Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, August 18, 2014

Gawker: Time Inc. Rates Writers on How “Beneficial” They Are to Advertisers

Here you see an internal Time Inc. spreadsheet that was used to rank and evaluate “writer-editors” at SI.com… Most interesting is this ranking criteria: “Produces content that [is] beneficial to advertiser relationship.” These editorial employees were all ranked in this way, with their scores ranging from 2 to 10.

Anthony Napoli, a union representative with the Newspaper Guild, tells us: “Time Inc. actually laid off Sports Illustrated writers based on the criteria listed on that chart. Writers who may have high assessments for their writing ability, which is their job, were in fact terminated based on the fact the company believed their stories did not ‘produce content that is beneficial to advertiser relationships.’”

I can see why Posnanski wouldn’t want to stick around there, although "bailing on" Sports on Earth remains more mysterious…

 

The District Attorney Posted: August 18, 2014 at 02:42 PM | 24 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: media, sports illustrated

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. McCoy Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4773797)
Writers who may have high assessments for their writing ability, which is their job,

Um, nope. That isn't their job.

Also, what is the point of "10+"? Time can't go to 11?
   2. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4773819)
Also, what is the point of "10+"? Time can't go to 11?

That's the "Peter King."
   3. PreservedFish Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4773833)
That first guy is a dynamo!
   4. DA Baracus Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4773865)
That's the "Peter King."


Can't be, "quality of writing" is an 8 and "impact of stories/newsworthiness" is a 10.
   5. smileyy Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4773879)
The best part of these statistics is that they came from a human being picking numbers from 1-10, and not any actual data.
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4773885)
How much do I get?
   7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4773888)

That's the "Peter King."


He adds tons of value. Who else is there to tell us about dead celebrities?
   8. McCoy Posted: August 18, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4773889)
A severance package of stale mints.
   9. madvillain Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4773895)
Ironic coming from Gawker that features "paid stories" by advertisers on their home page. I guess you could say they aren't trying to hide it, but then again, when you kill irony you can do anything you want.
   10. Steve Treder Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4773897)
The best part of these statistics is that they came from a human being picking numbers from 1-10, and not any actual data.

Subjective gassing off is a kind of data.
   11. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4773900)
Ironic coming from Gawker


Saw this pic on twitter earlier, re: gawker bein' gawker
   12. madvillain Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4773920)
Saw this pic on twitter earlier, re: gawker bein' gawker


Conde Nast runs an empire and Gakwer is just a small part of it. They were a lot more fun pre Conde Nast takeover. Back when Wonkette was a must read and the cute blond was running Gawker.
   13. JJ1986 Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4773925)
Does Gawker still feature that horrible guy whose only job is to increase traffic by linking to popular things done by other people?
   14. McCoy Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4773927)
Repoz?
   15. Steve Treder Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4773931)
#14 FTW
   16. SY Ruined School Lunches! Posted: August 18, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4773945)
Gawker was always hit or miss at best, but it is just an absolute trainwreck these days
   17. Jim (jimmuscomp) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4774030)
#14 kept me laughing for about 3 minutes.
   18. Scott Ross Posted: August 18, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4774059)
I'm reasonably certain Conde Nast has never owned or operated Gawker. And you can be certain that Hamilton's boss would fire him toot sweet if people stopped reading his stuff, no matter how good it is.
   19. greenback votes nefariously Posted: August 18, 2014 at 06:58 PM (#4774074)
Link is 404'd. Did somebody recognize the irony or did Time throw a fit?
   20. madvillain Posted: August 18, 2014 at 07:12 PM (#4774081)
I'm reasonably certain Conde Nast has never owned or operated Gawker. And you can be certain that Hamilton's boss would fire him toot sweet if people stopped reading his stuff, no matter how good it is.


Holy ####, I have no idea how I was wrong on this just goes to show confirmation bias sneaks up on you. I would have bet a very large sum of money this morning that Conde Nast bought Gawker around 2006. Man, awful, I feel very dumb.
   21. Swedish Chef Posted: August 18, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4774085)
   22. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 18, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4774088)
So very glad I'm out of journalism. This pernicious development, where a reporter's value was determined solely by page hits/revenue generated, was creeping into the newsroom when I got out in '09. Since then, it's given up on creeping and has decided to kick down the newsroom doors.
   23. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 07:43 PM (#4774103)
The problem with Gawker websites in general is that they're mostly a morass of "viral" #### with some really good stuff that you don't want to sleep on. I get the sense that they've basically made their peace with being mostly awful and feeling better about themselves by occasionally doing good journalism.
   24. Super Creepy Derek Lowe (GGC) Posted: August 18, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4774113)
Nowadays, I'm kind of glad that I bailed on my sportswriting "career" and now mainly write stuff for my wife and other family member's consumption.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPosnanski: A Baseball Story
(19 - 3:49am, Mar 31)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogThe MLBPA Has a Problem | FanGraphs Baseball
(34 - 3:31am, Mar 31)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - March 2015
(1506 - 3:15am, Mar 31)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogGrantland (Lindbergh): 2015 AL West Preview
(2 - 3:04am, Mar 31)
Last: zachtoma

NewsblogDefiant CC Sabathia doesn’t give a ‘f–k’ about poor spring outings | New York Post
(124 - 2:10am, Mar 31)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogArizona Diamondbacks encouraged by Yoan Lopez's progress
(2 - 1:58am, Mar 31)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(822 - 1:11am, Mar 31)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogTwins offering bloody mary garnished with cold slice of pizza
(18 - 12:37am, Mar 31)
Last: Der-K is at half whelm.

NewsblogMets find lefty reliever, land Torres from Padres
(1 - 12:20am, Mar 31)
Last: Johnny Grubb

NewsblogCubs send Bryant to minors
(47 - 11:48pm, Mar 30)
Last: boteman

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 3-30-2015
(14 - 11:46pm, Mar 30)
Last: I'll Call'A Tony, You Colavito

NewsblogPitching change: Rockies have a plan to improve on the mound | FOX Sports
(4 - 11:19pm, Mar 30)
Last: Perry

NewsblogBBTF 2015 Shooty Memorial Softball Meet-up!
(71 - 10:50pm, Mar 30)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogOTP - March 2015: You’re out, tobacco: Bill would ban products at all California baseball venues
(3647 - 10:48pm, Mar 30)
Last: Mefisto

NewsblogSadly, We've Lost Another Primate
(93 - 9:45pm, Mar 30)
Last: villageidiom

Page rendered in 0.2856 seconds
48 querie(s) executed