TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > TiVo TV Talk > Now Playing - TV Show Talk
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-23-2013, 09:59 PM   #1
murgatroyd
Don't stop believin'
 
murgatroyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 23,074
Esquire Network replaces Style Network

Esquire Network Boss Expects Style Network Transition Will Be ‘Natural and Intuitive’

Quote:
In what seemed to the outside world as an eleventh hour decision, NBCUniversal announced two weeks ago that Esquire Network would replace Style instead of previously announced G4.

On Monday, the transition occurs in 75 million American homes and the new male-centric network’s boss says that Style’s predominately female audience may not be totally put off by the new programming.

“Certainly, we’re focused on establishing a decidedly masculine experience but it’s absolutely going to be a brand that’s very accessible and very welcoming to women along the way,” Esquire Network’s president, Adam Stotsky, told TheWrap.

...

"“Obviously, our programming areas are based on some of the same content areas as Style, just with a more male focus."

...

“Our insight is that there’s a white space in the television dial,” Stotsky explained. “Outside of sports and news from our point of view, there really is no singular lifestyle destination that explores the wide range of interests that men have today.”
My comments are not really appropriate for a family-friendly forum. But if you're curious about why your Style Network SPs aren't going to be picking anything up anymore, now you now why.
__________________
"The capacity of human beings to disappoint me is never ending." -- Ereth
murgatroyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 10:54 PM   #2
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,727
Has it happened yet? Or are they gonna delay this again, like when it was supposed to replace G4?
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 11:03 PM   #3
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
Has it happened yet? Or are they gonna delay this again, like when it was supposed to replace G4?
Nope, it's live now. Looks like it started with a show on Esquire Magazine's 80th Anniversary this morning, a show they're re-airing right now.
LoadStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 11:17 PM   #4
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,727
Hmm.. No change here yet.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 11:40 PM   #5
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
Hmm.. No change here yet.
Really? Huh. The channel name is still listed in the guide here as STYLE and STYLEHD, but it currently is again re-airing "Esquire's 80th" and the on-screen "bug" definitely shows "Esquire Network."

What are you seeing where you are?
LoadStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2013, 11:59 PM   #6
Langree
The Gimp
 
Langree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 16,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
My comments are not really appropriate for a family-friendly forum. But if you're curious about why your Style Network SPs aren't going to be picking anything up anymore, now you now why.
Why such a strong response? The short notice sucks, but it's not unheard of, Style wasn't doing well.
__________________
The TOS for the Internet clearly notes there will be people who display their ignorance without giving any warning and indeed are likely unaware they are displaying their ignorance for all to see.
Langree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 12:03 AM   #7
Azlen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 2,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
Esquire Network Boss Expects Style Network Transition Will Be ‘Natural and Intuitive’



... if you're curious about why your Style Network SPs aren't going to be picking anything up anymore, now you now why.
I think one of the issues is that not many people had Style Network SPs. I have heard though that their more popular shows will more than likely show up either on Esquire or another one of NBCU's channels.
Azlen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 01:22 AM   #8
murgatroyd
Don't stop believin'
 
murgatroyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 23,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langree View Post
Why such a strong response? The short notice sucks, but it's not unheard of, Style wasn't doing well.
You don't see anything strange about a guy saying that they're being 'welcoming' to women, while they are changing a channel to have an explicit male brand and focus? And their excuse for this change is that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV already.
__________________
"The capacity of human beings to disappoint me is never ending." -- Ereth
murgatroyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 02:27 AM   #9
ewolfr
.
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
But if you're curious about why your Style Network SPs aren't going to be picking anything up anymore, now you now why.
The announcement of the changeover was covered several weeks ago here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb...d.php?t=501030

Granted it was buried halfway into the thread but there was quite a bit of new discussion about it.
ewolfr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 09:18 AM   #10
RegBarc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 13,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
You don't see anything strange about a guy saying that they're being 'welcoming' to women, while they are changing a channel to have an explicit male brand and focus? And their excuse for this change is that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV already.
You have a relatively documented history here of posts that are (to say the least) not precisely male-friendly. Some would even label your views as misandry (and I would agree with that for the most part). I think this thread, and this post in particular, is an example of that.
RegBarc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 09:45 AM   #11
Langree
The Gimp
 
Langree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 16,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
You don't see anything strange about a guy saying that they're being 'welcoming' to women, while they are changing a channel to have an explicit male brand and focus? And their excuse for this change is that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV already.
I have a problem with it in the same way I have problems with networks that take a decidely female slant (WE, Lifetime/The Burning Bed Network, Oxygen, O). It doesn't matter, if they don't have stuff I want to watch I don't, if they do, I do.

It comes down to money, they have to be able to see a reason to keep the programming they had, it wasn't working, they are trying something new.

I don't know what you classify as "guy stuff", but I think there is a lot of common ground out there.
__________________
The TOS for the Internet clearly notes there will be people who display their ignorance without giving any warning and indeed are likely unaware they are displaying their ignorance for all to see.
Langree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 10:06 AM   #12
lambertman
Not single!
 
lambertman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,875
This "guy" channel has a lot of Project Runway and Sex & the City on its schedule.
__________________
"People should get beat up for stating their beliefs" - TMBG

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and elsewhere
Play-by-play announcer at .... let me get back to you
lambertman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 10:09 AM   #13
cheesesteak
Meh.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 15 mins from Philly
Posts: 25,728
I didn't even know I got Style and StyleHD. I probably won't be watching much of Esquire either if it's just reruns and reality shows.
__________________

A Cheesesteak always pays its debts
cheesesteak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 11:31 AM   #14
MonsterJoe
waxing cynical
 
MonsterJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Central MA
Posts: 13,953
I don't pay much attention to which Networks target what audiences. In general, if there's something on TV I want to watch, I'll watch it. I notice the show before I notice the network.

I'd like to see LMN target guys.

"She ****ed me over, stole my kid, gets 30% of my paycheck for the next 15 years, and society thinks I deserve it because I'm a man"

That's a movie I would watch.
MonsterJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 11:37 AM   #15
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 28,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
You don't see anything strange about a guy saying that they're being 'welcoming' to women, while they are changing a channel to have an explicit male brand and focus? And their excuse for this change is that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV already.
Not so much that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV. But that there isn't enough guy stuff in the NBC Universal family of channels. Other than sports, and video games, that is.

NBCU owned Style and Bravo. They are chasing the same audience. Meanwhile, nothing in their corporate family is chasing the audience Esquire is after.
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 11:44 AM   #16
busyba
The Funcooker
 
busyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik View Post
Not so much that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV. But that there isn't enough guy stuff in the NBC Universal family of channels. Other than sports, and video games, that is.

NBCU owned Style and Bravo. They are chasing the same audience. Meanwhile, nothing in their corporate family is chasing the audience Esquire is after.
You're completely missing the point. Penises are evil.
__________________
"Wow... I so love you" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"of course, you are 100% correct" --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"busyba is officially my favorite poster." --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

busyba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 11:49 AM   #17
Langree
The Gimp
 
Langree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 16,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by busyba View Post
You're completely missing the point. Penises are evil.
I spank mine for being bad all the time.
__________________
The TOS for the Internet clearly notes there will be people who display their ignorance without giving any warning and indeed are likely unaware they are displaying their ignorance for all to see.
Langree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 11:58 AM   #18
cheesesteak
Meh.
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 15 mins from Philly
Posts: 25,728
Ooookaaaayyyy.
__________________

A Cheesesteak always pays its debts
cheesesteak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 12:40 PM   #19
WhiskeyTango
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
You don't see anything strange about a guy saying that they're being 'welcoming' to women, while they are changing a channel to have an explicit male brand and focus? And their excuse for this change is that there isn't enough guy stuff on TV already.
You are so ignorant, it's actually quite shocking. The network will feature programs on cooking, travel, and style. How are those topics unwelcoming to women???

Oh and like there isn't a ton of "women stuff" on TV? Bravo, Lifetime, LMN, OWN, WE, Hallmark, E!, & Oxygen are all geared toward a female audience. But don't let facts get in the way of another one of your bouts of verbal diarrhea.
WhiskeyTango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 01:06 PM   #20
lambertman
Not single!
 
lambertman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik View Post
NBCU owned Style and Bravo. They are chasing the same audience.
Oxygen, also.
__________________
"People should get beat up for stating their beliefs" - TMBG

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and elsewhere
Play-by-play announcer at .... let me get back to you
lambertman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 01:11 PM   #21
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 28,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by lambertman View Post
Oxygen, also.
Also, E!

When I said the same audience, I didn't just mean "women." Because NBC does have channels that cater to men, most notably G4 and NBC Sports Network (not to mention SyFy, USA, CNBC, or MSNBC, the latter two of which, you might be accused of sexism if you suggest women don't watch them). But the Esquire audience is a different subset of men.

Bravo and Style both have almost the same types of shows, is what I was trying to say. I'm not that familiar with Oxygen but I think it's programming is slightly different. Maybe not.
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 02:38 PM   #22
murgatroyd
Don't stop believin'
 
murgatroyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 23,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by aindik View Post
Also, E!

When I said the same audience, I didn't just mean "women." Because NBC does have channels that cater to men, most notably G4 and NBC Sports Network (not to mention SyFy, USA, CNBC, or MSNBC, the latter two of which, you might be accused of sexism if you suggest women don't watch them). But the Esquire audience is a different subset of men.

Bravo and Style both have almost the same types of shows, is what I was trying to say. I'm not that familiar with Oxygen but I think it's programming is slightly different. Maybe not.
A lot of people are missing the point here.

I don't have a problem with them shifting Style Network to a more gender-neutral balance, so that it's less overtly girly, and more friendly for guys to watch.

What bugs me is the implication is that unless a channel is designed to appeal to the male viewer, it isn't any good.

Lots of women are science fiction fans.
Lots of women are gamers.
Lots of women enjoy sports.

But apparently it's not good enough to have channels focused on the topic that appeal to a general audience, that both men and women could watch. No, men are too proud to watch girly ****, so they have to beat their chests and claim these things as "guy things" and cater to the male experience. Unless it's male-branded, it's no good.

The whole industry is already geared toward capturing the eyeballs of 18 - to - whatever guys. So let's not pretend that there is no space for guys to have their stuff on television.
__________________
"The capacity of human beings to disappoint me is never ending." -- Ereth
murgatroyd is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 02:43 PM   #23
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 28,257
In other words, you have problems with channels overtly marketed to men, but not with channels overtly marketed to women?

If they had merged Bravo and Style and called it Style, instead of calling it Bravo, would you have reacted differently and if so why?
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 02:44 PM   #24
MonsterJoe
waxing cynical
 
MonsterJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Central MA
Posts: 13,953
It seems to me that there is a disproportionate number of channels designed specifically to the female viewer, not the other way around.
MonsterJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 02:59 PM   #25
Langree
The Gimp
 
Langree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Spring, TX
Posts: 16,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
But apparently it's not good enough to have channels focused on the topic that appeal to a general audience, that both men and women could watch. No, men are too proud to watch girly ****, so they have to beat their chests and claim these things as "guy things" and cater to the male experience. Unless it's male-branded, it's no good.
But they have channels geared primarily toward female audiences, and female "branded". We've listed them.

Should those go away too for more "neutral" programming?
__________________
The TOS for the Internet clearly notes there will be people who display their ignorance without giving any warning and indeed are likely unaware they are displaying their ignorance for all to see.
Langree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 03:14 PM   #26
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,727
uhhhhh.... If Bravo and E! are heavily marketed to women, what does that say about me? I watch both of those channels.
__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 03:15 PM   #27
jsmeeker
Vegas Boy
 
jsmeeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 88,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
A lot of people are missing the point here.

I don't have a problem with them shifting Style Network to a more gender-neutral balance, so that it's less overtly girly, and more friendly for guys to watch.

What bugs me is the implication is that unless a channel is designed to appeal to the male viewer, it isn't any good.

Lots of women are science fiction fans.
Lots of women are gamers.
Lots of women enjoy sports.

But apparently it's not good enough to have channels focused on the topic that appeal to a general audience, that both men and women could watch. No, men are too proud to watch girly ****, so they have to beat their chests and claim these things as "guy things" and cater to the male experience. Unless it's male-branded, it's no good.

The whole industry is already geared toward capturing the eyeballs of 18 - to - whatever guys. So let's not pretend that there is no space for guys to have their stuff on television.


What would happen if you drank Dr. Pepper 10 while watching one of these channels?



__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jsmeeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 03:19 PM   #28
aindik
Registered User
 
aindik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 28,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmeeker View Post
uhhhhh.... If Bravo and E! are heavily marketed to women, what does that say about me? I watch both of those channels.
Pay attention to the sponsors next time you watch.

Yeah, there are men who watch those channels. And there are women who watch the NBC Sports Network. But we all know who the target audience is for Project Runway and the Kardashian shows.
aindik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 03:26 PM   #29
WhiskeyTango
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
I don't have a problem with them shifting Style Network to a more gender-neutral balance, so that it's less overtly girly, and more friendly for guys to watch.
So then you were also fine with it being overtly girly since we didn't see such an uproar from you before the change was made. Swing the pendulum in the opposite direction and suddenly it's a huge issue. Hypocrite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
What bugs me is the implication is that unless a channel is designed to appeal to the male viewer, it isn't any good.
The only one implying that is YOU. It's been pointed out MULTIPLE TIMES that there are plenty of channels aimed at female viewers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
Lots of women are science fiction fans.
Lots of women are gamers.
Lots of women enjoy sports.

But apparently it's not good enough to have channels focused on the topic that appeal to a general audience, that both men and women could watch. No, men are too proud to watch girly ****, so they have to beat their chests and claim these things as "guy things" and cater to the male experience. Unless it's male-branded, it's no good.
If you weren't before, you are now just completely making **** up. The decision to get rid of Style was made by a WOMAN!!! Educate yourself and maybe you won't look so foolish all of the time.

Quote:
The decision to rebrand the latter (Style) — a tightly guarded secret until this morning — comes as NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Group chairman Bonnie Hammer looks to better define the brands in her cable portfolio. Of the many female-skewing networks in her purview, Style has been the least distinct, with programming that overlapped with offerings on E! (71 percent overlap), Bravo (69 percent overlap) and younger-skewing Oxygen (58 percent overlap). By removing Style, the remaining three women's nets should be able to better serve their respective audiences without that added level of brand confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
The whole industry is already geared toward capturing the eyeballs of 18 - to - whatever guys. So let's not pretend that there is no space for guys to have their stuff on television.
Keep showing everyone you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. 18-49 ADULTS is the most sought after demographic. There are subsets that seek younger males just as there are those that do the same for females. Go ahead, keep trying to twist facts to suit your prejudiced agenda. I hope you keep getting called out on your BS.
WhiskeyTango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2013, 03:51 PM   #30
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,143
As I learned in one of my classes in college, although 18-49 "adults" is considered the "key demo," within that *women* are often the more desirable of the genders, as they are often the brand deciders, not to mention also often in control of household finances. (Edit: although it sounds stereotypical, women also tend to do more of the family shopping than men do, adding to the appeal of marketing to that demo.)

Last edited by LoadStar : 09-24-2013 at 03:57 PM.
LoadStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |