Comments on: Mystery Solved: Why ESPN Really Ditched Twitter

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:26:09 +0000

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

By: Tigersfan

Tigersfan — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:41:43 +0000

Excellent analysis.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:58:32 +0000

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.

By: ksb

ksb — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:30:57 +0000

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.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:54:36 +0000

Excellent article. I’ve closely observed the devolution at ESPN for years, but never knew the personnel behind it. Great work.

By: CJK

CJK — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:29:57 +0000

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.

By: Robin

Robin — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:10:57 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:02:29 +0000

Wow. I’m in total agreement with the majority of comments above — a great article. Both provocative and informative.

By: Tartikoff

Tartikoff — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:01:54 +0000

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.

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:11:14 +0000

This is definitely one of the best posts I’ve ever read on the blog. Great insight.