As ESPN Falters, The Athletic Chases Fans Tired of ‘Old Fluff’(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
As ESPN Falters, The Athletic Chases Fans Tired of ‘Old Fluff’
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/the-athletic-a-subscription-site-for-local-sports-news-raises-5-8-million
56 コメント
I'm curious to know what actual figures look like for how much people actually view videos on news sites. I know I personally almost never do but I'm not sure that I am anything like a typical user.
A lot of news consumption is driven by Facebook, and Facebook is pushing videos rather aggressively lately. It's very likely that these are related.
Yep, I perceived this too and I think they are going straight to Google's mouth if Facebook thinks it will replace YouTube.
Video ads go for more money, and publishers are pivoting in that direction as a result.
I wasn't aware of Fox Sports' pivot to video until I tried to go read some Ken Rosenthal articles while killing time at the airport last week. Now everything is repurposed content from their shows. While I understand the move I don't think I'll be visiting their site anymore.
Seems like a refreshing idea. Sports analysis pieces like those on smartfootball.com are some of my favorite articles to read in sports.
ESPN's constant focus on TMZ-like coverage for sports has put a bad taste in my mouth. I don't care about the picture Lebron posted of his breakfast on Instagram. I don't really even care about the breaking news. Finding out about a trade a day later rather than the minute it happens has absolutely zero impact on my life.
I want highlights from the games I couldn't see, I want some analysis from experts or insiders, and that's about it. Keeping it to just a few articles a day I think will be better for sports journalism in the long run. No need to manufacture content to fill the gaps in a 24-hour day.
ESPN's constant focus on TMZ-like coverage for sports has put a bad taste in my mouth. I don't care about the picture Lebron posted of his breakfast on Instagram. I don't really even care about the breaking news. Finding out about a trade a day later rather than the minute it happens has absolutely zero impact on my life.
I want highlights from the games I couldn't see, I want some analysis from experts or insiders, and that's about it. Keeping it to just a few articles a day I think will be better for sports journalism in the long run. No need to manufacture content to fill the gaps in a 24-hour day.
I have replaced ESPN with podcasts, individual national writers, SB Nation, local beat writers, the teams and leagues themsevles, and official highlights from YouTube. All of this is really easy with RSS. I rarely go to ESPN anymore except for a couple of national NBA writers.
First off, really rooting for the Athletic, because I genuinely hope there is a place for good sportswriting in the future (and underlying that hope is that a business model will emerge that allows that to happen).
As a big college football fan though, your comment highlights one of the challenges I think they face with the "go local" strategy.
If the sports news/writing ecosystem were just bland ESPN-type coverage, I think there's a really clear value proposition. The reality is that there are a ton of other players with a local voice that users can get to for free (from the old school local beat writers to SB Nation's sites that represent ever major local team).
The bet they're making seems to be that there's room for a quality content provider, and I hope that ends up being true.
As a big college football fan though, your comment highlights one of the challenges I think they face with the "go local" strategy.
If the sports news/writing ecosystem were just bland ESPN-type coverage, I think there's a really clear value proposition. The reality is that there are a ton of other players with a local voice that users can get to for free (from the old school local beat writers to SB Nation's sites that represent ever major local team).
The bet they're making seems to be that there's room for a quality content provider, and I hope that ends up being true.
Agree. I actually subscribe to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette because of their sports beatwriters. I think they provide value to me. I would absolutely subscribe to other sports content that was of high quality and focused (mostly) on the team or sport I am interested in.
As an aside, some of the highest quality stuff I see is from bloggers/amateurs who follow sports and write about it as a hobby. There are people who write a dozen or two articles a year with incredible breakdowns containing numbers, vidoes, strategy, etc and it is incredible.
As an aside, some of the highest quality stuff I see is from bloggers/amateurs who follow sports and write about it as a hobby. There are people who write a dozen or two articles a year with incredible breakdowns containing numbers, vidoes, strategy, etc and it is incredible.
I grew up in the Pittsburgh area so I'm definitely biased, but I think Pittsburgh has a higher general sports literacy (especially for football) than other places I lived. Football is huge from peewee to the NFL and high school games receive significant coverage. The sportswriters seem to have more leeway to talk X and O's without losing their audience.
>As an aside, some of the highest quality stuff I see is from bloggers/amateurs who follow sports and write about it as a hobby. There are people who write a dozen or two articles a year with incredible breakdowns containing numbers, vidoes, strategy, etc and it is incredible.
I agree with this. There's some really good stuff out there. I also think it's worth mentioning Jon Gruden. He does a great job of breaking down game tape while still reaching a wide audience. I'd love to see more like him. My ultimate hope is that Peyton Manning gets his own show breaking down film (of both NFL games and his commercials).
>As an aside, some of the highest quality stuff I see is from bloggers/amateurs who follow sports and write about it as a hobby. There are people who write a dozen or two articles a year with incredible breakdowns containing numbers, vidoes, strategy, etc and it is incredible.
I agree with this. There's some really good stuff out there. I also think it's worth mentioning Jon Gruden. He does a great job of breaking down game tape while still reaching a wide audience. I'd love to see more like him. My ultimate hope is that Peyton Manning gets his own show breaking down film (of both NFL games and his commercials).
Twitter is perfect for sports. I can see why they picked up some NFL games. You can choose what kind of content you want by who you follow, and it's all real-time and interactive.
Couldn't agree more. It's the only thing I use Twitter for.
I am convinced I love twitter as much as I do because I use it to do nothing but talk about sports. Twitter is incredible for sports and I talk to people from multiple countries and states about various teams. It is incredible.
Unfortunately it's hard to follow more than 1 topic on Twitter. I follow a lot of people who talk about technology and a lot of people who talk about sports. But since I follow more people who talk about technology I hardly see much of the sports stuff at all. Twitter has a way of surfacing only the primary interest that you have.
It would be nice if you could make 'feeds' or 'groups' or something. I can't believe they don't have that feature.
You can make lists. This is how I use and manage the various topics I follow across Twitter. I just go to each of my Lists in throughout the day and see what's happening.
Now, Twitter has somewhat made Lists a second class citizen in it's UI, but it's just a couple extra button press to get to it ( on mobile ).
Now, Twitter has somewhat made Lists a second class citizen in it's UI, but it's just a couple extra button press to get to it ( on mobile ).
It does have lists, but it doesn't give you the nice "while you were away" groupings like you get in your main feeds.
True, though I find I don't need that 'while you were away' concept with my Lists because it's filtered to exactly the people I want to hear from. Which means, I don't get as much ( if any ) fluff in Tweets that you would get from your more generic main feed.
In which case, I actually just scroll through chronologically and read through what the news/insights/commentary has been since the last time I was there.
In which case, I actually just scroll through chronologically and read through what the news/insights/commentary has been since the last time I was there.
I agree except when you watch a game on twitter they force the generic #[whatever game it is] feed down your throat instead of being able to see your curated feed you spent years putting together.
[deleted]
The Pittsburgh market has https://DKPittsburghSports.com too, which just celebrated their 3rd birthday. (Only affiliation is that I'm a happy subscriber)
And someone from the Boston market just partnered with them to start https://www.BostonSportsJournal.com
And someone from the Boston market just partnered with them to start https://www.BostonSportsJournal.com
If I was a betting individual, DK Sports would be in the top 5 bets of things I would never see on Hacker News! Ha!
I actually subscribe to the Post-Gazette for my local sports news. I think Ed Bouchette (despite some of his flaws) is quite a solid beatwriter. Sadly, they pulled Dave Molinari from the Pens beat. This also allows me to get local and national news from a newspaper, so it is a win-win for me. I'd encourage others to do the same, especially if you have good reporters on the local sports beat.
I actually subscribe to the Post-Gazette for my local sports news. I think Ed Bouchette (despite some of his flaws) is quite a solid beatwriter. Sadly, they pulled Dave Molinari from the Pens beat. This also allows me to get local and national news from a newspaper, so it is a win-win for me. I'd encourage others to do the same, especially if you have good reporters on the local sports beat.
One of the major reasons DK interests me (other than just being good in itself) is that it's sports-only. I don't live in Pittsburgh anymore but still follow all of the teams. Having DK allows me to get the local sports media without being bothered by things like local politics, news, etc.
Is this going to work? Grantland was doing everything right, by the standards of people who demand more substantive sports journalism: they had talented writers, well-researched longform articles, and no clickbait. They still went under. I’m rooting for these guys, but despite what people claim, I don’t know if the market is there.
Listening to Simmons over the last year, it is clear that part of Grantland's failure was being under the ESPN umbrella and not chasing what ESPN considered "small dollar" advertisements and partners. In a recent podcast, Simmons said that his BS Report podcast (an iTunes Top 10 mainstay) was just thrown in with the Subway deal for years.
It is also my interpretation that had Grantland and Simmons not been so intertwined, it may have had a better shot at surviving the messy Simmons/ESPN divorce.
It is also my interpretation that had Grantland and Simmons not been so intertwined, it may have had a better shot at surviving the messy Simmons/ESPN divorce.
TheRinger seems significantly more 'short form' than Grantland did
not sure what that says about the economics of long form sports journalism
not sure what that says about the economics of long form sports journalism
Simmons has touched on that in the past. He talks a lot about some of what happened at Grantland, ESPN, and decisions he made re: The Ringer on the July 12, 2017 of the Bill Simmons Podcast titled, "Inside the Evolution of ESPN With Jim Miller and Bryan Curtis."
Here is the link to his podcast section on The Ringer: https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-podcast-d3868264a984
Here is the link to his podcast section on The Ringer: https://theringer.com/bill-simmons-podcast-d3868264a984
If you'll notice nearly everything he talks about is in relation to their podcasts, not the long form articles. There was a businessweek article a few weeks back that says The Ringer makes nearly (or perhaps all) of its money on podcasts. I'm not sure it's fair to compare The Ringer or Grantland to other sports journalism websites because The Ringer is a podcast company that happens to also write some articles.
This article speaks to the economics pretty well I think. The Ringer should do the same thing. From what we know they make nearly (all?) of their money on podcast ads anyways.
I seem to remember Grantland having all sorts of stuff about culture, movies, music, etc. As a sports fan, Grantland always felt to me to be a bit like Slate or NY Mag crossed with Sportsnet: The Magazine.
To be fair, Grantland was an ESPN subsidiary. I believe this model can be a success, but the definition of "success" for The Athletic and for ESPN are probably very different.
I would hazard a guess and say the market is probably there for publications covering beats that have fans/readers passionate enough to spend money.
I hate ESPN. They bought the leading cricket website, cricinfo[0] a few years ago, and the site has been redesign after redesign since then. Also the typical "lets make videos not articles" stance, reducing articles from top writers. Their latest redesign led to a lot of lost data which pissed of many loyal readers.
[0]: www.espncricinfo.com
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/6otgno/fuck_espn_f...
[0]: www.espncricinfo.com
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/6otgno/fuck_espn_f...
Has anyone successfully connected sports journalism with the Patreon model? Advertising in a world of infinite choice seems like a losing proposition. People have tried subscriptions in the past, but it seems people hesitate to pay for a bundle of coverage (ie. cable television model), especially if they are paying for content they don't use.
Would like to hear any success stories for media (and speciifcally sports media). I've been running a sports blog for 5+ years and don't use Patreon but have seen many friends start that effort in the last year.
To be honest, I don't think I have ever seen anyone making more than $200 or so a month (which is probably better than if they were CPM only but not enough for a real sportswriter to pay much more than their internet bill unfortunately).
To be honest, I don't think I have ever seen anyone making more than $200 or so a month (which is probably better than if they were CPM only but not enough for a real sportswriter to pay much more than their internet bill unfortunately).
Nate Duncan and Danny Leroux cover the NBA, and they seem to make decent money with podcast advertising. They recently started trying Patreon a few months ago and have 750 people donating monthly. I'm interested to see how much that grows. https://www.patreon.com/DuncanLeroux
Canadaland is a podcast/somewhat media website specifically covers Canadian News Media and Politics, and before I stopped subscribing (a few weeks ago) they were making over 10k per month.
Derek Bodner, the best beat writer (imo) for the 76ers, split with Philly Mag and seems to be doing fairly well on Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/derekbodner
This discussion is missing Vox's SB Nation sites, which grew out of an Oakland A's blog (and a partnership with the Berkeley political blogger who started DailyKos.com). They use local writers to provide coverage of local teams, and their content is free to readers. (Plus there's always lots of comments to read discussing the news of the day.) Eventually the articles also get syndicated to Yahoo, CBS, Comcast, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_Nation
Honestly, that may be what's killing sportswriting -- at least on the big TV network sites. The networks don't have the resources to compete with 30 different web sites -- one for each MLB team, each with its own staff and with their own distinct fan communities. The web makes it possible for each one of these sites to narrowcast.
And then why do you need ESPN?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SB_Nation
Honestly, that may be what's killing sportswriting -- at least on the big TV network sites. The networks don't have the resources to compete with 30 different web sites -- one for each MLB team, each with its own staff and with their own distinct fan communities. The web makes it possible for each one of these sites to narrowcast.
And then why do you need ESPN?
I mean, you need somebody like ESPN (or Deadspin), because there's actual journalism to be done relating to sports. Off the top of my head, some areas sports-related topics that would never have been covered by SBNation-style sites include major sports leagues' problematic relationships to the military and local governments, the stadium swindles perpetrated by teams, the NFL's coverup of concussion research, and the monstrous scam that is the NCAA fall into the category of "deserving of real journalism". I follow a bunch of SBNation sites, but sites that specifically identify as "for fans of such-and-such a team", and that rely on unpaid volunteer writers (which a lot of SBNation absolutely does) can't be relied on to cover a lot of these topics.
Sounds like a really promising business model. I know hardcore NCAA football fans will pay way more than that for access to recruiting news. I'd consider subscribing once they cover teams I follow.
Hopefully a VC 'growth above all else' mindset doesn't force them to expand beyond a profitable enthusiast niche.
Hopefully a VC 'growth above all else' mindset doesn't force them to expand beyond a profitable enthusiast niche.
I think, on a local level at least, this kind of model is the way to go for most hard-pressed local and regional news outfits.
Local newspapers and local talk radio still dominate local sports. Typically, the best-connected reporters are those for the local paper. Sports coverage is actually what drives me to subscribe to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
I've been a subscriber for about 2 months now and so far have been exceedingly happy with their level of coverage. Substantially better than what any of the other major sites are offering right now (especially as a hockey fan where coverage can be...lacking...at times).
>> (especially as a hockey fan where coverage can be...lacking...at times).
Have you tried the Canadian sports news sites? Hockey is definitely the most covered sport here.
Have you tried the Canadian sports news sites? Hockey is definitely the most covered sport here.
TSN and Sportsnet both cover hockey really well, google them. And not just the NHL, the minor leagues too. It helps that hockey is basically a religion in Canada.
I'm curious why writers don't approach this like app developers burning the midnight oil pushing their own content for micro payments until they have enough subscribers to go it alone. It seems like a similar dynamic.
Maybe I'm way off here but I trust individual journalists much more than individual journalists under a corporate master.
For example, I'd gladly pay Glen Greenwald 49 cents/mo or 5 dollars/yr whatever for exclusive (not edited by corporate masters) content from him.
I know things like news letters exist but the only ones I've ever seen are talking about aliens or stock picks.
Maybe I'm way off here but I trust individual journalists much more than individual journalists under a corporate master.
For example, I'd gladly pay Glen Greenwald 49 cents/mo or 5 dollars/yr whatever for exclusive (not edited by corporate masters) content from him.
I know things like news letters exist but the only ones I've ever seen are talking about aliens or stock picks.
How does this trend affect new websites such as the Bill Simmions theRinger.com? He has invested heavily on long form writing.
I’m not sure how what is presented is much different (or better?) than local sports coverage already present in these cities?
I can go on Cleveland.com (the plain dealer website) and find quality coverage of Cleveland sports for free.
I can go on Cleveland.com (the plain dealer website) and find quality coverage of Cleveland sports for free.
Their bet is that they can out-compete existing local sports coverage by focusing narrowly just on sports. Cleveland.com is a comprehensive news source. Local news is continuing to die as a business, it's only going to get worse for them. The Athletic also doesn't use advertising, so it starts off by default with a significant product-experience advantage.
Narrow almost always wins in a situation like this. Traditional local news has everything to lose, while they simultaneously flail about in a death-spasm as their business model continues to melt out from under them.
The Athletic will be able to leverage one profitable market to kill the local sports coverage in another market they want to enter. Scale it up to a couple dozen markets, and they'll have the ability to easily enter any new market they choose and take down the local competition by a dozen different means (eg poaching writing talent en masse). If I were them, as I build up profitable locations, I'd then intentionally run at a loss in new markets and hammer the local competitors (who mostly don't have other markets to lean on). It's an extraordinarily easy business line to follow on how to vanquish existing local sports coverage.
Narrow almost always wins in a situation like this. Traditional local news has everything to lose, while they simultaneously flail about in a death-spasm as their business model continues to melt out from under them.
The Athletic will be able to leverage one profitable market to kill the local sports coverage in another market they want to enter. Scale it up to a couple dozen markets, and they'll have the ability to easily enter any new market they choose and take down the local competition by a dozen different means (eg poaching writing talent en masse). If I were them, as I build up profitable locations, I'd then intentionally run at a loss in new markets and hammer the local competitors (who mostly don't have other markets to lean on). It's an extraordinarily easy business line to follow on how to vanquish existing local sports coverage.
My assumption was that the local established writers / reporters have an inside track on information and relationships with teams, and for example will attend (almost?) every game, pre-season, press conferences, have a presence in the locker rooms etc etc.
But your point makes sense that as a business, the local media has the disadvantage of using resources in other areas of "news", vs. focusing exclusively on sports.
So, "targeting" these cities would have to include recruiting these people already working there. Otherwise, initially I would always be able to get up to date and "inside" information from the established sources.
I'm just thinking out loud, but essentially, this all depends on what the meaning of "focusing on" means, as the local sports media individuals are certainly focused on their local teams.
But your point makes sense that as a business, the local media has the disadvantage of using resources in other areas of "news", vs. focusing exclusively on sports.
So, "targeting" these cities would have to include recruiting these people already working there. Otherwise, initially I would always be able to get up to date and "inside" information from the established sources.
I'm just thinking out loud, but essentially, this all depends on what the meaning of "focusing on" means, as the local sports media individuals are certainly focused on their local teams.
Speaking of puff pieces..
ESPN started by laying off ~100 employees, with the biggest cuts coming to writers in their declining coverage of baseball and hockey.
Fox Sports, who is trying to become the Pepsi to ESPN's Coke, then followed by laying off every writer on staff in their "pivot to video" (go to their home page now, and you will not find a single link to a text piece).
Vice Sports then joined the party last week by closing shop as part of Vice's expansion into international markets at the cost of getting rid of their sports editorial team.
Not sports directly but MTV did the same thing with their writing staff, including a lot of their high profile writers like Holly Anderson.
With all of these being part of the magical "pivot to video," you have to think it's mainly driven by optimistic hopes that video CPMs will rise in a way that display ads have not for publishers over the last 10 years.