+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss (/thread-827584.html)
Pages: 1 2
OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - TerpsNPhoenix - 09-18-2017 02:27 PM
While it isn't the same as Cord cutting, the reported number is staggering. After the "pivot to video", they reportedly lost 88% of their audience.
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/foxsports-com-reportedly-lost-88-audience-pivoting-video.html
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Kaplony - 09-18-2017 02:54 PM
Not really a shock. I tried it a time or three after the changeover and it absolutely sucked.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - arkstfan - 09-18-2017 02:55 PM
Pivot to video is what put Scout.com into bankruptcy in my opinion.
Anyone who has access to analytics for a sports site knows that there is HUGE traffic coming in during the work day. The worker bees will be read an article on their work computer, they aren't likely to watch a video if their employer even allows most video through their firewall. If a call comes in or some other task has to be dealt with, video it sucks to get back to where you were. Text site? No problem at all.
Or they browse on their phones and it is a pain to have to listen. At home I rarely watch any online video that isn't captioned because I can get away with reading my phone while I pretend to watch Outlander or Gray's Anatomy, but watching video not happening.
The written word rules. There is a place for video but there are ample studies showing the reader/viewer wants text.
FoxSports.com switching to videos autoplaying often with little or no text was not a customer driven decision. It was a revenue maximization decision and the customer doesn't give a **** if you make money or not.
The online ad market sucks unless you are a mega brand site (CNN, BBC, type).
The model that will emerge is the one we had for several centuries. If you want to read it, you pay. It is BETTER for the consumer if you pay to read.
Right now ad driven sites are crapfests of linkbait garbage designed to draw the maximum eyeballs. Look at the programming differences between OTA free TV and subscriber driven TV.
You can make a living on selling an audience what they want and can't get elsewhere.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Wedge - 09-18-2017 03:05 PM
In truth, any website that says it's doing a "pivot to video" is really doing a pivot to layoffs. Fox didn't turn their website all-video for the sake of getting website visitors; they did it as an excuse to pink-slip their entire writing and editing staff.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - arkstfan - 09-18-2017 04:08 PM
(09-18-2017 03:05 PM)Wedge Wrote: In truth, any website that says it's doing a "pivot to video" is really doing a pivot to layoffs. Fox didn't turn their website all-video for the sake of getting website visitors; they did it as an excuse to pink-slip their entire writing and editing staff.
Ad rates for video are dramatically higher than for text. So revenue is part of the equation.
But yes it allows you to layoff expensive people and hire cheaper people with a camera or access to video feeds that you have tons of.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Stugray2 - 09-18-2017 05:08 PM
The issue is larger
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/jamie-horowitz-gone-world-fox-sports-go.html
Basically FS1 tried to be ESPN Debate 2.0 which people are already sick of.
If you want to be an alternative to ESPN then be something closer to ESPN 1.0, sports and analysis with none of the spin and debate. Back to the happy presentation.
FOX also lacks a watchESPN type feature. I use that and skip all the fake debate shows.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Frank the Tank - 09-18-2017 05:12 PM
(09-18-2017 05:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: The issue is larger
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/jamie-horowitz-gone-world-fox-sports-go.html
Basically FS1 tried to be ESPN Debate 2.0 which people are already sick of.
If you want to be an alternative to ESPN then be something closer to ESPN 1.0, sports and analysis with none of the spin and debate. Back to the happy presentation.
FOX also lacks a watchESPN type feature. I use that and skip all the fake debate shows.
I would be all for an NPR-equivalent for sports news and analysis. Unfortunately, the masses don't ever reward those types of shows compared to the screaming matches that they call "debate".
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - chargeradio - 09-18-2017 05:35 PM
(09-18-2017 05:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:That would probably work better with an upscale demographic (like The Golf Channel).(09-18-2017 05:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: The issue is larger
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/jamie-horowitz-gone-world-fox-sports-go.html
Basically FS1 tried to be ESPN Debate 2.0 which people are already sick of.
If you want to be an alternative to ESPN then be something closer to ESPN 1.0, sports and analysis with none of the spin and debate. Back to the happy presentation.
FOX also lacks a watchESPN type feature. I use that and skip all the fake debate shows.
I would be all for an NPR-equivalent for sports news and analysis. Unfortunately, the masses don't ever reward those types of shows compared to the screaming matches that they call "debate".
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Stugray2 - 09-18-2017 05:49 PM
(09-18-2017 05:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:(09-18-2017 05:08 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: The issue is larger
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/jamie-horowitz-gone-world-fox-sports-go.html
Basically FS1 tried to be ESPN Debate 2.0 which people are already sick of.
If you want to be an alternative to ESPN then be something closer to ESPN 1.0, sports and analysis with none of the spin and debate. Back to the happy presentation.
FOX also lacks a watchESPN type feature. I use that and skip all the fake debate shows.
I would be all for an NPR-equivalent for sports news and analysis. Unfortunately, the masses don't ever reward those types of shows compared to the screaming matches that they call "debate".
I think there is an alternative audience out there.
Mimicking ESPN's approach with a small viewership base is doomed. People who want that will gravitate toward the "real thing." This is not an audience you can win, so target a different audience. If you get 30% of ESPN's current audience it's already a big win.
But the ploy was to spend big and try to top ESPN at their own game. FOX's only hope would have been to use one of their much more widely watched FOX news channels to start to air sports and reach a larger audience to go with the larger paychecks they were dishing out. But they didn't go there and have wound up with barely a blip in ratings but a huge boost in expenses.
Obviously the formula is more complex than what was done, and as I pointed out with the FOX News channels, it's about breaking habits and more closely tapping into that larger viewership. If they were not going to use the new channels, then they had to go the more slow build route, which is content (live sports) route. Why switch from ESPN fake debate to FS1 fake debate? If you can remember what channel is FS1.
Hum, thinking this through aloud, I seem to be saying FOX didn't go big enough, they went halfway, and wound up with a 2nd place Air Force in war -- just a more expensive way to lose.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - PGEMF - 09-18-2017 05:50 PM
(09-18-2017 02:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Pivot to video is what put Scout.com into bankruptcy in my opinion.
Anyone who has access to analytics for a sports site knows that there is HUGE traffic coming in during the work day. The worker bees will be read an article on their work computer, they aren't likely to watch a video if their employer even allows most video through their firewall. If a call comes in or some other task has to be dealt with, video it sucks to get back to where you were. Text site? No problem at all.
Or they browse on their phones and it is a pain to have to listen. At home I rarely watch any online video that isn't captioned because I can get away with reading my phone while I pretend to watch Outlander or Gray's Anatomy, but watching video not happening.
The written word rules. There is a place for video but there are ample studies showing the reader/viewer wants text.
FoxSports.com switching to videos autoplaying often with little or no text was not a customer driven decision. It was a revenue maximization decision and the customer doesn't give a **** if you make money or not.
The online ad market sucks unless you are a mega brand site (CNN, BBC, type).
The model that will emerge is the one we had for several centuries. If you want to read it, you pay. It is BETTER for the consumer if you pay to read.
Right now ad driven sites are crapfests of linkbait garbage designed to draw the maximum eyeballs. Look at the programming differences between OTA free TV and subscriber driven TV.
You can make a living on selling an audience what they want and can't get elsewhere.
That's why I happily pay a monthly subscription to The Athletic. Great content, great writers. Nobody screams at each other.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - MissouriStateBears - 09-18-2017 06:58 PM
FS1 made a huge dent into ESPN's daytime lineup. Forced ESPN2 to become a shell of its self during the day. But sports networks aren't determined by what they play during the day to kill time. It's what sports properties they have the live broadcast rights to.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - SuperFlyBCat - 09-18-2017 08:35 PM
(09-18-2017 04:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:(09-18-2017 03:05 PM)Wedge Wrote: In truth, any website that says it's doing a "pivot to video" is really doing a pivot to layoffs. Fox didn't turn their website all-video for the sake of getting website visitors; they did it as an excuse to pink-slip their entire writing and editing staff.
Ad rates for video are dramatically higher than for text. So revenue is part of the equation.
But yes it allows you to layoff expensive people and hire cheaper people with a camera or access to video feeds that you have tons of.
P&G Slashed Digital Ad Spending, This Is What Happened Next
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-29/pg-slashed-digital-ad-spending-what-happened-next
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Wedge - 09-18-2017 11:41 PM
(09-18-2017 04:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:(09-18-2017 03:05 PM)Wedge Wrote: In truth, any website that says it's doing a "pivot to video" is really doing a pivot to layoffs. Fox didn't turn their website all-video for the sake of getting website visitors; they did it as an excuse to pink-slip their entire writing and editing staff.
Ad rates for video are dramatically higher than for text. So revenue is part of the equation.
But yes it allows you to layoff expensive people and hire cheaper people with a camera or access to video feeds that you have tons of.
Agreed, ad rates are higher for video than text... if the audience size is the same.
But when firing a bunch of talented writers and replacing that content with video clips of Skippy and Cowherd drives away 88% of your audience... oops.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - johnbragg - 09-19-2017 06:13 AM
(09-18-2017 11:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:(09-18-2017 04:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:(09-18-2017 03:05 PM)Wedge Wrote: In truth, any website that says it's doing a "pivot to video" is really doing a pivot to layoffs. Fox didn't turn their website all-video for the sake of getting website visitors; they did it as an excuse to pink-slip their entire writing and editing staff.
Ad rates for video are dramatically higher than for text. So revenue is part of the equation.
But yes it allows you to layoff expensive people and hire cheaper people with a camera or access to video feeds that you have tons of.
Agreed, ad rates are higher for video than text... if the audience size is the same.
But when firing a bunch of talented writers and replacing that content with video clips of Skippy and Cowherd drives away 88% of your audience... oops.
Clay Travis was on this when they switched to video. https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/is-sportswriting-dead/(Whether you like Travis' content and schtick or not, he's not where he is because he's the best journalist or the most compelling TV/radio presence or has the deepest knowledge of the playbook. He is where he is because he puts a lot of effort into understanding the economics of the business he's in, and understanding where the money that pays for his house comes from.)
Quote:Writers, no matter how talented, quite simply, don’t pay for themselves in the modern online marketplace. And if a site as big as Fox is making the decision not to employ a single writer — which effectively ends the site, because no one is clamoring for more unoriginal videos of TV opinions put online — why won’t other bigger, less successful companies be making the same decision going forward?
So Travis can say he predicted the massive dropoff in traffic.
Further points in the article: Online advertising is a complete mess, site traffic numbers are often the result of a shell game where sites pay internet startpages like Facebook or like MSN.com or AOL back in the day.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Hokie Mark - 09-19-2017 07:32 AM
This site still has good articles:
http://collegefootball.ap.org/
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - Wedge - 09-19-2017 10:28 AM
Written content is not doomed to be unprofitable. It might be that the model has to be something like what newspapers and magazines used to be -- subscriptions plus advertising, because ads alone aren't generating enough money and subscriptions with no ads might cost "too much", leading few to subscribe. And if you have a subscriber base, you can sell advertising based on the number of subscribers rather than dubious estimates of internet page views.
One problem that almost no one mentions (probably because it's tacky to complain about the salaries of people who lost their jobs) is that a few years ago when Fox and ESPN thought that they would replace sports pages and sports magazines and that anything they did on the internet would be automatically profitable, they paid a ton of money to hire writers away from newspapers and other publications. Fox hired several well-known writers; ESPN did the same and IIRC also hired a local newspaper writer to cover each NFL team, among other things. At least some of those folks got paid a lot more than they were previously making in order to switch to ESPN or Fox. Would ESPN have laid off so many writers earlier this year if they had been paying all these recent hires one-third less in the first place?
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - DawgNBama - 09-19-2017 11:25 AM
(09-18-2017 02:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Pivot to video is what put Scout.com into bankruptcy in my opinion.Very true and I'd even argue that newspapers that are online really need to do this as well. It's really the only way they can make $$$'s off of being on the Internet, unfortunately for us who are don't like/hesitant to pay.
Anyone who has access to analytics for a sports site knows that there is HUGE traffic coming in during the work day. The worker bees will be read an article on their work computer, they aren't likely to watch a video if their employer even allows most video through their firewall. If a call comes in or some other task has to be dealt with, video it sucks to get back to where you were. Text site? No problem at all.
Or they browse on their phones and it is a pain to have to listen. At home I rarely watch any online video that isn't captioned because I can get away with reading my phone while I pretend to watch Outlander or Gray's Anatomy, but watching video not happening.
The written word rules. There is a place for video but there are ample studies showing the reader/viewer wants text.
FoxSports.com switching to videos autoplaying often with little or no text was not a customer driven decision. It was a revenue maximization decision and the customer doesn't give a **** if you make money or not.
The online ad market sucks unless you are a mega brand site (CNN, BBC, type).
The model that will emerge is the one we had for several centuries. If you want to read it, you pay. It is BETTER for the consumer if you pay to read.
Right now ad driven sites are crapfests of linkbait garbage designed to draw the maximum eyeballs. Look at the programming differences between OTA free TV and subscriber driven TV.
You can make a living on selling an audience what they want and can't get elsewhere.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - arkstfan - 09-19-2017 12:42 PM
(09-19-2017 10:28 AM)Wedge Wrote: Written content is not doomed to be unprofitable. It might be that the model has to be something like what newspapers and magazines used to be -- subscriptions plus advertising, because ads alone aren't generating enough money and subscriptions with no ads might cost "too much", leading few to subscribe. And if you have a subscriber base, you can sell advertising based on the number of subscribers rather than dubious estimates of internet page views.
One problem that almost no one mentions (probably because it's tacky to complain about the salaries of people who lost their jobs) is that a few years ago when Fox and ESPN thought that they would replace sports pages and sports magazines and that anything they did on the internet would be automatically profitable, they paid a ton of money to hire writers away from newspapers and other publications. Fox hired several well-known writers; ESPN did the same and IIRC also hired a local newspaper writer to cover each NFL team, among other things. At least some of those folks got paid a lot more than they were previously making in order to switch to ESPN or Fox. Would ESPN have laid off so many writers earlier this year if they had been paying all these recent hires one-third less in the first place?
I think the Clay Travis piece hit on a critical point regarding online advertising.
The model for selling and buying space blows.
Trusting Facebook or Google to place your ads in the right place is foolish because they are just taking a stab at keywords and some demographic information. Rolex can end up on a blog that extols how the Omega Seamaster is superior to the Rolex Submariner.
Advertisers should be thinking in terms of which sites draw the audience they want and should be buying directly just as they did with magazines, newspapers, and television shows.
Publishers should take control as well. A site focused on cooking may not be best served with ads for "as seen on TV" gadgets.
I have noticed that Facebook invariably will show an ad for something on Amazon I recently bought. Talk about wasted money. Once I've purchased a set of Bluetooth headphones, I'm not likely to be shopping for another pair, and I'm not happy to have it thrown in my face that I'm being tracked and my search for headphones being used to feed me ads.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - TerpsNPhoenix - 09-30-2017 06:57 AM
(09-19-2017 07:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: This site still has good articles:
http://collegefootball.ap.org/
So I decided to visit Fox Sports just to see what they had over there since I hadn't gone over there in quite a while. The main page is still all video from what I can tell but if you visit specific team sites they are posting AP articles. I don't know if they had been doing this all along and I never knew. Or maybe this is a new thing since the "pivot to video" fiasco. Just thought it was interesting. The pivot has recieved such a terrible reaction that perhaps they were trying to correct it.
Edit: Pivot to video in general is leading to bad things for everyone, not just Fox Sports. 60% drop in traffic
"Pivoting to video as a news site strategy sure seems like a great way to pivot to people not using your website at all: comScore data indicates that publishers that fired a bunch of writers this summer to fuel quixotic and nebulous video ambitions saw at least a 60 percent drop in traffic in August compared to August 2016. [Columbia Journalism Review]"
https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/pivot-to-video.php
Quote from 538 but original article is linked where they got it from.
RE: OT FoxSports.com huge audience loss - johnbragg - 09-30-2017 08:01 AM
(09-18-2017 03:05 PM)Wedge Wrote: In truth, any website that says it's doing a "pivot to video" is really doing a pivot to layoffs. Fox didn't turn their website all-video for the sake of getting website visitors; they did it as an excuse to pink-slip their entire writing and editing staff.
This, again. AP wire content is cheap, and has more quality control than randos writing for free under your brand name.
(09-19-2017 06:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote: Clay Travis was on this when they switched to video. Writers, no matter how talented, quite simply, don’t pay for themselves in the modern online marketplace. And if a site as big as Fox is making the decision not to employ a single writer — which effectively ends the site, because no one is clamoring for more unoriginal videos of TV opinions put online — why won’t other bigger, less successful companies be making the same decision going forward?
Cheap AP wire content fits this model pretty well.
(09-30-2017 06:57 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:(09-19-2017 07:32 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: This site still has good articles:
http://collegefootball.ap.org/
So I decided to visit Fox Sports just to see what they had over there since I hadn't gone over there in quite a while. The main page is still all video from what I can tell but if you visit specific team sites they are posting AP articles. I don't know if they had been doing this all along and I never knew. Or maybe this is a new thing since the "pivot to video" fiasco. Just thought it was interesting. The pivot has recieved such a terrible reaction that perhaps they were trying to correct it.
Edit: Pivot to video in general is leading to bad things for everyone, not just Fox Sports. 60% drop in traffic
"Pivoting to video as a news site strategy sure seems like a great way to pivot to people not using your website at all: comScore data indicates that publishers that fired a bunch of writers this summer to fuel quixotic and nebulous video ambitions saw at least a 60 percent drop in traffic in August compared to August 2016. [Columbia Journalism Review]"
https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/pivot-to-video.php
Quote from 538 but original article is linked where they got it from.
They didn't fire the writers so they could invest in video, they fired the writers in a panicked scramble to reduce costs.
And soon the video revenues will collapse, and the rubble will bounce.