Sports on Earth writers and editors laid off

[3_Octave_Fart]

I agree with who said SoE took itself way too seriously.
That might the function of a senior staff.

 

[Schottey]

What SOE didn't do was tweet well to draw traffic in. As of this post it has 8,030 tweets.

Every day my feed was full of Grantland (17.1K) and SB Nation tweets (140K).

Lo and behold, the feed has been full of SOE tweets since the massacre.

I highly doubt social traffic drives THAT many pageviews, or enough to make a huge difference anyway. It's part of the pie, I'm sure, along with direct traffic, search referral, partnership deals, etc.

But I would wager SOE's problem is that it isn't driving enough direct traffic and not creating enough loyal brand users.

Wholeheartedly disagree. Top sites usually have social numbers near/at/above search numbers. Unless you have a huge gateway (Yahoo!) or a ridiculously popular TV station (ESPN) you better have a social presence, and that's far more about Facebook right now even though Twitter is the more popular medium among sports journos.

 

[Versatile]

I highly doubt social traffic drives THAT many pageviews, or enough to make a huge difference anyway.

Your name suits your post.

 

[Riptide]

Now more than ever,
I'm glad I'm not on Twitter.

 

[Songbird]

You act like wearing that statement is a badge of honor.

It ain't. I suppose you don't like driving traffic to your work.

 

[Riptide]

It's not for everyone.

 

[Songbird]

It's one thing if you don't want to shtick it up on Twitter. You're right: It's not for everyone.

Quite another thing to ignore it at the expense of your outlet. By doing so you choose to fail.

 

[GAPrintDino]

I highly doubt social traffic drives THAT many pageviews, or enough to make a huge difference anyway.

Your name suits your post.

If your direct traffic ain't your primary source of traffic, and by a wide margin, you're probably playing for relegation anyway.

 

[Small Town Guy]

I think Denton, or someone at Gawker, has written about how Twitter's basically meaningless to them for traffic. It's all about Facebook.

 

[Versatile]

I highly doubt social traffic drives THAT many pageviews, or enough to make a huge difference anyway.

Your name suits your post.

If your direct traffic ain't your primary source of traffic, and by a wide margin, you're probably playing for relegation anyway.

You are so far out of your depths here it's ridiculous.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

You act like wearing that statement is a badge of honor.

It ain't. I suppose you don't like driving traffic to your work.

I'm not going to lift my skirt for a web click.
As long as the check clears, who the **** cares.
Let the employer promote the work. That should be part of the arrangement.

 

[Songbird]

You'll lift your skirt for two nickels and half-pack of smokes.

As for click-whoring, it's up to someone.

 

[boundforboston]

I highly doubt social traffic drives THAT many pageviews, or enough to make a huge difference anyway.

Your name suits your post.

If your direct traffic ain't your primary source of traffic, and by a wide margin, you're probably playing for relegation anyway.

You are so far out of your depths here it's ridiculous.

I believe at some places Twitter accounts for 30 to 40 percent of web traffic. Nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Riptide]

A major time-suck and soul-suck, is it not?

 

[Songbird]

What does soul-suck mean?

How much more of a time/soul-suck can it be than if you're (ústed) posting here 10-15-20 times a day, and that's just posting, let alone reading threads galore, digesting info then crafting replies etc etc.?

I'll agree with STG that you Facebook still reigns supreme re: social media but you still need to tweet links. And don't forget G+ and Instagram and Tumblr and ... and ... and ... traffic adds up.

 

[DrewJo]

Earlier, CD Boogie shared this post by SportsGrid managing editor Eric Goldschein: http://www.sportsgrid.com/media/jerry-jones-paulina-gretzky-and-why-im-not-surprised-sports-on-earth-was-downsized/

Goldschein's point, basically, is that sports outlets need to post scandalous and provocative material in order to survive in the digital age. Right now, millions of people want to watch the video of Kevin Ward Jr. getting run over by Tony Stewart . It's the biggest story of the weekend, obviously. The video is on Deadspin, and it already has 1.4 million views.

Yet, as I type this, the video is NOT on SportsGrid.
In light of Goldschein's essay, I'm just wondering why he would let his blog go dormant? Does he not see the value in letting someone embed a YouTube video late at night?

 

[Schottey]

You'll lift your skirt for two nickels and half-pack of smokes.

As for click-whoring, it's up to someone.

Everyone lifts their skirt, the methods are just different...

Click-whoring is no different than the "if it bleeds it leads" concepts of the height of the print era. People who claim SEO/social strategies are somehow less pure than what papers used to do need to take a step back and realize that the people who make the money for the business weren't somehow less interested in the money a decade ago.

I highly doubt social traffic drives THAT many pageviews, or enough to make a huge difference anyway.

Your name suits your post.

If your direct traffic ain't your primary source of traffic, and by a wide margin, you're probably playing for relegation anyway.

Direct traffic is always the goal, but there isn't a major website out there that wouldn't wither on the vine without search/social. As I said earlier, the biggest sites out there either have a major TV presence (ESPN) a portal which can drive typical non-readers to the content (Yahoo!) or an app that drives with push notifications.

It's part of the process and it isn't going away in an increasingly mobile era. Evolving, yes. New ways of monitizing, absolutely. But it's not going to stop. As I said above, this isn't morally/fundamentally/ethically any different than the newsies standing on the corner ginning up business by shouting sensationalized headlines. It's just new.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

You'll lift your skirt for two nickels and half-pack of smokes.

No, I really wouldn't. My self-pride is enormous.

 

[Alma]

It's one thing if you don't want to shtick it up on Twitter. You're right: It's not for everyone.

Quite another thing to ignore it at the expense of your outlet. By doing so you choose to fail.

You're right, but man, Twitter can be a real ****hole. You don't think you'll get drawn in to some petty squabble and suddenly, there you are, drawn in.

 

[Double Down]

I would love to see how all these click ***** sites like SportsGrid would do if they were forced to adhere to copyright laws.

Here are some sexy pics! That we stole! And turned into a slide show! Using someone else's content! Ha ha ha! Highbrow sports are so stupid!