81 replies to this topic

[RShack]

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.

 

Exactly right... this problem is a pandemic of modern times, it shows up everywhere from Wall St to TV programming... we've somehow lost the notion that you can have a good audience that's not the max audience, that you can have good profit that's not the max profit, etc., etc...

[mweb08]

ESPN can pander to both the masses and the the types of people that like Grantland. There's no reason for them to choose.

And some of their non Grantland stuff does cater to that type of crowd.

[SportsGuy]

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.

Oh yea, no doubt about that.

However, if it cost more than it was worth, I can see cutting it.

I don't know if that's the case or not but from a biz POV, if you can better use your money elsewhere, go ahead and do it.

[SportsGuy]

Btw...is there a reason that Grantland can't exist on its own under someone else?

[BSLMikeLowe]

And some of their non Grantland stuff does cater to that type of crowd.

 

Ironically perhaps, the two best examples I can think of for that, 30 for 30 and Fivethirtyeight, pretty much exist because of Simmons. I'll be surprised if Fivethirtyeight sticks around beyond Nate Silver's contract expiration. I guess Outside the Lines is still around, but ESPN seems to have let that die a slow death.

 

Btw...is there a reason that Grantland can't exist on its own under someone else?

 

I'm sure ESPN owns trademarks for that.

[SportsGuy]

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

All of things you mentioned are under the same umbrella. His attitude is a big reason he's gone.

Now, some of it was bs. He should be able to speak his mind but speaking your mind can have consequences.

Let's put it this way...by getting rid of him and Grantland, I highly doubt ESPN sees any down turn in ratings, viewership, etc...

It just won't matter and from their perspective, why deal
with it?

[SportsGuy]

Ironically perhaps, the two best examples I can think of for that, 30 for 30 and Fivethirtyeight, pretty much exist because of Simmons. I'll be surprised if Fivethirtyeight sticks around beyond Nate Silver's contract expiration. I guess Outside the Lines is still around, but ESPN seems to have let that die a slow death.


I'm sure ESPN owns trademarks for that.

Right but you can basically do the same site with a different name.

If Simmons wanted to try to get some of the writers(not sure what their contracts say), he could start it up again under a different name but do the same thing...make it a pay site if he wanted.

[mweb08]

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

All of things you mentioned are under the same umbrella. His attitude is a big reason he's gone.


Now, some of it was bs. He should be able to speak his mind but speaking your mind can have consequences.


Let's put it this way...by getting rid of him and Grantland, I highly doubt ESPN sees any down turn in ratings, viewership, etc...


It just won't matter and from their perspective, why deal

with it?

I'm pretty sure they've seen a downturn in page views for articles and in downloads for podcasts.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Right but you can basically do the same site with a different name.

If Simmons wanted to try to get some of the writers(not sure what their contracts say), he could start it up again under a different name but do the same thing...make it a pay site if he wanted.

 

Sure, nothing preventing him from doing that. They would have to create a whole new brand is all. But if they find the right investor (HBO or otherwise) and they can get the word out, I'm sure they could attract most of the core audience they had at ESPN. Might be harder to get some of the occasional readers though who only read Grantland when they saw a headline they liked on ESPN.com.

[KWebz]

I'm pretty sure they've seen a downturn in page views for articles and in downloads for podcasts.

They're also going through some pretty hefty layoffs. http://www.sportsbus...Media/ESPN.aspx

 

I don't know. On Simmons' most recent podcast he made a really good point. He said that ESPN wants to be cutting edge and they want to captivating and they want honest reporting but when it comes to controversy, they can be wimps about it. 

 

Like the CTE topic. ESPN and affiliates should have been all over this from the beginning, reporting, investigating, and informing the public but instead PBS' Frontline got the job done. Now ESPN talks about it but they were too afraid of corporate NFL to be the first to report it to the masses. I can see not wanting to be part of an organization that can't successfully talk about controversy 

[mweb08]

Right but you can basically do the same site with a different name.


If Simmons wanted to try to get some of the writers(not sure what their contracts say), he could start it up again under a different name but do the same thing...make it a pay site if he wanted.

 
Sure, nothing preventing him from doing that. They would have to create a whole new brand is all. But if they find the right investor (HBO or otherwise) and they can get the word out, I'm sure they could attract most of the core audience they had at ESPN. Might be harder to get some of the occasional readers though who only read Grantland when they saw a headline they liked on ESPN.com.

Those headlines were somewhat few and far between.

[BSLMikeLowe]

They're also going through some pretty hefty layoffs. http://www.sportsbus...Media/ESPN.aspx

 

I don't know. On Simmons' most recent podcast he made a really good point. He said that ESPN wants to be cutting edge and they want to captivating and they want honest reporting but when it comes to controversy, they can be wimps about it. 

 

Like the CTE topic. ESPN and affiliates should have been all over this from the beginning, reporting, investigating, and informing the public but instead PBS' Frontline got the job done. Now ESPN talks about it but they were too afraid of corporate NFL to be the first to report it to the masses. I can see not wanting to be part of an organization that can't successfully talk about controversy 

 

ESPN exists in that blurred territory that so many journalism outlets do today. They try to portray themselves as an independent voice devoted to telling the truth, but at some point they inevitably compromise on that so as not to bite the hand that feeds them.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Those headlines were somewhat few and far between.

 

They were, but I would think they still brought in a certain amount of readers....I'm referring to people who seldom if ever went to the Grantland home page, but occasionally read an article because they saw the link on ESPN's main page and it piqued their interest. I don't know what the numbers are, but I imagine getting those people to visit a Grantland reincarnation would be very important, and a challenge.

[SportsGuy]

NFL is their cash cow. I can understand them protecting it.

[Cisc-O's]

I prefer to keep an air of mystery about me.

I must say that all went out the window when I saw you on Jeopardy....

[BSLMikeLowe]

NFL is their cash cow. I can understand them protecting it.

 

I can understand it too. But there's a fine line between a journalist and a mouthpiece. And people should understand that ESPN (and many others) regularly cross that line, and take things they see/hear with that grain of salt.

[DJ MC]

All of things you mentioned are under the same umbrella. His attitude is a big reason he's gone.

Now, some of it was bs. He should be able to speak his mind but speaking your mind can have consequences.

Let's put it this way...by getting rid of him and Grantland, I highly doubt ESPN sees any down turn in ratings, viewership, etc...

It just won't matter and from their perspective, why deal
with it?

 

They deal with it because if ESPN is only looking at TV ratings and viewership, they are already dead and just don't know it yet.

[BSLChrisStoner]

This was on Mashable... I'd post the link, but it annoyingly kept putting up ads...

 

 

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Skipper laid bare some of the thinking behind the shuttering of the site created by veteran sports columnist Bill Simmons.

"We lacked a full understanding of the bonding nature between Bill and those guys," Skipper said referencing ESPN's attempt to keep the site going even as most of its leadership and top columnists jumped ship, following the firing of Simmons back in May.

Skipper tried installing veteran entertainment journalist and Grantland writer Chris Connelly as editor in chief after Simmons' departure.

But last week, following Grantland's closure, Connelly himself admitted that he simply didn't have the same bond with the staff as the site's founder.

"Chris had become an advocate for continuing it when he knew that there was a decision-making process happening," said Skipper. "The decision was made the week before we announced it."

Among the revelations included in the Skipper interview is the fact that ESPN decision makers were divided about whether to close the site. "Surprisingly, it was fairly divided internally among the people closest to me about whether we could go or not," said Skipper.

Grantland's traffic was apparently an issue. ESPN gets 94 million visitors a month, and Grantland accounted for roughly 7%, according to a source familiar with the matter. But ESPN brass doubted Grantland was drawing its own readers apart from the core ESPN audience. In September 2015, 88% of Grantland’s audience on computers also visited ESPN.com and 94% of Grantland’s audience on mobile devices also visited ESPN.com, according to the source.

The plan that would have kept the site alive, according to Skipper, was to install Grantland's own Sean Fennessey as editor in chief.

However, Fennessey opted to maintain his "bonding" with Simmons and follow him to HBO.

And contrary to the Simmons' frequent grousing about ESPN's lack of financial support for the site, Skipper claims, "This was never a financial matter for us. The benefits were having a halo brand and being Bill Simmons related."

Much of the pain associated with the breakup was revealed in a podcast episode posted last week by Simmons in which he and author Malcolm Gladwell (an early contributor to the site) talked about what went wrong.

But perhaps the most surprising thing about the Skipper interview is what he says about Grantland as a brand.

“I loved the site … It pained me to make the decision. It was not without difficulty.”

[BSLMikeLowe]

Grantland's traffic was apparently an issue. ESPN gets 94 million visitors a month, and Grantland accounted for roughly 7%, according to a source familiar with the matter. But ESPN brass doubted Grantland was drawing its own readers apart from the core ESPN audience. In September 2015, 88% of Grantland’s audience on computers also visited ESPN.com and 94% of Grantland’s audience on mobile devices also visited ESPN.com, according to the source.

 

Those are the numbers I was interested in earlier, and I think they lay out the challenge of trying to create a whole new Grantland brand to stand on its own. It would probably be even less successful than it was on ESPN, even without ESPN doing much to help it succeed. The best chance might have been if Simmons & Co wanted to do it on SI.com....but since Time Warner (HBO's parent company) sold SI off last year, that kind of goes out the window.

[mweb08]

It's not surprising that most people that visited Grantland also visited ESPN.com.

ESPN didn't do that much to push traffic to Grantland. And Simmons is getting huge podcast numbers solo, and mostly without name guests. I don't think creating a site without ESPN there to help worth traffic would be much an issue, but I do think lacking the financial backing would be an issue. But if course working with a place like SI would help if they actually tried to help push traffic there.