MSM + Sports Blogs = $ ??
The big news in the NBA blogosphere over the past few weeks has been the Cuban vs. Blogs dust up which in all likelihood was really just about Cuban vs. a specific Dallas Morning News blogger. The unintended (or perhaps fully intentional) consequence has been a lot of attention to the NBA's blogs from the traditional sports Main Stream Media - at least if the past few weeks are any indication.
Bright Side of the Sun has been contacted now twice by local sports media types and we had a couple of interesting meetings as a result. I don't want to go too far into the nature of the discussions under the assumption that the other parties had no intention of reading about our conversations online. But there were a couple of interesting points that got me thinking about all this sports media / fan hobby stuff in a new light.
In the first meeting with a local radio station the program director talked about how blogs like ours (and by ours, I mean all of our fan generated sites) are really just an extension of talk radio. Opinion driven content in our case targeting the micro-market of highly engaged Suns fans that want far more then an AP report can provide with the added bonus of an interactive community. While the radio jocks will take your calls, you still can't talk to other listeners/fanatics like you can on our blog (thanks to the genius of the SportsBlogs Nation software programming gurus).
My business isn't media or online advertising but I suspect that the potential market size for a site like ours is fairly small.
But partnered with other local sports blogs and teamed up with a radio station or other MSM outlet that has unique in-depth content and team access and you might just have yourself an interesting little business. Having gone through the dot com gold rush of the late 90's, my sense is that the early adopting radio/newspaper/TV stations that lock up the best content partnership deals will be the most successful. On the other hand, look how that all turned out.
In the second meeting there was another very interesting discussion about why traditional sports media outlets are scared of bloggers. I hadn't really given this much thought but off the cuff my answer was a) fear of the unknown b) traditional organization inertia that prevents out-of-the-box thinking and c) lack of strategic leadership to execute on something that is different then making the existing machine run. In other words, I don't really see the barriers as being different then any other business that might or might not do something it's never done before. There's a reason not all companies are able to innovate and it usually has much more to do with culture and leadership then market conditions or opportunities.
I don't really know where this will all lead. And frankly, while I am intrigued by it all I am much more invested emotionally in how the Suns are going to perform over the next few weeks and hopefully months then by what kind of content sharing arrangements we might be able to create.
But still, the potential to link a fan site like ours more directly with the team but without the bothersome issues raised by L'Affaire de Cuban has certainly got the wheels turning.
Update [2008-4-8 10:47:53 by Phoenix Stan]:
To address some questions that came up on the comments:
1) I didn't mean this to be about how how bloggers can make money blogging. Its about another way bloggers can get access outside of Cuban's free-for-all. By partnering with bloggers, media outlets can boost revenue and provide the filtering that the teams can't and don't want to do.
2) Bloggers aren't journalists. Just like Rush Limbaugh isn't Brian Williams a blogger is about opinion and discussion and not about reporting the facts. The market for sports "news" is much more limited then the opporunities to hear from and discuss fresh ideas and perspective. Turn on your local sports talk radio and listen to how much news versus opinion there is and you will see what I mean.
3) While ESPN's purchase of True Hoop and its employment of Henry Abbott was a great thing, it is by no means the only model. A fluid dynamic environment can be created that recognizes and promotes good fan generated content without the overhead associated with employing ten's of paid writers.
0 recs |
6 comments
Comments
I think the direction is not $$ but 0...
Why pay someone to do something that a bunch of fans will passionately do for free?
The risk for MSM is that a bunch of boys in their moms' basements will generate more news and content for free than expensive paid staff. Why have a dedicated staff writer when you can pull the best from the blogosphere and simply post the hottest stories from there for your readers?
Besides writing several checks to the editorial and writing staff, the main question for MSM is how to corral that fan knowledge and funnel it through their distribution to maintain eyeballs and to a squeeze a penny-per-click. That's a huge challenge right now, but just about every news site is trying to put together some kind of fan discussion network.
I recommend that the best news outlets assign an editor that specifically watches and develops fan-generated news with the goal of developing and plugging quality commentary and analysis into the MSM.
There will always be a place for Paul Coro, who travels with the team, goes to games, and reports on behalf of the AP. But there can be only one Paul Coro, as the expense for MSM is huge.
However, play-by-play analysis, news about news, celebrity gossip and stat crunching are all now firming in the purview of the wider fan network, if only because it doesn't required a locker pass and because Paul Coro can't cover it all.
by ZonaFlash on
Apr 7, 2008 10:16 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Good question
Look at what ESPN did w/ True Hoop just over a year ago. Not exactly the model I had in mind but still a concept proven I think.
by Phoenix Stan on
Apr 7, 2008 10:29 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, so cross ESPN off your list of outlets.
Basically, Henry Abbott is paid as an editor that cruises the blogosphere and identifies the interesting posts and gives a comment or two on them. Much of his "content" is actually from another blogger plus a short riff of his own about it - he is that aggregator I referred too.
The other more recent model is simply to take one's own journalists and call them report in the same format as bloggers - "stream-of-consciousness" journalism, so to speak. Examples include Kelly Dwyer at Yahoo!/BDL or our very own Paul Coro.
by ZonaFlash on
Apr 7, 2008 11:06 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Eh?
Here's part of what I think:
Moreover, though, part of it is the media. Have you read Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death"? He talks about how the AP and UPI "wires" were created simply because the telegraph existed but nobody was using it.
Kind of like the internet, right?
Blogging on the internet also gives some anonymity; kinda like Cyrano de Bergerac? On top of that, writing allows you to crystallize your thoughts in a manner not available when speaking.
What I'm saying, then, is that blogging (of any form) is refined conversation. Some conversations are better than others, some of it is sharing gossip (i.e., links to articles), but it's mainly just enjoyable.
And if someone will pay you to put up banner ads, well then, all the better. We don't live in Russia ... do we?
by JSun on
Apr 7, 2008 11:35 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
On your update
Why shouldn't bloggers get paid while traditional media outlets are looking to increase revenue? Really, think about that. The elite class profitting from the hard-working Phoenix Stan while he gets beaten into the ground (are we in early 19th century Russia?).
People pay to hang out in social clubs. Why shouldn't this social club get some green? I'm not saying that posters should pay, but shouldn't the persons doing the work for the posters make some green? Especially if the MSM is getting a cut?
On #2:
I'm thinking that bloggers don't report the "facts" (I put that in quotes to preserve any right to label such "facts" Orwellian in nature, if I need to) but they do discuss "facts." Perhaps that's the difference between journalists and bloggers?
On #3:
I just don't know the answer: is the greater overhead in the writers or the support staff?
For example, bloggers don't need fact-checkers and probably would abhor the idea of being forced to print something accurate ;)
by JSun on
Apr 8, 2008 2:13 PM MDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Here here!
I think very few bloggers would consider what they do a replacement for mainstream journalism. However, if they are putting their time (which, by defintion, is money) into an endeavor that finds an audience, I don't see why they shouldn't be paid commensurately.
And in the end, I'm not sure how different a sports blogger is from any of the opinionmongers employed by many of the sports networks. Are Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless somehow more qualified to discuss sports than Will Leitch or Henry Abbott?
With the democratization of the aforementioned "facts", we're all working with basically the same information and refracting it through an infinitely-sided prism of interpretation. The size and scope of the blogosphere is simply the resultant spectrum of that opinion, made possible by the advent of the internet (and some nifty online publishing software).
Blogging is to mainstream media what public access was supposed to be to broadcast television. Except now the people are tuning in.
by Mike Lisboa on
Apr 8, 2008 3:12 PM MDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs













