Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Boycott Monday Night Football


rajncajn
 Share

  

116 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you support a one game boycott of Monday Night Football?

    • Yes
      65
    • No
      51
  2. 2. Which game do you think would have the most impact

    • N.Y. Giants at Jacksonville - Nov 20
      13
    • Green Bay at Seattle - Nov 27
      14
    • Carolina at Philadelphia - Dec 4
      24
    • Chicago at St. Louis - Dec 11
      11
    • Cincinnati at Indianapolis - Dec 15
      54


Recommended Posts

I for one am tired of the junk ESPN is putting out on Monday nights and after reading the article Newbie posted I wanted to see how much support we could get for a MNF boycott. If we get enough immediate support on this board alone I think we can take it further & get our local boards as well as other sports forums involved and maybe, ultimately get the word out to our local sports networks. I know ESPN wouldn't care regardless, but I think we can make a real statement

 

So this poll will have two parts, the first will be whether you would support a boycott or not and the second would be which game. I think if this is going to be done we need at least a couple of weeks to get some serious support, I also think it should be a highly touted game so that ESPN wouldn't have the excuse of small market or bad teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would they know when the schedule is being made what would be the better game ??

 

It's not about what game is being played.

 

If there was an "Irrelevant" option, I would have chosen that.

 

That's like saying voting doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt any/many of us are Nielsen families so this boycott would have zero effect.

 

 

 

Even if we were all Nelisen families, it would have zero effect.

 

We all pay about $2.50 per month for ESPN in our cable or satellite bill whether we watch it or not. You want to hurt ESPN, cancel your cable or satellite subscription forever. And convince about 30 million of your closest friends to do the same. Oh, and don't watch ABC or any other Disney-owned station. If I ran Disney, I'd laugh at a one game boycott of ESPN. And advertisers know you'll be right back the following week. It hurts no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we were all Nelisen families, it would have zero effect.

 

We all pay about $2.50 per month for ESPN in our cable or satellite bill whether we watch it or not. You want to hurt ESPN, cancel your cable or satellite subscription forever. And convince about 30 million of your closest friends to do the same. Oh, and don't watch ABC or any other Disney-owned station. If I ran Disney, I'd laugh at a one game boycott of ESPN. And advertisers know you'll be right back the following week. It hurts no one.

 

I disagree, I think if it draws enough attention that it hits the media...even local media...then maybe it will draw the attention of the advertisers & ESPN execs. Would that cause them to change anything? Maybe, maybe not, but at least they would know that fans are pissed about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we were all Nelisen families, it would have zero effect.

 

We all pay about $2.50 per month for ESPN in our cable or satellite bill whether we watch it or not. You want to hurt ESPN, cancel your cable or satellite subscription forever. And convince about 30 million of your closest friends to do the same. Oh, and don't watch ABC or any other Disney-owned station. If I ran Disney, I'd laugh at a one game boycott of ESPN. And advertisers know you'll be right back the following week. It hurts no one.

 

It's not about money. It's about contradicting ABC and ESPN executives who say that there's nothing wrong with the programming, its the matchup that is responsible for the low ratings. Even the rumor or hint of an MNF boycott could be enough to convince execs to tone down the peripheral and superfluous aspects of the broadcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think , I could skip a game. I am addicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, I think if it draws enough attention that it hits the media...even local media...then maybe it will draw the attention of the advertisers & ESPN execs. Would that cause them to change anything? Maybe, maybe not, but at least they would know that fans are pissed about it.

 

 

 

True. But I think unless you really hit the pocketbook, it doesn't really matter. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that any boycott that was large enough to draw publicity would actually increase viewership because the marginal fan would tune in to see just what everyone was protesting. When I said I'd vote for "Irrellevant", I was being flip about it. I understand the frustration with that network, I just don't think any type of one-game boycott would be effective.

 

I used to follow the media and entertainment industry quite closely. I led a group at a big mutual fund company that followed the industry. We were the 9th largest holder of Disney at the time when Michael Eisner was fighting to keep his job. He actually called me one day to ask me to vote our shares to keep him in his job. I joked with him that I wouldn't vote for him because he pulled "Playmakers" off the air. He chuckled, I chuckled. The I hung up and recommended we vote 30 million shares against him. Not based on that conversation (obviously) but based on the years of research I had done on the industry and my opinion that this wasn't going to be the guy to turn DIS around.

 

So, again, not trying to be flip. The only way to hurt ESPN would be a steady and continuous slide in ratings which would cause the cable companies to push back on the monthly fee that they pay ESPN (and we, in turn, pay the cable company). I believe these fees are about $2.50 per month and are locked in through 2011 with about a 7% annual inflation factor. Any type of one game boycott would hurt absolutely no one except the people who were boycotting. In my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reasons this sounds like Oprahesque whining to me:

 

1. I think the NFL contracts are designed to be a loss leader for the networks that broadcast the games, meaning that what the networks pay for the rights and production costs are not made up for with what they collect in advertising. They take that loss to pimp their other shows and services during the games.

 

2. The problem is not that MNF sucks, the problem is that ESPN sucks, and has sucked since it was bought by The Mouse. Take for example the way it's pimped the "TO controvesy" all season. ESPN has reduced itself to creating controversy for talking heads to endlessly debate and top-10 lists. As the most powerful cable channel in the world, that's not gonna change, because obviously it's worked for them.

 

3. ESPN has its own credit card. ESPN has tied into the latest round of video games, like Tiger Woods. It has a magazine. It's not a network, it's a cult. And it broadcasts football as a cult. And cults don't listen to detractors.

 

4. Your real beef is with free-market capitalism. There was a time when we had broadcast standards that limited the number of commercials and self-promotions a network could use each hour of programming. When those standards were abandoned, that's when TV rights, salaries, season tickets and everything else connected with football went through the roof. In essence, putting up with discussions of Desperate Houswives is the price you pay so that TO can get paid his $10 million so you have the privilege of watching him play on TV.

 

5. And related to the free-market point ... ESPN has pretty much created a monopoly on sports programming. And, as is true with almost all monopolies, they only answer to their bottom line. Your concerns about their programming or style are irrelevant, because people have no place else to turn.

 

5. We'll be a matriarchal society within two generations. Wimmin already make the majority of buying decisions, which is why they are so coveted by advertisers even on football broadcasts. Wimmin will make more money than men, they will have more power than men, they will basically control all aspects of society. If football is not outlawed outright (or changed to make it less violent for the children), your ability to watch it will only be in a way that wimmin want you to watch it. So, in that sense, MNF is simply ahead of the curve. Within a few years, all football games will be broadcast in much the same fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reasons this sounds like Oprahesque whining to me:

 

2. The problem is not that MNF sucks, the problem is that ESPN sucks, and has sucked since it was bought by The Mouse. Take for example the way it's pimped the "TO controvesy" all season. ESPN has reduced itself to creating controversy for talking heads to endlessly debate and top-10 lists. As the most powerful cable channel in the world, that's not gonna change, because obviously it's worked for them.

 

 

 

That right there is the crux of the problem. The Mouse has changed the landscape so that the package is more important then the content. That has been true for quite some time in the media at large, but now it has solidly come home to roost in sports. It's a damn shame too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information