EZRA KLEIN v MATT YGLESIAS

he prob thought it was the perfect time to fleece this rube

i think this is smart of the post

well the idea of ezra having a "brand" is a pretty myopic DC thing imo and it probably didn't help that it took like 3 months for wonkblog's upworthy site to outpace the original

maybe the rich whiteness of his readership really is more important than the pageviews but like.... my parents know who nate silver is. ezra is no nate silver.

seems like if they couldve kept him happy w a smaller operation it might not have been a bad idea to give him his own site, idk about his ownership demands and whatnot, but obvs his initial pitch was a lil extravagant

leaked pic of the pitch meeting:

http://mystery756.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/rushmore-max-with-brian-cox-headmaster.jpg

waiting for The Corner to appropriate "rich whiteness"

is there a good new nyt paywall workaround?

― flopson, Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:24 PM (Yesterday)

google the headline

get yr dads login

my dad's not a communist he doesn't read the fuckin nyt

the wifi is too slow in the gulag i guess (sick anti-communism zing)

giving $10 mil to ezra k still seems like a better idea than spending $250 mil on the post

no one reporter, even one w/ a brand, is worth it, basically ever

cmon max don't be so down on yourself

hah

it kinda depends on what you can build together no like grantland seems to be doing good

is there a good new nyt paywall workaround?

― flopson, Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:24 PM (Yesterday)

any browser with private browsing option (chrome, firefox) renders nyt paywall irrelevant

somewhat-relatedly, it looks like foreign policy recently eased their reading policy. i haven't seen a paywall in a while.

espn couldve let simmons go, wouldntve been a big deal for them in the end, and grantland would probably not exist, certainly not in its present form. but espn also has soooo much more money than the post or the times or wsj that i think their calculations are pretty different

sure they couldve let him go but instead they kept him and it was a win win cause of synergies and shit

lol i mean... was it tho?

just from a bottom-line perspective i think its about even. maybe espn loves having the Cool Brand of grantland but they dont need bill simmons for that shit, they just need to hire better editors and writers for their website and magazine

simmons is as important to ESPN as any 1 person could be but grantland definitely seems like something espn loses money on just to keep him around to do other stuff

good for us though

lol i mean... was it tho?

― max, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:14 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

obvs we have no way of knowing but they def seem interested in doing more of the same type things

simmons is def a big thing for espn, their web traffic would take a huge hit if he dipped & '30 for 30' is a big thing

simmons is huge max r u living under a rock bro

yeah and the times traffic takes a big hit w/ silver gone. its not that espn would keep chugging along but that in the long term its not a big deal. there is always newer, cheaper talent

yeah simmons is prob the most popular writer on the nets, as to whether his deal w espn is working financially for them i dont know, their willingness to roll up nate silver points to yes tho

and like, simmons is WAY bigger than klein, and also WAY more important to espn's brand than klein is to wapo's

grantland itself idk it's just a website, how much money does it take to run a website? espn has enough money anyway tho you're otm about that i think

xp thats fair, idk. i think if the nyt had espn-level dough they wouldve kept silver... its kinda apples to oranges comparing a multiplatform sports brand to a newspaper

i mean grantland is pennies to espn im sure but have you seen their masthead, they have like 20 people working for that shit, and im sure their traffic is shit

the formula might be more like its not really worth paying for brand writers unless you can leverage that brand, like now all that newer cheaper talent has been infused w the sweet simmons bro-juice, i just wish they wouldnt let him on tv during basketball broadcasts

and im sure their traffic is shit

― max, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk man i think theyre doin pretty good, at least the sports stuff, the more pop culture things i could see absolutely no one reading

stuff that gets the espn homepage pipeline probably does pretty well yeah

~synergies~

i enjoy simmons on basketball broadcasts

omg that is so terrible, u need to go on a visionquest

the whole new yorker has always been a big red line for conde nast, afaik

i think it's just an ancient thing that owners run prestige media for their own nefarious cultural capital reasons

what kind of cool ski resort ideas summit hookup parties do the people at tv guide throw, i ask u

nyer is profitable or very nearly so over the last decade, im pretty sure! not that i dont see your point

oh huh i seem to recall a profile of remnick that said the opposite.

...that could just be that remnick himself is clueless about the NYer's numbers

i mean, i dont think si newhouse is expecting it to make money, ever

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/01/ezra-klein-next-roger-ailes

this is a nothing of a post so i think KD just wanted to air out that title

The only thing on Grantland I read regularly is Mark Harris on the Oscars, but I've occasionally followed links there and think, "I should read Grantland more often."

they have really good basketball stuff m/l all i read there

yeah simmons, lowe, keri is all i read there

grantland nba shootarounds are frequently awesome

eh i find those corny tbh

it's kind of weird how they got like all of knicks twitter to be contributors even though none of them really has anything to say