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!

ESPN.com, coming to a metro near you...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by DanOregon, Sep 15, 2009.

  1. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Really good article on ESPN.com's local efforts. The numbers indicate that ESPNChicago is getting more readers than the Tribune and the Sun-Times.

    Interesting, with HuffPo in Denver and the WSJ and NYT starting up in SF it seems national brands are going after local markets for more growth.
  2. Mediator

    Mediator Member

    Have to say these markets are ripe for competition. Most papers are cutting back on space and coverage, and AP doesn't cut it for your local pro team.

    If ESPN wants to hire and force other outlets to realize the value in covering their backyard franchise, I think that's only positive for our business.
  3. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    This won't stoke local outlets' interest in doing a better job.

    More likely, they'll say, "Well . . . we can't compete with ESPN's money. That's the reality of this business. Gotta do more with less and less."
  4. Den1983

    Den1983 Active Member

    Yeah, I see no one taking a proactive response to all this. I would assume most would just sit back and take it.
  5. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Active Member

    In how many markets could they actually be as good as or better than the dailies already doing the (admittedly shrunken and understaffed) job? Most markets with an NFL team have two full-timers, at least, devoted to that beat. Sometimes two on baseball. Hard to see ESPN cracking that -- unless it just hired away the folks already doing it for the dailies.
  6. VJ

    VJ Member

    If anything it's more jobs for writers that didn't exist a year ago, so I fail to see how it's a bad thing. Unless of course it drives the papers out of business, but that was happening anyway.
  7. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    I don't think it's a bad thing, and it is giving a few writers a new lease on life, but for the most part it is espn flexing its muscles more than its checkbook. The infrastructure is already there with espn.com and many of the writers were already on the payroll, plus the radio stations were there, so it was a matter of putting up the homepage, getting the word out and opening for business. Not a bad business plan if you can do it.
  8. SockPuppet

    SockPuppet Active Member

    How many staffers does ESPNChicago.com have? How many writers? Do they staff the Cubs, Sox, Bears, Bulls, Blackhawks? From what I can tell they have a columnist (Melissa Isacson; sorry butchered the spelling) use wire stories, put up Chicago-related video from Big Daddy and that's it. It's competition in brand name only, sizzle but no steak. ESPN is not starting "virtual" newspapers where it is competing locally.
  9. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    The question is, how many of these writers are full time, and how many are freelance? And how high is the freelance rate?
  10. jimnorden

    jimnorden Member

    not sure about the staff but their numbers seem to be pretty good ... and have to believe that site/staff will only grow with more success.

    And with video becoming the most important thing to a web site's success, you gotta believe espn will have more than enough unique vids to make things interesting. will newspapers be able to compete with that?

    From article:
    In addition, comScore statistics show that the average number of unique visitors to the ESPN Chicago site for May, June and July (555,000) was more than the averages for the sports sites of the Chicago Tribune (424,000) or Chicago Sun-Times (256,000).
  11. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that these are not considered full time jobs, they're freelance positions. No benefits, etc.
  12. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    espn is evil. end of story. the worldwide leader's a--hole spokeshead walsh is trying to make it sound that this is good for newspapers. yeah, right. bite me.

    espn's move just inches us all closer to extinction. :'( :'( :'(
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page