Sports on Earth writers and editors laid off

Chuck Culpepper's work for Sports on Earth has been absolutely brilliant. Very sad to see him go.

 

Y'all don't think Deadspin makes a profit?

 

That is one great, perceptive take. I thought about that the other day, just what you said ... how the only way these cites "succeed" is to do what you say. Get sold and the founders make huge bucks and everybody else like you say, is screwed.
There are a lot of smart people who work in media and you are one of them. Nice post.

 

Before it vanishes from the scene forever, I must take this moment to say how God-awful a name "Sports on Earth" was for a Web site. Now Sports Six Feet Under.

 

Such a red-hot take. We thank you.

 

I see it staying around awhile, even a good while. Grantland may not generate much cash yet it's a pretty large society suckling on ESPN's teat. It hung around after the big splash and built itself. Would love to see the metrics. At any rate, ESPN would be foolish to drive those eyes away.

ESPN still operates under the "All Your Sports Are Belong to ESPN" mold.

Grantland survived. Grantland isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Don't think it would survive without its mothership (Gawker Media), if that's what you're asking.

 

Does ESPN "The Mag" turn a profit? I'm thinking highly doubtful and it's just
around to promote the ESPN brand and drive people to the sports that
ESPN is putting money behind.

 

I understand from people who work there that it does not make a profit.

Sports on Earth had some truly talented journalists, and oddly enough they're keeping lukewarm Leitch, who might be the least talented of any of them. None of his writing moves the needle or advances the conversation, which is probably why they're keeping him on to carry the water for the "father-son MLB" narrative that he seems to enjoy.

Hruby is one of the most talented, wide-ranging sports journalists in the game. Not sure why he didn't move from Page 2 right into Grantland. And why did writers like Jay Caspian Kang (now writing for The New Yorker) and Michael Weinreb (was writing for SOE) move on from Grantland? And when is Chuck Klosterman going to stop dispensing advice to senior citizens in flyover country, who must be the target audience nowadays for The Ethicist?

Grantland has some great content, albeit weighted down with Hollywood Prospectus and a lot of other things I have no interest in reading. Meanwhile I haven't read too many articles on 538 that have justified its placement on the front page of ESPN.com. I don't think the crossover audience is there for 538 on a website that largely caters to 18-34 year old males. The content seems too sophisticated and egg-headed to gain a foothold there. It's nice that they're trying to perhaps exhort younger readers to engage with that kind of intelligent, numbers-driven content, but ESPN is as middlebrow as it gets and the two just seem like an odd marriage.

No clue what kind of numbers 538 is doing, but would be interested to know.

 

1) I feel like a lot of shade is being thrown at SoE as an online startup, but with Gannett people running the biz side and ultimately the Gannett cuts/restructure being the reason SoE was largely shuttered (because their papers weren't turning a profit either) this doesn't really seem like an entirely "new" media problem to me.

In fact, it's notable that the truly new media part of Gannett/USA Today (ForTheWin) is remaining intact—so far, at least.

2) So much focus is being put on the fantastic talent at SoE, but this is most likely a story about the "behind-the-camera" people there. Without knowing exactly went on, bad management, unfocused direction, poor ad sales, inept social/search strategy, etc are all things that can deep-six a website regardless of the talent.

3) Sites like SoE/The Classical/SB Nation Longform/etc (maybe even Grantland) are always going to be loss-leaders because you're paying premium dollars for content that you're admitting is going to take longer to produce. In terms of the art of the profession, we all love a place that can pay $1,000 for a lengthy column which is a month away, but if that same $1,000 and month produces 10 columns that's always going to make more business sense.

You can have the latter without the former and deep-six your reputation, and you can have the former without the latter and hope the money holds up. Places that aren't even trying to find the right balance between the two just seem like poor business.

 

Sports on Earth was promoted terribly. They had great writers there, but I don't think that many people knew about it.

I think most of the writers there will be snapped up pretty quickly. But, you hate to see something like this.

It's always hard to believe when Gannett can colossally fuck something up.

I think a big reason Grantland has done as well as it has is the non-sports stuff.

 

The thing with 538 is everybody knows there will be a giant rise in views next year and especially the year after. The question becomes, can it be profitable enough in the year leading up to a presidential election and the year of a presidential election to maintain it during the two "off" years and I tend to think the answer is yes.