OT: FoxSports.com has reportedly lost 88% of its audience after pivoting to video
Remember the board's discussion recently regarding our preference on how we like to consume our news..... via print or video? With an overwhelming majority voting for the former over the later. Additionally, if you remember the topic was brought up by Fox's choice to pivot from print to video.
Well, the results are in...
In the wake of the “new and improved” FoxSports.com, the reviews were universally negative.
And true to expectation, that has shown up in the first substantially reported numbers about the traffic to FoxSports.com. SI’s Richard Deitsch reports that traffic dropped an astounding 88% since the “pivot to video.” Their traffic has gone from over 143 million in a monthly period to just under 17 million.
Cavet:
The entire strategy of “pivoting to video” isn’t so much about maintaining pageviews as it is making money. Higher ad rates for videos plus all of those writer salaries off the books means Fox may not be actually doing all that bad from a business perspective in spite of what seems to be terrible news about their disappearing audience.
That’s when Fox Sports has to ask if it’s all worth it, though. Is perhaps a few extra bucks in video ads worth all of the negative publicity and a rapid descent into complete and total obscurity in the online sports economy?
http://awfulannouncing.com/fox/foxsports-com-reportedly-lost-88-audienc…
September 27th, 2017 at 6:57 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 7:01 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^
That seems completely different than reading news vs watching short videos with 15-30 second ads.
September 27th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
With text, I can usually be done with whatever I was trying to do before the video is halfway through. The instances where I actually need to watch the video are few and far between. To be fair, a lot of the time they could do without both and use a half dozen screenshots.
September 27th, 2017 at 3:14 PM ^
I guess it depends on how complicated the task is, and how much prior experience you have in things relating to said task. I don't need an instructional video for installing some piece of software, just give me a list of steps and I can do it...but I damn sure would need instructional videos if I wanted to get into, say, woodworking.
September 27th, 2017 at 8:46 PM ^
I used some youtube videos, but it was just painful--it seems like they never got to the point and I found myself skipping ahead all the time.
September 27th, 2017 at 7:20 AM ^
It's not surprising that views would plummet if a sports site goes to a primarily video format from my perspective. Videos are usually not well done, and even if they are, there's usually not a way to scan them to see if the content is interesting or new to the viewer. Text-based posts are much easier to scan (and IMO much more enjoyable). And so much more time-efficient on a "words-per-minute" basis. So the plummet is not surprising to me one bit.
What is surprising is that a site might be willing to give up 88% of its market share. Once those viewers are lost, they seem tremendously difficult to get back. And my (armed with no data but with a gut feeling) is that those who prefer video are a worse marketing segment than those who prefer text. Put another way, it seems that the affluent, educated, discretionary income segment most advertisers want to reach is not inclined to waste time on a video-based site.
September 27th, 2017 at 7:34 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 7:43 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 8:33 AM ^
This is what I expect is the bigger reason why this may be a disaster for fox sports. Yes, all of their hits now are presumably going to videos with higher ad-rates (that is assuming someone isn't typing in foxsports and then "turning around" because there's nothing to read), but presumably, a good number of their visitors were already watching videos on the site before the full scale conversion. I wasn't much of a foxsports reader beforehand, but I'd guess that, like all sports sites, they had a related video attached to every article. Hard to imagine they were doing worse than getting 12% of their previous audience to watch a video on the old site. So now they're likely getting the same number of video viewers (or less!) while not getting the more passive audience looking for print articles. Can't see how those numbers add up for fox.
September 27th, 2017 at 7:48 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 9:38 AM ^
It is galling, but we need look no further than Dave Brandon for an example of someone who ignored abundant evidence to the contrary because he believed his way was the best way. There's no shortage of arrogance in the management of Fox - especially given their ascent out of nowhere in the past 30 years or so.
September 27th, 2017 at 8:15 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 8:35 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 8:42 AM ^
Yesterday the Columbia Journalism Review had an article on Mic magazine and a similar collapse in viewership. Worth aread for those interested.
https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/pivot-to-video.php
September 27th, 2017 at 8:43 AM ^
Thought you died in the neutral zone
September 27th, 2017 at 9:22 AM ^
and the result of the play accepted. either that or they picked up the flag. thus, really not a neutral zone infraction.
September 27th, 2017 at 7:45 PM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 8:45 AM ^
You should see the guy in the red shirt.
September 27th, 2017 at 8:47 AM ^
Someone might be able to touch on this better but ESPN.com did the same thing they went away (and recently brought back) the bullets on the right hand side for the top news of the day and went to more of a video based front and I know I hated it. I certainly like being able to go through an article and get my information. Even on news channels if I have to watch an AD before a video I most likely just move on and skip the video entirely.
September 27th, 2017 at 8:47 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 9:12 AM ^
Only if it's a live sporting event.
September 27th, 2017 at 9:15 AM ^
That’s when Fox Sports has to ask if it’s all worth it, though. Is perhaps a few extra bucks in video ads worth all of the negative publicity and a rapid descent into complete and total obscurity in the online sports economy?Hard to know if the business decision here balances out since I'm guessing ad rates were based on the earlier, higher traffic numbers. Hard to justify that Fox can continue to command the same rates to advertisers when viewership is down so dramatically. Long term, I'm guessing this model is going to come out a loser.
September 27th, 2017 at 9:45 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 10:16 AM ^
It's far from just college sports coverage. It's across the board. Even the WaPo is doing it. I hate it so much. I instantly leave a page if it has an autoplay video, even if it's something I'm interested in, just on general principle. I'll go scour around and find a real goddamn article if it's something I really want to read. I refuse to watch the videos.
September 27th, 2017 at 9:55 AM ^
What moron couldn't figure out that most sports internet browsing is done at work?
I can usually fudge reading text on line at work. I can't fudge watching a freaking video with sound.
You surround yourself with enough people that always say "Yes Sir" and pretty soon you start believing your own stupid shit.
September 27th, 2017 at 10:14 AM ^
September 27th, 2017 at 10:29 AM ^
i rarely visited foxsports.com before and do it even less now. espn.com has some of the same problem...i don't want to see tweets, and i don't want to hear what stephen a. says about literally anything on god's green earth. i just want to quick scan the headlines and get back to work, and they've made it harder to do that.
September 27th, 2017 at 12:00 PM ^
It's highly likely that of the previous users of the website, 12% or so of them already liked and watched videos.
This change keeps those users and loses 100% of those who do not like autoplay videos.
This can't be that hard to understand.
September 27th, 2017 at 5:18 PM ^
You'd be surprised how stupid an MBA or Graduate Degree can make you.
September 27th, 2017 at 12:30 PM ^
meh... i went from occasionally visiting Fox to zero since the switch and don't see my self going back there, ever...
of the people that do go, a I gauratee you at least half of those suffering through the autoplay ads are clicking Mute on their computers prior to the content starting...i have paid attention to maybe 5% of ads on autoplay since their inception...
so for those in the industry, i am wondering if their stats allow for a margin of error when it comes to the effectiveness of ads being correlated to sales?
September 27th, 2017 at 12:32 PM ^
in weeks past. Of course they don't get game video right away when it's not their game. Nothing but videos with ads, pure crap, I bailed in ten seconds.
September 27th, 2017 at 1:53 PM ^
Let's hear Clay Travis talk about that
September 27th, 2017 at 5:17 PM ^
I hate video. Much rather have print.
September 27th, 2017 at 7:50 PM ^