More prominent ads on ESPN.com main page

[mediaguy]

Don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but ESPN.com has an alternate layout on its main page today, with additional ads on the right-side rail where the headlines are for just about every site.

I'd be surprised if this is something regular -- seems like we're all trained to see a run of 10 headlines on the right without having to page down to find them. Even with the centerpiece that rotates between 2-4 main stories, seems unconventional to not have the day's big news available on the first look at the page ...

 

[SixToe]

The ads on ESPN's front page are the same as on the New York Times' front page.

 

[mustangj17]

ESPN doesn't care about headlines anymore. It's all about videos now. They are everywhere.

 

[JakeandElwood]

Wow, that's really annoying.

 

[Rockbottom]

And how is ESPN's reliance on video any different than CNN.com, for example? I mean, they ARE a TV network. Not saying, just saying ...

RB

 

[ondeadline]

Firefox adblocker is your friend.

 

[mediaguy]

Sixtoe ... all the major sports sites have used the same model --SI, CBS, Fox, NBCsports ...

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I am sure this is in response to the Contra code left right thing from yesterday.

 

[mustangj17]

And how is ESPN's reliance on video any different than CNN.com, for example? I mean, they ARE a TV network. Not saying, just saying ...

RB

CNN blows too. Nothing worse than an engaging headline that makes me click on the story only to find out its a ****ing 3 minute video. I can't get away with watching videos at work. I can justify reading news articles.

 

[Rockbottom]

My point was that a person shouldn't be shocked when a TV network uses its primary content online.

Now, firing up an NYT story and just getting a three-minute video I can understand ...

RB

 

[JackReacher]

And how is ESPN's reliance on video any different than CNN.com, for example? I mean, they ARE a TV network. Not saying, just saying ...

RB

CNN blows too. Nothing worse than an engaging headline that makes me click on the story only to find out its a ****ing 3 minute video. I can't get away with watching videos at work. I can justify reading news articles.

That is annoying indeed, but I've been noticing that more sites have been adding a little camera icon next to the headline to indicate it's a video.

 

[TigerVols]

My point was that a person shouldn't be shocked when a TV network uses its primary content online.

Now, firing up an NYT story and just getting a three-minute video I can understand ...

RB

I happened to watch a NYT video that was based on a well-written story about a small town in Tennessee getting ripped off -- the written story was good, but the NYT-produced video was better than anything PBS turns out. Not sure how the NYTCo made any money off the video, but it was very informative and well-produced.

 

[zebracoy]

Firefox adblocker is your friend.

Except for when the sites and ads won't allow you to block them, as ESPN and a lot of other sites are catching on.

 

[mustangj17]

My point was that a person shouldn't be shocked when a TV network uses its primary content online.

Now, firing up an NYT story and just getting a three-minute video I can understand ...

RB

Point taken. But once upon a time ESPN, had a big readership. Now it's Yahoo I guess.

 

[ArnoldBabar]

And how is ESPN's reliance on video any different than CNN.com, for example? I mean, they ARE a TV network. Not saying, just saying ...

RB

CNN blows too. Nothing worse than an engaging headline that makes me click on the story only to find out its a ****ing 3 minute video. I can't get away with watching videos at work. I can justify reading news articles.

I'm the same way. Just let me read a little more about this story -- I don't need a video with ads, just a few paragraphs.

The Internet is supposedly a replacement for newspapers in that you can read as much as you want about what you want when you want. Sites like CNN and ESPN are taking that away, and it's not a good policy. Have the video there for people who want that, but don't make it the only way to get the info.

 

[imjustagirl]

Far as I could tell, the ads on the right side were not real ads. They were there because the Apple ad drops down over that area, so ESPN.com couldn't have its headlines there.

I didn't try to click on any of the side ads, so I can't swear to that, but that's my assumption.

 

[EE94]

My guess is Apple was giving them enough money to move the headlines

 

[mediaguy]

IJAG is right. Side ads weren't real. Funny Mac ad, though I'd think the ad could spill over the real headlines without that much fuss, right?

 

[trifectarich]

Of course I noticed this. Of course I hate it. I don't want my Page 1 news on page 2 and I don't want to scroll down to see what's going on in the world.

 

[ondeadline]

Firefox adblocker is your friend.

Except for when the sites and ads won't allow you to block them, as ESPN and a lot of other sites are catching on.

If I go to espn.com now, I see no ads.