I don’t write too much about sports journalism. But reading McGuire on Media’s blog post on ESPN.com and newspapers got me thinking.
ESPN, the mecca of sports media, is expanding its movement to go local with sports coverage. It started with ESPN Chicago, and now it’s expanding to ESPN Boston and ESPN Dallas/Forth Worth. Pretty soon, ESPN is going
to expand to all the bigger markets in the United States and maybe even Canada, and these sites are now directly competing with the sports media markets in those cities (i.e. Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe).
For newspapers, this is a serious challenge. In terms of branding, you can’t compete with ESPN. Very few national sports outlets can compete with it. Sports Illustrated still gets by with insanely compelling cover stories and big-name writers (Peter King, Dr. Z, Tom Verducci, etc.). Other than that, it’s ESPN and the little guys, many of which are newspaper sports sections in their respective communities.
This presents problems, I think, when there’s practically a monopoly in the sports media world (esp. with ESPN broadcasting Monday Night Football and how its ratings may play a role in how the network covers NFL stories). But that’s a topic for another day.
McGuire makes an excellent point. Sports, in general, are underappreciated at newspapers, and their sections are way too difficult to navigate on the Web. Navigate the Boston Globe sports site and then go to ESPN Boston. The difference in navigation is staggering. Right now, one of the only things the Globe has to its advantage is hyperlocal coverage (prep sports, mostly), but that market is too small to give newspapers real value over ESPN. Newspapers have to revamp how they cover sports and how they present it, particularly online.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has its own idea: It set a pay wall for “premium” Minnesota Vikings coverage at $19.95 a year and $5.95 for three months. Affordable? Yes. A good idea? Not so sure. I like how the site is set up with its own niche and brand (Access Vikings), but is losing a great crowd of readers on the fence worth making some extra pennies?
As McGuire outlines, 10,000 yearly subscribers would net the Star Tribune $200,000, probably 1 percent of its payroll, at best. Other sites offer adequate Vikings coverage for free, and that is good enough for quite a few sports fans. The value has to be there if you want the majority of your readers to fork money over.
So how do you fight by far the biggest brand in sports media (ESPN)?
I believe the solution is not in putting up pay walls, even for niche coverage. I believe the solution is in branding your coverage and making it better than anyone else’s. As digital as journalism is getting, the old motto “Content is king” still stands. I believe the solution is in putting exclusive value in your content, getting more than the typical game previews and recaps and — this one’s important — building a loyal community of readers.
Access Vikings has the right idea, I think, in terms of branding its coverage separate from the rest of the Star Tribune. The Detroit Free Press, a local favorite of mine, meanwhile, gets the kind of hard-hitting content you don’t find in many places (see their coverage of Tigers 1B Miguel Cabrera’s domestic dispute).
Combine the two elements together and, in my opinion, you have a heck of a start for compelling sports coverage. And I think it’s critical for newspapers if they are to survive these days.
Posted by Brian Manzullo at October 6, 2009
Journalism, Sports