Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Attention All Toronto-Bound Soccer Blogger Types!

Please feel free to drop me a line if you are planning to come and see the potentially less-than-thrilling 2010 MLS Cup and have time for a meet-up, beer, whatever. I haven't decided whether I'm going to attend or not (accredited? No. For some reason MLSE doesn't let writers in the glass treehouse unless they work for a proper, non-DIY-in-your-backroom-home-office-affair), but I might change my mind if an army of you show up on my doorstep, smashing my windows in and scaring my friendly neighbours (don't do that).


I'd also like to make a correction on yesterday's post—I seem to have jumped the gun on the new Canadian Soccer News site, which is now the proper home for Some Guys, 24thminute, Onward Soccer and the rest, not a cross-post farm. Apologies. But of course that makes an even better idea, because really, because the thought of being stuck with the Globe and Mail, the Star, the CBC and the Sun for all of our Canadian soccer news? The whole panorama of Canadian sports media is in fairly dire shape as it is (exemption granted to one Stephen Brunt). And, well, the whole of Molinaro/James/Kelly is even less than the sum of its parts, so several dedicated and united voices on the subject are welcome. 

Even though...I'm going to say this...I find that Canadian soccer seems unable to not be very boring. For example, this
"With the only American D2 league – the NASL – struggling to get to even eight teams, the CSA was staring down a situation where it would be handcuffing itself at just two D2 teams. At best the league might expand enough to allow a third team in at that level, or the USL Pro D3 level might be willing to start a Canadian division"
could be used as a drugless, over-the-counter anaesthetic. Although personally I find the history of Canadian soccer fascinating. Why is that?

Anyway, moving on to non-boring things (heh, just kidding), a few more signs of online web journalism collaborations for their own sake. The Economist has started a new network of sites—the Ideas People Channel (terrible, terrible name):
The Economist’s Paul Rossi, managing director, evp, Americas, said the Ideas People Channel is different, because its audience is defined not by demographic traits like age, income or education but by their mindset. “Ideas” people are intellectually curious, opinionated and influential, he contends.
But you read on and you find that the Economist is actually kow-towing to advertisers who are in theory interested in the coveted "elitist pig" demographic offered by the Economist, but just wish there were more of them. As always, advertising prefers quantity of eyeballs over quality. Meanwhile smaller producers of niche products with no ad budgets just sort of limp around in search of their niche audience, while bloggers write for that same niche audience and get no pay because they feature eyeball-hungry ban ads for large multinational corporations.


This is a gap in the market, people. Filling it is a worthy aim, because as Andrew Sullivan wrote today, "the question now is how to find an economic model to allow those writers to wrest free from their various platforms, if they so desire, and yet be paid for their work. That's why a discerning ad network that pooled all the best writers and paid them a cut of the revenue is such a promising idea."

Find it children, find it.

 

1 comment:

Dave's Football Blog said...

Wasn't Yardbarker supposed to be that "discerning ad network that pooled all the best writers and paid them a cut of the revenue" before Fox Sports snatched them up? Is a newer, soccer-specific model necessary here?