|
Lockback posted:So you'd be ok with them firing full timers and farming out those jobs to freelancers making poverty wages with no labor protections? Because that seems worse to me and this is just doing that in reverse. Besides SB nation this is not happening at a meaningful rate in journalism and sb nation didn’t fire full time employees. As someone mentioned you are going to have a hell of a time cracking into the industry without stringing. And most of the time those people are going to be doing small stories at first which means they will blow past the cap in short order. There are a lot of people who do this as supplemental income in addition to a full time job, and many who string full time for a variety of valid reasons. For logistic reasons larger media groups need stringers and correspondents. This fucks over all of them 36 stories/contracts over the course of a year is no where close to full time work for a very large portion of media groups. What’s almost certainly going to happen is they’ll mirror how the service industry operates. They will just increase the number of stringers and never let them go over, or replace several freelancers with a full time person at the lowest possible rate to circumvent overtime laws and work them at 60 hours weeks. It’s a lovely deal for everyone in what’s a disaster of an industry already. And the dumb law is almost certainly not going to have its intendeded effect against the targeted groups (Uber, etc) because they’re funded enough to lobby and fight it out for ages. Journalists aren’t.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
harperdc posted:ESPN's still trying to cut costs, and get rid of the print / long-form stuff, so these moves make sense. Whether that strategy is good or bad is another matter (spoiler alert: having no credible journalists is going to eventually become an issue) but between the reduced importance of MLB, and their focus on people who are on shows over pure writers, it can be understood. from a strictly business standpoint I would think hot takes and broadcasting rights make a hell of a lot more than long-form journalism. but yeah the Athletic is great
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
lol, a union pushing to giving staff veto power over who to hire as their boss
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
MourningView posted:I think association with Bill Simmons is a pretty big part of why most of the other shows do well. Some of them are probably big enough now that they could be fine otherwise but the Simmons connection and having him promote their stuff a ton on his show probably helps a whole lot. Yeah, I think this is the main reason. Baked in brand recognition. Declan MacManus posted:yeah but that doesn’t help the talent you’re not poaching, and even if you might not want to take them with you, you’re also loving them out of a job and keeping them from lining something else up I really do not see how this is outrageous at all. They were leaving and becoming competition. As someone else said, there are plenty of very valid reasons to not want those people to talk about it, and for them to sync up their departure. Honestly, it just sounds like a bunch of people who were bitter that they didn't get poached too. Attributing the collapse of the site to this specifically is silly too. It's been pretty obvious for ages that ESPN is majorly cutting costs and Grantland was long reported to not be something that generated a ton of revenue. They could have absolutely replaced the editors if they wanted to keep the site alive. with The Ringer, having a big news report about your company's potential sale with no peep from management is horseshit though, no two ways around it. Granted, there would still be a mountain of uncertainty until the sale was complete, but I am kinda shocked they didn't at least put out a company wide memo ahead of the potential sale becoming public news.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Finally, a casino where the dealer hits on 17 lmao from a pure business perspective that's certainly an interesting deal, partnering with a content house that talks a shitload about gambling Barstool does gently caress all as far as any kind of journalism though unless we're just taking that to be as literal as you have a blog with words and videos on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think someone a couple of weeks ago pointed out that their top articles are still ones from before everyone left. That and their site viewership is lower than when the site was not being updated it's actually picked up over the last month or two I wonder how much of this is a temporary decline in readership due to poo poo going on vs their overall business model. Their stuff has been fantastic
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:There's a hard R in Barstool. way underrated
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
KICK BAMA KICK posted:I was wondering how stuff like legal, accounting, payroll would work for an outfit like than. barring them getting a very high number of subscribers, which is a lot different than unique visitors on a free site, i don't see how it works long term without advertising or VC money
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:The new trend is right-wing dipshits suing publications for things that are legally protected. It's not about winning money, it's about making them fight an expensive legal battle. Just look at what Devin Nunes is doing. even ignoring stuff like that, it would be absolutely insane for a group of that size to not have money allocated for insurance and attorneys
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:The Deadspin folks have talked about how much it would take to set up a new Deadspin before. I think it was Barry Petchesky said it was somewhere in the $10-15m range last November winter on Hang Up And Listen. That seems like a lot, but if you're figuring pay and benefits for a score of writers and editors, plus tech/support staff, plus office space, plus equipment, plus licenses (e.g. Getty images), and wanting to have a couple years funding so you don't have to worry about crashing after six months.... that number sounds a whole lot more realistic, even without office overhead
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
correct. The 10-15M number mentioned a few posts ago isn't meant to attract VC money, it's the realistic minimum needed to properly staff the business to support an editorial team of that size, build and maintain a functioning website, and pay everyone market value with benefits without cutting corners. Obviously quick and dirty bar napkin math just to illustrate a point, but that's 150,000 basic tier subscribers just to hit the 10m mark, which is almost certainly not enough money to make the business work unless the masthead writers are cool pocketing less than 50k each without benefits, which I sincerely doubt. Even if they are, it's not going to be labor of love salaries for everyone else needed to make a business function. Getting and maintaining 150k subscribers is probably an extremely lofty goal. There is a reason why subscription-only business models generally don't work in media. And even if they took on some ads to supplement it, the audience is now capped at however many subscribers they get vs the 17 million unique viewers the site had right before the resignations... and then they'd need to add a sales and ad ops team, but wouldn't be able to command nearly as much $ for that ad space. ironically, they are going to run into every single problem outlined here https://deadspin.com/lets-do-the-math-on-the-athletic-1836999585 THE MACHO MAN fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Aug 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2020 14:09
|
|
|
AndrewP posted:I think they should charge more when they offer a month-to-month. Right now access is priced at $6 a month. This seems so cheap compared to magazine and newspaper subscriptions pre-internet, but subscription prices for everything are so low these days and also everyone thinks that because you're not getting a physical thing delivered to your house it's not worth as much. Yeah if the goal is to be completely free of VC and ad money, that is kinda what is needed. I just don't think most people will want to pay that much. Like even at the current price point, I would be genuinely surprised if they surpassed 50,000 subscribers. the gawker sites were hilariously bad for years, but it's impressive that the new leadership has found so many creative ways to make the UX worse
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
soggybagel posted:In media its almost always used in terms of direct conflicts and its usually when it comes to working for two competing platforms/conglomerates. Its odd that they didn't want someone to work in a service industry job. Plus you see much closer "competitor" spaces letting people do double duty. Showing up as a on air person for Fox Sports on the weekend and doing NFL Network stuff during the week. I am going to assume without looking that the one night off a week meant he wasn't doing 9-5 hours? But still, really weird for the reason you pointed out. Moonlight rules are almost always only enforced for conflicts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2020 00:58
|
|