Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

ESPN aims for female audience with espnW.

Selling ESPN specifically to women might not seem sensible.
But ESPN, always on the prowl for spinoffs, wants to target women with espnW.

As ESPN vice president Laura Gentile notes, ESPN's own research finds "women see us as an admirable brand that has authority. But they see us as their father's brand, or husband's brand, or boyfriend's brand. They recognize it's not theirs"

No wonder. Men account for 76% of ESPN's overall viewership. And just two types of programming it produces draws majority-female audiences: The National Spelling Bee on ABC (63% female) and cheerleading shows on ESPN2 (52%) — with ESPN2's Wimbledon coverage in third place with 48%.

http://espn.go.com/espnw/

The network plans to make espnW a new sub-brand that will soon begin as a blog and could end up being its own TV channel. Says Gentile: "I think espnW-branded programming is in the cards, but I can't say whether we'll make it into a network."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... offs_N.htm

Awesome.

So they will cover women's track and field, specifically college women's track and field, and even more specifically Cal's women's track and field name, and even more so, the pole vaulting? Just asking, no reason.

SuperHornet approves


99% of America doesn't give a shit

clenz wrote:SuperHornet approves


99% of America doesn't give a shit

I do. If they get all the shitty women's stuff in one place that is easily avoidable I completely support this move.

More UCONN gals hoops? Nah. That would be impossible.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

clenz wrote:SuperHornet approves


99% of America doesn't give a shit

I do. If they get all the shitty women's stuff in one place that is easily avoidable I completely support this move.

Touche.

We just need ESPN the Ocho....they can cover everything that NOONE cares about, but ESPN makes us believe people care about

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

clenz wrote:SuperHornet approves


99% of America doesn't give a shit

I do. If they get all the shitty women's stuff in one place that is easily avoidable I completely support this move.

Honestly, this almost has to be what ESPN is thinking as well. There is no fucking way that they could think people are going to watch a channel like this.

DJH wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: I do. If they get all the shitty women's stuff in one place that is easily avoidable I completely support this move.

Honestly, this almost has to be what ESPN is thinking as well. There is no fucking way that they could think people are going to watch a channel like this.

They want to move this somewhere to keep this niche in their family but instead of taking up airtime on the couple of larger portions of the network and lowering the ratings on those channels with it they could actually just repeat things already shown and have higher ratings.

In the process they can make it appear that they are doing something that is really beneficial for womens sports while their real move is to take the anchor off the necks of the other channels.

I agree.

For me, it depends on what they show. If the other networks (namely ESPN/ESPN2) offer any lessons to be learned, it'll be more of the same, only in a female context. So that would mean ECAC track, SEC women's hoops and Alabama/Georgia gymnastics.

If that's the case I won't watch. I wanna see Sac gymnastics and track. They deserve some air time. The SEC shouldn't get to hog it all. They get enough unwarranted pub from CBS anyway.

SuperHornet wrote:For me, it depends on what they show. If the other networks (namely ESPN/ESPN2) offer any lessons to be learned, it'll be more of the same, only in a female context. So that would mean ECAC track, SEC women's hoops and Alabama/Georgia gymnastics.

If that's the case I won't watch. I wanna see Sac gymnastics and track. They deserve some air time. The SEC shouldn't get to hog it all. They get enough unwarranted pub from CBS anyway.

You don't seem to have a good handle on how business works. It is not whether YOU think someone is deserving or not. It is the amount of people that watch it so they can sell ads and so forth.

Keep that in mind when you are making these kinds of statements and you will be further ahead in this.

I'm all for this if it keeps womens stuff off of ESPN and ESPN2. I'm glad that women have an opportunity to compete, I just have no desire to watch.

BlueHen86 wrote:I'm all for this if it keeps womens stuff off of ESPN and ESPN2. I'm glad that women have an opportunity to compete, I just have no desire to watch.

Even the Lady Hens?

SuperHornet wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:I'm all for this if it keeps womens stuff off of ESPN and ESPN2. I'm glad that women have an opportunity to compete, I just have no desire to watch.

Even the Lady Hens?

I have no desire to watch the Lady Hens do anything that is suitable for broadcast on ESPN. Get back to me when they come up with ESPNXXX.

BlueHen86 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Even the Lady Hens?

I have no desire to watch the Lady Hens do anything that is suitable for broadcast on ESPN. Get back to me when they come up with ESPNXXX.

I was gonna jump in there with a similar style post but I'm glad I waited.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I have no desire to watch the Lady Hens do anything that is suitable for broadcast on ESPN. Get back to me when they come up with ESPNXXX.

I was gonna jump in there with a similar style post but I'm glad I waited.