Barrett Blogs
Does It Pay To Be On Social Media?
It’s evening time. You’ve arrived home from work, ate your dinner, and are finally unwinding and getting ready to watch your television. If you work in the sports media business, that likely means watching some form of sports programming.
You absorb the content, and before you know it, you’re reaching for your phone, iPad, or laptop, and logging on to one of your social media accounts to see what others are saying about the program you’re watching.
As you start reading the comments, they get your juices flowing. Soon you have the itch to type a response, and engage in the conversation. After all, you get paid to talk, and interact with people on your show each day, and you have bosses, and the entire media industry telling you how vital it is to connect with the audience outside of your show to build deeper fan loyalty.
And then it happens…..you press send, and offer an opinion that gets the whole world talking, and not for the right reason.
The responses to your opinion start coming in rapidly. Your audience begins sharing and retweeting your commentary, and soon the media industry, one which you make your living in, is now highlighting your opinion, and seeking your removal and/or an apology.
You start to panic, and think “maybe I can delete the comment and this will all go away“. Except, it’s been saved at this point by numerous outlets, and you recognize that it’s going to spread like a virus no matter what you do.
Then you ponder “what if I just apologize, and promise not to do it again“? That sounds good in theory, but the damage has already been done, and the dogs are lined up outside the door, and barking, and not going away until they taste blood.
As you contemplate the chaos you’re involved in, you decide to reach out to your boss, and let them know what’s transpired, so they know the situation, and understand your role in it. Whether you get along great or terribly with this individual is irrelevant, because you know the conversation is necessary.
Together you discuss the next steps for handling the storm, and when you go to sleep that night, you’re hopeful to wake up the next day and have it all be just a dream. Except it isn’t, and the nightmare isn’t close to being over.
Then the phone call comes in. It’s likely your Program Director, or it might even be your General Manager, or CEO, asking for more details on what took place.
You offer your thoughts on the situation, and explain how you were simply taking part in a conversation with the audience outside of the show, and offered an opinion that wasn’t well received. But you do this all the time on your show, so this shouldn’t be any different right?
Your boss listens to you, probably takes some notes, and tells you they’ll be in touch afterwards to discuss what to do next.
At this point you’re stressed out, blaming yourself (or the audience who outed you) for putting your commentary on social media, and you’re walking on egg shells waiting to hear how the company wants to proceed.
And then the phone call comes…..you’ve been suspended or fired.
Instantly you’re asking your employers to reconsider. You’re pissed off at the audience for making a big deal out of what you thought was an innocent comment. You’re feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable about your future because you know this blemish is now going to hang over your head like a dark black cloud.
And as I sit here laying out this scenario for you, I have one simple question I want you to answer – did it make any sense at all to participate on social media?
Some people will immediately say “well if you weren’t stupid and didn’t say those things, you wouldn’t be in this predicament“. That’s true. I often read some personalities social media responses and question their line of judgment because I know that they’re on the verge of unflattering attention for a pointless reason.
I also recognize though that some of the most opinionated people in our business, performers who by the way drive ratings, and command big advertising endorsement rates (and offer similar commentaries on-air that they’re now being attacked for using on social media), don’t always handle things properly. I don’t want to excuse personal responsibility because it should factor into the equation.
But let’s also recognize that people are human, and they do have flaws, and make mistakes.
Here’s a cold reality. In every industry, there are people who’s views, character traits, and decisions, will make you uneasy. You see them as the lowest form of scum, while others see them in a different light.
When it comes to social circles, we gravitate towards those we like, but still we focus our additional energies on people we don’t identify with. As petty as it may be, we spend a lot of time and negative energy analyzing what other people say and do.
That today has become one of the most powerful seductions for Twitter and Facebook. You wake up, read your timeline, and you interact with those you like, and then proceed to talk or complain about a couple of others who posted something that you don’t agree with.
Is it really important? No. But in today’s world, we’re consumed with everyone’s opinion, and we feel an immediate need to dive into everyone else’s conversation.
That doesn’t make social media bad. Instead it calls into question our own abilities to operate with a filter. We want to be ourselves, and speak freely without consequence, and when you’re communicating with people you have established relationships with, that may be acceptable. When you’re presenting your views though to those you share no personal history with, that’s a different ballgame.
It’s our own personal responsibility to assess whether it makes sense to respond, or walk away from certain conversations. Unfortunately, most of us can’t help to stop and look at the car crash, rather than continue driving.
Personally, I enjoy social media, and many of the benefits it provides. But I’m also not on the air, and I don’t command the same attention that an on-air personality does. If I were working in that position, and had every one of my assessments being scrutinized, as much as I love being social, and connecting with people, I’d have to think twice about my level of activity, and what I hoped to gain by being accessible on it.
I know that may sound crazy since every media company today preaches the importance of social media, and why it’s necessary to be active, but let me ask you this – how much money have you or your brand made off of Twitter? How about Facebook?
If your best personalities can’t turn off their emotions (which by the way, you love and push for more of when they’re on the air), and have a rational conversation on social media without torching their own career and your brand in the process, then is it really worth it to be on there in the first place?
These are highly emotional, and opinionated people, and we send them into the lion’s den, but ask them to play nice. Each day they log on to their accounts, and share their personal beliefs, and invite the world in, while enduring public criticisms, and personal attacks. We then expect them not to be brash or irrational with their responses when faced with negativity. While we may want all talent to flip a switch, and avoid confrontation over meaningless drama, not everyone marches to the same beat.
I want to understand this, and approach the conversation strictly from a business point of view for a second, because remember, this is a business, and everything we do comes back to the almighty dollar.
If you make little to no money by being on Twitter, and the same holds true for your presence on Facebook, yet you stand to lose your livelihood if you make a mistake on one of these platforms, then can someone please tell me why it makes any sense at all to be candid, engaged, and heavily involved in these social spaces?
The risk certainly seems to outweigh the reward.
I’ve heard certain personalities who choose not to participate in social media, say that they believe that by sharing their lives and opinions outside their show, it takes away from the mystery of their programs, and could potentially cost them additional audience. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of that (I can make a case that by promoting yourself, and your show on social media it can lead to an increase in tune-ins), I do understand their point, and concern.
A talent makes their money on the air. Their ratings determine whether or not they get to continue doing it. If speaking your mind in other locations takes away from the allure of what you’ll offer on your show, then I can understand why there’d be hesitation to participate. Some managers may frown upon that, but this is why you can’t treat every personality the same.
What I don’t understand though is why we all feel the need to be in these spaces, and why we continue to think that our comments on social media aren’t seen by all, and potentially damaging. I’ve sat back and watched some personalities swear, ridicule and insult listeners, and trash other companies, yet they wouldn’t do most of that on their own airwaves. They’re not being paid by these social media outlets to be outspoken, but still they feel the need to express themselves more candidly here, than they often do on their own radio stations.
Here’s a newsflash for every on-air personality, and public figure, Twitter and Facebook are no different than your radio or television station. When you type a comment, and press send, your opinion enters the social media universe, which is equal to grabbing the microphone, and saying something offensive that leads to the FCC or your own company taking action against you. You may think that it’s this fun little platform where you can be yourself and have colorful conversations, but it’s not.
I started thinking about this subject based on the story that generated national attention yesterday. Mike Bell of 92.9 The Game in Atlanta made some unflattering jokes and comments about ESPN’s Jessica Mendoza, and his poor judgment on social media led to him being suspended by the radio station.
I personally think Mike made a terrible error, and he said some things that were insensitive and stupid. The station had every right to suspend him, and I applaud them for taking action.
I also think his analysis of Jessica Mendoza was off base. As a Yankees fan, I watched that game, and was curious to see how she’d perform, and I came away from that broadcast extremely impressed. She was sharp, well spoken, easy to follow, made excellent points and counterpoints, and proved that she belonged on that stage.
Yes her involvement as an analyst on a baseball broadcast is foreign territory, and as we’ve seen so many times, change isn’t accepted quickly. The immediate response from most people is to complain, and reject any new idea until it’s proven to be socially acceptable.
What I learned from this story, is that Jessica has a lot of talent, and class, and she lets her work speak for her. If you browse her Twitter account, you’ll find most of her tweets promote something she’s involved in, or she’s retweeting something positive. That’s a smart approach. By steering clear of controversial discussions, it keeps her in control, and unlikely to be in a position to have to explain herself to her bosses, or even worse, the entire country.
On the other hand, there are so many others that can’t hit the delete button, and have put themselves in hot water by using poor judgment on social media.
In the past week alone, Mike Bell was suspended, a social media staffer for the Texas Rangers was fired after posting a remark about Texas Head Football Coach Charlie Strong on the team’s Twitter account, and one of the world’s most powerful media moguls Rupert Murdoch was under the microscope for a tweet where he said “Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else.”
If you’re keeping score, that’s one media person suspended, another fired, and another publicly embarrassed and likely to face some advertiser backlash, all because they used poor judgment on social media platforms.
So I ask these questions again – why are you on there, and is it really worth it?
If the risk means losing your career, or being publicly embarrassed, and there’s no money or career advancement coming your way from being active on it, then why do it?
What brings this full circle for me is that we focused a lot of attention this week on the Mike Bell-Jessica Mendoza controversy, but it never should have even been a topic of conversation in the first place. If Curt Schilling, hadn’t taken to social media, and performed like Mike Bell, Jessica Mendoza wouldn’t have been in that position to draw a reaction.
Which goes to show that when you follow Mendoza’s example, and use social media in small doses, and for the right reasons, you avoid dangerous situations, make a lot of money, and professionally benefit. Bell and Schilling should be taking notice of that, not just her performance in a baseball booth! Although that too may cause future problems for Curt.
Jason Barrett is the owner and operator of Barrett Sports Media. Prior to launching BSM he served as a sports radio programmer, launching brands such as 95.7 The Game in San Francisco and 101 ESPN in St. Louis. He has also produced national shows for ESPN Radio including GameNight and the Dan Patrick Show. You can find him on Twitter @SportsRadioPD or reach him by email at [email protected].
Barrett Blogs
The 2024 BSM Summit is Coming To New York City
“The 2024 BSM Summit, will take place March 13-14, 2024 at the Ailey Citigroup Theater in New York City.”
Jason Barrett is the owner and operator of Barrett Sports Media. Prior to launching BSM he served as a sports radio programmer, launching brands such as 95.7 The Game in San Francisco and 101 ESPN in St. Louis. He has also produced national shows for ESPN Radio including GameNight and the Dan Patrick Show. You can find him on Twitter @SportsRadioPD or reach him by email at [email protected].
Barrett Blogs
Cheers to 8 Years of Barrett Media, and a Look Ahead to 2024
“To be here after 8 years, still able to share my passion for sports and news broadcasting with you, and earn your time and attention is an honor..”
Jason Barrett is the owner and operator of Barrett Sports Media. Prior to launching BSM he served as a sports radio programmer, launching brands such as 95.7 The Game in San Francisco and 101 ESPN in St. Louis. He has also produced national shows for ESPN Radio including GameNight and the Dan Patrick Show. You can find him on Twitter @SportsRadioPD or reach him by email at [email protected].
Barrett Blogs
The New York Times Sports Saga is About Dollars and Cents, Not a Lack of Interest in Coverage and Reading
“You can take issue with the vision and how the situation was managed but an investment in The Athletic makes no sense if the Times doesn’t prioritize its importance.”
Call me asleep at the wheel, out of touch or an aging broadcaster who has it all wrong, but I firmly believe that people still like to read. I know the popular thing is to talk up video, audio, streaming, etc., and I love all of those options, but I don’t buy that people don’t have time or interest in reading.
For many, especially in the media business, it’s how you start and end your day. I’ve heard people pronounce last rites for print for well over a decade, only to see social platforms and media outlets thrive off the written word, newsletters rapidly rise, and text become the main form of communicating. Clearly, written content still matters.
It’s ironic that I’m telling you this in print as you read it on the BSM website. In fact, more than nine million visitors have stopped by this site over the past three years, reinforcing why I remain convinced people value learning and enjoying a mental distraction.
As much as I love audio and video, there’s something therapeutic about reading a story. There are thousands of shows flooding the daily content cycle, many discussing the same topics and issues. Some could say the same exists in print, but there are countless examples of in-depth storytelling and reporting that can’t be duplicated on radio, TV or even in a podcast.
Think for a second about the majority of sports information that people react to each day. It comes in written form. If you’re an NBA fan, you rely on tweets from Woj and Shams. If you crave the NFL, Schefty and Rapoport keep you informed. Even those seeking sports media news get it from Marchand, McCarthy, Ourand, and BSM. Whether it’s delivered in a tweet or an online article, the bottom line, you’re reading it.
Though I remain bullish on the power of print, I’m not naive to the fact that the business has been challenged. If the revenue or costs don’t produce positive results for a company, they are going to do whatever is necessary to strengthen their business.
Recently, the New York Times chose to throw in the towel on its local sports department, relying instead on The Athletic for its local sports coverage needs. It was a decision undoubtedly influenced by dollars and cents. As expected, many in the media took exception.
In a statement issued to the Times’s newsroom, the newspaper’s executive editor, and deputy managing editor emphasized that the changes would result in more direct focus on distinctive, high-impact news and enterprise journalism about how sports intersect with money, power, culture, politics and society at large. What they felt no longer needed attention was coverage of games, players, teams and leagues.
Interesting. This follows the Los Angeles Times recent decision to remove box scores, game stories, standings, and TV listings. These are things that sports fans have cared about and paid attention to for decades.
These two newspapers believe your interest in knowing the details of a game, and how your favorite team is performing compared to others, no longer matter. Either that’s the viewpoint or they’ve waved the white flag and determined people would rather go to ESPN, Yahoo and other online destination for that information. It’s easy to see why these decisions drew the ire of Adam Schein on SiriusXM’s Mad Dog Sports Radio and Jessica Benson on Grind City Media.
I don’t believe people who love sports don’t care about the things the Times is eliminating. Maybe interest in those items is lower when compared to news and in-depth storytelling but sports fans have always had interest in statistics, schedules, transactions, and standings. To suggest they don’t matter anymore is foolish.
You can debate if the newspaper’s vision for covering sports is right for the future or not but what made this situation worse is the way their executive team managed the situation with the sports staff.
It was reported that employees sent a letter to management the day prior, asking for clarity on the future of their department. Though the Times said in a letter to staff that no plans existed for layoffs, they ignored the fact that The Athletic had 20 staff members eliminated last month, and 20 more transferred to other roles. The transfer approach was also their solution for the sports department, hoping moving staffers to another department would help avoid the wrath and a bigger fight with their union.
But when news trickles in from the outside that plans are in the works to eliminate a department, and those skilled at covering sports are offered roles that remove them from what they enjoy doing, why would they stay? If someone took away your sports job and told you you’d continue being paid but now have to write obituaries, what would you do? Some will see this as creating a structure that encourages people to quit. That’s one way to eliminate costs without being on the hook for breaking a promise to not eliminate jobs.
Though I think the management team at the Times has royally screwed up their handling of this situation, let’s remove emotion for a second, and look at this from a business perspective.
The New York Times’s parent company started this process in January 2022 when it invested five hundred and fifty million dollars in The Athletic. Were they not supposed to prioritize the sports brand they purchased? Were they supposed to continue funding two operations with the same content focus even if it meant losing money?
One could argue that the newspaper could’ve moved its best sports writers to The Athletic, but to expect both to operate as is isn’t realistic. You can also criticize the decision to stick with The Athletic after the brand lost $7.8 million last quarter, $12.6 million in the second quarter last year, and $6.8 million in February and March of 2022 despite having 3.3 million subscribers. By the way, that information was shared by the New York Times in public filings.
Love it or hate it, when a company has resources tied up in two places for the same thing, you can rest assured they’re going to eliminate or reduce one of them. The changes don’t happen right away either, they usually come a year or two later.
This isn’t exclusive to the print industry. Look at what happened to the pro wrestling business when Vince McMahon acquired WCW from Turner. He didn’t run two companies long term. He kept who he wanted, dropped the others, and a lot of people in that business were left without work. It happens in radio too when a station eliminates local shows for national programming or companies take over a new market or entire organization. You may not love hearing executives talk about finding ‘synergies’ to operate more efficiently, but they’re not going to pay twice for something that requires one investment.
When cuts are made and a department is weakened, it’s hard to express enthusiasm. Why would one be optimistic about the Times’s ability to cover the world of sports when they have less of a presence, and are minimizing coverage of games, players, teams, and leagues? If you’re at the New York Daily News, New York Post or Newsday you’re using the moment to remind New Yorkers that you remain committed to local sports coverage with a locally focused staff.
It’s more than fair to question if this the Times is making a smart decision, but for anyone to suggest this confirms a lack of interest in reading and sports coverage is foolish. These decisions are always about one thing, and one thing only, money.
The bigger issue with print isn’t a lack of interest. It’s the cost to employ and retain a talented staff while grappling with the challenges of generating advertising and subscription revenue. Think the fact that the sports desk at the Times was unionized, and The Athletic was not might’ve mattered in this case? You’re nuts if you think it didn’t.
In May of this year, the New York Times missed estimates for quarterly revenue. That led to a 6% drop in their stock price at the time. The Times said they expected digital ad revenue to decline by low-to mid-single digits, which was confirmed when they revealed they were nearly 9% down in digital ad revenue for the first quarter, and off by 11 million dollars for total annual revenue.
As a publisher myself, I know how hard it is. We are fortunate to have some excellent, loyal advertising partners on this website but truth be told, we don’t have enough of them. More months than most we spend more than we take in to run our websites, and newsletters. Consulting remains our top source for revenue, leaving me to ask many times if modifying our content approach is needed or if we’d be wiser running a business without an online focus.
We put a ton of time and effort into educating the industry. I take great pride covering brands and people, telling their stories, trying to help folks learn about each other and the daily happenings across the media landscape. We pump out 30-40 stories each day between our two websites, promote them across social media, and deliver them to more than 10,000 inboxes via our BSM 8@8 and BNM Rundown. And that’s just the content side.
We also spend countless hours creating packages, pursuing new business, and taking meetings to demonstrate our reach and value in order to gain advertising support. We build conferences across the country, and risk a lot financially to do them, hoping to earn enough to cover the expenses and get many of the right industry people in the room. But even that can be difficult. For every partner we gain, there are many who don’t come on board. Most who do have seen the benefits, but I understand that a weakened economy makes decision makers nervous.
That said, if this site disappeared tomorrow, many would be upset. We’ve earned trust, respect, and appreciation for the work we do from a lot of important people. But in every business, if the support isn’t there, the publisher, brand or company has to choose what is and isn’t vital to operating. Folks may not like change, but it’s simply about the math. If the dollars and cents don’t add up, you’ve got to adjust or you risk being broke or out of business.
That’s what I believe this decision at the New York Times is about. You can take issue with their vision and the way they managed the situation but understand that an investment in The Athletic makes no sense if the Times isn’t prepared to prioritize its importance. You can question if they should’ve purchased The Athletic in the first place, but once that move was made, it was only a matter of time until something this drastic occurred.
But those who flocked to social media to suggest this is proof of people not being interested in reading are wrong. Each time I hear nonsense uttered about print being dead, I think of how often the same has been said about radio and television. I think about the film industry, which relies on written scripts, and in many cases, published books to create box office hits. I think of Canada pulling its advertising support from Facebook and Instagram over parent company Meta’s decision to restrict news content being available to Canadians. I think of our own growth at BSM and BNM, which is a result of people consuming our written content either online, on social media or in newsletters.
Interest in reading, learning, and mentally escaping from the world for a few is as strong as ever. We live on social media apps and our phones because we want to read what others say, and join the conversation. It all reinforces the notion that consuming written content matters, whether it’s on a website, on social media, in a text, in a newspaper, newsletter or magazine.
The only questions anyone should be asking is what must digital/print brands do to attract stronger advertising dollars, how much investment must a company make to deliver quality journalism and a large audience, and how much consolidation awaits the media world in the near and distant future? We can scream from the mountaintops all day about the decline of journalism and rip the New York Times for decimating its local sports department, but if the dough don’t show, someone or something is going to go.
Jason Barrett is the owner and operator of Barrett Sports Media. Prior to launching BSM he served as a sports radio programmer, launching brands such as 95.7 The Game in San Francisco and 101 ESPN in St. Louis. He has also produced national shows for ESPN Radio including GameNight and the Dan Patrick Show. You can find him on Twitter @SportsRadioPD or reach him by email at [email protected].
Sports Radio News1 day agoBoomer Esiason: Dave Portnoy, Washington Post Article ‘Classic Example of Cancel Culture’
- Sports Radio News4 days ago
104.3 The Fan Unveils New Lineup with Josh Dover & Phillip Lindsey, DMac Out
- Sports Online1 day ago
Dave Portnoy Accuses Washington Post of Tortious Interference
