Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«366 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Timby
Dec 23, 2006

Your Mother!


Inspector_666 posted:

Almost all professional journalists are willing to sacrifice coverage for access. Look at the current state of the White House press conference.

With the BBWAA, though, it's more sacrificing integrity (lol) for an opportunity to advance their own agenda. They are absolutely brazen with their glee over being able to make and break people's reputations depending on whether or not they get along with them. I mean, you see that even back when they took away Le Batard's Hall of Fame vote because he gave his ballot to Deadspin for crowdsourcing -- they got so sanctimonious and up their own rear end that they literally referred to having a HoF vote as "baseball's ultimate privilege" (despite the BBWAA having no problem revering Bill loving Conlin as one of their hallowed greats or whatever).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ElwoodCuse
Jan 11, 2004

we're puttin' the band back together

I like how they thought it was such an ultimate punishment to take his vote away, when he clearly didn't give a poo poo about it or else he wouldn't have done that in the first place.

They didn't void the ballot, either.

Vertical Lime
Dec 11, 2004

Hail To The King

the worst kept secret is about to be revealed

https://twitter.com/richarddeitsch/...423229055643649

kidcoelacanth
Sep 23, 2009

and we'll all float on okay


http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/jami...ts-digital.html

Hell of a read, this.

DJExile
Jun 27, 2007

If loving you is binturong, I don't want to binturight.


this is really wild. Kudos to Ben Koo for compiling it all.

Jackie D
May 27, 2009

Democracy is like a tambourine - not everyone can be trusted with it.



This made my stomach turn, Horowitz is a monster.

Benne
Sep 2, 2011

STOP DOING HEROIN

Gutting your entire writing department to double down on video content nobody likes for personalities who aren't drawing ratings is definitely cool and good and a sustainable longterm strategy, yes.

morestuff
Aug 2, 2008

You can't stop what's coming


I obviously feel bad for all the people that lost their jobs, but Fox never really seemed that committed to the writing side of things anyway. TV networks getting into that business always feels like an awkward marriage, especially if they don't have the resources and talent ESPN did

Then again, I don't really follow the sports they have a stake in so I could just be missing out

Kalli
Jun 2, 2001




quote:

What really does work is when you take things are good like ’11 Coaches Oregon Might Hire’, that might be something someone is interested in the day Helfrich gets fired, and we change to ‘Colin Cowherd’s 11 Coaches.’ We’ve seen this be very successful. You look at Fox News right now, O’Reilly and his take. That’s all it is. And there are many different ways. “Colin, some of our guys and girls want to write stuff.” Sometimes you might ghost-write it for them. Sometimes you might just hear them say things on shows and that can lead you to write a story about stuff they have said. And here’s a good example of something like that. Bradshaw says something interesting about Greg Hardy on a pre-game show, and immediately writing a story about what TB said. Taking our existing content and making that into news.”

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Work Friend Keven
Oct 24, 2015

I'm Keven and I wouldn't do that. It'll KILL jobs.


...and I sure wouldn't do that.



drat I feel really bad for the great content like a video of a deer hitting someone and a list of the 15 divorced quarterbacks?

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?


Imagine hanging out with the guy who goes to FoxSports.com because he's desperate to find more Colin Cowherd content

Cool Buff Man
Jul 30, 2006

bitch

Need my beef.... Catch up with the Cowman

C. Everett Koop
Aug 18, 2008

madam, your hydraulic pressure is atrocious!

Benne posted:

Gutting your entire writing department to double down on video content nobody likes for personalities who aren't drawing ratings is definitely cool and good and a sustainable longterm strategy, yes.

Honestly it probably is. Running a completely bare-bones staff that's just recycling the material you're paying guys to go on TV and say has a better chance of making money/not losing as much money than original written content.

It's not productive to long term growth, not at all. But if all you care about is not taking a bath on your web content then sure, it can work.

AsInHowe
Jan 11, 2007

Goal, assist, fight.

Benne posted:

Gutting your entire writing department to double down on video content nobody likes for personalities who aren't drawing ratings is definitely cool and good and a sustainable longterm strategy, yes.

It's absolutely staggering by itself, but when you're gutting something that is making money, for something that is a massive failure, I can't see how that is sustainable.

The facts and numbers show that no one wants this kind of Fox Sports. People don't want to watch Cowherd, Bayless, Whitlock, and whomever. They don't.

morestuff posted:

I obviously feel bad for all the people that lost their jobs, but Fox never really seemed that committed to the writing side of things anyway. TV networks getting into that business always feels like an awkward marriage, especially if they don't have the resources and talent ESPN did

Then again, I don't really follow the sports they have a stake in so I could just be missing out

It's simple - diversification, something Fox Sports' talent is probably opposed to despite being unable to define the word.

Let's say I have no interest in watching FS1, and I don't. I might want to read some informed columns, I might follow some kind of blog, but I don't watch the TV content at all. That's perfectly fine, because I'm still consuming the product. And who knows, maybe one day I will want to use my cable subscription to watch Clay Travis say horrifically racist things. If so, those other things that I'm consuming might lead me over to the main product one day. By cutting those off, it's essentially alienating anyone who may have enjoyed Fox's digital content from ever being advertised to for the TV content.

This is what things like Grantland, 538, long-form writing, and every other niche ting is for ESPN.com. Gets you in the door, company-wise, and maybe you'll watch other things since you're in the store already.

FS1 is basically a guy taking over McDonald's, announcing that they just serve tacos now, and gently caress you if you don't like tacos, gently caress you.

At the very core, people don't want what FS1 is giving them. They don't want it on TV, they don't want it online, they don't want it anywhere. Doubling down and making everything about people that the viewing audience has rejected can't work. What are they going to do, have more cut-in ads for Skip Bayless on FS-local broadcasts? Will Colin Cowherd say racist things about Hispanic baseball players at the All-Star Game, to "create controversy"? Will Bayless be interrupting NFL on FOX games to tell fans to watch his show and to call Troy Aikman gay? No one wants to watch these shows.

Kalli
Jun 2, 2001



I mean ESPN's been putting random talking head segments vaguely related to whatever the written article is about on their articles for years, but man, declaring buzzfeed too high of a mark to aim for is just... sad.

AsInHowe
Jan 11, 2007

Goal, assist, fight.

Kalli posted:

I mean ESPN's been putting random talking head segments vaguely related to whatever the written article is about on their articles for years, but man, declaring buzzfeed too high of a mark to aim for is just... sad.

What ESPN is doing is sort of what I talked about.

Do you like ARTICLE ABOUT TOPIC? Please watch VIDEO ABOUT TOPIC, and the show that this video comes from.

morestuff
Aug 2, 2008

You can't stop what's coming


AsInHowe posted:

It's simple - diversification, something Fox Sports' talent is probably opposed to despite being unable to define the word.

Let's say I have no interest in watching FS1, and I don't. I might want to read some informed columns, I might follow some kind of blog, but I don't watch the TV content at all. That's perfectly fine, because I'm still consuming the product. And who knows, maybe one day I will want to use my cable subscription to watch Clay Travis say horrifically racist things. If so, those other things that I'm consuming might lead me over to the main product one day. By cutting those off, it's essentially alienating anyone who may have enjoyed Fox's digital content from ever being advertised to for the TV content.

This is what things like Grantland, 538, long-form writing, and every other niche ting is for ESPN.com. Gets you in the door, company-wise, and maybe you'll watch other things since you're in the store already.

FS1 is basically a guy taking over McDonald's, announcing that they just serve tacos now, and gently caress you if you don't like tacos, gently caress you.

At the very core, people don't want what FS1 is giving them. They don't want it on TV, they don't want it online, they don't want it anywhere. Doubling down and making everything about people that the viewing audience has rejected can't work. What are they going to do, have more cut-in ads for Skip Bayless on FS-local broadcasts? Will Colin Cowherd say racist things about Hispanic baseball players at the All-Star Game, to "create controversy"? Will Bayless be interrupting NFL on FOX games to tell fans to watch his show and to call Troy Aikman gay? No one wants to watch these shows.

I mostly mean that while it's a real loss for the people involved (and probably a bad business move on Fox's part) they never seemed committed to any kind of interesting writing or journalism. The article kind of underlines that while still making Horowitz look awful — he has the correct instinct to move away from bad viral content and listicles, but he wants a different flavor of garbage instead.

That said, again, I don't follow college football or NASCAR or baseball so it's possible there's good work being done there in my blind spot

AsInHowe
Jan 11, 2007

Goal, assist, fight.

morestuff posted:

I mostly mean that while it's a real loss for the people involved (and probably a bad business move on Fox's part) they never seemed committed to any kind of interesting writing or journalism. The article kind of underlines that while still making Horowitz look awful — he has the correct instinct to move away from bad viral content and listicles, but he wants a different flavor of garbage instead.

That said, again, I don't follow college football or NASCAR or baseball so it's possible there's good work being done there in my blind spot

Bruce Feldman did great work on college football, is well-respected, and ended up publishing his articles to his personal Facebook page.

iospace
Apr 20, 2020




Grimey Drawer

https://twitter.com/tomjensen100/st...448058408390657
https://twitter.com/woodbrothers21/...510213220589573

Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008



Benne posted:

Gutting your entire writing department to double down on video content nobody likes for personalities who aren't drawing ratings is definitely cool and good and a sustainable longterm strategy, yes.

Writing articles online that can be found in dozens of other places also doesn't seem like a sustainable long-term strategy. Were many people going to Fox Sports to read articles?

Sadly the industry was a bubble that is finally bursting. There isn't a need to go to a sports site to read about what happened when you can find that on Twitter. For deeper dives into stories there are tons of places where people are willing to do it for free (SBNation for instance) or people willing to do it for cheap.

The future (and even present) is in audio and video. Fox Sports has garbage people in that area but it's an area you can actually make money in these days.

DJExile
Jun 27, 2007

If loving you is binturong, I don't want to binturight.

Yeah that's the thing. If you're going to monetize #online #content then it's pretty much all in audio and video

chunkles
Aug 14, 2005



MourningView posted:

Imagine hanging out with the guy who goes to FoxSports.com because he's desperate to find more Colin Cowherd content

I accidentally caught 5 seconds of Colin Cowherd + Jason Whitlock because I left my TV on Fox Sports yesterday. Whitlock has to weigh like 350 now

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?


DJExile posted:

Yeah that's the thing. If you're going to monetize #online #content then it's pretty much all in audio and video

The thing video has over the written stuff is that its easier to cram ads into and harder for people to ignore those ads, but I don't know if there's evidence that tons of people are watching them or seeking that out. They can sell the VIDEO IS THE FUTURE MILLENIALS DONT READ thing to get decent ad rates now but that seems like a bubble waiting to burst too.

DJExile
Jun 27, 2007

If loving you is binturong, I don't want to binturight.

MourningView posted:

The thing video has over the written stuff is that its easier to cram ads into and harder for people to ignore those ads, but I don't know if there's evidence that tons of people are watching them or seeking that out. They can sell the VIDEO IS THE FUTURE MILLENIALS DONT READ thing to get decent ad rates now but that seems like a bubble waiting to burst too.

yeah you can run unskippable ads in video or have your podcasters do live reads during the show

it's likely all going to burst at some point but I'm guessing those are the best cards to play for right now

Adun
Apr 15, 2001

Publicola

Fun Shoe

People consume like 75% of internet content while at work. How exactly am I going to watch a video while pretending to work.

DJExile
Jun 27, 2007

If loving you is binturong, I don't want to binturight.

Adun posted:

People consume like 75% of internet content while at work. How exactly am I going to watch a video while pretending to work.

like 90% of videos on facebook have those wacky captions for this very reason

BWV
Feb 24, 2005



on that note have there been any good articles that detail how much people actually make from those podcast ads? I imagine it's tied to download numbers and how many people use the promo code "BILL" when deciding that they're going to buy underwear over the internet. I'd be curious to know what the actual figures are.

Mr. Funny Pants
Apr 9, 2001



I know it will be difficult to get through this without laughing, but it's surprising to me that even shitheads like Cowherd, Bayless, and Whitlock wouldn't have enough self-respect to object to articles they didn't write having their bylines.

DJExile
Jun 27, 2007

If loving you is binturong, I don't want to binturight.

BWV posted:

on that note have there been any good articles that detail how much people actually make from those podcast ads? I imagine it's tied to download numbers and how many people use the promo code "BILL" when deciding that they're going to buy underwear over the internet. I'd be curious to know what the actual figures are.

it likely varies from podcast to podcast, and yeah using promo codes helps those companies figure out who's really moving what.

If you find some stuff on AdWeek or any industry stories about Ad Agencies you'd likely be able to get at least some idea of what kind of rates they get

chunkles
Aug 14, 2005



Based off how much MeUndies charges for underwear they are pulling in bank

Cool Buff Man
Jul 30, 2006

bitch

chunkles posted:

Based off how much MeUndies charges for underwear they are pulling in bank

They're just following the Big Balls Brand handbook

Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008



Video ad rates are much higher. Also might push people to watch their shows. Worth noting Fox has the rights to MLB and NFL so they aren't competing with as many outlets when it comes to video content in those fields. Written content for a national audience has way more competition and miniscule ad rates.

Lockback
Sep 2, 2006

Also? Amplitude.


Didn't the article say they were making money off the articles and decided to kill off it off anyway despite its profitability?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Niwrad
Jul 1, 2008



Lockback posted:

Didn't the article say they were making money off the articles and decided to kill off it off anyway despite its profitability?

It said digital was profitable which I believe encompasses everything. Although Fox disputes that. I find it hard to believe that they would torpedo a profitable part of the company.

Fox Sports writing side was really small as it was. And while the new site plan isn't my thing, it's at least different from the other dozen or so sites covering sports on a national level.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«366 »