Are Gamers REALLY Dead?

[Pete Incaviglia]

I got to thinking of this tonight while writing one for a baseball game I covered on my beat.

We all say "gamers are dead because of the internet. People who want to know were either there or checked the box score before bed or read the team's press release, etc." And that we have to offer a "different angle, a feature angle, etc."

However, with the internet now in play, isn't a gamer actually useful? If people are shifting to the internet, like our companies tell us they are, people are looking for immediate response, reaction, quotes, etc. and we can now provide that.

I spent all my time of late writing "gamers" for my print edition. That is to say I'd shy way away from game details, etc.

But then I run into several people who check our paper online first thing in the morning — sometimes at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. That's HOURS before they read the print edition when they get home from work.

I can actually see the day where gamers are filed for the internet (a la first edition style) and follow-up is written for print (a la late edition).

I don't know what the answer is really. But I'm wondering what others think?

Keep in mind I'm cover colleges, indy baseball, etc. The types of things you can't get in full off yahoo! or pro sites.

 

[Rumpleforeskin]

A hard gamer isn't finding much use anymore. I think the most successful gamers go beyond just a typical game and look for a feature angle. Try to take the weekly-like angle with daily gamers. At least that's what I try to do.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I got to thinking of this tonight while writing one for a baseball game I covered on my beat.

We all say "gamers are dead because of the internet. People who want to know were either there or checked the box score before bed or read the team's press release, etc." And that we have to offer a "different angle, a feature angle, etc."

However, with the internet now in play, isn't a gamer actually useful? If people are shifting to the internet, like our companies tell us they are, people are looking for immediate response, reaction, quotes, etc. and we can now provide that.

I spent all my time of late writing "gamers" for my print edition. That is to say I'd shy way away from game details, etc.

But then I run into several people who check our paper online first thing in the morning — sometimes at 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. That's HOURS before they read the print edition when they get home from work.

I can actually see the day where gamers are filed for the internet (a la first edition style) and follow-up is written for print (a la late edition).

I don't know what the answer is really. But I'm wondering what others think?

Keep in mind I'm cover colleges, indy baseball, etc. The types of things you can't get in full off yahoo! or pro sites.

There are different things: 1. Internet gamers and 2. Newspaper games. To me, it's important to get the basics on the Web site pretty quick. If the reader sees that, he's going to expect something else from the print edition. If it's just rehashing what he already saw, he'll tune it out.

At the same time, the newspaper is still a first source of information for a lot of people, both as a consistent source and as a source for those who may use other sources, but didn't know the info you have. So gamers are still important, but the depth in the print edition has to be much better now.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

Me too Rumple. That's exactly my approach. But I just wondered what others thought. Because I see the other side, too. Someone works, is out of town, couldn't make the game, is a fan but doesn't go often and then they check online to see what happened and think "****, I don't care that Bobby playing the piano has made him a better hitter. I want to know what happened last night."

 

[BrianGriffin]

Me too Rumple. That's exactly my approach. But I just wondered what others thought. Because I see the other side, too. Someone works, is out of town, couldn't make the game, is a fan but doesn't go often and then they check online to see what happened and think "****, I don't care that Bobby playing the piano has made him a better hitter. I want to know what happened last night."

Shameless plug for a thread I started in the Writer's Workshop (here: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/57236/) that never really took off. But my first post kind of covers this subject.

 

[Babs]

In short, I do think the gamer is dead. Unless there's something else in there, I don't read them for games I was at, nor for games I wasn't at. I saw the boxscore. Tell me something I can't find in the boxscore.

 

[FileNotFound]

I love good game stories. Always have, always will. I'm more likely to read a game story from a game I attended or watched than one I didn't, just to see if the reporter saw the same game I saw.

 

[zebracoy]

I can understand writing a straight gamer for things like high school sports and other low-level games that a strong portion of your audience didn't attend, but I think such a strategy for, say, that night's Royals game is probably futile.

I'm surprised the idea you mentioned, Pete - the first-edition Web gamer and the follow after - hasn't caught on more, because it's probably one of the first things that I come up with when asked about using the Web more efficiently. If we're giving stuff away for free online (which still bothers me to no end), we should at least make it worth the money and effort for people to check out something they're paying for as well.

 

[BTExpress]

I can actually see the day where gamers are filed for the internet (a la first edition style) and follow-up is written for print (a la late edition).

Works fine for afternoon events.

But events that end at 10:45 with an 11 p.m. deadline means that the print edition is stuck with a "first-edition style" gamer more times than not.

And then there is the tried and true "have lots of running ready."

Why? To fill space? Do you read it? I don't. What makes anyone think the reader will read it?

Instead of a 15-inch notebook and an 18-inch gamer ("with lots of running") . . . give me a 4-paragraph lead and tack on notes.

And save the extra 16 inches for something the reader might actually, you know, read.

 

[Stone Cane]

I can actually see the day where gamers are filed for the internet (a la first edition style) and follow-up is written for print (a la late edition).

Works fine for afternoon events.

But events that end at 10:45 with an 11 p.m. deadline means that the print edition is stuck with a "first-edition style" gamer more times than not.

And then there is the tried and true "have lots of running ready."

Why? To fill space? Do you read it? I don't. What makes anyone think the reader will read it?

Instead of a 15-inch notebook and an 18-inch gamer ("with lots of running") . . . give me a 4-paragraph lead and tack on notes.

And save the extra 16 inches for something the reader might actually, you know, read.

couldn't agree more, great point

we go back & forth on this at my place with late games -- what is the point of tacking on 12 inches of unreadable, irrelevant glop just so your gamer fits the traditional 18-to-20-inch length

if you have no time for quotes, find something interesting out of the game and write 10 inches about it, pop it out as a sidebar. write an eight-inch gamer. pop something else out as a six-inch sider. whatever it takes to give people something to read. break out of the traditional format because that ain't working anymore

 

[Barsuk]

I can actually see the day where gamers are filed for the internet (a la first edition style) and follow-up is written for print (a la late edition).

Works fine for afternoon events.

But events that end at 10:45 with an 11 p.m. deadline means that the print edition is stuck with a "first-edition style" gamer more times than not.

And then there is the tried and true "have lots of running ready."

Why? To fill space? Do you read it? I don't. What makes anyone think the reader will read it?

Instead of a 15-inch notebook and an 18-inch gamer ("with lots of running") . . . give me a 4-paragraph lead and tack on notes.

And save the extra 16 inches for something the reader might actually, you know, read.

I would hope people would have the good sense to write the print edition story (you know, the one with a deadline?) first, if they're going to use this strategy.

 

[Pete Incaviglia]

I can understand writing a straight gamer for things like high school sports and other low-level games that a strong portion of your audience didn't attend, but I think such a strategy for, say, that night's Royals game is probably futile.

I'm surprised the idea you mentioned, Pete - the first-edition Web gamer and the follow after - hasn't caught on more, because it's probably one of the first things that I come up with when asked about using the Web more efficiently. If we're giving stuff away for free online (which still bothers me to no end), we should at least make it worth the money and effort for people to check out something they're paying for as well.

I pitched it at my work. And the response was positive. The implementation was zero.

 

[forever_town]

I felt like I had a similar issue when I was at a biweekly newspaper in college.

I covered a big time college basketball game and I knew the five-day-per-week student paper would also. I started out writing a typical straight-up gamer, but realized that would already be in The Major Daily, The Big Student Daily and most major to middling outlets in the area.

So I shifted gears and wrote a second-day lede and turned my gamer into more of an analysis piece. I didn't get much reader feedback for it, but the sports editor at The Big Student Daily complimented it, which was good enough for me.

I agree with the idea of ditching the traditional straight up gamer for print when people are going to see it on the Internet or TV or radio or in the stands. If you want to continue to write those, stick with games where most people aren't going to know the outcome before opening your paper.

I like the featurized/analysis approach for gamers. By definition, your interpretation of the game is going to be a little different from other writers, other broadcasters, etc.

 

[GuessWho]

They might not be dead, but they're in intensive care. I rarely read gamers anymore, even my own.

 

[TheMethod]

I've been reading NBA Finals gamers, because I'm hoping to get information like this:

-- Strategy points -- why didn't Boston trap Kobe? Is there a history of playing him (or other great scorers) straight-up in those situations, etc.
-- Good quotes, the kind you don't see on TV.
-- Explanation -- of anything and everything. I already know who, what, when and where, I want to know why and how.

The modern game story should enhance my understanding of what I've seen, and allow me to apply it to future games. Personally, I don't care how Leon Powe felt about his great game, having been homeless and all. They told that story on TV, and I can pretty much assume he felt good about it, but wasn't in tears or anything. Not that the story shouldn't be told, but I don't think the gamer is the place for feature stories.

Obviously, all this explanation is extremely difficult to do when the game starts at 9 p.m., because you have a print deadline. But as soon as print dies, we won't have this problem, and we'll be able to write good, informative, game stories that enhance the coverage, even for someone who watched the game on TV.

 

[BB Bobcat]

I agree wholeheartedly in theory that print gamers should be featurized and analytical and quote-filled and all that stuff that people can't get from the boxscore.

The problem with all of that is production time. For some strange reason, as the newspaper technology improves, the deadlines get earlier. If I'm covering a night game that ends at 10 and I can't send a word for the newspaper past 10:45 (and we're talkign about the write-thru, not the crap running story for the first deadline), it's tough it to featurize it too much.

Ironically, it's the web story that could be more featurized, because there are no truck drivers or printing presses waiting for the web. You can file it at 11:30 and have it posted at 11:35.

Our industry is all backward.

 

[captzulu]

I've been reading NBA Finals gamers, because I'm hoping to get information like this:

-- Strategy points -- why didn't Boston trap Kobe? Is there a history of playing him (or other great scorers) straight-up in those situations, etc.
-- Good quotes, the kind you don't see on TV.
-- Explanation -- of anything and everything. I already know who, what, when and where, I want to know why and how.

I can't agree more. I would add to that list things like turning points, key stretches, surprise contributors, etc. Frankly, either for online or for print, I think newspapers should explore doing away with a traditional story and just do an analysis package of notes or bullet points that address these issues. You can easily fill your 18-inch hole with something like this. And from a production standpoint, for anything other than a 9 p.m. start, doing a package of quick hits like this would be easier than writing a gamer. No need to strain for a good lede on deadline (and half the time coming up with one that doesn't really work), no need to worry about how you have to transition from this quote to that stat. No need to do a bunch of play-by-play. And the thing is, as a writer compiles the info to write a traditional gamer, they would have already thought about things like key stretches or strategies. I know I've seen some papers try it for exhibition games. I wish they would start doing it for real games. I think this would be especially useful if you're covering pro sports or major colleges, since the game would be likely on TV and there would be an AP story to take care of the play-by-play and nuts & bolts.

 

[Tenhut]

As a friend, who is always harping, said: Write a story that gives the person who watched it - and has no radio or TV - something he/she didn't know or would find interesting while still covering what happened for the person who wasn't. Just because a person was there doesn't mean they were able to take in everything. They will still read the game story, and for a reason.

Let's not overthink this. Leave that to "management."

 

[shotglass]

All the arguments about whether game stories are dead overlook a base issue.

Game stories that are 80% play-by-play are bad gamers. And they were bad gamers in 1990, 1980, 1970 and 1960.

A good game story will always have its place, because it will be a well-crafted story providing analysis, reaction from the principals, and most importantly, it will cut through the bull**** and tell the reader what the result means.

 

[BrianGriffin]

All the arguments about whether game stories are dead overlook a base issue.

Game stories that are 80% play-by-play are bad gamers. And they were bad gamers in 1990, 1980, 1970 and 1960.

A good game story will always have its place, because it will be a well-crafted story providing analysis, reaction from the principals, and most importantly, it will cut through the bull**** and tell the reader what the result means.

Amen to that.

Consider this: Given what you said above, I think it's still valid that the nature of gamers has changed a bit to the point where anything short of a deadline gamer will read more like a second-day story than it did 10 years ago. It's an evolutionary, and not a revolutionary, change.