I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without it being too political.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without it being too political.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
Thanks for this. We'll re-visit this down the road and I hope you are right that Disney was hurt by the election.
If not, I'll call you out! Kidding.
It's complicated. Take the Visa program. That's a cost issue. So Disney's labor costs will likely increase.
On the other hand, if the economy explodes, Disney will do quite well.
Only if you believe that visa policy will change. It wont. I dont think businesses were really operating under the assumption that governance would be consistent with campaign statements.
It just seems to me like the cable model is outdated. I cut the cord in 2010 and have loved it.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
It just seems to me like the cable model is outdated. I cut the cord in 2010 and have loved it.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
showcases the best of BBI. Lets face it. Everyone occasionally talks out of their ass on here. How you react to getting called on it makes up most of the entertainment on this site
ESPN comes out and admits that their left wing bias has impacted their viewership and subscriber rolls.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
ESPN comes out and admits that their left wing bias has impacted their viewership and subscriber rolls.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
Or we disbelieve ESPN, which has been lying its face off for a year plus over this very issue. Do you expect ESPN to admit that its product is too expensive, that younger consumers arent into it that much, or that they overpaid for a bunch of rights? It is far easier to attribute the problem to an easily fixable issue, indeed one that is being addressed anyway as ESPN sheds talent.
The "alt right" label is tedious and lazy, but if that makes you feel better, so be it.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand. Multinational corporations and corporate media clearly staked out their position. ABC-Disney-ESPN all respond to the same corporate masters.
It is the opinion of many that ESPN promotes political views. For those who watch sports for entertainment and don't share those views, that's a turnoff. Many watch sports to escape the real world, not be reminded of it. Now if you happen to be of a certain political persuasion, ESPN's tactics won't bother you and you will tend to easily dismiss these claims as crazy.
We all live in our own information bubbles and seek confirmation bias, whether we want to admit it or not.
RE: This thread illustrates why discourse in this country sucks today.
ESPN comes out and admits that their left wing bias has impacted their viewership and subscriber rolls.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
The ESPN article that I saw posted on this thread doesn't really state that they are attributing the decline in subscriptions to politics. It just says that some people think it alienates some viewers. Hardly the same thing.
I'm trying to figure out a way to word this without it being too political.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
You're contradicting yourself to some extent though, Eric. That Disney would look to seek economic gain through political means is one thing, but to suggest that they're pushing an ideology is another one altogether.
Disney doesn't care if you're gay or straight, if you're black or white, if you're left or right. Green is the only thing they give a shit about. Any efforts to politicize anything on ESPN were simply intended to increase viewership, if that backfired on them then it's not different from any other business move that doesn't pan out.
As lawguy smartly points out above, this is why we can't have civil conversations in America anymore. Look at this thread. I merely said that politics is a factor in cancelled ESPN subscriptions. I was asked to elaborate. I did. Then comes the identity-politics name-calling.
The people you hang out with think I'm an idiot. The people I hang out with think you're an idiot.
I also think people are just tired of paying the excessive costs of bundled cable packages. If there is a live sporting event I need to watch, I'll find a way to watch it.
with politics as the main driver. This has actually been long overdue. Consumer behavior has changed so much in how media gets digested, and programming has been "disney-fied", meaning that content is watered down to the point that it's not compelling TV anymore.
RE: IMO that's a stretch that people are tuning out
with politics as the main driver. This has actually been long overdue. Consumer behavior has changed so much in how media gets digested, and programming has been "disney-fied", meaning that content is watered down to the point that it's not compelling TV anymore.
And that may be the #1 reason. I know I didn't enjoy the product. And since NFLN has headed down the same path, I stopped watching that too. (I believe the person who runs the NFLN came from ESPN...but I may be wrong about that).
IIRC, there was a mass exodus of ESPN execs moving to NFL Network years ago, and that largely explains the shit programming we are left with today outside of "Football Life".
with politics as the main driver. This has actually been long overdue. Consumer behavior has changed so much in how media gets digested, and programming has been "disney-fied", meaning that content is watered down to the point that it's not compelling TV anymore.
The cable companies know this - AT&T just came out with a streaming version of directv called directv now which is just an app like netflix. No set top boxes - just streaming. You can get a 100 channel package right now for $35 that includes espn. So chord cutting but still with live tv.
Economics. No one needs a landline anymore. Cable companies have been slow to respond to in increasing consumer base demanding a la cart services that the big companies still fail to deliver due to an admitted lack of profit motive. They've had the technology to do it for over a decade. As cord cutters increase, fringe technology companies offering live streaming of on demand events have responded. Cable has been slow to catch up. Cord cutter clout in their local communities has been expanding as well... I for one get asked all the time how I watch live sports. It's become easier and higher quality over the last 4 years and that will only increase.
Social. No one wants to be seen as a couch potato. No one plans their day and night around TV anymore. Commercials are annoying. People have lives, and with the rise of digital recording devices and after the fact replay services in many capacities over the last several years - the consumer has more power to watch what they want, when they want it. Sports is no different - and the NFL network and Fox Sports 1 competing with ESPN along with the lack of bullshit 24/7 ad filler on ESPN, why in the world would anyone want to watch it? Also - mobile devices constitute a huge share of sports media traffic. I would think that segment along has grown 10% yoy the last 5 years.
on the NFL network was much closer to that model but changed to more closely match ESPN probably because of rantings.
As much as we complain about the TMZ ascept of sports, how do you explain the fact that the Kanye West hospitalised thread reaching a 1,000 views on BBI so quickly. We are the ones responsible for all that TMZ stuff.
And finally, if the ESPNs didn't report the players political stances and protest, many of us would be calling it censorship to protect their product. You claim that you hate it but then you gleefully use it to bash someone. Case in point, the QB and Castro thread.
That means it can have only one agenda. Maximimzing shareholder return and protecting ownership from liability. Every action of a publicly traded company must be in pursuit of that goal. Companies that fail to focus on that and only that will rightly face lawsuits and other unpleasant behaviour from outraged stockholders.
If someone thinks a publicly traded company is committed to a political or social agenda for its own sake that says more about the oberver's agenda than the company's.
It's pretty common knowledge what the rooting interests of many multinationals were... especially in the IT industry.
If you are saying ABC-Disney-ESPN didn't have a rooting interest, then we'll have to agree to disagree. But millions of people feel the same way.
Also, I recommend you take a look at what is happening with Kellog's stock if you don't think corporations make political decisions that affect their bottom line. That's just the latest example.
If you'll explain to me how executives and officers of a publicly held corporation can pursue a political or cultural agenda instead of pursuiing maximum return on stockholder investment and protection of ownership from liability without being sued and dismissed for malfeasance I'll be happy to believe in the idea. I don't claim to be an expert on politics or business but the idea makes no sense as far as I can see.
When a publicly held corporation commits acts I consider heinous I never take it personally or consider those acts to be motivated by political or social opinions. I always assume those acts are motivated by the only reasons for for-profit corporate existance. Maximum return on stockholder investment and protection of ownership from liability
Why did Disney broadcast Rush Limbaugh on its flagship radio station for 25 years? Why do they currently broadcast Mark Levin and professional crazy person Michael Savage?
According to you, "Disney [...] has a very obvious political bias."
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
Thanks for this. We'll re-visit this down the road and I hope you are right that Disney was hurt by the election.
If not, I'll call you out! Kidding.
On the other hand, if the economy explodes, Disney will do quite well.
On the other hand, if the economy explodes, Disney will do quite well.
Only if you believe that visa policy will change. It wont. I dont think businesses were really operating under the assumption that governance would be consistent with campaign statements.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
Inclusivity and not being a twit are not part of Trump's followers platforms.
The fundamental benefit of cutting the cord is only watching what you want to watch. There is no channel surfing, and no time wasted on empty viewing.
The truth is the cable companies have been ripping people off for decades, and now they are facing an empowered customer. I think it's great. I think about what tv was like when I was a kid in the 80s and I get claustrophobic.
Exaxtly. I love watching whatever I want.
Assuming Disney had a stake in the election because of Visa implications, it isn't Disney that is the biased party, but ESPN?
Is that rumor really floating out there on alt-right websites, because that is some crazy shit.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
Consumers are going to punish those franchises due to the parent company's political agenda.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
Or we disbelieve ESPN, which has been lying its face off for a year plus over this very issue. Do you expect ESPN to admit that its product is too expensive, that younger consumers arent into it that much, or that they overpaid for a bunch of rights? It is far easier to attribute the problem to an easily fixable issue, indeed one that is being addressed anyway as ESPN sheds talent.
It's not that difficult a concept to understand. Multinational corporations and corporate media clearly staked out their position. ABC-Disney-ESPN all respond to the same corporate masters.
It is the opinion of many that ESPN promotes political views. For those who watch sports for entertainment and don't share those views, that's a turnoff. Many watch sports to escape the real world, not be reminded of it. Now if you happen to be of a certain political persuasion, ESPN's tactics won't bother you and you will tend to easily dismiss these claims as crazy.
We all live in our own information bubbles and seek confirmation bias, whether we want to admit it or not.
People here, sympathetic to those same left wing ideas, are telling ESPN they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, THEY know better, and THEY'VE decided from afar that ESPN's political bias has NOTHING - NOTHING! - to do with lower viewership.
If you don't like reality, then create your own "safe space" where your reality rules - America in 2016.
The ESPN article that I saw posted on this thread doesn't really state that they are attributing the decline in subscriptions to politics. It just says that some people think it alienates some viewers. Hardly the same thing.
I'm sure it is.
And you just proved my point.
Quote:
Lol. JFC
And you just proved my point.
We all live in our own information bubbles and seek confirmation bias, whether we want to admit it or not.
You are included in that. Your talking points are an Echo
Chamber.
Disney had a VERY big stake in the outcome of the election directly related to its business (think Visa program among other international business issues). Disney owns ESPN. ESPN's bias is clear to folks. Disney's is not. My original point was simply to attempt to show how the agenda of one element of the business bled into the other.
Again, is politics an overriding issue in the ratings decline? I have no idea. But it is a factor.
You're contradicting yourself to some extent though, Eric. That Disney would look to seek economic gain through political means is one thing, but to suggest that they're pushing an ideology is another one altogether.
Disney doesn't care if you're gay or straight, if you're black or white, if you're left or right. Green is the only thing they give a shit about. Any efforts to politicize anything on ESPN were simply intended to increase viewership, if that backfired on them then it's not different from any other business move that doesn't pan out.
As lawguy smartly points out above, this is why we can't have civil conversations in America anymore. Look at this thread. I merely said that politics is a factor in cancelled ESPN subscriptions. I was asked to elaborate. I did. Then comes the identity-politics name-calling.
The people you hang out with think I'm an idiot. The people I hang out with think you're an idiot.
That's where we are now.
Gary, mudbear has hacked Eric's account again!!!
And that may be the #1 reason. I know I didn't enjoy the product. And since NFLN has headed down the same path, I stopped watching that too. (I believe the person who runs the NFLN came from ESPN...but I may be wrong about that).
Oh what could have been
No one said it was the "main driver."
Oh what could have been
That's what I had in mind too! They really dropped the ball IMO. More Sabols and less ESPN suits.
Oh what could have been
Me, too.
The manufactured arguments on ESPN and NFLN are a real turn off for an old guy like me.
30% tech/social.
10% political.
Economics. No one needs a landline anymore. Cable companies have been slow to respond to in increasing consumer base demanding a la cart services that the big companies still fail to deliver due to an admitted lack of profit motive. They've had the technology to do it for over a decade. As cord cutters increase, fringe technology companies offering live streaming of on demand events have responded. Cable has been slow to catch up. Cord cutter clout in their local communities has been expanding as well... I for one get asked all the time how I watch live sports. It's become easier and higher quality over the last 4 years and that will only increase.
Social. No one wants to be seen as a couch potato. No one plans their day and night around TV anymore. Commercials are annoying. People have lives, and with the rise of digital recording devices and after the fact replay services in many capacities over the last several years - the consumer has more power to watch what they want, when they want it. Sports is no different - and the NFL network and Fox Sports 1 competing with ESPN along with the lack of bullshit 24/7 ad filler on ESPN, why in the world would anyone want to watch it? Also - mobile devices constitute a huge share of sports media traffic. I would think that segment along has grown 10% yoy the last 5 years.
Political. If you say so...
As much as we complain about the TMZ ascept of sports, how do you explain the fact that the Kanye West hospitalised thread reaching a 1,000 views on BBI so quickly. We are the ones responsible for all that TMZ stuff.
And finally, if the ESPNs didn't report the players political stances and protest, many of us would be calling it censorship to protect their product. You claim that you hate it but then you gleefully use it to bash someone. Case in point, the QB and Castro thread.
Pretty sure you meant "ratings" and not "rantings," but I think you're closer to the truth with the word you used.
If someone thinks a publicly traded company is committed to a political or social agenda for its own sake that says more about the oberver's agenda than the company's.
If you are saying ABC-Disney-ESPN didn't have a rooting interest, then we'll have to agree to disagree. But millions of people feel the same way.
Also, I recommend you take a look at what is happening with Kellog's stock if you don't think corporations make political decisions that affect their bottom line. That's just the latest example.
Red.
Quote:
Curious as to what your favorite flavor is:
Red.
Safe to say it isn't brown
When a publicly held corporation commits acts I consider heinous I never take it personally or consider those acts to be motivated by political or social opinions. I always assume those acts are motivated by the only reasons for for-profit corporate existance. Maximum return on stockholder investment and protection of ownership from liability
You notice what side the insults and name-calling are coming from?
It's why we can't have threads like this on BBI. You guys are too immature to handle it.
According to you, "Disney [...] has a very obvious political bias."