Recently in Alex Beecher Category

You may kiss the uh... media entity?

By Alex Beecher on April 16, 2009 10:37 PM | No Comments
    Same-sex marriage has dominated the world of real news in recent weeks.  From the surprising unanimous Iowa supreme court decision to the groundbreaking legislative action taken in Vermont, it's been a groundbreaking time.  gay%20marriage.jpg   
    But while same-sex couples now enjoy expanded rights, there's other marriage news front pages seem to be ignoring:  The union of media giants ESPN and Youtube.  
    You can read the press release commemorating the occasion here.
    But supposing you'd rather not meticulously pour over a couple thousand words of bureaucratic nonsense, I've taken the liberty of boiling the text down to its essential elements.  
    ESPN, sports media titan, has hosted video on its own website for some time now.  But, outside of live game broadcasts via ESPN 360, these video snippets haven't been a rousing success. But then ESPN noticed the a pretty girl (or maybe boy, it's kinda hard to tell what gender a media entity would be) across the room.  This... whatever gendered thing had a very particular niche it filled quite nicely -- online video.  Youtube saw in this relationship a chance to latch on to arguably the biggest name in cable.  Why wouldn't it want to host daily top tens, and other such short video packages?  Still thinking?  That's because there's not a good reason.  For Youtube, this is an absolute no-brainer.  They now get to host exclusive ESPN content.  
    For the self proclaimed worldwide leader in sports, this marriage seems to be -- if not an admission of defeat -- less of an out and out win.  Sure, ESPN gets to host their videos on Youtube.  By doing that, they may better satisfy their audience.  But the question remains -- why couldn't ESPN just host these videos on their own site?  Or rather, why couldn't they do so successfully?  To that question, there isn't an obvious answer.  Maybe there isn't one at all.  Regardless, the fact of the matter is ESPN clearly feels it can benefit from this marriage.  
    Because, in the media, nothing is done for love -- only profit.  
    Here's the product of that union.  
    But that's not the real tragedy.  Before actually uploading their own content, ESPN was forced to only have favorites.  Now, all of those have been done away with.  So we no longer know how ESPN feels about this.
    I'm not sure I can live with that.

The Ethics of Greatness

By Alex Beecher on March 12, 2009 9:55 PM | 6 Comments
     Those in the sports media are admittedly prone to hyperbole.  And why not?  It's their job to drum up interest in the even they're covering.  Not surprisingly, deifying athletes is a frequent means towards accomplishing that end.  After all, who wouldn't watch Jesus throw down a vicious slam?
jesus_basketball.jpg But, sorry Revelations, it doesn't look like Jesus is coming back any time soon.  Instead, we've got LeBron James; and we all know Jesus ain't got nothin' on King James' skillz.  
    At least, that's what you'd think, if you've been keeping up on your NBA.  LeBron is an athletic marvel, to be sure, but he's not alone on NBA's Mt. Olympus.  Joining him are Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul, Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard and... well, that's probably about it.  Each of these players has a devoted following, bellowing "MVP" chants from upper decks nation wide.   
    When any kid anywhere viciously powers the rock home on his 7 foot goal, he's Dwight Howard.  When he recklessly slashes to the rim, eating blacktop to earn the points, he's Dwayne Wade.  When he illicits "Oh no he didn't's" from the rec center spectators, courtesy of dribbling through a hapless defender's legs, he's Chris Paul.  When he stares down any man, on any team, any where, then ices a jumper with a hand in his face, he's Kobe Bryant.  And finally, when he soars to the rim with an impossible combination of grace and violence, he's LeBron James.  
    To make any real comparisons between those players' games is to compare Mozart to Bethoven.  Art is art, and greatness is greatness.  They all go about their business in different ways, but they do all go about the same business.  That is, when necessary, they eschue conventional wisdom about what constitutes "good basketball".  They don't care if they look like good teammates either.  Their greatness is their mission, and they aren't going to be held back because of some also-rans who wear the same color jersey.  They all have in common the ability to transcend all context in one way or another, and impose their will on a game.  
    And the media loves it.  Through their loving it, they tell us that we should too.  And so we listen, because that's what we do.  We marvel at their greatness, just as we did with Michael Jordan in our youth.  
    But this praise, even deification, tells us more than "Player X is really good at basketball".  You see, we humans like to cross-apply lessons.  Thus the media, through their praise, tells us what it is to be great, period.
    To be great is to be like Howard, Wade, Bryant, James, and Paul.  Not in the sense of mimicking their basketball talents, mind you.  No, this is a message about how to be great in anything that you do.  More than that, even, it's a message that says you ought to be that kind of great.  
    To be great is to transcend context.  Late night at the office?  Time for you to take over.  Time for you to be the man.  Time for you to carry your lousy teammates to the locker room victorious.  
    Greatness, as the sports media would tell you, is an individual trait, which is measured by group success.  Jordan was Jordan because he took his team to six rings.  Greatness is about being so damn good that you can take a team full of Steve Kerr's and Luc Longley's to championships.  And yeah, maybe you've got a Scottie Pippen.  But here's where the next lesson comes in to play:  Greatness is adversarial.  
    Pippen and Jordan didn't like eachother much.  Kobe and Shaq don't, and Wade and Shaq don't.  Greatness is adversarial, because greatness needs to be recognized.  Greatness needs to be the brightest light on the biggest stage.  
    And again, the sports media, through their glowing praise, tells us that we ought to mirror that.  Greatness isn't about me succeeding with you; it's about me succeeding in spite of you -- or, most importantly of all, me getting the most credit for whatever success we enjoy. 
    And so it ought to come as no surprise that, ethically speaking, our society is more self-centered than most.  We all want to be great, after all.  
    The obvious contention to this is the case of the role player.  The media, as much as they love greatness, also loves scrappiness.  They love the hustle man, the role player, the guy with the floor burns.  They love that guy, and surely, he isn't greatness.  So doesn't the media lavishing praise on the those individuals present a compelling counter argument?
    Nope.  That's because the praise is always given with a caveat.  Sure, the announcer might dub someone a great role player.  But never, ever, would an announcer dub said player simply great.  They do the little things -- a term which is, in and of itself, derisive.  They're great at filling their niche; or, to use the backhanded cliche compliment, they're "good for what they are".  And what they are is a sidekick.
   206269165_04dfa6a531_o.jpg  They're a team of Robins to greatness' Batman.  They fill their niches nicely and, were this a Confucian society wherein one filling their societal role is the optimal result, that would make said player deserving of praise.  But not here, not with this media.  
    And certainly not when greatness is expected to do everything a role player does, on top of the superhuman feats.  Greatness is about doing everything the little guy can, and then some.  
    Once again, that ought to come as no surprise, given our societal ethics.  We, as a nation which prides itself on its individualism and free market dynamics, love nothing more than greatness.  So the media does to.  
    We love greatness, so the media loves greatness, so we love greatness.  Which came first?  It doesn't really matter.  What matters is that neither is going away.  
    It's also impossible to say whether or not this is a "good" or "bad" thing.  To assign quantitative values to a given societies ethics is well beyond the scope of anyone with reasonable intentions.  
    What is certain is that this dynamic does exist.  It exists on national television, and anywhere basketball is played.  The kid with the slick jumper and icy veins will be Kobe, while the kid picked last will wait for his chance to be Josh Powell.

Little League Financial Advice

By Alex Beecher on February 16, 2009 12:17 AM | 4 Comments
Ever since we're kids, adults tell us that it's the name on the front of the jersey that counts.  It's about the team, not the individual.  After all, there is no "I" in team.  

Years later, I've realized that all those adults were right.  Not about everything, mind you.  I still don't eat my veggies, get enough sleep, or have an elementary usage of cursive.  But they were correct that the name on the front of the shirt counts for more than the name on the back.  

But the reason isn't quite as idealistic as they might have thought.  The name on the front of the jersey isn't important because of some Confucian notion of piety.  Nor does it derive its value from some ethic that deems selfishness wrong.  

No, the name on the front of the jersey matters as much as it does for one reason -- money.  

In American sports, that means branding.  It means crafting a recognizable product, and selling that to legions of loyal fans.  

But hop across the pond for just a moment, and you'll see that the landscape is just slightly different.  There, you'll find that the most popular football clubs sport the name of a sponsor front and center.  There's a club badge to be found elsewhere on the kit, but much less prominently.  If you didn't know better, you could mistake Manchester Utd. vs. Chelsea for AIG vs. Samsung.

But you'll only be able to make that mistake for the rest of this season.  That's because, for reasons that have littered news pages everywhere, AIG can no longer afford to pay Man U 14.5 million pounds a year to proudly display their logo on the team's kits.  

Thumbnail image for Cristiano-Ronaldo_0.jpg 

It's not that it's a bad investment, something AIG is far too familiar with, it's just that they've got no money.  In fact, for any intrepid company willing to pay the most expensive sponsorship fees in world sport, it almost seems like a good deal.  

That's because the Red Devils claim the title of "world's most supported football club", estimating that they've got somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 million fans.  

How do they know?  Well, that's anyone's guess.  But their popularity is hardly suspect.  Their attendance figures are staggering wherever they travel, and they get the best television ratings of any club.  

But it's that traveling that makes them so appealing to potential advertisers.  You see, Man U has made a habit of playing exhibition games in the generally untapped Asian market.  Having done that, they've began to pile up fans in economic powerhouses like China and Japan.  

These are people and countries that sponsors would really like to attract.  

According to the British press, Saudi Telecom and Prudential Insurance are the front-runners to lock down Man U's exclusive kit-front advertising position.  

How much will it cost?  No one's talking exact figures yet, at least not publicly.  But AIG's deal was the most expensive in the world, and whatever ends up being the final bid is projected to outpace it substantially.  

And when that final bid does drop, there will be gasps of shock heard around the world.  

"How could they pay so much in times like these," voices will ask.

But the answer should be obvious to anyone who ever played youth sports -- It's the name on the front of the jersey that matters most.
Main Index | Archives | Courtney Gartman »