Web 2.0 and the Future of Sports Media
image from deadspin.com
Now that we’ve had a few days to examine the fallout from the “ESPN and Social Networking” memo and discussed it to death with Dan Shanoff on the Pubcast, it’s time for us to take an intelligent, well reasoned examination of the future of websites like Twitter and Facebook, and how they pertain to the future of sports journalism.
First off, let’s examine why ESPN enacted this policy. Obviously, it is in tWWL’s best self interest to drive traffic to their website, and if Rob Neyer spent the day tweeting all of his baseball breaking news, they could theoretically reduce the daily number of viewers to its website. That serves no purpose in revenue generation for ESPN. In this instance, they are correct, because their reporters, working under contract, are there to increase the brand of ESPN. Ultimately, tweeting is more in the vein of creating the “brand image” of the reporters, rather than that of the company. Dan put this much more eloquently than I did, but in essence, their reporting is Disney/ABC’s intellectual property. The reporters do have an obligation to give their stories to the network before talking about it.
However, for Disney to underestimate the power of Twitter at this stage of the game is a rather shortsighted gesture. Currently, www.twitter.com is ranked 13th in the US for most frequently visited websites, ahead of CNN, Microsoft, and yes, ESPN. While ESPN’s spot at the top of internet traffic (sports websites) is not at risk here, potentially their reputation as being the breaking source of news can be pushed further down, especially as a larger and larger subgroup of “citizen journalists” is created. Who you know can theoretically be less important than who you follow.
This isn’t to be meant as blanket praise of Twitter, because frankly information is too valuable a commodity to be given away entirely free, and the current Twitter business model sucks. For Twitter, ESPN, or any commercial enterprise to freely give away all of their content is long-term economically unfeasible. Now ESPN obviously has brand synergy to build on, and an extremely comfortable relationship with all of the major sports leagues (except the NHL, but Bettman’s incompetence is truly a gift to behold) and their traffic numbers and the pyramid effect of their outlets is staggering (as detailed by Michael Heistand in USA Today). However, their grip as the largest online sports information provider can be at risk without a re-tooling of its Web 2.0 strategy.
The concept behind Web 2.0 is user interactivity, hence why it is so potentially explosive for both page counts AND disaster. Look at the Yahoo! comments section and count how many comments there are (especially in articles involving minorities) before a racial epithet is typed. It’s not Yahoo’s fault, yet it reflects poorly on their image. ESPN on one level has to protect its brand, in case The Talented Mr. Roto goes out, gets blasted, and starts discussing attempting to double team some girl with Tucker Max. They look like like a bunch of jackasses, and their corporate image is hurt.
However, the current microblogging explosion isn’t leaving any room for mediation. Ultimately, that can lead to problems on a business level for Twitter. The lawsuit problems could be endless (companies suing them for hosting links to pirated websites, an obsessed follower uses someone’s Twitter to find out where they will be and rapes them, etc.). However, a new system, which would catch on if ESPN and other major corporations embraced it (because we will follow the cutting edge dammit!) could eventually provide a solution.
Twitter 2.0 (FD edition) would be geared more towards corporations, journalists, and other people that need instant information. Usage would be free, but could include tracking code within tweets (a propriety client, or something of that nature). RT’s could be charged for, and the AP and other MSM sites could use it as an alternative revenue source. If you make it cheap enough (100 RTs of a user for $20), or charge a $10 dollar / year follow fee with unlimited usage rights, something of that nature,
Sadly, ESPN has not shown a willingness to be on the cutting edge, or pick the markets people really want. For instance, they could have nipped many single sport blog communities in the bud by hosting open chat rooms, registered users only, in the different categories. An MLB room would be packed, using a java or flash client with rotating ads, almost every night of the week. On the confed cup final, host “users” open chats with links on the main page. The set up and server costs would be minimal, and an entire new source of ad revenue would be opened up.
Ultimately, ESPN is doing what they feel they need to in order to preserve page counts. If, and this is a big if, they integrate tweets into their sportscenter and sportsnation pages in a timely matter, they can adapt to the changes. However, I don’t think they’ve even thought that out all the way through, because if you’re following your favorite reporters on twitter, you still don’t need to go to espn.com/anchortweets or whatever the heck they would call it.
Eventually, someone is going to set up an ad driven page where all they do is post tweets of sports writers, reporters, and figures, and I think that other bloggers would be shocked by the amount of pageviews and uniques that they would get. When the industry finally realizes how to capitalize on the technology, the innovation should propel sports writing to levels we can’t even begin to anticipate.
Raise a GlassTags: ESPN, first derivative, is Twitter the cutting edge of sports reporting?, social media, sports reporting, Twitter, web 2.0
Categories:
Daily Specials, Non-Alcoholic
MyPage Builder
[...] the original: Web 2.0 and the Future of Sports Media – The Phoenix Pub [...]
ailanthusaltissima
What a lot to think about. My first thought is that Twitter’s word limit is a bit of a double-edged sword here. On the one hand, 140 characters means a really tight, concise sound bite that allows for quick information. On the other, it prevents any real in depth analysis, exploration of details, and even good old fashioned story-telling. For any of that, the tweeter (is that right? I am behind on the lingo) would need a different medium, like say a blog, to which to link. For this reason, I can’t really see Twitter diverting much traffic from larger news sites and blogs. Maybe it’s naive of me to think that by and large people want more information about a story than a sentence, but I feel like Twitter might break a story and provide that information to a wide audience who will then look for an article on the subject. Twitter here would be a supplementary tool, one that I think could be offered freely.
You have me thinking…I wonder if ESPN could allow its bloggers/writers to twitter to build up the brand and to attract more pageviews. Twitter could be a “teaser”, allowing a glimpse at the info but not really going into detail. The real story could carry a charge, something that would be more feasible once the AP, which is thinking about it, decides to charge for online content. So instead of charging for tweets, you get charged for the links.