# ESPN Insider: Trail Blazers



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

> Blazers: On the positive side, Brandon Roy looks like the potential Rookie of the Year candidate we touted him to be the night of the draft. The Blazers played him out of position at point guard and he handled himself surprisingly well. When they switched him to shooting guard the last day, he went off for 35 points on 13-for-22 shooting. He ended up averaging 19 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 3.5 apg while shooting 65 percent from the field and 67 percent from 3.
> 
> The Blazers had less luck with their other two first-round draft picks. Last year's first-rounder, Martell Webster, started off the summer league with a bang scoring 29 points against the Rockets. But after that he struggle with his shooting, finishing with a 1-for-11 performance against the Suns. Shooting is Webster's best asset right now and while you can't quibble with a 40-percent shooting performance from 3 for the summer league, he didn't play as well as his talent suggests he should.
> 
> ...


Insider

I think other than Roy they didn't really give Martell and LA the respect they deserve.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

I thought Freeland was a 1st round pick?? 

Any fan could have written that summary. Tell us something we don't know.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Zybot said:


> Any fan could have written that summary. Tell us something we don't know.


No kidding. ESPN actually charges people for this info?

-Pop


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> No kidding. ESPN actually charges people for this info?


That's part of a roundup that covers all the NBA teams. While there might not be anything for the die-hard fans of any given team, there are things that I didn't know in the span of the entire article, because I don't have time to follow every team as closely as I do the Blazers.

Further, this is just one article of several in the past week or so. While it's true that this article is premium content, and that it might not be worth much on its own, as part of the larger picture I'm definitely happy I spend $40 a year on the Insider.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> Insider
> 
> I think other than Roy they didn't really give Martell and LA the respect they deserve.


Your link's broken. It should be 
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2528122

Also, I was under the impression that quoting big chunks of text from pay-only sites wasn't kosher on this site... did that change?

Ed O.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Your link's broken. It should be
> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2528122
> 
> Also, I was under the impression that quoting big chunks of text from pay-only sites wasn't kosher on this site... did that change?
> ...


I was under the impression it was ok to quote part of an article, just not the entire thing. Although I guess the pay-only sites part might make it different.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Insider
> 
> I think other than Roy they didn't really give Martell and LA the respect they deserve.



They were fair and accurate. Just because they didn't declare the Blazers world champs going into the season doesn't mean they weren't correct. Webster was one dimentional. We have read that in several stories out of the summer league. Outlaw was God awful his first few games, and Aldridge was pushed around down low and did play on the perimiter a lot....as expected before he puts on muscle.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Had Webster not gone 1-11 that last game, he'd have a MUCH better review...


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

blue32 said:


> Had Webster not gone 1-11 that last game, he'd have a MUCH better review...


 Yea but had he not scored 29 points in the first game he would have had a lot worse review. :biggrin:


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Yea but had he not scored 29 points in the first game he would have had a lot worse review. :biggrin:



haha touche~! :clown:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> That's part of a roundup that covers all the NBA teams. While there might not be anything for the die-hard fans of any given team, there are things that I didn't know in the span of the entire article, because I don't have time to follow every team as closely as I do the Blazers.
> 
> Further, this is just one article of several in the past week or so. While it's true that this article is premium content, and that it might not be worth much on its own, as part of the larger picture *I'm definitely happy I spend $40 a year on the Insider.*
> 
> Ed O.


Plus you get it for all sports and get ESPN the Magazine as well...


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> They were fair and accurate. Just because they didn't declare the Blazers world champs going into the season doesn't mean they weren't correct. Webster was one dimentional. We have read that in several stories out of the summer league. Outlaw was God awful his first few games, and Aldridge was pushed around down low and did play on the perimiter a lot....as expected before he puts on muscle.


Did I say they should declare them World Champs? No. Webster had a great summer league and they looked at his first game with 29 points and his last one when he went 1-11 and said they his shooting was decent. He lead the team defensively (talking and such) and you could see a lot of improvement. I agree with what they said about Outlaw and didn't say anything about it. Aldridge played his game. He was both inside and outside. He'd post up sometimes, fadeaway or just shoot a jumper. Chad Ford didn't watch more than one game, if that of the Blazers. 

From what I saw when I was there in Vegas, I can tell you what he said about Webster is entirely wrong, and Aldridge, sure he played outside, but he also played inside quite a bit.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Your link's broken. It should be
> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2528122
> 
> Also, I was under the impression that quoting big chunks of text from pay-only sites wasn't kosher on this site... did that change?
> ...


Like FoulZilla, I was under the impression that I could take a chunk out of something like this and post it. They did that in the NJN forum where I got that link.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

NBA TV could not quit "gushing" about Roy. I consider thier commentators as good as ESPN's. Martel had averaged 18 a game until that last game where he was short on everything he threw up. 

The team featured Roy at the SG spot in the last game and he responded well with 35. 

They also finially featured TV in the post in that last game and he responded with his best against a fairly good Ramos (?) I believe who was stronger and like 7'3". In the other games Roy was learning to play PG and did not or was not able to get the ball to the big guys. The league is dominated by guard play. 

In featuring the above two guys Martell could not get his rhythm. (sp) 

Outlaw had a good second half of the last game and the team almost got a win out of it.

I could care less if ESPN is thrilled with our guys as their coverage was pathetic at the draft. Their opinion is worth less than mine IMO. :biggrin: 

gatorpops


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I'm definitely happy I spend $40 a year on the Insider.
> 
> Ed O.


You shouldn't be; you should be pissed as hell!!!

You can get a three year subscription to ESPN the mag for $5. Insider is free to all magazine subscribers.

You pay $40 a year for the Insider subscription and I pay $1.66 a year for the same thing. Like I said, you should be pissed.

FatWallet and eBay are the only places to get magazine subscriptions.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazed said:


> You shouldn't be; you should be pissed as hell!!!
> 
> You can get a three year subscription to ESPN the mag for $5. Insider is free to all magazine subscribers.
> 
> ...


 I got Insider this way as well...pay for the magazine, get insider for free.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Tince said:


> I got Insider this way as well...pay for the magazine, get insider for free.


That sound you hear is the steam coming out of Ed's ears!


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> From what I saw when I was there in Vegas, I can tell you what he said about Webster is entirely wrong, and Aldridge, sure he played outside, but he also played inside quite a bit.


My two games at the summer league left me impressed with both. Webster has taken BIG strides over where he was last year at this time - his defense is much improved, he moves a lot better on offense without the ball, and he drove the lane more than last summer.

Aldridge did shoot a good number of turnaround jump shots. I would like to see him play down low more, but when he did (more in the 2nd game than the 1st I saw), he was effective - real nice looking hook shot. Defensively, Aldridge more than held his own down low against guys like O'Bryant - he dominated them. Great shot blocker already. And as he picks up weight (which he will), he'll be better suited for play in the paint.

Outlaw was a big disappointment to me. As were Ha and Sinanovic.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> That sound you hear is the steam coming out of Ed's ears!


Over $35? Who cares?

Hehe.

If everyone tried to freeload, ESPN wouldn't continue the service. Since I get more than $40 of value out of a year's subscription, I am not going to try to find a way to get it as cheaply as possible.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Did I say they should declare them World Champs? No. Webster had a great summer league and they looked at his first game with 29 points and his last one when he went 1-11 and said they his shooting was decent. He lead the team defensively (talking and such) and you could see a lot of improvement. I agree with what they said about Outlaw and didn't say anything about it. Aldridge played his game. He was both inside and outside. He'd post up sometimes, fadeaway or just shoot a jumper. Chad Ford didn't watch more than one game, if that of the Blazers.
> 
> From what I saw when I was there in Vegas, I can tell you what he said about Webster is entirely wrong, and Aldridge, sure he played outside, but he also played inside quite a bit.


Besides the last game he was 3 of 8 in one game, not to bad considering he didn't shoot it a lot, and 5 of 14 in another game. He had two games over 50% out of five and he did really stink it up the last game. He finish with 40.6% FG and only 68% FT. Plus he had twice as many TOs as assists. I wouldn't say that is great. As the article said the only thing that kept him from having a terrible summer league was 40.7% from the 3.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Webster fan, but at this time he's looking pretty one dimensional. Of course he's really young so I expect that to change. Over all though I thought that article was fair.

Webster's stats


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Over $35? Who cares?
> 
> Hehe.
> 
> ...


Really $115 over three years.

While I wouldn't pay that, for one reason I'd only read about the Blazers for the most part, I will pay $5 for three years and they probably make money off of that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Really $115 over three years.


There's no guarantee (a) the service will be attached to the magazine over three years, (b) the service will exist for three years, and (c) that I will want the service for three years.



> While I wouldn't pay that, for one reason I'd only read about the Blazers for the most part, I will pay $5 for three years and they probably make money off of that.


You think that ESPN Insider gets anything from $5 over three years? That's ridiculous. If everyone who subscribed to their service was paying $1.66 a year, they would almost assuredly shut it down because of costs. Or cut the service to the bone, making it free and getting rid of the writers (Neyer, Hollinger, et al) that make it worth the cost.

If someone wants to freeload, that's their call. But denying that they're freeloading? Harder to do.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Your pride is insurmountable, Ed.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazed said:


> You shouldn't be; you should be pissed as hell!!!
> 
> You can get a three year subscription to ESPN the mag for $5. Insider is free to all magazine subscribers.
> 
> ...


eBay had a offer of two years for $5. It doesn't say anything about insider info though. I guess for $5 even if I don't get the insider it'd be worth it for just the mag.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> There's no guarantee (a) the service will be attached to the magazine over three years, (b) the service will exist for three years, and (c) that I will want the service for three years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually if they offered it for $5 they'd probably get so many subscribers they'd easily make money. Even though you are willing to pay $40 many are not. Especially people like me that mainly just want to read about my team. I mean I'll probably read other articles but the only reason I'd pay for it is to read about my team.

Anything you pay for legally isn't freeloading. Saying that only shows you are not to happy about paying $40 when someone else gets the same thing for a fraction of the price.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Here's a link for Espn mag @ $5 for 2 years.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

mgb said:


> eBay had a offer of two years for $5. It doesn't say anything about insider info though. I guess for $5 even if I don't get the insider it'd be worth it for just the mag.


 You'll get insider no matter how you get your subscription. All you have to do is sign up on espn.com using your account # that's on the magazine.


----------



## CrGiants (Dec 4, 2003)

> Your pride is insurmountable, Ed.



Haha. Ain't that the truth.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

*Adam Morrison*

Here's what they said about Adam Morrison:

This year's first-round pick, Adam Morrison, earned rave reviews. He showed he could score in summer league, averaging 24 points in 31 minutes.

But he shot less than 40 percent from the field (less than 30 percent from 3-point country), averaged only 2.6 rebounds and struggled defensively, so it might be premature to put him in the All-Star Game just yet.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

am i the only one that doesn't really care all that much what guys do in the summer league? they're playing against a bunch of other summer leaguers, not a real nba team. it's like saying oh this guy was sooo great in highschool so he'll be awesome in the nba. oh wait....we seem think good hs players will be super duper in the nba too, never mind. it's nice to look at to get a picture of what they are like but i think you have to take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Your pride is insurmountable, Ed.


**** off.

I hope that you get at least a warning for taking a personal shot at me. I would prefer a suspension, and think it would be warranted, but it's not my call.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Actually if they offered it for $5 they'd probably get so many subscribers they'd easily make money.


"Revenue" and "profits" are not the same thing. Taking more money in doesn't mean that more money is made...

Running a Web site and distributing a magazine isn't free, and there are variable costs for every additional subscriber. I don't claim to have insider (heh) knowledge of their costs (marginal or otherwise) but I find it impossible to believe that they could support that arm of the business (with about 80 issues of the magazine as well as online costs) on $5 for every three years for every subscriber.



> Anything you pay for legally isn't freeloading. Saying that only shows you are not to happy about paying $40 when someone else gets the same thing for a fraction of the price.


I don't know if you've heard of a concept called "the tragedy of the commons"... where everyone (legally) allowed their livestock to graze on common pastureland. Unfortunately, the pasture was overgrazed and everyone lost the benefit.

Different definitions of "freeloading" clearly exist. In my head, I enjoy the benefits of Insider and I'm happy to pay for the benefit. If others want to get it for free, especially if it's legally attained? That's your call. And let's not make noise that $1.67 a year isn't "free". 

I hope there are enough people like me to support the people like you so it doesn't go away for all of us.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Ed, you have no idea how ESPN makes its money or what the profit margins or business plan with Insider are. You also don't appear to have any idea how making money off the internet works. Subscription services make up a tiny percentage of website revenue. The majority of revenue is made from advertising, including in the magazine. 90% of what's on Insider is just stuff they pulled from local newspapers. Almost everything you get on Insider can be had online for free.

I have about 20 magazine subscriptions and I didn't pay for one of them. This is because the owners of the magazines make their money off advertising. To get advertising they must show a subscription base so the advertisers know if they're spending their money. In order to bump up the subscription base they give out free or discounted subscriptions.

The same holds true for ESPN Insider. They'd gladly give out several thousand $40 subscriptions so they can bump their advertising charges up even more.

You pretend your not angry, but you try to make yourself out to be better than us by calling us freeloaders. Sounds like you're angry to me.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Hey, lets either get back on subject or this thread will just be closed. 

Come on guys, you can do better than this...


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I guess I shouldn't add to the mix about subscriptions but as someone with a young family who has not been able to justify the added expense of continuing my subscriptions to my favorite magazine (The Sporting News), I just want to thank those of you who pointed me to ebay. I feel pretty dumb for not thinking of that before. I just subscribed to ESPN the magazine for the $5 and paid $3.69 for a year of Sporting News. Of course that was just prior to someone here saying they have 20 subscriptions and pay nothing for them! I would love to hear about that arrangement!

To think that I could have been looking at ESPN insider for free because my 16 year old son has a subscription just makes me ill considering both the NFL and NBA drafts went by where I would have liked to have had access. Sigh. I'm just happy to be better informed at this point.

Thanks again.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Look up The Sporting News on fatwallet.com's free forums. I haven't paid for my subscription in five years.

EDIT: Looks like there isn't a free subscription on fatwallet right now. Here's a two year subscription to The Sporting News for $5.

http://www.magazinepricesearch.com/detail/sportingnews.html.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I guess you're welcoming me into the twenty first century. Thanks a lot for taking the time.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> **** off.
> 
> I hope that you get at least a warning for taking a personal shot at me. I would prefer a suspension, and think it would be warranted, but it's not my call.
> 
> Ed O.


I love you, Ed.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> **** off.
> 
> I hope that you get at least a warning for taking a personal shot at me. I would prefer a suspension, and think it would be warranted, but it's not my call.
> 
> Ed O.


Hmm, calling the first person that posted about getting his subscription for $5 a freeloader and you complain about being insulted? Never ceases to amaze me when someone takes shots at others and then complains when someone does the same to them.

If they make more money online getting $5 than $40 it's very hard for me to understand your logic that they wouldn't want to do it. Maybe the hard copy but as others has said they make their money through ads. Plus a lot of times this type of thing is ran hoping to pick up new subscribers so that when/if they quit the special deals the new subscribers will like the mag enough to pay regular subscription price. Of course if not that is their own fault.

Most of your arguments remind me of a lawyers argument. Lot of flash but little substance. I'm very happy with my new subscription to ESPN at $5 for two years and want to thank Blazed for posting about it!

Oh, btw, sorry about the lawyer reference, that was a low blow. :biggrin:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

bballchik said:


> am i the only one that doesn't really care all that much what guys do in the summer league? they're playing against a bunch of other summer leaguers, not a real nba team. it's like saying oh this guy was sooo great in highschool so he'll be awesome in the nba. oh wait....we seem think good hs players will be super duper in the nba too, never mind. it's nice to look at to get a picture of what they are like but i think you have to take it with a grain of salt.


I agree and I don't think many would say a player is going to be great because of summer league. If they do they haven't paid much attention. I do like to get all the info I can though. If someone struggles in summer league you have to admit that may say something about them because as you said everyone is going against a bunch of summer league players. That's why I was really happy to see Aldridge had a good final game. Also vets I expect to do better than rookies for the most part. So I think there is some to be learned but as you said anything real positive should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Ed, 

I think folks would have a great deal more respect for you - we already have a fair amount, don't get me wrong - if you'd just acknowledge areas where you don't actually know it all. ESPN is an enormous mega-corporation, the most powerful sports media organization on the planet - do you think they need folks like you doing them favors by paying more than they have to for ESPN Insider? Nah. They're far too smart for that. 

As Blazed pointed out, the internet and magazines (and newspapers for that matter) are all the same in one regard: they don't care nearly as much about how much you pay for a subscription as much as they are concerned that you're willing to attach some value to it, and are willing to use it repeatedly. They want eyeballs for advertising, and in ESPN's case, they want to reinforce the brand "ESPN" so that - more than anything - you keep watching games and SportsCenter(tm) on television! (oh, and talk about it with your friends, please!) 

While you're right that it's possible that ESPN won't do Insider forever if it turns out not to assist in cementing brand identity and driving more viewers to ESPN channels, web sites, magazines, etc., that'll be the fault of their improperly executing their business plan, it won't be the fault of so-called "freeloaders." And if ESPN Insider does disappear? Well, it's a worthy service (or at least it resembles one some of the time), and in the capitalist world that we live in, someone else will come along and probably, do it better, and find a way for it to contribute to their bottom line.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> Ed,
> 
> I think folks would have a great deal more respect for you - we already have a fair amount, don't get me wrong - if you'd just acknowledge areas where you don't actually know it all. ESPN is an enormous mega-corporation, the most powerful sports media organization on the planet - do you think they need folks like you doing them favors by paying more than they have to for ESPN Insider? Nah. They're far too smart for that.


(a) I specifically said that I don't have insider information about their business plan (I haven't worked with ESPN.com since they moved from Seattle, and things have changed dramatically since then). I don't think that anyone on this site does, either, and considering I have been in the business of Web technologies, marketing, and content creation and management for the better part of a decade I would bet that I'm at least as well qualified as anyone in this thread to give my opinion on how ESPN.com's revenues are impacted by freeloaders. 

(b) I'm not so sure that ESPN can give away this service and maintain its high quality. Looking at the history of the Web, premium content has been relatively rare and the continuation of that type of service is even LESS common. I think that the perception that "Oh, ESPN (or Sporting News, or CNNSI.com) will be fine without people paying for it!" is balderdash. 

Content will be created for sites that can maintain their own revenue streams. Because of people that are willing to either steal it (i.e., wait for it to be posted elsewhere on the Web) or pay the absolute minimum they have to, less high-quality content is created for the Web than would otherwise be made.

Slate.com is an exception, and sites like CNN.com have made their content free where it once cost money. 

ESPN.com has staff that are dedicated to the Insider portion of their site, though, and I find it almost impossible to believe that ad revenues alone can support the tons of new content that they create on a weekly basis.

If it was JUST about "building a brand" or maximizing eyeballs... guess what? They could GIVE the information away like they do Page 2 and the rest of their site. But they don't, almost certainly because their business model isn't set up the way that some of you on this thread are claiming that it is.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> (a)
> 
> If it was JUST about "building a brand" or maximizing eyeballs... guess what? *They could GIVE the information away like they do Page 2 and the rest of their site. * But they don't, almost certainly because their business model isn't set up the way that some of you on this thread are claiming that it is.
> 
> Ed O.


The reason they do it is because they know they'll find plenty of idiots to pay the full price while they make it available for wiser people to get it for what it's worth and so they get those subscribers too. Most likely if they couldn't find the idiots to pay full price we'd get it free with just ads.

Free loading wasn't enough you had to add stealing. If that's not baiting I don't know what is.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Ed, I'm not arguing that people should post entire articles from a premium site to a free discussion page. That is, essentially, stealing. 

The part I disagree with is where you take people to task for paying the $5, using the service the way it's meant to be used, and implying - or outright saying - that it's somehow going to be the undoing of ESPN Insider. That's preposterous. They're making money off the subscription fees, they're raking in advertizing revenue, and they're improving the ESPN brand. I imagine there's a pretty small staff working on Insider, and making it run effectively really takes few resources. Duping people into paying the full $40 when they could pay the $5 helps a little, but the big boost comes from the assist that it gives to the network overall - by reinforcing brand identity. 

You may find it hard to believe that a reporting staff can function on ad revenue alone, but I would point you to Portland's free weeklies - Willamette Week and Mercury, as well as the Portland Tribune, not to mention every news radio station in the area - those are all local examples of newsrooms that function perfectly well on ad revenue alone. If it can be done locally, it can darn sure be done nationally, where the scale of interest is exponentially greater.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Free loading wasn't enough you had to add stealing. If that's not baiting I don't know what is.


Then clearly you don't know what "baiting" is.

If you think that I'm talking to and about YOU when I talk about business models on the entire Web, then you're pretty ridiculous.

And if you think that I should avoid talking about my experience with business models of Web-based content providers because you're hypersensitive, then you're pretty ridiculous, as well.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Then clearly you don't know what "baiting" is.
> 
> If you think that I'm talking to and about YOU when I talk about business models on the entire Web, then you're pretty ridiculous.
> 
> ...


You've called people that paid $5 for the subscriptions both freeloaders and thieves, correct me if I'm wrong, because you clarified it to make sure you included someone that in your opinion is getting it cheaper then you think is right are stealing. You know the original poster did that and since then that I did it so you are saying that of us. I guess it's your way to circumvent the rules or at least make it harder on the moderators. As long as you don't name names, right? It's baiting.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> The part I disagree with is where you take people to task for paying the $5, using the service the way it's meant to be used, and implying - or outright saying - that it's somehow going to be the undoing of ESPN Insider. That's preposterous. They're making money off the subscription fees, they're raking in advertizing revenue, and they're improving the ESPN brand.


You REALLY think that Insider makes money directly from the people that are paying $1.67 a year? Seriously?

They might get a bump in advertising revenue from an increased readership, and they might get some value from "improving the ESPN brand", but I reject that the $5 over three years is any kind of substantive stream of revenue for the ESPN Insider component of the business.



> I imagine there's a pretty small staff working on Insider, and making it run effectively really takes few resources. Duping people into paying the full $40 when they could pay the $5 helps a little, but the big boost comes from the assist that it gives to the network overall - by reinforcing brand identity.


I disagree. I would bet that the majority of all revenues on the ESPN Insider site comes from people paying $40 a year for subscriptions. Some people freeload, and some people steal, and some revenue comes from advertising (although have you seen how small the ads are? And how tucked into the lower-left they are? Advertising is very subtle throughout Insider content with the exception of the omnipresent ESPN The Magazine banners) but having a core bloc of subscribers is the surest way for a business unit to thrive.

Again: you seem convinced that ESPN is willing to take marginal losses to build the brand... so I ask you again: why not just give it away?

If people like me, who pay $40 a year, aren't making a difference in their business model, why not make it free?



> You may find it hard to believe that a reporting staff can function on ad revenue alone, but I would point you to Portland's free weeklies - Willamette Week and Mercury, as well as the Portland Tribune, not to mention every news radio station in the area - those are all local examples of newsrooms that function perfectly well on ad revenue alone. If it can be done locally, it can darn sure be done nationally, where the scale of interest is exponentially greater.


Fantastic. Newspapers aren't the Web. They just aren't.

If you want to argue about newspapers: I'm not going to be there to argue with. I don't know that business. I do know the Web and I can tell you from experience that advertising-based revenue streams aren't always sufficient to maintain original content on the Web. And most of the time they're not nearly enough.

If the newspaper model would have fit as nicely as some in this thread imply it does, the Web would be a LOT different today. Or of the TV model did, it would be the same. The Web is its own animal and content providers are still struggling to nail things down... and, IMO, the "me-first" attitude of many consumers on the Web impairs the ability and willingness of content providers to make the Web as rich an experience as it could be.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> You've called people that paid $5 for the subscriptions both freeloaders and thieves, correct me if I'm wrong, because you clarified it to make sure you included someone that in your opinion is getting it cheaper then you think is right are stealing. You know the original poster did that and since then that I did it so you are saying that of us. I guess it's your way to circumvent the rules or at least make it harder on the moderators. As long as you don't name names, right? It's baiting.


Freeloading is getting something for free. $1.67 a year is not literally free, but it's pretty damn close. People who are paying $1.67 per annum for something like ESPN Insider are freeloading. If you take offense at that word: tough. There's nothing inherently wrong with freeloading... people ride coattails every day, looking out for themselves and hoping that the burden of them being supported will be paid for by someone else. As I said earlier in this thread: I value the service. I'm willing to pay for the service. If others aren't? That's too bad, and I hope that there are enough people like me to pay for people like you.

I didn't call you or anyone else in this thread a thief. I think that you have a problem with reading comprehension if you think that I did.

It's ridiculous for people to pull out the "baiting" card. Absolutely ****ing ridiculous. I've been posting in this community for YEARS and I'm not afraid of calling things as I see them... I don't need to bait to get reaction. And I'm not going to avoid posting on something because someone feels guilty about freeloading.

Sometimes people (evidently like you) latch onto a term like "baiting" when they lack substantive responses to opinions that differ from theirs. I think it's a pathetic practice.

As for making things "harder on the moderators": I've been a moderator here. Have you? I have experience editing posts and reviewing things, cleaning them up when people call names. Do you? In the past I've communicated with the administrators of the site on proper fair use of "premium content" and how much can be cut-and-pasted from pay sites. Have you?

My original post was in reference to a policy that existed at the time I was a mod of not posting long chunks of ESPN Insider content. Since the original post was from a mod, I wanted to know if there had been a change in policy... it's certainly possible, and I was interested.

Ed O.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Ed O said:


> If you want to argue about newspapers: I'm not going to be there to argue with. I don't know that business. I do know the Web and I can tell you from experience that advertising-based revenue streams aren't always sufficient to maintain original content on the Web. And most of the time they're not nearly enough.


Here's really the crust of the biscuit, as it were. The key is the relationship between Insider and ESPN. You seem to treat Insider as some kind of separate entity that needs to create its own, wholly independent revenue stream. I've been arguing that it's inextricably linked to the ESPN brand, and for that reason, it's not required to function entirely on its own. I put this question to you - if it weren't about branding, why not call it just "Insider" and divorce it from ESPN entirely?

I'm also not saying that the $40 is completely insignicant - I'm just saying that the $5 subscription tied to the magazine demonstrates that Insider is tied to ESPN's other holdings, and ought to be interpreted as such. It's about branding. 

You're right that web-based revenue is still emerging. I've worked for a few organizations that are still trying to get it right... and generally the ones that depend on sources other than paid subscriptions are doing better. I suspect ESPN is still looking for the right balance, too.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Public Defender said:


> Here's really the crust of the biscuit, as it were. The key is the relationship between Insider and ESPN. You seem to treat Insider as some kind of separate entity that needs to create its own, wholly independent revenue stream. I've been arguing that it's inextricably linked to the ESPN brand, and for that reason, it's not required to function entirely on its own. I put this question to you - if it weren't about branding, why not call it just "Insider" and divorce it from ESPN entirely?
> 
> I'm also not saying that the $40 is completely insignicant - I'm just saying that the $5 subscription tied to the magazine demonstrates that Insider is tied to ESPN's other holdings, and ought to be interpreted as such. It's about branding.
> 
> You're right that web-based revenue is still emerging. I've worked for a few organizations that are still trying to get it right... and generally the ones that depend on sources other than paid subscriptions are doing better. I suspect ESPN is still looking for the right balance, too.


I don't disagree with you here in general terms... I think you're right that they're still feeling their way along, but I see subscriber-based models as critical to the future of new content... companies like Blizzard (with World of Warcraft) and Microsoft (with their efforts to move to a new licensing scheme for their software) are not directly on point here, but I see them as part of a greater movement towards paying for content that will really kick in at some point when microtransactions become workable.

As for why brand it ESPN Insider: it's free for them to do so, and it makes their property more valuable. GE brands all of their business units similarly (with the exception of NBC, of course). Microsoft adds their name to "Office" as well as their OS in spite of being in different P&Ls.

I'm not 100% sure, of course, that ESPN follows the costs and revenues of Insider, but I would be shocked if they didn't. And while they might be willing to carry losses to just help build the brand, or as some sort of loss leader until advertising pays enough to sustain it... I just don't know that, and since I support the service I want to help keep it around by doing my part.

Ed O.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

Well this whole topic seems to have become a whole lot more complicated that it needs to be. In other words could it be that ESPN likes selling magazine subscriptions and that they have the data that shows that once people sign up for the proverbial $5 subscription that ultimately a large percentage of people renew at a higher premium?

Additionally, my guess is they make a large portion of revenue off of magazine advertising and the number of prescribers they can quote drives that revenue stream a bit.

As for paying a higher or lower amount for the prescriptions (insider or otherwise), our entire economy runs off the principal idea of competition and supply versus demand. While it is true that I would pony up more $'s if I thought a good website like Insider were to cease to exist without the money, it would be foolish to do so prior to that eventuality coming into existence.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Freeloading is getting something for free. $1.67 a year is not literally free, but it's pretty damn close. People who are paying $1.67 per annum for something like ESPN Insider are freeloading. If you take offense at that word: tough. There's nothing inherently wrong with freeloading... people ride coattails every day, looking out for themselves and hoping that the burden of them being supported will be paid for by someone else. As I said earlier in this thread: I value the service. I'm willing to pay for the service. If others aren't? That's too bad, and I hope that there are enough people like me to pay for people like you.


We are paying for something so it's not freeloading even if you deem it so. Freeloading is a derogatory term and I'm surprised you are able to get away with it. Really it should be free and if you weren't paying for it I would be getting it free with ads. Of course I've never read any Insider but I'm assuming by how you talk there are no ads online? I'm sure there are in the mag. I think most of this is sour grapes on your part and if there is still this deal when your subscription ends I'd be very surprise if you pay $40 when you could get it for $5. Of course I could be wrong, but to put down others for taking a deal is definitely wrong.



Ed O said:


> I didn't call you or anyone else in this thread a thief. I think that you have a problem with reading comprehension if you think that I did.
> 
> 
> Ed O.


My apologies, I misread it.


----------

