Clay Travis on Grantland and Internet writing

[Lugnuts]

I agree with Brian that Internet ad sales on content is a "zero sum game."

 

[DSzymborski]

I am from Denver and read the Post- which I think has a very talented sports staff- most frequently so I took that paper as an example. The Rockies beat is staffed by Nick Groke and Patrick Sanders. I have no idea how hard they work. But the Post's Rox Blog has one post in the last week, about the third baseman winning the Fielding Bible Award. It would seem to me that in the internet era you would want your writers to post something up everyday.

I agree that much of internet journalism is a guy with close to zero knowledge sitting on a couch. But a working sportswriter should be able to spew something out if the guy on the couch can. The beat guy has broader knowledge. It can be a mindless list such as best third baseman to play for the Rockies in their brief history but at least try to entice people to go to the blog daily.

I miss Troy Renck since he's been covering Broncos instead.

I always try to stay on good terms with the beat writers - I know they work a lot harder than I do.

 

[Fredrick]

Online guys work harder? That's a really funny statement. Because a lot of these online guys are just average fans like most other people watching on TV and piggybacking off of others' content. Just about every FanSided, SB Nation and Bleacher Report articles cite beat writers as sources for the content they're creating.

Yes we have a winner. This is why the newspapers were so freaking stupid to give away their content for free 10 years ago. The bean counters, publishers, Gannett butt kissing editors don't believe it, but yes the newspaper beat writers and columnists set the tone, set the discussion for talk shows, bloggers, everybody. Yes, believe it. (Nah they can't believe it; they've always felt anybody can write and sports is the toy store; well Mr. butt kiss editors, see you in the unemployment line very soon cause our industry is dead thanks to you).

 

[BrendaStarr]

I am from Denver and read the Post- which I think has a very talented sports staff- most frequently so I took that paper as an example. The Rockies beat is staffed by Nick Groke and Patrick Sanders. I have no idea how hard they work. But the Post's Rox Blog has one post in the last week, about the third baseman winning the Fielding Bible Award. It would seem to me that in the internet era you would want your writers to post something up everyday.

I agree that much of internet journalism is a guy with close to zero knowledge sitting on a couch. But a working sportswriter should be able to spew something out if the guy on the couch can. The beat guy has broader knowledge. It can be a mindless list such as best third baseman to play for the Rockies in their brief history but at least try to entice people to go to the blog daily.

On the flip side, beat writers also need some down time in the offseason of their respective sport so I'd argue that having content every single day of the offseason is very unrealistic. Even if it's writing a list-type story. You need to have a life outside this 24/7 job. With your baseball example, the season is about eight months long, including spring training. While there should be a fresh story/content two to three times a week, you will burn out real quick if you have to write content every day for the three and a half months outside of the long season when you are already on edge for breaking news.

 

[LanceyHoward]

On the flip side, beat writers also need some down time in the offseason of their respective sport so I'd argue that having content every single day of the offseason is very unrealistic. Even if it's writing a list-type story. You need to have a life outside this 24/7 job. With your baseball example, the season is about eight months long, including spring training. While there should be a fresh story/content two to three times a week, you will burn out real quick if you have to write content every day for the three and a half months outside of the long season when you are already on edge for breaking news.

I used an example where there are two beat reporters. So one can be recharging in the offseason while the other posts. And some of the items can be written and saved for slow news days. Print lists of candidates for managerial jobs. You can even run fan polls. But I think you need to encourage people to come to the site every day.

 

[BTExpress]

But I think you need to encourage people to come to the site every day.

Tim Stephens (now at sportsmanias.com) has been sermonizing for some time that this is where newspaper people get it wrong (and continue to be behind the curve).

He says it's not about getting people to go to the site. It's about getting the site to go to where people are.

 

[playthrough]

I think he has the first part of it right. ... Grantland didn't have to make money. ESPN could write it off as a vanity project, and that was likely what it had in mind when it started the site.

What I think he is missing is that that was true. ... until ESPN started to come under pressure this year, and it was looking for places to cut. That is when a vanity project is the easiest thing to turn against.

But FiveThirtyEight is a vanity project that has to be in the red. Has to be. If Grantland got whacked than surely it could too, but that shows how these sites are solely about people and support at the very top. Obviously, Nate Silver keeps his nose clean and is still viewed as a valuable commodity for espn to have on their side. But if he ever turned heel on his bosses, poof, that site could become "an economic casualty" for a billion-dollar company.

 

[The Big Ragu]

But FiveThirtyEight is a vanity project that has to be in the red. Has to be. If Grantland got whacked than surely it could too, but that shows how these sites are solely about people and support at the very top. Obviously, Nate Silver keeps his nose clean and is still viewed as a valuable commodity for espn to have on their side. But if he ever turned heel on his bosses, poof, that site could become "an economic casualty" for a billion-dollar company.

Three things come to mind.

1) I suspect that FiveThirtyEight isn't costing as much as Grantland (on a P&L basis). Although, I could be very wrong. I'd love to know for sure.
2) Are we so sure that FiveThirtyEight is safe? I wouldn't be surprised to see it get axed, especially if ESPN continues to leak on the operating income side.
3) The reason it might not be being axed is that we are heading into an election year. If it was ever going to turn a corner from loser, this would be the time to build an audience, wouldn't it?

 

[playthrough]

Three things come to mind.

1) I suspect that FiveThirtyEight isn't costing as much as Grantland (on a P&L basis). Although, I could be very wrong. I'd love to know for sure.
2) Are we so sure that FiveThirtyEight is safe? I wouldn't be surprised to see it get axed, especially if ESPN continues to leak on the operating income side.
3) The reason it might not be being axed is that we are heading into an election year. If it was ever going to turn a corner from loser, this would be the time to build an audience, wouldn't it?

No. 3 is a valid point, but how is espn leveraging the site? It's not like they'll be teasing it on SportsCenter every night leading up to the election. Does it get more attention through ABC News? I wouldn't know. But I'd love to hear what Silver was promised in terms of promotion vs. what is really happening.

 

[dirtybird]

When I checked the Outkick site yesterday I saw a banner with their affiliation with Fox Sports and an add for pants. I don't know if would be profitable as a stand alone entity.

At it's peak, it hit about 56 million page views a year according to some profile. So I'm guessing back then, it alone made enough money to support Travis and a small staff. Now he's got to WORK HARD as a TV host, so I imagine some of the other stuff falls by the wayside. Now the site is a Grantland-esque vanity project with a smaller staff, complete with TV recaps and unending mailbags.

 

[DSzymborski]

Three things come to mind.

1) I suspect that FiveThirtyEight isn't costing as much as Grantland (on a P&L basis). Although, I could be very wrong. I'd love to know for sure.
2) Are we so sure that FiveThirtyEight is safe? I wouldn't be surprised to see it get axed, especially if ESPN continues to leak on the operating income side.
3) The reason it might not be being axed is that we are heading into an election year. If it was ever going to turn a corner from loser, this would be the time to build an audience, wouldn't it?

One thing is that unlike Simmons, Nate actually does have experience managing a smaller, niche brand, from his years with Baseball Prospectus.

 

[Alma]

At it's peak, it hit about 56 million page views a year according to some profile. So I'm guessing back then, it alone made enough money to support Travis and a small staff. Now he's got to WORK HARD as a TV host, so I imagine some of the other stuff falls by the wayside. Now the site is a Grantland-esque vanity project with a smaller staff, complete with TV recaps and unending mailbags.

The Alabama fan sitting on the LSU fan was what helped the site take off.

It's a junk site and Travis is a carnival barker. Since Travis fancies himself an intellectual who purposely embraces low-brow entertainment, away he goes.