The basic problems with ESPN these days if you ask me, is that number one, without a strong rival or competitor (Versus is not quite there yet, Fox Sports Net is really more of collection of regional sports nets than a strongly concentrated entity, and Turner already tried and failed with CNN/SI), they'll continue to rest on their laurels so to speak. The same sort of thing happened to World Wrestling Entertainment when World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling went under in the year 2001. Also, ESPN seems more interested in being a "brand name"/marketing machine (a la Coca-Cola) than a viable journalistic source. In a way This is partially why I believe that if ESPN doesn't have a contract with your league (like the NHL at the moment), it's not going to get much press or exposure. This has become even more apparent when Disney came into the fold. ESPN is more interested in being the news and being in bed with pop culture than reporting it. In a way, it's arguable that ESPN has turned into the Fox News (where larger than life personalities, frequently delving into sensationalism, and carving your own personal ends/means take prescience more than anything) and/or MTV of sports television.
It's Time for Some Changes at ESPN
I'm a regular visitor to the Sports Media Watch website, which among other things analysis television ratings for major sporting events. Anyway, recently they analyzed the current pros and cons for broadcast networks' and cable outlets' overall schedules/coverage. While sister outlet ABC had gotten its own assessment for the year 2010, ESPN has only gotten a "part one" overview. So in the mean time, all that I have to work with is the first "State of the Networks" address from 2007:
State of the networks: ESPN, Part III
State of the networks: ESPN, Part II
State of the networks: ESPN, Part I
There's also the argument that ESPN has gone into decay under Disney's management:
ESPN: A Requiem in Five Parts
It's Time for Some Changes at ESPN
An open letter to ESPN/ABC Sports President George Bodenheimer:
Dear Mr. Bodenheimer,
As the leader of the self-proclaimed "Worldwide Leader in Sports," not to
mention one of the most powerful men in two industries (sports and
broadcasting), you probably think you don't need much advice in running your
company.
Maybe you're right. After all, ESPN is the dominant force in sports media and
has been for a generation. There are literally millions of sports fans who can't
imagine life without your television channels, your radio network, your website,
your magazine, your award shows and your restaurants.
OK, so the restaurants didn't quite work out so well, but that's still an
impressive record of success you have there. You guys have a hand in every nook
and cranny of sports, and it is an extraordinary empire you lord over, to be
sure.
But like every good empire, it's showing signs of decay, signs you might not be
able or willing to detect from your castle in Bristol, Conn. There is growing
unrest among the sports masses, and it's not just coming from the handful of
nattering nabobs of negativism in sports media that don't work for you.
More and more, fans are expressing dissatisfaction not only with your product,
but with how it's delivered. The sense I get from a lot of people is that they
take in your product not because they want to, but because they have to. You
guys are sort of like a utility, in that everyone has to use your services, but
no one's especially thrilled about it. In the long run, that's not where you
want to be.
The phrase "Must See TV," in its best sense, stems from providing shows and
content that consumers take in because they're compelling, not because they're
forced down their throat.
The easy thing for you to do, of course, would be to sit back, watch the profits
roll in, and dismiss the criticism as so much chirping from the uninformed.
It would be easy, but it would also open the door to competition. One of the
more open secrets in the industry is that once the NBC Universal/Comcast merger
goes through, the Versus channel is going to be molded into something that could
go head-to-head with ESPN.
Being the astute leader you are, I'm guessing that you don't want to give anyone
reason to seek out a worthy, well-funded challenger with the distribution of
Comcast, the leading cable operator.
I'm a regular visitor to the Sports Media Watch website, which among other things analysis television ratings for major sporting events. Anyway, recently they analyzed the current pros and cons for broadcast networks' and cable outlets' overall schedules/coverage. While sister outlet ABC had gotten its own assessment for the year 2010, ESPN has only gotten a "part one" overview. So in the mean time, all that I have to work with is the first "State of the Networks" address from 2007:
State of the networks: ESPN, Part III
State of the networks: ESPN, Part II
State of the networks: ESPN, Part I
There's also the argument that ESPN has gone into decay under Disney's management:
ESPN: A Requiem in Five Parts