Grantland so far

It seems like - but I have no idea if this is accurate, others might be more familiar with specifics - that as part of his contract or as a way to keep him ESPN allowed Simmons to have a separate brand, as long as it kept him with the company. Over the years there were stories of occasional contentious moments between the network and Simmons (some documented in the book, others elsewhere) so I could see him saying I want me own site but it won't be ESPN-Whatever. Will almost be totally separate - even though it is ESPN money supporting it. So maybe ESPN doesn't think it's the best thing to have a separate brand, but believe the benefits from keeping Simmons outweigh any negatives and are willing to give him basically whatever he wants. And as part of that, with something like 30 for 30, which was his original idea, he says it's going to be a Grantland-centric project.

 

Good point.

 

It's not a ploy. It's a strategy. And a good one; it gives Grantland writers assignments and sources and relevant stories from which to build.

 

According to Jim Miller -- the guy who literally wrote the book on ESPN -- Grantland is already profitable. From the sounds of it, Simmons is making the mothership some serious dough.

https://twitter.com/#!/ESPNBook/status/179666967148507137

 

The first "30 on 30" entry for Grantland is a 7-minute mini-docu on Pete Rose. I thought it painted quite the picture. (The video is at the bottom of the page.)

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7930049/another-30-films-subjects-stories-captured-our-attention

 

I didn't think it would take long for that to be the case. From a demographic standpoint, Simmons probably has the market cornered on males 15 to 40, at least as compared to any other sports writer on the Internet.

 

Again - if ESPN wants to say it's profitable, it's profitable. It will be profitable forever, if Simmons/ESPN says it is.

Beyond that - if ESPN gave Erin Andrews her own site and pursued advertising for it, it'd make out. The "O" Network is a success, I'd suppose you'd say. It also sucks for programming. It's like saying the Jessica Simpson line of parfooms and skankwear is high art, the marriage of polished product and commercialism. No - it's just Jessica Simpson. That's all.

There isn't any question, at this point, that Simmons is a huge star. He was given an interview with Barack Obama, for goodness sakes. So if you put Simmons on his own site and sell advertising for that, instead of burying him within ESPN.com, it's naturally going to attract its own attention. That, too, is growth for a network that squandered opportunities in the past in its desire to be too monolithic.

I feel as I though I expressed myself poorly earlier when attempting to talk about the commercial prospects of site. Grantland may very well succeed commercially if only because it's tied to Simmons, who has enough of a following to generate power and traffic on his own. His presence - and ESPN's parentage - subsidizes much of the rest of the work on the site. Of course that's a fun idea for writers, who may even take discounted fees, for all I know, to be on it. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a, sportswriter's collaborative. But without structure and identity, it'll go the way of United Artists or the 70s filmmakers.

The short films is actually a step in the right direction. I'll watch those. Probably 90 percent of them. The folks making those movies -- and the ESPN folks who edit them -- won't allow for a shoddy, vanity product. It's ESPN's wheelhouse.

 

That was good (as if anything 30 for 30 related has ever been dreadful).
I don't know if it made me like Pete Rose, but it did give me a little bit of respect for him. He comes across in that piece as a guy who seems to have found some peace with where he's at. Like he says, he's a working stiff.
Is it sad that a 71-year-old man sits at a table all day and is basically treated like a monkey in a zoo? Sure. But he's made his own bed, he seems to accept that, and is doing what he has to do to get by. There's some dignity in that, even if it seems embarrassing on the surface.

 

My ONLY objection of the 30 for 30s is some of the obvious padding in some of them. It's as if they feel they have to state some of the same facts more than once in order to hold the ADD portion of the audience (the same vice which vexes the History Chanell's most popular shows . . . ). But otherwise . . . if you care for/about the individual subjects, its some fine stuff.

 

Except for the fact that Oprah's network is hemorrhaging money. "Bloomberg reported last week OWN may have registered losses of as much as $330 million since its inception."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/discovery-profit-falls-28-after-2011-gain-on-own-network.html

This theory that if you attach a famous name to a product and promote it, it will necessarily be profitable isn't proven. In fact, it's the same stupid theory that has TV development executives sign a likeable star to a crappy show, figuring that people will watch that show just for the star. Just giving Erin Andrews her own site isn't an instant money maker because that site would have to do <i>something.</i> Erin Andrews writing on a website is not going to keep eyeballs coming back, day after day, unless there is something about the content that gets people coming back.

If Grantland just had Simmons and everything else sucked, it would be losing money. You make it sound like ESPN : Grantland :: NBA : WNBA -- some kind of niche product that ESPN keeps sinking money into for reasons unrelated to actually making money and then pretends it is profitable. It seems like your mind cannot comprehend that Grantland could be actually, legitimately profitable.

Also, for a guy who rarely reads it, you sure like to write about it.

 

I've never shopped her skankwear, but Jessica Simpson certainly makes decent jackets, for a certain body type that approximated hers, pre-pregnancy. While it's regrettable that her fashions seem to be available solely in synthetic fibers, they still fit a lot better than most similarly priced mass-market, pre-wholesale offerings.

 

Grantland has its share of misses, but this is one of the hits.

Steven Hyden compares 20-something garage-rock duo The Japandroids and "we're 70 fucking years old" touring group The Beach Boys:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8013051/japandroids-beach-boys-try-recapture-rock-lost-youth

Great read ... and somehow, I'm a fan of both bands. West Coast represent!