<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Don't do it with ESPN. RT <a href="https://twitter.com/ParrishWalton">@ParrishWalton</a>: What are the lessons <a href="https://twitter.com/BillSimmons">@BillSimmons</a> learned from running Grantland from a business perspective?</p>— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillSimmons/status/699976293362733056">February 17, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Looking forward to the new site (The Ringer). Apparently will be filled with ex-Grantland people, so we should hope for basically a similar concept/website, but with likely better management. ESPN has become a shell of itself in terms of quality. There are only a few "quality" shows/hosts remaining... OTL, PTI, Sports reporters, Hannah Storm/SVP. Their online content is a joke... Their fake experts are more comical.
ESPN has sucked for a long time. I rarely check the site these days, and usually when I do, it's from a link posted at ClutchFans about a topic of interest to me.
I have no problem with ESPN content, but it is just annoying that a video autoplays every time you open an article. Same with Bloomberg.com. I still use both sites but it carries this first world problem.
Poor marketing/exposure/execution. Content was good... Money can be made off that. They made plenty of money off featuring Simmons, who was just one person. But yeah, if making money is ESPN's sole purpose... It's no wonder they continue to spiral downhill.
Grantland got advertising spots all day on ESPN.com, one of the most visited sites on the planet. Tons of exposure. It wouldn't be fair to every other ESPN employee who is providing value equal to or more than their pay to keep on people who don't. Anyone who has a lot of work experience knows exactly what its like to have dead weight. Grantland, since it had lousy traffic relative to its cost, was dead weight. None of this is to say the content wasn't good. Grantland employeed such people as Malcolm Gladwell, and Welsey Morris. Of course it had good content and of course it cost an ass load.
You act like ESPN has never failed at anything... They've made countless terrible decisions over the years. They're losing money now because of several bad decisions, along with more cord-cutters. They had a hard time finding a way to feature Grantland... This has been well documented/publicized. Perhaps there will be a Ringer piece about it. But yeah... They certainly could use another hour of the first take show... Please, the public is waiting for it.
They fail all the time. You think they should make one bad decision because they've made others? I'm confused.
And yet Nate silvers site remains up. One of the least interesting sites on the internet. How many "trump is going to lose" articles can this guy write in a week? It's been like the same thing with different variations since last year.
So am I... ESPN failed to execute Grantland... You somehow think it wasn't their fault, or that it's "ok" because it didn't make money, even when part of the reason for that is the failed execution. They've shown numerous times over and over at the ability to fail at executing something.... Which you seem to agree with. Anyways, there will be a similar Grantland in the near future... If it succeeds, we can then fully put the blame on ESPN? Whatever. Hey... First Take is STILL on right now... They're on hour 7 of talking about Peyton Manning and Ronda Rousey... More of this please!
it's the internet era and nobody wants to pay for content no matter how good it is. media business models have and continue to change, it's very fluid. the only proven model right now is ads + massive traffic (ala facebook, buzzfeed, etc...) the problem is how you generate massive enough traffic for it to be worth it. no one knows the answer to that. one suggestion i would make to Ringer is ask for taxable donations alongside other revenue streams. Grantland didn't have tons of fans but the fans it had were diehards. diehards are more inclined to help the cause without requiring a subscription which hurts traffic numbers.
Interesting that Simmons hates ESPN so much when he's not even close to where he is professionally and financially without them.
How does his HBO deal compare with the ESPN one? From what I read, he basically gets the same salary he ended on ($5 million/year)... with obvious room for growth. Will be interesting to see if his show takes off (something he didn't have at ESPN)... as long as he keeps it close to the podcast format (in terms of content/guests), combined with something similar to what John Oliver has, it will have a significant following. One of the best things he contributed to ESPN was the 30 for 30 specials... HBO has a significantly stronger documentary crew, so his creative voice could be further impactful at his newer gig.
I've read the HBO deal is similar as well. I'm just saying that, without ESPN, Simmons doesn't grow to the prominent sports figure that he currently is. I like Simmons and enjoy most of the content he puts out, but his constant bashing of ESPN seems extremely petty to me. Just acknowledge the relationship deteriorated and move on with it.
^^^ Having said that, I agree with you that I'm excited to see the content he puts out at HBO that'll give him more creative freedom. The 30 for 30's are great, and I imagine he'll only improve them at HBO.
I dunno... you do realize that ESPN basically fired him for his takes on Goodell/NFL largely because ESPN is in bed with the NFL. That sort of censorship speaks volumes to some of the yes-man mentality at ESPN that is clearly causing the content to suffer. We already have to put up with the east-coast bias... now you add big league/money bias to it as well, without any room for dissent, and that's a pretty toxic combination. I wouldn't call having an issue with that "petty". I don't think Simmons should simply bend over and be so thankful to ESPN for all the years they paid him $$$ when things end as badly as that. Certainly, the Simmons brand was buoyed by ESPN's reach... then again, he added a respectable commentary/pop-culture/BBS side to ESPN that they now have very little chance of reclaiming (unless you enjoy talking heads like Skip Bayless). He's probably a better fit at HBO as is... and with a still loyal podcast/internet following (which was the bulk of his fans at ESPN), his reach/impact is still viable (and no longer in danger of censorship).
