Kindred's frightening look at the future of sportwriting

If you'd like to do the math, here are the monthly pageview numbers:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s49mgoblog&r=33
I don't want to disclose exact CPM numbers but they're above $1, and that doesn't take into account large swaths of other revenue from t-shirt sales, text links, freelancing and, yes, donations. The support page is up there because when there isn't a page people kept emailing me to ask how they could help the blog financially, and I kept writing the same long email. Shooting them a link is easier.

Obsession is where it's at on the internet. The numbers, which have been generated with zero help from any existing organization/brand, are proof enough of that. When's the last time someone hit *you* up asking how they could give you money?

 

Brian's site is very nice. Extremely well done, and I definitely believe there is nicely sized following willing to take in his analysis and insight.

 

Before you go bashing Brian's site, perhaps you should talk to Michigan SID Bruce Madej and ask him why he regularly gives credentials to Brian as well as to some other sites including umgoblue.com.

 

Kindred is great, but I think he's overthinking this.

Newspapers don't have a readership problem; they have an advertising and business model problem.

Newspapers have more readers than ever before when counting online readers.

Dumb video-game kids have never wanted to read anything. But other people have always and will always want to read things things that interest them and affect them. Those things have always changed. The reporter's job is to find it and follow it, just like always.

 

Exactly. This is the issue here.

 

Long before the advertising model broke -- way long before -- newspapers were not only not keeping pace with population growth, they were reaching a smaller percentage of homes every year. Economic, technological, and societal forces made that happen. If newspapers had the best reported, best written stories in history, they'd still be losing ground. There are forces at work beyond any newsroom's control. But to say there's no "readership problem" -- especially if you're basing that on the number of website readers -- is to lie to yourself. One of the best websites in the business, Washingtonpost.com, gets 9-10 million uniques a month. The average time spent by those unique readers is, like, 20 seconds. Oh, wow. We have a readership problem, we've always had a readership problem, and when we stop trying to solve that problem, we'll really have a problem.

 

Credentialed fanboi sites do not journalism make.

 

Whether he's a dipshit or not, Zach Leonsis is the kind of person that will have the answers to everything in a few years, like every 25-year-old I've ever spent any amount of time around. (And, like I was at 25 and I would imagine a lot of people here as well). He'll tell you how to vote, what to put in your body, how to spend your money and how to raise your children.

But golf? Ivy League? Zach Leonsis?

As mama used to say,
Please, child!

 

Agreed 100%. Because of my college major and required courses, I had to read dozens of books in college. By the time I graduated, I was burned out on long-form reading. A couple decades later, even with all the distractions we now deal with, I can't get my hands on one good book after another fast enough.

However, I do skim through SI and Time in about 15-20 minutes, rarely reading the longer pieces unless it's about a team or player I REALLY care about.

 

Dammit, man.

Your site gets more web hits per month than my Gannett suck. Fucking fuck.

 

What is the difference between certain blog site and a newspaper site?

If a blogger does reporting, has an ethics policy, etc., what difference does it make to you?

 

Was anyone arguing that Brian's site qualifies as journalism? He fills a different niche, and does it exceptionally well. He doesn't need to be a hard-bitten, true reporter to be a vital contributor to the discussion of Michigan athletics.