'Other Sports' out, 'Action Sports' in at NYT

With all due respect, I don't think the way to lure new readers is by writing one-off pieces about skateboarders... and losing all credibility by filing Paralympic pieces under "action sports" on the website.

To me, the way to draw readers is to provide something they can't get in any other sports section. To that end, I'd invest heavily in investigative pieces, enterprise, and 1-2 fresh columnists.

Sadly, as a devoted NYT reader, I couldn't tell you what the vision of the NYT's sports section is these days... except to empasize schlub golf with an enormous piece every Monday that takes up almost an entire page and should really be found in the "Arts and Leisure" section under "leisure."

 

What a myopic stance.
Those kids at the "skatepark" don't have parents?
Parents who plunk down $50 for the Hawk t-shirt or shorts? The parents that slap down $200 for the skateboard? Or the $50 video game?
What parent of a teenager doesn't know who Tony Hawk is?

He is a story. He's both an Action Sports story and a business phenomenon. That's why he's of interest to a N.Y. Times reader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/business/media/23adco.html?_r=1&sq=tony%20hawk&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=1&adxnnlx=1221329916-DxnVE0uyIqMg+LuthaTMAw

 

So you're saying that parents that didn't subscribe to the Times will pick up the phone and do so because of a small area on obscure sports in the sports section?

If the kid follows Tony Hawk they'll get a subscription to a skating magazine before the Times. This is a case study in doing something that will be 100% ineffective. It won't cost the Times any readers, it won't bring the Times any readers.

 

That wasn't your argument. This was:

I'm saying, the parents are interested in the Times' take on such a figure that DOES affect their lives in a way we all can be directly affected: The wallet.

 

The reason that any content goes in any newspaper is because it will eventually increase the bottom line. For the Times, this won't.

 

You're really young, aren't you?

 

Great discussion here, but just for the record...

re: "If the kid follows Tony Hawk they'll get a subscription to a skating magazine before the Times."

Actually, if a kid follows Tony Hawk, he's probably out of college. Hawk hasn't competed since 1999.

 

No, I'm not really young. The sad thing is that newspapers can be much more effective in informing people to a deeper level of understanding about the world we live in than other forms of media. Unfortunately too many resources are spent chasing the next fad, or trying to reinvent things. Television news spends no more than 2 minutes on any given story, unless it has something to do with a misbehaving celebrity. Newspapers that cover the news in depth, and actually discover news by investigating will have a place in the future. Those that don't will eventually become a local version of the National Enquirer in the race to the lowest common denominator.

"Action Sports" in the Times is like having an foreign policy section in the National Enquirer. Yes it is more content, but it has no relevance to the readership.

 

You talk about readership like he's some old guy on your couch. It seems to me the NYT's editorial choices are guided by what it thinks will inform and interest readers, not by what it judges to believe the old guy on the couch is interested in. There's a difference.

 

Fad and relevancy. There is a difference. I gave you examples of how an Action Sports story would be relevant. You choose the pre-fixed stare.

 

Of course the editors at the Times are including things they think will interest readers, editors at all papers do that. The Times readership tends to be more educated, sophisticated and wealthy than the readership of the Daily News, Post or Newsday. That is their niche, trying to expand and be all things to all possible readers only dilutes what makes the Times special.

 

I don't mind reading about snowboarding and skateboarding in the NYT --it's actually refreshing to read a slang-free story on those topics, but what is journalistically problematic is when the NYT doesn't know what an "action sport" is, and calls everything from horse racing to the Tour de France an "action sport."

Either rename the category to something accurate or come up with something else.

As is it now, it hurts the paper's credibility and it reinforces a stodgy image.