OrtonHearsaWho Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 On 11/2/2019 at 10:12 PM, Doc said: And that's exactly why it died. You can't comment on politics without taking sides and that only ends up alienating half your base. It started as a sports blog and should have stayed that way. No, that's actually exactly why it was successful. It died because the owners told them to stop doing what made Deadspin popular for those that visited Deadspin & the writing talent said no and left. Maybe you didn't like Deadspin and that's fine but by any metric is was successful for a very long time. Taking over a website with a very large and loyal base and then asking them to change what they do is moronic. 2
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 21 hours ago, GG said: Doesn't appear that it's quite dead yet. In fact, it looks like it's getting better. There's been nothing new posted for three days. Tough to say it's not "dead". Tough to say it's not "better," too. 2 1
BringBackOrton Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, OrtonHearsaWho said: No, that's actually exactly why it was successful. It died because the owners told them to stop doing what made Deadspin popular for those that visited Deadspin & the writing talent said no and left. Maybe you didn't like Deadspin and that's fine but by any metric is was successful for a very long time. Taking over a website with a very large and loyal base and then asking them to change what they do is moronic. Deadspin was not successful at the end. They had been sold twice. Their flame was dying. Their decline was strongly correlated with their pivot to preachy politics. Magary, one of the funniest guys on the Internet, who used to be grounded in reality, wrote a piece on how he cried after the 2016 election. I mean, come on lol. 1
Tcali Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 On 11/2/2019 at 3:59 AM, stuvian said: politics ruins everything aint that the truth
GG Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 36 minutes ago, DC Tom said: There's been nothing new posted for three days. Tough to say it's not "dead". Tough to say it's not "better," too. The editorial staff quit on Thursday/Friday. I imagine they’re borrowing writers from their other sites until they restaff Deadspin. Bottom line though is that it’s not dead. Still amazed at how little digital journalists understand their business
GregPersons Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 (edited) 53 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: Deadspin was not successful at the end. They had been sold twice. Their flame was dying. Their decline was strongly correlated with their pivot to preachy politics. Magary, one of the funniest guys on the Internet, who used to be grounded in reality, wrote a piece on how he cried after the 2016 election. I mean, come on lol. That's just inaccurate. Deadspin was as popular,and culturally relevant as much as any new media digital blogspace could be. They were political from the beginning, it's just heightened because everything heightened politically in the last 10 years. They were always mocking of the conservative elements in sports culture. It was profitable, despite the sales of ownership that had nothing to do with the site's KPIs, but the overinflated speculative market that led to VICE getting billion dollar evaluations. Investment capital still largely does not understand digital media and view it simply as a get-rich-quick scheme, which is an example of the flaws of the overall corrupt market. Look around at the capital supporting text-based journalism, in new media or old. Edited November 7, 2019 by GregPersons 1
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, GG said: Still amazed at how little digital journalists understand their business I'm equally amazed at how little the new owners understood it. Like I said, circular firing squad. 1
GG Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'm equally amazed at how little the new owners understood it. Like I said, circular firing squad. The only way to save it is to roll it up under an umbrella of multiple publications, and cross fertilize the content. They already own a politics oriented publication. No need to cannibalize it with Deadspin..
GregPersons Posted November 7, 2019 Posted November 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, GG said: The only way to save it is to roll it up under an umbrella of multiple publications, and cross fertilize the content. They already own a politics oriented publication. No need to cannibalize it with Deadspin.. What's the difference between cross-fertilizing and cannibalizing?
GG Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 Just now, GregPersons said: What's the difference between cross-fertilizing and cannibalizing? Cross-fertilizing is running the same piece that appeared in a sister publication. Cannibalizing would be running two different, but similar politically oriented stories in the sister publications. Why pay two sets of writers to write the same story?
stony Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) I really enjoyed Deadspin because of Drew Magary. If if you’re looking for an enjoyable, quick read, check out his book The Hike. Edited November 8, 2019 by stony 1
GregPersons Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, GG said: Cross-fertilizing is running the same piece that appeared in a sister publication. Cannibalizing would be running two different, but similar politically oriented stories in the sister publications. Why pay two sets of writers to write the same story? Different takes, different perspectives? Because I think the actual reality in terms of page-view and time-spent-on-page KPIs would be that if, say, Deadspin had a popular article about Trump getting booed at the World Series, it's more likely a reader would then click on something from the politics vertical.... as opposed to reading something about how the Dolphins are trash, then clicking a political article. Ownership issuing the "stick to sports" mandate wasn't based on the data, it was based on wanting to water down the brands to something tidier — Deadspin is sports, and only sports, but the issue is that is actually a re-branding for a site that has always had the cultural voice. 1
GG Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, GregPersons said: Different takes, different perspectives? Because I think the actual reality in terms of page-view and time-spent-on-page KPIs would be that if, say, Deadspin had a popular article about Trump getting booed at the World Series, it's more likely a reader would then click on something from the politics vertical.... as opposed to reading something about how the Dolphins are trash, then clicking a political article. Ownership issuing the "stick to sports" mandate wasn't based on the data, it was based on wanting to water down the brands to something tidier — Deadspin is sports, and only sports, but the issue is that is actually a re-branding for a site that has always had the cultural voice. It’s a business decision to save a money-losing site. New owners didn’t want Deadspin to stay in politics, because the culture voice wasn’t paying the bills.
stony Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, GG said: It’s a business decision to save a money-losing site. New owners didn’t want Deadspin to stay in politics, because the culture voice wasn’t paying the bills. Was Deadspin losing money? I’d seen the readership metrics contradicted ownership’s claims.
leonbus23 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) On 11/2/2019 at 7:44 AM, EasternOHBillsFan said: Yeah, because all we need is more tin foil hat Pravda-like conservative conspiracy stories. ? Deadspin was secretly funded by the Clinton Foundation and aliens. Edited November 8, 2019 by leonbus23
GregPersons Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 35 minutes ago, GG said: It’s a business decision to save a money-losing site. New owners didn’t want Deadspin to stay in politics, because the culture voice wasn’t paying the bills. The evidence does not support this claim. 32 minutes ago, stony said: Was Deadspin losing money? I’d seen the readership metrics contradicted ownership’s claims. It wasn't.
BringBackOrton Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, GregPersons said: That's just inaccurate. Deadspin was as popular,and culturally relevant as much as any new media digital blogspace could be. They were political from the beginning, it's just heightened because everything heightened politically in the last 10 years. They were always mocking of the conservative elements in sports culture. It was profitable, despite the sales of ownership that had nothing to do with the site's KPIs, but the overinflated speculative market that led to VICE getting billion dollar evaluations. Investment capital still largely does not understand digital media and view it simply as a get-rich-quick scheme, which is an example of the flaws of the overall corrupt market. Look around at the capital supporting text-based journalism, in new media or old. Hard to make a profit when advertisers are pulling out of million dollar deals because of your crappy employees whining. Edited November 8, 2019 by BringBackOrton
GregPersons Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 1 minute ago, BringBackOrton said: Hard to make a profit when advertisers are pulling out million dollar deals because of your crappy employees whining. The site didn't collapse. The writers quit because of irresponsible ownership. You don't know what you're talking about except for the good point in your username.
Recommended Posts