Past The Press Box

Why professional athletes should own their social media identity: it's about relationships

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:20:02 -0800

Last night, a colleague of mine successfully dragged me to a social media meet-up on Capitol Hill in Seattle. Generally, I hate these things. It's awkward; there's the people who already know each other, random loners being led around by their smart phones and, if you're lucky or buzzed enough, you may even get the opportunity to passive aggressively question the validity of someone's job. It's a hoot. And every single time I go to one of these I get into the same argument.

It, of course, starts with me describing my job. Aside from publishing this blog, I work for LexBlog. LexBlog designs, develops and builds blogs for lawyers and law firms while also educating them on how to use these blogs and other social media to build relationships geared towards client development. The next question from the galley is, inevitably, "so you guys, like, write their content and manage their Twitter account for them?" I respond with "no, because that wouldn't make any sense" and off we go.

Last night a particularly snooty girl from a two-name marketing firm I've never heard of asked if I thought celebrities managed their own accounts. I said the best ones do, and cited Kanye, who joined Twitter yesterday, tripping a bit on the way in the door. Here's a look at Kanye's first two tweets (ignore timestamps):

Up early in the morning taking meetings in Silicone Valleyless than a minute ago via webKanye West
kanyewest

Lol I spelled Silicon wrong ( I guess I was still thinking about the other type of silicone ITS A PROCESS!! : )less than a minute ago via webKanye West
kanyewest

Obviously, not the ideal way for 'Ye, one of the top five acts in music, to join the party. Had a marketing/PR firm been in control, I'm sure things would've been a little different. While Kanye looks a bit foolish, this actually may have been better than a scripted entrance to Twitter. Why? Because Kanye is a bit foolish. This is who he is.

Social media, at its absolute core, is about relationships. If I follow Kanye West on Twitter, it's because I want to build a pseudo-relationship with Kanye West, not KanYe West, Inc. I don't want a relationship with a brand or a marketing company, I want a relationship with an actual person.

The same holds true for athletes and teams. My favorite athlete Twitter accounts are always the the most real, and usually the goofiest: Kevin Durant, Mo Williams, James Harden and even Gilbert Arenas when he was on there. These guys, or at least most of them, get advice and consulting from some of the best in the business. They're not out their on their own (aside from Gil) but their handlers allow them to be themselves, even if that may rub people the wrong way at times. Here's a Durant tweet from yesterday:

I lowkey miss Seattle and Key Arenaless than a minute ago via webKevin Durant
KDthunderup

My initial reaction was, of course, "well, it would've been nice had you said something a couple years ago" but that faded to appreciating he said it at all. Of course, some people wonder if this would 'get him in trouble' or question his love for OKC. Still, it's real. For athletes, slip-ups—which this wasn't—are worth the relationships that other comments and connections build.

When social media consultants or marketing firms take total control of an athlete's social media identity, the few relationships that are somehow created aren't real. They're taking the good name of their clients and, essentially, tricking their fans. The best relationships are built with people, not brands and companies. That isn't to say you can't create positive relationships with the latter two, but it has to be done through the people who make up those brands and companies.

Some individuals will fall back on the technological barriers. It isn't an excuse. if an athlete can text, they can tweet. If an athlete can write an email on the plane, or speak on a phone (Gil used to dictate his posts), they can write a blog.

We need to get past this fear that athletes cannot build positive online identities without embarassments. The embarrassments are part of who they are. We all have slip-ups, we all say goofy stuff. If you don't, you aren't real, and you can't build positive relationships.

Photo credit: taralconley

ESPN pulls LeBron James Vegas party story. Why?

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:35:16 -0800

Just how much sway does Team LeBron hold at ESPN? That's a question worth asking after a recent story by LA reporter Arash Markazi detailing LeBron's Vegas partying was pulled from The Worldwide Leader's site post-publication.

In the article, Markazi (who obviously has the greatest job in sports) shadows LeBron during parts of a three day party marathon for which he reportedely received six figures for 'hosting'. The article, which can be seen in Google Docs form, was updated as recently as 6:40am ET before being pulled from the site. People are wondering why, and rightfully so.

First off, pulling the article in the first place was incredibly stupid. Once the article is published, there's no point in removing it. This has no effect on whether or not it will be read. Once an article is released to 'teh interwebs', it's out there. So, that leads to the repercussions. Here are two points that aren't really raised by this development, but more-so are established themes underscored by ESPN's actions.

ESPN does not care, whatsoever, about journalistic integrity. This is nothing new. tWWL takes care of its business interests first and foremost. ESPN and ABC are the leading broadcasters for the NBA. LeBron James is the biggest star in the NBA. Dancing on top of James' already-trounced image doesn't help them. However, does this go deeper than that? We've already seen LeBron take over ESPN's airwaves for an hour, does his camp have a say in what's printed as well? It'll be interesting to see if the folks at LRMR had enough sway to pull this article down.
LeBron and his camp are big babies, completely out of touch with reality. Again, nothing new. We saw what happened with the LeBron-getting-dunked-on/Jordan Crawford controversy. If his camp did pull the story from ESPN, it doesn't have any effect other than once again letting everyone know he's outrageously self conscious and cannot deal with any amount of criticism.

Now, to a couple highlights:

Bottle after bottle of "Ace of Spades" champagne is delivered to the table by waiter flying down from above the dance flore like some overgrown Peter Pan on a wire. One time he's dressed like a King, another time as Indiana Jones and another time in a replica of James' No. 6 Miami Heat Jersey.

James, who can hardly see the flying figure through his tinted glasses, almost gets kicked in the head on the waiter's last trip down. He looks at the girls around him and says "I wish they'd have one of these girls with no panties do that instead of the guy.

Toward the end of the night, Boston Celtics forward Glen Davis walks past James' party and looks at the scen up and down several times like a painting in a museum, soaking in the images of the go-go dancers, the "King" sign and the ostumed man delivering bottles of champagne.

Davis shakes his head and walks on.

Another NBA star with a similar reaction:

[Lamar] Odom, smoking a cigar, can't quite keep up. James celebrates by crossing himself and taking a shot of Patron. Moments later, a handful of girls dressed as cheerleaders walk toward his table with someone dressed in a James' Heat uniform. Someone throws talcum powder in the air as James does before every game, while his new unofficial song, "I'm in MIami," plays,

Odom casts a glance James' way before looking in the opposite direction and raising his glass at a couple on the dance floor who point to their rings and smile.

Ridiculous stuff. Pulling the article does much more damage to both LeBron and ESPN than publishing it ever would.

UPDATE: LeBron's camp says it wasn't them. Riiiight.

UPDATE II: Darren Rovell with more insight:

ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz tells us why the LeBron Vegas story was pulled: "The story should have never been published. The draft was inadvertently put on the server before going through the usual editorial process. We are in the midst of looking into the matter.”

Like others are already saying, that's tough to believe.

Also, on the subject, we have some fantastic dramatizations from the hilarious team at The Basketball Jones.

TBJ Dramatization: ESPN's 'LeBron in Vegas' story from The Basketball Jones on Vimeo.

Dramatization: ESPN's 'LeBron in Vegas' story, Act II from The Basketball Jones on Vimeo.

Photo credit: Mario_d

Social media turns good sports fans into great ones. Why isn't that enough?

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:16:58 -0800

Imagine a time ten years ago, before social media became so prevalent and trendy. It isn't hard. In fact, it's refreshing. Now imagine someone going to the head of marketing at a major professional sports team and asking them what they thought about a technology and marketing strategy that would take some of their better fans and turned them into their best ones. These are the type who buy season tickets, throw down for merchandise and spread the word at every turn.

According to a survey recently conducted by Catalyst Public Relations in conjunction with SportsBusiness Journal, that's what we have in social media.

The results show that 61 percent of MLB fans and 55 percent of NFL fans consider themselves bigger fans of the respective leagues since they started following their favorite teams on Facebook, Twitter and similar sites. In addition, more than half of MLB fans (and 43 percent of NFL fans) said they spend more time watching and following the league now than they did prior to their social-media engagement. [...]

“What these numbers show is that social media is an extremely effective vehicle for engaging passionate fans, especially the younger and the more affluent fans,” said Bret Werner, Catalyst’s managing partner. “Increasing the enjoyment factor of fans increases the likelihood that fans will engage leagues and their sponsors through multiple touch points.”

To the hypothetical marketer from the year 2000, that'd be enough. Now? Nope.

Today's marketers insist on 'monetizing' these social media outreaches, forcing advertising and promotions upon those fans simply looking to gain a little extra insight. These fans are looking to be more knowledgeable, passionate. And the teams these fans support look to take advantage of that passion.

Yet harnessing that impact continues to be a primary challenge for properties and brands.

“Monetizing this is a balancing act for all sides involved,” said Jason Yeh, director of new media for MLB Advanced Media. “It’s fertile ground for marketing, but it’s very easy to turn people off.”

Fewer than half of fans ages 18 to 33 claimed to have responded to brand promotions or other offers “every time” or “most of the time.” The number is even lower, 22 percent, for fans ages 46 to 64.

The desire for marketers and teams to throw reigns on the passion stirred up by social media is only going to limit the power they're looking to harness. Honestly, marketers are just beginning to understand how to use social media and we're not going to give it a moment to breathe?

Teams and their sponsors should focus on stirring and sparking the conversations that have proven so positive. They can do this by engaging the conversations already out there. No need to create a sponsor-laden team-hosted message board no one will use. Get out on the best independent blogs, personally engage fans on Twitter, speak to the influencers and thought-leaders.

Right now, teams believe engagement is about responding to random questions under a team-branded Twitter account or holding random contests on their Facebook fan page. Is this actually engaging their best fans? No.

So, is anyone doing it right? As a matter of fact, yes. According to that same Sports Business Journal article, the Philadelphia Eagles are dead on in their oncoming social media strategy.

The Philadelphia Eagles could provide a good case study for the Catalyst survey. This week, the club is scheduled to aggregate several popular unofficial fan sites under the franchise umbrella, ending its standing as one of the last big league teams with no such official social-media presence.

Tim McDermott, Eagles senior vice president and CMO, expects the marketing impact to be immediate and broad.

“Our first goal is to humanize the organization beyond the team landscape by connecting consumers with Eagles employees and with each other,” McDermott said. “From a marketing standpoint, almost overnight we can now go to our partners with a database of 300,000 fans.”

McDermott said the team’s marketing department is undergoing a major restructuring this month, including hiring a director of social media who has been charged with integrating social media into the team’s broadcasts, in-stadium media and marketing efforts.

It's ambitious, but reasonable. You know what a great first step would be? Getting Tim McDermott on Twitter.

Kevin Durant has built one of the strongest brands in basketball by not caring about it

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:31:57 -0800

Professional Athlete Best Practices by Kevin Durant.

Sounds like a legitimate book title, doesn't it? I'd read it. It's come to the point where every action and public comment put forth by the Oklahoma City star is unanimously praised by anyone who chooses to comment on it. Through a focus on hoops and remaining humble, Kevin Durant has built one of the strongest and most respected brands in sports without ever intentionally doing so.

Borrowing a phrase from one of the greatest television ads ever, Kevin Durant does what I'd advise every athlete, team, company and individual to do: let your game speak.

Kevin Durant's philosophy and career goals—in the context of marketing and branding—are appropriately summed up in a recent interview with Dan Wiederer of The Fayetteville Observer regarding his time spent with USA Basketball. Here are his thoughts on what his Team USA experience could do to raise his global profile:

To be honest with you, I really don't care. I really don't. It would be cool for most people to know who the Oklahoma City Thunder are. That's what I'm about. I really don't care about my global brand or anything like that. I just want to come out here and be the best player. This has never been about raising my profile.

In a narcissistic reality-TV age that gave us "I'm taking my talents to South Beach," Durant's focused approach to bettering himself on the court and letting everything else take care of itself is a refreshing throwback to days when being great was more important than being famous.

Now, I'll give credit where credit is due as those at Goodwin Sports Management, including Nate Jones, have done a fantastic job simply staying out of Durant's way. It's shortsighted to say "hey, it's easy marketing an athlete with Durant's talent and attitude." In a few short weeks, LeBron's LRMR agency drove right over Chris Paul's image, stopped, and then backed over it again.

Yes, it's easy to let an athlete be himself when that 'self' is so admirable but those surrounding him could've easily pushed for more press, a bigger market or simply hid actions by Kevin Durant that made him so hilariously great. Those advising and representing Durant are owed a significant amount of credit for letting Durant call the shots.

Going forward, and stepping away from marketing only partially, the NBA of the next 5-10 years belongs to Kevin Durant and LeBron James. It's humble vs ego-centric, greatness vs fame and, to some, it might as well be good vs evil.

By positioning himself as the anti-star, Durant has done just the opposite. Kevin Durant is the standard for creating a respected brand in an age when the traits that define him—hard-working, humility and focus—are lost on most.

Photo credit: aaronisnotcool

MLB.tv, NBA League Pass Broadband leaving more than money on table with local blackouts

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:30:23 -0800

I've been to approximately 20 Mariners games so far this year and as much the hydroplane races annoy me, there's one jumbotron regular I find even more irritating. That'd be the constant barrage of ads for MLB.tv. While the ads are dumb, this isn't what annoys me, it's the fact that they're lying in the face of everyone there.

You know what the 2010 slogan is for MLB.tv? Go ahead and Google it. Yeah, that's right: Baseball Everywhere. For those who have used the service—and I have for the past two years—it's easy to see this is untrue. Now, I knew full-well about the MLB's blackout restrictions going in, and everyone else should as well, but for Major League Baseball and those affiliated to continue to tout the product as a premier or perfect platform for fans is wrong.

As an anecdote, I can watch the Seattle Mariners anywhere...as long as 'anywhere' isn't home in downtown Seattle. Or all of Washington State. Or when I was at school in Missoula, MT. I could travel to as far away as Fairview, Montana (1,100 miles) and still not be able to watch the Mariners.

If you haven't seen it, take a look at the MLB blackout map.I feel awful for anyone who saw an ad for MLB.tv and truly believed they could 'take baseball wherever they go', only to throw down more than $100, go to click a game featuring their favorite team to find out that all games will be blacked out in their area.

Now, what's wrong with this? Why should the NBA and MLB do more to make all games, especially local games, available online? Plain and simple: right now, they're doing wrong by their fans. And not just regular fans, I'd argue some of their biggest fans, their most influential fans. We can live without cable television—which for most of the first-world has become as standard as running water—but we cannot get by without watching our team. We're diehards. We tell everyone about what happened.

I have a colleague, a Portland native, who went to purchase a $15 League Pass Broadband subscription for NBA Summer League (Summer League!) only to find out every single Blazers game would be blacked out. Instead of commenting on first round pick Luke Babbitt or second-year forward Jeff Pendergraph, he's telling everyone how stupid the NBA is for abandoning a core group of fans. Well done, guys.

So, some bullets on why the NBA and MLB need to get their act together.

We'll pay. Charge us more, show us ads, we don't care. Figure it out. Everyone I've talked to says they're willing to spend more—in straight dollars, limited access to out-of-market games, or showing us the same ads you're showing cable viewers—to see their favorite team.
In case you haven't noticed, we're at a computer. Yeah, that's right, the most powerful communications and marketing tool there is. If there's a great game on, you'll bet we'll tell everyone we can about it. If there's a MLB-created forum for us dedicated fans, I'm sure we'll be willing to take a look and share our opinions with other fans. Even if it's on independent blogs, conversation is conversation. For sports teams and leagues, being talked about is obviously more advantageous than not being talked about.
Expand and nurture the base of diehards. If you haven't noticed, young adults (actual young adults, 20-30 year olds) are turning away from unnecessary expenditures like cable television. If we want to watch baseball or basketball, that's what we want to watch, not all the extra channels that come with my subscription to Fox Sports Northwest. We're quickly becoming the generation of Hulu, Netflix Instant and illegal Megavideo streams. And you know what? We're tomorrow's season ticket-holders. Not catering to our fandom now is only going to cause it to wane in the coming years.

So, get it together. There's no reason why Major League Baseball and the NBA can't figure this out. If they want to hold our interest, and our dollars, then stop looking out for the cable companies and work towards giving fans what we want.

While low, LeBron sets social media standard for transcendent athletes

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:06:24 -0800

If this entire LeBron free agent extravaganza has shown us anything, it's that he owns us all. As annoyed as almost all sports fans, writers and casual observers have become, he still holds the collective attention spans of each group. He's bigger than any other American athlete and it isn't even close. Now he's on Twitter.

Of course, it isn't a big step for him. Chris Paul buddied up with LBJ, told him Twitter was neat and something fun to mess around on so his camp either acquired the KingJames name or put it to use after acquiring it some time ago. So here we are, three tweets and a few hundred thousand followers later.

A new precedent is set.

LeBron James is coming into the prime of his career and these few days will play a large role in deciding how that will go. LeBron has decided to make social media—if not a large part of it— at least a worthy venture.

So why is this a big deal?

In terms of social media and American sports, we've never seen anything like it. Never has an athlete so big jumped on social media. Again, what LeBron is putting out there (3 tweets thus far) obviously isn't very insightful, he isn't 'harnessing the power of social media' (ugh) and there's no saying how much he'll use this going forward. After all, his buddy Jay-Z has been on Twitter for awhile and no one's really noticed.

However, a standard has been set. No matter how big an athlete, the precedent is that you should be on Twitter. I don't know if we'll ever see an athlete with as much hype and hoopla surrounding him as LeBron (hope not) but if we do, and social media is still a part of our daily lives, that athlete will have to partake. While athletes like Kobe and Tiger cruised through athletic and marketing primes prior to the age of social media, all future athletes who rise to this level of success will use social media.

In actuality, this may be the last time we see an athlete of LeBron's status get to where he is without using social media previously. It's a tipping point, using social media is no longer in question. Look at the NBA's next crop of transcendent stars: Kevin Durant, John Wall, etc. All on Twitter.

It didn't take much, but it's a turning point. No matter how transcendent, talented or marketable the athlete, they will use social media.

Why banning iPads at baseball games doesn't matter

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 25 May 2010 13:45:07 -0800

I'm a satisfied iPad owner and have always been an advocate for the device's usefulness to sports fans. In a perfect world, they'd be the idyllic accompaniment to a ballgame. As things stand now, they're almost useless. Honestly, there's no use fretting about other stadiums doing as Yankee Stadium did and banning the device. Here's a few reasons why:

A majority of stadiums don't offer wifi. This, in itself, is a huge problem if stadiums want fans to share their experience with others. Up until recently, the wifi version of the iPad was the only one available. If one wanted to enjoy the great content put out by the MLB AtBat App, they couldn't. If one wanted to do anything other than look at photos or listen to music, they couldn't. Now, Apple does offer the 3G version but that's equally useles. Why?

The AT&T network is a joke at sporting events. Any iPhone-using sports fan has experienced this. When too many people group together in a small area, AT&T's services breaks down completely. So, even if one were to have a 3G iPad, it'd be as useless as a wifi iPad without wifi. The network is so bad that phone calls and texts have trouble getting in and out; no reason to think audio, video and other media would be available over the shoddy network.
The MLB AtBat audio is always behind. So maybe your stadium does have wifi or the network is less terrible than normal and you'd like to listen to the audio on your iPad—tough. The audio is always ridiculously behind the game action. When one isn't at the stadium, this lagging audio paired with the AtBat visuals that spoil the action before you can hear is even more annoying.
There isn't a stable and reliable Twitter app. In my mind, Tweetdeck is the best iPad Twitter application out right now and it's moderately terrible. I often abandon my iPad when trying to follow commentary for a sporting event on Twitter. The updates are always behind, the app crashes and doesn't operate with the fluidity of its desktop or iPhone counterpart. If you think using Twitter during a sporting event isn't worthwhile, you've never tried it. I've been to 10 Mariners games so far this season and have monitored this list constantly on my phone at every game.
No multitasking. This is the biggest and most obvious complaint against iPads (and iPhones). Even if I could do all the things I wanted to do, I couldn't do them at once. I couldn't watch highlights and have my Twitter list updating. Can't use an app to keep score and check game stories. It's obnoxious. While the MLB audio app can run in the background, nothing else can.

And for everyone who says "why would you want an iPad at a baseball game anyway?": you've been to a baseball game right? The amount of downtime is huge compared to other sports and I'd rather be entertained by a deeper level of insight and content than blooper reels or other jumbotron promotions provide. Quick list of things I'd use the iPad for at a game:

Radio
Keeping score
Video
Twitter
Blog game threads
A media guide app

For fans, and journalists especially, the iPad could be a great device to have at a ballgame. But right now it isn't.

Five reasons why the 2010 NCAA Tournament is the biggest event in the history of social media

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:40:49 -0800

Everyone has their own unique preferences when determining which sporting event is the greatest. Many people prefer the Super Bowl, other traditionalists believe the Fall Classic is the best event in sport while I'm sure there's more than a few odd individuals who think that title should go to the Daytona 500. The debate is impossible to settle but it'd be difficult for anyone to refute the uniqueness and spectacle of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. 65 teams, single elimination, an endless number of storylines.

Going beyond all of that: the Big Dance is tailor-made for the era of Twitter, Facebook and blogging, much more than any other sport. That, combined with the timing, will make this year's Dance the biggest event in the history of social media. Quite the claim, I know, but here's five reasons why it could be.

Social brackets. Yes, Facebook can take care of all your bracket needs. This isn't anything new, these were available four year agos, put out by Facebook itself, and sponsors took the idea and ran with it. CBS has its own 'App' on there. Now why is this important? It makes an already somewhat painless process even easier. Now, it may be easy for the sports junkie in your pool to sign onto Yahoo and fill out a bracket but Suzy from sales and your sister Beth need something a little easier. With Facebook, it's easy to fill out and simple to track as the tournament progresses because you're already logging on there everyday anyway. The more people filling out brackets, the more people who have a rooting interest in every game. And of course, that means more people talking about it.
Free online video. It's impossible to overstate how big of an issue this is. NBC, take notice. This will be the most talked about sporting event of the year, undoubtedly one of the most valuable commodities in broadcasting, and CBS is giving it away for free. From a technology and media coverage standpoint, this is the foundation for the tournament's outrageous popularity. Plain and simple, people can't become raving fans (of the tournament itself, not any particular team) without being able to see it. With the timing of the event, and most people being at work, CBS has found a way to bring the content to the viewers instead of forcing the viewers to come to the content.
The 'watercooler'. This is, by far, the biggest reason why the Big Dance will be bigger in the world of social media than other live events. So far, live events like the Super Bowl and Oscars have received their highest ratings in years and the conversation taking place on social media may be largely to blame. Now, examine those two events. They take place on the weekends and are often watched in a social setting. The tournament is different. Millions of people sitting at work, already on their computers, will tune-in online for free. So access to discussion is no longer limited to anyone who felt the need to pick up their laptop while watching from the couch, everyone is already on their computer, talking about their bracket, getting news from other games and, hell, they may even be checking out what Simmons has to say.
Sponsors are catching on. It's no longer a secret, social media+live sports=ratings bonanza. Obviously, there's money to be made here and the sponsors are looking to take advantage of that. Marketers have tried to take advantage of this social media/sports combo in the past but they've had time to refine their approach. So not only will fans already be at their computers, sponsors will be attempting to drive them towards using social media. Could lead to even more discussion.
The players/teams are all on it. The 2010 NCAA Tournament will have the highest percentage of athletes on social media than any other major sport. This isn't a definitive fact, but think about it: 90% of college athletes have Facebook and a significant portion which are jumping on Twitter as well. Unlike professional atheletes, a majority of these athletes do not have endoresments to worry about, they don't have a significant amount of media training. Now, this could be the ingredients for disaster, but it could also bring an unprecedented level of access. Last week, after Wofford advanced to the tournament for the first time ever, I congratulated their point guard Cameron Rundles, who I covered at Montana before he transferred. Shortly after, I heard back. It's not much, but it's a new level of access and interaction. Now, you'll also see inhouse media staffs armed with Flip cameras take advantage as well. Brace for a full-on social media blitz from adept teams as the tournament progresses.

Now, it's difficult to see what impact this will have on how sports are covered but it will be very interesting to watch as social media gradually becomes an integral part of how sports are discussed and covered. Online, the NCAA Tournament will be bigger than the Super Bowl, the Oscars or any Apple presser. Enjoy.

Oscars, live events, illustrate why sports broadcasts have most to gain from social media

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:19:40 -0800

Once again, the conversation on Twitter is dominated by a single item. Even if it isn't even completely true, social media and Twitter in particular can make one feel like everyone else is doing the same thing they are. But isn't that the point of social media, to find, network and converse with people who share similar interests? That is never more obvious than with an instance like The Oscars. Or, well, the Super Bowl.

In a story I've been meaning to highlight for sometime, and couldn't agree with more, The New York Times points out that it appears as though social media has created a virtual live 'water cooler' for major televised events and have a major impact on television ratings.

The Nielsen Company, which measures television viewership and Web traffic, noticed this month that one in seven people who were watching the Super Bowl and the Olympics opening ceremony were surfing the Web at the same time.

“The Internet is our friend, not our enemy,” said Leslie Moonves, chief executive of the CBS Corporation, which broadcast both the Super Bowl and the Grammy Awards this year. “People want to be attached to each other.”

This is something I've been trying to harp on for some time, going back to the NBA's rise in ratings. Of course, it could have something to do with the fact that my timeline is dominated by snarky sports bloggers and sarcastic beat writers. A look-in:

Significantly better than the show alone. But more important: significantly more watchable. Almost everyone prefers watching shows with company or, a more applicable analogy: watching sports and a sports bar.

What is lost with beer, wings (still possible) and real people is made up with a much greater amount of virtual commentators and the ability to read the thoughts of those who cover the sport or play it professionally. Also, with sports, there's more significant events, events where the viewers are already used to people analyzing what's taking place. Not quite the same for a sitcom or major dramatic series.

Now, how could this be monetized? It isn't simple. But the possibility exists where a sponsor could hand select a group of writers and display them in a way that makes it easier for non-Twitter-users to see them, possibly on a page running ads. Not entirely difficult to do. Newspapers (or newspaper companies owning multiple papers) could require that their writers comment on major events and then, along with running a page serving ads, have their writers run a limited amount of sponsored tweets. Possibly not in the best taste but still doable.

Even before that, sponsors need to encourage viewers to take a look at social media. It's becoming more and more apparent that those participating in live discussion via social media are more likely to watch an event. This is without any incentive from marketers or television networks. There's money to be made here, whether it's by boosting television ratings further—via a call-to-action from the broadcast itself or commercials being shown during the event—or using ad revenue to capitalize on on the existing discussion.

Building smarter baseball fans starts in the broadcast booth

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:52:17 -0800

Living in Seattle and being a Mariners fan is growing more and more enjoyable. Yes, there's Jack Z and all the great moves he's made turning 100-loss team into a much buzzed-about contender. But on top of that, Mariners fans are blessed (yes, blessed) with a wealth of phenomenal reading material via what has to be the best blogosphere in the majors. There's Lookout Landing, USS Mariner, Pro Ball NW and even ASW's own Northwest Diamond Notes. It isn't mindless stuff either, these are intelligent baseball writers. As great as their content is, if I come across a post a bit too heavy with Sabermetrics and advanced statistics, I just can't do it. Like hitting an old 50 Cent song on shuffle, I roll right past.

It's not that I think they're wrong, I don't understand them. I read about sports for pleasure and haven't invested the time in doing 'homework' (see: LL's Sabermetrics 101 series) so I can understand some of the blog posts I read. These are the statists the best and most accurate baseball writers/bloggers use. They're the best evaluator on why one ball-player is better than another. And yet, a majority of baseball fans do not understand them, So, how does this change?

In a guest column on Baseball Prospectus, ESPN broadcaster Jon Sciambi says it starts in the booth:

Let's not forget "it's the search for objective knowledge about baseball." The goal is not unveiling newfangled stats; it's about getting people to understand basic ideas and concepts. To achieve that, we can't just slap stats up on the screen and explain them. Understanding has to come in the form of analysis. We have to use the stat and explain it. Sometimes it needs to be the [play-by-play] guy playing analyst and getting the color guy to react [...]

The metrics are getting so advanced that we're in danger of getting further away from the masses instead of closer. We, as broadcasters, have to find better and entertaining ways of explaining the math in bite-sized terms. Simplified, we need to explain that one of the problems with batting average, as opposed to slugging percentage, is that batting average values a single and a home run equally. We can't assume that's understood just because we understand it. And the only way it gets embedded is to keep beating the audience with it so that it becomes ingrained the way ERA eventually did, even though that once passed for advanced math. That, and we should all wear blue blazers with an emblem that reads, "OBP is life."

And that's what I need. Sometimes it feels as though sportscasting is never improving, with the only major advancements coming from technology, not an increased knowledge of the sport. It's not that there isn't more to learn, it's that not everyone is willing to learn it. It has to be worked into the normal routines of sports fans. That's the only way to improve the baseball acumen of the sport's fans.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but baseball fans love traditions. Hell, I'll even argue that Wins aren't a completely terrible pitching statistic. Sure, it doesn't determine the best hurler but a starting pitcher's job—in its purest and most simple form—is to allow less runs than the opposing pitcher(s). If they didn't do that, they didn't do their job that day, no matter how well they pitched. Yep, I'm an idiot.

So, while I plug away on the baseball blogs, possibly even doing some 'homework', I need the broadcasters to do the same. Someone in the mainstream media needs to advance the public's view of the sport. The bloggers have done their part in supplying anyone who wants the knowledge with the necessary materials. We just need every broadcaster to want to know more about the sport they cover, and pass that desire onto the rest of us.

The 'Twitter Olympics'? Not with taped delay.

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:02:07 -0800

Last week brought some terrible, terrible news—news that the Olympics on NBC has received phenomenal ratings, even beating out American Idol. Prior to that, American Idol hadn't been beaten in six years. That's on you America. Back to the point, NBC will likely continue its policy of not airing major events live, instead broadcasting them at two different times to the American public. Maybe you haven't noticed, but fans—while watching—haven't reacted all that well. So, does NBC care as long as people are watching? Of course not. But let's look at one area where this could be hurting: social media.

Prior to the Games, Bob Condron, the Director of Media Services for the United States Olympic Committee, proclaimed that these would be the 'Twitter Olympics' due to loose restrictions on athletes' use of social media.

For those who you who use Twitter to follow and, more importantly, discuss sports, does it seem as though the use of Twitter has been all that prominent surrounding these Olympics? Certainly not.

In one of my first posts on this blog, I wrote about how the NBA's rise in popularity and it's potential link to the growing prominence of social media was less about its use by athletes and more about the high level of conversation taking place amongst fans. This is the same thing.

For a sporting event to reach its full potential in the world of social media, there has to be a great amount of discussion amongs fans. The Olympics simply don't have that. Olympic news currently comes in three different waves: when it actually happens, the East Coast broadcast, and finally the West Coast broadcast. It is absolutely impossible to have a good conversation when everyone has is at a different wave. Some people may have just heard the results, some people may have heard the results and seen it, then there are others who have no news. Breaking up an event like this greatly reduces the amount of conversation.

For someone who follows along on Twitter with every sporting event possible, I refuse to do so with the Olympics. During the day, I try to avoid the results and then once I have it on in the background at night, during the West Coast airing, no one is talking about it. So yes, I continue to watch, while being sorely disappointed. The other day NBC aired an extended piece on the 1980 Olympic hockey team instead of showing the live USA-Canada. I don't care if the ratings are somehow higher. This lunacy has to stop.

BBC News to journalists: learn social media or leave

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:21:45 -0800

We're getting beyond the point where it is acceptable for journalists and newspapers to sit on the side and just dip their legs into the icy public pool that is social media. Finally, we're starting to see publications fully embrace it, and not simply as a kitschy gimmick to prove to readers that they're down with the times.

Peter Horrocks took over last week as the new director of BBC Global News and he's determined to change things. From The Guardian's PDA Digital Content Blog:

"This isn't just a kind of fad from someone who's an enthusiast of technology. I'm afraid you're not doing your job if you can't do those things. It's not discretionary", he is quoted as saying in the BBC in-house weekly Ariel. [...]

"If you don't like it, if you think that level of change or that different way of working isn't right for me, then go and do something else, because it's going to happen. You're not going to be able to stop it."

Exactly. Check out the entire post and full Q&A for a bit more.

It's time for newspapers—and sports sections in particular—to adopt a similar approach. This isn't simply about the ability to report either, especially in sports. As much as any subject, readers look to build some kind of connection with the sportswriters they read on a daily basis. Social media has already shown a remarkable ability to foster relationships when used appropriately. For example, if Seattle Times columnist Steve Kelley had used Twitter to further explain a backhanded apology to Erik Bedard, it's possible I'd see where he was coming from. Probably not, but the possibility exists.

Social media is something journalists need to know. And not to simply use for the sake of using, but learn and take advantage of. The more newspapers adopt such a strict policy, the better.

Disney CEO (think ESPN) says iPad 'has a lot of potential'

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:24:56 -0800

The iPad is coming and, as disappointing as it is at first glance, some people will inevitably buy it. To satisfy those people, developers will need a little bit more than blown-up iPhone applications. Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger isn't discouraged by the initial responce and is thinking big when it comes to the iPad, saying it "has a lot of potential" and "could be a game changer in terms of enabling us to essentially create new forms of content."

Iger, speaking during a conference call with analysts, said that the iPad's portability and interactivity create the the possibility of something different than what is available on a typical computer or TV set. "With ESPN," he said, "you have ScoreCenter, which is a great app on the iPhone and provides rudimentary information and scores. Suddenly we have a platform where you can really make those scores come to life."

Business Insider highlights the possibility of using the iPad/ScoreCenter to watch replays and monitor other scores while watching games on TV. Of course, this is a possibility, but so is using the iPad at live sporting events.

We've already seen similar devices taking advantage of technology that allows stadiums to add to the experience of attending a live game. As far back as 2007, Seattle Mariners fans owning a Nintendo DS couls use it at Safeco Field to watch the live broadcast, check out replays and even order beer and beverages from their seats. There's no reason to think that if a Nintendo DS—not even the most technologically advanced handheld gaming system—could handle tasks like this three years ago, the much more advanced iPad should be able to handle this and more.

This isn't even any more advanced, but I'd be more than content using the iPad to listen to the radio broadcast while using a 'scorecard' app to keep score and check stats. Unfortunately, the iPad isnt capable of doing two things at once. Let's get it together Apple.

Good idea for sports: Journal-Register Co. will issue video cameras to all reporters

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:41:13 -0800

Rarely do you see newspapers taking drastic and ambitious steps in an era when one false move could bring down a publication for good. That's why it's so enlightening to see the Journal-Register Co. making major moves to advance and improve coverage provided by the company's 19 daily and 150 other newsapers.

As noted by the New Haven Independent (via the Editors Weblog), CEO John Patton told the company's 3,100 employees that they no longer work for a 'newspaper company', but a 'media company' instead.

“We’re not looking to make any cuts,” Paton said, clearly pumped about the prospect of inventing a new business model at a chain that had lagged behind the rest of the industry in adjusting to the digital age. “We need to improve [local coverage]. We don’t need to make it worse.”

Patton has some good ideas for improving the quality of coverage, one of the best is that all reporters at the company will have Flip HD video cameras within 30 days. This, I think, is something every newspaper should adopt, even if it means purchasing one for every three reporters—having them checked out when necessary. Sports sections would appear to benefit as much as any part of the newspaper.

While images and audio are better than providing print copy alone, video brings content to a completely new level. Of course, there are certain restrictions with where video is allowed (locker rooms, etc), but in any situation where it can be used, it almost always should.

As I believe I've done in the past, I'm quick to point to the work Lakers in-house reporter Mike Trudell. I understand there are several other reporters who have taken advantage of technology, but it's interesting to see with one of most popular sports teams in the world. Take a look at this example, where Kobe discusses becoming the team's leading scorer:

Pretty cool. While slightly less refined, this type of content gives a more accurate look than the few quotes tossed into gamers written by those holding up audio recorders in that video. Imagine this type of look for every single story offered by a newspaper. Very powerful.

Olympic social media & blogging policy is hard to understand

Colin O'Keefe — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:17:04 -0800

As is the case with these huge global events—Olympics, World Cup, etc—the media polices in place are extremely strict and breaking them usually results in dismemberment. So, watch out bloggers. The IOC released its Blogging Guidelines for the 2010 Games (PDF) and they are bit cumbersome, especially confusing to the athletes planning on sharing an inside take with their fans.

Unlike professional sports leagues where there are bans on when athletes can use social media sites, athletes are free to blog at their own discretion, as long as they don't break any rules. One of those: don't act like a journalist.

There are some restrictions on what athletes can do online during the Olympics. According to the IOC Blogging Guidelines for the 2010 Games, athletes and other accredited people must keep their posts confined to their personal experiences. “You can’t act as a journalist if you aren’t,” says [Director of Media Services for the United States Olympic Committee] Bob Condron. “You need to do things in a first person way.”

Rule 49 of the Olympic Charter says that “Only those persons accredited as media may act as journalists, reporters or in any other media capacity.”

Umm, what? In this day and age, what constitutes being a journalist? What if you inject any journalistic post with a first-person voice? Such as "I just spent some time kickin it with Bode Miller and he said he did not close the bar last night, only stayed out until 12:45 and feels relatively good to go today." Does that count as journalism or does it fall under the 'diary' format the IOC is looking for from non-accredited athletes and bloggers?

Other guidelines that are worth noting:

In any event, blogs of Accredited Persons containing Olympic Content should at all times conform to the Olympic spirit and the fundamental principles of Olympism as contained in the Olympic Charter, and be dignified and in good taste.

On video:

The dissemination of moving images of the Games through any media, including display on the Internet, is a part of the IOC’s intellectual property rights. No sound or moving images (including sequences of still photographs which simulate moving images) of any Olympic events, including sporting action, Opening, Closing and Medal Ceremonies or other activities which occur within any zone which requires an Olympic identity and accreditation card (or ticket) for entry

Images:

Accredited Persons may feature still pictures taken of themselves within Accredited Zones provided that such pictures do not contain any sporting action of the Games or the Opening, Closing or Medal Ceremonies of the Games. It is the Accredited Persons’
responsibility to obtain the consent of other persons appearing in any pictures which may featured in accordance with this Section. Still pictures may not be reproduced in a
sequential manner, so as to simulate, in any way, moving images.

In summary, the IOC really wants almost all of your exposure to the Olympics to be coming through NBC, in all its puff-piece glory. Condron later said "These are going to be the Twitter Olympics" and that may be the case for some of the athletes but these heavy restrictions will have an effect on how much information and analysis is shared via social media than would be the case with looser restrictions. Hint: it'll be less.

Why opting out of Google News is a terrible idea in the era of social media

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:17:09 -0800

I would kill to be Mark Cuban. Billions of dollars and a professional sports team, of course I would. And you know what? I'd probably act exactly the same. I'd sit at the end of my team's bench, yell at referees, buy my guys everything they wanted and when he offseason came, I'd be rumored to be involved in the acquisition of other teams. But even more than all of that, I'd use my wealth as a pulpit to express my views on any topic I have an opinion on. Mark Cuban seems particularly fond of that, and his recent view that Google News is a vampire has drawn out the opinions of just about everyone.

For a second, let's disregard the fact that Mark Cuban is calling out Google News while investing in its competitors and instead focus on the fact that there are some major flaws in what he's saying. Cuban's argument revolves around the idea that being indexed on Google News can do major damage to a newspaper's brand equity. In the world we live in, the opposite is more true: not being indexed would damage a paper's brand. But before moving onto that, here's a summary of Cuban's argument:

When that newspaper allows itself to be included in Google News it becomes a de facto endorsement of Google News as an acceptable and probably preferable “discovery destination” . The branding message to the consumer is “I dont need to go to the newspaper homepage. Everything the newspaper has is referenced here in Google News. So if there is something of interest to me from the local paper, Google News will send me to their site. I don’t need to go to both sites any longer. I can just go to Google News.

Thats not good for the publication brand and business. They just lost their position as a trusted source where real people make decisions on what content they think their readers will want to discover – to an algorithm.

He goes on to say that having your story listed as 'one of x thousand sources' is never, under any circumstance, a good thing for a paper's brand.

To understand why Cuban is wrong, or more-so why what he proposes would do much more damage to a paper's brand, it's good to look at why Google News was created in the first place. PBS's MediaShift blog has a perfectly timed interview with the creator of Google News, Krishna Bharat. His explanation on why Google News was created and how it serves users:

It was in response to September 11 [terrorist attacks]. I was reading news from a bunch of papers all over the web. And I discovered that there was no efficient way to find coverage of the same topic from different sources. To find the same coverage about the Taliban I would have to go to the L.A. Times site and [go to all these sites]. It seemed fundamentally inefficient. That's not the way the web was supposed to work. The web was supposed to have a link structure that helped you find content.

Part of the problem is that all of this news was fresh. By definition, news is fresh and doesn't have links. And if Google is to fulfill its mission to find information efficiently, it occured to me that what I was doing a computer could do. A computer could, in fact, visit all these websites, find the same article, or similar articles, and group them together. I tried it, and it worked.

Maybe this is the nature of the beast: search is how most people find news and content. Maybe this hasn't spread completely to those who subscribe to broadsheets and peruse over the day's news in 'shuffle' format but much of the online world and the 'influencers' in particular search for the news they want to see.

Anyone who's written a blog understands that Google News is an essential tool in finding new relevant content. Using Google News (and Google Blogsearch) I can subscribe to RSS feeds for keywords relevant to the niche I'm writing on and pull in the best content from thousands of sources. I don't have the time to bounce around to every paper, and even subscribing to the RSS feeds at a paper would push out a significant amount of content that is of no interest to me. Now, how does this relate to a paper's brand equity?

There are certain papers that carry an obviously enormous amount of brand equity: The New York Times, The Washington Post and every local paper that has been around for a significant amount of time. They earned said brand equity because people look to them consistently for credible news and are cited as such. This happens frequently in the world of online journalism, when someone finds a valuable or interesting piece of news they share it. And bloggers write about it. Each time they do this they send a link the story's way, essentially vouching for the story and the publication, gradually instilling a bit more brand equity each time.

If bloggers and other social media users cannot find your story (with Google News being the most valuable tool for finding news), they cannot and will not share it. They will not cite your paper or your story as a valuable and credible piece of news. They will not provide their analysis and opinion on your reporting. They will not give kudos to a great piece of writing. Most importantly, they will not add to your overall brand equity.

This is why opting out of Google News would be much more damaging to a newspaper than staying in. Their value not only lies in their subscriber count, but also the value in the minds of individuals who have at some point read something from that paper. The less and less the paper is cited, the greater the decrease in value in the minds of the readers.

Newspapers need to share and spread their content at every possible opportunity. Google News is the best opporunity they have.

College coaches using Twitter to announce signed recruits

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:43:28 -0800

It's an ingenious idea, updating fans as soon as the Letters of Intent are faxed in. In what I've seen, Washington's Steve Sarkisian has been one of the best at it, with reporters just relaying what he's been putting out on Twitter. On top of that, UW had a live chat/blog going throughout the day. Very impressive stuff. The University of Washington is doing a lot of things that other schools would benefit from taking note of.

Of course, the University of Spoiled Children took it to another level, with Lane Kiffin doing what Kiffykins does:

Well congrats to UT for hanging on to a couple of our recruits. But we got the important ones

Now, I was planning on posting an image of said tweet, but it appears as though Lane Kiffin got in a bit of trouble, the Twitter account in question no longer exists. Obviously, there's something to be learned here as well.

UPDATE: Sounds like the Kiffin account was fake. Still, it would not have been the least bit surpising.

Universities outsourcing social network security through UDiligence

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:05:21 -0800

We've seen all too often that college athlete athletes—or ones who are about to be—cannot be completely trusted on their own in the world of social networking. A majority of athletes will get by fine, communicating with other students and colleagues without looking stupid, but for the idiots who slip up there is a safety net for the schools.

AOL Fanhouse has a great article on UDiligence, a service that keeps tabs on the social networking activity of a school's student-athletes to avoid potential public relations disasters. A summary:

UDiligence was founded by Kevin Long, a former congressional press secretary, and a business partner. They have invested more than three years and a substantial financial sum into the patented social network monitoring system, complete with bells and whistles, and currently work for more than a dozen athletic programs nationally.

Long says his system is monitoring Facebook, MySpace and Twitter pages -- 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- of more than 6,000 student-athletes from New Jersey Institute of Technology to the University of Nebraska.

Pricing depends on the number of student-athletes and portal configuration but costs from $1,350 per year for 50 athletes or less to $5,000 per year for over 500 athletes.

I'll always advocate education over restriction and punishment but it's impossible to say that this isn't a fantastic idea for a business.

Who doesn't wish they had thought of this idea? We're at the point where 90% of collegiate athletes are on some some kind of social networking site—probably Facebook—and schools aren't sure how to handle it. We're not in a place where schools feel comfortable educating athletes on how present themselves on social networking sites (other than telling them not do anything stupid) so the best and easiest option for them right now is just to monitor what's being put out and punishing any content deemed inappropriate. It's much easier to have an outside vendor handle this chore than forcing athletes to add a member of their team's coaching staff as a Facebook friend then having that coach go through their content a couple times per week, as I saw happen with at least one team at my alma mater.

Unfortunately, this service is the equivalent of having a problem child and instead of educating them on things they should and shouldn't do, the parents put an alarm on the door that lets them know when the kid is sneaking out or coming back too late then blindly punishing them accordingly. The only thing the kid learns is not to get caught.

Eventually we'll get to a point where athletes take a social media training course at the beginning of the semester and go through their time at the university without incident, but until then someone is going to make a great deal of money off the universities' fear of disaster.

NFL's Super Bowl site a perfect example of social media for the sake of social media

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:06:25 -0800

The NFL's new Super Bowl site features a page that allows users to see relevant and realtime content from Twitter and Flickr; there's Tweets from smalltime users as well as prominent media outlets. Sounds pretty neat. The problem is, it's one of those sites you look at once, say to yourself "well, that was interesting" and go right back to doing work or Facebook stalking with no plans to return. Such is the problem with social media, some companies and individuals get into it for the sake of appearing hip or technologically savvy without adding any real value.

The idea itself is certainly a good one, and this may even be a decent format for displaying images, but they could've done something much better with Twitter. Why not have separate streams and directories for select writers, bloggers, players and fans along with a chronological timeline for all posts with their #sb44 hashtag? At least that layout makes sense, as opposed to sliding over a virtual mural.

So, well done NFL, you look really cool and hip to those who don't use Twitter on a regular basis. To the influencers who do, the site isn't anything more than something shiny to look at for a minute or two.

AOL Seed an opportunity for sportswriters? Not yet.

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:33:13 -0800

With everyone dying to find the next successful revenue model for journalism—assuming it even exists—many have taken an interest in AOL Seed. Seed takes aim at 'crowdsourcing' journalism by giving publishers a forum to post stories and freelance journalists an opportunity to claim and write those stories for compensation. The thing is, it doesn't take a great deal of journalistic expertise, if any, to write the stories Seed is looking for.

As an example, Seed's most recent and ambitious project includes profiling all 2,000 bands playing at SXSW. The details

Each assignment/profile is worth $50.
The format will be a 1,000 word Q&A
Said format will be based on a template, with Seed providing some of the questions
Finished bios will be used to populate Spinner.com, AOL's music site
Posts will be edited and approved by the teams at AOL/Spinner

Now, where exactly does this fit in for sports? It's hard to imagine a format where you'd need that type of content, possibly a situation like the NCAA Tournament. But many sites are already doing profiles of each team, with Deadspin even coming to mind. Those don't involve firsthand reporting (talking to the coaches, players, etc.) but I don't imagine a template-based series with predetermined questions would be all that interesting to a majority of readers. However, this isn't to say all content is templated, but it's not all that much better either.

Just to see what was available, I signed up for seed and went to their recommended sports opportunities. At the moment, there are two opportunities: a $100 story on going to the 2010 WWE Royal Rumble for the first time and another titled "Investigate the World of Broomball!" for $75. Not interested.

So, based on this, I decided to check out who was using the Seed-produced sports content. Based on their own publisher portfolio, it looks as though only AOL-owned sports entities have used the service. Makes sense at the moment but this isn't ideal.

So yes, this could be a good idea and if you're interested in writing on other subjects you could make some money right now, but for sportswriters Seed still has a long ways to go.