USA Today reportedly to give sports staffers bonuses for big pageviews

In a new post, I've written the following:

USA Today's just-unveiled plan to pay editorial employees bonuses based on pageviews applies at least to the new Sports Media Group, the entity that now encompasses the paper's print and online sports operations, according to one of my readers.

My reader says the bonuses apply "to everyone in the department -- not just writers. Editors, copy editors, etc., have apparently all received packets outlining their personal goals based on year over year growth from 2010-2011. So if you're in an unpopular sport, you won't be beat out by someone with an NFL beat -- you only need to meet your own goals for traffic."

Here's a link to my post: http://tinyurl.com/3rb8khc

 

Did I tell you about that time two women who looked like LADY GAGA AND BRITNEY SPEARS were sitting in the front row of the hockey game?

 

So Cuban was onto something...

Would they be fined by reporting something that is wrong? Like Smart to coach NCST?

 

That's an interesting idea. Could be great; could be hideous, though.

 

No offense, Jim, but I've been to your site frequently enough to be skeptical of some of these claims. "One of your readers"? I need more than that.

This does sound like something Gannett would do. It also sounds like something someone would make up or exaggerate to poke at Gannett.

 

The scary thing is that there is incentive for editors to okay click-friendly stuff since they get a piece of the action.
Coming soon: Hottest former college cheerleaders, hottest former college athletes, sports stars at the beach - well, looks like SI.com already is ahead of the game on that.

 

Not only that, but it's going to lead to some serious whoring out of links on Facebook and sites like this one ...

 

I'm gonna side with Jim, if that's OK with you, Marty.

Jim does a lot of good, hard work. I see no reason to cast aspersions and suggest he might have made it up.

 

Also, looks like The Big Lead got the credit instead of Gannett Blog. So we have a denial and a mention of another source. Color me non-surprised.

 

I'm using it as an impetus to get correct information out there. Hope that's OK.

 

I think it's good for people to know that some of what passes as "official info" at Jim's site is, in fact, a rumor.

As soon as I questioned how accurate this one would be, someone decided to be cute. And wrong.

But if people are more comfortable with accepting those rumors as fact, then I'll keep that in mind in the future.

 

Note: I've included on my original post a USAT memo describing what the paper is calling its "new incentive plan for the Sports Media Group."