Succession is amazing and I have zero need to hear ringer opinions on it. It’s not a GOT cultural phenomenon type show where there’s a ton of moving parts and theories. There’s like two storylines.
Well it's just not a popular enough show to justify that kind of coverage. unless of course you're still in the bag with HBO.
I think I’m just about out on Ringer content, except for things I’m really intrigued by. I’m sure I’ll still be complaining and listening, but it feels like pods and tropes are getting lamer.
I think Entourage was better than Ballers and much more relevant but I see your point. Entourage was really good the first 3-4 years.
I just didn’t realize Mallory was a writer and thought that highly of as a content writer. Figured Chris Ryan or Amanda Dobbins would be next in line.
Had no idea what the roles meant. I thought Fennessey was already second in command with his previous title meaning now Mallory was third in command.
Yeah, Sean, Chris, and Amanda were leadership team. Seems like Mallory is being added to that group and allowing Sean to focus more on content and less on editorial staff.
Genuine question... 1. Grantland in all its glory was unprofitable. The Ringer is pretty similar content wise and even has a lot of the same content people/employees. Can we assume it isn’t a cash cow? 2. The Ringer and its investors invest significantly in supporting content creation and paying employees. 3. If the Ringer has to share upside from content created but it’s employees don’t share in the downside if the content loses money that would decrease profitability and from an investors perspective more importantly, the ability to project profitability. They can’t protect their downside but their upside is capped 4. If the Ringer has to support additional fixed costs, I’m not saying any of these are expected but as examples...overtime, severance, 401k, etc.. then it’s owners are making less money. 5. If the profitability of the company decreases because of fixed costs and it’s ability to project profitability decreases because of limited upside and unprotected downside through content ownership sharing then investors may decide to stop investing. Current owners may have to start writing checks rather than cashing checks. If these things happen and funding dries up then the business folds... I’m not saying anything of the things they are asking for (or will ask for) are unreasonable or unfair but it seems naive to suggest that their demands which may impact the profitability of the company are unrelated to it the companies ability to remain solvent. Am I missing something about unionization that makes my analysis incorrect? Concepcion in particular has a wealth and power fetish where he loves to hate the concept of both but derives a significant amount of his cultural schtick and commentary value from gawking at it. Succession is a family drama presented through the lens of a corporate power struggle. Commenting on it as “rich people are fucking terrible” totally misses the point to me imo.
is this your first time thinking about unions and Succession is very literally a show dealing with american elite rot
and to try to answer the union question in the simplest way possible beyond read something if your business requires exploitation of your workers to such a degree that unionizing or the threat of makes the business infeasible your business probably shouldn't exist if it can't provide even the most base benefits to your employees or offer some minor collective bargaining mechanisms
Who is saying they aren’t providing base benefits like fair wages and health care? I understand their need to unionize but at this point the company might not be profitable enough to provide extra benefits like 401k or revenue sharing.
I listened to the pod and it wasn't bad. It's probably not for everyone but it wasn't a hot take hour, either. If you like a couple NBA fans taking about the last 30 years of the NBA, that's basically what it is.
I don't think there's any question that The Ringer is significantly more profitable than Grantland was. Simmons' main beef with Grantland was ESPN set it up to not maximize profits, or even care enough about it to seek outside money.
I’ll keep in mind to not to ask next time and just keep on going with what I think rather than seek new perspectives.
I would assume with regards to profitability that podcasts are significantly more profitable now than they were in the Grantland era. Grantland might’ve worked it was just too soon.
i saw some crazy numbers for what their podcast network brings in, in podcast ads are highly compensated which the ringer does a ton of.
I agree that Billions is better than Entourage but I also don’t think it’s mad men/breaking bad level. I agree Entourage was pretty good the first 4 years or so. Billions is a good fun show.
The very high end of podcasts brings in crazy ad money. More than most think (by exponents), but apparently it’s the highest driver of repeat customers. I have used ziprecruiter and SeatGeek so you’re welcome Bill.
i couldn't tell you the last ad i saw on a website, but i can recite meundies ad reads from memory so it makes sense
thing about ziprecruiter/seat geek is I just google looking for a promo code after hearing one on a podcast. I rarely utilized the code I heard in the ad read.
The only way I’m getting an ad I check is if it’s on a podcast or on Instagram, so I get it. (I’m 33)
Like when Blue Apron subsidized the entire podcast market for 18 months I use the code of the podcast I like the most and then move on.
My brother is 38 and sometimes I actually think he and War Grundle are the same person. But my brother doesn’t live in Tampa.
Back to the top peeople at the ringer discussion, I always thought the top 4 were Fennessey, Ryan, Mallory, and Juliet Litman. They were all original grantland people and the 4 original people to join the Ringer with Simmons and get everything going from the beginning. Not sure why you think it's Dobbins.