Roast Dermott Brereton: "Wayne Carey is a better analyst than Daisy Pearce"

[Lavender Bushranger]

I have a wife and daughters, none of them would relate to anything you claim.

Lots of women play basketball too, LOTS.

That doesn't mean they go and watch it. In fact there's been large numbers of women in many sports for a long time.

It's very easy to highlight that it never equated to rises in viewing numbers for those sports.

So your theory really doesn't hold any weight.

"In December 2011 ESPN negotiated a 14-year $500 million multimedia agreement ($35 million per annum) to televise 24 NCAA women’s championships including the College World Series and basketball tournament expiring in 2025. Desser Media Sports estimates the value for March Madness alone is between $81 to $112 million each year."


This is just one example of networks paying for women's sport. Networks don't pay for stuff that people aren't interested in.

More females are playing sport, more are engaged.

Networks structure their broadcast of all sports to facilitate as many people watching as possible.

The AFL and the networks know that crusty old white, homophobic slobs are dying off. They've known this for a long time, and have progressively been trying to build a broader customer base.

 

[Fadge]

"In December 2011 ESPN negotiated a 14-year $500 million multimedia agreement ($35 million per annum) to televise 24 NCAA women’s championships including the College World Series and basketball tournament expiring in 2025. Desser Media Sports estimates the value for March Madness alone is between $81 to $112 million each year."


This is just one example of networks paying for women's sport. Networks don't pay for stuff that people aren't interested in.

More females are playing sport, more are engaged.

Networks structure their broadcast of all sports to facilitate as many people watching as possible.

The AFL and the networks know that crusty old white, homophobic slobs are dying off. They've known this for a long time, and have progressively been trying to build a broader customer base.

Is that $35 million per year to cover 24 different female sports?

In comparison CBS is paying on average $1.1 billion per season to cover the male NCAA Basketball season.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Is that $35 million per year to cover 24 different female sports?

In comparison CBS is paying on average $1.1 billion per season to cover the male NCAA Basketball season.

Relevance?

 

[Soggy2112]

Is that $35 million per year to cover 24 different female sports?

In comparison CBS is paying on average $1.1 billion per season to cover the male NCAA Basketball season.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that women’s sport is equally lucrative as men’s.

 

[Gough]

The AFL and the networks know that crusty old white, homophobic slobs are dying off. They've known this for a long time, and have progressively been trying to build a broader customer base.

The advertisers and marketing types know it too. While Derm and Rex Hunt are saying the quiet part out loud and rugby league is tying itself in knots over a few colours on a shirt, there are some extremely marketable women having great success on the world stage.

 

[Fadge]

Relevance?

Just bringing some relativity to the discussion.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just bringing some relativity to the discussion.

Relative to what?

Sorry, I don't understand the context or relevance of what you posted.

 

[Bostonian]

"In December 2011 ESPN negotiated a 14-year $500 million multimedia agreement ($35 million per annum) to televise 24 NCAA women’s championships including the College World Series and basketball tournament expiring in 2025. Desser Media Sports estimates the value for March Madness alone is between $81 to $112 million each year."


This is just one example of networks paying for women's sport. Networks don't pay for stuff that people aren't interested in.

More females are playing sport, more are engaged.

Networks structure their broadcast of all sports to facilitate as many people watching as possible.

The AFL and the networks know that crusty old white, homophobic slobs are dying off. They've known this for a long time, and have progressively been trying to build a broader customer base.

"ESPN, a longtime cornerstone of the Walt Disney Co., continues to lose lucrative pay-TV distribution, shrinking another 10% to end fiscal 2021 at 76 million U.S. households. Citing Nielsen, Disney provided the number as part of its annual report, filed with the SEC this afternoon."

Then there's the financial disaster that is the WNBA. Costs a small fortune to keep afloat and nobody watches it.

So yeah forgive me if I don't take anything you say as coming from a position of knowledge.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

"ESPN, a longtime cornerstone of the Walt Disney Co., continues to lose lucrative pay-TV distribution, shrinking another 10% to end fiscal 2021 at 76 million U.S. households. Citing Nielsen, Disney provided the number as part of its annual report, filed with the SEC this afternoon."

Then there's the financial disaster that is the WNBA. Costs a small fortune to keep afloat and nobody watches it.

So yeah forgive me if I don't take anything you say as coming from a position of knowledge.

I don't see the relevance? And I don't understand the context either.

 

[deanc]

Then there's the financial disaster that is the WNBA. Costs a small fortune to keep afloat and nobody watches it.

Gee this sounds familiar, although the AFLW in comparison is only 6 years old and no doubt despite the 'bigger picture' all stakeholders are hoping that a few foundation clubs will be able to at least meet their basic operating expenses 'soon'...

 

[Bostonian]

I don't see the relevance? And I don't understand the context either.

The relevance is your views are deluded and there are already existing sporting competitions that prove your vision of how things will unfold never do.

 

[Back One Out]

The list of expert commentators about whom I'd say "Wow I'm glad they're part of this coverage, they really enhance the experience" goes something like:

Nathan Buckley

(Daylight) (Flemington straight)

Jason Dunstall

Garry Lyon

And that's it. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone else I'd consider to be insightful, balanced or even particularly agreeable.

I would put Jordan Lewis in there ahead of Garry Lyon

Lyon's calling card is to jizz himself into a lather over the top teams. e.g. "Look at that! What a kick! THAT'S why they're best!"
Yeah thanks, Captain Obvious. Anyone can give those sort of "special comments" and appear "astute".


I think Lewis always offers interesting tactical insights you don't hear elsewhere. He does say some dumb shiit, but he makes good points too. Let's you know what's going on, which players are doing certain roles or posing a problem to the opposition coach.

He seems to cop plenty of flak from people, but I think he is an underrated analyst/special comments guy.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The relevance is your views are deluded and there are already existing sporting competitions that prove your vision of how things will unfold never do.

??

Are you saying that you do not believe that TV networks try to increase their audience??

For real?

 

[Bostonian]

??

Are you saying that you do not believe that TV networks try to increase their audience??

For real?

I'm saying your view that adding women to positions in clubs and media have little to impact on increasing audience numbers over what they are now.

Plenty of historical evidence of that.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'm saying your view that adding women to positions in clubs and media have little to impact on increasing audience numbers over what they are now.

Plenty of historical evidence of that.

So you're basically arguing that sporting club boards across the globe, and TV network executives are wrong?

I'm not debating whether they're correct or not. I couldn't really care either way whether big business gets bigger and richer or not.

I'm stating though, that that's why they do this stuff - for the dollar. Not to try to take over the world by stealing angry old men's masculinity away from them.


The same reason Sky News have angry and outraged women these days.

Ever wondered why they do it? I'm sure you'd agree that they aren't 'woke' and signalling virtue (whatever that means).

They do it because it expands their viewership. It's good for business.

 

[Xtreme]

That's a complete fallacy that having more women in certain positions will bring in more viewers.

Zero proof of that.

That's like saying holding the grand final at night will provide the opportunity for fireworks and increasing ratings by 10 million viewers.

 

[Bostonian]

So you're basically arguing that sporting club boards across the globe, and TV network executives are wrong?

I'm not debating whether they're correct or not. I couldn't really care either way whether big business gets bigger and richer or not.

I'm stating though, that that's why they do this stuff - for the dollar. Not to try to take over the world by stealing angry old men's masculinity away from them.


The same reason Sky News have angry and outraged women these days.

Ever wondered why they do it? I'm sure you'd agree that they aren't 'woke' and signalling virtue (whatever that means).

They do it because it expands their viewership. It's good for business.

I'm saying they do it for the optics.

They know it won't change or move the viewership numbers.

If it was so good for business then the likes of ESPN to use your example wouldn't be losing large chunks of viewers.

If it's about the dollar then their business model is s**t if you're losing customers based on their decisions.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If it was so good for business then the likes of ESPN to use your example wouldn't be losing large chunks of viewers.

If it's about the dollar then their business model is s**t if you're losing customers based on their decisions.

That's a long bow.

Firstly, it depends which figures you choose to look at to determine whether ESPN, for example, is losing viewers.

The playoff runs for the NHL and NBA helped fuel ESPN’s second-quarter ratings, which were up 22% in primetime — the best since 2014. We topped cable viewers 18-49 for total day, and a lot of that was driven up not only by the live playoff games, but the studio shows which gave us a lift. The ability to talk about what was happening in games allows us to continue the conversation with fans beyond the live games throughout the quarter.

We can point to our success in college sports this past season, which were up consistently across the board on our linear platforms. Just in the second quarter alone, WNBA games were up 15% year to year; the NBA Draft was up 28%; and PGA Championship golf coverage was up 12%. Our Formula One races on ESPN were up 11%. Our women’s softball coverage had its best ratings since 2011 and the men’s baseball playoffs were up 20%. There’s a consistent story that we have to share of how sports are consistently drawing bigger audiences."

The cable business model is problematic for everyone in the US (except customers) at the moment, but I'm not sure where the idea comes from that they're losing viewers? Their revenue is dropping, due to above mentioned cable business model, but viewers and ratings are up.

ESPN scored its strongest viewership in May in seven years, thanks to big increases in the audiences for the NBA, NCAA Softball, the PGA Championship and Formula One; SportsCenter throughout the day; and the entire lineup of weekday studio shows, plus the return of the NHL to ESPN with an extensive playoff schedule.

Overall, ESPN averaged 742K viewers (P2+) on a 24-hour basis, up 34% from May 2021. It was ESPN’s highest average for May since 2015. The increase in prime time was even more pronounced – an average of 2.17M viewers, a stunning increase of 76% vs. last year to the network’s highest mark since 2018.



But regardless, to suggest that they're losing money and viewers because they have female representation and show female sports, is just odd.

Any business, anywhere, in any field or industry that wants to grow - needs a larger customer base. Obviously. Or they need their existing customer base to spend more on the product.

For entertainment, the latter won't happen and in fact the opposite is the case. People expect to pay less for it, not more.
So you expand your customer base. They all know that straight, angry old white guys are dying off. So unless they broaden their audience, it will shrink.

This is why big business embraces diversity and inclusion. In addition to the other obvious benefits that come with it - it's good for business.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, does anything in business for 'optics' alone. They do it because optics are good for business.

None of this is political, as much as the Herald-Sun and Sky News want you to think it is. It's business.

The irony in right leaning people getting sucked in by right-wing entertainment networks (masquerading as news) on these topics is just so funny.

 

[Bostonian]

That's a long bow.

Firstly, it depends which figures you choose to look at to determine whether ESPN, for example, is losing viewers.

The playoff runs for the NHL and NBA helped fuel ESPN’s second-quarter ratings, which were up 22% in primetime — the best since 2014. We topped cable viewers 18-49 for total day, and a lot of that was driven up not only by the live playoff games, but the studio shows which gave us a lift. The ability to talk about what was happening in games allows us to continue the conversation with fans beyond the live games throughout the quarter.

We can point to our success in college sports this past season, which were up consistently across the board on our linear platforms. Just in the second quarter alone, WNBA games were up 15% year to year; the NBA Draft was up 28%; and PGA Championship golf coverage was up 12%. Our Formula One races on ESPN were up 11%. Our women’s softball coverage had its best ratings since 2011 and the men’s baseball playoffs were up 20%. There’s a consistent story that we have to share of how sports are consistently drawing bigger audiences."

The cable business model is problematic for everyone in the US (except customers) at the moment, but I'm not sure where the idea comes from that they're losing viewers? Their revenue is dropping, due to above mentioned cable business model, but viewers and ratings are up.

ESPN scored its strongest viewership in May in seven years, thanks to big increases in the audiences for the NBA, NCAA Softball, the PGA Championship and Formula One; SportsCenter throughout the day; and the entire lineup of weekday studio shows, plus the return of the NHL to ESPN with an extensive playoff schedule.

Overall, ESPN averaged 742K viewers (P2+) on a 24-hour basis, up 34% from May 2021. It was ESPN’s highest average for May since 2015. The increase in prime time was even more pronounced – an average of 2.17M viewers, a stunning increase of 76% vs. last year to the network’s highest mark since 2018.



But regardless, to suggest that they're losing money and viewers because they have female representation and show female sports, is just odd.

Any business, anywhere, in any field or industry that wants to grow - needs a larger customer base. Obviously. Or they need their existing customer base to spend more on the product.

For entertainment, the latter won't happen and in fact the opposite is the case. People expect to pay less for it, not more.
So you expand your customer base. They all know that straight, angry old white guys are dying off. So unless they broaden their audience, it will shrink.

This is why big business embraces diversity and inclusion. In addition to the other obvious benefits that come with it - it's good for business.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, does anything in business for 'optics' alone. They do it because optics are good for business.

None of this is political, as much as the Herald-Sun and Sky News want you to think it is. It's business.

The irony in right leaning people getting sucked in by right-wing entertainment networks (masquerading as news) on these topics is just so funny.

I didn't say they were losing money because of it, I said they aren't gaining sod all because of it.

Do you find it strange that diversity and inclusion only seems a buzz word in spaces where white males exist?

Nobody gives a * about it in other countries, occupations etc where those people aren't present in great numbers.

Daisy Pearce adds nothing special to the AFL landscape and really did only get the job because she's a woman. Which is fine, good luck to her in using that to her advantage.

Points of difference are how people often land jobs even if they are no better than the other options.

Don't know why you brought up right wing when anyone who aligns with ideologies is a massive brain dead gimp.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Points of difference are how people often land jobs even if they are no better than the other options.

You mean diversity right?

 

[Bostonian]

You mean diversity right?

Check list hires.

Forced and nothing organic about them.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Check list hires.

Forced and nothing organic about them.

??

Hiring someone because they bring complimenting experience, perspective and/or skills is forced and not organic?

I find that logic difficult to understand.


Who's the best player in the comp right now?

Petracca? Cripps? Hawkins? I don't know, pick one.

Now imagine picking 'the best person for the job' in the same context. You'd have 22 Petraccas. He's the best player. So each time you hired someone, you'd pick the best player.

And....you'd get flogged every single week. Absolutely mauled.

So when building a team, you hire a diverse range of people. Speed, experience, size, height, skills, athleticism etc.

And if you identify gaps, you hire someone who can bring that. You don't hire 'the person for the job', you hire people that will form part of a diverse group that provides all the assets you need to succeed.

That's all diversity is. I don't know why people are so scared of it.

It's just common sense and smart business logic.

 

[FRUMPY]

That's a long bow.

Firstly, it depends which figures you choose to look at to determine whether ESPN, for example, is losing viewers.

The playoff runs for the NHL and NBA helped fuel ESPN’s second-quarter ratings, which were up 22% in primetime — the best since 2014. We topped cable viewers 18-49 for total day, and a lot of that was driven up not only by the live playoff games, but the studio shows which gave us a lift. The ability to talk about what was happening in games allows us to continue the conversation with fans beyond the live games throughout the quarter.

We can point to our success in college sports this past season, which were up consistently across the board on our linear platforms. Just in the second quarter alone, WNBA games were up 15% year to year; the NBA Draft was up 28%; and PGA Championship golf coverage was up 12%. Our Formula One races on ESPN were up 11%. Our women’s softball coverage had its best ratings since 2011 and the men’s baseball playoffs were up 20%. There’s a consistent story that we have to share of how sports are consistently drawing bigger audiences."

The cable business model is problematic for everyone in the US (except customers) at the moment, but I'm not sure where the idea comes from that they're losing viewers? Their revenue is dropping, due to above mentioned cable business model, but viewers and ratings are up.

ESPN scored its strongest viewership in May in seven years, thanks to big increases in the audiences for the NBA, NCAA Softball, the PGA Championship and Formula One; SportsCenter throughout the day; and the entire lineup of weekday studio shows, plus the return of the NHL to ESPN with an extensive playoff schedule.

Overall, ESPN averaged 742K viewers (P2+) on a 24-hour basis, up 34% from May 2021. It was ESPN’s highest average for May since 2015. The increase in prime time was even more pronounced – an average of 2.17M viewers, a stunning increase of 76% vs. last year to the network’s highest mark since 2018.



But regardless, to suggest that they're losing money and viewers because they have female representation and show female sports, is just odd.

Any business, anywhere, in any field or industry that wants to grow - needs a larger customer base. Obviously. Or they need their existing customer base to spend more on the product.

For entertainment, the latter won't happen and in fact the opposite is the case. People expect to pay less for it, not more.
So you expand your customer base. They all know that straight, angry old white guys are dying off. So unless they broaden their audience, it will shrink.

This is why big business embraces diversity and inclusion. In addition to the other obvious benefits that come with it - it's good for business.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, does anything in business for 'optics' alone. They do it because optics are good for business.

None of this is political, as much as the Herald-Sun and Sky News want you to think it is. It's business.

The irony in right leaning people getting sucked in by right-wing entertainment networks (masquerading as news) on these topics is just so funny.

certainly interesting stats - were there bugger all people watching sport in the US the year prior? Or less sport to watch due to covid?

 

[SAweagle]

If Andy Maher says it, it must be true........

Hahaha yes Andy well done you champion, daisy might let you say hello to her now

 

[Bostonian]

??

Hiring someone because they bring complimenting experience, perspective and/or skills is forced and not organic?

I find that logic difficult to understand.


Who's the best player in the comp right now?

Petracca? Cripps? Hawkins? I don't know, pick one.

Now imagine picking 'the best person for the job' in the same context. You'd have 22 Petraccas. He's the best player. So each time you hired someone, you'd pick the best player.

And....you'd get flogged every single week. Absolutely mauled.

So when building a team, you hire a diverse range of people. Speed, experience, size, height, skills, athleticism etc.

And if you identify gaps, you hire someone who can bring that. You don't hire 'the person for the job', you hire people that will form part of a diverse group that provides all the assets you need to succeed.

That's all diversity is. I don't know why people are so scared of it.

It's just common sense and smart business logic.

A point of difference is a skill or talent you have in a field that nobody else does.

What gap was Daisy filling?