Packers Huddle

Ok, here's what I'll say on the SI/private equity thing.

Yes, obviously, the business model of the print magazine was dead; and there's supply/demand of that involved.

But what happens when a business model is old and a business needs to change and adapt is that in order to make those changes, you need an influx of money.

There's academic/research literature on this topic that classifies businesses in their life cycle of growing, sustaining, or eroding. It's a bit more complex and nuanced than this, but the basic gist is based on what percentage of your revenues are being reinvested back into the business (for instance to grow adapt to the current media environment in the case of SI) versus percentage going to shareholders.

When you go to private equity to raise money needed to keep a business alive, the priority typically shifts from reinvestment to shareholder profits, because private equity gains control over the operations and values their return on investment. This usually means an immediate shift can occur from being a sustaining business or even one who tries to grow again as a new model, to one that is extracting all the profits it can before it dies--an eroding business. This happens by stripping down costs instead of reinvesting in future asset development.

Now, when you need to adapt to survive, a lot of time, the adaptations you choose fail. That's why private equity doesn't like going that route--it's a riskier investment. So maybe SI would have failed to properly adapt regardless of how its assets and revenues were managed. But when you look more broadly than the SI example, this is a very clear and well-documented pattern of business failure in which the search for investors to keep a business alive actually ends up being what assures its downfall. And the consolidation , asset stripping, and profit extraction happening all across the media landscape by private equity actors is too clear and too big of a trend to be ignored as a factor here, even if you believe that SI simply wasn't going to survive the modern media landscape.


Also, I liked BF's point on podcasting.

But I'll also point out that SI went online right away and the discussion of "no one wants 4 week old information" is a discussion of 1990s SI, not 2000s or 2010s SI. And that The Athletic has basically become the exact thing SI was/wanted to be online. And so there is a model to see this exist in this era (high quality journalists writing many long-form insider-y sports-related features). But also The Athletic recently did a big layoff cycle, so it's clearly not a perfect example.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 08:45

Also, I liked BF's point on podcasting.

But I'll also point out that SI went online right away and the discussion of "no one wants 4 week old information" is a discussion of 1990s SI, not 2000s or 2010s SI. And that The Athletic has basically become the exact thing SI was/wanted to be online. And so there is a model to see this exist in this era (high quality journalists writing many long-form insider-y sports-related features). But also The Athletic recently did a big layoff cycle, so it's clearly not a perfect example.

Blockbuster did mail on DVD’s too. And even tried streaming. Both just responsive moves to what was already being done.

Sure SI got a website, but they could really never keep up with a free open medium platform where everyone could contribute. Same reason why Nintendo won in the 1980’s, they didn’t need to make every game, they pushed the quality and competition and creativeness to anyone that wanted to contribute. iPhones did the same with the App Store. A team of 200 people at Nokia simply could not compete with tens of thousands of app makers. Same thing here, SI can’t employ enough people to compete with tens of 1,000’s of independent contributors.

And frankly it’s a good thing. We have so many more sports reporters of every size and niche now and so many more people consuming the information, as it’s higher quality, more creative and covers every niche.

SI just simply couldn’t and can’t compete by employing their own content creators. No website or quality of reporters would change that. Same thing is and will continue to happen to basically every entity with every genre in a similar fashion in the coming years.

creative, yes. Higher quality? That's debatable. I think we're flooded with hot takes, and an overload of regurgitation of the latest take. In depth, quality, know the player and situation and report on it stories are buried in the avalanche of quick hits to gain clicks of the oft reported headlines "Player X just did this and the world reacts" LOL

Those places are autoblock on any of my feeds .

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 08:58

creative, yes. Higher quality? That's debatable. I think we're flooded with hot takes, and an overload of regurgitation of the latest take. In depth, quality, know the player and situation and report on it stories are buried in the avalanche of quick hits to gain clicks of the oft reported headlines "Player X just did this and the world reacts" LOL

Those places are autoblock on any of my feeds .

As I mentioned, that isn’t what this about and isn’t who SI was competing with. It is the podcasts, not twitter or Facebook. Shows that can go for an hour or longer and frankly have 3-5x as words as an SI article. Obviously not every podcast is going to be of good quality, but when 20-50 do an episode of a similar topic, just simply extremely unlikely the SI would be the highest quality. Their only path to survival would to regularly be the highest quality and they just aren't. It’s just statistically unlikely, there is almost always going to be a piece done that is of higher quality, and that is generally the one that gets shared, gets the views, goes ‘viral’ if you will.

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:05

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 08:58

creative, yes. Higher quality? That's debatable. I think we're flooded with hot takes, and an overload of regurgitation of the latest take. In depth, quality, know the player and situation and report on it stories are buried in the avalanche of quick hits to gain clicks of the oft reported headlines "Player X just did this and the world reacts" LOL

Those places are autoblock on any of my feeds .

As I mentioned, that isn’t what this about and isn’t who SI was competing with. It is the podcasts, not twitter or Facebook. Shows that can go for an hour or longer and frankly have 3-5x as words as an SI article. Obviously not every podcast is going to be of good quality, but when 20-50 do an episode of a similar topic, just simply extremely unlikely the SI would be the highest quality. Their only path to survival would to regularly be the highest quality and they just aren't. It’s just statistically unlikely, there is almost always going to be a piece done that is of higher quality, and that is generally the one that gets shared, gets the views, goes ‘viral’ if you will.

I wasn't speaking specifically to SI, heck it was late 90's and I had already determined the only thing left reading was the Swimsuit edition for me

Just the general state of "journalism" we have today.

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 08:58

creative, yes. Higher quality? That's debatable. I think we're flooded with hot takes, and an overload of regurgitation of the latest take. In depth, quality, know the player and situation and report on it stories are buried in the avalanche of quick hits to gain clicks of the oft reported headlines "Player X just did this and the world reacts" LOL

Those places are autoblock on any of my feeds .

I'm going to say this with no insult intended: That is a failing of the 45+ year olds. In general, they do not know how to manage information in the digital age. They struggle sifting all the information and determining legitimate information. The quality is there, but instead of being front page of the USA today, it's stuffed in the middle of the Inquirer.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:08

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 08:58

creative, yes. Higher quality? That's debatable. I think we're flooded with hot takes, and an overload of regurgitation of the latest take. In depth, quality, know the player and situation and report on it stories are buried in the avalanche of quick hits to gain clicks of the oft reported headlines "Player X just did this and the world reacts" LOL

Those places are autoblock on any of my feeds .

I'm going to say this with no insult intended: That is a failing of the 45+ year olds. In general, they do not know how to manage information in the digital age. They struggle sifting all the information and determining legitimate information. The quality is there, but instead of being front page of the USA today, it's stuffed in the middle of the Inquirer.

don't know how? or don't care to? there is a difference.

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:10

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:08

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 08:58

creative, yes. Higher quality? That's debatable. I think we're flooded with hot takes, and an overload of regurgitation of the latest take. In depth, quality, know the player and situation and report on it stories are buried in the avalanche of quick hits to gain clicks of the oft reported headlines "Player X just did this and the world reacts" LOL

Those places are autoblock on any of my feeds .

I'm going to say this with no insult intended: That is a failing of the 45+ year olds. In general, they do not know how to manage information in the digital age. They struggle sifting all the information and determining legitimate information. The quality is there, but instead of being front page of the USA today, it's stuffed in the middle of the Inquirer.

don't know how? or don't care to? there is a difference.

The latter is the reason for the prior though.

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:11

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:10

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:08

I'm going to say this with no insult intended: That is a failing of the 45+ year olds. In general, they do not know how to manage information in the digital age. They struggle sifting all the information and determining legitimate information. The quality is there, but instead of being front page of the USA today, it's stuffed in the middle of the Inquirer.

don't know how? or don't care to? there is a difference.

The latter is the reason for the prior though.

Exactly.

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:11

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:10

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:08

I'm going to say this with no insult intended: That is a failing of the 45+ year olds. In general, they do not know how to manage information in the digital age. They struggle sifting all the information and determining legitimate information. The quality is there, but instead of being front page of the USA today, it's stuffed in the middle of the Inquirer.

don't know how? or don't care to? there is a difference.

The latter is the reason for the prior though.

I guess i'm too old to understand LOL. are you suggesting I can't find content? or know how to sift thru it? or how to locate my preferred sources easily? Managing information is managing information. You consume it, decide if you like it and come back to it or not. I don't know how to follow someone on twitter or get a podcast? Going to USA today, which i don't, or going to someone like Andy Herman is kind of the same and I can do both.

I think this notion someone over 45 can't read or listen to digital media and determine if it's legit or not is a bunch of baloney to say the least. I mean, my hearing still hears and my eyes can still see and my brain can still interpret is there some secret to it?

decide if you like it

This little excerpt explains exactly what I am talking about. It isn't about liking, but determining quality, factual, trustworthy information. My 70 year old mother can go find stuff she likes online. She struggles with social media and the bombardment of bad information. It's basically why so many of those 45+ers are stuck in an echo chamber or constantly pass on misinformation.

That said, it was a general statement, there are always exceptions, but the vast majority of boomers and Xers don't have the ability to effectively deal with information in the internet age.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:26

decide if you like it

This little excerpt explains exactly what I am talking about. It isn't a out liking, but determining quality, factual, trustworthy information. My 70 year old mother can go find stuff she likes online. She struggles with social media and the bombardment of bad information. It's basically why so many those 45+ers are stuck in an echo chamber.

That said, it was a general statement, there are always exceptions, but the vast majority of boomers and Xers don't have the ability to effectively deal with information in internet age.

it's exactly how you're interpreting it. If you're suggesting I can't read or hear nuance or make decisions on quality in a digital age, because of my age, you're very mistaken. Young and old alike consume "what they like". They're not that different.

and you don't know what I like or what determines if I like it. I'm a primary source guy, in everything. I don't find too much value in too many others interpreting data or situations for me. Not saying there aren't any I obviously have people I trust and they've done me well, but I don't need interpretation. I find much of todays stuff to be hot takes based on nothing but emotion and what can engage or enrage the reader. I've done very well in life, i'm always learning, and if you think boomers or Xers are missing out on certain qualities of discernment and can't cope with information because it's on a screen vs paper or streaming vs OTA, well, one day you'll get there I guess LOL

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:44

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 09:26

decide if you like it

This little excerpt explains exactly what I am talking about. It isn't a out liking, but determining quality, factual, trustworthy information. My 70 year old mother can go find stuff she likes online. She struggles with social media and the bombardment of bad information. It's basically why so many those 45+ers are stuck in an echo chamber.

That said, it was a general statement, there are always exceptions, but the vast majority of boomers and Xers don't have the ability to effectively deal with information in internet age.

it's exactly how you're interpreting it. If you're suggesting I can't read or hear nuance or make decisions on quality in a digital age, because of my age, you're very mistaken. Young and old alike consume "what they like". They're not that different.

and you don't know what I like or what determines if I like it. I'm a primary source guy, in everything. I don't find too much value in too many others interpreting data or situations for me. Not saying there aren't any I obviously have people I trust and they've done me well, but I don't need interpretation. I find much of todays stuff to be hot takes based on nothing but emotion and what can engage or enrage the reader. I've done very well in life, i'm always learning, and if you think boomers or Xers are missing out on certain qualities of discernment and can't cope with information because it's on a screen vs paper or streaming vs OTA, well, one day you'll get there I guess LOL

I'm not talking about you personally and never have been.

You mentioned quality with today's online news/information environment. I explained that many old folks, 45+, struggle with finding that quality information because of the inundation of information, both of poor and high quality. What I am talking about has NOTHING to do with liking something.

It also has nothing to do with paper vs digital as a medium. It has to do with the amount of information available, both quality and not. 30 years ago the quality was usually there because the options for news/information was limited to print, radio, and TV. Quality of journalism was one of the top factors in those days. If you were an Arrigo, you didn't get a job or hold one. Now any Tom, Dick or Harry can tweet something. The older crowd struggles, in general, finding the quality in the sea of hot takes, misinformation, and straight up garbage. And no, one day I will not get there. While not a true digital native at 42, I was an early adopter of technology and also the consumption of information online is a big part of my job.

I guess I still don’t get it. It’s our age that now prevents us from being able to discern, think critically, read, hear, or see things and decide if we find it worthy to consume again in which case yes, you’ll get there too if you’re lucky lol

Or we never learned to do those things so therefore we can’t now that’s there is more? Which I disagree with. I and many others can do everything necessary to consume the info and make a determination on it. If they can’t, they probably couldn’t when they were younger either.

Anyway, I’ve consumed enough of this to know I’m full

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:23

I guess I still don’t get it. It’s our age that now prevents us from being able to discern, think critically, read, hear, or see things and decide if we find it worthy to consume again in which case yes, you’ll get there too if you’re lucky lol

Or we never learned to do those things so therefore we can’t now that’s there is more? Which I disagree with. I and many others can do everything necessary to consume the info and make a determination on it. If they can’t, they probably couldn’t when they were younger either.

Anyway, I’ve consumed enough of this to know I’m full

No, not age per say, it's formative experience. Most 45+ year olds didn't grow up learning how to and have not learned since. They still generally apply the same rules to consuming information, that they learned growing up, to today's information age. Some have learned, many have not. You even said it yourself:

don't know how? or don't care to?

They just don't care to learn and thus don't know. Many can make a determination, but they don't do so from a position of knowledge of how to.

Again, a generalization, there are always exceptions.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:36

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:23

I guess I still don’t get it. It’s our age that now prevents us from being able to discern, think critically, read, hear, or see things and decide if we find it worthy to consume again in which case yes, you’ll get there too if you’re lucky lol

Or we never learned to do those things so therefore we can’t now that’s there is more? Which I disagree with. I and many others can do everything necessary to consume the info and make a determination on it. If they can’t, they probably couldn’t when they were younger either.

Anyway, I’ve consumed enough of this to know I’m full

No, not age per say, it's formative experience. Most 45+ year olds didn't grow up learning how to and have not learned since. They still generally apply the same rules to consuming information that they learned growing up, to today's information age. Some have learned, many have not. You even said it yourself:

don't know how? or don't care to?

They just don't care to learn and thus don't know. Many can make a determination, but they don't do so from a position of knowledge of how to. It's actually not really something that needs debate. Older generations have been proven to be poor at spotting quality information online.

Again, a generalization, there are always exceptions.

There's plenty of 18-45 year olds that consider Fox news a new source. Just saying.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:41

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:36

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:23

I guess I still don’t get it. It’s our age that now prevents us from being able to discern, think critically, read, hear, or see things and decide if we find it worthy to consume again in which case yes, you’ll get there too if you’re lucky lol

Or we never learned to do those things so therefore we can’t now that’s there is more? Which I disagree with. I and many others can do everything necessary to consume the info and make a determination on it. If they can’t, they probably couldn’t when they were younger either.

Anyway, I’ve consumed enough of this to know I’m full

No, not age per say, it's formative experience. Most 45+ year olds didn't grow up learning how to and have not learned since. They still generally apply the same rules to consuming information that they learned growing up, to today's information age. Some have learned, many have not. You even said it yourself:

don't know how? or don't care to?

They just don't care to learn and thus don't know. Many can make a determination, but they don't do so from a position of knowledge of how to. It's actually not really something that needs debate. Older generations have been proven to be poor at spotting quality information online.

Again, a generalization, there are always exceptions.

There's plenty of 18-45 year olds that consider Fox news a new source. Just saying.

That is ALSO true. What I am saying doesn't mean the <45ers are all great at finding quality information/sources.

is this the "news around the league" thread?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2024 10:51

is this the "news around the league" thread?

it's headed to the round table sooner or later

I'd argue the 45-60 year old population is every bit as adept at navigating digital media. The internet came into widespread business and household use in 2000-2010 decade. That was right in our professional age wheelhouse for integrating and adapting to the technology. Sure, kids nowadays learn it earlier but I think it's over generalizing to group all of 45+ in with the Yoopers of the world.

And that's not meant as an insult to [mention]Yoop[/mention], just an acknowledgment of his/their being past their professional prime for integrating digital media into professional/personal lifestyle.

Oh, and you can apply the same patronizing label to anyone who views any network news as a reliable and trustworthy source, not just Fox.