Sports Biz Journal on shrinking sports sections/team coverage

Pretty interesting stuff.

The final 2 grafs:

 

I'd call that a well reported story. Hit pretty much every target.

 

Very good report. Hits everything right on the nail.

Sad, too.

 

I'm surprised at the high percentage of people who get their news from a team web site. If that doesn't shoot off a flare to newspapers, I don't know what will.

 

Great read.

One of the biggest differences between team web sites and newspapers is that team web site's are an adjunct of the team itself. They don't have to be profitable, if they can drive ticket sales, sponsorships, etc. Newspapers, on the other hand, DO have to be profitable. And if you can get the same coverage of the Super Bowl or US Open from AP or a sister paper, it's foolish to shell out and send your own staffers.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Top brass needs to consider the expense not in terms of coverage, but in the message that staffing major events sends to readers. Staffing the Super Bowl, having a reporter in Washington, etc., is not just newsgathering but a crucial marketing device that tells readers they are buying a major daily. I would rather cut a dozen small things than one big one. Because, while readers will notice the small cuts, they do not all notice small cuts at the same time. You cut something big and they ALL notice, 200,000 or whatever of them, that fucking minute at the breakfast table.

 

Good points. Team Web sites are getting smarter by having their coverage done by former beat guys. And as far as getting a story from the AP or sending your own guy, readers don't care anymore. They're going to read all the coverage stuff later that game night anyway, so might as well save the expense to better cover a local event.

 

In 30 years in the business I've never believed that the great majority of readers give a shit whether your story is staff-written or from a wire service. Sure, they care when it's the local pro sports team, because you don't get nearly as much from the AP. But as far as something such as the World Series, US Open, Masters, Super Bowl or whatever -- as long as a local team isn't in it -- they don't even notice.

 

I don't know about that. I think there's a decent chunk of readers, especially in big cities, who grow comfortable with certain names and abhor all-AP coverage. A lot of times it's because readers enjoy agreeing or disagreeing with certain writers. Though that's only true with events of local significance. I doubt LA Times readers cared that a Trib guy covered the All-Star game or vice versa with the Tour de France.

 

That one really hurts.

 

I can see why fans prefer team web sites. It's one-stop shopping. Read the game story. Look at the box. See who's pitching tonight. See who's coming into town this week. Call up a stadium seating graphic and order some tickets.

And it's all positive. Which is what fans want anyway.

Pisses off the journalism purists, of course. But think for a minute. If you're a Marlins fan who looked only at the team's web site and never read a story from the Miami Herald, Sun Sentinel or Palm Beach Post on the team . . . have you missed any information?

 

Are there really a lot of fans like that? Maybe for straight game coverage but i bet if you polled fans, they look at more than one source of info regularly. if you read the comments on mlb.com stories, there are plenty of fans who don't want positive news, when their team is bad.