Aaron Nagler

[Harlan Huckleby]

Why do the better packer journalists keep turning over at packernews.com?

I thought Aaron Nagler was best of bunch - he just left.

Why did McGinn leave?

Michael Cohen was nothing special, but he's gone after brief tenure.

Who was the young guy who podcasted with McGinn that Cohen replaced? That guy was really good.

Obviously the consolidation of Packer journalism (Milwaukee and Green Bay main outlets merging) meant less jobs, but it doesn't explain the constant churn.

[Tony Oday]

Cohen went to the Athletic. I like his writing.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Cohen is a smart guy, he was just a bit drab for a podcast, IMO.

You would think packernews would be a place for career jobs. But people keep moving on.

[hoosier]

Shitty pay, terrible working conditions, faceless corporate bosses.

[mraynrand]

Phil: What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?
Ralph: That about sums it up for me.

[Cleft Crusty]

I'm available, I work cheap ($0.65/hour), but I need extra bathroom breaks and 200 sick days/year.

[pbmax]

Ty Dunne started the McGinn podcast and is with Bleacher Report now.

Gannett and other large media firms are in a race to the bottom in terms of cost. Either selling assets to pump up income (and load the legacy company with debt) or reduce costs to bare bones. If you pick up an Gannett newspaper in WI, it feels like the Weekly Shopper.

In a you heard it here first exclusive, the Athletic is an experiment with venture capital money that will itself continue to make headlines, pump up its valuation and then crash spectacularly. The only thing more common than "Athletic hired me" Tweets in three years time will be looking for work Tweets from the same people.

[pbmax]

As to OP, I am not sure I have seen a hint of where he is going yet.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Ty Dunne started the McGinn podcast and is with Bleacher Report now.

I thought he was excellent both as a writer and audio/video presenter.

You have to wonder where sports journalists can find enough pay and stability to make a career work. It can't be very fun to have to move your family to a new, low paid job.

[mraynrand]

Ty Dunne started the McGinn podcast and is with Bleacher Report now.

Gannett and other large media firms are in a race to the bottom in terms of cost. Either selling assets to pump up income (and load the legacy company with debt) or reduce costs to bare bones. If you pick up an Gannett newspaper in WI, it feels like the Weekly Shopper.

In a you heard it here first exclusive, the Athletic is an experiment with venture capital money that will itself continue to make headlines, pump up its valuation and then crash spectacularly. The only thing more common than "Athletic hired me" Tweets in three years time will be looking for work Tweets from the same people.


I heard someone in the biz (both online and newspaper) talk about how we are at the end of the phase where online can be 'supported by ads' because these sites were really supported by other sources, including legacy money, start-up monies, and a new phase is rapidly coming. Hoosier hinted at it, but all the reporters know that online is where everything is, but that without serious paywalls, they won't get paid jack. But people hate paying for crap online, but if they don't pay, all that's left for free will be absolute crapola. I'm hoping more a la carte stuff will be available, because the internet allows us to capture writing from all over the spectrum, but no-one can afford paying for access to multiple (20,30, 100?) sites, just to get a few articles. Some people obviously know how to get around free article limits, but websites know that too, and will be cutting that off as well. People with access to some kind of aggregator will be in better shape. I would guess that paying for an aggregator that isn't too steep will ultimately be the way to go....

[Harlan Huckleby]

As to OP, I am not sure I have seen a hint of where he is going yet.
Just checked his twitter feed. If he has a plan, it's secret. Odd timing. I suspect sexual misadventure.

https://twitter.com/AaronNagler

[pbmax]

I heard someone in the biz (both online and newspaper) talk about how we are at the end of the phase where online can be 'supported by ads' because these sites were really supported by other sources, including legacy money, start-up monies, and a new phase is rapidly coming. Hoosier hinted at it, but all the reporters know that online is where everything is, but that without serious paywalls, they won't get paid jack. But people hate paying for crap online, but if they don't pay, all that's left for free will be absolute crapola. I'm hoping more a la carte stuff will be available, because the internet allows us to capture writing from all over the spectrum, but no-one can afford paying for access to multiple (20,30, 100?) sites, just to get a few articles. Some people obviously know how to get around free article limits, but websites know that too, and will be cutting that off as well. People with access to some kind of aggregator will be in better shape. I would guess that paying for an aggregator that isn't too steep will ultimately be the way to go....

The aggregator is the missing piece. There are lots of blogs, former blogs and commentary sites that do that work, but very few of them produce enough new work to charge for what they do. And the most interesting stuff is often paywalled at the source. A well functioning aggregator that had original content from sources would do well, but that will require cooperation among legacy outfits. I pay for exactly one of these kind of sites.

In my head I picture a service like the wire services of old that pick up content from publishing sources and creators/writers and you pay them for access as they pay the source. Like AP, UPI, Reuters, Agence France or CBS/ABC/NBC/BBC/CNN in the olden days.

I too have heard that Ad revenues are tougher to come by and the recent "pivot to video" has been a disaster. Facebook and other ad services really wanted more video to publish and pushed the idea that advertisers would pay more for eyeballs that seemed to linger longer on video than text. But it was largely a dry hole. So entire editorial and writing staffs were decimated to hire video producers and heads to no avail. Now they have less content to offer overall no matter what the income stream.

Just look at the videos for PackersNews. They are terrible. But to professionalize them, you'd have to fire three writers and an editor to hire video production and a face made for video. But now you have less content for your slicker video. And the content of these videos is poor to begin with.

Google and Facebook as mediators of ad revenue is going to be the problem that finally gets the government to break up the oligopolies here. It might work if Google and Facebook worked independently of the ad services, but they own the largest ones.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wonder how Bob McGinn is making enough money to justify his web publishing.

Is anybody at Packerrats a member? If not Packerrats, who is Bob McGinn Nation? I love Bob McGinn almost as much as Bretsky. Bretsky better be a member or Bob is done.

I don't know about this aggregator solution. It sounds like, well, a sports department at a newspaper. I mean, it's kind of a shell game. Whether the content creator is an employee or an independent contractor really can't matter much in the long run. They ultimately have to get paid enough to have a career. Simply aggregating independent contractors does nothing to solve the underlying revenue problem.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I too have heard that Ad revenues are tougher to come by and the recent "pivot to video" has been a disaster. Facebook and other ad services really wanted more video to publish and pushed the idea that advertisers would pay more for eyeballs that seemed to linger longer on video than text. But it was largely a dry hole. So entire editorial and writing staffs were decimated to hire video producers and heads to no avail. Now they have less content to offer overall no matter what the income stream.

Just look at the videos for PackersNews. They are terrible. But to professionalize them, you'd have to fire three writers and an editor to hire video production and a face made for video. But now you have less content for your slicker video. And the content of these videos is poor to begin with.

Since the customers hate the video format, that's got to be an indicator that were barking up the wrong dry hole, to mix metaforests for trees.

They say that the only two creatures that are likely to survive a nuclear winter would be cockroaches and Cher. Maybe we have to update that to include Pete Dougherty. He seems like the never-say-die guy now.

[mraynrand]

I wonder how Bob McGinn is making enough money to justify his web publishing.

Is anybody at Packerrats a member?

I don't know about this aggregator solution. It sounds like, well, a sports department at a newspaper. I mean, it's kind of a shell game. Whether content creator is an employee or an independent contractor really can't matter much in the long run. They ultimately have to get paid enough to have a career. Simply aggregating independent contractors does nothing to solve the underlying revenue problem.


I'm not sure. The dual problem is that none of us individual consumers can pay for a lot of subscriptions, but we could pay for a service. But could the service pay enough to aggregate?

When I write a research paper, I often have 50+ references from 30+ different journals. If I had to pay all those subscriptions it would kill my budget. But university libraries make a deal with all the journals, and buy institutional subs at negotiated rates (thousands of $/year for some journals). (But University libraries are subsidized...)

What I don't know for sport (or other) journalism is whether an aggregator as such could pay out the $$ to fund multiple papers and writers and then sell it to individuals at an attractive rate. It might require more consolidation. And consolidation leads to either content exclusive to large markets and/or watered-down coverage for smaller markets/towns.

[mraynrand]

I wonder how Bob McGinn is making enough money to justify his web publishing.

Is anybody at Packerrats a member? If not Packerrats, who is Bob McGinn Nation? I love Bob McGinn almost as much as Bretsky. Bretsky better be a member or Bob is done.

Which suggests another problem - pirating. How do guys like McGinn prevent people from illegally distributing his product? I'm guessing 'ol Bob cab't afford someone to somehow encrypt his lengthy diatribes, nor hire Guido to go and beat up every Bretsky who re-posts his thoughtful abusive editorials at incorrect lengths and without proper attribution.

[red]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

[Harlan Huckleby]

twitter, facebook, blogs, google & packerrats all compete directly with any attempt make a profit in sports journalism. (Hope you were sitting down for this shocking insight.) I mean at the content end, not just the advertising issues that pbmax cited. Why should I pay for packer news when I have my man pbmax scouring twitter and providing me with updates, to which I often respond with a kick to his nuts. It's ideal.

To the extent there is an answer, I would say packernews should put up a strict paywall, like the WSJ. I don't know if it would work, but it is a better idea than Bob McGinn thinking he can have a paywall. packernews should hire back McGinn.

Whether packernews is an aggregater or a newspaper really doesn't matter. They can have a mix of employees and contractors. Many sites hire freelance, no fundamental change there.

[mraynrand]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

If you keep writing cynical stuff like this, Mad will boot you off Packerrats.

[mraynrand]

twitter, facebook, blogs, google & packerrats all compete directly with any attempt make a profit in sports journalism. (Hope you were sitting down for this shocking insight.) I mean at the content end, not just the advertising issues that pbmax cited. Why should I pay for packer news when I have my man pbmax scouring twitter and providing me with updates, to which I often respond with a kick to his nuts. It's ideal.

To the extent there is an answer, I would say packernews should put up a strict paywall, like the WSJ. I don't know if it would work, but it is a better idea than Bob McGinn thinking he can have a paywall. packernews should hire back McGinn.

Whether packernews is an aggregater or a newspaper really doesn't matter. They can have a mix of employees and contractors. Many sites hire freelance, no fundamental change there.

Apparently, I have my own 'paywall' here at Packerrats.

[Harlan Huckleby]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

Seems like columns that raise stink get the most attention. But you are talking about beat reporters who have to keep a relationship with packer brass.

ESPN keeps on keeping on by hiring locals. I suppose Wilde is a contractor, not a company man.

[Tony Oday]

I love the athletic and pay for it. Worth every penny since it has Packers and Wild coverage.

[call_me_ishmael]

Really tough problem to solve. Subscription service writing and recurring revenue is all the rage right now but where are the results?

It really sucks for these newspaper writers. Nagler left on his own accord so likely some politics behind the scenes. Ty Dunne was awesome and took a job back home in buffalo so I get it. To make 100k in revenue which isn’t very much for a two person shop you need one heck of a lot of 30$/yr subs. Tough sell for s guy like McGinn where 70% of the same content can presently be had for free.

Really hard problem. No good answer. Software, in this case Twitter, ate another industry.

[pbmax]

Software ate it is true as far as it goes, but no one made writers share everything on Twitter. Some were encouraged by their employers, but most just wanted to be front and center.

Its sold as an enhancement, online engagement, but it becomes a substitute.

The WSJ, the Financial Times, the NYTimes and the WaPo more recently have the correct answer (same as Gannett but with less cachet). A few free articles and then lots of reminders about your subscription options. Problem is that you have to really want access across the spectrum. Packer news all leaks out regardless of paywall.

What does the Athletic cost these days Tony?

[Zool]

maybe some of the guys are tired of being told that they are only allowed to right positive stories about the team

Maybe they get fired when their opinion pieces turn out to be wrong 95% of the time

[mraynrand]

Software ate it is true as far as it goes, but no one made writers share everything on Twitter. Some were encouraged by their employers, but most just wanted to be front and center.

Its sold as an enhancement, online engagement, but it becomes a substitute.

The WSJ, the Financial Times, the NYTimes and the WaPo more recently have the correct answer (same as Gannett but with less cachet). A few free articles and then lots of reminders about your subscription options. Problem is that you have to really want access across the spectrum. Packer news all leaks out regardless of paywall.

What does the Athletic cost these days Tony?

Probably the answer is to monetize twitter - pay a penny to a nickel for every tweet. If you're a journalist or sportswriter maybe you split that revenue with publisher. The more popular and accurate you are, the more you can get away with charging. Capitalism FTW.

[Tony Oday]

Right now $45 Year. If you like more than one team in any sports I think it's worth it.

[pbmax]

Probably the answer is to monetize twitter - pay a penny to a nickel for every tweet. If you're a journalist or sportswriter maybe you split that revenue with publisher. The more popular and accurate you are, the more you can get away with charging. Capitalism FTW.

Paying for it from either end would solve a host of problems. But introduce one huge new one: lower number of subscribers versus current users.

Their current income and valuation are based off their total user base. If someone needs to pay, that will number will shrink in a big way. And I am not sure it would matter which group is paying.

[red]

i don't tweet or read tweets

how does twitter make any money at all? do they advertise or anything? sell peoples info to telemarketers?

how do they function?

[mraynrand]

i don't tweet or read tweets

But you read stuff that people write based on tweets of others, no? Like When PBmax cuts and pastes tweets from reporters or people summaries reporter's tweets here (I've done this). So why not give the tweeters a fraction of a cent or so for every time someone uses their tweet. I think something like this will happen eventually.

It seems a very popular stance on this blog and elsewhere that Packer game broadcast and coverage should be 'free' but someone has to pay for the players' and journalists' salaries. If Ad revenue can't do it, it has to come from somewhere...

Wait until the next NFL TV/media contracts come up. People are in for a rude awakening.

[pbmax]

But you read stuff that people write based on tweets of others, no? Like When PBmax cuts and pastes tweets from reporters or people summaries reporter's tweets here (I've done this). So why not give the tweeters a fraction of a cent or so for every time someone uses their tweet. I think something like this will happen eventually.

It seems a very popular stance on this blog and elsewhere that Packer game broadcast and coverage should be 'free' but someone has to pay for the players' and journalists' salaries. If Ad revenue can't do it, it has to come from somewhere...

Wait until the next NFL TV/media contracts come up. People are in for a rude awakening.

I bet you could find a way to make Twitter or Facebook pay as you go. But I think the model they are pursuing is ad driven and sales of customer data. They want volume. I don't think they get the big IPO they want with subscribers alone. Not to mention the lack of freely provided content (if you go that model) means you need to pay for some content providers.

Which raises a great question: what is the largest subscriber base in the country? Probably cable if you put together an entire industry. Then cell phones? Formerly it might have been magazines or newspapers. But 2 of these 4 rely on at least a local monopoly to leverage subscriptions (cable has some competition but satellite doesn't reach everyone and is problematic in lots of locations).

Competition isn't a cure all. Here we have Charter and TDS providing TV and broadband over different wires and it hasn't dented the price. I am close to cutting the cord again.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Competition isn't a cure all. Here we have Charter and TDS providing TV and broadband over different wires and it hasn't dented the price. I am close to cutting the cord again.

I'm embarrassed to say how high my Charter bill is, and I get no extra services. Embarrassed because I feel like a sucker. It's basically a car loan payment.

Charter internet service is spectacularly good. I just replaced my old router and modem - holy christ, they really do offer enough bandwidth to watch 3-D porn holograms on 4 TVs. I actually only need about a 1/100 of what they deliver, but the newer equipment proves more reliable.

I did the cord cutting dance for half a year. I miss Turner Classic movies, certain winter sports. Cord cutting and buying subscriptions turns into no great bargain. But I saved some.

We're fucked with our first world problems.

[red]

But you read stuff that people write based on tweets of others, no? Like When PBmax cuts and pastes tweets from reporters or people summaries reporter's tweets here (I've done this). So why not give the tweeters a fraction of a cent or so for every time someone uses their tweet. I think something like this will happen eventually.

It seems a very popular stance on this blog and elsewhere that Packer game broadcast and coverage should be 'free' but someone has to pay for the players' and journalists' salaries. If Ad revenue can't do it, it has to come from somewhere...

Wait until the next NFL TV/media contracts come up. People are in for a rude awakening.

no no, i wasn't trying to take the stand that i am above all you because i don't use twitter.

i was just saying i have no clue at all how it works because i don't use it

the closest i come to twitter is reading the things others post on here from there

do they advertise on all the pages? i know its free to use, so i just don't get how they make any more,or can even stay in business (like mad and this place)

in your scenario, who pays the orinigal poster? does the reader, is it advertisers? the retweeters?

i think as soon as you make someone pay for something (facebook, twitter) the platform is gonna die. lets face it, ts popular because its free. lets face it, as a society we want everything free or cheap, so thats gonna screw over the guys doing the original work

maybe its the news guys themselves that are to blame for opening pandoras box in the first place for posting everything on twitter

[red]

I bet you could find a way to make Twitter or Facebook pay as you go. But I think the model they are pursuing is ad driven and sales of customer data. They want volume. I don't think they get the big IPO they want with subscribers alone. Not to mention the lack of freely provided content (if you go that model) means you need to pay for some content providers.

Which raises a great question: what is the largest subscriber base in the country? Probably cable if you put together an entire industry. Then cell phones? Formerly it might have been magazines or newspapers. But 2 of these 4 rely on at least a local monopoly to leverage subscriptions (cable has some competition but satellite doesn't reach everyone and is problematic in lots of locations).

Competition isn't a cure all. Here we have Charter and TDS providing TV and broadband over different wires and it hasn't dented the price. I am close to cutting the cord again.

i bet cell phones is bigger then cable. everyone even the unemployed have cell phones now, even little kids and the old and feeble

[pbmax]

i bet cell phones is bigger then cable. everyone even the unemployed have cell phones now, even little kids and the old and feeble

A good point. Cable covers a good number of people one household at a time.

[pbmax]

I'm embarrassed to say how high my Charter bill is, and I get no extra services. Embarrassed because I feel like a sucker. It's basically a car loan payment.

Charter internet service is spectacularly good. I just replaced my old router and modem - holy christ, they really do offer enough bandwidth to watch 3-D porn holograms on 4 TVs. I actually only need about a 1/100 of what they deliver, but the newer equipment proves more reliable.

I did the cord cutting dance for half a year. I miss Turner Classic movies, certain winter sports. Cord cutting and buying subscriptions turns into no great bargain. But I saved some.

We're fucked with our first world problems.

We cut the cord when the kids started to watch TV. Much easier to control what is viewed with 4 stations, DVD and movies bought online. Lasted for almost a decade. Got it back with a deal from TDS for 100 Mbps fiber, which is now 600 Mbps fiber. Cable itself, despite peak TV is pretty much still a wasteland. There is basically one show a season (weather season, not TV season) I would have to buy on Apple TV.

But Monday Night Football, Badger basketball games and ESPN broadcast bowl games were missed. Nothing earth shattering. But you are right its expensive to replace those cable shows.

[mraynrand]

i think as soon as you make someone pay for something (facebook, twitter) the platform is gonna die. lets face it, ts popular because its free. lets face it, as a society we want everything free or cheap, so thats gonna screw over the guys doing the original work

maybe its the news guys themselves that are to blame for opening pandoras box in the first place for posting everything on twitter

I think if you had a sliding scale it would work. If you're new, you're free. Build a rep and maybe every time someone looks at a tweet you get from maybe 0.1 to 5 cents - depending on popularity. Let the market figure it out. Cleft Crusty would have to pay to tweet.

[denverYooper]

The aggregator is the missing piece. There are lots of blogs, former blogs and commentary sites that do that work, but very few of them produce enough new work to charge for what they do. And the most interesting stuff is often paywalled at the source. A well functioning aggregator that had original content from sources would do well, but that will require cooperation among legacy outfits. I pay for exactly one of these kind of sites.

In my head I picture a service like the wire services of old that pick up content from publishing sources and creators/writers and you pay them for access as they pay the source. Like AP, UPI, Reuters, Agence France or CBS/ABC/NBC/BBC/CNN in the olden days.

I too have heard that Ad revenues are tougher to come by and the recent "pivot to video" has been a disaster. Facebook and other ad services really wanted more video to publish and pushed the idea that advertisers would pay more for eyeballs that seemed to linger longer on video than text. But it was largely a dry hole. So entire editorial and writing staffs were decimated to hire video producers and heads to no avail. Now they have less content to offer overall no matter what the income stream.

Just look at the videos for PackersNews. They are terrible. But to professionalize them, you'd have to fire three writers and an editor to hire video production and a face made for video. But now you have less content for your slicker video. And the content of these videos is poor to begin with.

Google and Facebook as mediators of ad revenue is going to be the problem that finally gets the government to break up the oligopolies here. It might work if Google and Facebook worked independently of the ad services, but they own the largest ones.

I still like to read and generally don't care how professionally a video on a site is produced. If a link takes me to a page that auto-plays a video, I close it immediately and often choose not to return.

[pbmax]

I still like to read and generally don't care how professionally a video on a site is produced. If a link takes me to a page that auto-plays a video, I close it immediately and often choose not to return.

I often do the same. If you are working in an office its an active nightmare.

And its one reason I was stunned about the pivot to video. I'd like to think that being bombarded with audio and video when you expect the written word is the reason, but I expect people who are mobile and using headphones are less worried about the video playing.

[hoosier]

I too find video sports reporting unwatchable, and autoplay video of any sort drives me nuts. I read JSO during lunch hour, and for some reason I just cannot make myself sit there and listen to Aaron Nagler drone on while I eat my sandwich. Reading Pete Dougherty or Haudricort, on the other hand, that I can stomach.

[pbmax]

I too find video sports reporting unwatchable, and autoplay video of any sort drives me nuts. I read JSO during lunch hour, and for some reason I just cannot make myself sit there and listen to Aaron Nagler drone on while I eat my sandwich. Reading Pete Dougherty or Haudricort, on the other hand, that I can stomach.

Haudricourt is a gem. He doesn't get the attention of McGinn (probably because of the beat), but he's just the right amount of cranky old guy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nagler co-founded https://cheeseheadtv.com and is returning to that website. It's a free website, wonder how they earn enough $

[mraynrand]

Nagler co-founded https://cheeseheadtv.com and is returning to that website. It's a free website, wonder how they earn enough $

looks like email login required: selling your email, at least

[call_me_ishmael]

Nagler co-founded https://cheeseheadtv.com and is returning to that website. It's a free website, wonder how they earn enough $

Ad Revenue.


looks like email login required: selling your email, at least

I highly doubt it but you never know. Capturing emails is all about engagement. They want to be able to hit your inbox at any time to get you back on their site viewing (ignoring) ads.