First, let me say how flattered I was that my blog post sparked such an insightful riot of thoughful debate. Second, my opinion has not changed, although I would like to state that my fellow master debaters had very good arguments, and their opinions should be respected as such.
For those who don't know, the argument is essentially about "How to make money on the internet". My position is that subscription based "special" articles are bullshit for a heavily viewed and popular website to utilize, especially when there are advertisements galore, and floating ads that follow me when I scroll down the page. My friends who I were disagreeing with me didn't necessarily disagree with my position, but felt that the utilization of subscriptions (similar to ESPN's insider package) can only help to increase revenue.
I understand that position - who wouldn't want more money? There is a line that you eventually cross when you piss your patrons off so much that they'll say, "Fuck my patronage, I can get the same info elsewhere."
That's the problem the PHYSICAL newspapers are experiencing. The hardcopies of newspapers are sold at an all time low, and in turn, advertisements are low. Subscriptions can be purchased online for most of these newspapers for an equally low price. My beef comes from ESPN, a Disney owned company, who claims that it is the "Worldwide Leader in Sports". This is probably true. How many people go to ESPN.go.com everyday? A few hundred? A few thousand? A few million? I'd bet the over. With millions of people clicking their mouses on various pages, advertisers are flocking like it's mating season. ESPN definitely makes enough money from advertisements, the fact that they take popular writers and throw them on the "ESPN insider" plan really pisses me off.
ESPN has it's internet website as well as it's television stations (I wonder how much money they make off of the Dodgeball creating the term The Ocho?). The money made from television alone is amazing, but every click of the mouse on ESPN's websites earns them money. If you actually click on an advertisement, they earn more. It annoys me that they have those giant floating ads that expand and contract, and are timed commercials. What ever happened to the good old fashioned stationary picture? I wish it was 5 years ago and all ads were pop-ups, and then I could enable my pop-up blocker that barely functioned.
Compare ESPN (which is a "free" television station) to HBO. HBO is an extra piece of the puzzle, and you need to pay for it. $10 a month extra, or something like that. That is what ESPN is asking for it's "insider" package, which if it was real news they'd have a separate ticker for it on Sportscenter like did for Favre-Watch. HBO doesn't make money off of advertisers, and for that $10 you get movies (uncut), great original programming, no commercials, and some really interesting investigative reporting. HBO doesn't earn $10 from everyone in America who watches their programming, and somehow they've managed to do well.
Now compare the ESPN website with Hulu. Hulu is a website that provides you with a plethora of shows available, and fairly recent updates to it's library. FYI, it's free. FYI, you have to sit through commercials so that they can pay to provide this service to the world wide web. ESPN's insider package is like Hulu forcing you to sit through commercials on every single show they have, AND choosing certain shows to add to a Hulu program that you have to pay extra for. So you pay the extra little bit, AND they still whore themselves out to advertisers? I'm all understanding about capitalism, but fuck that.
ESPN! You're on the list. Twice. Once for being a subsidiary of the evil Disney corporation (Mickey Mouse is rumored to eat a percentage of the children that enter the Disney parks), and now for this Insider travesty. I should put a third mark next to you on the list for employing Keyshawn Johnson and Steve Phillips as "experts" of their respective fields, but I'm ranted-out.
No comments:
Post a Comment