SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday November 01 2017, @11:58AM
from the American-game-of-FOOTball-which-is-played-using-your-HANDs dept.
from the American-game-of-FOOTball-which-is-played-using-your-HANDs dept.
ESPN pays $2 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football and one NFL wild card playoff game. I've written for the past couple of years that as ESPN's business collapses that ESPN's decision on whether or not to bid to keep Monday Night Football would be the first big test of how rapidly that business is deteriorating.
What's a deteriorating business look like? In the month of October ESPN lost over 15,000 subscribers a day in October per the latest Nielson estimates.
15,000 a day!
Losing 15,000 subscribers per day is a lot, but is that because of the NFL anthem protests or because cord-cutting has finally reached a tipping point?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ESPN Can’t Afford Monday Night Football Any More
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 108 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognize terrorism if it
came up and bit him on his Internet."
-- Ross M. Greenberg
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 01 2017, @03:31PM (3 children)
I have the same view of professional athletes and professional actors: They are both paid entertainment. I not only have zero interest in their political opinions, I have negative interest: I actively do not want to know. They are paid to entertain, and if they make a splash outside their paid role, it actually reduces their effectiveness as entertainers. For example, instead of seeing an actor's character in a movie, you will be aware of the actor themselves.
Dance, monkey, dance!
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 01 2017, @04:09PM (2 children)
You can make this claim, however look at how it's worked for Hollywood actors: many of them spout political opinions, and does it hurt their careers? No, it doesn't. So maybe you don't like it, but apparently many other people do, or at least don't care, and pay to watch their movies anyway.
Just look at Tom Cruise: he's not political, but he spouts his nutty Scientology BS all the time, and has it killed his career? No, quite the contrary. Personally, I've avoided his recent sci-fi movies because of the factor you cite ("instead of seeing an actor's character in a movie, you will be aware of the actor themselves."), but the ticket sales for those movies speak for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01 2017, @05:21PM (1 child)
An actor spouting a political opinion is trying to impress an audience that consists of casting directors. The decision-makers in Hollywood do not often give roles to people who fail to signal that they are liberal. Public signaling is expected.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday November 01 2017, @06:18PM
I have to disagree on this one, simply because if you look at all the actors in Hollywood, not all of them talk politics. There's tons of them where there's no record of them saying anything political publicly. And not all of them are liberals either; Clint Eastwood is pretty famous for being Republican (and talking to a chair at one convention).