This web analysis is about the history of ESPN.COM and how it originated over the years into the number one sports website over time. ESPN debuted on September 7, 1979 and it was founded in 1978. In its early years it struggled financially, in 1981 Anheuser-Busch gave 5 million to ESPN because of this.
It was one of the earliest broadcast of the NBA from 1982-84 then it returned in 2003 with a six-year broadcast $5.4 billion dollar contract. ESPN is owned by the Walt-DIsney Company and the Hearst Corporation owns a 20 percent share in the company. John Skipper currently serves as the president of ESPN and held that position since 2012.
ESPN.COM is financed through their endorsements, TV contracts and depending on how many viewers tune in to each game.
It’s the number one sports site among those with online investments with 1,505,522. It is valued at $40 billion dollars and it’s the world’s most valuable media property.
ESPN.COM also uses multimedia technology, according to ESPN media zone it is the leading multimedia sports entertainment company that features broadest portfolio of multimedia sports assets with over 50 business entities.
Last year, it produced more than 47,000 hours of live event/studio programming across its platforms and it’s family of networks, ESPN2, ESPN3, Watch ESPN, ESPNNEWS and ESPNU.
ESPN.COM also uses social media like Twitter and Facebook. People like anchors and sometimes players tweet live during the games and also they report information that players send on Twitter or Facebook.
Some of the strengths of the website is that they keep up with its content, they post up breaking news as soon as it happens. The writers go in-depth in what they are talking when writing their stories and when interviewting.
Some weaknesses some of the writers can be sometimes biased and not get the other side of the story. Also, in the article that I chose the Donald Trump article in which he talks about Joe Flacco being an elite quarterback, and how the injury of Tony Romo damages the Dallas Cowboys. I feel like it was a good analysis but I felt he could’ve went a little more in depth with it.