Changes at the Sporting News?

[jaredk]

Yeah, you want a strong, hands-on editor who's a star at teaching and line-editing...a harder find than the writers, I guarantee that, too....

 

[Idaho]

Remember also, that all the great writers, editors and photographers in the world are going to be worthless in many regards if the business plan sucks. Every publication, of course, could freshen up its content and make it more timely, compelling and relevant. But without the right team in suits, it won't matter -- i.e. The National.

TSN still has a circ of about 700,000 or so. But when you look at the promotion and ad sales, it's no wonder they have a hard time being able to keep talented vets on staff. GQ's circ is about the same, but just look at the difference in ad dollars coming in.

IMO, it's not so much the difference in writing and editing, it's the difference in upper management, marketing and vision from the brass.

 

[BTExpress]

That's an interesting point.

If I were an advertiser, I know I'd likely get more upscale readers at GQ . . . but I also know my ad would get lost in the 200 pages of ads that run in the magazine.

At TSN, the ad would stand out.

 

[jaredk]

That's an interesting point.

If I were an advertiser, I know I'd likely get more upscale readers at GQ . . . but I also know my ad would get lost in the 200 pages of ads that run in the magazine.

At TSN, the ad would stand out.

Different worlds. I doubt many GQ readers dip snuff.

Unbelievable, really, but I just reached back and picked up the Sporting News reporting on the Super Bowl. In 56 pages, there was 1 full-page ad. Two other ads, fractionals, added up to less than half a page. The inside cover and back cover were ads. Otherwise, nothing.

Those new owners have their work cut out for 'em.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

Based on some of the subscription rates they offer, that 700K circulation is probably misleading. One thing is certain, advertisers aren't interested in their readers.

 

[Idaho]

Like I said, it's the business office that needs an overhaul, not the editorial department.

The guys most in need of being replaced are the ones charged with replacing the deadweight. No one will fire themselves without a better place to land.

 

[henryhenry]

Like I said, it's the business office that needs an overhaul, not the editorial department.

The guys most in need of being replaced are the ones charged with replacing the deadweight. No one will fire themselves without a better place to land.

wow. that's a terrible catch-22.

so basically what you're saying is there's no hope.

 

[Idaho]

There is hope. The OWNERS need to do the housecleaning. But if that board of directors is making a comfortable profit margin, it might just be too comfortable to change anything.

The onus is on the owner/publisher to try to improve. The reporters and most of the editors are, sadly, just little people in this picture and have little to do with the business climate at any publication of moderate or larger size.

 

[henryhenry]

There is hope. The OWNERS need to do the housecleaning. But if that board of directors is making a comfortable profit margin, it might just be too comfortable to change anything.

The onus is on the owner/publisher to try to improve. The reporters and most of the editors are, sadly, just little people in this picture and have little to do with the business climate at any publication of moderate or larger size.

but if they're making a "comfortable profit margin" why are we even discussing this? if that is true, they must be doing something right. yet, we have vilified the sporting snooze "marketers and business strategists". please clarify.

 

[Idaho]

I don't know if they are making a good profit or not. But if they are not, they look at high-paid staffers like Kindred to trim from the payroll in order to keep the dividend checks fat.

It's what many newspaper publishers are doing, slashing payroll in order to keep their income steady, as Buckweaver said.

I don't pretend to have any inside info. But I think people are too quick to say the writers are the reason TSN, or any other publication, is struggling.

 

[BYH]

Folks, I know TSN has become a favorite to rip on because it is in a world of financial pain.

None of that problem is the fault of the writers there. Those guys and gals still work hard and do good stuff. I have no doubt they are hurting deeply because of the problems the mag has onthe business end. Seeing good friends and colleagues let go can't be easy. And many of them post here -- some with their real name, some anonymously. Insulting them because of the bad decisions made by the marketing department and business strategists is low class.

No but it's no more classy of those writer(s) to come on to this thread and others like it and stomp and wail and yell at anyone who suggests the current way at TSN might not be the right way.

 

[henryhenry]

But I think people are too quick to say the writers are the reason TSN, or any other publication, is struggling.

Well, many people DO feel that TSN has been unimaginative editorially, too.

But you're right that, a la The National, no amount of editorial firepower can keep afloat a failing business model.

which gets back to the question - if it's a failing business model why aren't the business people being replaced? if something is broke - fix it. why can't they figure out what is wrong - business model or editorial approach - and fix it? it ain't nuclear physics.

yet, it limps forward, crippled and clueless.