Bleacher Report Raises 10.5M, Becomes 5th Largest Sports Website

[Schottey]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/20/bleacher-report-raises-10-5m-now-fifth-largest-sports-site/

Bleacher Report is going to announce a new $10.5 million round of venture capital this morning and a lot of people reading this will probably say, “Bleacher-who?”

Somehow Bleacher Report has pulled off two things you’re not supposed to be able to pull off in Silicon Valley’s Web scene. The first is keeping a low-profile while growing steadily in users and revenues. The second is building a serious sports challenger to the big portals and legacy news companies. Finally.

Bleacher Report claims it has 17 million uniques (roughly 70% more than TechCrunch, for perspective) and is ranked by comScore as the fifth largest sports site, after Yahoo, ESPN, Fox Sports, AOL Fanhouse. Quiet Bleacher Report recently passed Sports Illustrated and CBS Sports. It’s the first pure startup to come close since the days when the Web was born. (Some players, like Fantasy Sports Ventures, dispute this because they operate networks of many independent sites, that added together, may rank higher. I am referring to a single destination site, not a collection of sites under one brand or a blog network. You can split hairs, but what matters is how advertisers view it, and advertisers are purchasing from Bleacher Report as if it is one site.)

Let’s face it, a big reason the portals are still so relevant is they lead in mass-appeal content verticals like finance, entertainment and sports. The reliance on that last category is going to change if Bleacher Report keeps blocking-and-tackling (sorry). With the number one player, Yahoo, in damage-control, it’s not exactly investing in the product. (That’s right! More bad news for Yahoo!)

More at TechCrunch link above.

 

[SixToe]

The second is building a serious sports challenger to the big portals and legacy news companies.

No, it isn't.

 

[LeftCoastWrite]

Challenge in hits? Well, I guess No. 5 in hits is impressive even if I'm sure it's a distant 5 to the biggies. Challenge in quality? Hardly. Considered a joke universally for its low-rent, sometimes plagiarized content.

 

[lantaur]

I'm guessing part of the reason BR challenges in views is because it has found a way to pollute Google results.

 

[Bubbler]

I'm guessing part of the reason BR challenges in views is because it has found a way to pollute Google results.

This.

 

[DanOregon]

I never looked at it before. It's all top 10 this, worst 10 that. Didn't see much news there.

 

[TheHacker]

I never looked at it before. It's all top 10 this, worst 10 that. Didn't see much news there.

I agree, and I don't read it either, aside from once or twice that I've stumbled onto it because of the aforementioned SEO they do to get their stuff to show up on Google searches. But Dan, think for a second like an average schmuck sports fan ... that's the sort of stuff they eat up. We think on a different level because we're in the business, so we don't see the value in it, but I can see where someone who isn't as discerning about content would like it.

 

[Small Town Guy]

Daulerio called them "Bleacher Report's Google-raping SEO 'stories.'

http://deadspin.com/5669694/bleacher-report-editors-demand-bleacher-report-writers-be-less-retarded

 

[jlee]

I never looked at it before. It's all top 10 this, worst 10 that. Didn't see much news there.

I agree, and I don't read it either, aside from once or twice that I've stumbled onto it because of the aforementioned SEO they do to get their stuff to show up on Google searches. But Dan, think for a second like an average schmuck sports fan ... that's the sort of stuff they eat up. We think on a different level because we're in the business, so we don't see the value in it, but I can see where someone who isn't as discerning about content would like it.

Agreed. Nor do they care that any of this content wouldn't exist without Yahoo, Fanhouse or the "legacy" media reporting it first.

 

[Schottey]

Agreed. Nor do they care that any of this content wouldn't exist without Yahoo, Fanhouse or the "legacy" media reporting it first.

Nope, can't have it both ways. Though, it's a great "argument."

B/R purposely cut the "free money" of many of the lower quality writers on the site and raised the bar for new writer applications. In advertising terms, it was a money-losing move. In quality terms, the move was necessary. (P.S. Deadspin reported that as well.)

Meanwhile, many have noted that it is all Top-10's this, Top-20's that. How much of that is "stolen" from the legacy media? Look on the B/R front page right now. As of 1pm EST, I see opinion pieces, YouTube links, speculation, and lists. None of it is re-reported, none of it is content found elsewhere. Most of it is content specifically asked for by partners like CBS, Hearst Publishing, and others.

Quibble about the quality...we're committed to raising the bar. Complain about (past) plagiarism, we've eliminated those writers. Complain about (current) problems, we'll be glad to do the same.

The storyline with 10.5M in investments is that B/R isn't going away. We're committing to making the product better and even more accessible.

As I've suggested elsewhere, some of the unpaid, low-paid people complaining about B/R would be better served submitting a resume. I guarantee we pay our employees (yes, Virginia, even some of our writers) more than many of the positions listed on the job section of this site.

 

[LongTimeListener]

That $10.5M sounds real nice within our little world and it's certainly a feather for BR, but it's a $5 chip on the craps table for VC firms. Webvan raised $800M in VC in the late '90s and was out of business two years later. The only thing we can conclude about this investment in BR is that someone at BR is a very good salesman in the VC boardrooms or has a brother/cousin/uncle on the board.

 

[lono]

Agreed. Nor do they care that any of this content wouldn't exist without Yahoo, Fanhouse or the "legacy" media reporting it first.

Nope, can't have it both ways. Though, it's a great "argument."

B/R purposely cut the "free money" of many of the lower quality writers on the site and raised the bar for new writer applications. In advertising terms, it was a money-losing move. In quality terms, the move was necessary. (P.S. Deadspin reported that as well.)

Meanwhile, many have noted that it is all Top-10's this, Top-20's that. How much of that is "stolen" from the legacy media? Look on the B/R front page right now. As of 1pm EST, I see opinion pieces, YouTube links, speculation, and lists. None of it is re-reported, none of it is content found elsewhere. Most of it is content specifically asked for by partners like CBS, Hearst Publishing, and others.

Quibble about the quality...we're committed to raising the bar. Complain about (past) plagiarism, we've eliminated those writers. Complain about (current) problems, we'll be glad to do the same.

The storyline with 10.5M in investments is that B/R isn't going away. We're committing to making the product better and even more accessible.

As I've suggested elsewhere, some of the unpaid, low-paid people complaining about B/R would be better served submitting a resume. I guarantee we pay our employees (yes, Virginia, even some of our writers) more than many of the positions listed on the job section of this site.

So you work for BR and posted this to pimp your own site? Nice.

How can you possible say "None of it is content found elsewhere" when you're including YouTube links in that description?

Of course, it's found elsewhere. YouTube links are found <i>on YouTube.</i>

And the writing and reporting on the site are awful. That's not even open for debate.

 

[mustangj17]

Agreed. Nor do they care that any of this content wouldn't exist without Yahoo, Fanhouse or the "legacy" media reporting it first.

Nope, can't have it both ways. Though, it's a great "argument."

B/R purposely cut the "free money" of many of the lower quality writers on the site and raised the bar for new writer applications. In advertising terms, it was a money-losing move. In quality terms, the move was necessary. (P.S. Deadspin reported that as well.)

Meanwhile, many have noted that it is all Top-10's this, Top-20's that. How much of that is "stolen" from the legacy media? Look on the B/R front page right now. As of 1pm EST, I see opinion pieces, YouTube links, speculation, and lists. None of it is re-reported, none of it is content found elsewhere. Most of it is content specifically asked for by partners like CBS, Hearst Publishing, and others.

Quibble about the quality...we're committed to raising the bar. Complain about (past) plagiarism, we've eliminated those writers. Complain about (current) problems, we'll be glad to do the same.

The storyline with 10.5M in investments is that B/R isn't going away. We're committing to making the product better and even more accessible.

As I've suggested elsewhere, some of the unpaid, low-paid people complaining about B/R would be better served submitting a resume. I guarantee we pay our employees (yes, Virginia, even some of our writers) more than many of the positions listed on the job section of this site.

Thanks for stopping by, Bleacher Report McGhee.

I'll continue to hate your site/name/SEO Raping as long as I have to troll through your sludge to get to items written by trusted writers and even BLOGGERS!

 

[TheHacker]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the blogosphere, SB Nation just picked up $10.5 million in VC as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706202.html

Hey, do you suppose there's a shadowy VC player out there, behind the scenes, pulling the strings, doling out money to all sides in an effort to make sure nobody truly wins in the battle for substandard sports content?

 

[playthrough]

Agreed. Nor do they care that any of this content wouldn't exist without Yahoo, Fanhouse or the "legacy" media reporting it first.

Nope, can't have it both ways. Though, it's a great "argument."

B/R purposely cut the "free money" of many of the lower quality writers on the site and raised the bar for new writer applications. In advertising terms, it was a money-losing move. In quality terms, the move was necessary. (P.S. Deadspin reported that as well.)

Meanwhile, many have noted that it is all Top-10's this, Top-20's that. How much of that is "stolen" from the legacy media? Look on the B/R front page right now. As of 1pm EST, I see opinion pieces, YouTube links, speculation, and lists. None of it is re-reported, none of it is content found elsewhere. Most of it is content specifically asked for by partners like CBS, Hearst Publishing, and others.

Quibble about the quality...we're committed to raising the bar. Complain about (past) plagiarism, we've eliminated those writers. Complain about (current) problems, we'll be glad to do the same.

The storyline with 10.5M in investments is that B/R isn't going away. We're committing to making the product better and even more accessible.

As I've suggested elsewhere, some of the unpaid, low-paid people complaining about B/R would be better served submitting a resume. I guarantee we pay our employees (yes, Virginia, even some of our writers) more than many of the positions listed on the job section of this site.

Sadly, your last sentence doesn't say as much as you think it does.

 

[Schottey]

*sigh*

I got yelled at for "not playing nice" last time...so here goes.

@longtimelistener: It was more, "do these things and we'll pay you." We added dedicated sales teams (East/West Coast), Patrick Keane (Associated Content/Google) and continue to reinvest in quality. The money rolled in.

@lono: It shouldn't be a secret I work for them. Sorry if you felt misled. I've talked about them in numerous posts and this isn't the first press release/story I've posted about them. They're a piece of the marketplace and SB Nation's similar investments/ventures were posted recently. You call it "pimping," I call it informing.

Also, I meant "elsewhere on "legacy" sports sites" sorry it was not communicating. But, if you're going to complain about YouTube links on sports sites, Yahoo, Fanhouse, and SB Nation deserve your ire for that as well (and thousands of bloggers elsewhere.)

@mustangj17 Are you aware it's possible to state your opinions, likes, and even dislikes without being a jerk about it? I deeply apologize that our company cares about money and driving traffic through search engines. Perhaps your ire would be better aimed at all the companies that don't care? I look at dozens of sites daily that (without changing content) could improve their SEO...they don't seem to care to do it, or learn how to do it.

 

[lono]

 

[TheHacker]

lono, I just busted out laughing and nobody in the room knows why ... but that was good.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Bleacher Report is going to announce a new $10.5 million round of venture capital this morning and a lot of people reading this will probably say, “Bleacher-who?”

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Quibble about the quality...we're committed to raising the bar.

If so, then the bar must previously have been far underground.

 

[blacktitleist]

B/R has found its niche, certainly, in the crappy "journalistic" world of all the fanbois.

It's amazing how many hits the site gets by folks searching for the hot sports trends. That's their trick. If a Sports name pops up in Google, an editor crafts a headline around said name and assigns story to a "writer." But Google isn't the only search engine B/R uses.

If something shows up in Yahoo or even Bing, the staff scrambles to get something up based around that trending term to maximize immediate traffic.

B/R developed something called a "quick hit", which is sort of like a live blog for the trending story topics. Writers can update this in real time, which pushes traffic to the site instantly and substantially increases reads, as long as it has 150 characters so that is shows up in the google and yahoo searches.


That is some crack reporting, there.

A friend I know who fell on hard times got desperate for some $$$ and went through the audition process. One of his first assignments centered around a UFC fight and Favre's junk "News of the Day" type quick-hit. He said within 15 minutes of it getting published, he had more than 10,000 reads.

They wanted him to work five days/week, eight-hour shifts, and the pay would have been $1200/month. Do the math on that. Had a choice between Sat-Wed or Sun-Thurs with no flexibility.

He was not impressed and declined. He's told me a lot about the place and how it works, and all they really care about is driving traffic to the site.

I'm sure there are some decent writers affiliated with the place, so I don't want to totally poo-poo it entirely. It just doesn't sound like the ideal avenue for traditional journos.