• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

LeBron To Make "Decision" Tonight On ESPN: Will You Watch?

"Masses" most likely qualifies to define soccer worldwide.

It does not apply to the NBA, or even basketball at other levels.

Personally, I think it's great that soccer fans can dress up in clown costumes, get emotional to the very edge of madness and blow their irritating horns non-stop while watching one of the most boring games in existence.
 
TheBigA said:
Having the rights only made it easier to do. They'd still have devoted as much time to the story even if they didn't have the rights, as they do with other stories they don't "own."
Click to expand...
Well, you check and see how much coverage international soccer gets after, say the end of July, and then we'll see if they give equal coverage to stories they don't "own."

It's all about the brand.
 
Egotistical? Sure. But because people are willing to shell out money for the tickets and merchandise and because they tune in to the games, he (and fellow athletes) are just living the capitalist credo to its fullest. (And he's not responsible for people's reactions; he's just making some very good money off of them.) I don't disagree with assesments that our country's priorities are off kilter, but LeBron James isn't the cause of that. Nor is ESPN. Nor is the NBA, nor movie stars that command tens of millions of dollars per film for memorizing words.

As for ESPN and the amount of coverage, it isn't their responsibility to make sure everything is treated equally. If public interest in international soccer wanes, then, no, they shouldn't be giving it as much airtime. It's called good business.
 
You're comparing two very different things. They own the rights to the World Cup, so over-coverage of that in season is to be expected. While they own the rights to the NBA, it's not in season, so it wasn't directly sponsored. It was, as we say, "sustaining sponsorship." Which "brand" are you talking about? Sports is sports.
 
TheBigA said:
You're comparing two very different things. They own the rights to the World Cup, so over-coverage of that in season is to be expected. While they own the rights to the NBA, it's not in season, so it wasn't directly sponsored. It was, as we say, "sustaining sponsorship." Which "brand" are you talking about? Sports is sports.
Click to expand...
I don't have any idea how it was sponsored, or what they did with the profits. It's not even a question of "are they profiting?" or "how?" It's a question of people blending "news story" and "advertising juggernaut" together and still hanging on to the idea that this news story drove itself to a prime-time spot and the front of newspapers, with no "facts" at all considered.

Present me some facts that the general public was whipped into a frenzy about Lebron James before two weeks ago. I'll be swayed. You can't. ESPN is the only person in public I've heard talking about Lebron James, unless someone's talking about how the internet was covering it all. There's the anecdotal "He betrayed us! I hate him!" fan-in-a-bar-watching-the-show soundbites, but that's about it. Other than hanging "other news outlets covered it a lot," that's the only factoids, and to make the jump from either factoid to "truth" you have to build in a lot of assumptions.

I've been talking about the ESPN brand. The one they reference on SportsCenter and ESPNRadio from time to time. The one that drove them to radio, internet, restaurants, probably theme parks if they didn't already have Disney. That's how I know it exists: I hear and see it, not from some imagined conspiracy.
ESPN got their brand on coverage of this "decision." Good for them, that's capitalism, that's legal. As long as you recognize it is happening, it won't hurt you.
 
quadraphonic said:
I don't have any idea how it was sponsored, or what they did with the profits. It's not even a question of "are they profiting?" or "how?" It's a question of people blending "news story" and "advertising juggernaut" together and still hanging on to the idea that this news story drove itself to a prime-time spot and the front of newspapers, with no "facts" at all considered.
Click to expand...

You're overthinking this. A sports channel covered a sports story. That's all it is.
 
TheBigA said:
quadraphonic said:
I don't have any idea how it was sponsored, or what they did with the profits. It's not even a question of "are they profiting?" or "how?" It's a question of people blending "news story" and "advertising juggernaut" together and still hanging on to the idea that this news story drove itself to a prime-time spot and the front of newspapers, with no "facts" at all considered.
Click to expand...

You're overthinking this. A sports channel covered a sports story. That's all it is.
Click to expand...

Wrong. This was basically an informercial for LeFavre, with the full cooperation of The East Coast Leader in Sports. ESPN gave (sold?) him the hour and allowed him to sell the ad time, donating the proceeds to charity. The idea for the charade show was Jim Gray's, and Gray was paid by LeEgo and his people. ESPN was fully aware of the arrangement and didn't play it down. Gray, for the record, is a free-lancer and not employed by ESPN. But he was a paid shill, not a reporter.

I'm glad I didn't watch it. Both LeBozo and ESPN deserve every slam they're getting from sportswriters for this contrived junk. And now, instead of being The Man in Cleveland, he's the #2 guy on the South Beach Heat. The King is now The Prince. And, of course, there's no guarantee that he and his ego-tripping buddies will win anything. The whole league will be gunning for them now.

Link: SBNation.com
 
I live in the Miami market, and all I can say is, that it's been 2 slow news days in a row, for this to be the lead news story.

You'd think they won the next NBA crown already. There's this little thing called the regular season, and heaven forbid just *one* of the now "big 3" (James, Wade, Bosh) get injured. BTW there are 5 guys on the court (one team), correct? I feel sorry for the forgotten-9 on the roster.

cd
 
KeithE4 said:
TheBigA said:
KeithE4 said:
I'm glad I didn't watch it.
Click to expand...
If you didn't watch it, then you don't know.
Click to expand...

OK, where am I wrong?
Click to expand...

The Gray/James segment was a very small part of the overall show. The majority of it was ESPN reporters, hosts, consultants, and guests doing their own interviews with LeBron, and then presenting their own opinions, good and bad, about his decision. Lots of very critical commentary, not an infomercial in any way, and it WAS for charity. So what's your point? ESPN gets an exclusive, and kids get scholarships. What's the downside?
 
There's the question, indeed. A network about many facets of (many different) sports carried one program about a particular sports story that was of interest to several million people (based on the ratings). Those who care could watch, those who didn't weren't being held at gunpoint to do so. No one loses.
 
TheBigA said:
KeithE4 said:
I'm glad I didn't watch it.
Click to expand...

If you didn't watch it, then you don't know.
Click to expand...
Kinda like not being aware that ESPN Radio, SportsCenter, and otherwise refers to "the brand" from time to time? LOL

Still no facts to prove that American public opinion drove this into a "prime-time special".... LOL again

I'm not saying there's a downside. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm not saying ESPN and Lebron James are sending America's culture into the perils of evil. I'm not saying ESPN can't do anything but read straight news off a teleprompter written by Pulitzer reporters. I'm just saying "recognize what the intent of ESPN is, admit what the goal of ESPN is, and you'll be a lot better off."
 
TheBigA said:
quadraphonic said:
Still no facts to prove that American public opinion drove this into a "prime-time special".... LOL again
Click to expand...

Did anyone watch it? If not, then you're right.
Click to expand...

You're still seeing the wrong cause/effect relationship. It's all right, you don't have to admit it's there, if you don't want to. Keep thinking "ESPN only responds to what the public wants."
It's kind of comical.

It was packaged, just like any reality show or drama.
There's not a phalanx of people clamoring for a new nurse drama, or a weight loss show, or a dance show, or a new police drama, but they come around every season.
Nobody was clamoring for a "Lebron James Decision Special." They were spoon-fed it, and told it was coming on, over and over, in multiple outlets, and some of them watched it.

That was the effect, but the proof of the cause you're presenting ("people wanted it, so ESPN aired it") is still lacking.
 
quadraphonic said:
That was the effect, but the proof of the cause you're presenting ("people wanted it, so ESPN aired it") is still lacking.
Click to expand...

They built it, and people came. Isn't that how it works? What more do you want?

I think you're a little too focused on a very nit picky detail here. And you don't seem to understand how these things work. Of course it was packaged! These are not amateurs. This is not a hobby. They are professionals. But there clearly and obviously was interest in this particular athlete and what he was going to do. You seem to want proof of that. I don't understand your point.

It had been the subject of numerous interviews and opinions in the weeks leading up to it. Larry King spoke to LeBron at his home a few weeks ago. It was a central topic when Jay-Z was on David Letterman. Letterman told Jay-Z that LeBron needs to stay in Cleveland. Jay-Z was not pleased. This was obviously not just a sports story.

They could have held a generic, non-exclusive press conference. But it would have been a zoo. This is one way to handle it. He could have appeared on 60 Minutes. That's what a lot of similar people do. To keep it in the ABC family, he could have announced it on Good Morning America. Lots of other news gets broken that way. I bet that was discussed. But this was unique. It's good TV. And the people watched. Most cable shows are lucky to get a million viewers. This got 7 million. With very little pre-promotion or build-up. I call that a success. Compared to all the other stuff on TV, and all the lesser things that get a special, this at least delivered what was promised.
 
Likewise lacking is a shred of proof supporting the "they only watched because ESPN promoted it" angle. ESPN promotes the daylights out of many things they air. Precious few draw the number of viewers who tuned in last night. Makes ESPN look like they had a good read on the interest in the story--be that an educated, research-based gamble, a wild stab in the dark or somewhere in between. Their very job is to estimate what their audience wants and deliver it while at the same time trying to maximize the interest in what does make it to air. Not either/or--both.

Years ago, there was no clammoring for a national nightly sports highlights show, but ESPN--rightly--felt the audience would be there if one were made available. That gamble paid off reasonably well, didn't it? And yes, some gambles misfire; the most successful businesses out there have a dud somewhere along the way (Apple Newton, anyone?). But even those bets that turn out bad, when based on decent research and insights into audience desires are worth taking.
 
TheBigA said:
I think you're a little too focused on a very nit picky detail here. And you don't seem to understand how these things work.
Click to expand...
Seriously, out of all I have stated, you reduce it to "a very nit picky detail?"
Then you hit me with "you don't seem to understand....?"

Like I said, it's comical, in a "I'm rubber, you're glue--let's do this until the teacher gets back" kind of way.

Peace.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom