Mr. Wonderful said:I get the impression you are never going to understand this, but I couldn't give a sh!!t less if preventing ESPN from getting my $6 per month makes no difference to them. At least I won't be contributing to the bottom line of a corporation that is trying to make my alma mater, the most significant economic and social entity in the state, irrelevant nationally. And if we're completely honest here, that's what they're doing. I'm taking that $6 per month and sending it to UConn instead.
If anyone thinks CR made college football less popular.... they should probably go look at television ratings.
I know. Like ESPN's goal is to make UCONN irrelevant. They want to make money.
BTW - the boycott must be working. Disney only made $6.7 Billion over the first 9 months of the year (up 13% y/y).
Of course not... but it matters how I feel and so - as a consumer - I look to make other choices when I can.And to be clear - do what you want. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it matters.
Generally I respect your posts - but on this subject - what's wrong with someone not liking a corporate establishment and therefor electing to minimize their business with said establishment? Of course ABC/ESPN/Disney will do just fine w/o us, but that isn't so much the point as the point being they (the consumer) have decided that they don't want their $ going that firm. Frankly, we do this every day as consumers - sometimes with conscientious objections to a brand and sometimes with deep seated bias that many probably don't give much thought too. The classic example would be coffee, many loathe either Dunkin or Starbucks for what they perceive the other brand stands for - whether its really true or not.
Admittedly I have mixed feelings. As I said earlier, as a CT resident & tax payer, I want ESPN to succeed very much...but as a consumer - I purposefully avoid the channel as much as possible and if I could, I would probably cut out of my sports package. Yes - I do feel - given the anecdotal evidence collected over the past 5 years of CRA that ESPN has had an active hand in forcing realignment. They have been an enabler. Partly this is the force of Adam Smith (straight economics) and partly - in my own opinion - due to bias at worst or indifference at best by ESPN beancounters & decision makers. That all said, I hope someone at ESPN pens a tell all book at CRA 30 years from now that gets the truth out there - what ever it is.
One other thought about ESPN....the channel is chock full itself and its brand. Its especially good at ignoring all other media outlets, particularly national media outlets it perceives as competition.
Bottomline - yes I am bitter about CRA and that bitterness drives me to minimize my ESPN watching (I don't watch their news/non live sports broadcasting). Silly, perhaps. Unproductive, perhaps. Do I feel a little better about myself...yes.
These days - for tv sports news coverage, I mostly watch SNY Geico Sports Night. 'Get your NY sports here.'
Fair point. But if I'm ESPN I act in my own self interest. That's my job. It sucks that UCONN lost. But they were way late to the table. I've said it before - I grew up in Wisconsin and moved out here as a teenager. When I went to UCONN it was mostly based on price and it killed me that we were playing 1-AA football and I never went to any games. The reputation of UCONN football across the country is not weak. It is non-existent. Nobody cares. It is not a brand. If people think that ESPN should have acted differently they don't work in the real world.
CR has ruined things for lots of people. Even the winners. They have more cash but that's it.
If ESPN can act in their own self-interest (as they should [on many levels]), why can't pissed off UConn fans be afforded the same consideration? Personally, I wouldn't avoid watching ESPN at the expense of not watching UConn, but if someone felt that strongly, so be it. It's his or her choice.
As college football becomes more "contrived" it loses some of the allure it once had over professional sports. Apathy is the biggest threat to media properties.
Yes. But apples and oranges. Cord cutting is real. A boycott by UCONN fans is like standing in Bristol and throwing racquetballs at ESPN and expecting the building to come down.
Although not mutually exclusive, I don't believe that I ever stated that Cord Cutting and a boycott by UConn fans were the same thing.
You just summed up exactly how I feel about CFB, and college sports in general. Apathetic... Passionate about UConn, indifferent o apathetic about games not involving UConn. I went from being a die-hard college sports fan who loved UConn, to solely a UConn fan who predominantly watches games they were involved in, and very little else in college sports. I want from having ESPN on my TV around the clock (and this was before UConn even upgraded), to just watching it when there is live content, predominantly UConn games. For me, it isn't about "boycotting" ESPN or even cord cutting, it has just become less interesting. Sports TV is jumping the shark a bit (for me at least). Maybe it is the over-exposure of players, the biased narrative that networks seem to push to advance their initiatives.... I dunno.As college football becomes more "contrived" it loses some of the allure it once had over professional sports. Apathy is the biggest threat to media properties.
I've never said otherwise.
No you didn't. But you used Sea World as an example as to how it could matter. I was just stating that it wouldn't matter, given the relative size of the UCONN fan population that cares, and the fact that most other fan bases are happy. It worked at Sea World because pretty much EVERYONE hates mistreatment of animals.
You haven't called anyone/anything "odd" and/or "silly" for refusing to partake in advancing CR and its related interests?
You just summed up exactly how I feel about CFB, and college sports in general. Apathetic... Passionate about UConn, indifferent o apathetic about games not involving UConn. I went from being a die-hard college sports fan who loved UConn, to solely a UConn fan who predominantly watches games they were involved in, and very little else in college sports. I want from having ESPN on my TV around the clock (and this was before UConn even upgraded), to just watching it when there is live content, predominantly UConn games. For me, it isn't about "boycotting" ESPN or even cord cutting, it has just become less interesting. Sports TV is jumping the shark a bit (for me at least). Maybe it is the over-exposure of players, the biased narrative that networks seem to push to advance their initiatives.... I dunno.
Season can't start soon enough.
I don't think anyone suggested that the number of fans avoiding ESPN would bring it to its knees. I was responding specifically to your comment "I don't care about the random ESPN employee or the bar back. Just calling B/S on the thought that by boycotting anything you hurt your intended target." Then you gave an example of how a Domino's pizza boycott was not effective. Whether driven by animosity or apathy, when people vote with their pocketbooks it can affect businesses, large and small.
Right. When enough of a customer base votes, it matters. Sea World is a unique example. But it is still open. And mostly who took it on the chin were the shareholders, who were not the intended target, and of course the CEO, who made millions by being fired and is still a consultant. The goal would be the humane treatment of animals in captivity. Did that happen? Great. But now Sea World is less profitable. And they will probably counter that by reducing costs. So some employee at a random Busch Gardens will be fired because people were upset about how Sea World treats its animals? Yay? Was that guy the target?