Man he hustled hard using his dad and took the dude who trained him spot...
That one cut throat dude
Sports Media: ESPN Discussion - Get Up First Take PTI Update: MASSIVE LAYOFFS 2003!! NEW ESPN brand sports betting app!
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- espn
Man he hustled hard using his dad and took the dude who trained him spot...
That one cut throat dude
They'll talk about NBA Free Agency/Lebron and NFL training camps/preseason just like Mike & Mike did. Only shows covering baeseball heavy like that are local sports radio shows in markets where baseball has a large presence.
yeah I know..
but the question do you want that from THEM?
Is the audience going to SPECIFICALLY tune in to hear THEM?
Cause they did for Mike &Mike and for better or for worse Skip & SAS.
We will see.
I don't watch them, I put FS1 First Thing First on the background while getting ready for work, that show is much better than Mike & Mike ever was and better than Get Up, imo.
wow...disagree completely but everyone has their preference.
Let's see if Get UP is still year next year.
Mike & Mike was always bland, Middle America sports radio to me, like unseasoned white people feed. Listening to them and Lebatard show back to back is like night and day.
@fonzerrillii
you know
if Anita Marks was type in ANY way?
She would be my go to person on ESPN
right after Cari, Jemelle and the host of the Jump
because her football knowledge is sexy as f*ck
you know
if Anita Marks was type in ANY way?
She would be my go to person on ESPN
right after Cari, Jemelle and the host of the Jump
because her football knowledge is sexy as f*ck
I just can’t watch Get Up... it’s just to early in the morning for all that. Lol
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Bomani and Pablo new show High Noon works out.
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/bom...orres-new-show-has-a-name-and-debut-date.html
More than a year and a half after it was first rumored and nearly a year to the date after it was officially announced, the upcoming ESPN show with Bomani Jones and Pablo Torre has a name and a start date.
ESPN announced Tuesday that the show will be called “High Noon (9 a.m. Pacific)” — yes, that’s the full name — and will debut Monday, June 4.
The show will air live from New York between 12 and 1 p.m. ET on ESPN.
High Noon (9 a.m. Pacific) has been a long time coming. We first heard that ESPN was weighing a Bomani-Pablo show back in October 2016, and after months of rumors, the network officially announced it in May 2017. It was originally supposed to debut in January, but construction delays at ESPN’s new New York studio pushed back the date. By the time the show actually starts, it will have been more than a year since it was first announced.
ESPN still hasn’t revealed much about High Noon, but based on interviews Torre and Jones have done, it sounds as if the show will feature longer-form discussion about subjects that interest the hosts. Appearing on The Tony Kornheiser Show last week, Torre said High Noon will be different from shows like PTI that bounce from topic to topic every few minutes.
“We are making a fundamental bet on the idea that there are a couple things that are underrated or at least useful in an age when attention spans have sort of been recognized as so short,” Torre said. “Television has been optimized, thanks to Erik [Rydholm], thanks to the internet, into a serving economy. It’s tight, it’s quick, we anticipate you’re going to tune out. And right now we’re betting that maybe we don’t have to do that. That there’s an audience in this world of great fragmentation for someone who may want what we have to ramble about for 22 minutes.”
“Now, all of that is to say, that sounds like a terrible strategy if that doesn’t work,” he said, “but if it does, we’ll be visionaries.”
“Now, all of that is to say, that sounds like a terrible strategy if that doesn’t work,” he said, “but if it does, we’ll be visionaries.”
Torre is right that the stakes are high. With ESPN’s morning show Get Up struggling in its early weeks (in terms of both ratings and reviews), the network could really use a win. In the 12 p.m. ET time slot, High Noon doesn’t have to appeal to everyone, but it does have to find a core audience that will tune in regularly enough to make all this build-up worth the trouble.
There’s reason for optimism though. Jones and Torre have an intriguing concept, an imminent start date and a name that makes viewers feel as though they’re getting away with something. That’s a pretty good start.
Mike Francesa’s WFAN return should cause ESPN to consider a Mike & Mike reunion
What does ESPN have to lose at this point?
ESPNRATINGSBy Matt Yoder on 05/02/2018
96
Shares
napalmed bridges” comeback at ESPN as the most improbable returns in the history of sports media. After more than a year of a prolonged retirement tour, Francesa left the WFAN airwaves in December 2017. It was just four months later that Francesa returned to those same airwaves in controversial fashion to reclaim his seat.
Francesa’s comeback hasn’t exactly been smooth sailing. The pope has been openly feuding with his once-former and, once again, current colleagues like Boomer Esiason. It also effectively buries the triumvirate of Chris Carlin, Maggie Gray, and Bart Scott before they could barely get their new show off the ground. It was reported that Francesa went over his own boss’ head at WFAN, going straight to corporate to get his job back. And he is also taking a hefty paycut to return to WFAN after flaunting all the opportunities that would supposedly come his way once he moved onto greener pastures.
But then on Tuesday, when Francesa hit the airwaves, it was as if nothing had ever changed. And the hard truth is that Francesa and WFAN are better together, through all of the drama, than they were apart. WFAN is better off with Francesa anchoring its lineup and Francesa is never going to have the same draw outside of New York than he will talking about the Yankees every day.
Is it time for ESPN to swallow hard and admit that the same just might be true for Mike & Mike? That the pair, and maybe more importantly all of ESPN’s platforms, are better off with them together than apart?
The situation carries a few eerie similarities. Francesa had a year-plus retirement tour at WFAN. Likewise, plans for Mike Greenberg to leave Mike & Mike for his own show had been percolating for well over a year before Get Up finally launched on ESPN. Like Francesa’s WFAN comeback, a Mike & Mike reunion would probably carry with it a little bit of awkwardness. Mike Golic himself even admitted to the tensions between the pair while the long, protracted breakup was playing out. A report in the New York Post even called the situation “poisonous.” But like Francesa returning to WFAN, a Mike & Mike reunion would probably benefit ESPN in the long run.
Few shows that ESPN have ever launched received the hype and promotionthat Get Up enjoyed. The network has been looking for a “morning show” vibe for quite some time. It was even announced back in 2015 by ESPN that Mike & Mikewould move to New York and crossover with Good Morning America before those plans were ultimately reversed. Then came the retooled SportsCenter AM, which took on a laid-back morning show feel with a larger cast and a more conversational tone. Now, ESPN has moved on to Get Up featuring Greenberg breaking away from Mike & Mike to partner with Michelle Beadle and Jalen Rose.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Score one for big time allergy relief
By probably accomplishes what ESPN is hoping for it to do. But from a ratings standpoint, Get Up has been a massive disappointment. With everything ESPN has invested into the program — a new New York studio and huge salaries to the tune of a reported $14.5 million — the fact that ratings have gone down from prior episodes of SportsCenter has to have ESPN seriously concerned. In its first week when interest should be at its peak, Get Up was down 24% from SportsCenter last year. There’s now even a Twitter account that tracks whether or not Get Up can reach 300,000 viewers every day.
Tracking “Get Up!”@DidGetUpGet300K
Monday, April 30, 2018
Did “Get Up!” get up to 300,000 viewers?
No.
296,000 viewers.
2/20
Monday, May 1, 2017
SportsCenter
7:00 AM ET - 345,000 viewers.
8:00 AM ET - 357,000 viewers.
9:00 AM ET - 353,000 viewers.
5:51 PM - May 1, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Philosophically speaking, there is probably a larger conversation that needs to happen around whether or not a morning sports show is a winning idea. Maybe it’s just not something sports fans want and they’re fine with generic episodes of SportsCenter and radio simulcasts. Maybe Get Up would be fine with a rotating cast of ESPN personalities instead of highly-paid fixtures. Maybe nobody knows what actually works best and it will remain a mystery for the rest of time.
What isn’t a mystery is that ESPN’s AM situation is not in a better place than it was a year ago at this time. Get Up is struggling, Golic & Wingo is relegated to ESPNEWS on a regular basis, and ESPN is cannibalizing its own audience. If you were a fan of Mike & Mike, are you going to watch Get Up or Golic & Wingo? The fact that Mike & Mike are now competing against each other for the same viewersis only making the problem worse.
ESPN oracle Jim Miller has said the ramifications are serious if Get Up ultimately fails for ESPN and the show may have until next year’s Super Bowl to cultivate a following. Why wait until then, though? Mike & Mike may not have been everyone’s favorite program, but it was clearly one of ESPN’s most successful shows in company history.
Envision this scenario: what if Greenberg and Golic partnered up again on ESPN while one of ESPN’s many talented anchors like Adnan Virk or Cari Champion stepped into Greenberg’s chair on Get Up? Mike & Mike 2.0 can air on ESPN in a feel-good reunion story, restoring their audience on both television and radio. ESPN can then continue to experiment with Get Up as an alternative on ESPN2. Without Greenberg’s mega salary and the drama and intrigue surrounding the months of hype and attention, Get Up may even be better served in the long run with a bit of a lower profile.
A reshuffling done with finesse could be a win-win situation. If the individuals involved can swallow pride and put egos aside and ESPN is willing to do the same for what’s best for business, why not take a mulligan and try to put the band back together?
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/mik...use-espn-to-consider-a-mike-mike-reunion.html
@fonzerrillii
Thoughts????
What does ESPN have to lose at this point?
ESPNRATINGSBy Matt Yoder on 05/02/2018
96
Shares
napalmed bridges” comeback at ESPN as the most improbable returns in the history of sports media. After more than a year of a prolonged retirement tour, Francesa left the WFAN airwaves in December 2017. It was just four months later that Francesa returned to those same airwaves in controversial fashion to reclaim his seat.
Francesa’s comeback hasn’t exactly been smooth sailing. The pope has been openly feuding with his once-former and, once again, current colleagues like Boomer Esiason. It also effectively buries the triumvirate of Chris Carlin, Maggie Gray, and Bart Scott before they could barely get their new show off the ground. It was reported that Francesa went over his own boss’ head at WFAN, going straight to corporate to get his job back. And he is also taking a hefty paycut to return to WFAN after flaunting all the opportunities that would supposedly come his way once he moved onto greener pastures.
But then on Tuesday, when Francesa hit the airwaves, it was as if nothing had ever changed. And the hard truth is that Francesa and WFAN are better together, through all of the drama, than they were apart. WFAN is better off with Francesa anchoring its lineup and Francesa is never going to have the same draw outside of New York than he will talking about the Yankees every day.
Is it time for ESPN to swallow hard and admit that the same just might be true for Mike & Mike? That the pair, and maybe more importantly all of ESPN’s platforms, are better off with them together than apart?
The situation carries a few eerie similarities. Francesa had a year-plus retirement tour at WFAN. Likewise, plans for Mike Greenberg to leave Mike & Mike for his own show had been percolating for well over a year before Get Up finally launched on ESPN. Like Francesa’s WFAN comeback, a Mike & Mike reunion would probably carry with it a little bit of awkwardness. Mike Golic himself even admitted to the tensions between the pair while the long, protracted breakup was playing out. A report in the New York Post even called the situation “poisonous.” But like Francesa returning to WFAN, a Mike & Mike reunion would probably benefit ESPN in the long run.
Few shows that ESPN have ever launched received the hype and promotionthat Get Up enjoyed. The network has been looking for a “morning show” vibe for quite some time. It was even announced back in 2015 by ESPN that Mike & Mikewould move to New York and crossover with Good Morning America before those plans were ultimately reversed. Then came the retooled SportsCenter AM, which took on a laid-back morning show feel with a larger cast and a more conversational tone. Now, ESPN has moved on to Get Up featuring Greenberg breaking away from Mike & Mike to partner with Michelle Beadle and Jalen Rose.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Score one for big time allergy relief
By probably accomplishes what ESPN is hoping for it to do. But from a ratings standpoint, Get Up has been a massive disappointment. With everything ESPN has invested into the program — a new New York studio and huge salaries to the tune of a reported $14.5 million — the fact that ratings have gone down from prior episodes of SportsCenter has to have ESPN seriously concerned. In its first week when interest should be at its peak, Get Up was down 24% from SportsCenter last year. There’s now even a Twitter account that tracks whether or not Get Up can reach 300,000 viewers every day.
Tracking “Get Up!”@DidGetUpGet300K
Monday, April 30, 2018
Did “Get Up!” get up to 300,000 viewers?
No.
296,000 viewers.
2/20
Monday, May 1, 2017
SportsCenter
7:00 AM ET - 345,000 viewers.
8:00 AM ET - 357,000 viewers.
9:00 AM ET - 353,000 viewers.
5:51 PM - May 1, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Philosophically speaking, there is probably a larger conversation that needs to happen around whether or not a morning sports show is a winning idea. Maybe it’s just not something sports fans want and they’re fine with generic episodes of SportsCenter and radio simulcasts. Maybe Get Up would be fine with a rotating cast of ESPN personalities instead of highly-paid fixtures. Maybe nobody knows what actually works best and it will remain a mystery for the rest of time.
What isn’t a mystery is that ESPN’s AM situation is not in a better place than it was a year ago at this time. Get Up is struggling, Golic & Wingo is relegated to ESPNEWS on a regular basis, and ESPN is cannibalizing its own audience. If you were a fan of Mike & Mike, are you going to watch Get Up or Golic & Wingo? The fact that Mike & Mike are now competing against each other for the same viewersis only making the problem worse.
ESPN oracle Jim Miller has said the ramifications are serious if Get Up ultimately fails for ESPN and the show may have until next year’s Super Bowl to cultivate a following. Why wait until then, though? Mike & Mike may not have been everyone’s favorite program, but it was clearly one of ESPN’s most successful shows in company history.
Envision this scenario: what if Greenberg and Golic partnered up again on ESPN while one of ESPN’s many talented anchors like Adnan Virk or Cari Champion stepped into Greenberg’s chair on Get Up? Mike & Mike 2.0 can air on ESPN in a feel-good reunion story, restoring their audience on both television and radio. ESPN can then continue to experiment with Get Up as an alternative on ESPN2. Without Greenberg’s mega salary and the drama and intrigue surrounding the months of hype and attention, Get Up may even be better served in the long run with a bit of a lower profile.
A reshuffling done with finesse could be a win-win situation. If the individuals involved can swallow pride and put egos aside and ESPN is willing to do the same for what’s best for business, why not take a mulligan and try to put the band back together?
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/mik...use-espn-to-consider-a-mike-mike-reunion.html
@fonzerrillii
Thoughts????
If Get Up fails, “the ramifications are serious” for ESPN, Jim Miller says
"I think they need to get their act together by the beginning of football season. And I think that they basically have until next year's Super Bowl."
ESPNBy Alex Putterman on 04/09/2018
106
Shares
the reviews have been lukewarm and, more troublingly, the ratings have been fairly awful, down 24 percent over its first four shows from last year’s programming in the same time slot.
And although it’s too early to declare Get Up a lost cause… a lot of people are already wondering whether Get Up is a lost cause.
Speaking on The Athletic’s Sports Media with Richard Deitsch podcast, ESPN guru Jim Miller said this week that the show probably won’t have as long a leash under new ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro as it would have under his predecessor John Skipper:
I think they need to get their act together by the beginning of football season. And I think that they basically have until next year’s Super Bowl. I don’t think anything’s going to happen, no matter what the ratings are. That said, it’s interesting to see what Pitaro’s patience level is going to be with it versus Skipper’s because Skipper gave birth to this, and if he were still there, I think they would have had, certainly, at least a built-in margin for error that they may not necessarily have with that.
Deitsch asked Miller about the report that the three Get Up co-hosts — Mike Greenberg, Michelle Beadle and Jalen Rose — make a combined $14.5 million in salary, but Miller said that wasn’t his (or ESPN’s) chief concern.
They need to make this show work. They need to make this show work not just in justifying the salaries but here’s the thing: If this show doesn’t work, ESPN, when they’re next in conversation with a piece of talent at Fox or NBC or CBS saying ‘Come over to us and we can be the home for you that you really want. You want your own show or you want to raise your profile or something. We can do that.’ Well, they need to be able to prove that.
I think there’s a lot at stake just in terms of the world of ESPN. This network needs to be able to deliver a successful show. It’s just as simple as that. Yes, it’s hard to deliver it and all that stuff, but there’s gotta be a lot of smart people over there who have the ability to take talent that they believe in and talent that has received a lot of support from the audience before and turn it into a successful TV show. If they don’t, then I think that’s a real problem for them, beyond the salaries. The salaries are significant, but beyond the salaries, if you fail at doing this show, the ramifications are serious.
To Miller’s point, ESPN has put a lot of money, manpower, and promotion behind Get Up, and if three high-profile personalities, a prime time slot, and a massive ad campaign aren’t enough to make it work, that certainly won’t reflect well on the network.
With all that in mind, it’s safe to say that if Get Up’s ratings remain low, ESPN will consider changes to the show’s content, structure, promotional strategy or even personnel. Yes, it’s early for Get Up, but given the ratings and the bad PR that has come with them, the network might not wait too long before making some moves.
Miller’s conversation with Deitsch is pretty interesting start to finish, as the status of Get Up at length before moving on to the details of Skipper’s exit and other subjects. You can listen right here.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/sports-media-with-richard-deitsch/id1366264191?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo=4
"I think they need to get their act together by the beginning of football season. And I think that they basically have until next year's Super Bowl."
ESPNBy Alex Putterman on 04/09/2018
106
Shares
the reviews have been lukewarm and, more troublingly, the ratings have been fairly awful, down 24 percent over its first four shows from last year’s programming in the same time slot.
And although it’s too early to declare Get Up a lost cause… a lot of people are already wondering whether Get Up is a lost cause.
Speaking on The Athletic’s Sports Media with Richard Deitsch podcast, ESPN guru Jim Miller said this week that the show probably won’t have as long a leash under new ESPN president Jimmy Pitaro as it would have under his predecessor John Skipper:
I think they need to get their act together by the beginning of football season. And I think that they basically have until next year’s Super Bowl. I don’t think anything’s going to happen, no matter what the ratings are. That said, it’s interesting to see what Pitaro’s patience level is going to be with it versus Skipper’s because Skipper gave birth to this, and if he were still there, I think they would have had, certainly, at least a built-in margin for error that they may not necessarily have with that.
Deitsch asked Miller about the report that the three Get Up co-hosts — Mike Greenberg, Michelle Beadle and Jalen Rose — make a combined $14.5 million in salary, but Miller said that wasn’t his (or ESPN’s) chief concern.
They need to make this show work. They need to make this show work not just in justifying the salaries but here’s the thing: If this show doesn’t work, ESPN, when they’re next in conversation with a piece of talent at Fox or NBC or CBS saying ‘Come over to us and we can be the home for you that you really want. You want your own show or you want to raise your profile or something. We can do that.’ Well, they need to be able to prove that.
I think there’s a lot at stake just in terms of the world of ESPN. This network needs to be able to deliver a successful show. It’s just as simple as that. Yes, it’s hard to deliver it and all that stuff, but there’s gotta be a lot of smart people over there who have the ability to take talent that they believe in and talent that has received a lot of support from the audience before and turn it into a successful TV show. If they don’t, then I think that’s a real problem for them, beyond the salaries. The salaries are significant, but beyond the salaries, if you fail at doing this show, the ramifications are serious.
To Miller’s point, ESPN has put a lot of money, manpower, and promotion behind Get Up, and if three high-profile personalities, a prime time slot, and a massive ad campaign aren’t enough to make it work, that certainly won’t reflect well on the network.
With all that in mind, it’s safe to say that if Get Up’s ratings remain low, ESPN will consider changes to the show’s content, structure, promotional strategy or even personnel. Yes, it’s early for Get Up, but given the ratings and the bad PR that has come with them, the network might not wait too long before making some moves.
Miller’s conversation with Deitsch is pretty interesting start to finish, as the status of Get Up at length before moving on to the details of Skipper’s exit and other subjects. You can listen right here.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/sports-media-with-richard-deitsch/id1366264191?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo=4
Did ESPN shoot ‘Get Up’ in the foot with poor promotional decisions that helped to create “woke” narrative?
The numbers aren't great for Get Up so far, and there's an argument that ESPN's drawn-out promotional strategy played a role in that.
ESPNBy Andrew Bucholtz on 04/06/2018
82
Shares
new ESPN morning show Get Up‘s less-than-stellar opening ratings, which is certainly deserved given how much ESPN has invested in that show with hosting salaries (estimated at a combined $14.5 million for co-hosts Mike Greenberg, Michelle Beadle, and Jalen Rose alone), new production facilities, breaking up and/or relocating existing shows, promotions, and more.
But a more interesting discussion than just “the ratings haven’t been as good as ESPN hoped” can come from analyzing factors that may have led to those ratings being bad, and the promotional strategy in particular is worth consideration. ESPN has been constantly promoting this show for over a year, and that long-running promotion may have created some problems for it.
Perhaps especially notable is the criticism Get Up has taken for a supposedly “woke” politically-liberal perspective from sites like Outkick The Coverage andBreitbart, which fits into those sites’ larger criticisms of ESPN as “too liberal” and “too political.” Criticism of ESPN from those corners is to be expected, but it’s interesting that Get Up has become a particular target for them, especially as the WokeCenter epithets don’t seem to really align with the sports-focused show that’s actually airing so far, or with Greenberg’s prior-to-launch comments that it would be “exclusively sports” and “all things to all sports fans.”
It’s worth looking at how that came to be, much of which seems to have been spawned by January comments from producer Bill Wolff at the Television Critics of America tour and a March “ESPN Plans to Wake Up Woke With New Morning Show” headline from a The Hollywood Reporter piece.
That THRpiece in particular appears to really have boosted the “woke” narrative, but even its subhead sort of disputed that, saying “The network’s ‘Get Up!’ — hosted by Mike Greenberg, Michelle Beadle and Jalen Rose — will stick to sports (mostly).” It included lines like “Wolff and the show’s hosts stress that the show’s top mandate is to cover sports as the network pivots away from a broader cultural focus cultivated by former president John Skipper.” And its main discussion of anything political was the following two paragraphs:
Still, “when players take a knee, then it deserves coverage and conversation,” notes Wolff, referring to NFL players’ national anthem protests. “If something political makes itself part of our world, we are dishonest and inauthentic if we don’t discuss it.”
Rose notes that he has “never been muzzled in any way” during his decade at ESPN, he says: “I appreciate the fact that I’m able to talk about more than what happened in last night’s NBA game. And I think fans appreciate that. When our president tweets about sports, now he’s fair game.”
That’s essentially saying that the show would cover politics only if and when they directly intersected with sports, and that’s really been ESPN’s larger approach. But the “woke” narrative really took flight after that THR headline, and Greenberg got mad about it in an interview with Michael McCarthy of The Sporting News:
SPONSORED CONTENT
Allergy relief that makes the cut
By in January 2017 and officially announced in upfronts that May with a January 1, 2018 premiere date, which was then moved to this week thanks to studio construction delays. That’s almost 15 months between initially-reported discussions and the launch of the show.
Compare that to FS1’s First Things First, a morning show in a similar timeslot (6 to 9 a.m. ET versus 7 to 10) that was announced in May 2017 (also at upfronts) and launched in September. Yes, there were discussions about a FS1 morning show before that, and perhaps ESPN’s morning show drew more reporting at an earlier stage thanks to the larger focus on that network (plus the implications for Mike and Mike), but ESPN certainly dragged out the timeline from when people first heard about Greenberg hosting a morning show to when it actually started.
Oh, and it should be noted that First Things First is arguably more “woke” than Get Up, with a co-host in Nick Wright who’s regularly interested in talking about larger societal issues. But that doesn’t really fit a convenient narrative about FS1, and FS1 didn’t spend endless time talking about everything First Things Firstwould and wouldn’t be before actually launching it.
Some of the Get Up delay may have been unavoidable thanks to the construction, but some of it certainly could have been sped up. But the ESPN approach with many new shows has been to go through countless runthroughs and send the hosts on a publicity blitz before actually launching, even if that hasn’t taken quite as long in most cases (for example, SC6 was announced in October 2016, with the media blitz happening in January and February 2017 and the show launching in February 2017). And Get Up in particular perhaps illustrates the pitfalls of that.
What Get Up is actually trying for doesn’t appear to be all that complicated. It’s a sports-focused morning talk show, or the cross-section of SportsCenter and Today. (Or Good Morning America, if we’re going for Disney corporate synergy.) But you can’t get a year-plus worth of media coverage out of just that sentence. And the more you have people talk about what it will be, especially in an abstract sense rather than on specific coverage decisions, the more articles covering it will focus on what’s newsworthy; what’s new, what’s different, what ties into the larger ESPN discussion.
That’s how you get “Wake up woke” as a headline, because nothing else in that article was at all interesting or anything that hadn’t been said a million times before. (And even the “we’ll talk politics if they come up” comments had been made before, at TCA months earlier.) Was it perfectly reflective of the story? No, as the subhead indicates, and THR can take some criticism for that.
But when you’re trying to pump up what’s really a very simple concept for over a year, the media coverage is eventually going to shift to any small details that are even remotely new or interesting, so ESPN’s overall promotional strategy is at least partly to blame there.
And that comes from another central issue with this show and with its promotion. The show is largely focused on Greenberg; he makes the biggest salary (reportedly $6.5 million annually, one of the highest salaries at ESPN), he’s been associated with it the longest, and it was even described as “Greenberg and Friends” in some of the initial reports (even though he’s personally pushed back on that).
But Greenberg is not an interesting personality, or one who says anything newsworthy; Mike and Mike was rightly called “Mickey and Mickey In The Morning” by Colin Cowherd, as its whole point was a safe, non-controversial show that ESPN could book celebrities on. Ty Duffy’s May 2017 description of him following the Get Up announcement was bang on:
Greenberg, in many ways, is a holdover from a previous iteration of ESPN. He’s the straight man who is super-enthusiastic about sports. He’s a relentless professional. He’s remarkably non-incendiary. He’s almost the antithesis of a take artiste. Is he a natural draw for target demographic viewers? Does he draw an audience away from Trey Wingo replacing him on basically the same radio show?
From the ESPN description, the show sounds a lot like the “Mike & Mike” morphing into “Sports GMA” vision ESPN presented in 2015, before nixing it. One could see Greenberg slotting seamlessly into a George Stephanopoulos role, down to the side part.
ESPN knows what they have in Greenberg, and some people like him, and that’s fair enough. But much of the discussion of this show hasn’t been about anything Greenberg has said, but rather about co-hosts Beadle and Rose, both of whom are significantly more outspoken and who actually say newsworthy things from time to time. Or about Wolff, who’s also actually offered some substantive comments.
That further enhances things like the “woke” discussion and has those elements portrayed more extensively than they’ll actually be on the show, because the comments about them are actually notable and headline-worthy.
But much of this show is non-controversial Greenberg talking non-controversially about sports, and it’s impossible to hype that up. That’s especially if you’re trying to do so for a span of over a year, and if you’re trying to do so through outside media that actually want to produce articles with interesting news people want to read. So the smaller elements that are actually worth discussion get play that’s outsized relative to their on-air presence.
It’s also notable that even ESPN’s own promotions (which run constantly on their other shows) have said next to nothing about what Get Up actually is, choosing instead to feature a talking coffee bag and a baby, both making the point that “This is on early in the morning!”
As our Ben Koo pointed out, c’mon, man:
https://twitter.com/bkoo/status/982307523414945792
Beyond the poor promotional decisions, the amount of promotion ESPN has tried to apply to this show can also be questioned. They’ve been talking about it for over a year, and in doing so, have heaped way too many expectations on it and turned many off just with the constant stream of mentions. Our Phillip Bupp made a good point that it’s comparable to Tebowmania; when Tim Tebow is discussed for what he actually was/is (inaccurate NFL starter, brief NFL backup, old and below-average minor league baseball player), that’s one thing. But when he’s anointed as Skip Bayless’ personal hero or described with “no player has been so unnecessarily criticized in our generation,”that bugs a whole lot of people.
Similarly, if ESPN hadn’t overthought this and had just said “We’re doing SportsCenter meets GMA with Greeny, Beadle, and Jalen,” done a few selected media interviews, then rolled it out in a timely fashion with some promos actually featuring the hosts, it’s easy to imagine it going over a lot better. But the world has been hearing about Get Up for over a year, and many were sick of it long before the show ever aired.
It’s hard to picture that this was ever worthy of the “savior of ESPN” angles it sometimes received. And that prolonged run-up and the impossibility of saying anything interesting about Greenberg meant that the later media coverage was always going to shift to discussable topics even if they were more marginal parts of the show, and that’s how you get a WokeCenter narrative.
Get Up may wind up being fine. Thursday’s numbers were better than SportsCenter in that slot a year ago (impressive considering that ESPN has lost over a million subscribers in that span), and the show will probably improve as it goes and figure out what works for it, and if it produces something good, viewers may find it.
Will that be worth what ESPN’s paying for this, both in host salaries and in the other programming they’ve smashed up to put this together? We’ll see. But there’s an argument to be made that their approach to hyping this up hasn’t helped at all, and that it’s actually caused some problems for Get Up so far.
The numbers aren't great for Get Up so far, and there's an argument that ESPN's drawn-out promotional strategy played a role in that.
ESPNBy Andrew Bucholtz on 04/06/2018
82
Shares
new ESPN morning show Get Up‘s less-than-stellar opening ratings, which is certainly deserved given how much ESPN has invested in that show with hosting salaries (estimated at a combined $14.5 million for co-hosts Mike Greenberg, Michelle Beadle, and Jalen Rose alone), new production facilities, breaking up and/or relocating existing shows, promotions, and more.
But a more interesting discussion than just “the ratings haven’t been as good as ESPN hoped” can come from analyzing factors that may have led to those ratings being bad, and the promotional strategy in particular is worth consideration. ESPN has been constantly promoting this show for over a year, and that long-running promotion may have created some problems for it.
Perhaps especially notable is the criticism Get Up has taken for a supposedly “woke” politically-liberal perspective from sites like Outkick The Coverage andBreitbart, which fits into those sites’ larger criticisms of ESPN as “too liberal” and “too political.” Criticism of ESPN from those corners is to be expected, but it’s interesting that Get Up has become a particular target for them, especially as the WokeCenter epithets don’t seem to really align with the sports-focused show that’s actually airing so far, or with Greenberg’s prior-to-launch comments that it would be “exclusively sports” and “all things to all sports fans.”
It’s worth looking at how that came to be, much of which seems to have been spawned by January comments from producer Bill Wolff at the Television Critics of America tour and a March “ESPN Plans to Wake Up Woke With New Morning Show” headline from a The Hollywood Reporter piece.
That THRpiece in particular appears to really have boosted the “woke” narrative, but even its subhead sort of disputed that, saying “The network’s ‘Get Up!’ — hosted by Mike Greenberg, Michelle Beadle and Jalen Rose — will stick to sports (mostly).” It included lines like “Wolff and the show’s hosts stress that the show’s top mandate is to cover sports as the network pivots away from a broader cultural focus cultivated by former president John Skipper.” And its main discussion of anything political was the following two paragraphs:
Still, “when players take a knee, then it deserves coverage and conversation,” notes Wolff, referring to NFL players’ national anthem protests. “If something political makes itself part of our world, we are dishonest and inauthentic if we don’t discuss it.”
Rose notes that he has “never been muzzled in any way” during his decade at ESPN, he says: “I appreciate the fact that I’m able to talk about more than what happened in last night’s NBA game. And I think fans appreciate that. When our president tweets about sports, now he’s fair game.”
That’s essentially saying that the show would cover politics only if and when they directly intersected with sports, and that’s really been ESPN’s larger approach. But the “woke” narrative really took flight after that THR headline, and Greenberg got mad about it in an interview with Michael McCarthy of The Sporting News:
SPONSORED CONTENT
Allergy relief that makes the cut
By in January 2017 and officially announced in upfronts that May with a January 1, 2018 premiere date, which was then moved to this week thanks to studio construction delays. That’s almost 15 months between initially-reported discussions and the launch of the show.
Compare that to FS1’s First Things First, a morning show in a similar timeslot (6 to 9 a.m. ET versus 7 to 10) that was announced in May 2017 (also at upfronts) and launched in September. Yes, there were discussions about a FS1 morning show before that, and perhaps ESPN’s morning show drew more reporting at an earlier stage thanks to the larger focus on that network (plus the implications for Mike and Mike), but ESPN certainly dragged out the timeline from when people first heard about Greenberg hosting a morning show to when it actually started.
Oh, and it should be noted that First Things First is arguably more “woke” than Get Up, with a co-host in Nick Wright who’s regularly interested in talking about larger societal issues. But that doesn’t really fit a convenient narrative about FS1, and FS1 didn’t spend endless time talking about everything First Things Firstwould and wouldn’t be before actually launching it.
Some of the Get Up delay may have been unavoidable thanks to the construction, but some of it certainly could have been sped up. But the ESPN approach with many new shows has been to go through countless runthroughs and send the hosts on a publicity blitz before actually launching, even if that hasn’t taken quite as long in most cases (for example, SC6 was announced in October 2016, with the media blitz happening in January and February 2017 and the show launching in February 2017). And Get Up in particular perhaps illustrates the pitfalls of that.
What Get Up is actually trying for doesn’t appear to be all that complicated. It’s a sports-focused morning talk show, or the cross-section of SportsCenter and Today. (Or Good Morning America, if we’re going for Disney corporate synergy.) But you can’t get a year-plus worth of media coverage out of just that sentence. And the more you have people talk about what it will be, especially in an abstract sense rather than on specific coverage decisions, the more articles covering it will focus on what’s newsworthy; what’s new, what’s different, what ties into the larger ESPN discussion.
That’s how you get “Wake up woke” as a headline, because nothing else in that article was at all interesting or anything that hadn’t been said a million times before. (And even the “we’ll talk politics if they come up” comments had been made before, at TCA months earlier.) Was it perfectly reflective of the story? No, as the subhead indicates, and THR can take some criticism for that.
But when you’re trying to pump up what’s really a very simple concept for over a year, the media coverage is eventually going to shift to any small details that are even remotely new or interesting, so ESPN’s overall promotional strategy is at least partly to blame there.
And that comes from another central issue with this show and with its promotion. The show is largely focused on Greenberg; he makes the biggest salary (reportedly $6.5 million annually, one of the highest salaries at ESPN), he’s been associated with it the longest, and it was even described as “Greenberg and Friends” in some of the initial reports (even though he’s personally pushed back on that).
But Greenberg is not an interesting personality, or one who says anything newsworthy; Mike and Mike was rightly called “Mickey and Mickey In The Morning” by Colin Cowherd, as its whole point was a safe, non-controversial show that ESPN could book celebrities on. Ty Duffy’s May 2017 description of him following the Get Up announcement was bang on:
Greenberg, in many ways, is a holdover from a previous iteration of ESPN. He’s the straight man who is super-enthusiastic about sports. He’s a relentless professional. He’s remarkably non-incendiary. He’s almost the antithesis of a take artiste. Is he a natural draw for target demographic viewers? Does he draw an audience away from Trey Wingo replacing him on basically the same radio show?
From the ESPN description, the show sounds a lot like the “Mike & Mike” morphing into “Sports GMA” vision ESPN presented in 2015, before nixing it. One could see Greenberg slotting seamlessly into a George Stephanopoulos role, down to the side part.
ESPN knows what they have in Greenberg, and some people like him, and that’s fair enough. But much of the discussion of this show hasn’t been about anything Greenberg has said, but rather about co-hosts Beadle and Rose, both of whom are significantly more outspoken and who actually say newsworthy things from time to time. Or about Wolff, who’s also actually offered some substantive comments.
That further enhances things like the “woke” discussion and has those elements portrayed more extensively than they’ll actually be on the show, because the comments about them are actually notable and headline-worthy.
But much of this show is non-controversial Greenberg talking non-controversially about sports, and it’s impossible to hype that up. That’s especially if you’re trying to do so for a span of over a year, and if you’re trying to do so through outside media that actually want to produce articles with interesting news people want to read. So the smaller elements that are actually worth discussion get play that’s outsized relative to their on-air presence.
It’s also notable that even ESPN’s own promotions (which run constantly on their other shows) have said next to nothing about what Get Up actually is, choosing instead to feature a talking coffee bag and a baby, both making the point that “This is on early in the morning!”
As our Ben Koo pointed out, c’mon, man:
https://twitter.com/bkoo/status/982307523414945792
Beyond the poor promotional decisions, the amount of promotion ESPN has tried to apply to this show can also be questioned. They’ve been talking about it for over a year, and in doing so, have heaped way too many expectations on it and turned many off just with the constant stream of mentions. Our Phillip Bupp made a good point that it’s comparable to Tebowmania; when Tim Tebow is discussed for what he actually was/is (inaccurate NFL starter, brief NFL backup, old and below-average minor league baseball player), that’s one thing. But when he’s anointed as Skip Bayless’ personal hero or described with “no player has been so unnecessarily criticized in our generation,”that bugs a whole lot of people.
Similarly, if ESPN hadn’t overthought this and had just said “We’re doing SportsCenter meets GMA with Greeny, Beadle, and Jalen,” done a few selected media interviews, then rolled it out in a timely fashion with some promos actually featuring the hosts, it’s easy to imagine it going over a lot better. But the world has been hearing about Get Up for over a year, and many were sick of it long before the show ever aired.
It’s hard to picture that this was ever worthy of the “savior of ESPN” angles it sometimes received. And that prolonged run-up and the impossibility of saying anything interesting about Greenberg meant that the later media coverage was always going to shift to discussable topics even if they were more marginal parts of the show, and that’s how you get a WokeCenter narrative.
Get Up may wind up being fine. Thursday’s numbers were better than SportsCenter in that slot a year ago (impressive considering that ESPN has lost over a million subscribers in that span), and the show will probably improve as it goes and figure out what works for it, and if it produces something good, viewers may find it.
Will that be worth what ESPN’s paying for this, both in host salaries and in the other programming they’ve smashed up to put this together? We’ll see. But there’s an argument to be made that their approach to hyping this up hasn’t helped at all, and that it’s actually caused some problems for Get Up so far.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Bomani and Pablo new show High Noon works out.
http://awfulannouncing.com/espn/bom...orres-new-show-has-a-name-and-debut-date.html
More than a year and a half after it was first rumored and nearly a year to the date after it was officially announced, the upcoming ESPN show with Bomani Jones and Pablo Torre has a name and a start date.
ESPN announced Tuesday that the show will be called “High Noon (9 a.m. Pacific)” — yes, that’s the full name — and will debut Monday, June 4.
The show will air live from New York between 12 and 1 p.m. ET on ESPN.
High Noon (9 a.m. Pacific) has been a long time coming. We first heard that ESPN was weighing a Bomani-Pablo show back in October 2016, and after months of rumors, the network officially announced it in May 2017. It was originally supposed to debut in January, but construction delays at ESPN’s new New York studio pushed back the date. By the time the show actually starts, it will have been more than a year since it was first announced.
ESPN still hasn’t revealed much about High Noon, but based on interviews Torre and Jones have done, it sounds as if the show will feature longer-form discussion about subjects that interest the hosts. Appearing on The Tony Kornheiser Show last week, Torre said High Noon will be different from shows like PTI that bounce from topic to topic every few minutes.
“We are making a fundamental bet on the idea that there are a couple things that are underrated or at least useful in an age when attention spans have sort of been recognized as so short,” Torre said. “Television has been optimized, thanks to Erik [Rydholm], thanks to the internet, into a serving economy. It’s tight, it’s quick, we anticipate you’re going to tune out. And right now we’re betting that maybe we don’t have to do that. That there’s an audience in this world of great fragmentation for someone who may want what we have to ramble about for 22 minutes.”
“Now, all of that is to say, that sounds like a terrible strategy if that doesn’t work,” he said, “but if it does, we’ll be visionaries.”
Torre is right that the stakes are high. With ESPN’s morning show Get Up struggling in its early weeks (in terms of both ratings and reviews), the network could really use a win. In the 12 p.m. ET time slot, High Noon doesn’t have to appeal to everyone, but it does have to find a core audience that will tune in regularly enough to make all this build-up worth the trouble.
There’s reason for optimism though. Jones and Torre have an intriguing concept, an imminent start date and a name that makes viewers feel as though they’re getting away with something. That’s a pretty good start.
Wow my boy get the Espn slot...
See on the real this show should be in the mornings and Get up should have the afternoon slot.
Man Golic Jr is hilarious
that woman is damn near flawless
Jeremy Lin serves up ‘BBQ’ defense in Jalen Rose feud
Picking on the Nets is low-hanging fruit. That’s what happens when you take up residence in the NBA cellar. ESPN’s Jalen Rose got into the act Tuesday, leaving at least one Net clapping back and their fans triggered.
Rose — while making a point about how the NBA is vocation and not avocation — said on “Get Up,” ESPN’s morning show based in New York City, “I promise you, the Nets — they play right here in Brooklyn — those players are not exchanging texts with each other this offseason.”
But Brooklyn begs to differ. The Nets say they’re not texting — they’re busy actually hanging out with each other after their 28-54 season that left them 12th in the Eastern Conference.
Nets point guard Jeremy Lin responded quickly on social media, tweeting that he had all of his teammates over to his home last week for a barbecue.
“Hmm Jalen much respect to you but no idea where this came from lol. I just had the whole team over for a fat bbq last week. These are my homies…even @IAmCHAP24 lol,” Lin tweeted, calling on teammate Rondae Hollis-Jefferson.
The forward promptly weighed in with a tweet defending Lin’s take: “As a brotherhood we enjoy every aspect of this growth process. #NextTimeYouComeToBKCheckIn”
It was far from the only time the Nets have converged in each other’s company this offseason. They spent time together in Los Angeles earlier this month, with all but two players on the 15-man roster in Hollywood.
Veteran center Timofey Mozgov — who played for the Lakers before coming to Brooklyn — hosted a number of them at his Los Angeles residence during their West Coast getaway. And DeMarre Carroll, who has emerged as a team leader and grown-up in the locker room, shared a picture of the Nets working out in what looks like the Hollywood Hills.
One Brooklyn fan even compiled a video, complete with music, of the Nets joking around and enjoying each other’s company this offseason.
Picking on the Nets is low-hanging fruit. That’s what happens when you take up residence in the NBA cellar. ESPN’s Jalen Rose got into the act Tuesday, leaving at least one Net clapping back and their fans triggered.
Rose — while making a point about how the NBA is vocation and not avocation — said on “Get Up,” ESPN’s morning show based in New York City, “I promise you, the Nets — they play right here in Brooklyn — those players are not exchanging texts with each other this offseason.”
But Brooklyn begs to differ. The Nets say they’re not texting — they’re busy actually hanging out with each other after their 28-54 season that left them 12th in the Eastern Conference.
Nets point guard Jeremy Lin responded quickly on social media, tweeting that he had all of his teammates over to his home last week for a barbecue.
“Hmm Jalen much respect to you but no idea where this came from lol. I just had the whole team over for a fat bbq last week. These are my homies…even @IAmCHAP24 lol,” Lin tweeted, calling on teammate Rondae Hollis-Jefferson.
The forward promptly weighed in with a tweet defending Lin’s take: “As a brotherhood we enjoy every aspect of this growth process. #NextTimeYouComeToBKCheckIn”
It was far from the only time the Nets have converged in each other’s company this offseason. They spent time together in Los Angeles earlier this month, with all but two players on the 15-man roster in Hollywood.
Veteran center Timofey Mozgov — who played for the Lakers before coming to Brooklyn — hosted a number of them at his Los Angeles residence during their West Coast getaway. And DeMarre Carroll, who has emerged as a team leader and grown-up in the locker room, shared a picture of the Nets working out in what looks like the Hollywood Hills.
One Brooklyn fan even compiled a video, complete with music, of the Nets joking around and enjoying each other’s company this offseason.
Well this is unexpected...
Chris sims & mike florio are going in on Trump over the anthem protest. I did not expect this at all. I mean Chris Sims went in.... calling Trump a bully.
Chris sims & mike florio are going in on Trump over the anthem protest. I did not expect this at all. I mean Chris Sims went in.... calling Trump a bully.
Is it telling that Get up is completely off the air during Wimbledon, while Golic & Wingo is still airing. Normally ESPN moves the main ESPN show to ESPN 2 or ESPN news.... And the ESPN news show would get bumped. I’ve rarely seen the main draw show completely bumped.
I’m also disgusted that bed wrench Sage Steele is in a this is Sportscenter commercial.
I’m also disgusted that bed wrench Sage Steele is in a this is Sportscenter commercial.
Co-sign
I gotten sick of all these ESPN shows honestly, none of these commentators have real opinions, they all toe the company line. For example, people are wondering if this 2-4 team dominance in the NBA is good for the league, reddit, message boards and youtube commentators will argue both points. ESPN will simply say "it's great for the league" and move on because nobody working for ESPN is going to say otherwise because it will impact their ratings.
The NFL Network’s “Good Morning Football” has won some acclaim, but it may lose one of its hosts. Sources say Kay Adams is in talks with ESPN about moving to its network. Adams hosts “Good Morning Football” with Nate Burleson, Peter Schrager and Kyle Brandt.
One source said Adams would be brought to ESPN to work on fantasy football broadcasts.
However, she could be an interesting addition in Bristol with ESPN’s new morning show “Get Up!” potentially undergoing changes at some point down the road.
One source said Adams would be brought to ESPN to work on fantasy football broadcasts.
However, she could be an interesting addition in Bristol with ESPN’s new morning show “Get Up!” potentially undergoing changes at some point down the road.
The NFL Network’s “Good Morning Football” has won some acclaim, but it may lose one of its hosts. Sources say Kay Adams is in talks with ESPN about moving to its network. Adams hosts “Good Morning Football” with Nate Burleson, Peter Schrager and Kyle Brandt.
One source said Adams would be brought to ESPN to work on fantasy football broadcasts.
However, she could be an interesting addition in Bristol with ESPN’s new morning show “Get Up!” potentially undergoing changes at some point down the road.
Damn Kay Adams and Burlson are the best thing about that show.
But on the real I don’t blame her... she could be a rising star there.
Side note......
Even though he clearly got his job from his dad....
I’ve got to say that I really enjoy Golic Jr.. he seems to be one of the few white hosts that does actually speak his mind and dude is fucking hilarious.
Even though he clearly got his job from his dad....
I’ve got to say that I really enjoy Golic Jr.. he seems to be one of the few white hosts that does actually speak his mind and dude is fucking hilarious.
co-sign its nice to hear a young white voice on the radio that is 'woke' and has a sense of humor
but they did Lunberg dirty
with that said Get Up has grown on me
i enjoy the laid back vibe of it and Greeny works well as a host surrounded by strong personalities/opinions
i watch Golic/Wingo til 7 switch to Get Up at 7 & switch back to Golic/Wingo in the car