Grantland so far

How dare you!

 

It is so rarely transcendent. So, so very rarely. How can you be so consistently long-form, and yet almost never produce anything beyond "harmless, mildly interesting stuff to read on the internet at work that will take more than a couple minutes to get through"?

I think the trash content, of which there is a lot, is some of the better trash content on the popular internet circuit. I don't watch reality TV, but I enjoy reading their take on it; so I guess that's a good get or whatever. But I don't know what this has to do with sports, or ESPN, or making money. They certainly aren't monetizing the site very well.

And it seems like Simmons has gotten worse since the launch. Maybe he's just busy overseeing the site, but his output has been really poor this year. I'm tired of clicking on things that were either hastily written, or have no real angle (e.g., "I went to a Clippers game, here's a couple thousand words I wrote over the course of 90 minutes, rehashing stuff I came up with two years ago").

I'll keep paying attention because there is potential and there is readable content, but I agree there are a lot of issues in play here.

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but when Simmons was hyping the site, wasn't he pitching it as something that will delivery content that doesn't rely on "daily coverage" of sports/pop culture? It was supposed to be something special, or at least unique to what many publications offer. It was supposed to be deeper, and its writers were going to deliver something deeper.

What we've gotten so far are a few turly special and unique pieces mixed in with, well, daily coverage of sports and pop culture. They've got dedicated writers for all the major sports and culture happenings. They even have power rankings and fantasy sports advice. Just like every other internet site or publication out there.

Grantland seems to work best when it does actual reporting (the Greg Oden and Ric Flair pieces for example). Otherwise, you get a memorable essay every now and then mixed in with daily coverage that you can find just about anywhere else.

 

First of all, great handle. As for the content ... yeah, they got away from their proclaimed mission very early on.

I tend to byline-skim these days. I know Keri, Klosterman, Katie Baker, Bill Barnwell and Mark Titus are probably going to do something I want to read. I don't like Charlie Pierce's political bent these days, but you still know that's going to be well-written even when the tone irritates.

Greenawald's a pretty fair TV writer, although he could widen his horizons quite a bit. Likewise with Lisanti.

If I see it's from Molly Lambert, Jay Caspian Kang or Amos Barshad, I know it's going to be too cool for school.

 

The 30/30 series is back, and it'll be leveraged to help Grantland.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/espn-doubles-up-on-30-for-30-documentary-series/?smid=tw-nytimestv&seid=auto

 

Considering neither would probably exist without Simmons, maybe Grantland is helping 30 for 30?

Either way, this is a very wise move. And if you notice, many of the topics are aimed at 35-50 year olds, which seems to be the sweet spot for Grantland.

 

Yeah, Alma, making that sound like it's some ploy to help the embattled Grantland is quite the stretch. As Devil said, 30 for 30 wouldn't exist without Simmons. And they were made long before Grantland came into existence. It makes sense that Grantland would be used as an extension for the series, but that hardly qualifies as being leveraged to help out the site.

 

It was also announced Grantland will get a YouTube Channel with original content, such as 30 For 30 digital shorts.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/05/tip-sheet-upfront-2012/

 

I think maybe Alma's point was why not leverage 30/30 for ESPN.

Why outflank yourself?

 

Since Simmons was the one behind 30 for 30 it makes sense that it would be part of his website.

 

While certainly the face of the project, he surely wasn't the only one behind it. ESPN paid for it, after all.

Just interesting management would commit these resources to the much narrower Grantland brand.

 

Is Grantland the only "other" brand ESPN has? I can't think of any other property they have that isn't ESPNSomething.

(I suppose shows like "Outside the Lines" have a brand, but they're broadcast on, and clearly identified with, ESPN.)

Do you think creating a separate brand for Grantland was a good idea, or should they have called it something like ESPNLongForm?

I'm just curious. There can be advantages to having multiple brands. if you're Toyota, creating Lexus was necessary, because it needed a separate luxury brand.

But, additional costs come with maintaining more than one brand, and I'm not sure Grantland justifies it, especially since it also limits cross marketing opportunities.