The Simmons Site

If you're a recognized columnist whom I read because I love your work, you can get away with it. If you're a lesser-known writer making esoteric meaningless references that even the 'smart' readers won't get, you've drawn way too much attention to yourself.

In this case, it set me up to dislike the rest of the piece. I'm all for trying something different, just wish an editor had said, 'um...no.'

 

I don't think you're going to see a whole lot of "um, no" at Grantland.com.

 

There's a countdown to its launch on the front page of ESPN.com. Boy, I can't wait after that sweet, sweet taste they gave us last month ...

 

I know the previews weren't mind-blowing or anything near what the debut for Byliner was, but I'm having a hard time understanding the hate for Grantland. Is it because of Simmons? Or because ESPN is behind it? Or both?

I'm stoked about it. Yeah, maybe it will crash and burn in a month or two. Maybe it'll be a monumental swing-and-a-miss. Maybe in a few years it'll be a "what were we thinking" memory.

But it's ambitious as hell, and it looks like they'll be producing regular content from a group that's talented as hell. I love when people try big things, and this is that. Maybe it'll suck. I doubt it, but I'm wrong a lot. But I can't wait to see what it becomes.

 

You can be stoked about it because something in it resonates with you.

I feel fairly safe in suggesting that, given the samples they presented, it does not resonate with many people over 35. And that number may be considerably high.

 

The original premise had me excited to see what Grantland could do. The previews tempered those expectations considerably. While I'm sure many will have a problem with whatever Simmons touches -- and I'm no fan myself -- the Sports Guy has no bearing in whether I will like it. The content will determine that, and I what content has been shown has not excited me.

 

Yeah, I'm with you on that, jlee. I'm not a real big Simmons fan, either, and yeah, the previews were disappointing. With the people they've announced will be writing for Grantland, though, I feel like it's going to be good. Like I said, I'm wrong a lot. But if it's a bomb, I'll be stunned.

 

My concern, inasmuch as I'd ever have one (which I don't) is that it'll be deemed "great work" whether or not it really is.

 

OK, I hate to keep harping on "branding" and, Lord nows, ESPN has been very good about building and growing its brand.

But, they made a conscious decision not to brand this site as ESPNGrantland or something like that. It's not ESPN8 -- The Ocho.

You look at the logo, and nothing about it screams ESPN:



And, while there will surely be some crossover between the audiences, its target audience will not be the average ESPN consumer/fan/viewer.

So, why heavily promote it to that audience? They're likely to reject it and criticize it.

When you launch an indie movie, or something like Black Swan, you introduce it at Film Festivals. You build buzz by screening it for critics and taste makers.

You don't screen it for the audience coming out of the Hangover II.

ESPN has the resources to launch this site correctly. They should be aiming at readers of the New Yorker, GC, Esquire etc.

Let people discover it. Let word of mouth grow. Let people refer articles to their friends and recommend them on Facebook & Twitter.

Instead, they're going to get a lot of people who will be turned off by it and will mock it for phrases like Sumer Is Icumen In.

Stupid.

 

Well, per usual, that begs the question of, just who is to determine if it is "great work"?

Does a rock CD become "great work" if the Rolling Stone editors deem it to be, or is that determined by the listening public?

 

Depends. Are we talking abut a Mick Jagger solo album?