This member brief is designed exclusively for Executive Members, to make membership easy, you can click below and gain access to hundreds of reports, our DTC Power List, and other tools to help you make high level decisions.
No. 337: Stick To Sports
For as long as there has been athletic competition, there has been a narrative that permeates from the field of play. Gladiators of Rome were commonly first-generation slaves, bought and sold at the whim of their owners – the sporting promoters of their day. Like today’s gladiator sports, cruelty was a part of the spectacle. And the minds of the time contrasted in their approval or disapproval of their era’s proudest spectacle. Great minds like Seneca disapproved of the competition. Marcus Aurelius once abolished a tax on gladiator-based taxes and commerce; he wanted nothing to do with the capitalism of it all. And still, he couldn’t resist hosting lavish games from time to time. The spectacle of cruelty was insatiable to the average man and the great one – alike.
As it was, as it will always be. Sports was never without its social commentary. Jesse Owens’ olympic showing wasn’t just impressive because of the speed of his feet; he beat the myth of German superiority with a foot race. Jackie Robinson wasn’t just a baseball player, he was remembered as a hero. That was the narrative that was formed about the man, even while his involvement lacked the popular sentiment that it is awarded today. Janet Guthrie was a media fixture, not just because of her precedent off of the track but because of her accomplishments on it. Before Danica Patrick, there was her. And with a little more support from sponsors and officials, she could have accomplished much more.
Since when has sports been about athletic accomplishment alone?
On a November evening after the Baltimore Ravens’ decisive victory against the undefeated New England Patriots, ESPN National NFL Writer Kevin Seifert made a statement with a simple tweet. He listed three quarterbacks, each of whom are considered candidates to win the league’s coveted most valuable player award. The quarterbacks that Seifert listed: Russell Wilson, Deshaun Watson, and Lamar Jackson are what veteran industry analysts would call: unconventional, mobile, dual-threat. However, they’re more than that. In each case, whether these quarterbacks pass or rush, they lead from the front. More than anything else, that’s their common thread.
Kevin Seifert on Twitter
If we’re doing the MVP now, I’m going: 1. Russell Wilson 2. Deshaun Watson 3. Lamar Jackson
Here is a selection of quarterbacks drafted before 2019’s MVP candidates: Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden, Brock Osweiler, Mitchell Trubisky, Baker Mayfield, Sam Darnold, Josh Allen, and Josh Rosen. To the casual observer, this thought may as well be morse code. So consider the following: the National Football League has never had three African-American quarterbacks in the front running for most valuable player. And certainly not in an era of the sport’s greatest quarterbacks, namely Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers. We’re still in a period of firsts in this 150 year old sport. Brigham Young University started their first African-American quarterback in the year 2019. The sentiments of the 1950’s still linger. So what Seifert was doing was making a statement without controversy. To the untrained eye, it was merely the fact of the matter. But to those who understand the historical significance, it was a dog whistle of sorts.
“If you ask me is there a false narrative out there, I will tell you ESPN being a political organization is false,” he said. “I will tell you I have been very, very clear with employees here that it is not our jobs to cover politics, purely.” [1]
But even with the mandate by new ESPN President Jimmy Pitaro, Seifert found a way to toe the proverbial line. Wilson, the 75th pick of the 2012 draft is now the highest paid quarterback in the league. Bears quarterback Mitchell Trubisky was drafted before Watson. And Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson was publicly and privately coaxed to convert to wide receiver by many in the media. He didn’t fit the image. His chorus of detractors included former Indianapolis Colts GM Bill Polian [2].
After this historic game, Bleacher Report took a muted approach as to avoid the conversation altogether. In the NFL, running backs don’t win MVP over transcendent quarterbacks. In the last 20 years, just four have won. Sixteen quarterbacks have been selected in that time. Just the same, here was their take:
And [Jackson] a clear MVP candidate. This game firmly planted him in that discussion, along with Panthers running back Christian McCaffrey, Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson and Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson.[3]
Meanwhile, at Deadspin, the two lead stories are written by a generic “Deadspin.” A sign that no one is behind the wheel. The reports were merely a collection of embedded tweets. There’s one on the Ravens surprise victory. The one where the quarterback (that should have played receiver) trounced the greatest of all time. As the two shook hands upon leaving the field of play – battered and bruised – Jackson uttered “You’re the GOAT.” As if Brady needed a reminder. The other Deadspin “story” featured the Cleveland Browns latest off-the-field issue.
The only report with any personality was written by Karu F. Daniels of The Root, another property of G/O Media. It was repurposed into Deadspin content. One can only wonder what Deadspin would have written about a unique moment in the sport’s vaunted history. But the site is currently a shell of its former self. The staff quit en masse after being told to by G/O Media management to “stick to sports.” A common refrain in today’s corporate media.
G/O Media is the product of Great Hill Partners’ acquisition of the former Gizmodo Media Group. The all-equity transaction was facilitated with Jim Spanfeller, best known for his leadership at Forbes.com. Perhaps, it’s his lack of experience in sports media that permitted such a fatal miscalculation.
The Irony of The “Stick to Sports” Mandate
On its merits, the nature of the phrase is divisive. When ESPN’s Rachel Nichols spoke out in September of 2017, the peak of its interest, she raised questions around the hypocrisy of it. It was around that time when J.J. Watt was rightly praised for raising $20 million for hurricane relief while other athletes faced pushback for highlighting other extracurricular causes – most often around social justice issues. With the current state of American politics at a relative boiling point, the separation of societal politics and corporate entertainment have never been more difficult to parse. ESPN found ways around its “stick to sports” mandate by elevating intelligent and nuanced figures like Pablo Torre, Stephen A. Smith, Max Kellerman,and Bomani Jones. Deadspin wasn’t as forward thinking and they ultimately paid for that.
“Stick to sports” is, of course, a fault line in 2019’s culture wars. [4]
But as the state of our political machine continues to polarize Americans, the mandate becomes harder and harder to follow. Yet, it becomes more important to disobey. In fact, at some point, the mandate becomes bad business. This is especially true for digital media where Deadspin rival and The Chernin Group-owned Barstool Sports has thrived by using sports as a platform to enter adjacent conversations. And I am using the word “adjacent” liberally here. Several of the top stories on Barstool Sports currently include an Instagram influencer questioning his history syllabus, a feature on the “Watchmen” series, and a woman that tattooed her eyeballs.
The banner of Barstool’s homepage features a link to the media group’s famed Chicks podcast. And all of this is to say, it seems to be working for Barstool. This includes its cozy relationship with Fox News, including regular appearances by founder Dave Portnoy on Tucker Carlson. And this isn’t an argument against their approach. Rather, it was an acknowledgment that Barstool Sports has thus far succeeded by understanding the property’s psychographic. The Chernin Group seems to have avoided the stick to sports conversation with CEO Erika Nardini.
Ringer, Deadspin, B/R, Barstool and Psychographics
Consumer psychology involves the interest in lifestyle, behavior, and habit. It’s an encompassing measure that considers our idiosyncrasies, our temperament, and even our subtle personality traits. These are the variables that influence our behavior as consumers. Psychographic segmentation is the analysis of a consumer cohort’s lifestyle with the intent to create a detailed profile.
The Ringer is jovial and care-free. Bleacher Report is dead-pan with the occasionally dry humor. Barstool is edgy and offensive as a strategy. And so was Deadspin.
While largely focused on sports, Deadspin for years had delved into a broad range of topics in a voice that was sometimes rude, often funny and always conversational. On Tuesday, the site’s top editor, Barry Petchesky, was fired after refusing to go along with the order. The departures shocked fans of the site, which put a new spin on sports coverage for a generation of digital natives. But they were the result of a long buildup of resentment between the journalists and their new bosses, according to interviews with 13 current and former employees of Deadspin and G/O Media.[5]
For Deadspin, the majority of their sensationalism involved topics that were completely unrelated to sports in substance, this report isn’t necessarily about the history of those articles. Bill Simmons’ The Ringer shares a similar narrative with Barstool. On the homepage, you’ll find stories about Mr. Robot, Jeopardy, AppleTV+, and The Watchmen. Bleacher Report contrasts the three. The publication leans heavily towards strict sports coverage, a methodology that works for them. But even B/R featured an epic story on Colin Kaepernick written by Rembert Browne. And most recently – a story about Jared Lorenzen, the former Kentucky quarterback who died prematurely. Which brings me to the point: where do you draw the line when your publication covers sports? Collegiate and professional sports represent a layer of American life, not the totality of it. Sports is merely a dimension, not the whole.
No Code and The Business Case FOr: Stick To Sports
OM on Twitter
Let me rewrite this tweet from Jason. 1/ Deadspin writers are immensely talented and have a huge following. They have a lot of goodwill at present and as a result they should Marshall their collective resources and start a new publication. Let’s call it SpunOut. https://t.co/161I1HkInj
The editors and writers who resigned from Deadspin had a basis for their frustration. Sticking to sports is a nearly impossible proposition in today’s media. Given how rare it is to see a media company stick to their original charter, it’s understandable that Deadspin’s former employees saw the charge for what it really was: a euphemism for staying away from covering athletes who’ve immersed themselves in left-leaning causes.
But we’re in an ever-expansive era of digital media. Companies are rewarded for reaching. Complex Media is developing television shows and consulting third parties on commerce and audience development. Barstool Sports has a podcast starring two employees who discuss their friendship and sex lives, and Bleacher Report successfully collaborated on soccer kits with top hip hop artists.
Whatever happens moving forward, the Deadspin that was is no longer. It was one machine of a blog with nearly 30 million monthly visits and a penchant for engaging and re-engaging their loyal readers, many who’d visit the site multiple times per day. But it begs the question, if Deadspin was still Deadspin, what might they have written of Kevin Seifert’s idea? How would it have covered a tweet that should have been more than inconsequential. It’s doubtful that Deadspin may have told the story in the same ways that Barstool, Bleacher Report, ESPN, and The Ringer relayed theirs. To those platforms, the MVP race was not a story at all. But take it from NFL veteran and commentator Cris Collinsworth. As the Ravens led the Patriots, with the crowd in disbelief, Collinsworth quipped:
We’re going to be able to point to quarterbacks in the NFL that got a chance because of this night.
But in 2019, for many digital publishers, that’s too loaded of a statement. But many understood what it meant. And that understanding is part of the story too. The market has a need and the opportunity rests on the journalists who decide to forge their own paths. It’s only right that Deadspin alumni launches a Substack with the call sign of their mandate: Stick to Sports. Used ironically, of course, as one last jab at the man they called an herb. The publication would almost instantly lead the Substack board.
With that model, Deadspin’s former writers and editors would have the freedom to do it the right way. Anyone who’s ever played the game knows that sports doesn’t end when you step off of the field of play. A sport is America’s pastime, it’s the most watched television event, it’s the most expensive event ticket, it’s the basis of a nation’s network of country and athletic clubs. Across America, hotels are built solely to support a thriving youth sports cultures of areas that would otherwise be barren without its expensive field complexes. Young people wear jerseys and the shoes of sporting legends. And adults bet and cry and yell and travel to watch their teams. It’s the irrationality of it all that reminds us that sticking to sports is an impossible task. And media should reflect that impossibility. Seifert knew the significance of his tweet, America should have known it too.
Report by Web Smith | About 2PM
No. 320: It’s Not An Antitrust Problem
The New York Times recently published a report [1] that suggested that Google made $4,700,000,000 on the backs of local news publishers in 2018. This figure has since come under fire but, regardless of its accuracy, the figure frames an argument that you’ll see more of. Are Google and Facebook to blame for digital media’s decline? The answer isn’t as direct as you’d anticipate. And will solutions like HR 2054 properly address the concerns of traditional media? That answer is no.
The HR 2054 bill: To provide a temporary safe harbor for the publishers of online content to collectively negotiate with dominant online platforms regarding the terms on which their content may be distributed.
For the old guard, the problem is technological. But not in the way that they’re thinking. Consider the number of clicks between discovery and a confirmed subscription for a publisher like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (no seriously, try it). The number ranges between 11 and 17 total clicks. The typical eCommerce site accomplishes the same transaction in 2-5 clicks. Google and Facebook are not the culprits here. Understanding modern commerce ecosystem is the problem.
Digital publishing CEO Erika Nardini has gone on record as saying that, for Barstool Sports, she hires employees that are digital-natives. The idea of being from the internet, not on the internet is a concept that is, in itself, revolutionary. These digital native individuals tend to see things differently, according to Nardini. Certain ideals and processes are native to them. And it enhances their business: Barstool has between 5-7 revenue streams at any given time. This basic understanding of modern media and consumerism can be the difference between seeing FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google) as allies or as the threats.
The digital-native publisher optimizes their offering, in partnership with these platforms, to grow their reach. But this far different than blindly relying upon them for traffic or search juice. But for every Bleacher Report, The Athletic, or Barstool Sports, there is a media company that’s failed to discern a suitable path forward. For digital media, it isn’t solely about reach, it’s more than ever about depth. Depth, more so than reach, is how publishers are rewarded today. Bleacher Report’s growth doesn’t happen without FAANG, the same platforms that traditional publishers decry as the culprit of their shrinking revenues. Look no further than Bleacher Report’s social media statistics. The sports news site uses social media as a value-add rather than the traditional means for social in the media industry: an RSS feed.
2PM Data: Bleacher Report and FAANG
In a recent report, Digiday estimated that Bleacher Report is due to generate over $200 million in revenue in 2019. Led by new CEO Howard Mittman, Bleacher Report (B/R) has methodically adopted a linear commerce strategy to differentiate themselves from others in the market. Here’s a key paragraph from the Digiday report [2]:
Bleacher Report is weaving in commerce with custom apparel and other merchandise that the company sells to fans both online and through its events. For the upcoming FIFA Women’s World Cup, Bleacher Report is working with female artists to design nine unisex soccer jerseys, which people will be able to purchase on Bleacher Report’s site. Bleacher Report’s commerce business is still in its early stages, with revenue up 500% year over year, said the spokesperson.
Though Mittman is against paywalling content, the Turner Broadcasting-owned Bleacher Report has introduced a growing number of opportunities for readers to transact through the company’s channels. A key to these commerce opportunities? Maintaining brand presences wherever their target demographic’s attention is held. In this way, Google and Facebook have become assets rather than liabilities. This is a common refrain amongst digitally-native media companies and the legacy-publishers who’ve adopted these best practices.
Old Dogs, New Tricks
The New York Times leads in this category. Though the 2016 election cycle garners a lot of the attention for the publisher’s subscription performance, growth began before these key election months and has far-exceeded expectations through 2018 and into 2019. If nothing else, this shows that old dogs can learn new tricks.
While some publishers decry Google and Facebook’s presence as barriers to their survival, The New York Times has fostered a cross-promotional catalogue of high-visibility media experiences, brand statements, and enhanced utilities. This has helped to elevate the publisher to a KPI beyond eyeballs and clicks, alone. NYT has developed a level of digital brand affinity that, in turn, has grown the company’s revenue verticals. In short, the Times deemphasized reach, alone, in favor of fostering a readership that sought a deeper consumer relationships with their publisher.
From: Linear Commerce
The digital economy rewards the companies that work along the line that separates traditional digital media and traditional eCommerce.A great product needs an organic and impassioned audience. Captive audiences need products and services to offer the community. Linear commerce is the understanding that digital media and traditional online retail will eventually meet at the center – along the line – the most efficient path for growth.
So why do other publishers seem to ignore this shift? In a recent conversation with CNN, the Editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) made a striking statement; he cites reach, he ignores depth. Here’s Kevin Riley on his concerns:
At the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, our audience has never been larger than it is today. And I think that is true of many, many newspapers when you combine the print audience and the massive digital audience that we can all garner in our markets. So does it make sense, that at a time when our audience is at our biggest point, our financial difficulties are at their most difficult point. To me that doesn’t make sense.
But it does make sense. And it explains the broader disconnect that exists in business, as a whole. Publishers, like many in retail, view their legacy products as dutiful purchases rather than market-driven, affinity-based products. Ben Thompson wrote a brilliant antitrust breakdown in “Tech and Antitrust.” Thompson concluded with the following thoughts on the potential of Facebook or Amazon experiencing legitimate antitrust scrutiny:
At the end of the day tech companies are powerful because consumers like them, not because they are the only option. Consumer welfare still matters, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion.
Below is a comparison between a newspaper in a top 20 market (blue) and an independent publisher in the same market (orange). The difference couldn’t be more striking, the orange company optimizes for brand affinity, utility, and captive attention. The blue company optimizes for tradition-driven utility.
Web Smith on Twitter
Blue (legacy to digital): 1/ two revenue sources: display, subscriptions 2/ employs 200+ 3/ ownership group is public and trading at historical lows. Orange (digitally-native): 1/ four revenue sources: display, native, affiliate, DTC 2/ employs ~12 3/ privately-held
Across America’s second tier of metropolitan areas, legacy publishers like the Atlanta Journal-Constitution or Ohio’s Columbus Dispatch market to potential customers in a lackluster manner, at best. Like many news bureaus across the country, the contributions of these publishers are critical to the good of the public. As such, the typical value proposition seems to be duty to, rather than affinity for the publisher.
True, the dance between commerce and local news is different than what you’d find in sports or lifestyle but that doesn’t mean that the principles don’t apply. The New York Times has done a masterful job of reducing purchase friction (CRO), for instance. A casual reader can subscribe in 3-5 clicks. The publisher has also taken measures to widen and shorten their marketing funnels while staying true to their core mission. Consumers can learn about their product and convert in a much shorter time.
Traditional newspapers must begin to incorporate the ideas of digitally-native thinkers or viewership, clicks, and subscriptions will continue to suffer. The first step would be to examine their own platforms before dissecting the merits of another. Attacking Google, Facebook, Apple in the name of antitrust scrutiny distracts publishers from the KPIs that will determine present and future. They must operate as affinity-based businesses, now. Duty to newspapers perished with broadband access. But that doesn’t mean that business has to perish with it. What these editors and publishing executives will find is that the truth is less the 17 clicks away.
Read the No. 320 curation here.
Report by Web Smith | About 2PM