Rob Neyer's Columns

[Ksyrup]

Reading Rob's most recent column this afternoon, and I almost missed the little box at the right near the bottom that says:

"Beginning June 14, you can read Rob Neyer's column four times a week as part of ESPN Insider. You will find Rob's insights at MLB Insider, as well as peppered throughout ESPN.com's baseball coverage."


BASTARDS!

Just wait, Bill Simmons is next...well, maybe not, without him Page 2 might as well take a back seat to Page 3 (if it still exists).

[teh \/1ru§ is kewl!!]

i would pay for espn6 if it was all bill simmons, all day and or cheap seats

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Reading Rob's most recent column this afternoon, and I almost missed the little box at the right near the bottom that says:

"Beginning June 14, you can read Rob Neyer's column four times a week as part of ESPN Insider. You will find Rob's insights at MLB Insider, as well as peppered throughout ESPN.com's baseball coverage."


BASTARDS!

Just wait, Bill Simmons is next...well, maybe not, without him Page 2 might as well take a back seat to Page 3 (if it still exists).

If they make Bill Simmons an "Insider" his fans will riot.

[bosshogg23]

I just read that about Neyer as well. Total shit! They ruined one of the best websites when they bought them out(sportsrumors.com) and now they are gonna make Neyer part of Insider. Guess I will have to read his website now.......

[Coffee Warlord]

I'm reallly getting sick of ESPN online.

Their site is continually growing more and more convoluted and messy, and now a good chunk of their stuff is Insider only.

[lynchjm24]

I was just talking about this with one of my best friends the other night. He's the editor for insider and I asked him why Simmons wasn't on Insider yet. He told me Neyer was supposed to already be on Insider and that Simmons was fighting like hell to not end up there.

[bosshogg23]

I already pay for ESPN the Magazine. The options on the website are to pay $40/year for the Mag & Insider or to pay $5/month for both. Cant ya just sign up for Insider only since I already get the Mag? Id be willing to try the 30 day trial to see if its worth it. Tried it last year and wasnt impressed.

[dawgfan]

Apparently ESPN.com isn't generating enough revenue with their pop-up ads, flyover ads and really annoying full-screen ads - they have to shift their most popular columnists to insider. I've lived without it so far since I don't care much for Mel Kiper's hair and Tom Lemming and I can read John Clayton, Peter Gammons, Bill Simmons and Rob Neyer for free.

Losing Neyer to the insider section will hurt, but he's beginning to run out of new material so maybe it won't be that bad. Thankfully I have a Baseball Prospectus subscription...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Apparently ESPN.com isn't generating enough revenue with their pop-up ads, flyover ads and really annoying full-screen ads - they have to shift their most popular columnists to insider. I've lived without it so far since I don't care much for Mel Kiper's hair and Tom Lemming and I can read John Clayton, Peter Gammons, Bill Simmons and Rob Neyer for free.

Losing Neyer to the insider section will hurt, but he's beginning to run out of new material so maybe it won't be that bad. Thankfully I have a Baseball Prospectus subscription...

I think the thinking is that if these guys can't contribute to ESPN's on-air operation, then they need to be pulling their weight somehow... and apparently, advertising isn't doing the trick.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'm reallly getting sick of ESPN online.

Their site is continually growing more and more convoluted and messy, and now a good chunk of their stuff is Insider only.

I rarely go there now.
A year or two ago, ESPN was blocked for a while at work. After a couple days of panicking, I stumbled across TSN.ca. Right off the bat, the hockey coverage (my main concern) was 100 times better. But the rest of the "American" sports news was right there too. And no crappy popups, and disorganization.

I've also found numerous occurences where breaking news showed up on the TSN site long before ESPN.

[Draft Dodger]

you know, I've read Neyer. Not bad, overall, but I can't even begin to imagine myself paying to read his colums.

same with Simmons, and, well, just about everyone else for that matter.

[Bad-example]

I really enjoy reading Neyer most of the time. I visited his website just now and sent him a message saying how sad I am I won't be able to read him regularly anymore and that it is a shame how much less exposure he will be getting now.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Apparently ESPN.com isn't generating enough revenue with their pop-up ads, flyover ads and really annoying full-screen ads - they have to shift their most popular columnists to insider. I've lived without it so far since I don't care much for Mel Kiper's hair and Tom Lemming and I can read John Clayton, Peter Gammons, Bill Simmons and Rob Neyer for free.

Losing Neyer to the insider section will hurt, but he's beginning to run out of new material so maybe it won't be that bad. Thankfully I have a Baseball Prospectus subscription...

Clearly they lost sight of the whole purpose of the website, which was to help augment the TV station and basically be an online advertisement for the TV station and Sportcenter. Maybe they realized Sportcenter now blows so much that the webpage is the only thing resembling quality they have left so might as milk it for what it's worth.

I'm really gonna be pissed if CNN/SI.com turns around and puts Dr Z and Peter King on their premium side.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I'm really gonna be pissed if CNN/SI.com turns around and puts Dr Z and Peter King on their premium side.

Bah. They're both Redskins haters, and King is just getting worse by the week. Seriously... somebody should have shot him back in 1999, so we can remember his work in a nice way.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Clearly they lost sight of the whole purpose of the website, which was to help augment the TV station and basically be an online advertisement for the TV station and Sportcenter. Maybe they realized Sportcenter now blows so much that the webpage is the only thing resembling quality they have left so might as milk it for what it's worth.

I'm really gonna be pissed if CNN/SI.com turns around and puts Dr Z and Peter King on their premium side.

I think it's just part of the inexorable march away from a completely free internet. I'm amazed actually how much information newspaper websites are willing to post for free. I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in several years, but I can still view the same content online as I would read in the print version. I'm skeptical that ad revenue is enough to cover the cost of hosting the website, and I'm very skeptical that it makes up for lost subscription revenue.

I suspect that there are enough successful subscription websites going now that sites like ESPN.com feel comfortable moving more content to their Insiders section.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Clearly they lost sight of the whole purpose of the website, which was to help augment the TV station and basically be an online advertisement for the TV station and Sportcenter. Maybe they realized Sportcenter now blows so much that the webpage is the only thing resembling quality they have left so might as milk it for what it's worth.

I'm really gonna be pissed if CNN/SI.com turns around and puts Dr Z and Peter King on their premium side.

ESPNNEWS all the way!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by bosshogg23

I already pay for ESPN the Magazine. The options on the website are to pay $40/year for the Mag & Insider or to pay $5/month for both. Cant ya just sign up for Insider only since I already get the Mag? Id be willing to try the 30 day trial to see if its worth it. Tried it last year and wasnt impressed.

Or if you go to Best Buy, check out their bargain software wall. For $15, you get six months of ESPN Insider, 24 issues (I think) of ESPN The Magazine, and something like 20% off the computer game of your choice. That's a better deal, IMO.

[Desnudo]

The only two guys I read on ESPN are Bill Simmons and Peter Gammons. If they put them on Insider I think I actually would buy the darn thing.

[SackAttack]

Insider's not too bad, although I wouldn't pay for it alone. but as I said, $15 for six months of both the mag and Insider = palatable, IMO.

[bosshogg23]

I paid $26 for the magazine through my step-daughters school(which is about $10 more than other places). I think I could swing the extra $4 for Insider

[Philliesfan980]

Insider is worth the admission price alone on the ESPNLocal feature. Everything else is a bonus.

[j51]

I'm still sad about what happened to sportingnews.com

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Insider is worth the admission price alone on the ESPNLocal feature. Everything else is a bonus.

Except that 75% of those stories require you to register for the website in question. Pain in the ass.

[finkenst]

whatever happened to espnet?

[Peregrine]

I think the thinking is that if these guys can't contribute to ESPN's on-air operation, then they need to be pulling their weight somehow... and apparently, advertising isn't doing the trick.

Maybe it's because a lot of people barely go to their site anymore because of the garbagey, cluttered look and intrusive advertising? And the fact that half the stuff that made the site worth going to is now on Insider? I can certainly live without it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

you know, I've read Neyer. Not bad, overall, but I can't even begin to imagine myself paying to read his colums.

same with Simmons, and, well, just about everyone else for that matter.

I'd be willing to pay for a coumnist I enjoyed, which includes Simmons.

I will not pay a full-year subscription to something just for one or two guys, though. Micropayments good. Full subscription, sorry.

[Ksyrup]

I've had ESPN the Mag free for 2 straight years (a combo of various airline/credit card rewards), and it just expired. I hardly read any of it, anyway, so I think I can survive without it. I won't pay for Neyer (or Simmons, for that matter), but I'll miss Rob's column.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Bad day for me... first I find out that Neyer (one of two columnists I try to read semi-regularly) is going over to the pay side (guess I'll be reading a little less), then I come home and find that Optel moved Fox Sports World to the digital tier.

(And there's nothing I can do about it... I'm in an apartment without the option to go to satellite, otherwise I'd have called them up tonight, canceled, and told them why.)

[SackAttack]

Do it anyway.

It's the principle of the thing.

[Mr. Wednesday]

No, despite my disappointment over losing FSW, I still watch enough on ESPN, the deuce, FSN, and History that I'm not willing to give up cable (although, if ESPN were on basic, I'd think very seriously about dropping a level of service).

Unfortunately, it won't be Optel that pays for their decision, as I'll take it out on another operator when I move to Indiana, but the other operator will probably have done something to deserve it.

[Ksyrup]

Well, I see that Neyer's first column is up at ESPN Insider. Man, that sucks. To my knowledge, he hasn't publicly comment on the move (at least not in any of his columns or his ESPN index page). That tells me that he's (a) uncomfortable discussing the move; and/or (b) not happy about it and has nothing positive to say about it.

Oh well.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Well, I see that Neyer's first column is up at ESPN Insider. Man, that sucks. To my knowledge, he hasn't publicly comment on the move (at least not in any of his columns or his ESPN index page). That tells me that he's (a) uncomfortable discussing the move; and/or (b) not happy about it and has nothing positive to say about it.

Oh well.

I saw a comment in one of his chats. Basically, his point was he had no choice and it was suppossed to happen sooner.

Todd

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Bah. They're both Redskins haters, and King is just getting worse by the week. Seriously... somebody should have shot him back in 1999, so we can remember his work in a nice way.

King is an idiot, and writes like a man with a vendetta- whenever he starts
talking about baseball, and knowing how to win or whatever tired cliche crap he spouts, I feel an urge to punch him through the computer screen. When it comes to the like of T.O, he writes as if he has personal grudges- and comes of as a middle aged stooge, from my perspective.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Well, I see that Neyer's first column is up at ESPN Insider. Man, that sucks. To my knowledge, he hasn't publicly comment on the move (at least not in any of his columns or his ESPN index page). That tells me that he's (a) uncomfortable discussing the move; and/or (b) not happy about it and has nothing positive to say about it.

Oh well.

aka.

From Disney management: Shut up or else.

[albionmoonlight]

The way to get ESPN to stop putting their best stuff on Insider? Don't buy Insider and don't go to their free website once all of your favorite stuff is no longer there.

As long as they are making money with Insider, why should they limit it? If I were a Disney shareholder, I would certainly not want them giving stuff away for free for which people would otherwise be willing to pay.

[Draft Dodger]

one comment:
I've been answering e-mail about this all week and it's starting to wear me down, so I'll address this here and no more . . . No, it wasn't my idea, and no I'm not getting a raise. Of course I would rather be available to everybody with access to the Internet, but when you're on a team and you've got a contract, it's your job to go where the manager tells you to go, and make the best of it. To those of you who won't be following me to Insider, I'm grateful that you've been with me for as long as you have. And I'll miss you.

and later:
Matt K., Stouffville, Ontario: Rob, will ALL your columns and chats be on Insider now, or just some of them?

Rob Neyer: ALL columns but none of the chats . . . at least for the time being. There's also robneyer.com for those of you who think everything in this world is free. And if you don't want to spend money for my books, either, the public libraries are doing great work these days.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

one comment:
I've been answering e-mail about this all week and it's starting to wear me down, so I'll address this here and no more . . . No, it wasn't my idea, and no I'm not getting a raise. Of course I would rather be available to everybody with access to the Internet, but when you're on a team and you've got a contract, it's your job to go where the manager tells you to go, and make the best of it. To those of you who won't be following me to Insider, I'm grateful that you've been with me for as long as you have. And I'll miss you.

and later:
Matt K., Stouffville, Ontario: Rob, will ALL your columns and chats be on Insider now, or just some of them?

Rob Neyer: ALL columns but none of the chats . . . at least for the time being. There's also robneyer.com for those of you who think everything in this world is free. And if you don't want to spend money for my books, either, the public libraries are doing great work these days.

Wow... that last comment tells me he's quite content being an "insider."

[Draft Dodger]

sounds like he's rather tired of all the complaints he (rightfully) has received.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

sounds like he's rather tired of all the complaints he (rightfully) has received.

I don't know if I agree with that. Magazines aren't free. Newspapers aren't free offline. Cable television isn't free. Why should web content be free forever?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I don't know if I agree with that. Magazines aren't free. Newspapers aren't free offline. Cable television isn't free. Why should web content be free forever?

That sound you hear is a generation of kids reading that and suddenly having their brains leak out of their ears in shock.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I don't know if I agree with that. Magazines aren't free. Newspapers aren't free offline. Cable television isn't free. Why should web content be free forever?

Not quite apples-to-apples.

Magazines aren't free, and neither are newspapers, but they are largely subsidized by advertising. Web content can be, as well, if it's done right. The problem is that ESPN goes about it the wrong way. They rarely target their ads to their readers, and the advertising they do just beats you over the head. I use FireFox to read the site because I can block the popups, flash ads, etc. I wouldn't have to do that if they did discreet banners and such along side the regular content... you know, just like a newspaper.

The problem with making anything on espn.com a pay-per-view feature is that there are just too many other places online to get free sports articles and news. I'm not paying for it if I can get it free elsewhere.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I don't know if I agree with that. Magazines aren't free. Newspapers aren't free offline. Cable television isn't free. Why should web content be free forever?

I don't have a problem with charging for web content. But I also believe that people who don't like what ESPN is doing should voice their opinion on it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Magazines aren't free, and neither are newspapers, but they are largely subsidized by advertising. Web content can be, as well, if it's done right. The problem is that ESPN goes about it the wrong way. They rarely target their ads to their readers, and the advertising they do just beats you over the head. I use FireFox to read the site because I can block the popups, flash ads, etc. I wouldn't have to do that if they did discreet banners and such along side the regular content... you know, just like a newspaper.

We talked about this a bit in the "don't want to register" thread (can't remember if you were in on that or not), but...

Web advertising, with very few exceptions, does not work. "Discreet" banner ads, unless highly targetted on niche sites (i.e. not espn) do not work. They bring in very little revenue, which is why there are so damn many of them. The newspaper/magazine/network tv model just doesn't work on the web.

Why not? Largely because they were so badly abused in the early days. Even putting aside those surfers who block ads (an increasing population, by the way), many people don't "see" banner ads any more. It's an observable phenomenom that people who design web sites have to constantly watch for. Make something look remotely like an ad and people won't see it (even if the content is exactly what they're looking for).

Virtually the only sites that are making major money off of web ads, that I know of, are search engines like Google with their paid-placements. Those work becaus by definition they're served up to people who are specifically looking for that type of content, and are very often already in buy mode. Beyond that, web ads bring in very little -- we're talking fractions of a penny per click.

So if you run a content site like ESPN (as opposed to a site that sells something tangible), you have few options. You can charge for the content. You can force registration and market to your database. You can form partnerships with other sites and sell your content to them, or try to work an affiliate model. Or you can just write off the whole site as a branding exercise and hope it brings indirect revenues to your other media properties. There's not much else.

So if you hate ESPN Insider, fine. Don't want to pay for it? Fine. You have no obligation at all to make ESPN's site a success. Just don't fool yourself into thinking they're already making money off the ads, because the odds against it are enormous.

[panerd]

I have never tried the insider, but there have been quite a few times where I have clicked on a link only to notice immediatly the little IN. My beef isn't with paying, but with the flying ads. Does being an "insider" rid you of the third grade web design of ESPN.com's front page?

It is like pwtorch.com. I really used to like the "inside" wrestling information, but will NEVER shell out that kind of money for a subscription to a wrestling magazine. So the asshole Wade Keller puts all sorts of pop-up ads on the free site. I don't mind the game ads or even the right hand corner ads, but this guy has ads that try and change your explorer start page and try to upload software. Yeah, that is a real good way to win over your non-subscribing fan-base.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by panerd

It is like pwtorch.com. I really used to like the "inside" wrestling information, but will NEVER shell out that kind of money for a subscription to a wrestling magazine. So the asshole Wade Keller puts all sorts of pop-up ads on the free site. I don't mind the game ads or even the right hand corner ads, but this guy has ads that try and change your explorer start page and try to upload software. Yeah, that is a real good way to win over your non-subscribing fan-base.

Keller has the right to run his business as he sees fit, but I can't imagine how what he's doing is good for business. Just an awful site.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Not quite apples-to-apples.

Magazines aren't free, and neither are newspapers, but they are largely subsidized by advertising. Web content can be, as well, if it's done right. The problem is that ESPN goes about it the wrong way. They rarely target their ads to their readers, and the advertising they do just beats you over the head. I use FireFox to read the site because I can block the popups, flash ads, etc. I wouldn't have to do that if they did discreet banners and such along side the regular content... you know, just like a newspaper.

The problem with making anything on espn.com a pay-per-view feature is that there are just too many other places online to get free sports articles and news. I'm not paying for it if I can get it free elsewhere.

Newspapers and magazines have generate much more advertising revenues and they still aren't free - so I'm not quite sure how people can expect to get quality on the internet for free for eternity. If I could pay $25-$30 a month and never see another advertisement on the internet I'd sign up today. I'm sure that's a minority opinion but I'll also sign up for baseballprospectus.com and baseballamerica.com at about $40 each for the year, so I'm not adverse to paying for quality.

ESPN.com isn't the right site to have this argument about because so little of what is on there is worth paying for. Baseball-reference.com does it right. It looks like he'll be able to make some money and the advertising isn't bothersome at all, but it is a BRILLIANT site and has such a loyal fanbase that are willing to sponsor individual players. sports-wired.com has great content - but horrible advertising, and I cringe when I need to look up minor-league stats.

[Ksyrup]

You know, I could stomach losing Rob's columns if they just replaced him with something.

Gammons writes one column a week, and today's the All-Star game, and he hasn't even written one for this week yet!

Jayson Stark writes two main columns, the incredibly tedious and well-past-its-period-of-cuteness Useless Info, and the more important, well-worth-reading, Rumblings. And, he gives his boring spin on news events we've all read about in the past day, that he just rehashes and maybe sticks a Doug Glanville quote in. So, he's good for one read a week.

Gary Miller's Clubhouse Confidential is embarrassing. If it wasn't enough that he spilled the beans on Alou's peeing on his hands story that he wasn't supposed to write about in his first ever feature article, the rest just gets worst. The "highlight" of the past two articles has been this secret CD mix that the A's clubhouse has that makes them play inspired ball. He can't tell us what's on it, though! Ooooooh, the intrigue!

Bob Klapisch makes Yogi Berra and Phil Rizzuto look like Yankees haters. I always love it when the team with the most press anyway, gets their own writer.

There's that guy in San Jose (Ratto?) who sometimes writes about baseball, and sometimes he's clever, but baseball isn't his only gig.

Jim Caple isn't good for anything substantive.

So, they've essentially taken the substance, put it behid locked doors, and left us with one guy who they pretend offers substance, an old guy who is a few steps from retiring, and a bunch of "entertainment" writers. I guess that's their right to do, but I think it sucks.

[sachmo71]

The Science Guy?