October 25, 2017

FoxSports "pivot to video" decision has cost them almost 90% of their audience.:
SI’s Richard Deitsch reports that traffic dropped an astounding 88% since the “pivot to video.” Their traffic has gone from over 143 million in a monthly period to just under 17 million.

posted by grum@work to general at 08:30 AM - 8 comments

I can't think of the last time I clicked on an article on a sports/news/entertainment website, and wanted to watch video it provided. I would much prefer to read an article than watch someone read that information to me through video.

posted by grum@work at 08:35 AM on October 25

Well, I'm sure providing all that video content isn't expensive, so they should be OK /yeesh

posted by NoMich at 09:16 AM on October 25

As someone who worked in sports journalism until about a month ago, I can tell you that every. single. person. in the business who wasn't a suit thought this was a terrible, terrible decision for Fox Sports. No one watches video at work, during commutes on public transport or on their phone. The ONLY benefit is that video ads pay more than ads for web stories do... but when you lose all your viewers no one wants to buy ad space with you anyway.

Additionally, more than ever writers have become public personas that readers/viewers adopt and follow. Canning your quality figureheads in print to embrace blowhard talking heads that we all tune out, essentially punting on all the consumers who are going to follow their guy to whatever network or outlet picks them up off your scrapheap... nonsensical.

It's trendy to point to "political" moves made by ESPN and other major outlets as reasons why viewership is way down, but in reality it's because the decision-making at the top has been ridiculously bad for a really long time.

/endrant

posted by Goyoucolts at 11:16 AM on October 25

Is viewership really down, or are the numbers skewing down because people (especially the youngs) are consuming your content on other devices than the tee vee? I'm not talking about the sports channels' talking head shows, but more about the sportball competitions that they show.

I understand that the suits that run the networks want to be able to capture as many viewers as possible, no matter what devices they use to watch the content, but this shift to all video on the website is just terrible. I'm certainly with grum on this, I want to read content on a website, not watch some godawful Colin Chowder rant on autoplaying video on the website.

Who are the ad wizards that came up with this one?

posted by NoMich at 11:24 AM on October 25

My own personal opinion is that the video is not for me. When I am visiting a sports site on the web, I will read what interests me, but if a video pops up, I will go elsewhere. I can read a lot faster than most people can talk, and my comprehension level for reading is better than it is for listening. Good, thoughtful writing, even if opinionated, is usually much better than talk. There are a few talking heads that are occasionally worth hearing, but they are neither consistently accurate nor consistently entertaining.

posted by Howard_T at 11:58 AM on October 25

I can't think of the last time I clicked on an article on a sports/news/entertainment website, and wanted to watch video it provided. I would much prefer to read an article than watch someone read that information to me through video.

Amen, amen, amen. I hate embedded video so much (especially when it launches without asking me) that I downloaded various browser add-ons just to block all that shit. I've got more blockers than Oklahoma.

Now, I find that there are other things I would like to do online that are not possible with the blockers enabled, but I'd still rather live without that functionality or have to temporarily disable the blockers than be a hostage to the video content.

posted by beaverboard at 12:33 PM on October 25

...than be a hostage to the video content.

I use the Howard_T method of dealing with an autoplaying video: close tab

posted by NoMich at 12:38 PM on October 25

I like what The Ringer does (and what Grantland did before them), where they'll have a written article with gifs or video clips embedded in it. A lot of times that visual aid really helps the article out, and they're never preceded by any ads or anything.

posted by LionIndex at 06:03 PM on October 25

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.