In the Tuesday edition, we look at the odd concept of wealth in the Scottish Premier League along with what the scale back at BBC Online can tell us about soccer sites.
By J Hutcherson - WASHINGTON, DC (Jan 25, 2011) -- With the added push of a loss to Hearts over the weekend, Rangers are now in the unenviable position of trying to figure out scope in the Scottish Premier League. Since a team of club executives recently decided a reduction in the number of teams was the answer for increasing viability in Scotland's club game, this isn't exactly an easy problem. Rangers have a week to figure out how much to spend and on whom to win the SPL title and, with it, that group stage slot in the Champions League.
Though Rangers financial issues no longer have the 'wolves at the door' feel from this time last season, they're still in a somewhat unique situation for a major European club. Any money spent has to be relative to two scales: being just a little better than Celtic and creating a squad capable of competing in next season's Champions League. That's about as tricky as it gets, with a limited budget due to those financial issues along with the knowledge that overspending leads to more financial issues.
Scottish club soccer can be rightly accused of spending too much time on the problems with the clubs down the table. They're looking for a solution that lifts those clubs and creates a more competitive league. At the same time, the real problems facing Rangers and Celtic get downplayed. The problems of the wealthy usually do, but Scottish soccer needs to realize that all of this is relative to a skewed scale that favors no one in their game.
BBC Online Scales Down
On Monday, the BBC announced that it would be reducing its web presence over stages in the next two years. What does that mean for an organization the size of the British Broadcasting Company? 360 jobs lost and a targeted restructuring into ten core areas. Yes, one of them is sports.
Before getting into any broader points, the BBC is in a somewhat unique situation. They're publicly funded through user fees assessed yearly by the number of televisions in Britain. Own a TV in those blessed isles, and you pay an annual licensing fee. Part of this move is to put more of that fee back into the main product. It would be like PBS in the United States requiring an annual fee rather than the grants and pledge drive model.
That's the reason, but it doesn't directly lead to how the BBC is reducing its web commitment. They're streamlining their offerings, at least in the press release putting the focus on what they won't be doing as much as what they will. Here's a quote from BBC director general Mark Thompson:
“BBC Online is a huge success, but our vast portfolio of websites means we sometimes fall short of expectation. A refocusing on our editorial priorities, a commitment to the highest quality standards, and a more streamlined and collegiate way of working will help us transform BBC Online for the future."
In other words, it's a leaner and meaner model that also includes a lack of rigid specificity for the jobs that are left. That's the normal progression for most websites, eventually deciding that they've moved too far away from what they initially set out to do. It's also an object lesson for other sites.
Our friends at the BBC were very clear about reducing entertainment news, reducing the flow of blog commentary, and trying not to cover everything. This from an international news organization. Specifically for sports, they're working with the following idea: Sport will focus on fast, reliable and in-depth news and dynamic coverage of the best live events that bring the nation together.
So no midweek Championship encounter taking pride of place on the football page, one would imagine. In the "BBC Online Will Not" section, they've also let the rest of the World know they won't be bidding on internet-only sports rights.
Again, all an interesting move. There's value in outlining expectations for any site, regardless of the size of their budget. For those keeping score at home, BBC Online will still be spending £103m pounds a year after all of these reductions are in place by 2013/14. Still, what needs to be stressed is that this is more than a financial correction. It's a market correction, and one that needs to be carefully considered by a lot of sites both high and low profile.
Specifically for soccer, there's a huge temptation to try and cover everything. What that normally does in practice is turn a site into yet another exercise in 'what just happened,' since the flow of games to cover along with the news every other site is discussing doesn't really allow for the long view. There's simply not enough time, a not so subtle reminder that the big outlets have lots of staffers for a reason.
But it's tough to scale down and commit to specifics. First off, it impacts site traffic, and that's a substantial disincentive for those sites that would prefer some advertising revenue rather than none. Again, as a publicly-funded site the BBC is in a situation that's closer to an official site that doesn't expect a direct advertising return on its web presence than say a media site that's in business to do just that.
I would argue that limits put more pressure on a site than would otherwise be there. There's no doubt that the cover everything model is work, but at least in my experience it's much easier to get people interested in producing content for an all-inclusive site. Scale down the topics, and it's tougher to get and keep writers much less that audience.
Yet as the BBC has identified there's a substantial downside to the general coverage model. Where is it supposed to stop? What are the limits and how is that expressed to an audience that might be wondering why you're covering this and not that.
Big picture, it's the problem of randomness. What big and small sites start to suffer from is the idea that anything can fit on any site. There's always a connection and a justifiable reason for including something well out of your coverage area. The BBC deserves credit for trying to limit their approach, but it's not going to be easy. It's also worth noting that these are rarely the type of questions that get asked when a site's full financing stays in place.
Comments, questions, solutions to problems that have yet to present themselves. Please, tell me all about it.
