009
Also note that the more vanilla/indistinguishable the on-air personalities are, the more disposable they are, and the less money they can demand — as Max Kellerman found out. All leading to more dollars staying on the bottom line.
The most galling part, of course: The ratings bear out that the people are watching anyway. So as much as we bitch, we’re getting what we deserved (”we” being “you all”, as I gave up all but NFL Sunday Countdown years ago, and will probably abandon that this season).
11:45 pm on August 5th, 2009
i can defeat them..
12:37 am on August 6th, 2009
Sad and more sad. I certainly won’t watch ESPN as often.
1:20 am on August 6th, 2009
Eh, I don’t see it as that bad of a thing. To an extent, ESPN own’s the “talent”, much in the same way TV franchises own the image of a character. The talent we are speaking about here are the anchors themselves and the message or content they communicate. Twitter, or any other blogging medium makes it incredibly difficult to maintain the continuity of that message - which may very well be part of a vanilla corporation, whether we like it or not.
I can tweet or blog about whatever I want, but if my messages get close to anything about my customers or the company itself, you just know my head will roll. To me that is understandable, and while I have more freedom, I’m not a celebrity anchor. Which just makes more sense to me that ESPN would want to put a blanket policy out there for its Employees.
8:54 am on August 6th, 2009
well played sir
8:59 am on August 6th, 2009
100% correct. Great Job on this.
9:11 am on August 6th, 2009
This is definitely one of the best posts I’ve ever read on the blog. Great insight.
11:01 am on August 6th, 2009
Great story. I too worked in programming for TV stations for many years. There is a never ending battle between sales and programming. Both sides will butt heads and never budge on content. Sales can have great ideas like the “Coors Lite Freeze Cam” but if you give them total control eventually they will over-commercialize the content and kill the product. They lose the ability to say no to anything, so then content is under the control of the clients. Inmates will run the asylum and that’s never good. I’ve personally witnessed this on multiple occasions. ESPN is on the thresh hold of making their content TOO commercialized and driving viewers away. Until there is a true competitor, there’s nothing to drive them to and sales will reign.
12:02 pm on August 6th, 2009
Wow. I’m in total agreement with the majority of comments above — a great article. Both provocative and informative.
12:10 pm on August 6th, 2009
Bill Simmons, their most popular web personality, had over 550 000 followers and now he’s down. I’m sure all the links he put up that directed them to ESPN won’t be missed. Pure nonsense.
1:29 pm on August 6th, 2009
Thanks for the historical perspective. I always wondered why I stopped watching ESPN. Now I know. And now I know whose to blame for it.
I loath guys like Bodenheimer. He’d probably bend over and take one in the arse if you paid him enough money.
9:54 am on August 7th, 2009
Excellent article. I’ve closely observed the devolution at ESPN for years, but never knew the personnel behind it. Great work.
1:30 pm on August 7th, 2009
It’s a vicious circle: programming gets blander, viewers drop off, sales needs more things to sell to make up for ad rates drop from ratings drop, they overcommercialize EVERYTHING and programming becomes blander.
Heaven forbid that they just let the game play out without obscuring and interrupting it with bells and whistles and flashing lights on a sponsored feature that NO ONE cares about.
I like the article but I still don’t understand the decision except it is in line with other stances on not posting to YouTube, not filming personal stuff in remote trucks.
The thought of not wanting to have negative comments about properties that they hold rights to just undermines every rule of objectivity and sincerity in journalism and gives more power to the leagues, who IMHO need LESS power and a few reality checks about what is wrong.
The only thing I can think of is that they want the viewer to go to SportsCenter or ESPN to get the (now exclusive) scoop where they will count in ratings and therefore generate ad $$, rather than get that scoop quicker on Twitter (or another site that has poached it from an ESPN-talent posted Tweet) where it has no impact on ESPN ratings/ad pricing aka the bottom line.
2:58 pm on August 7th, 2009
I’m not exactly a fan of corporations. But there are some mistakes in this story. ESPN doesn’t want their employees posting anything sports-related that the network isn’t covering either on TV, radio, website, etc. I see no problem with that whatsoever. There is no rule prohibiting employees from posting on anything that’s being covered, nor regulations prohibiting social exchanges.
Also, Simmons is not down on Twitter, he’s still posting.
I’m all for crushing evil empires, and there are some things about the new ESPN edict that may not be cool. But at least gets the facts straight on what’s okay and what isn’t.
6:41 pm on August 7th, 2009
Excellent analysis.
3:26 pm on August 29th, 2009
Brooks - This was a good story for sure.
Thanks for all the great info and the time you put into this.
Bill
thefairball.com
twitter.com/thefairball