Bleacher Report is a sort of Demand Media of sports, a content farm engineered to get search engine visits with lowest common denominator clickbait. And it’s a heck of a business.
Where Demand pays people, even if only $3 a post, to write low-grade Google spam, the vast majority of the writers on Bleacher Report are unpaid. Despite that, it got 9 million unique visitors in August, according to Compete, and Turner Broadcasting bought it that month for between $175 million and $200 million. That’s a lot of money in media land these days. It’s a hair under what the stock market says McClatchy is worth, andMcClatchy owns thirty newspapers, including The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, and The Kansas City Star. It’s also two-thirds of what AOL paid for The Huffington Post.
But while the latter was obsessively covered for months, the business press barely noticed the Bleacher Report deal. It got curiously perfunctory coverage in The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and Bloomberg. The New York Times wrote a blog post. I can only imagine it’s because business and media writers read a lot more HuffPost than they do Bleacher Report.
Into this media void comes SF Weekly with a deep dive and Joe Eskenazi comes up with one of the best media stories of the year: a revealing but dispiriting look at how the open Web can drive a journalistic race to the bottom.
How did a low-tier sports site mint money? As Eskenazi puts it, Bleacher Report “harnessed the energy of the legions of sports enthusiasts who would have otherwise been yammering on call-in radio.” If you’ve never had the misfortune of listening to sports-talk radio callers, go read this entertaining 1996 Sports Illustrated piece by Austin Murphy for a glimpse.
“Harnessing” is the right metaphor here. Here’s a labor force that creates the product for free or for very low pay, and the owners reap almost all the reward.
We get a convincing picture of Bleacher Report as emblem of the modern new media as lizard-brain manipulator. Even BuzzFeed gets half its traffic, according to Compete. Bleacher Report’s listicle-heavy content that includes gems like “The 20 Most Boobtastic Athletes of All Time” and “WWE Divas Power Rankings: Which Divas Have the Most Potential?” as well as overt troll posts like “Why Tom Brady Is the Most Overrated Quarterback in NFL History.”
Eskenazi talked to the author of that post:
This piece epitomizes much of what frustrates the site’s detractors. The article’s author, an affable 19-year-old college sophomore named Zayne Grantham, tells us he still thinks Brady is an overrated “system quarterback” who largely succeeds thanks to his team’s capable defenses. (The New England Patriots advanced to the Super Bowl last year with the 31st-ranked defense in terms of passing and overall yardage in a 32-team league.) But even Grantham doesn’t believe Brady to be history’s most overrated quarterback: “In hindsight, I may not have used that headline. I’ll be one of the first to say he’s one of the best quarterbacks we’ve ever seen.”
And there you have it: Anyone baited into responding to these hyperbolic stories finds themselves debating a non-starter argument with a teenager from Shreveport who doesn’t even buy the premise of his own article.
Much of the piece is withering like that. At one point Eskenazi writes, “Perhaps uniquely among journalistic entities, Bleacher Report has a ‘blanket policy’ forbidding its writers from seeking out and breaking news.” Say what? But yep, here it is under Content Standards on the site:
B/R has a strict policy against writers breaking their own news. While we don’t doubt that some B/R writers have contacts they know and trust, a problem arises when we’re asked to take a leap of faith that those sources are both legitimate and accurate.
- 1
- 2
Won't do?
Aw, Ryan, why can't this be a happy story about entrepreneurs made good? Wasn't Bleacher Report dreamt up by a quartet of young knuckleheads in, like, 2007? So five years later they've each got almost as much money as Rush makes in six months! And all just by harnessing hot air that's expended in barrooms across this great nation anyway.
It's a hamster and a wheel that doesn't know it's either one of those things, spinning away on its own. Why NOT exploit that?
Free money--it's like free energy. A perpetual motion machine! And scalable too!
And no one even got hurt. Sports boorishness is ubiquitous but easy enough to ignore. Bleacher Report simply helps ghettoize it on the net, where non-idiots can avoid it. Win-win, if you ask me.
Yet, there you go again, running down the Future of [Sports] News based on your own prejudices about what people should want.
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Fri 5 Oct 2012 at 02:00 PM
Mr Chittum, I tend to agree with basically everything you said, bar one thing: to a large extent, this "lets'give'what'people-want" policy was already ruling sports journalism far, far before the term crowdsourcing was even crafted. I live in Brazil, where the sports journalism is no more than an entertainment business, hyping weak teams, prasing mediocre players and stupid signings, and creating celebrities from nothing with the support of very lazy and unprepared journalists for a long time. The problem here, I believe, is that the users now are taking their place writing pseudojournalism babbling (Even if I believe that crowdsourced content can scale quality as the community matures, but this is another story). That's why this "cry for quality" came along now and not before.
#2 Posted by Cassiano Gobbet, CJR on Fri 5 Oct 2012 at 03:15 PM
Bleacher Report is NOT what the people want. Bleacher Report is a site that manipulates people into clicking on sensationalistic headlines. Sites like this exist and become popular because of search engines. The problem with a search engine is that you have to know what you are looking for before you search so if you search for news on something and there is no news, you get nothing. That is the opportunity that enables Bleacher Report to take a list of searches and use that to generate stories that people had searched for.
Since casual sports fans don't notice the difference in quality, they'll keep coming back to Bleacher Report and believing garbage they read there. Google could have fixed this problem by banning Bleacher Report from Google News and reducing the site's pagerank so it didn't appear in search results, but they chose not to do that. Because Google and the other search engines aren't going to do anything about this site, everybody else needs to stop visiting Bleacher Report (to lower their page views) and stop linking to Bleacher Report (every link to that site helps their page rank and moves them higher in search engines). When you write about that site, don't link to it (or at least make sure to add nofollow to your links) because that only helps them.
#3 Posted by Brad, CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 04:04 PM
It would help to do some research prior to writing a piece like this. Going solely off the SF Weekly article is the exact kind of amateurism that Bleacher Report is labeled with, yet this article is undeniably guilty of. Speaking with writers, past and present, spending time on B/R's front page, and perhaps gaining a wide variety of perspectives on the matter would help inform you.
I cited the CJR in my honors thesis a couple years ago, but am now shocked to know that this site/publication, which on the surface appears credible, produces content like this — disreputable bashing of a site it clearly knows very little of and took very little time to get to know at all.
#4 Posted by Will Leivenberg, CJR on Thu 29 Nov 2012 at 03:44 PM