Sporting News/AOL Fanhouse

That's the problem. A lot of people were drawn to online because they didn't see it having the same problems as newspapers. The issue with websites is that most of the content is replicated in numerous other outlets, diluting the advertising base. That dilution makes it difficult to set up a paywall.

I think Patch has two years at the most for doing what it's doing. After that, AOL will just turn it into an aggregator.

 

There's so much free sports information on the web, that it's going to be hard to get people to pay for it, and there's so many sites -- sites specific to a team or a conference even -- that it's hard to build a big enough audience to capitalize on the potential advertising revenue.

Plus, it's going to be hard to justify it as a business expense & get your company to pay for it.

But, if you're a hedge fund manager trading health care stocks, you can justify paying big bucks for good reporting on the industry. And, it's reporting you're unlikely to find anywhere in the free media.

Even with all of the political coverage, The National Journal and others can command a premium for their coverage.

And, despite more free coverage of sports business, publications like the SportsBusiness Journal (owned by the parent company of the Sporting News) are must have in team and business offices across the country.

 

THIS... sadly, they bought into the idea that this was the future and they best get on-board or be left behind. and i'm sure the bosses who wooed them were sold and bought the same horsespit by the moneypeople who have no conscience when asking the 'little people' to put their livelihoods on the line.

hope i don't die before seeing them get there's. but i fear i will...

bless all you Fanhouse folk.

 

I have no idea is this is true, but since they're "full-time freelance" employees, wouldn't that prevent them from getting unemployment?

 

I'll bet the majority of the Fanhouse hires had already been laid off or were feeling that they were next. So at least they got to make some money for a year or so. We have already gone through one dot-com bust so anybody taking a dot-com job has gotta know it could go away at any time. Just ask the people at Patch.

 

As non-employees it is unlikely they will be eligible for unemployment compensation. But the rules are different in some states. Anybody let go by Fanhouse should certainly contact their local unemployment office. Doesn't hurt to try.

 

Many of those who were hired were columnists at major daily papers. They thought Fanhouse was a more viable option than being a columnist for the NY Daily News or the Chicago Sun-Times or the Orlando Sentinel or the Dallas Morning News.

 

Wow... I'm sick... I have a lot of friends who are totally screwed.

 

Wishful thinking in me is trying to look at this from the Sporting News perspective....

They got 3 million visits a month and FanHouse got 10 million. They wanted to get those 10 million to sell to their advertisers. Only, the reason FH had 3 times more readers is because FanHouse was providing something that they weren't, original content by good writers. Right?

So, can the Sporting News really think that just by slapping the name FanHouse on the product they have now that they are going to get all that extra traffic? Maybe for a little while, but people will soon realize it's not the old FanHouse, and they'll leave.

So doesn't the Sporting News need to hire more than just a token number of writers? Or else what's the point, from their end?

[/glasshalffull]

 

My guess is that TSN will hire a few of the columnists, probably Olson, Blackistone, Whitley, Moore, and Couch who they probably believe generate the most web hits.

Fanhouse has a tremendous staff, but TSN has a pretty good staff as well. When they said they would keep 5-6 of the Fanhouse staff, I don't think it's a coincidence that Fanhouse has six columnists.

 

Any chance that employers will be running afoul of employment law if they continue to designate more and more of their workforce as "full-time freelance" or "independent contractor" even if those people are doing the same work as full-time staff employees? Just because an employer wants to dodge federal laws on unemployment insurance and tax withholding doesn't mean it can make up its own laws, can it?

I know a lot of people in our industry and others who cannot land old-fashioned staff jobs anymore because the companies have gotten wise to not offering benefits that used to be standard. But it seems like a dodge that would anger Washington.

 

Sporting News has to make it work with existing writers on their staff and by taking 5 or 6 columnists from Fan House. I mean, if you are Sporting News, why would you take on all the debt and salaries from Fan House and then share the profits with AOL? That formula just doesn't work. The current TSN writers will have to step into the shoes of the former Fan House beat guys.