Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:54

I agree with @go pak go on the broad strokes of the dying media model coming at the expense of the internet, but slowly...

but you cannot describe/explain the consolidation and then death of major media outlets from print to TV to what have you without including private equity's impact. The model where a big private equity firm buys an asset, strips it down, and then keeps it running on fumes is a model with a long track record of creating eroding businesses rather than ones that grow or stand pat.

This isn't woke or left or right. It's outlined very well by two right-wing populists Oren Cass and Sohrab Ahmari... while garnering praise from mainstream liberal outlets and even communist publication Jacobin. When you get agreement along that wide a spectrum, you're just reporting facts. The private equity business model is a death knell, not a savior, when a major company hits a rut and starts looking for an influx of money to move forward.

That's what happened to Sports Illustrated. They leaned on private equity money when they needed an influx and it did to them what it does.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:54

I agree with @go pak go on the broad strokes of the dying media model coming at the expense of the internet, but slowly...

but you cannot describe/explain the consolidation and then death of major media outlets from print to TV to what have you without including private equity's impact. The model where a big private equity firm buys an asset, strips it down, and then keeps it running on fumes is a model with a long track record of creating eroding businesses rather than ones that grow or stand pat.

This isn't woke or left or right. It's outlined very well by two right-wing populists Oren Cass and Sohrab Ahmari... while garnering praise from mainstream liberal outlets and even communist publication Jacobin. When you get agreement along that wide a spectrum, you're just reporting facts. The private equity business model is a death knell, not a savior, when a major company hits a rut and starts looking for an influx of money to move forward.

That's what happened to Sports Illustrated. They leaned on private equity money when they needed an influx and it did to them what it does.

Labrev wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:05

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 08:33

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 08:31

Exactly.

A bohemeth like Sports Illustrated has plenty of finanical and intangible equity to die a slow death. The Internet is truly what killed them just as it killing conventional sports media outlets like ESPN.

The narrative of "woke media" killing SI and ESPN is simply a convenient narrative and that is it. The real root was a disruptive technology that put these business models in the past and irrelevant. Publish media and National sports media just doesn't have the impact it once had. New travels too fast. And low-budget but high quality business models have overtaken the old model.

Why would I wait on "who's hot and who's not" from Sports Illustrated when I can that information 4 weeks earlier? Why would I listen to Dan Patrick talk a little bit about everything when I can instead listen to Andy Herman or Mike Wahle talk specifically what I want in detail?

Why would I go to Mie and Mike in the morning for entertainment on a broad brush of sports when I can watch Aaron Nagler and Corey Bankey be silly over a topic I really care about instead?

It's a new world. The error that the giant media companies are making is they aren't turning the page fast enough. It's ridiculous that I still have to watch a clueless and careless JImmy Johnson, Howie Long and Terry Bradshaw give such little input or insight about a game at halftime. We can get better and we therefore get better and these giant media outlets are too top heavy to adjust.

I would wait for Dan Patrick over blogger Andy. Andy is a clown.

Lol why do you hate the poor guy? Just feels like a lot of vitriol for a rather milquetoast personality

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:11

Labrev wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:05

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 08:33

I would wait for Dan Patrick over blogger Andy. Andy is a clown.

Lol why do you hate the poor guy? Just feels like a lot of vitriol for a rather milquetoast personality

It is strange. Herman is probably the most unlikely guy to push click bait or say jarring things just to get views. It is because of this that Herman also probably has the "highest caliber guests" with the smallest follower count and Youtube views. He is incredibly respected in the football nerd space.

I can't think of a guy who is more "nerdy and detailed" in Packer coverage than Andy Herman.

I still believe the reason why people don't like him is because he is so nerdy, fact based, and not afraid to call the emperor with no clothes naked.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:30

What’s most funny is the reaction I get for saying I prefer Dan Patrick to blogger Andy. Dan Patrick is a legend!!

I would wait for Dan Patrick over blogger Andy. Andy is a clown.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:54

I agree with @go pak go on the broad strokes of the dying media model coming at the expense of the internet, but slowly...

but you cannot describe/explain the consolidation and then death of major media outlets from print to TV to what have you without including private equity's impact. The model where a big private equity firm buys an asset, strips it down, and then keeps it running on fumes is a model with a long track record of creating eroding businesses rather than ones that grow or stand pat.

This isn't woke or left or right. It's outlined very well by two right-wing populists Oren Cass and Sohrab Ahmari... while garnering praise from mainstream liberal outlets and even communist publication Jacobin. When you get agreement along that wide a spectrum, you're just reporting facts. The private equity business model is a death knell, not a savior, when a major company hits a rut and starts looking for an influx of money to move forward.

That's what happened to Sports Illustrated. They leaned on private equity money when they needed an influx and it did to them what it does.

APB wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:39

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:30

What’s most funny is the reaction I get for saying I prefer Dan Patrick to blogger Andy. Dan Patrick is a legend!!

Nice reframe of what you actually said:

I would wait for Dan Patrick over blogger Andy. Andy is a clown.

And like was mentioned, you never fail to let mention of him pass without chiming in with your disdain for him. It's borderline obsessive for a guy you consider to be just another blogger clown.

Whatever flips your pancake...

APB wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:39

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:30

What’s most funny is the reaction I get for saying I prefer Dan Patrick to blogger Andy. Dan Patrick is a legend!!

Nice reframe of what you actually said:

I would wait for Dan Patrick over blogger Andy. Andy is a clown.

And like was mentioned, you never fail to let mention of him pass without chiming in with your disdain for him. It's borderline obsessive for a guy you consider to be just another blogger clown.

Whatever flips your pancake...

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:30

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:11

Labrev wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:05

Lol why do you hate the poor guy? Just feels like a lot of vitriol for a rather milquetoast personality

It is strange. Herman is probably the most unlikely guy to push click bait or say jarring things just to get views. It is because of this that Herman also probably has the "highest caliber guests" with the smallest follower count and Youtube views. He is incredibly respected in the football nerd space.

I can't think of a guy who is more "nerdy and detailed" in Packer coverage than Andy Herman.

I still believe the reason why people don't like him is because he is so nerdy, fact based, and not afraid to call the emperor with no clothes naked.

That’s funny that you think I wouldn’t like a commentator because they were critical of the packers.

I assume that’s what you mean by “not afraid to call the emperor with no clothes naked”

What’s most funny is the reaction I get for saying I prefer Dan Patrick to blogger Andy. Dan Patrick is a legend!!

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 13:56

Drj820 wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:30

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:11

It is strange. Herman is probably the most unlikely guy to push click bait or say jarring things just to get views. It is because of this that Herman also probably has the "highest caliber guests" with the smallest follower count and Youtube views. He is incredibly respected in the football nerd space.

I can't think of a guy who is more "nerdy and detailed" in Packer coverage than Andy Herman.

I still believe the reason why people don't like him is because he is so nerdy, fact based, and not afraid to call the emperor with no clothes naked.

That’s funny that you think I wouldn’t like a commentator because they were critical of the packers.

I assume that’s what you mean by “not afraid to call the emperor with no clothes naked”

What’s most funny is the reaction I get for saying I prefer Dan Patrick to blogger Andy. Dan Patrick is a legend!!

I thought what was funny was out of my long post you single out Andy Herman and find a way to knock him like you always do.

I don't think however you dislike Herman for his calling the emperor naked. I have a different theory and I believe it to be your disdain for guys who like data, film review, deep study etc.

I believe you like to analyze things differently like just saying the word dawg, or clown, or other words. There are two camps on this forum. The camp that likes deeper diving and the other who doesn't and prefers the eye test, memory, etc. And both camps like to fight a lot because of it.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 14:25

Sorry Packer fans, it's already been decided who is going to be in the Super Bowl this year.

APB wrote: ↑

26 Jan 2024 11:25

It's actually pretty amazing when you see it laid out like this:

Yoop wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 11:49

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:54

I agree with @go pak go on the broad strokes of the dying media model coming at the expense of the internet, but slowly...

but you cannot describe/explain the consolidation and then death of major media outlets from print to TV to what have you without including private equity's impact. The model where a big private equity firm buys an asset, strips it down, and then keeps it running on fumes is a model with a long track record of creating eroding businesses rather than ones that grow or stand pat.

This isn't woke or left or right. It's outlined very well by two right-wing populists Oren Cass and Sohrab Ahmari... while garnering praise from mainstream liberal outlets and even communist publication Jacobin. When you get agreement along that wide a spectrum, you're just reporting facts. The private equity business model is a death knell, not a savior, when a major company hits a rut and starts looking for an influx of money to move forward.

That's what happened to Sports Illustrated. They leaned on private equity money when they needed an influx and it did to them what it does.

your describing the end of the American dream, investment firms have bought out the small guy.

rural American mom and pop shops have been destroyed by big box stores, main street in town are full of store for rent signs.

Our main Industry employer has been bought and rebought 3 times the last 20 years, the first 2 attempted to split and sell it off, which would have ended roughly 4000 jobs when counting supply chains, possibly more, this 3rd buy is from a firm solid in the industry, so hopefully it last for many years.

this is just a small score though, what use to be profitable Company's are now split and sold piece by piece for profit from investment firms that only care about there stock holders, family's are ruined in the process.

40 years ago it was just Walmart, today there is no end in sight, personally I think it is destroying our country

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2024 09:54

I agree with @go pak go on the broad strokes of the dying media model coming at the expense of the internet, but slowly...

but you cannot describe/explain the consolidation and then death of major media outlets from print to TV to what have you without including private equity's impact. The model where a big private equity firm buys an asset, strips it down, and then keeps it running on fumes is a model with a long track record of creating eroding businesses rather than ones that grow or stand pat.

This isn't woke or left or right. It's outlined very well by two right-wing populists Oren Cass and Sohrab Ahmari... while garnering praise from mainstream liberal outlets and even communist publication Jacobin. When you get agreement along that wide a spectrum, you're just reporting facts. The private equity business model is a death knell, not a savior, when a major company hits a rut and starts looking for an influx of money to move forward.

That's what happened to Sports Illustrated. They leaned on private equity money when they needed an influx and it did to them what it does.

texas wrote: ↑

29 Jan 2024 21:45

SI went out of business because of what yall said- nobody is going to read 4-week old information on a broad range of topics you don't care about, in paper format, when you could get up-to-the-minute information about information you do care about, on your phone, instantly. And you can share your own opinion on that information, and maybe even get read by the author themselves.

I don't know that private equity has much to do with it. I think if anything, private equity is why they went woke, and neither reason is why they went belly up. I don't think stripping it down to bare bones staff matters much, it's of course what the laid off staff are going to say for why it failed but in reality it is that other reason. Besides, the Athletic tried dumping a bunch of money into a sports publication, and they are even online too, and they still are a money sinkhole.