For ESPN, the social-networking revolution will not be televised--or tweeted, blogged, or Facebooked. Not for now, at least, and not without ESPN's approval.
The sports network has apparently banned its workforce from posting any sports-related content on social-networking tools such as Twitter and Facebook without its permission. The news first came to light Tuesday when Ric Bucher, an NBA analyst for ESPN, tweeted that he had just received an network memo regarding tweeting:
The hammer just came down, tweeps: ESPN memo prohibiting tweeting info unless it serves ESPN. Kinda figured with was coming. Not sure what this means but
In a follow-up tweet, Bucher, who has more than 18,000 followers on Twitter, pondered the gravity of his tweet revealing the memo:
I'm probably violating some sort of policy just by telling you. In any case, stay tuned.
According to a purported copy of the memo posted on the sports blog The Big Lead, Bucher may just be violating the new policy (one point begins "Avoid discussing internal policies...").
In the memo, ESPN tells employees that it is "currently building and testing modules designed to publish Twitter and Facebook entries simultaneously" on ESPN Web sites and mobile platforms, and it plans to roll out the modules this fall.
"Personal websites and blogs that contain sports content are not permitted," according to the memo. But, it says, "If ESPN.com opts not to post sports related social media content created by ESPN talent, you are not permitted to report, speculate, discuss or give any opinions on sports related topics or personalities on your personal platforms(.)"
The memo seems to mirror efforts announced earlier Tuesday by the Marine Corps and the National Football League affecting their respective members and employees. And while one could argue that a military ban on using social-networking sites could ultimately save lives, the NFL is apparently just trying to save itself from some embarrassment.
Professional athletes ranging from Shaquille O'Neal to Lance Armstrong have long twittered about their observations on their respective sports experiences but not always with the approval or to the amusement of their coaches. In April, San Francisco Giants pitchers Barry Zito and Brian Wilson found their Twitter accounts getting the hook over some rather bizarre posts. But those posts paled in comparison to Washington Redskins tight end Chris Cooley, who last season posted a portion of his team's playbook on his personal blog--along with a photo of his penis.
So what is ESPN's angle? A spokesman for the network told The New York Times that, "we want to be smarter about how we do it," adding that Bucher's "interpretation of the policy is mistaken."
As for Bucher, he seems to have no plans to abandon Twitter. "My guess is I can still tweet about my vacation/car shopping, etc. Which I will do, if I can."
Seriously?
(Credit: Matt Hickey)Go to ESPN360.com. Click on the link at the top that says "Watch Now," and see what happens. You'll either be let in to the viewing area or, more likely, told that you can't access the content because of your Internet service provider.
Why? Ars has it that Disney, the parent company of ESPN360.com, has partnered with certain ISPs to provide exclusive access to its premium content. If your ISP isn't a Disney/ESPN partner, tough luck. This, of course, violates the ideals of Net neutrality.
The Net neutrality position is, in a nutshell, that no matter who you get your Internet access through you should have access to the same Internet as everyone else.
But the large corporations have started using their influence to sell features to the large ISPs at prices that smaller ISPs can't match. Besides the Net neutrality issues, this is troubling.
And not just for the customers: A pop-up actually recommends to customers who don't match the viewing criteria that they change their ISP to one of its partner providers so they can. It actually says:
ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed Internet connection from an ESPN360.com-affiliated Internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the Internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here's how you can get access to ESPN360.com...Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated Internet service provider or to contact your Internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com
With the exception of college students and the military, Disney wants you to switch your ISP to get full content. This blatant throwing of corporate weight has gained the attention, though, of an unlikely group: the American Cable Association, a group that has historically been against Net neutrality is lobbying the FCC to intervene on their behalf. Now that the mega-corps are using their power to push the smaller cable providers aside, it seems they've realized the threat, and have asked the FCC to investigate such actions.
On the surface this seems like a fairly small issue. One site working with a handful of large providers will not kill the Web as we know it. That being said, this kind of thing is a slippery slope, and Net neutrality proponents often point out that if this kind of behavior is tolerated now, it will make laws to curtail acts like this harder to enforce in the future. We'll follow this story and keep abreast of any others like it that pop up.
The fight for Net neutrality is young, and this particular action might end up being an important precedent. Content partners offering special services depending on which provider customers use hasn't worked well in the cell phone industry and nothing points to it working in the cable industry, either.
Update 4:50 p.m. PDT: To include comment from entertainment industry source on YouTube's DRM issues.
Disney has agreed to post short-form video content on YouTube, a deal that might come as a bit of a disappointment to those who had hoped to watch full-length ESPN sporting events or episodes of ABC's "Gray's Anatomy" on YouTube.
But those people shouldn't lose heart. This could be the start of something bigger.
Disney announced on Monday that it would launch "multiple ad-supported channels featuring short-form content from ESPN and the Disney/ABC Television Group." Under the terms of the deal, Disney can sell its own ads that run with its content if the company chooses. Disney's material will begin showing up at YouTube sometime in April.
PaidContent broke the news. The news blog's Staci Kramer wrote that YouTube and Disney are discussing long-form content but that a deal is not yet done. Hulu, the video portal owned by NBC Universal and News Corp., is trying to secure Disney material.
What's interesting is that it appears YouTube's long-form deal would eliminate Hulu's chances of landing full-length Disney shows, according to PaidContent.
CNET reported late last year that YouTube had shed its image in Hollywood as an enemy to copyright content and was in a position to obtain long-form content. MGM has already begun posting a few feature films on YouTube.
As for the short-form deal with Disney, I'm not sure having ESPN and ABC channels advances the ball much. Many of Disney's competitors already operate YouTube channels. The move appears to be more of a test. YouTube's hopes of becoming more Hulu-esque and becoming a platform for full-length features and TV shows could be threatened if the big film studios and TV networks retreat from the Web. Much has been written lately about whether the major entertainment conglomerates are being pressured by cable companies to cut back the amount of ad-supported content they post online.
The cable companies say this is contributing to the decline of cable subscribers.
Another concern of network and studio suits is whether it's possible to generate a reasonable return from Web ads while managing to avoid overloading viewers with commercials.
Some studios are also concerned about YouTube's ability to protect full-length features from piracy. An entertainment industry source said some studio heads worry that YouTube lacks any copy protections on its video streams. The source said once the DRM issues are solved, YouTube could be "a real competitor for the likes of Hulu."
(Credit:
CBSSports.com)
Add YouTube to the list of Web sites offering visitors live streaming video of NCAA Division I men's tournament games.
The Google-owned video site quietly began streaming college basketball games on Thursday via a feed from CBS (parent company of CNET News).
I don't understand why CBS wouldn't have promoted this more in order to take full advantage of YouTube's enormous audience. YouTube, by far the Web's largest video site, recently said more than 100 million U.S. visitors log on to the site. YouTube didn't do a lot of press prior to Thursday's tip-off either. Is there more going on here?
When I contacted YouTube, all they would say was: "This is a program that we are running with one of our long standing partners around popular premium content. We're excited that the YouTube community will have the opportunity to watch March Madness on YouTube and look forward to hearing from them about their experience."
CBS, which declined to comment for this story, has been a big booster of YouTube and all of the company's content partners for a long time. But CBS now owns a YouTube competitor in TV.com.
CBS' streaming video of the tournament, however, can be seen on a host of sites, such as ESPN, AOL, Yahoo and Sports Illustrated's Web site, SI.com. Some of those sites compete with CBS as well.
The company has long had a syndication strategy and distributes content on numerous platforms.
- prev
- 1
- next
