Agree 100%. This has bugged for a long time. ESPN.com has become progressively less accessible over the past four or five years.
I used to enjoy reading Neyer and Stark et al, back in like 2002 or so, when the site was largely free.
This “Insider” crapola has gone too far. ESPN is shooting itself in the foot, and alienating sizable fan populations with its high-priced and exclusionary tactics.
Ironically, I might pay for “Insider” Web access if it was $20 a year. But it’s $40 a year -- and
includes 28 issues of “ESPN the Magazine.”
I need a sports magazine in my mailbox like I need gonorrhea. Thanks, but I’d rather save a tree. Others like it, great, just offer a choice.
Now I don’t begrudge certain media companies charging for content. Newspapers in particular are struggling to make up revenue lost from a 10-year decline in traditional advertising, and a lot of papers are in rather serious trouble. Journalism staffs have been trimmed, salaries stagnated, and the net result is a decline in the quality of coverage and the “watchdog” role of the press, not so much for sports, but local, national, and international news.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the impression that ESPN is a massively profitable enterprise. I don’t think there’s any justification here e.g., “We need Insider revenue to survive.”
Visiting ESPN.com these days is a waste of time. Not to mention that video that starts playing without your asking … hey ESPN, what about the guy sitting at the office? Just rude, inconsiderate, and arrogant.
SI, Sporting News, USA Today, and others are much more inviting. Vent over and out.