Agreed. I don't care much for Bud Selig, but I don't think his personal appearance is in any way relevant. Also, Van Pelt's insinuation that Selig would better justify his salary if he had more charisma doesn't make much sense.
All true. I wasn't making an observation about the particulars of Van Pelt's rant, just that it strayed into the world usually reserved for... well, sites like ours (where Selig's appearance has play). Why? Because for one, he's not taking the high road and thumbing his nose at what the typical fan is now looking to as source information and opinion. It would be a mistake for the media to become bloggers and vice versa, that is not the point. The point is that Van Pelt seems to be touching a toe to the water of "information source for the fans" given the rise of the blogger world in prominence in the eyes of the great unwashed, again what the media once fancied itself to be the representative of. For the corporate world, this is a nebulous area that has application across all business. In that, what was the business norm was that the internet had no play in making strategic business decisions. Now, companies are flocking to solutions found on the internet for strategic business marketing and growth. Where a "facebook" had little to no play in business just a few short years ago, now companies are starting to encourage such solutions for *business* sake.
My observation of Van Pelt and what he said yesterday is that the convergence from all sides in the business world is heating up and is going to change business works in just a few short years. Will it change how fans are treated to source information? Just like cable gave rise to the great changeover of sports coverage and information, the internet is starting to change that landscape as well. Van Pelt's bosses at ESPN know that right now, they have a business deal to protect (billions of dollars is nothing to sneeze at), but soon enough the same bosses will encourage the internet-like presentation of the same people they give timeouts to. Why? Because in any paradigm shift, the worse thing to do is to be the Swiss watch maker thumb your nose at the emerging market of digital watches coming from the East as just a "fad". Soon enough, you're playing catch-up to what you called a "fad". The irony of the Swiss watch makers is that the digital watch was the invention of one of their own who got laughed at when he presented the idea for market value. He had to go to the East to get someone to listen.
