Sporting News Today thread (what do you think?)

So, I go to the baseball page looking for a result, it's not there. I'm supposed to know to go check out some place 16 "pages" earlier? I'm not a guy looking to be a jackass, but one of the strengths of a good Web site is organization. I'm not a fan of trying to implement a print solution on the Web. They are two different media. (And I know the site I slave over is far, far, far from perfect. Way far.)

 

At first, I was prepared to argue that point. But hell, you're right.

The last baseball game ends by 2 a.m. If this isn't getting into the inbox until 7 a.m., I see no reason why the late games can't be integrated into the regular baseball report. Hey, it's not as if they have to prepare plates, and you still know how many games are coming.

Especially with the way they set up the boxscore page, there should be no problem leaving the necessary holes and cutting the late games into a wrap. Let's say they're dealing with five pages in the last five hours (AL boxes, NL boxes, roundup page, notes, standings/leaders page). Well, I think they've got enough manpower to get over that hump.

 

I think the idea of putting boxscores in the "paper" is pretty close to brilliant. It's a great way to get the disenfranchised older reader--the one pissed that his local shitrag no longer has the boxscores, hi Dad!--to the product.

But...that disenfranchised older reader is tough to lure to the computer, at least when it comes to consuming his news. I tell my dad all the time to get back at the damn beancounters by cancelling his Courant subscription and just read the paper online, but I know the concept blows his mind and he can't imagine NOT reading the physical paper.

And even if he's convinced to go online for his boxscores and baseball roundups, he will not come back if he has problems accessing the TSN site even once. It's not fair, but it's the truth. They've got one chance to get the type of loyal reader the newspapers have left behind. Which sucks, considering they'll treat him better than the newspaper has in years.

As for the rest of the paper...I agree, I would have liked to see it debut with some big enterprise. Nothing wrong with splashing something big and interesting on the first day. That said, I also understand Smasher's point: It's a marathon and that we're probably in the minority in terms of eagerly awaiting the official debut.

 

Buckdubs will not be pleased to see a third consecutive day of football leading the front.

 

I really like it so far. I spend maybe 30 minutes every morning looking through each page and reading a few things. I think I'm more apt to spend time perusing this than let's say espn.com. Not sure if that's because of my background in print or that I'm closer to 40 than 30, but it's more visually appealing to me.

And I agree with BYH. A lot of the older set that might be resistant to finding news online might be more willing to give this a chance since it resembles a traditional newspaper.

Seems like they've got more original content today than in the first couple.

I'm on board.

 

Am I the only one who didn't get the morning e-mail today?

 

The longterm success of this product will hinge on content. The brand remains strong enough for people to be willing to give it a look. If the publication competes for the most talented reporters (not columnists), people who are leaders in news-breaking ability (guys like Buster Olney, Ken Rosenthal, Gordon Edes in baseball), it can work. But you know what? Despite all of the recent hype, it's just a relaunch of their Web site.

 

Seems like their top designers and editors want to go home at a reasonable hour and leave the 2 a.m. updates for someone else. They should probably be doing this on the West Coast. Or maybe Hawaii. Then the timing would be great for them.

 

I got mine at 4 a.m. today. I'm really enjoying the product so far. But I've always been a huge fan of The Sporting News and the alternative journalism concepts they use.

But I tend to agree with the football complaint. I love football as much as the next guy, but we do seem at a bit of an overkill point right about now...

 

Is it me being more awake today or are there actually more links in today's edition?

 

Couple thoughts. If you want to be relevant online and in print, I'd have some kind of daily fantasy column (I don't think I missed it, maybe I did).

Could the Sporting News sell this product as an insert to newspaper? I'm not talking about big papers. But what about smaller papers? TSN could sell the product to papers under 50,000 circulation for a minimum price knowing that the additional readers would make it more attractive to advertisers.

Most small papers are limited what they can do with national sports coverage, devoting their smaller news holes to local stuff. This product could certainly supplement it, giving people another reason to pick it up and another reason not to pick up their 100,000 circ competitor.

 

I just reviewed today's issue. Way too static for an online product. It appears like it wants to be an online product that ignores all of the advantages of being online -- a print product online. I still don't get why I want to look at this instead of just clicking on a more versatile national sports Web site like ESPN, Yahoo! or Sportsline.