Sports Illustrated Falls to the Internet

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Cheryl Tiegs was a goddess.

And just about every teenage male in the country had this poster in the early 80's.

 

[Ian]

Also, my comment about millennials stems from my frustration with my son and his frie

Wow, thanks for all the info.

That’s really terrible that quality content is just losing the battle of evolution. Personally, without having known all the behind the scenes stuff, I never click on videos on news sites and don’t really care about non-obtrusive ads, so this is all really surprising to me. One thing that’s interesting is the psychological block on why a consumer won’t just pay for a newspaper subscription. I think it isn’t even rational. When a Boston Herald or Washington Post paywall pops up, it just seems wrong to me, even though it’s probably worth the cost. It just stresses me out, like here’s another subscription I need to remember to account for, another user name and password, etc., and by the time that instant calculation is made, it’s on to the next free article. Consumers will play in-purchase apps like Candy Crush and spend thousands of dollars for add-ons and power ups, as well as tons of streaming videos like new releases, which is why I think this isn’t a rational consumer market, or publications are just not making it feel right to the consumer in the same way books are. The value is there for those prices, but the “feel” just isn’t. I don’t know if that makes sense.

It's different because years ago, people would go to a specific news source and read articles and it was part of their bookmarks and their daily routine. Now, social media is where the vast majority of people discover news stories and between that and other news aggregation sites, people visit a much more sizable number of outlets. The days of visiting a site's home page are pretty much over, which has been a dilemma everyone has been dealing with.

Years ago, when it was just the Globe, Herald, etc., a subscription didn't seem like a terrible deal because you went there everyday anyway and it obviously made sense since we all paid for the newspaper. Now to follow news the way we more or less do currently, you'd have to have dozens of subscriptions to really stay informed. That would be ridiculously expensive, so instead, the majority prefer not to pay at all.

The other issue is the percentage of monthly mobile impressions is over 60%, which you can't monetize a smaller screen nearly as well as you can a desktop/laptop (the $$ is significantly different). So that reduces the inventory and, as a result, the revenue. But that's just the way things are now and I get it. I'd also rather log on while I'm sitting on my couch with my phone if I don't have my laptop turned on and I generally read a lot of articles from all over. I also stumble on stuff while I'm on Facebook or Twitter and I don't directly visit sites the way I used to either. But I also do pay for a couple (BSJ, the Athletic, etc.), just not as many as I probably should. I used to have Sports Illustrated and ESPN the Magazine, but I also don't have as much time to sit down and thumb through them as I used to.

Anyway, I don't really know what the answer is, I just know it continues to be an issue without a solution.

 

[raduray]

Sears catalog, baby.

Sunday NYT

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Al Gore destroyed the economy.

Inconvenient Truth.

 

[raduray]

Wow, thanks for all the info.

That’s really terrible that quality content is just losing the battle of evolution. Personally, without having known all the behind the scenes stuff, I never click on videos on news sites and don’t really care about non-obtrusive ads, so this is all really surprising to me. One thing that’s interesting is the psychological block on why a consumer won’t just pay for a newspaper subscription. I think it isn’t even rational. When a Boston Herald or Washington Post paywall pops up, it just seems wrong to me, even though it’s probably worth the cost. It just stresses me out, like here’s another subscription I need to remember to account for, another user name and password, etc., and by the time that instant calculation is made, it’s on to the next free article. Consumers will play in-purchase apps like Candy Crush and spend thousands of dollars for add-ons and power ups, as well as tons of streaming videos like new releases, which is why I think this isn’t a rational consumer market, or periodical subscriptions are just not making it feel right to the consumer in the same way books and movies are. The value is there for those prices, but the “feel” just isn’t. I don’t know if that makes sense. It may have to do with committing to something when you just want to read one article now, and getting anxious about needing to make that risk calculation to begin with.

I pay for several newspaper sites, including my local one, but oftentimes there are articles from other paywall sites that pop up that I'd like to read, but can't justify another subscription. I wonder why they don't offer the option of charging, say $1, for reading an individual story.

 

[captain stone]

Yeah but how hard is that really? The Rangers are practically the Jete, come to think of it they even have the same know nothing vermin for fans

Not really; Jete fans are usually not Rangers fans, or hockey fans in general...they're mainly fans of the Nazi Basset-ball Ass-ociation, so they'll glom onto whichever of the Knickerbockers or Nets is faring better.

 

[XLIX]

And just about every teenage male in the country had this poster in the early 80's.

This was before my time but the GOAT pin up poster is the following:

 

[Ian]

I pay for several newspaper sites, including my local one, but oftentimes there are articles from other paywall sites that pop up that I'd like to read, but can't justify another subscription. I wonder why they don't offer the option of charging, say $1, for reading an individual story.

Apple is trying a service that's a blanket cost to access a lot of them, but from what I've seen, it's not going well. A Netflix for media is sort of what will need to happen, but even with millions of subscribers, with it being split among so many outlets, it's still not enough for them to survive. I think your idea of individual stories makes sense. Maybe charging $0.10 an article with one blanket account that you can replenish and can be used on any site makes the most sense since I think more people would be inclined to do it on premium content. That way, if an article garners 5000 - 10000 views, that's $500-$1000 in revenue for one article. That's certainly significantly more than the CPMs they're likely currently getting for ad revenue.

 

[maust]

Not really; Jete fans are usually not Rangers fans, or hockey fans in general...they're mainly fans of the Nazi Basset-ball Ass-ociation, so they'll glom onto whichever of the Knickerbockers or Nets is faring better.

Maybe not in general but the most ignorant of Rangers fans, when they aren't masquerading as fans of whatever team just won The Cup, are definitely cut from the same cloth as Jete fans. Both are among the most contemptible fans in all of sport.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

This was before my time but the GOAT pin up poster is the following:

solid choice, but to me, this was the GOAT pinup

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Apple is trying a service that's a blanket cost to access a lot of them, but from what I've seen, it's not going well. A Netflix for media is sort of what will need to happen, but even with millions of subscribers, with it being split among so many outlets, it's still not enough for them to survive. I think your idea of individual stories makes sense. Maybe charging $0.10 an article with one blanket account that you can replenish and can be used on any site makes the most sense since I think more people would be inclined to do it on premium content. That way, if an article garners 5000 - 10000 views, that's $500-$1000 in revenue for one article. That's certainly significantly more than the CPMs they're likely currently getting for ad revenue.

I would have a lot more optimism for journalistic integrity if it weren't for the direction television has gone. I haven't watched the evening news year in years because it's just a bunch sensationalized garbage, as it can't compete while maintaining a shred of integrity within a 24-7 news cycle which competes with it and flashes big headlines every three minutes. So, you get a few channels like PBS and shows like 60 minutes that actually contain journalism, but the vast, vasy majority of television is based on flashing neon lights and dumbed down, attention-seeking hot takes. I feel bad for my kids and what "the mainstream" news will be for them. I've already noted a major problem in "the portal" between the kids and adults worlds by no longer having the printed newspaper, which served as an inclusive window where children and adults could wade into each other's worlds. Everything is totally segmented now.

 

[captain stone]

Isn't Maven & this Heckman dude also responsible for the confusion with NFL Draftscout.com?

 

[Ian]

I would have a lot more optimism for journalistic integrity if it weren't for the direction television has gone. I haven't watched the evening news year in years because it's just a bunch sensationalized garbage, as it can't compete while maintaining a shred of integrity within a 24-7 news cycle which competes with it and flashes big headlines every three minutes. So, you get a few channels like PBS and shows like 60 minutes that actually contain journalism, but the vast, vasy majority of television is based on flashing neon lights and dumbed down, attention-seeking hot takes. I feel bad for my kids and what "the mainstream" news will be for them. I've already noted a major problem in "the portal" between the kids and adults worlds by no longer having the printed newspaper, which served as an inclusive window where children and adults could wade into each other's worlds. Everything is totally segmented now.

I agree and to make matters worse, I can tell you first hand that an article with facts, stats, information, etc. does significantly worse click-wise than a TMZ style article with a few paragraphs with an inflammatory headline. Those articles will get 10x-20x the amount of views and since that's where the money is, that's what everyone is gravitating toward so they're producing more of it. That's the world we live in now, unfortunately

 

[Ian]

Isn't Maven & this Heckman dude also responsible for the confusion with NFL Draftscout.com?

Could be - I'm not privy to that one. From what I read last night he's acquired control of a few outlets I wasn't aware of, so it's possible.

 

[captain stone]

...So, you get a few channels like PBS and shows like 60 Minutes that actually contain journalism...

 

[PatriotsReign]

Sears catalog, baby.

My mom always wondered why pages were missing....

 

[maust]

That's the world we live in now, unfortunately

 

[DarrylS]

If you were a kid/teenager in the 80s and loved sports, you read SI. It was then when they started poaching columnists like Leigh Montville, Jack MaCallum, etc. - high quality writers. Used to arrive every Thursday and I'd read it cover to cover that same day.

re: Swimsuit Issue- my teenage "crush" was Paulina Porizkova.

Used to go to the Globe for most of that stuff, my favorite was Peter Gammons Hot Stove League column every Sunday, everytime I read it found it hard to believe that Peter could find out that much info in one week.. that was way before Football became king and baseball was watchable or listenable.. dependent on the station.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Used to go to the Globe for most of that stuff, my favorite was Peter Gammons Hot Stove League column every Sunday, everytime I read it found it hard to believe that Peter could find out that much info in one week.. that was way before Football became king and baseball was watchable or listenable.. dependent on the station.

Gammons was incredible. The whole Sunday Globe sport section was kick ass. Even moron Borges's boxing column was great.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This was before my time but the GOAT pin up poster is the following:

I liked Victoria Principal.