Past The Press Box

Twitter may soon push tweets from sporting events to teams' fans

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 01 May 2013 02:22:22 -0800

Integrating location-based discovery is the most under-utilized tool in social technology. Listening in on social conversations taking place across the globe, sorted by location and events feels revolutionary—a "Thomas Edison-like opportunity," one investor said about its potential with Instagram. It does come with some concerns, as the ability to do so does feel a little like the thing Batman created and then made Morgan Freeman destroy at the end of The Dark Knight, as I wrote back then in the Instagram piece.

Well, we will likely soon see how the public feels about it as Twitter is testing out a new local discovery feature. Here are the details, from All Things Digital:

According to multiple sources, Twitter is in the process of testing a new feature that lets you discover tweets from people within a certain distance of your location. The idea is to surface relevant activity based on where you are in the world, serving up tweets from others around you — whether you follow them or not.

The feature, as I understand it, came out of the company’s recent hack week at the beginning of this month, where a few engineers worked on projects related to local discovery. A number of employees have been testing the feature in the Twitter app ever since.

The type of tweets you’d see, ideally, are the most relevant ones nearby, especially when they follow a trend or a flurry of closely connected activity. So a football game or a concert, for instance, may be a great use case here.

What will be interesting—besides whether or not Twitter inserts the tweets directly into users' sacred timelines—is the auto-discovery based on users' interests. Of course, it'd be easy for Twitter to pull up relevant tweets from the stadium or arena for anyone who's actively engaged with their team's accounts, but in sports there are opportunities beyond that. For example, Twitter could help identify sports bars where there's a large contingent of fans taking in the game, possibly even identifying watch parties if, say, you live in Seattle but you're a huge Green Bay Packers fan.

There may be a big problem here, and that's this:

Twitter users have to choose to include location data in their tweets. It's set to not be included by default. Imagine the uproar if, in pushing this potential new feature, Twitter switched the default the other way.

So with Twitter already culling location data (if users choose to share it), it must be using it, right? That's true, it is. Here's a search for tweets within a mile of Safeco Field. There are even existing apps that will show you tweets nearby any location.

And that's why, as I mentioned, the most interesting part is the execution of the auto-discovery. It isn't just something "cool" that'd enhance—greatly, albeit—the value of the platform. There's money to be made here. In looking more large-scale, I'm sure teams would love to easily see—and push—the best tweets coming out of their stadium. And on the smaller side of things, imagine a sports bar looking to promote the fact that their establishment in downtown Seattle is drawing a large group of Packers fans on a regular basis. I'm sure they'd pay something to push that out to other Green Bay fans in Seattle.

It's worth noting, however, that this is still a product in the relatively-early stages of development. It, as mentioned above, came as a result of a hack week at the beginning of April. But even though the feature is young, it's hard to argue that there isn't some big potential here.

Listen, engage influencers, build relationships: Mariners' invitation to Russell Wilson hits three biggest social media best practices

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:15:24 -0800

I talk about the Mariners too much. I know this, my friends know this and everyone who follows me on Twitter definitely know this. So when I do it again right now in speaking to something smart their digital team did, I want to note that I do so as a lesson to other teams, to anyone working in or with social media—not to, again, find every reason I can to talk about the Mariners.

So what did they do, exactly? Well, they treated Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson to a ballgame when he went on Twitter to ask his followers what he should do with his Sunday. MLB's Cut 4 blog has the full story of what went down, with the actual tweets and even an accompanying Vine.

I'm sure these types of ideas come naturally, and this was likely spur-of-the-moment brilliance from Mariners Digital Marketing Manager Nathan Rauschenberg, but to break down the anatomy of actions like this, here are a few reasons why it's effective:

The Mariners listened. It's the most important, and probably the least ascribed to, best practice when in social media. Individuals, and especially brands, have to be aware of the conversation around them or they're going to miss out on opportunities like this one. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to sit in on a presentation from Twitter's Director of Small and Medium Bussiness, in which he noted that 40 percent of Twitter's most highly engaged users rarely or never tweet. Brands could learn something from them, as many confuse social media with outbound marketing. The Mariners are obviously not one of them.
They engaged someone of influence. "Engagement" is the most worn-out word in the world of social media. It's important, but the reality is that not all engagement is created equal. By targeting specific communities or individuals, teams can enhance the impact of their social media efforts. Russell Wilson stands right besides Felix Hernandez—maybe even ahead of him—when it comes to sports influencers in the city of Seattle. If he's spending his afternoon taking in a ballgame, and sharing the enjoyable experience socially, it's likely to influence others to at least consider doing the same.
The Mariners continue to build relationships in the Seattle sports community. Going back to the "social media is not outbound marketing" point, social media is at its best when you're using it build positive relationships. For brands, it usually isn't a one-on-one relationship (though it can be with certain influencers) but is instead a relationship of one-to-many, with bonds being built up between the brand and communities. The Mariners higher-ups did themselves no favors in vocally opposing a new Seattle arena for the Sonics, but the marketing team has done a remarkable job working to rebuild goodwill by developing a relationship with Seahawks fans—the city's most vocal sports community at the moment. The is second time this season they've engaged the Seahawks, as Richard Sherman threw out the first pitch in Felix's first home start. Seahawks fans on hand loved it, as two other members of the vaunted "Legion of Boom" were on hand at Safeco to see it.

The Mariners have already received local acclaim for their digital efforts, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some national exposure soon.

USA Today's 'For the Win' shows social shares are the new pageviews

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:22:43 -0800

The media coverage surrounding the Boston bombings and the manhunt that ensued has been written about by everyone, with many noting the event was a seminal moment in the evolution of journalism. For me, listening in to police scanners and tracking others on Twitter as the Camden police chased down who we eventually learned to be Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev for a full half hour before national news channels cut in was added to the long list of events that made me think that those individuals who don't follow news through social media are getting a drastically different and infinitely inferior view of what's going on.

A common theme runs through all the analysis on what this means for journalism: reporting news is now a collaborative process, and news agencies need to do more with what's being put out there socially and connect those who aren't connected. We saw it start during the coverage, with an example of that being MSNBC pulling witness-turned-Twitter-celebrity-reporter Andrew Kitzenberg on the air via Skype.

So what does this have to do with USA Today's latest sports venture, For The Win? Well, they're doing the same thing, but with softer, sports-oriented content: connecting those who are less social with socially-popular content.

paidContent's Jeff John Roberts spoke with FTW executive Jamie Mottram, a veteran in the sports social publishing space as creator of AOL Fanhouse, on the vision for For The Win:

According to executive Jamie Mottram, For The Win is the first sports site designed specifically to reach readers on viral networks like Facebook or Twitter. Owned by USA Today, the site is staffed by veteran sports writers from outlets like Deadspin and the New York Times who are tasked with finding sharable content. [...]

Mottram thinks such tactics can give For The Win an edge as it competes with traditional outlets like ESPN and CBS Sports, and with popular digital natives like Deadspin, SB Nation and Bleacher Report.

“I think a lot of those sites are catering to legacy behaviors and technology,” said Mottram. “SB Nation was born on online communities — message boards around each team. Bleacher Report is a search-oriented content farm. For The Win is produced on a basis of really sharable content.”

And what do you think is the quickest way to ensure your content will be widely talked about and shared on social networks? Curate the best of what's already been widely-shared. For example, the lede on the Welcome to For The Win! cites the story of Jack Hoffman, the young Nebraska fan with brain cancer who scored a touchdown in the team's spring game. And here's a collection of what's up today on For The Win!:

AJ Clemente, the young TV anchor whose first words on TV were two expletives.
Shaq running around in his underwear on TNT last night.
The dogs-doing-ridiculous-things halftime show at the Thunder/Rockets game.
A bad Nate Robinson tattoo.
Even the analysis, a piece on Sean Highkin's 10 favorite NBA players this season, is full of oversized gifs.

There's no way around it: this site, for the most part, is pageview journalism. The goal, it seems, is to quickly put as many posts as possible geared towards easy views. Sites like this have always existed—FTW is cited as the Buzzfeed of sports—and there isn't anything vehemently wrong with them, but let's not hail it as some transcendent platform. The goal is pageviews, and on today's internet, social shares are the best way to get them.

And again, the easiest way to find what's sharable is to curate what's already been shared, and then pass it along to those who are less tech-savvy. The bio on For The Win's Twitter handle even says "What everyone will be talking about." It isn't the site that's being referred to, it's the content on there. Explained another way, here's Jamie Mottram again, involved in an exchange that also includes Mark Pesavento, VP of Content for USA Today Sports Media Group:

Big congrats to @markpesavento and @jamiemottram on the debut of new sports site @forthewin. Bookmark it.
— Jay Busbee (@jaybusbee) April 22, 2013

@jamiemottram @markpesavento And the "mothers forwarding links from a week ago and asking if you've seen this" crowd, which is HUGE.
— Jay Busbee (@jaybusbee) April 22, 2013

@markpesavento @jaybusbee That actually is a pretty key demo for us, if I'm being honest.
— Jamie Mottram (@jamiemottram) April 22, 2013

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, as it certainly fits well with what USA Today has always stood for: a more accessible version of news for the everyday person. While I'm sure the site will be widely popular—just as USA Today's recently-acquired and very similar site The Big Lead already is—it isn't right now anything that moves the sports journalism world forward. In fact, if this model proves successful and other mainstream media outlets devote resources to platforms like this over more traditional sportswriting, it could have a negative impact on the journalism world. As it is now, this is a publication that fills a need and will, undoubtedly, prove fruitful for USA Today.

Social media unveils context-rich narratives behind games, highlights and headlines

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:22:22 -0800

Did you know Ron Howard is the narrator in Arrested Development? It was one of those facts I thought I knew at one time, then found out again, and was just as blown away the second time I "learned" it. What does it have to do with this post? Relatively little. But Ron Howard is a brilliant guy, so I took note of something I recently read and watched in regards to what he thinks is wrong with ESPN.

This is, oddly, plucked from a Grantland article on fixing the dunk contest:

Just take that first part again:

It gets back to Vin Scully...Vin is constantly explaining to you who these people are and where they come from. And I think that the more we understand what's going on with the players, what makes them tick, and what could be motivating some of the decisions that they might make, on or off the field, the more engrossing the programming would be.

What does this have to do with social media? This may be obvious, but let me run you through part of one such powerful narrative I've seen play out with the help of social media. I use Seattle-area examples, and particularly Mariners ones, because that's what I know and that's what I've felt.

The biggest Seattle Mariners headline of the season was Felix Hernandez's new contract, for seven years and $175 million. Felix gave quite the emotional heartfelt press conference, one unlike any I've ever seen, but even before that you could see this meant a lot. Of course, there was the Vine I mentioned in a previous post, but here's a video from Seattle Times columnist Larry Stone's blog showing how emotional Felix was as he entered Safeco Field:

Passionate Mariners/Felix fans are familiar with the fact that his family means everything to him. He kisses each of his wrists after games because one bears a tattoo of his daughter's name, and the other his son's. That family-oriented identity was on full display the day he signed, as Felix tweeted a picture he loved. You could tell this was an enormous moment not just for him, but his family well.

About this pic.... Awesome twitter.com/RealKingFelix/…
— Felix Hernandez (@RealKingFelix) February 14, 2013

But let's get more recent. What does a 26-year-old do with that kind of money? Oh, of course.

New season, new contract , new project. It's time to take itto another level. #ferrari #italia #458 twitter.com/RealKingFelix/…
— Felix Hernandez (@RealKingFelix) March 12, 2013

I read someplace, probably Twitter, that Felix—before the new contract—drove a used Ferrari. With the new deal, he decided he could afford a new one.

So naturally he's going to spend chunks of money on himself, after signing what was the richest contract for a pitcher in the history of baseball. But what you expect slightly less, though it isn't surprising from him, is something like this:

Famous Dave's setting up the lunch Felix bought for the minor leaguers #Mariners twitter.com/shannondrayer/…
— Shannon Drayer (@shannondrayer) March 19, 2013

The lunch likely cost less than $1,000—not much of an expense, especially compared to a Ferrari—but as with most things, it's the gesture that's most important. Every young player in the Mariners organization looks up to Felix, especially the pitchers, so it's something to see him seemingly look out for them. There's a reason what he does elicits reactions like this:

What's the takeaway?

So much of team's social media marketing efforts today focus on pseudo fan engagement—things like Instagram hashtags and random Twitter contests. Teams try to market on social media despite the fact that organic social media use, by itself, is strong marketing and teams should incentivize their athletes to partake. The perception likely exists that social media education—like media training—falls much on an athlete's representation, but teams have so much to gain from this, as much or more than the athlete itself. Or, even more likely, teams just don't have the resources to take up such a cause, especially when the evidence of its effectiveness isn't as quantifiable.

Other than training, and strongly urging athletes to partake in genuine social media use, teams and organizations should do everything they can to unearth those narratives, to show fans who these players are and what they go through. I wrote on the power of in-house media content previously, and that holds true here. Take, for example, this video put together by Wake Forest on a day in the life of a student athlete:

Reiterating what Ron Howard said in the video at the top, the more fans know about these athletes, what they go through and why they do the things they do, the more invested they're going to be in those actions, in those games, in those highlights and headlines. And ultimately, it can lead to a much more connected and passionate fan-base.

Backwards we go: cable subscription required for non-CBS games on NCAA Tournament app

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:38:46 -0800

For a while there, it felt like the future. All it took was one incredibly-reasonable payment and you could have access to every single NCAA Tournament game, and you could watch them on your computer or your tablet or your phone. It was remarkable: one of the biggest sporting events of the year had the most forward-thinking broadcast model. Above all, it felt like an inspiring example of the sports industry as a whole moving forward.

As it turns out, it was too good to last:

Unlike last year, when iOS viewers could make a $3.99 in-app purchase to watch all 67 games, for 2013 they are required to authenticate with their pay-tv provider logins before they can watch games that air on TBS, TNT and truTV. Games aired on CBS will not need authentication. However, users will get a four-hour 'preview' window to watch games without authenticating. Live streaming will be available over 3G, 4G, and Wi-Fi.

My first thought: "OH COME ON—WHY?!?!" But then I calmed slightly, my second: "But seriously. Why?"

Here's a few reasons why I hate this:

They're making enough money off of advertising the way it is, they don't need to attempt to force more people to watch television in order to boost revenue on the cable side.

Total TV ad revenue for last year's NCAA tourney eclipsed $1B; larger than any professional post-season sports championship. -Kantar Media
— Peter Robert Casey (@Peter_R_Casey) March 18, 2013
They're not seeing this model through, instead leaving money on the table with the app. Previous iterations of the NCAA March Madness Live app cost $3.99. That's all. For half the price of a good sandwich you could watch every single NCAA Tournament game from practically anywhere. How much could they raise the price of this and still retain 75 percent of their viewership? I'd say the over-under line is somewhere around $20, or a 400 percent increase in price.
It's bad for social. As the screenshots give away, social will be a big part of the March Madness Live app in 2013. Not only will there be "Social Arena" displaying tweets relevant to your game, but the app will also display what moments in the game generated the most discussion:

Why would you want to hinder, in any way, viewers ability to discuss the game through Twitter and elsewhere? Viewers are most likely to tweet from their computer, phone or tablet—you should be doing everything you can to have them watching it there too.
There's no way around it: less people will watch. Can you imagine how many people will go to work on Thursday expecting to be able to watch the opening round from there online, and then be sent scrambling for their cable provider logins? It'll be a lot, and I'm sure more than a few just won't be able to watch the games at all because they can't track that info down. Remember, the NCAA Tournament is watched away from home more than any other sporting event. That's why the model made so much sense before.
Turner's being obnoxious because they can—it won't accomplish anything. This takes all of a couple seconds to think through: if you can watch the game on TV, if you have the opportunity to—won't you? Of course you will. No one's actively choosing a phone or even a tablet over a 50" TV if they have the choice. And the second part: is Turner or whoever's behind this expecting cord-cutters to suddenly pony up for a cable package because now they can't watch the games online? It isn't happening. Here's the three most recent reviews for the app:

This is going to be interesting to watch in the years to come. The NCAA March Madness Live app is the second such cord-cutter-enabling platform to retreat back on its ways as ESPN gouged ESPN3 of quality programming in the past year or two, pushing more people to the WatchESPN app instead.

At this point, I believe almost everyone agrees that the cable television model as we see it today will cease to exist in the relatively-near future. It will eventually be replaced by more a la carte programming and models similar to what NCAA March Madness Live used to be. All it takes is just one provider, one sport or one event to show everyone that with the proper execution this model will work. For a while I thought it'd be the NCAA Tournament, but now we'll have to look for the next innovator to give it a proper opportunity.

Anecdotal--but heartfelt--evidence of the impact a great blogger can have on sports fandom

Colin O'Keefe — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:16:32 -0800

The walk between Safeco Field and the heart of Seattle's Capitol Hill is two miles, or about 45 minutes if you're doing the uphill trek at a somewhat leisurely place. I could stretch it into an hour if I stopped off for a late dinner at the taco truck-like joint holed up in an old KFC or the Dick's Burgers down the street. During the 2010 and 2011 seasons—during which the Mariners lost a combined 196 games—I made that late-night walk roughly 100 times. And it felt like three times out of four it was following a 3-1, 2-1 or 4-2 loss.

When I arrived home, usually around 11, I knew I had roughly an hour to an hour and a half before I'd be able to sleep—regardless of how exciting or dull the game may have been. So I'd fill it with some ESPN3 highlights of the XBox, random reading and then climb into bed for the last of the usual postgame routine: looking over game highlights on the iPad and, if I hadn't passed out yet, reading the regular game recap to come online from Jeff Sullivan at Lookout Landing.

For myself and many other Mariners fans, reading those recaps and the other regularly-outstanding writing and analysis put forth by Jeff was as much a part of the Mariners fan routine as the games themselves. For some, it was even more-so.

So it came as quite the blow to the entire Mariners community when Jeff announced he'd written his last post for Lookout Landing, citing the desire to make following and writing about the M's feel less like a job and more like the hobby it was intended to be—to make it fun again.

I bring this story here because I want to highlight a sample of the responses to Jeff closing up shop, ones that illustrate how profound an impact he and the community he created had on numerous fans. These are pulled from the comments of Jeff's last post on Lookout Landing:

These aren't all of the comments carrying the "I wouldn't be the M's fan I am if not for Jeff" sentiment. Hell, it isn't even close. And those are just the individuals who fully grasp the impact Jeff had on them, and actually comment on it. The full number impacted in such a way, I'm sure, is well into the thousands, possibly tens of thousands. These are fans who not only passionately follow the Mariners through a thriving community, but are educating themselves on the game. When they're at the ballpark and their friend says "GOD, Brendan Ryan is batting below .200—why is he even on the team?!", they can respond in kind with "He's actually one of the M's most valuable players. His defense is that great." The word-of-mouth impact sites like Lookout Landing have—all the more important in the era of social media—cannot be undervalued.

My point with all of this? This is what sports teams themselves should be striving desperately to create. Can you think of any marketing initiative, in any industry, that'd produce responses like the ones you see above? I understand so much of marketing is in the subtleties, that fans can't usually point to one or even a few initiatives that caused them to be bigger fans—that instead, it happens over time. But again, look at those responses. Going against almost all of what Jeff and other baseball bloggers preach, a lack of quantitive data supporting a point or a cause doesn't mean the point or cause is invalid. It's possible there are factors at play, powerful ones, that are immeasurable. Ignoring them completely for lack of data comes with an enormous opportunity cost.

There are very, very few baseball writers out there as talented and dedicated as Jeff Sullivan, and even he couldn't do it forever. There won't always be writers out there doing this to the benefit of the team for free. And with the team's resources, it could be even better.

According to a recent survey of 468 chief marketing officers across the country, social media spending is set to more than double over the next five years. Now, sports teams can spend this money on Facebook "Like", Instagram photo and Twitter retweet contests, maybe the occasional social ad—or they can do something that absolutely takes non-fans and turns them into fans, and takes good fans and turns them into great ones.

It isn't easy. You can't fake passion, an advanced understanding of baseball or—above all—the remarkable ability to convey each of those two things in writing in a way that those aforementioned traits are passed along to others. But teams have to try. They can't only hire marketers to do their social media marketing, there's just more to it than that. In an ideal world, teams hire guys like Jeff, going to him with a blank canvas, all the access he could ever want and three simple words: "just have fun."

UPDATE: And, adding to the stream of comments on Sullivan departing from LL, we have Arizona Diamondback's pitcher Brandon McCarthy:

@lookoutlanding congratulations on moving out of your mom's basement jeff!
— Brandon McCarthy (@BMcCarthy32) March 14, 2013

A la carte digital content could've been a powerful weapon in FOX Sports 1's battle with ESPN

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:15:44 -0800

For as long as the recently-announced FOX Sports 1 has even been rumored to exist, it's been widely assumed its ultimate success would be determined by one thing: can it topple ESPN? Ad spending, subscriber count and ratings are all mile-markers along the road to the eventual goal of providing a viable alternative to ESPN and, in an ideal world, supplanting it.

In the press release accompanying the extravagant event announcing the channel—which joins CBS and NBC in the competition to challenge ESPN—Fox Sorts Media Group co-President and co-Chief Operating Officer Eric Shanks was as clear as as one could be in a medium as manufactured as this one. Emphasis is my own.

“Fans are ready for an alternative to the establishment, and our goal for FS1 is to provide the best in-game experience possible, complemented by informative news, entertaining studio shows and provocative original programming.”

Though what I'm most interested in here isn't the channel as a whole, but a particular product that's launching along with it—one that could've been much more and sent The WorldWide Leader a message it couldn't ignore. I'm referring to FOX Sports Go, mentioned way down in the very last paragraph of the press release. Again, emphasis added:

Launching together with FOX Sports 1 will be FOX Sports GO, a groundbreaking mobile sports experience for iPhone, iPad, Android devices, and web. FOX Sports Go will offer more than 1,000 live games and events from across FOX Sports, FOX Sports 1 and FOX Sports’ 22 regional sports networks, as well as scores, highlights, news, stats, and analysis. The live games and events will be available to subscribers of participating cable, satellite and telco providers at no additional cost.

As expected, FOX Sports 1 will be playing the same game on the same field as everyone else. Though they launch with a wide subscription base, great licensing deals and a very respectable crop of on-air talent, there's ultimately nothing remarkable or potentially-revolutionary about their product.

So what could have changed that? What would've advanced the entire sports television industry and potentially scared the hell out of ESPN? A la carte programming: making it available to non-cable subscribers—live events and everything—through a reasonably-priced subscription that'd give subscribers access not only through the mediums mentioned above, but also their Apple TV, Roku, gaming console or smart TV. Break free from the model and get the channel to people as soon as possible.

FOX Sports Go sounds almost exactly the same as the widely-popular HBO GO, which, like the former, is only available to HBO cable subscribers. But that may not always be the case, and according to media/technology veteran Chris Dorr, there's a regularly-prepared memo circulated deep inside HBO's New York offices discussing the service's model. In the memo, support for the notion that HBO is leaving money on the table grows stronger.

Every year the corporate strategy folks lay out these numbers to their bosses at HBO and to their bosses at Time Warner. And every year the debate rages within HBO. They ask themselves: Do we cut HBO Go loose from the requirement that one has to buy a linear HBO subscription from Comcast? Do we grab that larger profit per customer that is waiting for us if we eliminate the middleman?

This is but one instance of the general dilemma that all mass media companies face today. In our larger media world we are moving from distribution networks that are centrally controlled, ie, cable systems and broadcast networks to a distribution network that is based on a distributed architecture–i.e. the Internet.

As this shift to the Internet occurs, mass media companies have the opportunity to deal directly with their customers as they never have. Large creators and publishers of content, like HBO, can now interact with their customers and understand their wants and desires in a completely new manner. And they can do so at a much lower cost than going over legacy mass media networks. This cost will only continue to go down as the price of all things digital continues to fall.

I strongly encourage you to read the entire article. I normally don't pull excerpts as long as that one, but the entire piece is fascinating.

Back to FOX Sports 1. Though the items mentioned above certainly apply—who doesn't want more money and a better relationship with consumers?—but there are several reasons specific to FS1 for why this could work and makes sense:

Get everyone you can familiar with FOX Sports 1's programming, as soon as you can. At its debut, planned for August, FS1 will reach an impressive 90 million homes. That's great, but why not go further? Their lineup of non-live-event programming seems strong, but it's hard to get people used to it. FOX should want as many people tuning in as they possibly can; if NBC's early results are any indication, this isn't going to be easy and FOX should do what they can to change the gameplan.
Reach a younger demographic. Don't get me wrong, my mom loves Terry Bradshaw. I'm pretty sure every mom does. The channel will also have a show from Regis Philbin—who is 81. FS1 will launch with a decidedly older set of talent, and that may specifically draw an older audience. To balance the viewership, FOX could target the generation in which cord-cutting is increasingly more prevalent. If the channel's highlight show and live programming were good enough, FOX could quickly move to supplant ESPN as the default background-noise sports channel for this group.
FOX Sports 1's programming can't be turned down—so do it because you can. Apple didn't get to where it is today on creativity and innovation alone; no, it took some bullying in the deal-making process. The concern with a la carte programming is that it's going to upset cable providers, leading to difficulty negotiating future deals. I understand that, and it may, but ultimately FOX Sports 1's programming partnerships cannot be turned down—they have college football, college basketball, MLB, NASCAR and MMA. Executives there wouldn't rule out the possibility the channel would eventually show NFL games and future NBA Commissioner Adam Silver was even on-hand for the FS1 announcement.

There's a reason this is the third national sports channel to launch in a little more than a year. Cable providers need sports. It pays the bills, and it's about the only thing viewers need to watch live, with advertisements.

FOX Sports 1 has certainly already earned ESPN's attention. With their sports licensing deals and celebrity talent—some of which was even poached from The Worldwide Leader—they're far ahead of fellow ESPN competitors CBS and NBC. But if FOX wants to put a scare into ESPN from day one, and show them this is real, they must change the way this game is played. They should push sports broadcasting and all of the television industry forward, right now.

NCAA figures out what everyone else knows: Twitter improves television viewership

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:18:15 -0800

I don't know why it took them this long.

Yes, Twitter can drive higher television ratings and increased fan engagement. For this reason, the NCAA has rescinded its previously-instated limits on how many times members of the press can tweet during a live sporting event.

Though there are other reasons for the change—including enforceability—the biggest one is its impact on broadcast viewership. See, the restrictions were put in place so those tweeting updates wouldn't be infringing on broadcasters' exclusive rights to reproduce depictions of the game. Well, the broadcasters wised up and realized they didn't at all. Taylor Soper of GeekWire has the story:

"The NCAA (agreed) that broadcast rights holders would actually love to have people Tweeting about the game,” [Associated Press Sports Editors President Bruce Ahern] said. “That’s not going to get people to turn the TV off. That’s going to get people to watch the game and actually turn the TV on. [Tweeting] is a good thing for the broadcast partner."

This really isn't all that complex. You don't have to look at studies showing an increase in viewership, or the fact that Twitter has even teamed up with Nielsen because social discussion is a great way to measure viewership. Hell, I wondered about the subject two years ago. Really, when it comes down to the NCAA's policy, it can be looked at within the context of two simple questions:

Do you want individuals who are highly influential with your target audience discussing your product?
Will anyone ever choose Twitter updates over a television or radio broadcast? Is it in any way superior?

Just think about it. It's an easy yes, and an easy no.

At this point, we're working off the fact that Twitter conversations are good for teams, and good for their ratings. So how do you seed this? How do increase the number of conversations? There's a number of ways, and people will start with "HASHTAGS EVERYWHERE" but have you ever used hashtags to follow along with a live sporting event? It's pandemonium, a congress of idiots. So here's my proposal, one I've mentioned before...

Teams should seed fans' Twitter use with lists.

Twitter lists are inconceivably underrated. No one ever talks about them—especially people who suggest marketing initiatives for brands. I'll say this, I'm a huge fan of curation—and not curation for curation's sake. It's everything that comes with it: when you're curating content (or tweets), you're listening to what's going on around you, you're rewarding those who talk about what you're interested in and you're creating a network of positive relationships.

Now you can say that's all fluff, but would you as a fan rather hear from a team talk about itself or objective individuals share their insight? It's the latter, always.

So to provide fans with incentive for joining Twitter, and then sharing their insight, teams should be creating recommended Twitter lists consisting of members of the mainstream media, bloggers and prominent fans. Teams should work to provide fans with a ready-made community, a team of commentators that make the game more enjoyable by providing that "virtual sports bar" effect.

Now, the worry with teams in turning fans onto commentary from third parties is the fact that they don't control what's being said by those independent outlets. They could, at times *gasp* be critical. But really, the positives outweigh any potential negatives. Yes, there will be times when bloggers and members of the press tweet negative things about your organization, but are those really going to turn fans off to your product? Won't they likely be thinking those things anyway, if the situation calls for it?

If there's a team already out there already implementing something like this, do let me know, but so far I haven't seen it. I understand the hesitation but, in the end, getting users engaged and participating on Twitter can be a boon to organizations, and a gain that far outpaces any slight consequences.

Vine gets video sharing right--and it's perfect for sports

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:22:22 -0800

For nearly as long as users have been able to share photos on Twitter, there have been companies and products trying to push them to share video as well. In the early days there was Twitvid (which became Telly) and Yfrog, then the Shaq-backed Tout and even YouTube has recently attempted to get in the social sharing game with Capture. But none have replicated the early success of Vine.

With Vine, it's all in the nuances. As much as I want to credit Twitter (which acquired Vine before it even launched) for creating new user behaviors, the service is essentially an Instagram clone operating with a different medium. Instead of filtered or over-saturated photos, it's looping six-second video clips—somewhere between an animated GIF and the portraits in Harry Potter.

Vine's success lies in that format. Six seconds isn't enough time to say anything of substance and, if it were, do you really want it looping back over and over again? Plus, on the web, audio is disabled by default. Another nuance: Vine users can create compilations, but they must do so in one take. You create a post in Vine by holding the screen to record. You can use just a part of the allotted six seconds and add to it later, but you cannot go back and edit.

The goal with Vine isn't perfectionism, it's sharing what's in front of you. Vine's tagline in the Apple App Store is "make a scene," and it fits flawlessly.

Now, onto sports.

As I mentioned before, Vine's videos are extremely similar to animated GIFs, which have dramatically increased in popularity in the sports social scene over the past year or two. SB Nation just wrapped up its third GIF Tournament. But it's the sound, and immediacy that takes things to another level.

A quick personal anecdote. For each of the past three seasons, I've attended 'Closing Day' for the Seattle Mariners. When the game ends, and I've finished spending more time than I should just staring at the field and taking it all in one last time, I walk out the gates and feel about as bummed-out as I will all year. This past season, I remember as I walked out specifically looking forward to the first videos posted from beat writers reporting from Spring Training. I couldn't wait to hear mitts pop during the first bullpens and bats crack during batting practice.

Vine couldn't be exploding in popularity at a better time. Kevin Martinez, Greg Greene,
Nathan Rauschenberg and the rest of the Seattle Mariners marketing team have taken Vine as a tool and run with it. The ease of use means the wealth of video content is far beyond where it was in past years, giving fans passionate enough to be blown away by a view of batting practice more than they could ever want. Examples:

J. Smoak, M. Saunders, K. Seager & Guti. #SweetSwings vine.co/v/br9Irv6e9Jx
— Kevin Martinez (@Kevin_Martinez) February 17, 2013

Blake Beavan and Oliver Perez warming up for Live BP. #Mariners vine.co/v/b67rueepKUb
— Seattle Mariners (@Mariners) February 18, 2013

Mike Morse bp aka beast practice. #Mariners #SpringTraining vine.co/v/b670vIYrDhO
— Gregg Greene (@RealGregg) February 18, 2013

The Mariners' best, and first official use of Vine, came well before Spring Training. It also happens to be the best Vine post that's ever been and ever will be (little biased here). Felix Hernandez arrives to sign his record contract, and is greeted by the M's front office:

The #KingOfSeattle has arrived. vine.co/v/bruFKluKUme
— Seattle Mariners (@Mariners) February 13, 2013

As great as the ease-of-use and immediacy are, I don't believe that's where Vine's biggest potential lies. As I mentioned, Vine is essentially an Instagram clone with a different media format. Thus, Vine shares the same geo-tagging functionality. I noted not too long ago that this geo-tagging has immense potential for sports as, before long, fans will be able to open their computers, phones or tablets and jump from stadium to stadium, arena to arena, checking out live fan-created content from across the globe. In that post, I used this excerpt from a profile on Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom:

“Imagine the power of surfacing what’s happening in the world through images, and potentially other types of media in the future, to each and every person who holds a mobile phone,” Systrom says. At its best Instagram would be a pocket-size window to the world that will deliver a live view of what’s unfolding across the globe—say, Syrian street protests or the Super Bowl sidelines. “I think they have a Thomas Edison-like opportunity,” says Thrive Capital’s Joshua Kushner. “At some point in the next two years you’ll go onto Instagram and see what’s happening in real time anywhere in the world, and that’s world-changing.”

Funny it should mention the Super Bowl.

Touchdown!!!! vine.co/v/b126BAxWLVP
— Josh Lukin (@coffeeon3rd) February 3, 2013

If Vine's adoption continues to grow at the rate it currently is, there may soon be hundreds—if not thousands—of videos produced at every major sporting event. And hopefully, not too long after that, we'll have a tool to easily browse them by location.

As I see it, Vine has immense potential due to the fact that it has appeal for so many groups—for individuals (fans) simply looking to share their experiences with their friends, for marketers/teams looking to create engaging content and for sports fans eager to eager to consume the content produced by each of the aforementioned groups.

After all, Vine is a Twitter product, and Twitter is much more closely-aligned with sports than any other social network. I can't say this enough: there's never been a better time to be a sports fan. And Vine is another in a line of numerous examples for why that's true.

Gawker's new reader-driven blogging platform would make sense for sports teams

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:22:22 -0800

I've long advocated for sports teams to launch their own independent publications. Independent from their websites— distancing content marketing intended for the most passionate fans from the overt marketing—and independent from other social media ventures. Other social media efforts would be integrated, of course, but this would be stand on its own. A hub, so to speak.

In looking for examples, KnicksNow immediately comes to mind, as does Duke's Blue Planet. They're highly focused, they are deeply integrated with Twitter and Facebook, they produce a wealth of interesting content (especially video) and they're powered completely by professionals associated with their respective teams.

That last note, though, has some downside as it limits the amount of content being published. The cost of each piece of content is equal to the internal resources required to produce that piece of content.

Gawker's Jalopnik recently rolled out a new design, and with it a completely new content platform that is, at least partially, driven at least by the readers. Tim Carmody breaks it down for The Verge:

A new commenting and posting platform, called Kinja 1.0, debuts on Jalopnik, but if it does well, expect to roll out to the rest of the Gawker Media network, which includes Gawker, Gizmodo, io9, Lifehacker, Jezebel, Kotaku, and Deadspin. "Yesterday, you were a reader and a commenter," writes Hardigree. "Today you can be a writer, an arbiter, an editor, and a publisher."

Essentially, the commenting platform now works much more like a personal blog. Every user gets their own subdomain at yourname.kinja.com where they can see a stream of their posts, follow or block other users, tag and upload content — the works. Users can also create themed blogs of their own, on any topic they wish; some of the existing forum features within Jalopnik are being migrated to sub-blogs of this type. Each of these blogs can, in turn, repost articles from Jalopnik (and eventually) all Gawker Media sites.

Jalopnik also promises to hoist the best user content onto the main site. "If we do republish something you created you'll get the byline, the credit, and it'll be clear where it came from," writes Hardigree. "To paraphrase Valve co-founder Gabe Newell: Giving control of the network to its users is the only logical choice."

The downside, of course, is that you lose some sense of control over what's being published—on your site. Even if it isn't promoted, it's still there, and if this is being platform or one similar is deployed by a sports team, you run the risk that said content is critical or even hostile towards the organization.

Honestly, I think it's worth the downsides. You can flag inappropriate content as such and have it taken down, you don't have to 'promote' the negative stuff to a main feed if you don't want to and allowing negative opinions builds the site's credibility. If there isn't room for dissent, how is it any different than overt marketing copy put out for the team?

But that's looking only at the negatives. Teams stand to create a significantly more engaging relationship with their most-dedicated fans, they tap into the opinions of these fans (this would be a great listening tool) and they get a wealth of content that'd aid in educating and engaging more individuals who suport the organization.

On Gawker's platform for Jalopnik, the readers are incentivized to create content because it the Gawker platform will give them more exposure and, you never know, if they're good enough maybe they'll be called up to be one of the site's real authors.

Teams can do more than that.

Imagine a system in which the platform's top authors are rewarded with money for the team store, comped tickets or even—for those have built an audience on the platform—press passes. That, to me, is the most alluring part: the ability for a team-owned platform to truly create community and enable fans to build their own audiences.

The Harvard Business Review recently had an interesting article by Bill Lee on how customer communities can create a wealth of value for businesses. He said it required reaching what he called a "Level 4 Value Proposition" in which "you're helping customers build their social capital — that is, helping them to build and expand valuable support groups and communities." And he listed four ways companies are doing this:

Help customers build their reputation
Help customers build their affiliation networks
Help customers build status in the community
Give them a say

Though all apply to sports teams in some way, his example for the first strategy fit especially well:

When Jeff Bezos made the controversial decision to allow customers to post reviews of the books they bought on Amazon's site — a seminal event ushering customer-based marketing into the online world — he reasoned simply that ordinary reader reviews were what buyers wanted. To encourage more of this, Amazon now designates top reviewers on the site and a reviewer Hall of Fame (based in part on ratings from readers), lets reviewers set up their own pages showing their reviews of other books, provides them with a distinctive badge for their pen names, and more — all of which builds their reputation in the book buying community. Top Amazon reviewers are often more powerful than traditional media reviewers.

There are a wealth of reasons for why this could work and why it'd be valuable for teams, starting with the potential for much a deeper and faster-growing library of content and going far beyond that. Now, more than ever, fans are inclined to voice their opinion on sports. Why shouldn't teams give them a place and incentives for doing so?

It's time: bring on the crowd-sourced sports broadcasters

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:59:46 -0800

During halftime of the Super Bowl, my girlfriend asked me for the identity of the individual who was providing 'analysis' at the moment. She'd already stated earlier that she hated these NFL studio sets, and this individual wasn't doing anything to sway her opinion.

"That's Bill Cowher. He was actually a really good coach."

It didn't matter. It never matters. Cowher and the rest of the guys on these sets have a trove of information to draw on, war stories that none of us could even dream of, but again, it doesn't matter. They revert back to the same clichés, give that tired narrative a little more fluff, then point and yell a little before it's their turn to talk again. It's pointless.

And all this was before the blackout—which, as Drew Magary describes it for Deadspin, showed us "how truly worthless NFL broadcasters are."

This blackout should serve as the turning point, the moment in history when a network executive finally puts his foot down and says: "Why are we doing this? Why do we spend gobs and gobs of money on ex-players and ex-coaches who can't f*cking talk?" What is the point of Dan Marino?...A decade ago, The New York Times estimated that Marino makes $2 million a year from his broadcasting duties. That's $2 million—more than 70 times the median annual wage in America—for nothing.

Deadspin founding editor Will Leitch, now with Sports on Earth, provided several notes on CBS' handling of the blackout—which he called even more embarrassing than the blackout itself—before eventually stating the same cause as Magary:

But the real issue remains the selection of former athletes, chosen for their Q rating and popularity within the NFL itself, as our television hosts in the first place. I'm not sold on Shannon Sharpe's ability to break down a play any better than Mike Tanier or Chris Brown in the first place, but I know he can't kill time without making America's ears bleed. This is, after all, broadcasting, and CBS, in an unforeseeable circumstance that you sort of nevertheless have to have a backup plan for (this being the Super Bowl and all), was left without its pants on the biggest sports day of the year.

He also stated Jim Nantz and Phil Simms weren't all that much better when the actual broadcast came back. And that's where this idea comes in: why not turn the whole thing over to someone else, someone you want?

It's a concept and platform I've hinted at a couple other times on this blog, but it's one I think could work for a particular set of users—that is, why aren't there more people out there providing alternative commentary for major sporting events? The concept isn't all that complicated, and with a great platform, it could work quite well.

The idea is that you have teams (or individuals) of sports bloggers, sports writers, fans, what-have-you with a platform for commentating live on a game. In an ideal world, this is plugged directly into your television, but for now it could take place on the tablet or mobile device you're using anyway during a broadcast. A quick note:

78% of second screen users during the Super Bowl chose a mobile device over desktop or laptop (via @datasift)
— Darren Heitner (@DarrenHeitner) February 5, 2013

So let's lay out the requirements for such an idea.

It would be a unified platform. It'd have both a mobile and web-based version for both broadcasters and viewers. Broadcasters would have the opportunity to air either audio or video. For users on the mobile experience, audio would always play in the background—enabling them to use other apps like Twitter and Facebook. They could then switch back to the video feed whenever they wanted, during commercials and such.
Quick and easy calibration would be needed to sync the audio and video. Broadcasters would give a queue stating "when you see this on your TV screen, hit 'Sync'" and the audio would be set forward or backwards however many seconds are necessary.
Broadcasters would have to refrain from giving a straight play-by-play, so as not to encroach on rights. Providing commentary is fine, and perfectly legal, but once users get into providing a complete alternative to the television-viewing experience, there's trouble. This could be reported and then monitored.
Of course, there are adjustments outside the platform itself that would be necessary, or at least ideal. For example, it'd be nice if you could completely tune out the existing broadcasters in order to leave the game sounds live while still being able to listen to your chosen broadcasters. And oh wait, that technology happens to exist.

Now, if this really wanted to go to the next level, it'd be a white-label product that could be embedded and deployed elsewhere. CBS themselves could 'host' the platform and split any potential advertising revenue. The incentive for them is that they 1.) create a much more engaging and customized experience while 2.) reaching and connecting with a highly influential group (the crowd-sourced broadcasters) and 3.) incentivizing those broadcasters with a little bit of revenue and great exposure.

It would certainly take some work, and there'd have to be broadcasters willing to take up the cause, but we can't keep on with this status quo in broadcasting. The overall product is terrible, a net negative in many people's viewing experience, and it has the potential to be a lot more.

Sports teams should value in-house content like they do clean bathrooms--wait, probably more

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:34:48 -0800

If you can't measure it quantifiably, then it isn't up for debate. It's a growing theme in advanced sports analysis. We all know there's more to sports than numbers in a vacuum, and to simply say so is beyond cliché, but just because we all know there's a number of subjective measures at play—from interpersonal dynamics to performance over small samples—that doesn't mean it's worth discussing. Without evidence, no one can ever be considered certifiably more right than someone else, and the conversation can't be definitively advanced, so such dialogue is discouraged. You're not supposed to talk just to talk, to ponder something because it's fun to ponder.

The same theme is prevalent nowadays in business as well. We have a set number of tools for which their value is a given. See: phones, business cards, conferences, meetings. Our advanced ability to track data has led us to demand quantifiable evidence for everything else—for everything new. Or untraditional.

"Why do we want to do this again?"
"Because it's cool. And our most passionate fans will really get a kick out of it."
"Yes, but how do we know? What does that do?"

In a blog post last week, Seth Godin related this phenomenon to clean bathrooms, and how DisneyWorld doesn't—obviously—keep their bathrooms clean because doing so directly generates revenue.

It turns out that just about everything we do involves cleaning the bathrooms. Creating an environment where care and trust are expressed. If you take a lot of time to ask, "how will this pay off," you're probably asking the wrong question. When you are trusted because you care, it's quite likely the revenue will take care of itself.

So how does this relate to sports, and content marketing in sports? Well, Monday I came a cross one of the finer examples I've seen of a team and its marketing department caring and serving its more passionate fans: that'd be Chiefs Live, a professionally-done live and social studio show put on by the Kansas City Chiefs.

I'm sure the show's been going on for some time, but Monday's episode is the exact reason why teams should do this type of thing. See, yesterday they officially introduced John Dorsey as their new General Manager. Dorsey previously spent 20 years with the Packers, most recently serving as GM Ted Thompson's right-hand man. Hiring GMs, particularly GMs like Dorsey, generally go somewhat under-the-radar, especially compared to the hiring of head coaches. The Chiefs did everything they could to counter that notion.

Immediately following Dorsey's introductory press conference he was walked down the hallway to Chiefs Live, where they'd been talking up their guest for at least twenty minutes. Then, when he got there, they're pulling up the list of the Packers' recent notable draft picks. As Dorsey described the Packers' philosophy of building through the draft, the team at Chiefs Live is pulling up highlights of Clay Matthews, Greg Jennings and Aaron Rodgers. Being a Packers fan, I'm a bit biased, but it took all of about ten minutes to start thinking they're building something down in Kansas City. It was impressive.

Now, think of the types of fans who tune into this type of thing, during work, in the middle of the day—people who appreciate the Chiefs serving up premium content to their most fervent fans. These are the guys who counter their "The Chiefs are awful and always will be" friends with "Come on now. This guy drafted RODGERS to replace Favre when everyone else passed on him. He plucked Randall Cobb from the second round when they already had all those receivers!"

There's no way to accurately quantify how that "pays off"—but it does.

I'm sure the marketing and digital teams in Kansas City face the same challenges everyone else does. This philosophy isn't intended to be construed as "give the marketing guys some resources and just trust them." But if you always rule out "let's do something cool for our fans" as a reason for doing something innovative, you're going to miss out on a lot of impactful strategies without ever giving them the chance.

Photo credit: Robert Alberino, Jr., KC Chiefs VP Media & Marketing

Why independent premium a la carte content could be a big part of journalism's future

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 06:34:48 -0800

Cable is awful. Quality content is scarce. The ads are obnoxious. And it costs a fortune if you're only using it to watch sports that you can't online because of blackouts. Oh and if you're not using it watch sports? God, you are getting ripped off.

For these reasons and more, most experts believe the traditional television model will soon die, to be replaced by an unbundled a la carte offering. While these same people portray written content—particularly print media—with the same dire tone, I rarely hear the a la carte premium model that will supposedly save television referenced as a solution for print. "Niche," sure. But they're not quite the same thing.

As an example of the a la carte premium model I'm referencing, Andrew Sullivan decided to free his blog, The Dish, from the umbrella of The Daily Beast. He's asking pre-subscribers for a minimum of $19.99 per month, but left the price box open so readers can pay more if they feel the site's worth it to them.

He describes his team's conclusion to go this route as such:

...as we debated and discussed that unknowable future, we felt more and more that getting readers to pay a small amount for content was the only truly solid future for online journalism. And since the Dish has, from its beginnings, attempted to pioneer exactly such a solid future for web journalism, we also felt we almost had a duty to try and see if we could help break some new ground.

The only completely clear and transparent way to do this, we concluded, was to become totally independent of other media entities and rely entirely on you for our salaries, health insurance, and legal, technological and accounting expenses.

In a piece providing commentary on the move, the New York Observer's Ryan Holiday sums up why the model works, not just for Sullivan's publication, but journalism as a whole:

Because publishers who deliver a product to paying customers every day need to care about quality and truth. If they don’t, subscriptions dry up.

Flash forward to recent times and we get the same old naivete: new technology makes mass distribution cheaper and easier. The internet discards subscription and paid models to embrace the one-off visitors from search engines, social media and web surfers. The news is free, and to survive, each story must get many pageviews and earn advertising revenue. The result: celebrity slideshows, trolling, linkbait, pseudo-news, conflicts of interest and whatever will get you to click the headline.

It is going to be very interesting to see if Sullivan and his team can serve as a bellwether for online journalism, akin to what Louis C.K. and his $5 comedy special did for standup.

It's worth noting though that, in sports journalism, models like this already exist. As a Seattle Mariners fan, I can say with a high level of confidence that the most plugged-in reporter on the M's beat doesn't work for any of the local mainstream outlets, he doesn't work for any outlet—he runs his own. That'd be Jason Churchill of Prospect Insider.Though a great deal of the site's content does focus on the M's prospects, Churchill seems to have a good stable of sources and provides reporting work not found in the Seattle Times or the Tacoma News-Tribune (at least not yet, for the latter).

Prospect Insider has been around for awhile, indicating the model has worked for Churchill—but that makes sense considering it is a major league team and the site offers reporting (the prospect content, especially) that cannot be found elsewhere.

Another existing venture I've found that's similar to Sullivan's is one from Bozeman, MT's Colter Nuanez, though the circumstances for its birth are slightly different. Nuanez was fired from his job as beat writer for the Bozeman Daily Chronicle—where he primarily covered the Montana State Bobcats—after taking to a message board to explain that though he probably cares too damn much about his beat, the current state of the newspaper industry is such that a decline in quality coverage is inevitable.

Upon his termination, he partnered the aforementioned message board, Bobcat Nation, to provide passionate fans with premium content at the cost of $8.00/month. Now, honestly, I don't know how it's going thus far but I do know, as odd as it may sound, Montanans are absurdly passionate about their college athletics. For "smaller" beats with a dearth of quality coverage but a great deal of interest, this model could work quite well.

After all, who wants to pay for the door through a full newspaper's paywall when you only want to access to a single beat? Why pay to support a full newspaper—a struggling newspaper—when its resources (and reporters) are severely strained, possibly to the detriment of the beat you're most interested in?

It's inevitable that a few of these type of ventures will fail as they strive to work out the kinks, but there are a number of things working this model's favor: a generation that has never paid for a newspaper but does for Netflix and Spotify, the continued evolution of online publishing platforms, easier-to-come-by quality web design, the growth of the tablet as a media consumption device and the growing—more balanced—skill-set of the modern reporter.

This may not be thee model of journalism's future, but I'd bet now it's going to be a large part of it. There will always be free analysis supported by advertising, but when it comes to gritty reporting and old-school journalism, there isn't a better model than a direct connection between a reader and the writer they pay to support.

Kobe's @nikebasketball Twitter takeover: A great model for teams to follow

Colin O'Keefe — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:02:02 -0800

I have long held the belief that companies are best-served in their social media use by having as many individuals in the organization effectively using Twitter and other outlets as possible—as opposed to focusing only on building a strong following through company-branded accounts.

Sports teams can be as engaging as they want, putting together as many contests they wish and even giving fans a great behind-the-scenes look at athletes when they're around, but it won't resonate nearly as much as multiple members of the team independently messing around on their smartphones, giving fans a window into their day-to-day lives and illuminating narratives that are eventually underscored during their on-field or on-court performances.

So it makes sense then that, because Kobe is an integral part of Nike Basketball, the team there wanted to ensure—and be a part of—Kobe Bryant's success in connecting with hoops fans on Twitter. But if we're looking to glean a bit of guidance from this, it's worth noting that the motives and the relationship here is similar to what we see between teams and athletes.

Here's a few quick points on why this is a good strategy that college and professional teams should consider giving a shot:

Let the brand's real personalities take control. Teams will often times attempt to capture or even create a team's identity on social media. Why force it? A team's personality is the result of numerous personalities and narratives coalescing. It should be the same on social media, and if it can't be or hasn't yet been done through multiple accounts, it makes sense to begin introducing fans to these personalities through the team's account. Don't control it, just let them be them.

Have you seen what Kobe's tweeting? It's some of the most cheesy/ridiculous stuff you can imagine, but it's as him as anything could be. And that's what makes the whole thing so brilliant. It's a real takeover.
The built-in audience gives athletes an instant taste of why many of their peers enjoy using Twitter. Just as this takeover concept gives fans direct access to the personalities of the athletes, it also does the converse in giving athletes direct access to the personalities—and the passion—of the fans. Whenever an athlete is asked why they use Twitter, why they choose to share the details of their lives with hundreds, thousands or millions of strangers, they almost always say it's the direct line of communication to fans that enthralls them. The older athletes imagine a time when quotes were filtered—and in their minds misconstrued—by the press. Eliminating that variable is a revelation to athletes who haven't used Twitter.

This, of course, all depends on the true extent of the "takeover" and the necessary training required for a genuine one. I'm an optimist—I think a professional athlete can handle all the technology associated with a strong social media presence without a great deal of difficulty. With that in mind, let's train these athletes up so they do have full control over the Twitter account and can listen to what the fans are saying in response to what he or she is putting out there.
Training-->Takeover-->Individual account launch is a great Twitter on-boarding process. I don't know what the end-goal here is with Kobe's takeover, but it would be very peculiar if it suddenly ended and did so without Kobe launching his own Twitter account. Maybe this gives him a chance to try it out without committing (that'd still work for teams too), but I'd suspect this leads to his own account. So why exactly would this work so well if implemented as a process for teams. Here are the steps:
- Athletes are first given keen, but not to overwhelming, strategies and best practices for building a brand on Twitter. They're taking over their employer's account here, so they better have some sense of responsibility. Even if it isn't a true takeover—as I suspect most marketing/digitals teams would be reluctant to try—athletes still come out educated on what types of content is great for sharing.
- The takeover allows athletes to join Twitter with instant momentum through a deep, responsive following. The fans get a sense of the athlete's personality while the athletes get a sense of why other athletes love this stuff so much—the direct connection to passionate fans.
- When the time comes for the takeover to wind down, it can conclude with letting fans know they can continue to follow the individual they've come to know much deeper at @AthleteX. If they don't want to, they don't have to, but it gives fans a much better idea of what to expect. Then, athletes are trained up and ready to go, and because of the momentum, they're rolling from the second their account launches.

Marketers, and digital marketers in particular, are (justifiably) always trying to come up with the next unique and creative strategy for bettering their brand, but sometimes the best ideas are already out there. Nike's a leader in this space and teams would be well-served to take this strategy and run with it.

UPDATE: Kobe is indeed considering starting his own Twitter account after this takeover, notes Kevin Ding of the Orange County Register. Why?

@sparkofkindness I'm seriously thinking about starting my own. I enjoy this connection with no filters
— Nike Basketball (@nikebasketball) December 28, 2012

His takeover ended midnight on Thursday, the 27th, with this:

My twitter takeover ends midnight. It's been real. Thx for the love. I will be in touch soon .. #countonkobefans
— Nike Basketball (@nikebasketball) December 28, 2012

Yeah, I'd be very surprised if Kobe doesn't soon have his own Twitter account.

Google Glass presents an absurd number of possibilities for spectator and participation sports

Colin O'Keefe — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:35:11 -0800

When the iPad first came out, I didn't want to take mine out in public. Now, I didn't get it at launch or anything like that, probably a month or two later. But even so I didn't want to be that guy out in public using a piece of technology that at the time was some luxury nerd device—one that many didn't see the purpose of, beyond just "something different."

Imagine what it's going to be like when Google Glass hits the streets. This isn't something you just pull out of your bag in a coffee shop either; you, presumably, wear these all the time. At least when you're not too self-conscious. The thing is, while I may have been skeptical at first, they (or a Google Glass-like device) may shake up the world even more-so than the iPad, possibly much more.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, or can't remember because these were mentioned a long time ago, here's a look at the Google Glass launch video. More of a hypothetical than a demo, but you get the ideo: visual/contextual data right in front of you.

Now, time for some brainstorming. How could these be used in the world of sports? We'll split them up into two categories. And, we're only being semi-realistic. Some of this may be years off, or not possible for whatever reason. But I'm just going to have fun with it.

Spectator sports

Universal: these could be applied to every sport mentioned below.

Instant replay. It would be awesome if Google Glass could loop me in on the television feed, but at the very least it should be able to show me what I just saw:
Where's my seat? Whether arriving for the first time or returning from grabbing that 7th-inning-last-call beer, sometimes it'd be nice to have something to point me in the right direction, possibly a little waypoint arrow on top of it?
And, of course, stats. I should be able to look at a guy or say his a name and have his basic stats appear right in front of me.

Baseball

Pitch trajectory. When watching on MLB Gamecast, it will show something like what you see below, the path of the ball laid out horizontally. Imagine if, while sitting in the box seats, you could switch something on and see each pitch traced. How much would you appreciate that Clayton Kershaw 12-6 then?
K zone. Same premise as before, but whether overlaid on my vision or flashing in my periph, I want to see whether that outside fastball actually caught a piece of the plate.
Batted ball spray chart. How cool would it be, to be sitting at a game, make a voice command and then see—actually see—how a guy's been hitting over the last two weeks? Each ball he's put in play, mapped out on the field. The same would also be great for that reliever they're bringing out of the pen you've never heard of—what type of contactact have guys been making off of him? Imagine, this on the field, maybe even with each ball's trajectory traced through the air.

Football

Tell me this wouldn't be nice at the stadium.
This would be years out, but what if Google Glass's camera and software could not only place graphics on the field, but also track the action and diagram the play? It'd be nice.
Of course, fantasy points. Whether at the game or watching on TV, I want my team's (and my opponent's team's) points laid out in front of me.

Basketball

Like the batted balls spray chart I mentioned for baseball, it would be phenomenal to be sitting at a game and have a guy's night mapped out in front of me on the floor.

Or maybe you're looking more for tendencies than performance. Imagine something like the New York Times beautiful season-long shot chart laid out right in front of you, on the floor of AmericanAirlines Arena.
It's worth noting that the NBA is starting to experimenting with player-tracking cameras. Not only could you see where they're taking shots, but also the situations they're taking them in. Where does Kevin Durant get his open looks? Oh.

Again, this would all be laid out for you, right on the actual NBA court you're looking at. Could be amazing.

Hockey

It's worth noting that they have shot charts too. Could be right on the ice.
Maybe?

FoxTrax, most ridiculous piece of broadcasting technology in the history of sports?

Participation sports

Forget about competitive balance. Where you say "that takes the fun out of it," I say "Yeah, you're probably right. But it could be used as a training tool."

Golf

Lots of opportunity here as you already see something similar with the classic range-finder but what if you could track the distance to every obstacle, or mark where your ball would land, wind factored in, if you hit your longest straight drive of the day. Or what if, before each round, you went out on the range and hit three balls with each club and calibrated your glasses for the day? I could use it.
Putt preview. Tiger Woods Golf fans know what I'm talking about. Show me the line I have to hit and I'll do my best.
Just this grid and distance would be nice too:
What about just tracer-tracking your ball like a videogame, and highlighting potentially-lost balls after they land? God, that would save me a world of trouble.

Skiing/snowboarding

That Tiger Woods contour-highlighting putting grid would also come in quite handy in situations when visibility or lighting is poor. My knees would appreciate not having to absorb all those unexpected and unseen bumps.
Virtual trailmap. Show me the easiest way down, or the hardest. How do I get to the right lodge again?
Or, sync it up with the mountain's ski report—and add in lift line monitoring—to make my day at the mountain as enjoyable as possible.

Fishing (Warning: I don't fish)

If it isn't already readily-apparent, show me the pockets of slow-moving water—just the right place to land that fly.
For that matter, remind me again how to tie the type of fly I should be using in this part of Montana.
If possible, sync it up with my onboard fish-finder to show me where exactly I should aim my cast.

Hunting/shooting (I don't do this either)

Highlighting clays, flying birds or potential targets moving in the brush would be a world of help.
Once it tracks that target, Google Glass could also help a hunter hit it. How far away is it? How's the wind blowing? Based on that information, where on the target should I aim?
Also, Google Glass could potentially estimate the size and weight of an animal, making sure it's within regulations.

Bowling

Like everything else on here that has a score, Google Glass could always have that in front of you. On top of that, it could also display the layout of the pins remaining if you can't tell whether or not there's one or two lurking beyond the pins up front.
Like other things mentioned here, it could also show you where to aim, especially when picking up that crucial split.

This probably isn't even three percent into the number of ways this could be applied to participation sports.

I once joked on Twitter that Wu Tang Clan's "C.R.E.A.M." is now "D.R.E.A.M.": developers rule everything around me. Google—or whoever nails down this technology first—is going to have quite a product to work with, but if they don't draw developers to their product then they have nothing. Google Glass presents a truly unbelievable canvass for developers and companies.

We talk so much now about sports fans can enjoy games just as much (if not more) at home in front of their magnificently gigantic HD TVs. Well, Google Glass has the potential to change all that—to change the sports industry dramatically. We are a long ways from seeing some of the things I mention above but the opportunity is certainly there for developers, and the companies who support them, to take advantage of it.

Steve Sabol: A pioneer in illustrating the narratives behind a brand

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 06:39:16 -0800

The fact that social media is just a medium is one of the most-forgotten notions behind what's become a revolutionary technology. It has, undoubtedly, changed forever the ways in which we communicate and who we're able to communicate those things with—but has it fundamentally changed the things we communicate, and how those things make others feel? I don't think so.

It's impossible for us to deeply care about something we don't know anything about. We can't fully understand decisions if we don't know the rationale behind them and we can't truly appreciate acts of greatness if we don't know the work that went into putting individuals into positions to achieve them.

And that's what we have today in social media marketing: attempst to fully illustrate the narratives behind the brands, players and teams we support. But again, that's always been the idea, and no one did it better than Steve Sabol. No, he wasn't the creator of NFL films—his dad Ed was—but he turned it into the artful marvel we've come to know today through masterful film-making and, of course, amazing narratives. From USA Today:

"My dad has a great expression," Steve Sabol told USA TODAY Sports last year. "He always says, 'Tell me a fact, and I'll learn. Tell me the truth, and I believe. But tell me a story, and it will live in my heart forever.' "

Sabol's work has forever changed the sports industry and the content available for its most passionate fans to consume.

I've mentioned it on this publication before but the Green Bay Packers winning Super Bowl XLV is my favorite sports moment, for numerous reasons. I can't tell you how many times I've pulled up NFL Films' America's Team for that year's Green Bay squad on my iPad and fallen asleep to it. It was the complete story behind how one of the very best moments in my life as a lunatic sports fan came to be, down to every backstory and intricate detail.

My favorite part of it was a particular Sound FX clip from what I believe was the Super Bowl's deciding moment. After the Packers went up early, the Steelers stormed back and were driving for the go-ahead score early in the fourth quarter. Here we are (watch the first minute):

Without that fumble, the Packers may not win the Super Bowl. Without Clay Matthews telling Pickett to "spill it," there is no fumble. Without him recognizing the play early, he doesn't yell "spill it." Without countless hours of film study, he doesn't recognize it early. It's one play, and on TV all those details go completely unnoticed. But with the fine work of NFL films, it's so much more.

How does this apply to the world of social media marketing? A lot of what's done nowadays (or what should be done), emulates what Sabol did in exposing and underscoring the important narratives. Need an example? Look at the amazing work adidas is doing with Derrick Rose and #TheReturn.

With the motion-picture-esque shots and dramatic score, these look quite a bit like NFL Films, don't they?

The thing is, it doesn't take a superstar and a major marketing campaign for these things to work either. Take, for example, what the team at Goodwin Sports Management is doing with Portland Trailblazers rookie guard Damian Lillard:

Wherever there's passionate fans, there's a thirst for a well-told narrative. Social media has certainly changed the ability to distribute these but the premise has been there since Sabol perfected it.

Easily-browsable Instagram geolocations would be incredible for sports. How soon will we see them?

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 17 Sep 2012 06:39:59 -0800

Ever since Instagram reached an adoption level Google+ would kill for, it's become my favorite social network. I don't know if it was the Android release, Facebook's acquisition or some combination of both that got them there, but since it reached the point that there were enough people on there to pay attention to an always-cool—albeit relatively simple—concept, it's become social networking at its purest.

Like Twitter in the early days, Instagram starts with a very simple premise and lets users decide how they'll use it. But still, it conveys all the same things and allows you to keep up with friends/family/acquaintances/strangers just as easily as on other social networks, but always with images.

Oh you like a band? There's a photo of you at a show (or the more 'meh' "Now playing" screencap). You're at a restaurant? No need to "check in," just show me. You did what this weekend? There it is in an image. You're a huge fan of a sports team? There's you at the ballgame. It's that simple; it really is social networking purified.

The thing is, that was never really the point.

Here's an exchange between Kevin Rose and Instagram CEO & co-founder Kevin Systrom (emphasis added):

Kevin Rose: "What's the grand vision that's bigger than filters and just sharing simple photos with friends?"

Systrom: "I think you alluded to it earlier when you said you could explore the world. Imagine a service that collects all of the visual data that gets produced all around the world so you can tune in to anyplace on earth to see exactly what's happening, whether that is a friend's birthday party that you're missing or a wedding happening that you didn't go to or a riot breaking out overseas. Or something as personal as a baby's first steps.

These are all moments that are happening around the world and that we capture with our cameras, right, and that is visual media that before was sitting on someone's camera or phone and just sitting there. What happens in the world when you take all that data and combine it in a network?

Sounds amazing. Now imagine the sports implications—tuning into any stadium in the world and being given hundreds, if not thousands, of fan-sided views and a tour around the entire environment. Quick, let's take a glance across the sports world (at this writing).

Hang with me, just peruse through—we're coming back.

By far, the best sports thing going on tonight is a meaningless baseball game played between the Cubs and Pirates—STARTING at 10:40 local time.

After more than three hours, the tarp comes off.

- joeymccaw

As could be expected, not many people there.

- kmarscel

Fans in the upper deck told they can find a better seat downstairs. Fans in the lower deck told they can play a few innings.
— Doug Padilla (@ESPNChiCubs) September 18, 2012

- tomparsons930

Of course, we do have Monday Night Football as well.

- ndesp

- gary03mw

- moses1510

How about we go back to baseball? AT&T Park, what I believe is the second most popular location tagged on Instagram.

- tinamonster

- kcropper

Aaaand, we're back. Yeah, you know that "at this writing" I had up there? "At this writing," for that part, was actually a week ago. See, because it took so long to find the pictures for the first iteration of this post (Andy Murray, two Monday Night Football games), I had to go to bed before I finished it. So we're here now, after spending 30 minutes finding different pictures, wrapping this up.

It's so much more inconvenient than it should be to find these. First, you run a search for a hashtag you hope will yield the proper geotag. In this case I just tried the stadium names as hashtags—#wrigleyfield, #georgiadome, #attpark—and then go down those search results forever looking for the veritable geotag. It's a pain.

So, when will we see the type of functionality the platform seems destined for? Well, it might not be too far off based on Instagram's most recent update, which builds "Photo Maps" for users displaying where each of their photos were taken. At the time (beginning of August), Forbe's Steve Bertoni wrote that Instagram was moving towards becoming a media company, based on what Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom told him for a Forbes profile earlier that month:

“Imagine the power of surfacing what’s happening in the world through images, and potentially other types of media in the future, to each and every person who holds a mobile phone,” Systrom says. At its best Instagram would be a pocket-size window to the world that will deliver a live view of what’s unfolding across the globe—say, Syrian street protests or the Super Bowl sidelines. “I think they have a Thomas Edison-like opportunity,” says Thrive Capital’s Joshua Kushner. “At some point in the next two years you’ll go onto Instagram and see what’s happening in real time anywhere in the world, and that’s world-changing.”

It is world-changing, and it's on its way. I don't know exactly what it'll look like, whether or not it will scare the hell out of everyone (because it's a lot like that thing Batman used to find the Joker in the Dark Knight) or how it'll make any money—but this is the direction in which Instagram is heading. And for sports-lovers interested in seeing what the fan experience is like across the country—around the world—there couldn't be a better tool at their disposal.

Timing and strategy of Ichiro trade underscores the constant influence of the casual fan

Colin O'Keefe — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:07:46 -0800

As a fan, I want to influence my team. I want to make them better. It isn't easy to do, it may well be impossible in most cases. And while I may be the minority, I can't be the only one who thinks that way, that maybe if I yell enough, try to explain the team enough to my circle of friends or even just nag enough on Twitter maybe it'll make the smallest of differences. But the thing is, it's never fans like us, the fans that want to, that actually make the difference.

As evidenced by this Ichiro trade, events that have happened throughout sports history and happen each and every day, most times it's the the casual fans who collectively hold the most influence.

Let's look first at the timing and reasoning in the Ichiro deal. As was reported recently and even before that, the Mariners were either considering or already had offered Ichiro a contract extension, but he wasn't having it. And while the quote from Mariners CEO Howard Lincoln is that Ichiro's camp requested a trade "several weeks ago", Seattle Times columnist Larry Stone confirms that it was indeed "months ago." This may well be the same thing, but funny—and expected—that Lincoln would prefer the ambiguity.

See, Ichiro was making the team worse. It made no sense to have him on the roster. In 2011 he ranked (by WAR) as the sixth-worst outfielder in the game. He had one more year on his contract, so he was of course in Seattle's camp come spring, asked to alter his approach and bat third. It didn't help. He remained almost entirely ineffective.

It's puzzling then that, even though he explicitly asked to be removed from the team and was blocking other younger (and better) players from playing, the Mariners intentionally kept him on the team and in the lineup everyday. Hell, just a few weeks ago, before Franklin Gutierrez's concussion, the Mariners were wondering how they could fit Michael Saunders, Casper Wells and Gutierrez (all better players than Ichiro) into the lineup when Ichiro had to play everyday.

Not just that, but you have to wonder what effect Ichiro wanting to be elsewhere—and waiting months for it to happen—had on him. Think about being in the office at 3:30 on a summer Friday. How much are you really getting done when your mind is already at the beach or the bar or home on the deck? Just this past weekend in Tampa, Ichiro air-mailed cutoff men on multiple run-scoring plays. At one point he was asked to bunt a man over and knocked the first pitch right back to the pitcher for an easy out at third.

Even if you ignore that, Ichiro's been bad for a while. Jon Paul Morosi on it:

Because Ichiro had to play right field every day, the Mariners have been playing with what amounted to a National League lineup for the past two seasons. They punted on the chance to get any power production from a position normally associated with sluggers. Seattle had the lowest right-field OPS in the AL last year (.639) — and this year (.654).

And former Seattle Mariners outfielder Mike Cameron, via KJR 950's Mitch Levy:

In years after I left, I heard there may have been a few clubhouse problems because he became a little more selfish player.

So why keep him, an old bad player on a losing team, around after he requested to be traded presumably sometime in May? This of course is speculation but, as the Mariners marketing team—who of course had no say in the matter—described it, the Mariners played the "hottest June on record" in 2012: home series against the Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox. That was followed in July by home series against the Rangers and now the Yankees.

If there are series when you expect those who don't normally come out—the casual fan—to make it to the ballpark, these would be them. Families, tourists, what-have-you, to all of whom Ichiro is the most recognizable player. Would it be unfair to assume Mariners management, not including General Manager Jack Zduriencik, wanted Ichiro around to appease those casual fans and take what they still could from their wallets?

With those games out of the way, the Mariners made this move with those fans still in mind, but now hoping to avoid their wrath further down the road. Anthony Witrado of the Sporting News:

The point of the deal was to alleviate the pressure Ichiro's pending free agency was placing on the organization and general manager Jack Zduriencik, who said he was preparing an offer for the 38-year old future Hall of Fame outfielder. With his declining skills and the price it would have taken to re-sign him, it wasn’t worth it for the Mariners to bring back Ichiro, and that would have caused quite the circus within the team’s fan base, which has a strong and loyal Japanese representation.

I don't know about the last part of that, how much "Japanese representation" played a role in this, but the front office seemingly wanted to avoid a situation like that which played out with Ken Griffey Jr. in the fall of 2009, when he signed on for one last year only to retire two months into the following season because he was terrible.

In my mind, the Ichiro situation compares to what happened in Green Bay with Brett Favre, the standard to which these types of situations will forever be measured. Though Favre led the team to the NFC Championship game in 2007, he was growing ineffective, was somewhat selfish and lacked the leadership ability he once had so the team kicked his ass right out of town. Based on Favre's performance with the Vikings in 2009, the Packers may well have won one more Super Bowl with Favre but because they let him go they're set up for more sustained long-term success.

The lesson in all of this is simple, and one evident in countless other situations. The Mariners allowed their environment to shape their choices, instead of the other way around. Regardless, better that they make the right move a little late than bring Ichiro back for yet another fan-appeasing season.

Ichiro was amazing in Seattle, and I'll never forgot that Rookie of the Year/MVP 2001 season—but the Mariners made the move they had to make, and now they can finally move past the Ichiro era, and grow the organization in a way they could not previously.

Could the Netflix approach save newspapers?

Colin O'Keefe — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:09:08 -0800

The Newsroom is my favorite show on television. I've watched since week one. This, despite the fact that I do not have HBO. No, like many other young people who want to see HBO's quality programming, I download it illegally on a weekly basis. I have yet to, like a few of my more-advanced peers, figure out how to do so automatically but manually torrenting it each week is much-preferred to paying for a basic cable package to start and then adding on whatever bundle includes HBO.

But this isn't a rant on the void of nonsense that is cable programming, instead an anecdote intended to underscore the point that if people are going to pay for something, they want value. They don't want to be forced into purchasing something above the price they deem it to be worth, especially in today's world when there are so many alternatives available.

When we look at how this applies to newspapers, readers have an opportunity to go elsewhere instead of buying the many digital subscription options newspapers are throwing out nowadays. $10-20/month for one newspaper? Really? No, I'll rely on the free alternatives—all the other newspapers and the secondary analysis of blogs and other outlets.

Like I've chosen previously with Netflix Instant and Spotify (dear Lord is it great), I'm not looking to pay for something just because it's a more legal alternative, so I can feel better about myself. No, I will pay for something when it's the best option available.

Could a better alternative—one that actually helps newspapers—soon be on the horizon? An app recently launched on the iPad gives me hope. That application, Next Issue, is described as such: "All the magazines you love. All in one app. All yours for one low price." Seems pretty solid, especially when you check out the full list and the price: $9.99/month for a regular subscription and $14.99/month for a premium one (getting you the weekly magazines, like Sports Illustrated and People).But is it worth it? Will people by in? Laura Hazard Owen of paidContent offers her thoughts:

But will they find unlimited subscriptions worth the fee? It probably depends on how much they’re paying for magazine subscriptions now, whether they’re willing to shift the money they’re paying from print to digital, how much they value a print subscription, how much they want to read popular magazines in general versus specific titles, and whether Next Issue has the titles they want.

There's certainly some truth to this. But based on my personal use (yeah, can't apply this to everyone), I'm not sure it's entirely true. Sometime around a year ago, I decided to purchase Spotify premium. A little less than $10/month for pretty much all the music, whenever, saveable to my devices. This money wasn't specifically allocated from someplace else; I didn't have an existing music budget. The last time I paid for music was when I ran out to Target in 2007 to buy Kanye West's Graduation because I thought 50 Cent might actually hold up his end of the deal and retire if 'Ye outsold him. Now I throw down money every single month and have no regrets in doing so.

I'm already consuming content from the publications in Next Issue, and in a hypothetical newspaper version. If there's a better way to go about something I'm already doing, then I will pay for it. So, what would make a newspaper version "worth it"?

First off, like with Next Issue, this is only going to work if a number of the largest newspaper companies ban together on this. It's only going to work if there's a high enough level of demand, and there's only going to be a high enough level of demand if the content's good enough.
Second, this price needs to be reasonable, in the $10-$20/month range. A complete New York Times digital subscription costs $35/month. Netflix costs $7.99/month, for an absurd amount of content delivered directly to me. Again, Spotify is $9.99 for almost all the music out there delivered directly to me. I understand constantly producing content comes with a cost but this needs to be reasonable.
It has to be on the iPad, and it has to look awesome—of course. Full of imagery, and easy to swipe through. Easier said than done, but Flipboard is the model we're going for here.
These next two are closely associated, but it must be personalized. I'm not looking for a digital newstand, where I bounce from paper to paper. I must have the option to browse by paper and by subject. I want want all the best sports news from that morning's papers, and all the best technology news at my fingertips. I want it to learn what I like and what I don't. The idea is familiar to those who use Zite. It hasn't been perfected yet, but the concept is on its way. "Pandora for content," for those who haven't gotten the picture already.
Finally, it must be socially aware. No, I'm not talking about "look we're social!" share buttons and widgets, I want it to know what's being discussed among my social connections, and what's being discussed by the influencers in the subject I'm looking for information on—and that's what I want to see. Flipboard attempts to accomplish this, but it isn't all the way there.

I understand that this is a lot to ask for, from the technological aspects (and investments) to asking backwards-thinking newspaper companies to work together, but the work could be done from the outside as well. iTunes wasn't a perfect solution for record companies, but I'm sure they're still glad Steve Jobs came along. We're reading more news than ever before. There's obviously a demand for content, and if you can find a way to deliver it to me even better than those who are already doing it, there's money to be made and—potentially—an industry to be saved.

The essentiality of citizen journalism

Colin O'Keefe — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:27:35 -0800

Since the rise and growing acceptance of what we now call "citizen journalism," there's been some level of resentment between traditional journalists and what they see as a faceless technology-armed mob devoid of proper training and ethics. It is somewhat fair; whether right or wrong, journalists see this mob as the primary culprit in gutting the industry of jobs. The responding rally, by most, has been "Don't you understand? You need us."

That was the message put out from Leonard Pitts, nationally-syndicated columnist and winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, following news that the New Orleans Times-Picayune would be conducting massive layoffs and moving to a three-days-a-week format. Before we get any further, I want to state that I do not disagree with the points he makes, but only intend to elaborate on why many look to citizen journalism as an alternative—and it isn't because it's free.

Here's what I see as Pitts' main points, pulled from the end of his column:

By contrast, my Miami Herald colleague, Elinor J. Brecher, was one of the reporters who rushed toward the destruction in New York City on 9/11. Another colleague, Jacqueline Charles, spends weeks at a time on the ground, reporting the devastation in Haiti. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times slips into dangerous places to cover genocide and sex slavery. Carolyn Cole and Brian van der Brug of the Los Angeles Times send back stunning images of the tragedies in Japan. And every day, thousands of their colleagues attend the council meetings, pore over the budgets, decipher the court rulings that help the rest of us understand our cities, nation and world.

Will “citizen reporters” replace that function? Will they have the resources, the credibility, the knowledge, the training or even the desire to do so? No.
And not all the arias sung by Palin (Ed not: she or Drudge said "Anyone can be a journalist.") and like-minded people to new media and the do-it-yourself “journalism” of ideological crank cases will change that. The function served by daily newspaper journalism is critical to the very maintenance of democracy. It’s time we recognized that.

Again, this isn't incorrect, but I think where claims like this fall short is assuming this is a one-on-one battle, if you call it that—where a traditional journalist is compared to his "citizen journalist" counterpart in terms of experience, credibility, resources and writing ability. Really, that's not the case, it's that traditional journalist against everyone—all the bloggers, all the rogue photographers and anyone with a phone. On their own, no, they can't do it all, but combined they present a formidable journalism force.

For whatever reason, call it lazy writing if you want, I enjoy explaining things in analogies. It took me some time to figure out this one, but bear with me.

Brendan Ryan is the starting shortstop for the Seattle Mariners. Brendan Ryan bats roughly 45 points below his weight. He weighs 195 pounds. And yet, again, he's the starter—and by the most advanced statistical measures, middle-of-the-pack as far as major league shortstops go. Why? Because he's the best defensive shortstop in the game.

Not every play he makes that another guy wouldn't prevents a run from scoring, but sometimes they do. See, if that guy he nailed on an above-average play scores 'x' percent of the time, and he makes that play enough times, he's preventing runs from scoring and improving his teams chances of winning. He's not going to hit a three-run walk-off homerun to win a game, but he'll make big defensive plays and maybe every now and then slice a ball over the second baseman's head for a go-ahead single.

So, how does this apply to citizen journalism?

Well, it isn't about the home runs—running towards the World Trade Center on 9/11, getting on the ground in Haiti or sacrificing everything to tell the stories of those affected by Hurricane Katrina—it's the cumulative value of the coverage presented by many. Though they sometimes can, citizen journalists don't often produce home runs, but their combined efforts often produce journalistic coverage that compares in value. It's a tired cliche as far as "the power of citizen journalism" goes but the kids in Egypt with cellphones, though they don't stack up one-on-one to the reporting ability of traditional journalists, joined forces to produce something powerful.

And now, to stretch this.

The other part of Brendan Ryan's game most-admired by those who follow baseball isn't actually part of his 'game' at all, but his attitude and perceived passion. He's a manger and fan's dream, someone who genuinely "gives a shit," for lack of a better term. Now, when we do stack traditional journalists up against their citizen journalist counterparts one-on-one—particularly in the realm of sports—this is where the former often falls short.

Not every blogger who's a blogger because he's a big fan provides exceptional coverage; most don't. That fandom, most times, produces some level of bias—but that bias isn't always bad. With the most talented and reasonable writers, it's often good. See, that fandom lends itself to coverage almost-intended to steer the team in the right direction (sometimes subconsciously). Poor decisions and tough losses face passionate—and hopefully well-crafted—criticism; joyous moments produce the euphoric reactions you'd expect from many of the fans, as the writers themselves often are just that. It's no wonder then that this writing is widely appealing to those who follow teams most closely.

As a quick example, have a look at the über-talented Royce Young; creator of the excellent Daily Thunder and blogger for CBS, he covers the Oklahoma City Thunder as well as anyone, including the beat-writers. He uses multimedia tools to present information others just don't (like the full audio of the Thunder's exit interviews) and curates the best of the mainstream coverage on a daily basis. Not every "citizen journalist" out there (and it's hard to call Young one at this point) is as talented as Young is, but many are, and it's because they carry a passion for their subject that many beat-writers simply don't have.

****

So, what now?

For reasons that may not be fair and may even be detrimental society to as a whole, there are less traditional journalists than there were before. As a result, they're going to have to play a little defense. Journalists must learn to work with the material the mass of citizen journalists are putting forth. The line between curation and reporting is getting thinner and thinner; with more to do and less resources with which to do it, mainstream journalists must learn that while these citizen journalists aren't properly trained, the information that they're offering is invaluable and only through a joint effort with this mass will they be able to do their job as we once saw it a decade or two ago.

Photo credit: markn3tel