Barrett Blogs
Is It Time For ESPN To Split Up Mike and Mike?
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].
Barrett Blogs
Is It Time For ESPN To Split Up Mike and Mike?
Pairing two people together and developing a great show isn’t easy. Turning that show into a mainstream brand is even harder. Sustaining it for nearly two decades is virtually impossible.
Yet ESPN has done that with “Mike and Mike”, their morning show on ESPN Radio and ESPN 2.
To enter a sports fan’s mind for that period of time takes a ton of talent, patience, support, consistency, and whole lot of luck. Yet as we’ve seen many times in sports and the media business, even the biggest stars and shows eventually reach their finish line.
But how can you tell when a dominant program with revenue and ratings success has run out of gas? If the true measure of a show’s success is to deliver ratings, revenue and relevance, and a program is providing it, then isn’t it the role of management to stick with them and get out of the way?
This is the dilemma ESPN is facing with Mike and Mike.
On one hand, the show continues to perform both on radio and television. Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic have spent more than 16 years together, and continue to be the face of the ESPN Radio network, and a morning show which many sports fans across the nation take their cues from. Greeny and Golic entered the NAB radio hall of fame this past April, and still sound informed, engaged, and interested in delivering a quality program. They also have one of the strongest guests lists on radio.
But on the other hand, many critics say their act has grown tired and it’s time to turn the page. The common criticism is that the show lacks bold opinions, unpredictability and hasn’t refreshed itself, despite growing competition.
According to Richard Deitsch of Sports Illustrated, ESPN is considering breaking up the show and moving Greenberg to a morning show hosting role on television and pairing Golic with his son.
To many in radio circles, that possibility is nothing new. ESPN has made this noise before. In recent years, the network began to tinker with the show, challenging Greeny and Golic to add more opinion, more live reads, more bits, and more contributions from opinionated personalities (First Take, His & Hers). They’ve also experimented with adding Cris Carter as a third voice during football season, and utilized Molly Qerim in a part-time third host role.
There seem to be two trains of thought when it comes to Mike and Mike. You have one group of people who value what Greeny and Golic bring to the air and want to continue letting them operate the way they’re most comfortable. Then you have another faction which feels the show is corny, too safe, and lacks the opinions necessary to make the network a bigger destination each morning.
As I spoke to executives across the country, I learned that many feel the ESPN Radio brand has lost some of its luster. The network previously rolled out popular stars such as Dan Patrick, Colin Cowherd, Scott Van Pelt, and Tony Kornheiser, along with Mike and Mike, and when you start to lose high profile faces and voices, it takes time to develop the next crop of talent.
But therein lies the issue.
Many insiders aren’t convinced that ESPN Radio has found the next wave of superstars. The consensus is that Dan Le Batard is one of those superior talents along with Mike and Mike, but the rest of the shows are viewed a tier below. With more time and opportunity, opinions could change towards those other on-air talents. But when you’re in the leadership position that ESPN is in, and partners are counting on you to roll out programs with recognizable talent in order to help them win and generate immediate revenue, folks are less patient.
Which makes the idea of eliminating Mike and Mike a tough one for some network executives to wrestle with. Do you break up one of your most powerful brands and leave the radio network in a position where it doesn’t have huge star power? Won’t that further add to the narrative that the network is losing many of its best performers? Or do you sit tight and continue the ride while others continue to get better and listener and viewer tastes continue to change?
In talking to a number of executives, the consensus was that ESPN Radio would lose value without Mike and Mike. Some told me it would force them to reevaluate whether or not to continue their affiliation. But it was clear that there was a down the middle split on whether or not to cancel the show. I asked seven decision makers five key questions about Mike and Mike and here are their responses. The names of the individuals who took part in this piece have been kept private for obvious reasons.
What do you believe makes Mike and Mike a great show?
Executive 1: The chemistry. They have worked together so long that they know each other and how to react to what the other person says. It is also about the resources, every ESPN expert is available to the show to provide insight and perspective that you can only get from those who have the access to the players and coaches from all the sports including the NFL, MLB, NBA and major college. The production staff is second to none and helps keep the Mike’s up to date on what matters most to the audience. The program is also great at covering the big story. No show is as good as Mike and Mike in taking the audience behind the curtain.
Executive 2: Chemistry and tenure. They anticipate each other’s thoughts and words.
Executive 3: It’s authentic. What you hear is what you get. Mike Greenberg is a metrosexual, neurotic, Jets loving fan. Mike Golic is a food loving, family guy, former player. They never pretend to be who they are not, they are themselves. In addition, Greenberg might be the best traffic cop on sports radio. He keeps the show moving at a tremendous pace for morning drive. His teases are the very best in the business. He is incredibly smart with a large vocabulary that he uses well to paint pictures and move seamlessly from topic to topic. Golic is the guy next door, the dude you want to have a beer with. He’s friendly and goofy and reminds us of our brother or uncle that we love. The last thing that makes this show great is ESPN. The strength of ESPN helps the show get the very best guests and top of mind newsmakers. Because they’re on ESPN Radio and TV, Mike and Mike have been able to establish themselves as the show of record for sports fans in the morning.
Executive 4: It’s a great, safe, easy brand to listen to. Continuity has been their biggest asset. In Radio you almost win by default when you’re together for that long.
Executive 5: Longevity and the chemistry between Greeny and Golic. They are always talking about the right content too.
Executive 6: There is no show that addresses the big stories better. They make the content sound big and land the biggest guests.
Executive 7: Mike & Mike’s chemistry is what has made this show great going all the way back to day 1. They do a good job tapping into ESPN’s resources creating a well-rounded sports show. It’s an easy and comfortable listen that informs people about the nation’s biggest sports stories.
What do you believe is missing from Mike and Mike’s show?
Executive 1: Hard hitting opinions. At times the show is probably a little too safe in how they approach certain topics. The show needs to take some chances and push opinionated content that will generate reaction from the audience. Finding ways for the audience to be interactive with the Mike’s is always a good thing that we do not hear enough of.
Executive 2: Localism. They have too wide of net to cover. That is the drawback of a national show.
Executive 3: There isn’t a lot missing. They have access to everything they need through ESPN and their years of credibility and existence. At times the show could use more humor/fun, but it’s not a glaring miss. What it probably lacks the most is a steady fill-in because the two Mike’s are on vacation WAY too much.
Executive 4: The show could benefit from adding a woman to the cast.
Executive 5: Not one thing. I have not been one of those executives who has thought they needed to add to the show. I know the thought processes behind them doing it but I don’t feel it was necessary. Case in point, I tuned out last year during the Cris Carter segments.
Executive 6: For any show that has been successful and wants to stay on top, there has to be a refresh. They need to continue to bring big names into their show on a consistent basis that have strong opinions and can push the story forward.
Executive 7: There is a level of unpredictability missing from the show. The guys rarely take chances and offer outspoken opinions, and they’ve settled to remain within their comfort zone.
How does the show sound now compared to 5-10 years ago?
Executive 1: Mike and Mike used to be a radio show on TV. The show is now a TV show on radio. This is an important distinction in terms of what comes out of the speakers. The show is still enjoyable to consume, however the presentation is different because of the focus on television.
Executive 2: They have more experience and are further established. The show has an easy flow and tempo and their years together work in their favor as they are able to recall memorable moments to past shows.
Executive 3: Too cluttered. They have gotten crazy with the amount of live reads in the program.
Executive 4: The show is still very commercial/network, and non local. It’s safe and easy like McDonald’s – you know what you’re getting. They don’t provide many opinions just the facts.
Executive 5: Just like any relationship that lasts that long, you hope it gets better with age. They understand each other better, they know how to get the best out of each other and push one another’s buttons. One way the show has suffered is that it’s no longer a radio show, it’s a TV program simulcast on radio.
Executive 6: The show has definitely digressed. I think they understood radio and the importance of keeping things moving years ago. They are best when hitting the big stories and reacting to them. For some reason they got away from that and tried to make it more of a morning zoo crew type of show. Play to your strengths, and humor is definitely not one of them, but they continue to try to incorporate it into the show.
Executive 7: The show was at its best ten years ago when it was undoubtedly the sports show of record each morning. As competition has increased, the show has gone the other way. Mike and Mike needed to step up their game and have that same entrepreneurial spirit that made it successful 16 years ago, but they’ve become more stale and predictable. As a result, the “need” to listen has waned. The shtick has stayed consistent, but in my opinion, the guys have lost their fastball. Additionally, the amount of sales clutter and promotion for company initiatives has caused far too many tune-outs.
When you sample their show, do you listen to it on radio or watch it on TV?
Executive 1: Both. Depends where I am and what I am doing.
Executive 2: Both.
Executive 3: Radio when I’m home. TV when I’m on the road.
Executive 4: I monitor the show as a direct competitor.
Executive 5: Radio 100%. The move to the studio was not without growing pains but it’s an easier listen now.
Executive 6: Mostly on TV now.
Executive 7: A mixture of both. They play way too much to TV which has taken the shine off of the growth potential for the show on the radio. It often seems they don’t care as much about the audio platform.
If you were in charge of ESPN, would you break up Mike & Mike and install a new morning show?
Executive 1: It’s all about the big picture and what roles each of the Mike’s will have. Sports radio by nature is locally based and if you are going to have a major national show such as Mike and Mike, the talent must be able to appeal to multiple demographics and in a multi-platform world. Getting the right talent mix moving forward will require creativity and an understanding that the format is focused on serving multiple demos. For now, Mike and Mike is the best nationally syndicated sports show with a strong following. Decisions to change course will be based on more than just what is happening with the radio side of things at ESPN.
Executive 2: I would not bust up an established, successful and tenured show. It is too difficult to achieve a level of success like Mike and Mike have. History has proven this over and over again. Is ESPN’s gain worth the potential risk of the losses of a successful morning show?
Executive 3: HELL NO. They have the very best syndicated morning radio program in the country. No other entity has come close to getting the type of national audience share Mike and Mike has. While I’m a huge proponent of change and evolution, this show is still recognized as the show of record for sports fans in America.
Executive 4: I would blow it up and look to get younger.
Executive 5: Absolutely not, 100% no. ESPN has to remember that they look at Mike and Mike as a TV show that supplies the audio division—but on the ground level this is a key ratings grabber in morning drive on many affiliate stations. You don’t break up a winning show. Mike Greenberg is the glue.
Executive 6: Yes. I think they’ve gotten stale and need to bring in something new to excite viewers and listeners.
Executive 7: The only option at this point is to head in a different direction. If that isn’t possible contractually, then a consistent third voice needs to be added to improve the urgency and relevancy of the content.
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.”
During today’s Barrett News Media Summit in Nashville, Barrett Media President Jason Barrett announced plans for the company’s next sports media conference. The 2024 BSM Summit, the Sports Media industry’s premiere annual conference for broadcasting professionals, is returning to New York City. The Summit will take place on Wednesday, March 13th and Thursday, March 14th, 2024, at the Ailey Citigroup Theater, 405 W. 55th Street, New York, NY. This will be the company’s sixth BSM Summit and the third time the popular destination event for sports broadcasters originates from the big apple.
Tickets to the 2024 BSM Summit in New York will go on sale on Monday, October 16, 2023, on the event website: https://bsmsummit.com/. The full lineup of speakers, panels, and special events will be announced later this year.
Prior all-star speakers at the BSM Summit have included industry executives Jimmy Pitaro of ESPN, Eric Shanks of FOX Sports, Meadowlark Media’s John Skipper, and Barstool Sports’ Erika Ayers Badan, popular on-air personalities Pat McAfee, Mina Kimes and Paul Finebaum of ESPN, Colin Cowherd, Joy Taylor, Jay Glazer, and Craig Carton of FOX Sports, Al Michaels of Amazon Prime Video, Jim Rome of CBS Sports, WWE’s Shawn Michaels, and Sports Radio icons Mike Francesa and Chris ‘Mad Dog’ Russo, best known as ‘Mike and The Mad Dog’, plus Sports Radio’s sharpest programming minds including Spike Eskin of WFAN, Jimmy Powers of 97.1 The Ticket, FOX Sports Radio’s Don Martin and Scott Shapiro, Cumulus Media and Westwood One’s Bruce Gilbert, 670 The Score and BetQL’s Mitch Rosen, and many more.
Jason Barrett, President, Barrett Media, said: “What started as a small gathering in Chicago in 2018 has blossomed into one of sports media’s most fun, insightful, and professionally beneficial events. We pour our heart and soul into this show to help industry professionals stay in tune with where the industry is going, and to unite and celebrate folks who help make the Sports Media business one of the best, most passionate, and professionally important spaces in all of media.”
Barrett noted: “I’m excited to return to NYC and operate on the large stage at the Ailey Citigroup Theater, treating our attendees to the best-in-class speakers and presentations they’ve become accustomed to seeing and interacting with at our shows. Last year’s BSM Summit in Los Angeles delivered a homerun, and I’m eager to see if NYC can help us raise the bar again when we return to the Big Apple for a third time in March 2024.”
To stay up to date on speakers, tickets, sponsorship opportunities, and other event surprises, visit https://bsmsummit.com/.
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..”
Each September, I look forward to writing this column. Not because I need a pat on the back but because it signifies another year in business. When I launched this company in September 2015, I didn’t expect to cover every layer of sports and news media. I knew the radio business well, built a lot of relationships, and enjoyed writing and speaking my mind. I just thought it would be cool for sports radio folks to have a website focused on it. If it led to a consulting client or two, even better.
I wasn’t planning to hire website editors, writers, social media and newsletter directors or create annual conferences, a member directory and advertising packages. Fortunately, we did good work and it caught on with industry professionals. As interest grew and opportunities presented themselves, I was wise enough to seize them. It’s why we’re here today celebrating 8 years in business.
Creating a brand that people like, respect, learn from, and enjoy spending time with is one of the best things I’ve ever been a part of. It’s even more special because we built this without corporate funding. When I entered the consulting and publishing space, I believed this could be my last job. I still feel that way today. This consumes my life M-F from 7am to 11pm. I’ll take a break to eat, talk to family or maybe watch a game or TV show but aside from that and a weekend timeout or vacation, I don’t shut off much. I wish I could at times but it’s how I’m wired. To run a successful business, you’ve got to be all-in and willing to sacrifice, and I do whatever it takes to keep us moving forward.
Growth also requires having a good staff, and supportive clients, advertising partners, and members. It’s easy to run websites with minimal content and low expectations but if the goal is to grow an audience and revenue, generate nationwide respect, and expand into new areas, then you’ve got to have support, a strong team, short and long-term vision, and an ability to consistently deliver. That means recruiting, investing, pitching, and knowing when to pivot.
During our 8 year run, we’ve produced larger monthly and annual traffic than some trade sites that I read and admire. We’ve also established a valuable industry event, and are about to make it two when we host our news summit next week. We’ve earned respect by breaking news, creating original content, helping partners, and refusing to value clicks over people. We may write things sometimes that folks don’t like or agree with. That comes with the territory. Just as long as we’re fair and accurate, I’ll manage the rest. I’m obviously biased but when it comes to sports and news media coverage, I’ll put our team up against anyone. For those who ask, ‘how can we help?’ The answer is simple, RT or share our content, advertise with BSM or BNM, retain us for consulting work or buy a membership or ticket to a summit.
I’ve always tried to be transparent with our readers and clients, so if I’m being honest, this year has been harder than others. The good news is that we’ve grown a lot. We’re busier than ever, and our reach and influence keeps rising. I absolutely love the clients I work with but with more work comes a need for more staff. With more staff comes increased conversations, and it isn’t always easy for me to find time for my crew when I’ve got to listen to and help stations, build conferences, sell sponsorships, and manage websites and newsletters. It’s why having good editors in place is important.
If all I had to do was help clients, the job would be easy. But I don’t just consult. I oversee our websites, newsletters, social media, events and 20+ people. It can be exhausting sometimes. Then there are the unexpected situations that arise. Case in point, having to navigate web hosting issues, social media platforms restricting reach, Google impacting BNM after it split off of BSM, restrictions on 1-2 writers, plus new hires not panning out, and veteran contributors signing off. It’s what you have to deal with when running a company.
On the positive side, the BNM and BSM writing teams continue to kick ass, Alex, Andy, Garrett and Demetri are working well together, and our first news/talk summit has been well received. Stephanie Eads has also gotten more involved on the sales end, and after the BNM Summit, she and I will be holding meetings with groups regarding our 2024 plans.
On that note, we reach a lot of people each day with our two brands. Many are high earners and key decision makers. Most of our partners benefit by advertising with BSM and BNM but there are some in marketing departments who haven’t invested in us nor taken the time to learn about us or respond to an introduction. The last thing I want to do is have to make a tough call one day like Joel Denver did earlier this year with All Access but breaking news, telling stories, running events, and helping partners grow their business takes time and resources. I’m comfortable sharing our story and results. I just hope more will take a closer look at working with us because I know we can help.
Looking ahead to 2024, I can confirm we will host another BSM and BNM Summit. We’ll reveal our host city and location for the 2024 BSM Summit on September 14th. Our plans for the 2024 BNM Summit will be made public in the months ahead. We’ll also release the BNM Top 20 of 2023 on December 11-15 and December 18. The BSM Top 20 of 2023 comes out February 5-9 and February 12th.
In addition, I’ll be posting a column tomorrow on BNM laying out the entire BNM Summit schedule. I’ll also be hiring an Executive Editor in Q4. More on that shortly.
As far as future goals are concerned, I’d like to eventually increase our newsletter distribution to AM and PM delivery, add a few new features writers and columnists, hire a second seller, introduce a new content series for BSM and BNM, and rework our social media strategy. I’m also planning to return to the podcast space next year although not with 5-6 programs per week.
At some point I’ve got to review our member directory and make it valuable for both sports and news/talk professionals. I’m also hoping to dig through our summit video content and eventually create a super ticket for folks to consume any session they want from the past 6 years of conferences. There’s a few more possibilities being explored too but I’m not ready to dive into those details yet. When I am, I’ll share it here on the website.
One situation I am comfortable addressing involves an important upcoming change. When September ends, Demetri Ravanos will be transitioning from FT editor of Barrett Sports Media to a weekly columnist and features writer for BSM. This is something that has been planned for months, and I know Demetri is excited about it.
Demetri joined BSM in August 2017, and has been a valuable member of our team. He’s been a great help to me and our staff, but if you ask him he’ll tell you that being an editor was never what he really wanted to do. He’s done it because he’s a team guy, loves the brand, enjoys sharing ideas with our writers, and likes staying busy but cleaning up columns, editing features, writing headlines and news stories, and listening to stations was not his dream gig. He’s going to be working with Joe Ovies, Joe Giglio, Lauren Brownlow and their Raleigh based podcasting network, which will give him a chance to host and produce close to home. You’ve likely seen some of his work already on social media.
Having spent 6 years together, I can’t say enough good things about Demetri. He’s worked hard for BSM, listened and learned when I educated him on stuff, and he’s become a great friend. He’s someone I’ve put a lot of trust in, and that’s not something I hand out to everyone. It has to be earned through time and consistent effort. We’ve talked a lot the past few years about this scenario being likely at some point, and when the topic came up in May, we both knew it was the right time to start the process. I’d write more about him if he were vacating BSM but you’ll still be able to read him on Monday and Wednesday. In fact, he’s launching a new series here tomorrow called Meet The Podcasters presented by Point to Point Marketing.
When we created this transition plan in May, I moved fast to get the word out that we’d be hiring an Executive Editor. I did so because I knew it’d take time to lure the right candidates, and between running a news/talk event on September 13-14, and Demetri stepping away two weeks later, I wanted to get ahead on it. I conducted 60+ interviews in May-August, and talked to many well respected, highly accomplished people, but as the summit drew closer, I started to realize that this hire was way too important to rush into. This is someone who I have to have complete trust and confidence in to run and grow our company’s digital brands. I didn’t like the idea of hiring someone and having limited time to train them, brainstorm big ideas, and develop a 2024 strategy due to needing to focus on building a big event.
So I told a few candidates that we’d resume discussions after the Summit, and if it means having to take longer to hire the right person, then so be it. I care about making the right hire, not a fast hire.
To make sure we don’t miss a beat, I’ll be diving in with Garrett Searight on October 2nd to make sure BSM and BNM’s content remains strong each day. We’re fortunate to have Garrett, Derek, Ryan, Jordan, Ricky and Eduardo contributing news stories and Alex handling our social media so it’ll be business as usual. My goal is to make a hire during the 4th quarter and set up the company for stronger success in 2024.
One thing I’ve learned during the editor interview process is that there are a lot of people who know our brands, love sports and news, and enjoy writing and broadcasting but don’t have the knowledge about sports radio or television beyond a few markets or shows. Many see the word ‘sports’ or ‘news’ and assume we’re going to write about those issues. I tell them all ‘we don’t do sports and news, we do sports media and news media‘. It’s important to know the difference. We’re more in line with a Sports Business Journal, Front Office Sports or All Access than we are ESPN, Yahoo Sports or Sports Illustrated.
What matters most here is a passion for writing, a nose for news, industry knowledge and relationships, and a desire to educate the industry. I live and breathe the broadcasting business and need others around me who share that same passion for the industry. I know there are talented writers and editors out there, so since this process isn’t resolved yet my email is open if you want to send a resume and cover letter. Be advised that this is a FT salaried, remote position.
There will always be obstacles to overcome, successes to celebrate, people coming and going, and new opportunities and difficulties to navigate when running a business. 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. I’m grateful for your support and look forward to seeing where we are when I write this column next September and raise a glass to 9 years of excellence.
Thanks for taking the ride with us. Here’s to finishing 2023 strong, and making 2024 even better.
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].