1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bleacher Report Raises 10.5M, Becomes 5th Largest Sports Website

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Schottey, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. Schottey

    Schottey Guest


    More at TechCrunch link above.
  2. SixToe

    SixToe Active Member

    No, it isn't.
  3. LeftCoastWrite

    LeftCoastWrite New Member

    Challenge in hits? Well, I guess No. 5 in hits is impressive even if I'm sure it's a distant 5 to the biggies. Challenge in quality? Hardly. Considered a joke universally for its low-rent, sometimes plagiarized content.
  4. lantaur

    lantaur Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing part of the reason BR challenges in views is because it has found a way to pollute Google results.
  5. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

  6. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    I never looked at it before. It's all top 10 this, worst 10 that. Didn't see much news there.
  7. TheHacker

    TheHacker Member

    I agree, and I don't read it either, aside from once or twice that I've stumbled onto it because of the aforementioned SEO they do to get their stuff to show up on Google searches. But Dan, think for a second like an average schmuck sports fan ... that's the sort of stuff they eat up. We think on a different level because we're in the business, so we don't see the value in it, but I can see where someone who isn't as discerning about content would like it.
  8. Small Town Guy

    Small Town Guy Well-Known Member

    Daulerio called them "Bleacher Report's Google-raping SEO 'stories.'

  9. jlee

    jlee Well-Known Member

    Agreed. Nor do they care that any of this content wouldn't exist without Yahoo, Fanhouse or the "legacy" media reporting it first.
  10. Schottey

    Schottey Guest

    Nope, can't have it both ways. Though, it's a great "argument."

    B/R purposely cut the "free money" of many of the lower quality writers on the site and raised the bar for new writer applications. In advertising terms, it was a money-losing move. In quality terms, the move was necessary. (P.S. Deadspin reported that as well.)

    Meanwhile, many have noted that it is all Top-10's this, Top-20's that. How much of that is "stolen" from the legacy media? Look on the B/R front page right now. As of 1pm EST, I see opinion pieces, YouTube links, speculation, and lists. None of it is re-reported, none of it is content found elsewhere. Most of it is content specifically asked for by partners like CBS, Hearst Publishing, and others.

    Quibble about the quality...we're committed to raising the bar. Complain about (past) plagiarism, we've eliminated those writers. Complain about (current) problems, we'll be glad to do the same.

    The storyline with 10.5M in investments is that B/R isn't going away. We're committing to making the product better and even more accessible.

    As I've suggested elsewhere, some of the unpaid, low-paid people complaining about B/R would be better served submitting a resume. I guarantee we pay our employees (yes, Virginia, even some of our writers) more than many of the positions listed on the job section of this site.
  11. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    That $10.5M sounds real nice within our little world and it's certainly a feather for BR, but it's a $5 chip on the craps table for VC firms. Webvan raised $800M in VC in the late '90s and was out of business two years later. The only thing we can conclude about this investment in BR is that someone at BR is a very good salesman in the VC boardrooms or has a brother/cousin/uncle on the board.
  12. lono

    lono Active Member

    So you work for BR and posted this to pimp your own site? Nice.

    How can you possible say "None of it is content found elsewhere" when you're including YouTube links in that description?

    Of course, it's found elsewhere. YouTube links are found <i>on YouTube.</i>

    And the writing and reporting on the site are awful. That's not even open for debate.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page