No. I said nothing "patently false," that is strictly your opinion and your opinion does not determine fact. As I said, his value will take significant time to prove - even if you've already made up your mind. All content providers need to expand their viewership but older viewers have more money to spend; to write them off as easily as you appear to would be a mistake. The eyes of a guy 55 or older are worth more than the eyes of a 35 year old.
To say that someone who has one of the largest social media followings of any online sports shows brings nothing to the table or nothing of value to the table is completely false. Older generations may have more money to spend but you do not have to spend money to watch something on television beyond having a cable contract. So it’s relatively irrelevant. Television stations are about capturing viewers first and foremost. Not to mention, in your example, the 35 year old with less money willlikely spend more money in the long term since they have 20 years longer to spend money on whatever it is that we’re talking about if they’re acquired as a fan at 35 rather than 55.
You keep giving us your opinion while disregarding mine. You value what McAfee is and I don't; it's really quite simple. The results of the McAfee experiment aren't being tabulated today. You also have allowed the spending power of audience demographics to go completely over your head by calling it irrelevant. It's not about how much it costs to access the content by cable or streaming, etc. that matters, it's about how many vacations, cars and beers those viewers are ready, willing and able to buy - that's what advertisers care about and that's what television providers care about today, not what they'll buy twenty years from now. Subscriptions provide most of the revenue to ESPN, advertising revenue is secondary, but the driving force behind both is largely the same, they need people to watch. But you're right that retaining a viewer over the long term is important, with programming catering to the guy who may be a spender in a decade or two at the expense of a guy who is patronizing advertisers today is just bad business; return on investment for both broadcasters and advertisers is posted quarterly, not by decade.
I don’t value anything about McAfee. I’m simply stating facts that he has a large quantifiable base and that’s obviously the reason he got a large contract. Something you clearly ignore when you state that he BrInGs NoThInG tO tHe TaBlE. He brings a large amount of subscribers and viewers that like him to the table.
I would think that the target audience for ESPN is not 55+ My opinion (and educated guess) is that it coincides with McAfee's audience which is much younger. It's not like ESPN is advertising retirement homes and luxury yachts. It's more like Doritos and beer.
How can you say you value nothing about McAfee but at the same time that he brings value to the table? I've looked around for exactly how large his "quantifiable base" actually is and come up short - his podcast appears to be rated #36 overall, fourth in sports which looks pretty good but why is he only rated #78 on YouTube among sports sites? Whatever that base is, how it translates to ESPN is yet to be answered. As far as why was he given such a large contract by ESPN, you're not suggesting that his simply getting the contract is enough to verify his value, are you? You watch sports and you watch entertainment programming and you know that failure and loss is rampant in both venues regardless of what size contract somebody was able to garner. How wise that decision is is far from decided, regardless of how you'd like to declare the decision tonight. Are the subscribers he may bring enough to pay for his contract? Will ESPN keep whoever he brings and will they more than offset those he may drive away?
His value is his base. He has over 2 million subscribers and gets hundreds of thousands of views to his live show, while sometimes getting millions of views. He also has millions of views to his individual clips. None of that is related to my own opinion for or against him. Those are all facts. Hence that he has value and you just stated more reasons as to why he has value. Perhaps you don’t believe his value is worth his contract. But your original state is HE BRINGS NOTHING TO THE TABLE. And then you doubled down saying he brings NOTHING OF VALUE TO THE TABLE. I’m done. You’re wrong. He has value. You just don’t agree with it because you don’t like him which wasn’t what the discussion was about at all. It’s cool though. Enjoy your holiday.
The target for any television based programming varies and the advertising follows the group represented. I have never seen much advertising for retirement homes or luxury yachts so those are kind of red herrings but as well as the chips and beer we see airlines, hotels, cruises and luxury car brands represented and those are targeted to those who buy those things. The guy who is watching ESPN at noon in the east or nine AM in California (the reported time for McAfee) is not a luxury buyer and won't be chased by Tesla. The streaming viewer is less apt to be the high end buyer. As I mentioned earlier, all eyes are not worth the same money.
I long ago clarified that he brings nothing of value to the table for me - that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. How much personal value he brings to anyone else is strictly their opinion. How much economic value he brings to ESPN won't be known for a long time. It is far from decided and how his show remains the same or changes to fit the corporate model of Disney may be very important to keeping an audience. But if it makes you feel better about yourself to claim that I'm wrong, have at it.
they watch him on social media because it’s free. On ESPN he won’t be free. I think it will be a big flop, but we’ll see
