1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ESPN’s features and analysis moving ESPN+ paywall

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Oct 21, 2020.

  1. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    ESPN+ To Expand Premium Editorial Offering and Daily ESPN Radio Programming - ESPN Press Room U.S.

    Among those whose distinctive analysis, insights and feature writing will now be part of ESPN+: Malika Andrews, Kevin Arnovitz, Bill Barnwell, Stephania Bell, Matthew Berry, Michael Collins, Bill Connelly, Heather Dinich, Kirk Goldsberry, Alden Gonzalez, Dan Graziano, Baxter Holmes, Zach Lowe, Jackie MacMullan, Jeff Passan, Dave Schoenfield, Kevin Seifert, Ramona Shelburne, Andre Snellings, Wright Thompson, Seth Wickersham, Brian Windhorst, and Greg Wyshynski.

    They join an already well-established ESPN+ editorial roster that includes: Jay Bilas, Jeff Borzello, Matt Bowen, Mike Clay, Tristan Cockcroft, Brad Doolittle, Chris Fallica, Jeremy Fowler, John Gasaway, Jonathan Givony, Preston Johnson, Eric Karabell, Mel Kiper Jr., Doug Kezirian, Tom Luginbill, Bobby Marks, Kiley McDaniel, Todd McShay, Buster Olney, Kevin Pelton, Adam Rittenberg, Tom Van Haaren, Field Yates and exclusive work of Football Outsiders, Pro Football Focus and FanGraphs. ESPN+ also already features exclusive Spanish-language written content, including in-depth analysis from Rodrigo Fáez, Jordi Blanco and Iván Cañada, among others.

  2. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Well then, if it's distinctive ...

    Lotta audacity going on. It's fucking sports. But let's get distinctive about it now, and pay more!
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I don't know. Charging for content seems un-audacious to me.

    Programming on ESPN+ includes exclusive UFC events, hundreds of MLB and NHL games, college sports (including football, basketball and nearly a dozen other sports from 20 conferences), top domestic and international soccer (Bundesliga, Serie A, FA Cup, MLS, Copa Del Rey, EFL Championship, Carabao Cup, Eredivisie, and more), Golf (coverage from PGA Tour, The Masters and PGA Championship), Top Rank Boxing, Grand Slam tennis, international and domestic rugby and cricket, exclusive ESPN+ Original series and studio shows (including ESPN+ NFL PrimeTime, Peyton’s Places, Detail, Bettor Days, ESPN FC, Our Time, Dana White’s Contender Series, and many more), plus exclusive access to the entire library of ESPN’s award-winning 30 for 30 films.

    Fans subscribe to ESPN+ for just $5.99 a month (or $49.99 per year) at ESPNplus.com, ESPN.com or on the ESPN App (mobile and connected devices). It is also available as part of The Disney Bundle offer that gives subscribers access to Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu (ad-supported) — all for just $12.99/month.
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2020
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It's not audacious if there are enough people who will pay $49.99 a year for it. But I don't think trying to get people to pay for your product is audacious even if that market doesn't exist. It just means you are offering a bad value proposition. Whether people are willing to pay will be the arbiter. As it should be.
    PaperDoll and wicked like this.
  5. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I'm peering at this through the other end of the looking glass. It's a way for Disney to chart subs based on what stories generate them...and cut accordingly from there.

    A side note: ESPN's going to have to get more adversarial. Players and teams are improving their social media content and media engines to the point where all the hagiography can be done in house. ESPN may have to act like Aaron Rodgers is the flake he really is, rather than a philosopher king who just happens to throw a football. Journalism doesn't have to supply the legend anymore.
  6. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Why not move fantasy football leagues behind the paywall if they want to make money?
  7. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    I agree completely with your first paragraph - I think this specifically is a way for Disney to gauge how much any of their writers moves the needle when it comes to subs. My suspicion is that the answer is "not that much," and we're going to see a bunch of them lowballed or not renewed when their contracts come up. Ultimately, Disney doesn't care that much about making nickles and dimes when they can make quarters and dollars.

    Your second paragraph is the usual weird "everything needs to be filtered through my worldview" Alma bullshit.
  8. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Heh. OK. An adversarial sports press. What a devastating worldview.

    Whose worldview are you using? Someone else's? Did I miss the worldview signup?
  9. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Which sports media outlets can currently be described as 'adversarial'?
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Maybe this makes me pollyannish, but if you start out with idea that you need to be an adversary, rather than just taking what the games and athletes give you and working from there, you are doing shtick, not sports coverage.

    In the case of ESPN, it makes little business sense to act that way because their whole business has always rested on the ability to get the rights to broadcast games. They are not the adversary of the leagues, they are in business with them. Maybe that relationship isn't working as well as it used to, but take it away, and ESPN doesn't have any viable business.
    sgreenwell likes this.
  11. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    In the main? I dunno. The NY papers minus The Times, I suppose. (They have something to be adversarial about, of course.) Some sports talk radio networks.

    Of course, I didn't write ESPN has be to primarily adversarial. It has to be more adversarial, for one of the reasons I listed. ESPN had long been, as I said, in the hagiography business. But athletes and teams don't need ESPN to kiss their ass any more. They can kiss their own ass quite well, and have terrific megaphones with which to do so.

    And I shouldn't be too unfair to ESPN...it has no issue being adversarial with, say, the very existence of the NFL for a few years, or being adversarial with anyone or anything who doesn't have ESPN/Disney's preferred political worldview. It has been adversarial in those ways.
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    "ESPN/Disney's preferred political worldview"

    sgreenwell likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page