81 replies to this topic

[Pedro Cerrano]

Just listened. Why do you say he's in denial?

 

In terms of the site not making money.  Seems like he felt like it was making or should have been making more money than it did.

[mweb08]

Just listened. Why do you say he's in denial?

 
In terms of the site not making money.  Seems like he felt like it was making or should have been making more money than it did.

Well he has some valid points regarding the podcasts, the lack of a sponsor for the studio, and lack of promotion on the other ESPN platforms.

[DJ MC]

In terms of the site not making money.  Seems like he felt like it was making or should have been making more money than it did.

 

I thought that at first, but I think he was referring to the idea that ESPN should have been doing more than they did. He specifically mentioned the lack of a studio sponsor, and I think that was the main example for what he views as the bigger problem.

[RShack]

The problem isn't catering to that audience, it's only catering to that audience.

 

We are Borg... resistance is futile....

[SportsGuy]

The problem isn't catering to that audience, it's only catering to that audience.

ESPN has a fairly unique position in the media world, combining both the ability to report on entertainment and social interests with the ubiquity and resources to give even niches room to prosper under its watch. They can make money off of the "debate" and clickbait content while also building up a depth of quality that isn't as overtly popular but brings in more people and can also garner attention. They already do this, with the quality and relative independence of the investigative/OTL reporting, so it's not something that would be new to them.

The problem is that by minimizing the latter and going all-in on the former, they risk turning away people interested in more than just the most shallow of discussions, and not having them ever come back. Since many of those people are the same ones becoming interested in cutting the cable cord, it gives less and less of an incentive to keep a subscription for ESPN; often one of the primary reasons people even have one to begin with.

They want to serve one audience, and thus they lose revenue from other audiences who they could easily accommodate, too. Then they have to make cuts, and those cuts don't come from the shallow end, and the cycle continues.

They cater to the majority....as they should.

It's why Duke, NYY, Boston, etc...are always on.

There is a reason for that and that reason is money.

[DJ MC]

They cater to the majority....as they should.

 

Except they aren't catering to the majority, but to the plurality. There's a difference. And when you limit your content to a group, even when they are the largest group, you cut out a lot of potential customers.

[mweb08]

The Jalen and Jacoby pod wasn't just catering to high brow sports fans. Simmons obviously has widespread appeal as well. They'd also do a fair amount of lighter material like the team names and logo rankings.

[SportsGuy]

Except they aren't catering to the majority, but to the plurality. There's a difference. And when you limit your content to a group, even when they are the largest group, you cut out a lot of potential customers.

No, they are catering to the majority....that's why they are successful.

[RShack]

No, they are catering to the majority....that's why they are successful.

 

No, he's right, it's the plurality, not the majority... look up what they mean....

[SportsGuy]

No, he's right, it's the plurality, not the majority... look up what they mean....

No, it's the majority.

A majority of sports fan don't want to read what Grantland provides.

[Matt_P]

There's a reason why Bleacher Report was valued at 200M and BP could get maybe a million.

[DJ MC]

A majority of sports fan don't want to read what Grantland provides.

 

That's not the same as saying ESPN caters to the majority, unless you think more than 50 percent of sports fans have some specific desire to seek out First Take.

[KWebz]

I will say that I am not surprised Grantland suffered.  

 

First of all, most of the info is over most sports fans head.  I know for a fact that Chris has had this complaint from some for this site and that's obviously on a way smaller scale than ESPN.

 

Secondly, as Mike said, they didn't do a good of promoting it.  I mean, I don't think one Grantland writer was ever on Mike and Mike, for example.

 

Did they ever feature them on SportsCenter?  Seems to me it was Simmons and thats it.

 

it was almost destined to fail in terms of people reading it.

Simmons said on his podcast with Malcolm Gladwell that he never had any interest in going on Mike and Mike. He expressed his frustration that he couldn't go on other morning sport radio shows that were not under the umbrella of ESPN/ABC/Disney. He probably doesn't like their show.

 

Sportscenter is not the place for the type of stuff Grantland was putting out.. I think it was always intended to be a niche site with impeccably written material for serious spots fans. Sure that doesn't apply to the masses but the site had an ample and loyal following.

[SportsGuy]

That's not the same as saying ESPN caters to the majority, unless you think more than 50 percent of sports fans have some specific desire to seek out First Take.

You know what, my bad.  I was mixing in my points there and wasn't being clear.

 

Majority of sports fans don't want Grantland.

 

Ratings dictate the rest.  

 

Agree that they are 2 different things though.

[SportsGuy]

Simmons said on his podcast with Malcolm Gladwell that he never had any interest in going on Mike and Mike. He expressed his frustration that he couldn't go on other morning sport radio shows that were not under the umbrella of ESPN/ABC/Disney. He probably doesn't like their show.

 

Sportscenter is not the place for the type of stuff Grantland was putting out.. I think it was always intended to be a niche site with impeccably written material for serious spots fans. Sure that doesn't apply to the masses but the site had an ample and loyal following.

Of course it did...but the loyal following was a silent minority in the grand scheme of things.

 

And Simmons not going on places like Mike and Mike is exactly why he isn't there and why Grantland doesn't get enough credit.

 

He should have put his selfish bs aside for the good of the site and the writers who wrote on it.

 

And shame on ESPN for not having more guys like Barnwell, Lowe, etc...on their shows regardless of if the Boston windbag wanted to be on them or not.

[KWebz]

Of course it did...but the loyal following was a silent minority in the grand scheme of things.

 

And Simmons not going on places like Mike and Mike is exactly why he isn't there and why Grantland doesn't get enough credit.

 

He should have put his selfish bs aside for the good of the site and the writers who wrote on it.

 

And shame on ESPN for not having more guys like Barnwell, Lowe, etc...on their shows regardless of if the Boston windbag wanted to be on them or not.

I would say him not advertising is def not "exactly why he isn't there" I think the reason he isn't there is because he spoke his mind and the truth about Goodell and Goodell whined to Disney and ESPN punished him all of which is extremely ridiculous. I think you can make an argument that he should have ate some of his pride and gone on Mike and Mike and that would be valid. I think there is equal validity in standing up for what you believe in. I think he was a bit idealistic about the money of his site, stating that as long as the content was on point, the viewership and the money would take care of itself. Thats obviously not true and without the Bill Simmons brand, the site really had no chance to survive if it wasn't bringing in that much revenue with him

[mweb08]

Simmons said on his podcast with Malcolm Gladwell that he never had any interest in going on Mike and Mike. He expressed his frustration that he couldn't go on other morning sport radio shows that were not under the umbrella of ESPN/ABC/Disney. He probably doesn't like their show.
 
Sportscenter is not the place for the type of stuff Grantland was putting out.. I think it was always intended to be a niche site with impeccably written material for serious spots fans. Sure that doesn't apply to the masses but the site had an ample and loyal following.

Of course it did...but the loyal following was a silent minority in the grand scheme of things.
 
And Simmons not going on places like Mike and Mike is exactly why he isn't there and why Grantland doesn't get enough credit.
 
He should have put his selfish bs aside for the good of the site and the writers who wrote on it.
 
And shame on ESPN for not having more guys like Barnwell, Lowe, etc...on their shows regardless of if the Boston windbag wanted to be on them or not.

Simmons went on other ESPN shows, but he had issues with Mike and Mike, and vice versa. I don't think he blocked anyone from going on that or any other show.

Also, Grantland got tons of credit.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm starting to get the shakes missing out on Lowe's NBA stuff.

[mweb08]

I'm starting to get the shakes missing out on Lowe's NBA stuff.

Any word if he'll be writing for ESPN? You would think that they could make that happen quickly.

[DJ MC]

You know what, my bad.  I was mixing in my points there and wasn't being clear.

 

Majority of sports fans don't want Grantland.

 

Ratings dictate the rest.  

 

Agree that they are 2 different things though.

 

I do agree that the majority of ESPN viewers/readers weren't interested in Grantland-type content. My point is that there was plenty of room under the ESPN umbrella to include that content and bring in those who do want it, if ESPN had been willing to actually work for those people. ESPN is artificially limiting their potential audience.