Past The Press Box

Google+ Homecoming Tour with NBA stars is a strong move for the social network

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:22:22 -0800

Social technology is defined, more than anything, by the people who use it. Harking back to days long ago, I vividly remember there were two specific groups of people when I was in middle school: AOL Instant Messenger people and MSN Messenger people. It wasn't based on their technological preference, but sometimes really came down to what type of person they were. Even now, it never surprises me when ask someone which they used after raising this observation.

You can even see it now. Facebook is the everyman's social network; there's a lot of noise but you can use it effectively to stay in touch with friends and family, while also creepily monitoring the activity of acquaintances. Twitter, on the other hand, is the network for content producers, for celebrities and members of the media.

In order for Google+ to be successful, and not go the route of Wave, Buzz and whatever, it has to be the social network of someone, even if it isn't the one they use exclusively. With the announcement of the Google+ Homecoming Tour, they seem to making creative efforts to get move in that direction.

For those who haven't heard about this, here are the basics, from Canadian Business:

It was announced yesterday that four of the NBA’s most recognizable stars—LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul—will be hitting the road next month for a four-game exhibition tour dubbed the “Google+ Homecoming Tour.” In addition to being the tour’s main sponsor, the search engine giant will also be live streaming the games through the tour’s Google+ page. Further, Google+ users can win opportunities to chat with the players via “hangouts”—a feature that facilitates multi-person video chat sessions.

Another important nugget, one that's left out here: Google+ managed to get the four stars going with profiles on the network. LeBron James, Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony and Dwyane Wade.

Let's finally get to why this is a good idea.

If Google+ ultimately succeeds, it's going to be because it combines the best parts of Facebook (the media-rich platform and ability to put forth much more than text & links) with the best parts of Twitter (the ability to openly follow and group major influencers). Honestly, Google+ already has the first part. From a technology standpoint, Google+ can do everything that Facebook does. Now it needs to start obtaining what Twitter has, getting the influencers—namely celebrities and content producers—actively using the service, and then hoping those who follow the information they put forth come shortly thereafter.

With this tour, they haven't accomplished the first part of that. While they do have the celebrities signed up and on the service, they'll have to prove to them throughout the promotion process that this is a excellent platform for them to connect with their fans. The hangouts are a good start but ultimately Google+ has to prove this is worthwhile if they're going to keep the hoopsters on there after this tour ends. Again, it's a good first step, but there's a long way to go.

Moving on, if Google+ was going to run a marketing campaign like this in the world of sports, they couldn't have picked a better sport or better timing. Between all the major sports, professional basketball easily has the most rich online community. Not only are its mainstream media members extremely savvy in their social media practices, but the sport also has an absolutely thriving online community of citizen content producers. Streaming the games on Google+ for free ensures that all the journalists not at the games, and all the bloggers interested in getting their hoops fix, will be able to watch at the same place where Google would like them to talk about it.

Again, like with the players, just getting these journalists and bloggers on there to watch isn't enough. It opens the opportunity for conversation, but Google is going to have to do something to keep them there, or at least do whatever they can to foster conversation there on Google+ as opposed to having individuals watch it there while providing commentary on Twitter and Facebook.

Lucky enough for Google+, they're going to get an extended tryout. Not too extended, as the games are only spread out over a little more than a week—December 1st, 3rd, 7th and 10th—but it's something. They'll have NBA stars, journalists, bloggers and fans on there consistently for an entire week.

Google+ has a long way to go before it's even remotely relevant, but creative and opportunistic marketing ventures like this are a good start.

Arizona AD Greg Byrne's Twitter announcement another sign of new reality in sports information

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:22:22 -0800

My favorite part of using social media as a means to track sports news is easily the ability to connect with and follow sportswriters. While the early scoops and insider commentary are excellent, I almost enjoy tracking the the life of a sportswriter just as much. Now, I'm not talking about their personal lives, just how they react to certain pieces of news.

As I segue into what the title of this post is actually referring to, I couldn't help but smirk when I caught the reacton a Seattle-area sportswriter had to news that University of Washington head coach Steve Sarkisian had named his starting quarterback for the Oregon State game via Twitter.

To be fair, that did quickly change/soften, as the news itself was probably more stress-inducing than the manner in which it was delivered.

Ultimately, it is simply something different. We're entering a new era when news and information is no longer distributed to media members to disseminate, teams are skipping the middle man and speaking directly to their fans. I wrote about this a ways back, that the mainstream media is going to get hit from a whole new angle, not just from citizen journalists but from the teams and individuals they cover.

We saw another example of this as University of Arizona Athletic Director Greg Byrne announced the hiring of Rich Rodriguez as head football coach with this tweet and the following image of Byrne, Rodriguez and Rodriguez's family in what appears to be Rodriguez's home:

Now there's a number of reasons why a team, organization or executives would want to distribute this type of information through Twitter, let's start with the easy ones:

First off, it doesn't actually change the team/media dynamics all that much. In this case news that Rich Rodriguez would be Arizona's next coach had already been broken by Bruce Feldman and others, all we were waiting on was the official announcement. Why not do it in an original manner?
Even though you're not speaking directly to the media, it's going to get to them. Almost every single modern sportswriter is on Twitter and they'll relay the information to the people who follow them, either online or in print. Twitter, more than anything else, is the medium of the influencers, with bloggers and media members being some of its most active users. To get an idea of how well-circulated Byrne's tweet was, it achieved roughly 56,000 views in only seven hours.
It gives the fans a reason to follow them. If you're not going to use a Twitter account to offer value, and stick only to lame clichés and platitudes, why even have one? It gives fans the perception that, if you're passionate and follow them, you will reward them with inside information. Ultimately, it creates a positive relationship.
It makes you look hip. In every story on Byrne's hiring of Rodriguez, the writer will be sure to remark that Byrne made the announcement on Twitter. On top of that, idiots like me write about it.

There's one more reason to think about here though: as younger professionals move into new roles, they do so without the strong media ties of their predecessors. They don't owe anyone on the beat a scoop, or even the courtesy to clue them in on big news first. They're looking first to build a strong reputation and relationship with their fan base, and attempting to do that through traditional media is no longer the best way to get that done.

This is certainly not a complete process, and there is a long way to go before announcements like this are really regular occurences, let alone the primary means of communication. That said, it's clear that we're starting to see a major shift in how teams communicate with their fans. As more and more younger professionals move into prominent roles, this shift will increase its pace, and it may be hard for the mainstream media to appropriately adapt.

Execs and athletes should use Twitter to display unique expertise during broadcasts

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 02:22:22 -0800

Everyone who uses Twitter on a regular basis knows there are times when the service is at its peak, and times when it's not-so-great. In the middle of the afternoon, when you're just trying to bust out that proposal, it can be excess noise—entertaining and insightful noise—but still noise. However, during events, Twitter shows everyone why it's so amazing. I'm, of course, not speaking only to the natural disasters, Osama getting caught and whatnot, but just live sports broadcasts. It is then, when everyone is tuning into one single thing, that it turns into a true conversation and you can really determine an individual's insightfulness.

The other night, because of a tweet by SPORTSbyBROOKS, I came across arguably the best Twitter account to follow during the World Series. That'd be the man pictured above, Texas Rangers Senior Executive Vice President and former MLB catcher Jim Sundberg.

Sundberg usually keeps his tweets pretty concise, but during the Game 5 he demonstrated his unique expertise—as a former big league catcher Rangers exec—as much as anyone possibly could.

Here's the truly great sequence:

Hey, look, "via Twitter for iPhone." Yeah, that's because he was at the game. Don't tell me it's too hard or execs don't have time. They're watching like everyone else. Continuing...

Oh wait, just for clarification...

And then....

Yup.

While this is great coming from execs, and definitely more rare, athletes can and have done the same; Brandon McCarthy and Chris Douglas-Roberts are two good examples.

So, here's a few good reasons why every athlete and exec should consider it:

First and foremost, it builds a great rapport with the fans. After all, everyone who's passionate about the sport should still be a fan themselves.
If you're right, you're going to look brilliant. If you're wrong, nobody's going to remember. It doesn't hurt to put out views that can't be proven wrong, but in the end I don't see anyone getting crushed for an errant prediction or two.
At this point in time, no one is going to use this against you, don't be ridiculous.
It is a lot better than making snide comments or terrible jokes. Leave that to the bloggers. I'm not being sarcastic; seriously, they're good at that.

With that, I genuinely hope we see a lot more of this. The commentary coming in on Twitter, especially when it's of this level, is a lot better than listening to Joe Buck.

Dallas Stars do a great job of listening, being open and showing personality

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:35:08 -0800

It's all too often you'll see someone ask "How should _____ use social media?" How should sports marketers use it? What about journalists? If you were a police commissioner, how would you use it? And if you were a restaurant owner?

For just about everyone, the long-term strategy is a bit different. But the absolute best practice in the short-term is the same for everyone: listen. That's it; before you develop a content strategy or start thinking about how you're going to monetize your Facebook page, take a look at the content around you. What are influential people in your target market saying? Develop a complete understanding of that, then act.

It appears as though that's how the Dallas Stars got started in what has become a pretty solid social media offering. Art Middleton at Defending Big D has a great interview with Stars Communications Coordinator Joe Calvillo.

For the Stars, the growth of these websites has resulted in the club over the past year fully embracing the internet as a key marketing tool. "There is so much content on the web and so many people using social media and using avenues like Twitter," said Calvillo "that we had to adjust and we had to keep up with that knowing the position we're in as a team in a non-traditional hockey market."

Like many other teams getting into the social media space, they see themselves as being a big part of the media community.

A little over a month ago, the Stars launched Dallas Stars Media Central which is a one-stop site for not just media coverage about the team, but also is host to pre and post game notes, audio from players at practice and as the season winds down a playoff 'grid' that features the teams in the western conference playoff race and a detailed look at their upcoming schedules.

While the idea of a centralized hub is nothing new for a professional sports team, the idea of leaving it open for anyone from media personnel to casual hockey fans without any kind of password encryption is somewhat of a rarity.

"We debated and are aware some other teams around the league have their sites password protected, but we thought in a sense of the more information that's out there to more people doesn't hurt" explained Calvillo. "There is nothing secretive about game notes or game stats and I think everyone should have access to that."

While that openness is obviously a huge plus as it creates a much stronger bond between the team and its passionate fans, I also found the fact that they linked out to all media outlets with strong coverage—including blogs—within that media site on a daily basis to be a great idea. Listening to what's out there and then shooting that coverage out to fans and fellow media members is a phenomenal practice for teams to get into.

And while I thought it was excellent that the team and its communications staff were using social media to listen, I found it even more interesting that the players were doing the same.

"Our players have Facebook and Twitter and a lot of them have it just to follow things." Calvillo said when asked about players using social media. Which isn't to say that they aren't seeing what is being said and written about them at any given time during the season.

"I think the players are more aware of it than fans think and more players monitor Twitter more than your average fan would think."

Very cool. Forgetting social media best practices for a second, It's great to know that the players are listening to what fans are saying, that they care.

Now, if listening and being open were the first two steps on a long path towards finding success in social media, I'd say the third would be to show some personality. And that's what you'll find in the blog of color commentator Daryl 'Razor' Reaugh. Seriously, look at this guy. What would he have to blog about for you to not at least take a look. The lead-in to the about page sums things up well enough:

I missed the part about the steady employment being more important than being fascinating

And normally you'll see these type of things updated once every few weeks, offering a paragraph or two of bland info. Not here, Reaugh has written eight posts in the last week. Like the Stars whole social operation, that's pretty impressive.

Looking forward to seeing more.

Photo credit: HermanVonPetri

Dan Levy and On the DL Podcast show an unfortunate side to sports blogging

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:13:28 -0800

When I started my first sports blog in 2006, and really got things rolling over the coming years, I almost regretted the subject matter. See, instead of blogging on University of Montana sports and pulling in a boatload of visitors through that, I almost wished I had picked a different subject matter. I didn't realize how young the sports blogosphere was at the time and wondered how I would've done had I written on sports in general.

I looked around the mainstream sports blogosphere, thought being one of those guys would be phenomenal and believed I might've had a shot. I thought I could pull a Simmons; I'd pour all my time into writing (because I thought work ethic was all I needed) and work my way into the mainstream media. In a dream world, I'd blog my way to the my place in the Wrigley Field press box and the Cubs beat at the Trib. Ridiculous, I know.

The thing is, there really aren't many Bill Simmonses out there. And the life of the rockstar sports blogger doesn't really have as much rockstar to it as I would've thought. Today, the story of Dan Levy calling it quits on the long-running On The DL podcast stands out as something of a lesson, maybe a sports blogging parable.

I'm struggling to parse down the reasoning Dan gave so here's just about all of it:

Why now? Well, I wanted to get to 600, but I just don’t think I can. So 555 sounds like fun, and it’s far enough away that we can still talk about the NCAA Tournament and the Masters. Plus, if all works out, our last show will be the day before Max turns one.

Max. Look, this year with Max has been great. He’s the sweetest boy in the world and he sure as shit doesn’t deserve all that he’s had to deal with this year and all that he’s going to have to deal with the rest of his life. It’s not fair for me to continue to play in this internet dreamworld of “doing things the right way” which has always felt like as much a cop-out as it did some altruistic reasoning for producing quality work. I can’t play in the sandbox anymore, even if it “furthers the conversation.” I need to grow the fuck up and provide for my family.

So yeah, this is the first step towards that. And it sucks. This feeling, today, sucks. Why is this show going up at noon when we taped it at 6:30 am? Because it’s taken me that long to write this (and get the Muppets music into the show, to be honest).

I feel like I’ve given up, but at the same time I feel like maybe I gave up a while ago and this is just the right time to admit it. My brain is segmented in a way that’s unfamiliar, but the most important segment keeps getting filled with concern for my family who, frankly, deserves more of me than they’ve been getting.

Now, that all being said, this isn’t some solemn goodbye to the internet. We’ve still got over 20 shows left to go and hopefully some of our podcasting and radio friends will have us on their shows every so often (I really hope someone seizes the opportunity and gets Nick on as a regular contributor somewhere). And look, if you listen to this show all the time, or read what we did here or back at Sporting News, you know we’ve unabashedly had a For Sale sign on this show — and our writing — for a long time.

We’re not hard to find. If this guy or this guy or these folks or these guys or this guy and this guy or him or him or them or them or, shit, even this guy comes calling in the next few weeks…let’s go…we’re ready to work. We just can’t be waiting on someone’s back burner anymore. We just can’t do this every day in hopes that’s the day someone comes to their internet senses.

Or, maybe, we’ve overvalued the quality of our work and the folks we linked to above — and countless others, I’m sure — know exactly how valuable we are. Good work isn’t always worth the time (and money) it takes to produce, which is something I know all too well in this pageviews-first-ask-questions-later digital world. I think I’m actually okay with that. I’m not okay with undoing everything we’ve done by creating a half-assed product to try and stay relevant or keep my name out there.

The bottom-line: these endeavors aren't all that profitable and when people—even the most talented and hard-working individuals—do try their hardest to make them profitable or take their talents to the mainstream, it isn't easy to do. And that's the problem. That second-to-last graf is extremely telling. As far as the world of sports blogging has come, we're still not all the way there. As hard as these guys work and as great as their content is, they still don't quite get the recognition they deserve.

While the On the DL podcast serves as something of a sad tale, some may place The Basketball Jones (the phenomenal J.E. Skeets and Tas Melas, amongst others, production) as a big success story. The thing is, how great is that show? Seriously. Like a Bosh, Kobe's lost trash talk, even the Trey Kerby promo. Yes, they were acquired by The Score, a Canadian Sports Television Network, and are on Sirius radio 4 times a week along with a weekly national television show, but how is there not more? These guys are hilarious and you're telling me there isn't anyone at a major American sports cable company who will give them a shot? It's ridiculous.

I don't mean to say that The Basketball Jones is way better than On the DL but only intend to point out that even when these phenomenal shows are successful, they're not as successful and accepted as they likely should be.

The point? ESPN and other networks keep blasting us with the same talking heads and sports highlight shows. Would it be too much to give a new type of content a chance? To reward these hard-workers and bring their phenomenally well-produced shows to a more widespread audience?

It seems like that may be a little too much to ask for now, but I really hope that isn't always the case.

Twitter at the ballpark--curation and geolocation could be key for teams

Colin O'Keefe — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:47:40 -0800

For me, getting scorched in the dome with a foul ball borders on being inevitable. See, when I go to Mariners games I usually sit about 20 rows up from third base and spend an inordinate amount of time on my phone because, in-between batters and innings, I am constantly checking my Twitter list of Mariners writers and bloggers.

Now, I'll be the first to acknowledge that if Ray Kinsella were sitting to my left, and Terrence Mann to my right, they would not approve. But in today's age, how different is this than keeping score? I'll admit it isn't as traditional or romanticized, but it keeps me engaged in the game and gives appropriate context to eveything that's going on. Whenever I tell someone about this practice, someone who also utilizes Twitter a bit, they give it a shot and usually enjoy it. It's such a great addition to the game, like those people who listen to the AM radio, but it's better. It makes the games more enjoyable and it makes me a better fan. The obvious question then is, how can marketers spur this kind of behavior?

I recently started thinking a little more about this as I took part Wednesday in #sbchat (sports business) on Twitter, where I conversed with Caleb Mezzy of 5MSports regarding in-game promotions. "Conversed" is probably a little kind, you can see the transcript here. While I understand the need, I personally despise many in-game promotions. I cannot stand the wave and that's not even a promotion so computer-animated hydroplane races are out of the question. So, I pressed Caleb to see how they could be done tastefully, without turning off some of your better fans while still offering something of value. Because of some projects he was working on, it was left someone else at "Tweets on big screen."

Well, that alone doesn't get me. Not only does pulling up random fan-generated Tweets seem a little like social media for social media's sake, I know Safeco already displays texts and pictures from fans through a Verizon promotion.

So what can we do to really incorporate Twitter into the gameday experience? After a four-paragraph lede, let's get to those two things I mentioned in the title.

Curation

This concept is very basic. You take the best stuff and put it in one easily-accessible place. It's exactly what I do with my own list of bloggers and writers. I only want the best stuff. This is why I monitor this list more fervently than a search column for the word 'Mariners'. So, what if a team threw their brand behind an official list, except one that was better with mine? I can't find the example now (believe they're oddly deleted) but the folks at NBC would put together a Twitter list for each Sunday Night Football game. It consisted of prominent writers, personalities, etc from each side. The same could be done for each series in baseball. It'd be great to see not only the various beat-writers and bloggers covering the M's, but those of the other team as well. And then, after you do something like that, you show "Tweets on the big screen". You introduce people to that list through mentions in the stadium. You explain how easy it is to follow, you don't even need to be on Twitter because you created a short at.mlb URL redirect and pull that up on the board. Now anyone can track it on their phone. And you know what? They'll be looking for that list when they're watching at home too. And if they're not, you can always remind them on the telecast.

But, you say this doesn't engage the fans at the stadium. How can they participate? Well...

Geolocation

The idea of combining geolocation with Twitter first piqued my interest when MLB updated its mobile AtBat app to include check-in functionality along with the ability to see Tweets from the ballpark and surrounding area. However, each of these carried its own problem. First, you just created a new geolocation service when there's already enough out there. Foursquare is the elder geolocation-centric application while Facebook Places is the most used. With the 'nearby Tweets' functionality in the MLB app, users have to actually turn on the geo-tagging of their updates. Many people don't. So what now?

I think you utilize Foursquare and Facebook Places. Foursquare is excellent for this because, when checking to see who else is there, Foursquare pulls up their Twitter account when available. From the Twitter accounts on there you, either manually or through API ninja work, turn those check-ins into a Twitter list. And now you show "Tweets on big screen" to highlight those who are participating and cue in those who haven't yet. "Oh you don't have Foursquare? Just check in on Facebook Places with your Twitter name as a comment and we'll be sure to get you added." Now this list is promoted at games using the same tactics as the previous list, likely in the same promotion. Fans not on Twitter can track it by going to a certain URL. Maybe the teams create a specific page displaying both side-by-side; it wouldn't be difficult. While this is great for those people at the game, to converse with fans across the ballpark, how cool would this be to track at home or from across the country? Sounds like fun to me.

So, give it a shot sports marketers. If you're looking for a way to engage your fans and incorporate Twitter into the gameday experience, then really do it. Don't utilize social media just to be hip or offer customer service when there are so many other ways it could offer value to your most passionate fans.

RIP Fanhouse--would be smart for teams to scoop these writers up

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:00:30 -0800

For those of you who didn't know, today marks the last day of existence for AOL Fanhouse as AOL is now outsourcing its sports coverage to Sporting News.

For those of you who don't have any experience with the site (unlikely), it was AOL's sports flagship, offering a wealth of content from a team that grew to 100 writers. For those of us who read the site consistently over the years, today is a weird day. I go so far as to say Fanhouse was my favorite sports site but it's been in my browser bookmark bar since 2005, matched only in that run by Yahoo! Sports, ESPN and GMail. Watching Fanhouse go after it spent the better part of a decade in my rotation of sites I'd randomly check in on whenever bored is just a bit weird.

News came this weekend that only four, four, of Fanhouse's roughly 100-person staff will be retained by Sporting News. While it's sad to see so many writers unsure what to do next, I'm excited to see the projects they'll start, with Sam Amick's NBAConfidential.com being one example. While other writers will latch on elsewhere, I hope some make their way in-house, as team-side bloggers. For any team looking for that type of thing, or even looking to fill a Digital Media Coordinator-type role, I can't help think that these guys would perfect for that.

Here's a few reasons why these guys would be great writing in-house:

The can write to the fan.
It's almost hard to believe how difficult it is to find someone who can write well. That said, it's even harder to teach someone to write well. You can teach someone to do a little marketing, follow along with a basic campaign and do the little things necessary in that, but you cannot teach them to write. That's why taking someone from this team and teaching them whatever else is necessary to operate as a Digital Media Coordinator is much preferable over taking someone with a marketing or business background and then hoping they'll eventually be able to produce engaging content. It doesn't work like that.

These guys are trained writers and, more importantly, experienced bloggers. They know the type of content that appeals to fans and can produce that at a regular clip. For most of them, they've never had the level of access an in-house opportunity would provide. Simply taking one of these bloggers and asking them to give everyone else the same perspective they now have, telling them to offer an side look at the organization, would likely produce some pretty remarkable results.
They can listen.
In today's day-and-age, this is the most essential part of being successful on the web. It's no longer enough to produce great content and wait for others who also love hearing the sound of your voice to come by. Now, marketers, writers, whoever must also to listen to the developments and opinions around them. It isn't as simple as using RSS or being on Twitter, you have to be able to truly understand and respect other opinions around you, then share them with others when it's appropriate. That's exactly what these guys can do. Not only are they capable of producing strong content themselves, but they're plugged into the best commentary found across the web. Curating that content and bringing it to the fans is a huge un-tapped opportunity for most teams.
They're bloggers, they know hot to work.
So many times people will point the finger at bloggers and criticize what they supposedly do for a living. The best rebuttal I've heard is that there's so many people who have no idea what these guys have to do just in order to blog. While Fanhouse carried its share of full-time writers, how do you think those guys got there? For most, it was building their own publication, or pouring in hours on someone else's small-scale blog. For most of these guys to get to where they did, they were working or going to school full-time and writing at multipe publications. You think a recent college grad who's never worked a full-time job is going to match that? It's going to be difficult for anyone on the business side to match a journalist or blogger when it comes to work ethic.

Again, I'll be interested in seeing where these guys latch on, and hope to see at least one or two find their way to a team. There's a lot of opportunities out there, both for teams and these writers, so I hope to see some take advantage of it.

How to know if the "social media expert" who started following you on Twitter is full of it

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:19:01 -0800

Imagine for a moment you've just arrived at one of those goofy social media networking functions. It's probably around 6:00pm and you're a bit confused as you enter the lobby of a suave downtown hotel but you'd prefer not to ask the younger girl working at reception to point you in the direction of the auxiliary conference room holding all the nerds. So instead you follow a guy in thick frames, sports coat and t-shirt to the right spot, where you write your name and Twitter handle on a sticker before dropping your business card in a fishbowl for the off-chance to win an iPad. Onward.

The free food and open bar are what pulled you in but, while there, you figure you might as well see if there's any other people interested in sports marketing. So what do you do?

You start yelling as loud as you can, of course.
HEY. DOES ANYONE HERE LIKE SPORTS STUFF? WHO WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN TO THINGS I HAVE TO SAY? WOULD EVERYONE WHO LIKES THE THINGS I LIKE PLEASE LISTEN TO THE THINGS I AM SAYING? IN SPEAKING TO ALL OF YOU I WILL MAKE LOOSE AND SCATTERED EYE CONTACT SO YOU BELIEVE I AM LISTENING TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. You randomly start pointing at individuals. YOU, I WANT YOU TO LISTEN. HEY. LISTEN. I LIKE THE SPORTS AND YOU LIKE THE SPORTS. I CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

Oh, hold up? You wouldn't act like that? You say no one would set out to network and connect with individuals by randomly shouting at various people loosely interested in the things you are without any personal knowledge of who they are or what they do? You think spitting information at people you don't know while not paying any attention to what they're saying is a bad idea?

Then why do so many idiots take that approach on Twitter? Because that's exactly what using "follower management" software is like.

Here's what set me off tonight. I got an email into my inbox from Twitter letting me know an account named WePost Media had started following me. Just from the name I knew this was effed right from jump street. They had roughly 30,000 followers and offer "a streamlined social media presence for any business." Here's that email with the arrow, of course, added.

Yeah, have a look at that. They started following me using a program called Tweet Spinner. In their words, they "help you find more receptive followers and identify abandoned/spam accounts." In plain words, they find people who mention subjects loosely associated to your interests and follow them. If they don't follow you back, they're unfollowed in order to maintain a healthy and fraudulent follower to following ratio. This automated process continues until you have tens of thousands of people you don't know to spit nonsense at.

And why is this case so particularly upsetting? Because this company, WePost Media, is actually offering their social media expertise to businesses. It's part of what they call "Audience Building."

Imagine this. You're a small business owner. Maybe you run a decent sandwich shop in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle. You'd like to get the word out on your business and have heard social media is the key. Hey, WePost Media is offering to do it for you, for only a couple hundred dollars a month. They create a Twitter account, hook up the Tweet Spinner and before you know it, your small restaurant shop has a few thousand followers. The thing is, no matter what you do with that Twitter account, you keep spinning your wheels with social media because no one really has any relationship with you and you have no relationship with them. You have no idea who these people are, and because some of them might not even be in the same city, they don't know you. So, obviously, you assume this whole social media thing is a farce. Anyone who says this is the key is full of it. Pretty awful.

I will be the first to acknowledge I am no Twitter (or social media) rockstar. I've been on Twitter for years and have a measly 746 followers at the time of writing this. But you know what? I follow people because I'm interested in what they do and specifically would like to establish some type of connection with them. I've found Twitter's a pretty good way to do that.

As an anecdote, here's how I followed the one new person I followed today. A buddy of mine let me know a kid he went to school with, Tanner Gooch, got a promotion to Marketing Director for the Big Sky Conference, in which the University of Montana (my alumnus) plays. So, I quickly did a Google search for 'Tanner Gooch twitter', followed and added him to my private sports biz/social media group. I did this because I've found that's an easy and passive—but effective— way to connect; much like walking up and calmly introducing myself at a networking function. And it's much less weird than mentioning him in a blog post without personally knowing him.

My advice: if you're on Twitter, please pay attention to those emails and resist following anyone who follows you using software (excluding Tweetdeck and those types of applications), especially if they claim to offer guidance on social media. If you're using this software, stop and think for a bit. Is your confidence so lacking that you need a plush falsified follower count to fall back on?

Let's get it together guys. Social media is not a megahorn meant to be used to broadcast information at random people. It's not about false follower counts. Intentionally leading people to believe otherwise is plain wrong.

Mainstream sports journalism to get hit by social media on a whole new front

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:44:26 -0800

About four or five years ago, as the decline of print media became obvious and imminent, everyone was quick to point the finger at online outlets. We were all anxious to note the rise of blogs conveniently correlated with the decline of traditional print media. It only made sense; people jumped at the opportunity to read content with a depth and style that had previously never existed.

From there, we saw advertising dollars (both classifieds and other channels) shrink significantly while the reporting staffs dwindled in accordance. Now though, it seems as though we arrived at a good resting point. There's a wealth of phenomenal commentary from the sports blogosphere while the print staffs at sports outlets are filtered to the point where a majority of the reporters remaining are very strong.

While this era has been nice (can 9-18 months even count as an era?), we may see the traditional media outlets that remain get hit hard once again by social media. This time it won't come from fellow writers producing more content, but instead from the very sources they cover.

As many of you know, John Elway recently joined the Denver Broncos front office and has launched something of a transparency crusade that included an unprecedented look at the coach hiring process. He continued that push for transparency today as he announced on his Twitter account that the Broncos have signed a new long-term deal with veteran corner Champ Bailey. As that news broke, I saw an interesting Tweet from ProFootballTalk's Gregg Rosenthal:

Outside of formal training and a salary, the one thing traditional sports reporters always had over sports bloggers was access. While bloggers may have done a phenomenal job at curation, in-depth analysis, storytelling, humor and offering a fan-friendly perspective, the beat writers always had their access. We've seen sports bloggers begin to be recognized more and more frequently as journalists, with access granted accordingly, but a time may soon come when everyone covering a particular team has access.

As I mentioned in the lead-in to my last post, some teams and executives may stay away from being overly transparent simply because they feel as though they owe it to the newspapers to take the news straight to them before anyone else. Well, John Elway is new at this and, in that perspective, he doesn't owe anything to anyone. Elway built Denver into the football town it is today and can run the organization as he deems fit. I believe as we see a natural turnover with time, and the eventual adoption of new technology by older executives, we're going to see more organizations displaying transparency and granting access similar to what the Broncos have done.

For a few years though, we'll continue to see sources prop up the work of certain reporters because of relationships they've built with them over time. To me, it's almost fighting the inevitable. It's not all that dissimilar to how Netflix agreed to delay the distribution of certain movies—an act of inconvenience simply for inconvenience's sake—because propping up the DVD format at the behest of movie studios was the only way for them to strike licensing deals. It doesn't make a lot of sense. We know we're not going to be watching DVDs in 20 years and we know sportswriting as we see it know is going to continue to evolve so it makes no sense to purposefully stifle positive innovation.

Teams should take the opportunities they have to be transparent where it benefits them. We live in a time when fans' appetite for information has never been higher and all the tools are in place for teams to develop powerful relationships with their those supporters.

At the same time, it isn't all doom-and-gloom for sportswriters. The same tools at the disposal of teams are also in the hands of reporters. Now more than ever, reporters need to make the most out of the access they do have. Now is a time when every member of the media has an opportunity to do some truly innovative things. It only makes sense to embrace that.

Photo credit: Ed Clemente Photography

Are reporters' relationships with sources ruining sports journalism?

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:02:32 -0800

A couple weeks ago I was out with a buddy playing some shuffleboard and also randomly discussing why sources like general managers and coaches wouldn't just divulge information through social media as opposed to texting a sportswriter (odd, I know). He reminded me that it isn't that these sources don't have the means to release this information on their own. They simply owe it to the reporters they choose to inform.

It wasn't that I was unaware such practice takes place, it's simply one of those truths you choose to block out from time to time. We (maybe just I) like to think of sportswriters as tireless hard-nosed reporters, working into the late hours of the night to uncover whatever facts they can. Instead, they're sometimes just some smart-ass pawns.

We sometimes supend disbelief a bit, forget that a significant amount of major sports news today isn't unearthed through tireless reporting, but instead intentionally leaked with a purpose to the reporter who has done the best politicking.

As a case study, let's look at one Chris Broussard, ESPN's "NBA Insider". As background, Chris Broussard was one of the first reporters to break the LeBron-to-Miami story. Interestingly enough, he was also the reporter who reported Miami Heat "players" were starting to question Erik Spoelstra's ability to coach.

Moving on, LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony share an agent: Leon Rose. To some of you, all this information and where I'm going is painfully obvious. To others, it may look like I'm Glenn Beck'ing things a bit.

Anyway, unsurprisingly, Chris Broussard has played a major role in reporting on the recent Carmelo Anthony fiasco. Just today he reported that a single source has said that the New Jersey Nets have re-entered the race for Carmelo Anthony despite publicly bowing out of the contest about a month ago. In that article, which is 1,078 words long, there's really only one new tidbit of information:

"New Jersey has come back strong," said one source with knowledge of the discussions. "They really want Anthony."

Wow.

So, there's a couple different possibilities here. Let's examine.

This is totally and completely legitimate. After going so far as to publicly back out via press conference, something rarely—if ever—seen, billionaire owner Mikhail Prokhorov has gone back on his word and is hot on the trail of 'Melo once again. Very possible, but seems a bit odd to me, even though the story is being reported by more than just Broussard.
Maybe there has been a modicum of interest, the absolute minimal amount on the part of the Nets, and members of Melo's camp (Hey, Leon Rose, what's up?) have leaked this info to Broussard (along with others) and instructed him to run with the story. I'm giving Broussard the benefit of the doubt here as it's entirely possible there hasn't been any raised level of interest. He's even cut out the Pistons in this report so there's no need to verify sources there. Just go with the one single source saying it happened, that'll work.

What's the goal here? Maybe the Knicks buy it and amp up their efforts to trade for Carmelo. It's unlikely, but it's worth a shot. If the Knicks truly believe there's another suitor involved, they may up their offer and get Carmelo to the Garden before he inevitably signs with the Knicks in free agency. If he gets there before free agency, he can sign a contract extension and make significantly more money than he would in the fallout from the renogiated CBA. Maybe then the sources who leaked this information remember all the writers who helped make this happen and be sure to reward them with news of the trade and eventual contract extension.

I understand this all sounds far-fetched to some, but it happens every single day. It very well may be a sign of the times, or maybe it's always taken place (though I'm not sure why we'd all be taught not to write single source stories or give sources preferential treatment then) but I do know it does make me question, if not doubt, every single report from individuals like Chris Broussard. There are some reporters who have earned everyone's trust, while others simply have not.

Coming back to the realm of social media, there may come a time when teams and agents decide to cut the crap, and speak directly with the general public because the mainstream media has become so diluted with strategic information anyway. While the mainstream media may eventually get hit by their sources for this behavior, it's much more likely that they'll be punished by their readers instead. I, personally, have gotten to the point where I take every major NBA report with a scoop of skepticism and instead wait until the facts materialize so I can read thoughtful analysis as opposed to this so-called "reporting". I'm more more interested in the commentary and insight offered by individuals like Henry Abbott and Matt Moore instead of these "Who said this anyway?" reports from the likes of Broussard.

So, sportswriters, I understand that things like this happen, that today's "24-hour news cycle" creates a constant thirst for scoops but please, let's have some dignity. Let's make sure every story or news item has more than one source. More than anything, just make sure you're not getting played. Give readers something informative, not something spoonfed to you for strategic reasons only.

All sports teams and leagues should allow embedding of online video

Colin O'Keefe — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:01:35 -0800

It seems as though every time I venture onto a NBA or NFL team's official site, I'm shocked by the amount of video content I find. I don't know why I should be; with the number of interviews, behind-the-scenes access and other stuff, that's probably about the amount of content I'd have up there if I were somehow running the show. But still, I'm shocked.

The probable reason: I don't expect to find all this video because I simply don't come to official team sites to get my news. There's too much other stuff going on there. I'll come to team sites to buy tickets, check the schedule, see what promotions are going on and maybe even peruse through the team store, but will not go straight there for my news. Team websites, for most purposes, are overt marketing material. I'm not going to dig through that for my news.

The solution, as mentioned, is allowing users to take team or league videos and drop them in whatever site I would like.

For those who are unfamiliar with this embedding, here's the process. Say I write an NHL blog, or maybe some dumb publication on sports and social media, and would like to have some video of Detroit Redwings star Pavel Datsyuk busting out this move I tried to do repeatedly as a kid but could never get down. I go to NHL.com's video section, search for it, find the video, and then click 'Share'. From there, I just grab the embed code and copy it into the HTML on my site. Shazaam:

Now, of course, the reasoning:

Why not do it? The basic reason is obviously that teams/leagues/sites want users to come to their site to watch the video. But think of the reasons for that first. "Well, we want them to know about the promotions and be able to buy tickets." Run a short ad before the video letting fans know what's up. This has to be 5-15 seconds tops. If you run a 30-second ad on a 60 or 90-second video, you're going to make people hate you. No, not just not watch future videos. They'll dislike you. After the video's over, link them to wherever you want. It could be more videos, could be whatever's on sale in the team store or it could even be tickets to Cheezburger Night. The point: teams and leagues can still accomplish what they want to while drastically expanding their videos' viewership.
Take the videos to the fans. Teams need to be honest with themselves and acknowledge that only their most diehard passionate fans are going to want to watch some of the videos available on their site. That doesn't mean some of the videos aren't worth doing, it simply means they need to be as accessible as possible. The same applies to the videos team's expect to draw the most interest. Let the videos flow to the places where the diehards congregate. If someone wants to shown everyone Matt Flynn's post-Super Bowl interview, they whould be able to do so.
National exposure. This is kind of an extension on the last one but the point is that team's have an opportunity to introduce players, plays, personalities and whatever to people who haven't seen them. With embeddable content, videos spread not only to blogs authored by fans of those teams, but to the national sports blogs that read those, and then the journalists who read that content. It can have a big impact.

I understand that leagues own a significant chunk of each professional sport's content but for team's in this position, they need to create content that they are allowed to embed. What are you not allowed to show? There must be something interesting that isn't that. This is where college teams may have a huge advantage.

I truly believe some team, league or college program is going to see the opportunity here—maybe they'll even take the Hulu approach and offer full games online while they let fans splice them up however they want—and reap the benefits. I could be naïve, but see only positives in this and next to no negatives. Why not try it?

Three types of sports content I'd enjoy seeing on Facebook--and other observations

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:07:36 -0800

There's been a bit of buzz this week spurned by the UFC's decision to air a fight on Facebook and the ensuing coverage of this development in FastCompany. As someone who's a huge fan of airing live events online, and especially for free, I find it odd that I feel like some of the excitement on this is a bit unwarranted.

As background, here's the lede for that FastCompany article, written by Gregory Ferenstein.

In a move that may break television’s sleeper hold on sports events, the Ultimate Fighting Championship will exclusively live-stream an anticipated fight on Facebook, available to anyone who “likes” their fan page. This is the first time a major sporting event has offered exclusive content through the social networking king, and, if successful, could make Facebook center stage for the Super Bowls and World Cups of the future.

Following up on that, he later speaks with the much-respected sports and social media whiz Amy Martin of Digital Royalty; the excerpt:

Martin, who works with a broad sports portfolio of social media successes, from Shaq to the LA Kings, tells Fast Company that so-called "like-gating" is "absolutely" the future of live sporting events. "We don’t have a network today that reaches the same global audience that Facebook does ... We’re taking the content to where fans want to be and where they’re spending their day."

Honestly, I do think this is a great idea, just what they're doing here. However, here's why it rubs me the wrong way: no sports organization knows that Facebook streaming major events for the cost of a 'Like' is absolutely not the future of live events more than the UFC. Why? Try to imagine the UFC without the economics of pay-per-view events. I'd enjoy it—because the UFC wouldn't exist, and frankly, I'm much more of a boxing fan.

That said, the more I look at it, there's likely more off-point with some of the things written in the article than the idea itself.

Before going into the content I'd like to see, I want to explain why what they're doing here is a good idea and what you're looking for in other content to broadcast for free on Facebook.

It engages your most passionate fans without undercutting the bottom line.
While the lede to the article mentioned above calls this fight an "anticipated" one, that's a stretch. This fight is the undercard to two other undercards to be shown on Spike TV, four more undercards to be shown on pay-per-view, and then there's finally the middleweight championship bout between Silva and Belfort. On top of that, the fight has the lowest payout of all the fights on the evening. So, yeah, if you're going to watch this fight you're obviously pretty passionate about seeing whatever UFC you possibly can. The important thing is that sometimes doing things that doesn't appeal to everyone is actually smart. Doing things that exclude passive fans while specifically targeting, rewarding and engaging passionate ones not only builds goodwill, but also drops them all in the same place at the same time. Hey, did we mention there's a live chat with Dana White?
It goes to where the people are and gets them talking.
This is mentioned in the article and is obviously the incentive for the UFC here. Anyone who was a Facebook fan of UFC previously will see something in their stream reminding them of the fight to be aired online. They may pop into that to check it out, and the opportunity to spread the word to their friends that the big fight is tonight will be right there in front of them. Also, for those who are passively checking this out and weren't planning on watching the main event, I'm sure they'll be reminded continuously that there's plenty of time to order the pay-per-view.
It wouldn't have been seen elsewhere.
I can't speak for this fight with a high level of certainty but do believe there's at least a modicum of chance that this fight wouldn't have been seen at all and/or existed if not for this experiment with Facebook. And that's a good thing. This is an opportunity for unique or transparent content to be broadcast to some of your more popular fans.

As I'm sometimes apt to do, I waited far too long to get to the point. So...

Sports content I would like to see broadcast on Facebook

Blogger broadcasts.
This may be the goofiest idea, or it may be the best. I've used this anecdote at least six times before but the reason I became so enamored with Twitter a few years ago was because of its potential for it to serve as an alternative commentary to the live sports I was watching on TV. Now, take that rough idea—creative, knowledgeable, humorous and real-world voices—and broadcast it via audio on Facebook.

As an example, I usually listen to the podcasts put out by Jeff Sullivan and Matthew Carruth at Lookout Landing, my favorite Mariners blog. They're funny, young and know a ton about baseball. Have these two provide audio commentary on a game once a week, once a month, and I'd certainly listen, so too would all the passionate Mariners fans found on Lookout Landing. Then, during the game broadcast, maybe the regular guys on TV kick it to them for a batter or two. Now you may have some good fans who were completely unaware guys like Jeff and Matthew existed wondering where they can go to get more. And what happens when you take good fans, the type to tune into Fox Sports Northwest to watch the games, but not make it out to Safeco Field, then add social media? Yeah, this. The technology probably isn't all that much more complicated than setting up a Skype call.
Batting practice, shoot-arounds, walk-throughs.
The idea of getting to the ballpark and sitting in the outfield bleachers while some of your home team's favorite players mash dingers is a romantic one. Unfortunately, many teams are done with batting practice before any fans are allowed to enter. The fans that do make it in as the gates open will only see the visiting team. So how do you make these passionate fans still feel rewarded for loving the team they do, and showing them what they want to see? Broadcast it on Facebook. While it wouldn't be overly entertaining, I'd check in from time to time, especially if it was more than a webcam.

Teams could have any member of the PR staff walk around batting practice, an NBA shootaround and maybe an NFL walk-through with a standard smartphone streaming it to an embedded Justin.TV channel, shooting the BP or what-have-you and asking basic informal questions that could easily have nothing to do with sports. I wonder if Milton Bradley watches The Wire.
Alternate camera angles and going behind the scenes.
Isn't it amazing that every Major Leage Baseball team, at least as far as I know, has a batting cage inside the dugout? And I've seen some that project the pitcher's video onto the screen, with the ball coming out at that pitchers exact point of release. How incredible is that? Wouldn't it be cool to watch your guy take some cuts before going up to the plate? What about a muted camera on an NFL or NHL bench? It could be pretty great. Obviously, you're not looking to piss your players off or give a social media savvy opponent a huge upper-hand, but if it doesn't do either of these things then why not?

Also, Facebook video could be used to give fans at home an idea of what it's like to be at a game. A video perched atop the bleachers at a baseball or football stadium could give fans a look at what the atmosphere is like without giving too much away. Or a better idea, something I tried to do with Twitter updates and Flickr photos in college, why not give fans at home an idea of what it's like inside the student section at a college football or basketball game? A school's SID or marketing department could position a student intern with a capable smart phone next to an outlet and let him shoot the game and the atmosphere around him.

These are just a few ideas, and by no means a limit to what a sports team can do with broadcasts on Facebook. Realistically, teams can do whatever they want. The point here is to have fun with it and be creative. Teams shouldn't constantly worry about trying to please everyone and pulling in the casual fan when doing great things for your best fans can be much more impactful.

Mike McCarthy to show Packers fan-created YouTube video prior to Super Bowl XLV

Colin O'Keefe — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 04:13:47 -0800

Today is a big day. I'm a Packers fan and today we are playing in a Super Bowl. The last time this happened, I was 11 years old and John Elway helicoptered his way to a first down inside the 5-yard line that would seal a victory. Despite watching them win a title the previous year, I was crushed. I had to hide from sports coverage for weeks and when it did manage to jump out at me, I hoped it'd reveal that somehow on account of a technicality (Maybe all the Broncos were all on steroids...? Please? Anything?) the Packers would be awarded the Super Bowl. The only other pro team I followed at the time was the Chicago Bulls. I didn't know any better, I figured my teams only won titles and their best players were always named MVP.

It's been since those Bulls that any professional team of mine has played for a championship. As a result, I've been consuming any piece of Packers media I can find this week. That includes the following video put together by Michael Neelson of Madison and Austin-based Storyfirst Media.

While I caught the original video, produced in the lead-up to the NFC Championship Game, Michael has since updated it. Why? Because the Packers wanted to show it before the Super Bowl. When I saw this bit of news come across Twitter, I reached out to Michael to get the full story. And here that is:

So I made this video montage of all the highs and lows of the 2010 Green Bay Packers season just for the hell of it and posted it on one of my YouTube channels just prior to the NFC Title Game at Chicago. The YouTube channel is one I created to post fan reaction videos from a great little Packers bar in my current town of Austin, Texas called Billy's on Burnet.

Once I posted "'A Game of Inches' 2010 NFC Title Game", it got a ton of exposure over the social networks. But then I got one comment from a guy named Mike Stefan from Hartland, Wisconsin who said he was a friend of Donald Driver's. Apparently, he had seen the video, shown it to Driver, and Driver loved it. Driver showed it to Charles Woodson, one of the team captains, and Woodson loved it. Woodson brought it to Coach McCarthy, and he loved it, and somewhere along all this they decided that I should edit an updated version for the Super Bowl and they would show it to the team prior to the game to fire them up.

Now, I was skeptical at first. Very skeptical. You have people saying weird stuff and making outlandish claims all over the internet all the time with no evidence to back up their claims whatsoever. So before I was gonna put the time in to edit an updated version, I wanted to make sure this was legit. So I messaged Mike back and he sent me three photographs of himself and Driver, or "Quickie", as he calls him. Apparently he's known Driver since 1999 and has since become close friends with him. Anyway... I edited a new Super Bowl version together, posted it this morning, and now it's being passed around by people like Jason Wilde, Aaron Nagler and Lori Nickel. I had more Tweets in my inbox today than ever before.

Mike told me that he sent Driver the new link and all is set.

Michael also said it may be possible to get some kind photo or video evidence of it happening, and we'll see if that comes through. Because I trust people to not be horrible, and believe Mike Stefan exists after some quick Googling, I'm going to say this is pretty damn remarkable.

There's a lot of talk on how athletes are using social media to communicate with their fans, but sometimes it's just as great hearing things go the other way. I once got a Twitter mention from Talib Kweli. Making something that your favorite team will see before playing the most important game of their lives is just a little bit cooler.

Photo credit: elviskennedy

UPDATE: If someone could leave a comment letting me know where they saw this on Facebook or who sent it to them via email, that would be greatly appreciated. Seeing an uptick in response from those two places and would like to thank whoever caused it.

U-Dub displays creativity and hustle on National Signing Day

Colin O'Keefe — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:07:41 -0800

Out of context, the accompanying image is pretty lame. It's a fax machine, and someone holding a piece of paper it had just spat out. On college football's National Signing Day the fax machine becomes just a little bit more exciting. When that image of a fax machine is actually a live stream, and watching it print out a document is accompanied by University of Washington head football coach Steve Sarkisian announcing on his Twitter feed that's it's a letter of intent from highly touted Seattle-area wide receiver Kasen Williams, then that lame antiquated piece technology becomes pretty damn cool.

This idea actually started last year, with the University of Alabama copying the innovation and adding a girl in a mini skirt. When arguably the most prestigious program in the history of college football steals your idea, you're doing something right.

Seeing what the Huskies had done, I reached out to good friend and UW Assistant Director of Communications Jeremy Cothran to get a feel for where this idea came from and the approach to social media inside the program. Here's his response, which came via email:

Sark is pretty open about social media. We want to give fans and recruits an inside look at what our program is about. Whether it’s photos of the ring-fitters sizing up people for Holiday Bowl rings or a live fax cam, we want to present a transparent, unfiltered view of the football program. That is all driven through CoachSark.com, Twitter and Facebook.

We definitely want to experiment and push the envelope when it comes to social media and our product. We’re the only outlet that can provide true inside-access to the program, so why not use it.

Emphasis added by me as that last line is absolutely key. If you're not willing to give fans an inside look at what your sports organization is like, to make them feel like they're really part of the program, then no one will. The mainstream media can write standard gamers, they can give fans basic reactions to developments but they cannot create relationships with fans the way the organization itself can.

While the fax cam was one great idea, and really the star of their National Signing Day efforts, they had their act together in other areas as well. Profiles on each athlete went up on GoHuskies.com immediately after their LOIs came in, along with an accompanying post on Sarkisian's blog. Why are the posts great, and why not have those inside the site? That's a post unto itself but the basic explanation is that this content is completely different than what fans expect to find inside a program's official site. If fans aren't expecting to find that content inside an official site, then they won't read it there. It belongs on its own publication and UW has done this perfectly.

This was great work by Jeremy and the rest of the team at UW. This will be one program to watch, and for others to benchmark themselves against. Looking forwad to seeing what they'll do in the future.

Why ATDHE, in its current state, can be good for sports teams and leagues

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 19:51:01 -0800

ATDHE.net was shut down earlier this week as their domain name was seized as part of a Homeland Securities investigation. What streaming live sports has anything to do with defending the safety of the United States of America, I have no idea; but while the ferries I take at least once a week have no security whatsoever for walk-on passengers, we have a special agent chasing down those who aren't committing copyright infringement, just spreading it. Here's the image now in place on the old domain, while the site is back in place on a different domain.

A month ago I sung the praises of ATDHE for sports fans. Being completely honest, I went a bit too far. Sports fans absolutely cannot get by on using sites like ATDHE alone. And, for sports teams and leagues, this in-between ground where fans can check out games from time to time, but not get by on the service by itself, it is absolutely perfect.

First off, let's start with a couple reasons why ATDHE isn't that great and, as a result, serves as no legitimate threat to mainstream media outlets:

It is wildly inconsistent. The video streams on this site come from a number of different video services with the the feeds itself being broadcast from a wide range of individuals. The feed quality is almost never the same and, when there is a good feed, it's usually taken off the air at some point during the game.
It doesn't even have everything and some of the things it does have aren't found elsewhere. There are rarely any regular season Major League Baseball streams. As a Mariners fan, this site is no help whatsoever. For fans of La Liga or the English Premier League, there's nowhere else for fans on a non-ESPN3 ISP to watch these games online legally.
It's not even that popular amongst the general public. Almost everyone I mention it to has never heard of the site and, when I do mention it, no one ever remembers the name of the site and I have to tell them about it again later.

Now why is this good?

Almost all ATDHE users are using the site as a last resort. For the most part, they are not choosing to watch sports on ATDHE over a legal or paid method, they're choosing between watching the game on ATDHE or not watching it at all, for any number of reasons. It could be financial restraints preventing them from buying services like NBA League Pass Broadband or MLB.tv, or it could be because they just want to check the game out the game because they saw friends buzzing about it on Tweetdeck, but aren't committed to throwing down for every game.

I know the idea of giving away games for free is off-putting to some league or team officials, but in choosing between having casual fans (could still be diehard fans of the sport, but not the teams involved) watching your team's games or not doing so, why wouldn't you prefer the former?

Strengthening that point, which I admit seems ridiculous at first glance, let's look at the likely demographics of the site's user: probably younger, more technologically savvy, possibly the group of people that cannot afford sports packages or even cable at alll, but are still passionate enough to explore every possible avenue to watch the game. These are the next generation of fans. Look at who those characteristics could define: college students, sports bloggers, casual fans looking to become bigger ones and technologically-savvy fans who may use other tools to spread the word on the game.

Why shouldn't a team or league make a minor investment in allowing this group to watch sports for free over having them not watch games at all?

To close it out, fighting ATDHE is total waste of time. Not only can the site pop right back up in a matter of days with a slightly altered URL, but doing so may ultimately be detrimental to the copyright holders the site infringes upon. So, let it be. The site isn't taking a major chunk out of the mainstream media's bottom line but only giving mediocre access to casual and/or influential fans who wouldn't be watching what they're viewing otherwise.

To take next step, sports organizations must expand social media use beyond marketing & PR teams

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 20:49:29 -0800

It's inevitable, this social media wave will eventually crash on the rocky beach that is reality. While I look forward to the day the self-titled "social media consultants" get their comeuppance, I also dread the undue skepticism and criticism the true professionals and evangelists will eventually face.

It's going to come, there will be a time when the higher-ups and non-marketing people look to their social media team and wonder why the buzz died down, and why the impact on the bottom line just isn't there to the extent they want it to be. Ultimately, these skeptics are the guilty ones.

Right now we do see some non-marketing and non-communications inhouse professionals utilizing social media. Owners like Mark Cuban and Jim Irsay stand out as "Isn't this neat?" examples but in order for social media to reach its marketing and fan engagement potential, social media use—and effectiveness—must be more widespread within organizations than it is now.

On Global Neighborhoods, Shel Israel has an excellent explanation and analogy, for where social media use needs to be:

I have long argued that social media needs to have its own box on the enterprise org chart. If it SM becomes the purview of marketing, IT, support or whatever, then it becomes a tool of that department, when in fact social media is more like the telephone or PC. One group may manage the resource but all groups should share in the benefits.

But there are major differences between org chart boxes and enterprise silos. Defining a place for that which we currently call social media, should not confine social media to that place in the organization. The purpose of an organizational social media team, it seems to me, is to share, educate, evangelize and empower employees, vendors, customers and business partners. The strategic objective is to have easy, efficient conversations over the internet.

Let's take that analogy and run with it for a moment. Imagine one department within an organization handling all the emails, or all the phone calls. When a general manager is looking to inquire about another team's player, one of their phone representatives reaches out to the other team's phone representative. When an athletic director is looking to keep relations strong with a prominent booster, they have their email pro reach out to them. Just a little ridiculous, no?

I am not nonsensical enough to advocate that general managers propose trades by way of Twitter mentions or direct messages, but to limit all social media use within the marketing or public relations departments is ill-advised. These media and technology professionals can work in creating a true social media strategy, controlling the technology and ultimately advising others on the best practices within this medium, but its use should not be limited to those individuals.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I see no reason why a general manager should text an ESPN reporter informing them that they have no intention of trading a star player, knowing that information will immediately be relayed to the public, instead of just texting Twitter and informing the fans directly. When an owner approves an increase in payroll to sign a big-name free agent, why can't they spend 10 minutes drafting a three-paragraph blog post explaining why they jumped at this opportunity? Why shouldn't medical staffs work with their social media team to show fans that the team's big man is just about back?

I cannot lend any amount of sympathy to the "I don't have the time" excuse. Nobody has to be perfect in this, but if individuals have the time to text, to write short emails, then they have the time to offer a unique perspective through social media.

The organizations that adopt the mentality that social media isn't a marketing tool limited to those operating in specific departments, but instead a means of communication to be utilized by all, will see its true potential.

Photo credit: gorriti

Cutler criticism, Packer photo incident show social media's hand in generating stories

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:10:36 -0800

I clearly remember the day Jay Cutler was traded from the Broncos to the Bears. I was actually in Chicago at the time and, as a Packer fan, the whole scene made me quite nervous. The next day, a friend and fellow fan of an NFC North team told me we'd despise having him in the division for the next decade and a good chunk of our adult lives. He was right.

On the day after my Packers advanced to their first Super Bowl since I was rocking a Starter jacket, Cutler dominated the national conversation—not for his play, but for his pension for criticism and disapproval. As everyone is well aware, Cutler took a good deal of heat from his peers on Twitter for not finishing the NFC Championship.

Then, later in the week, Green Bay Packers tight end Jermichael Finley and inside linebacker Nick Barnett generated a national story when they voiced their frustration with not being allowed in the team's Super Bowl photo, due to the fact that they were placed on injured reserve earlier in the season. The issue was eventually resolved, but not before causing a stir.

It's odd; just as seeing your team go to the Super Bowl generates a bit of disbelief, watching reporters chase down stories triggered by athletes randomly spouting off on the web causes a bit of a "Seriously? This is reality?" type reaction as well.

To clarify, I'm not against it. Sports reporters utilizing Twitter in the line of work has not only become a necessity for tracking story ideas and prominent developments, but also brings the beat-writers closer to their readers.

That said, Dan Wetzel had some excellent commentary on the subject earlier this week. Some excerpts:

Never before, have we had such raw and direct access to the real-time thoughts of NFL players. After decades of listening to athletes claim fans and media are too rough, it turns out we’ve got nothing on them in the venom department. Accurate or not, what they did to Jay Cutler was straight up cold.

The twirling twitter feeds of Sunday afternoon changed the story dramatically. You can lament that in our instant gratification world things like facts, perspective and patience have died. That’s true.

It isn’t going away though. You might as well accept it. This is the start of the new normal. Until the next new normal, which isn’t likely to slow down or soften the commentary.

Even two years ago, Cutler and the Bears would’ve at least had until the postgame media session to explain the injury and circumstances around the benching. Questions would’ve been asked, some fans still would’ve been angry and perhaps a columnist would’ve ripped away. It wouldn’t have gone down like this though. Time and facts would’ve lessened the heat of the moment.

The questions by reporters were more aggressive than they would’ve been pre-twitter because journalists could lean on the opinion of NFL players to frame things. No sports reporter is going to toe-to-toe in a debate with Brian Urlacher(notes) on the toughness of a player unless he can cite Jones-Drew, Sanders and the others.

Fair point but that’s where we’ve landed. Twitter has allowed a voice to emerge from the couches – be it the average Joe or the NFL pro. Everyone is empowered. It’s unfettered, it’s immediate and in it’s brevity it offers very little opportunity for perspective.

I can't go much further than agreeing with Wetzel. Cutler likely would've been slightly criticized, maybe called out by a columnist or two for being soft—but if the Tweets were kept only as thoughts instead of being broadcast it's likely this story never carries the weight it eventually does.

The Packers story is only further and stronger evidence of this. Players not being involved in a team photo—in what world does that become a national news story without tweets like this, this and this?

It's interesting stuff. The funny thing is, two years ago it wouldn't have been that hard to imagine social media arriving at this point, but now that we're here it is somewhat amazing. An even more interesting thought: where will we be two years from now? While I could've seen athletes playing a more prominent role on Twitter, I'm unsure where teams, athletes and fans will be 24 months from now. I am, however, excited to watch it play out.

Why denying a controversial tweet can damage an athlete's online brand and marketability

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:10:15 -0800

What's sometimes lost in the Q&A's, broadcasts, Facebook contests and blog posts of modern online sports marketing is the most fundamental part of social media: relationships.

The practice of blogging, one of the main ingredients in the modern hype around social media, started with those awful online diaries and LiveJournals—created so individuals could share their experiences online and connect with others. Social networks rose in popularity so people could tangibly define their web of interpersonal relationships.

Where am I going with this? If athletes really want to use social media in the best way possible, they should use it as it was originally intended: to foster relationships. They need to be open, honest and real in showing who they are. When athletes go back on the supposedly controversial things they say, it damages the relationship they have with fans, moreso than whatever they originally said.

As everyone's already seen, LeBron tweeted this gem while the Cavs were in the midst of getting defending champion'd to the tune of 55 points:

He then, of course, denied it. Well, kind of. He said that was indeed how he was feeling when he sent it, but that he was simply passing along what someone else sent to him.

Most would say that tweet is a bit spiteful, maybe even villainous. You know who can be really spiteful sometimes? Everyone.

Everyone has been LeBron. Every single person in the world has been motivated to accomplish something by others who didn't want them to do it.

When I was in middle school, I played in a recreational roller hockey league in a secluded and over-protected Seattle suburb called Bainbridge Island. Having recently moved out from Wisconsin, where I played ice hockey since age five, I tore through that league like late-80s MJ. The opposing teams (comprised mostly of kids just learning the sport) and their parents weren't big fans. My reaction? This.

Everyone's been there. You know who experiences the vitriol and venom LeBron sees when he goes on the road? Every single high school or college athlete who plays serious basketball or football.

This goes beyond sports. While not everyone has a boss like Dan Gilbert, I'm sure everyone has, at some point or another, seen some form of office politics and then used proving someone wrong as a motivation for work.

Bringing things back. For LeBron, this goes beyond simply "embracing the role of villain." Just be real. As long as what you're saying or doing isn't ridiculous, someone will feel similar. Hell, when I was a kid my favorite non-Jordan NBA player was Reggie Miller and he was kind of an asshole. But he was scrawny, he had ears that stuck out and he was great at showing people up.

The lesson: It's impossible for fans to develop a relationship with someone who's constantly acting ingenuinely. When an athlete fails to hold a strong relationship with his or her fans, they're less marketable. So LeBron, if you think contraction is good for the league, or that Dan Gilbert has what's coming to him, go for it. Ultimately, if it leads to fans seeing what you're like and being able to relate, you'll be better off for it.

Photo credit: bridgetds

Does social media make sports fans more whiny?

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:30:00 -0800

The single greatest thing about the Internet is the ability to find whatever interests you and then other people who are interested in the same thing. If I'm the type of person who effing loves Jello molds, I can find someone else who does as well. Or, a little closer to reality, if I'm caught up in the Packers playoff run and need my fix on the daily, I can find that from any number of outlets.

As the latter example happens to be true, I came across the excellent Green and Gold Today podcast hosted by Jason Wilde and Bill Johnson of ESPN Milwaukee. In one of these recent podcasts, as the pair discussed Mike McCarthy's clock management and playcalling abilties, Bill kind of lost it and claimed "social media has turned Packer fans into a bunch of whiny bitches." He also said clock management rarely impacts the outcome of football games. At first, I thought those were two of the dumbest things I'd ever heard. Now I'm not so sure. Well, on the first point.

There is, like with any other debate, two sides to this argument. I'm going to start with my initial reaction.

Social media has not made sports fans any more whiny than they were previously, only more vocal.

Social media, at its core, is a medium. It's only a channel of communication, like email, the telephone or the radio. A medium alone normally should not drastically change the attitude of the message that is being presented. The way it's being presented? Of course. But not necessarily the message itself. While the timing doesn't line up—or even come remotely close—imagine someone getting all pissy and saying "Darnit, this telephone is making Packer fans waaaay more bitter about losses." It wouldn't make sense, and not just from a historical perspective.

Social media hasn't changed the attitude of the fans, or made them complain more when the really shouldn't, but only given a voice those who previously went completely unheard. Previously, radio hosts like Johnson only heard from fans when they called in. The volume of calls received was of course limited by the hours the show was on the air, the ability to get through to the show and fans getting past the fear of being openly lambasted on the air for thousands of people to hear.

Now? Fans can anonymously fire opinions at radio hosts 24/7. So the attitude itself hasn't changed, it's just easier for Johnson and others to hear it.

And then, of course, the other side of the argument.

Yup, social media and the increased exchange of opinions has made sports fans complain far more than they previously did.

The crux of this argument goes all the way back to the introduction: if I want to find other people on the internet who think the same thing I do, I can do it. If I want to find a group of people to support my claim that Mike McCarthy is a horrible play-caller and his clock management is downright criminal, I can do that. I can probably find hundreds of other people who think the same thing.

Similar to how social media can take a good sports fan and turn them into a great one, it can also take a nervous or disagreeing fan and turn them into one who strongly criticizes and openly questions the team they love, even when they're two games away from the Super Bowl.

Aside from simply finding others who are thinking what I'm thinking, social media also allows sports fans to be influenced by a much wider variety of opinions and a significantly deeper base of information. I may not have thought something previously but, because of something I saw tweeted and then re-tweeted by several others on Tweetdeck, I may start forming an opinion on something I hadn't thought much about.

As an example, late Monday night this was making the rounds amongst the group of sports fans, writers and bloggers I follow:

Now, I may not have previously thought that Oregon got completely jobbed, but now I'm starting to think that may be the case. If I'm a Duck fan, I'm going to be much more whiny about the game after seeing that.

To conclude, social media is much different than other mediums due to the fact that it expands far beyond the traditional one-to-one or one-to-many models we've seen previously. It is many-to-many, and the open exchange of ideas creates an environment where opinions can rapidly grow in strength. While we often hear about the positive effect of such technology, we need to be careful about the negative side as well.

Photo credit: eytonz

Everyone knows about ATDHE.NET, right? Watch live sports online for free

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:30:27 -0800

ESPN recently released a study saying that everyone is really overreacting to the notion that people might start going without cable television. According to their study, only 0.28% of American households have cut their cable cords in the past three months. This seems lower than it should be.

Plain and simple, I watch sports as much as anyone I know and I've gotten by just fine for more than a year without paying for cable. That said, I don't not pay for TV. Of the things I pay for, there's MLB.tv, NBA League Pass Broadband and an XBox Live subscription so I can watch ESPN3. I get what I want (aside from in-market MLB games), and nothing I don't. Taking all that away one can see quite a lot of sports for free.

"How?" you ask: ATDHE.net.

I don't remember how exactly I came across this marvelous site but it has been an absolute godsend. Whenever one of the games I want to watch isn't available through my nornal outlets, this usually has me covered. Alright, some unorganized bulleted observations:

The quality isn't perfect. It can range from very good to pretty bad depending on the event and the provider of the video. There are some providers that are pretty solid though, and look very good when pulled up on my roughly 30" Vizio.
The video found on the site isn't actually broadcast by them. They link to other outlets and channels that are broadcasting the game. An example is Justin.TV, which you want to avoid if you can. It's similar to various scandalous movie sites that link to out-of-country streams of major films.
For the best quality and consistency, shoot for video that's broadcast through either Veetle or VShare.tv. You won't be able to tell which is which by looking at the site's list of links, and will need to download a plug-in for each when prompted, but it's worth it. These have the highest quality and are less likely to be shut down in the middle of a broadcast. Justin.TV is, generally, not the best. Sometimes you'll catch one with good quality (rare) but these are the most likely to be shut down due to copyright infringement because it's right up on the Justin.TV site and easy to find. Also, VShare.tv requires Firefox.
This one took me ahile to figure out. Say you're using an Apple laptop plugged into a larger monitor and want to have the large monitor display the game while you're doing whatever else on the laptop. If you fullscreen the window on the large screen and then go to click on anything on the small screen, it un-fullscreens the sports. To fix this, open the sports, hit CMD+T to open a new tab and this should resolve it.
Fun easter egg: sometimes games are coming back into the US from people streaming the game in other countries. So, what's being broadcast on ESPN America or whatever channel they're getting it on may be different from traditional American TV. This means they might leave the camera on in the arena/stadium, or at least come back a little earlier than they would because the advertising is nonexistent or doesn't match up. If you're really lucky, they'll leave the broadcasters' mics on too. I've never caught anything scandalous but sometimes you'll hear them candidly talking about a play or player, possibly planning what they're going to come out of the break with. It can be entertaining.
Now, what can you watch? This is a rough summary based on what I've seen.
- Just about all NFL games. And the Redzone channel. Quality can vary based on the popularity of the game.
- Most, if not all, NBA games. Now the quality usually isn't going to be as good as NBA League Pass Broadband but getting something instead of nothing is pretty good.
- MMA and Boxing. This is the best. Without access to PPV and then throwing down major money, you can't watch these. Well, you could go to a bar. But this is a worthwhile alternative. And because these are pretty popular events, the quality and quantity of streams available is pretty good.
- A fair amount of hockey. It could be all games, but I'm not sure as I don't watch a significant amount of hockey.
- Now, the catch is with Major League Baseball. The amount of MLB games available is nowhere near what you'll see for the NBA and NFL. You will, however, get playoff games and maybe a couple big games each night. All-in-all, not bad for free.
- Various international sports. Soccer, racing, etc.

I think that's about as much as I could possibly write on the subject. If you know about the site, great, most sports fans already should. If you don't, it's worth a shot. It's good when you're at the office late and want to catch a game, hear there's a good out-of-market game coming down to the wire or, even better, just don't want to pay for cable.