Tribune column: Pro Football Weekly falls prey to shifting media landscape

Here’s my latest Chicago Tribune column. To access the link, click on my Twitter feed.

This week, I wrote about the unfortunate demise of Pro Football Weekly. What started as modest enterprise in 1967 by Arthur Arkush, whose only employee was his mother, Rose, blossomed into a popular magazine and more through the work of his sons, Hub and Dan.

From the post:

At its height, Pro Football Weekly became an iconic brand during the soaring popularity of the NFL in the 1970s and ’80s. Before ESPN and the digital age, the magazine provided quality inside information and analysis for a faithful legion of football fans. It also evolved into long-running syndicated radio and TV shows.

Ultimately, though, Pro Football Weekly fell victim to a media climate that is claiming victims on a daily basis.

“It’s not just us,” Arkush said. “It’s The Sporting News, Newsweek. It’s happening all over.

The downfall occurred despite the enterprise making dramatic changes in its platforms. In 2010, Gatehouse Media, which earlier acquired the Riverwoods-based operation from Arkush, invested $2 million in a new digital plan. Arkush said Pro Football Weekly actually exceeded expectations as it tripled traffic on its site; registering 1.3 million users for its mobile service; and generating 15-18 million page views for its videos.

However, Pro Football Weekly encountered the same obstacle as many other publications.

“Nobody wanted to pay for it,” Arkush said. “Nobody was willing to pay for those mobile phone apps. They’ll pay for games, but not content. (With video), we had the same numbers all the big guys are trading on. You would think advertisers would line up. We sold 10 percent of what we were projected to sell.”

I’ll more from my interview with Hub Arkush later this week.

 

 

 

Posted in NFL

Van Gundy on in-game interviews: No coach looks forward to it; amused by Popovich

Doris Burke might be interested in this.

With Gregg Popovich and San Antonio in the NBA Finals, Jeff Van Gundy was asked on a conference call about the value of the in-game interviews with coaches?

He said:

“Well, I think there’s no coach that looks forward to it.  I think some hide it better than others.  I don’t consider it a gimmick.

“But I also don’t ‑‑ because they are distracted and they are trying to, you know, get to their time‑out huddle to do what their job is ‑‑ I used to like it when they had the boom mics in the huddle because you didn’t have to do anything different.  I mean, the mic was different in there but you as a coach didn’t have to do anything different.  And because they are distracted, I don’t think those are particularly revealing.

“I think what would be as good is interviewing the head official; what does he see what’s happening in the first quarter.  You know, what are they looking for; what is the scouting report on these two teams.

“And you know, like when my brother did it, and sometimes with Pop does it, I think it would be just as interesting interviewing a random fan, because they are just not into it.  It’s almost become funny how short Gregg is.  I think he thinks he’s [not] getting paid by the word, because really, some of his stuff is very, very funny; short, and to the point.”

 

 

Posted in NBA

Q/A with Doris Burke: Her ‘angst’ at dealing with Gregg Popovich; Admires coach despite ‘turnovers’ moments

A man approached Doris Burke while she was taking a tour of St. Jude Hospital in Memphis during the Western Conference Finals.

“This gentleman said, ‘(The in-game interview with) Gregg Popovich is my favorite part of the game,” Burke said. “I said, ‘I’m glad you’re enjoying it.'”

For Burke, it always is a thrill ride with a distinct possibility of a crash landing. And guess what? Burke will get another full dose of the San Antonio coach during ABC’s coverage of the upcoming NBA Finals. She will be in her usual role as sideline reporter.

There will be no turning away when it comes time for Popovich’s in-game interviews. Not after a now infamous exchange between Burke and Popovich during the Western Finals. Popovich tersely said “turnovers” twice in response to Burke’s questions.

The interview received quite a bit of attention, and Popovich was roundly criticized. Not that it matters to him.

However, it does matter to Burke. She is one of the best sideline reporters in the business with her direct questions and observations about basketball.

In the first of a two-part interview, Burke discusses her in-game experiences and relationship with Popovich; dealing with LeBron James; and the value of the in-game interview.

How do you approach an NBA Finals that you know includes Greg Popovich?

There’s no coach in the league, including Phil Jackson when he was in the league, where I feel more angst for the (in-game interview) than Gregg Popovich. Do I go into the finals with the idea in the back of my head that seven more times at the end of the quarter I have to interview him? You bet you I do. There’s no question about it.

I try very hard not to take his reactions personally. I’ll be honest with you. It is not easy.

What is your relationship with him?

He makes it clear in every conversation we have how much respect he has for me.

Gregg Popovich is one of my favorite coaches in the league in terms of his approach and what he stands for. I’ll give you a contrast when it comes to me and Gregg Popovich. He’s responsible for one of the greatest moments of my career. And one of my worst.

The worst was the first time I had to interview him for his in-game interview. Keep in mind, I have great admiration for him. Instead of just asking him a simple question, I tried to be smart. In doing so, I think the final line, the lead-in to my question was, “What was the problem with your defense?”

Well, he crossed his arms, he got the scariest smile on his face I’ve ever seen, his face got a little red. I really do not have any recollection what he said. When I went back to my seat, the producer came in my ear and said, ‘Doris, do you mind if we don’t run it?’ I said, ‘Thank you for not humiliating me.’ It literally was that bad.

Well, fast forward three years and I’m doing the color analyst work. A different job. We go to his office during the pregame. Some subject came up, and he looked directly at me, ‘Doris, you’re a basketball person. You know what I’m talking about.’ He wouldn’t remember it, but for me, a woman doing that job, he’ll never have any idea how much that meant to me. And how much confidence that gave me.

Has he ever told you how much he doesn’t like doing the in-game interview?

Well, it’s blatantly obvious how much he objects to it. He wants to be in the huddle with his team. It’s not optional for him. Unfortunately for the sideline reporters, it’s not optional for us either. If he doesn’t want to do it, he has to effort that kind of change with the league. We’re going in whether he wants to do it or not.

I think he has a great feel for human beings. He could sense if you’re less than secure. Or he could sense if the person asking the question is making it about (the interviewer) and as opposed to being about the game.

My worry is how he comes across to the viewing public. The one-word answer isn’t the true representation of Gregg Popovich, the man. In fact, it’s 180-degrees from the man.

You mentioned Phil Jackson as someone who also caused you “angst.” How so?

When the in-game interview first was instituted, so many coaches objected to doing it. They made it clear by the brevity of their answer or their tone of their answer, or their body language.

Phil is like Gregg Popovich. If you come with a question he doesn’t feel is appropriate, he will not hide his displeasure.

Who are the players and coaches who get it?

When Indiana upset the Knicks, David West in the post-game interview, gave me two well-thought, interesting responses. I don’t remember specifically what he said, but as he was leaving the court, I made a point of saying to him, “David, I so appreciate you taking the time to think about my question.” It was that good.

Doc Rivers is tremendous. If he’s angry, he’s going to let you know. He’s going to lay it on the line.

How about LeBron James?

I give him a lot of credit. He’s the big star and he has to answer questions after every game. It’s basketball. You can’t reinvent the wheel, and there’s only so many ways you can ask a question.

After the Heat won last year, I asked him, ‘Put this championship in perspective in light of everything you’ve gone through.’ I don’t have the exact quote, but it was excellent.

He is another very thoughtful guy. He tries to respond to the question that is asked as opposed to going in the direction he wants to go in.

How do you feel about the purpose of the in-game interviews?

I don’t think my feelings are necessarily important. There are times where we get great answers. What the percentage is relative to poor answers or pat answers, I don’t know. I will say this: I know that ESPN is very proactive in terms of focus groups. They are constantly asking viewers about what they like and don’t like. My sense is the in-game interviews get some positive feedback. Otherwise, they would serve no purpose.

The fans want to hear from the coaches, from the players. The only thing I’m trying to do when I ask a question is, “What would I be curious about if I was watching the game at home?”

As difficult as it was when Popovich said, ‘Turnovers, turnovers’ to me, I got three different texts from people in the business who said, ‘It is must-see TV.’ They understand the kind of reaction Popovich is going to have, and for them, it is entertaining content.

Part 2: On whether being a sideline reporter hurts Burke’s credibility as an analyst?

 

 

King on fired Raiders PR man: Good guy who was trying to change culture in Oakland

Judging from all the support he has received, Zak Gilbert won’t be out of work for long.

NFL writers were outraged when Mark Davis, in a move befitting his father, Al Davis, fired Gilbert over the weekend. Reportedly, it stemmed from a negative article on the Raiders in Sports Illustrated.

In his Monday Morning Quarterback column on SI.com, Peter King weighed in on Gilbert’s dismissal. Regarding the absurd notion that Gilbert could have changed the nature of Jim Trotter’s piece, King wrote:

Judge for yourself if the PR guy, who has nothing to do with Trotter’s story other than to facilitate interviews, should be canned. I can tell you, from knowing Trotter, that any advice on the story from a PR person would have been met, correctly, with some version of: Thanks for your thoughts. I can take it from here.

King then wrote what should be a letter of recommendation for Gilbert.

One last point about the job Gilbert did. A buddy of mine who writes about the league mentioned to me last season how strange it was to go cover the Raiders now “and actually not dread it.” Much of that was due to Gilbert reopening many avenues of access to a team that had been shuttered to the outside in the Al Davis days. Example: A couple of weeks ago, on Twitter, I said I couldn’t figure out why Charles Woodson signed with Oakland instead of Denver. Gilbert saw the tweet and forwarded me Woodson’s transcript after signing, and asked if I’d like to talk to Woodson. Sure, I said. Gilbert tried, and it seemed Woodson said he was done with media until Raiders minicamp. Gilbert said he thought Woodson should do this one interview if possible, and Woodson said OK.

I’m sure the result wasn’t exactly what Gilbert had in mind — the Raiders were pushing the Woodson-coming-home story angle, and Woodson told me it was primarily the signing bonus that made Oakland more attractive than Denver — but the point is Gilbert understood the business. He put the guy in front of me. What the guy said after that, Gilbert couldn’t control. His job was to get his guy’s story out.

 

 

Posted in NFL

Ratings: Los Angeles still lags far behind as hockey market compared to Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh

Winning a Stanley Cup hasn’t exactly sparked hockey mania in Los Angeles.

The LA ratings are even more striking when compared to the other ratings powerhouses in the NHL semifinals: Chicago, Boston and Pittsburgh.

For Game 2 Sunday on NBC Sports Network, Chicago pulled a 16.6 local rating. Meanwhile, Los Angeles had a mere 2.3 local rating. That is up 5 percent compared to last year’s Game 2 of the West finals for the Kings.

Over in the East, Boston had a 19.6 local rating Saturday for Game 1 of its series with Pittsburgh. Hockey-crazy Pittsburgh, which has the highest local ratings in the NHL, pulled in a 23.2 rating.

I know long-time Kings season-ticket holder, Al Michaels, was watching Game 2. The NHL just wishes there were more like him. Even with a Stanley Cup, the ratings show LA still has a long way to go before it becomes a hockey hotbed.

 

 

 

 

Posted in NHL

Rooting for Heat: ABC, NBA don’t want Pacers-Spurs finals

The best of times for TNT tonight could turn into the worst of times tonight for ABC and the NBA if the wrong team wins.

With a huge rating looming for TNT off of an Indiana-Miami Game 7, it could be a ratings disaster if LeBron James and company are watching Pacers-San Antonio in the finals on ABC.

That nightmare scenario would feature two small market teams; Indy ranks 26 while San Antonio is 36. One of them, Indiana, has no marquee stars, while the other, the Spurs, has perhaps the most unheralded superstar in the history of sports. Sorry, but Tim Duncan doesn’t get people rushing to their TVs.

ESPN already got the short straw this year with the Western Conference Finals. San Antonio’s four-game sweep over Memphis (another small market team) only averaged a 3.4 rating.

Meanwhile, Game 5 of Pacers-Heat on TNT averaged 8.5 million viewers on Thursday. Still waiting for numbers for Game 6 on Saturday, but they definitely were high. Given the build-up, it seems likely TNT could pull in more than 10 million viewers tonight.

Those fans are tuning in to see if LeBron and Miami can avoid the upset. They will stay tuned in on ABC if the Heat win and go for a second straight title in the finals.

It’s all about star power, and with the possible exception of Tiger Woods, no star makes the ratings meter move more than LeBron James.

So they won’t be impartial in the ABC/ESPN executive offices tonight. And the NBA certainly doesn’t want to risk negative reading stories about low ratings for the finals.

Make no mistake, they will be rooting for the Heat tonight.

 

 

 

 

Posted in NBA

Still whacky in Oakland: Raiders fire PR director after negative story

Al Davis may be gone, but it appears his son, Mark, has picked up the torch when it comes to being whacky.

The Raiders fired PR director Zak Gilbert Saturday. SF Gate writes:

The Raiders fired P.R. Director Zak Gilbert Saturday. Gilbert had been on the job for one year, and was fired by Raiders owner Mark Davis after he had been brought in by general manager Reggie McKenzie, who had worked with Gilbert in Green Bay.

Team sources say Davis was unhappy with a Sports Illustrated story that was published in April looking back on the team’s 4-12 season in 2012. The article, written by Jim Trotter, cast McKenzie in a good light but Mark Davis didn’t like how the story painted him or the job done by his father, late owner Al Davis, in the previous 10 years.

Gilbert had not been at the facility since the story came out, and was on leave pending Mark Davis’ decision. Will Kiss and Erin Exum have been coordinating interviews and media access during the NFL Draft and organized workouts.

Sure, blame the PR guy for a story that said the Raiders have sucked for a decade. It had nothing to do with Al or Mark, right?

Good luck to the next person who takes that job. One piece of advice: Rent.

 

 

 

 

Posted in NFL

Sunday’s books: Q/A with Robert Weintraub, author of ‘Victory Season’; Baseball after WWII in 1946

Some baseball seasons stand out more than others. It’s hard to beat the significance of 1946.

In an excellent new book, The Victory Season, Robert Weintraub (author of House that Ruth Built) looks at the country struggling to regain some normalcy after the end of World War II. For baseball, it marked the return of its stars, many of whom came back as changed men after seeing action in combat.

The 1946 season had no shortage of storylines with Ted Williams and Stan Musial ultimately leading their teams to the World Series. Meanwhile, a young kid named Jackie Robinson played that season for Brooklyn’s top farm team in Montreal, setting the stage for what would take place in 1947.

Here is my Q/A with Weintraub:

How did you come up with the idea for this book?

Combining WWII and baseball seemed like a natural–two great tastes that go great together, at least in terms of books.  More intriguing than MLB during the war was what became of the players when they left for the service, and even more so, what happened when they came back.

What was the impact of the War on players returning to the game?

It differed from person to person, of course, but in the main they certainly got some perspective (a dreaded cliche but in this case it’s true).  Bob Feller said he felt little pressure pitching in Yankee Stadium after being fighting across the Pacific on a battleship for several years.  Warren Spahn was a pitcher who was his own worst enemy before the war, but after “sleeping in tank treads” he realized baseball meant little in the greater scheme of things, relaxed mightily, and went on to a Hall of Fame career.  On the other hand, there were players like Joe DiMaggio who mainly spent the war tabulating how much money they were losing out on.

The Mexican League made a serious bid to lure players, including Musial. How serious was the threat to MLB?

The Mexican League in and of itself was not much of a threat, because playing conditions were so poor.  But the threat of an outsider exposing the game’s inherent indentured servitude was a major scare to the owners.  A secret report issued in 1946 essentially admitted that the Reserve Clause, the part of the standard player contract that bound player to team, would never hold up in court if seriously challenged, as the Mexicans threatened to do.  In large part the Mexican threat prodded ownership to make some concessions to the players, though they managed to keep the Reserve Clause in place and their grip on the levers of power firm for another couple of generations.

Obviously, there was no shortage of storylines. What stood out for you?

Certainly the incredible story of the European Theater of Operations “World Series,” a baseball tournament played by American servicemen in the conquered spiritual home of Nazism, the Hitler Youth Stadium in Nuremburg, Germany.  Even more amazing than the spectacle of 50,000 American soldiers watching baseball being played right where Hitler used to scream out his hate was the fact that the winning team, a unit based in France, actually featured Negro League players.  It was an out of town preview of Jackie Robinson’s coming debut, and a successful one at that.

How much was the country aware of what was going on with Robinson in Montreal?

He was heavily covered at first, then sort of forgotten about as the country turned its attention to the big leagues, then covered heavily once again as the Montreal Royals won the minor league championship and everyone wondered if Jackie would get called up to Brooklyn to put them over the top in the pennant race.  Obviously once he cracked the majors the following season he was thrust into the nation’s consciousness more thoroughly.

What struck you about Williams and Musial? They were strikingly different personalities.

No question–Ted was essentially an artist, and thus tempestuous and short with anything that kept him from his canvas.  Stan was personable, chatty with strangers, and a beloved teammate.  The interesting thing I found was that at the time, Musial was considered the greater all-around player–perhaps not the hitter Williams was, but better in every other phase of the game.  But after they retired, Williams gained currency from his war service (Korea as well as WWII) and his bluff, Marlboro Man appeal.  As greatness on the field was increasingly tied, in the public and literary mind, at least, to an irascible if not downright angry personality, Williams’ flaws were recast as necessities to his brilliance.

Musial was great, but since he wasn’t nearly as tortured, it was easy to overlook him.  Plus, the deification of the military and veterans helped Ted mightily.  Williams was an ace pilot–Musial drove a water taxi at Pearl Harbor during the war.  As I put it in the book, Williams was Chuck Yeager; Musial merely Chuck Taylor.

Looking back, how important was that season in the history of baseball?

Very important–you had the first playoff series to decide a pennant, Country Slaughter’s “Mad Dash” to cap one of the game’s most dramatic World series ever, plus Robinson’s debut, the Mexican threat, the first glimmering of labor strife, and pretty much everything that would come to define baseball–and sports in general–getting its post-war beginnings.  An alternative title to the book was “Baseball Year Zero”–because everything that had come before, pre-war, was pretty much left aside as modernity hit the game.

Anything else?

I would only add that a very interesting part of the story is the difficulty the US had in adjusting to the immediate post-war environment.  The influx of millions of servicemen and women made life in America very difficult in 1946.  Labor strife abounded, there were massive shortages in housing, transport, and basic goods, a large black market thrived, and the threat of both a renewed depression and another war, this time with the Soviets, loomed over most people’s daily lives.  Baseball proved to be a great outlet for millions of people who craved a return to normalcy but were denied it that summer.

Sad news: Pro Football Weekly signs off due to financial woes

An institution since 1967 is no more. Pro Football Weekly is shutting down.

Hub Arkush, the editor and publisher, broke the news on PFW’s site last night.

Arkush wrote:

This is the one piece I’ve spent part of my childhood and my entire adult life working to avoid having to write. But as I’ve come to learn repeatedly over the 46 years or so during which that effort has been ongoing, often at a significant price, you can’t win ‘em all. So, in my final act as the voice of Pro Football Weekly, it is time to say goodbye. Pro Football Weekly, as we’ve all known it since the first issue rolled off the press in late August of 1967, is no more.

The legal explanation of our demise is posted right here at ProFootballWeekly.com. Technically we were PRO FOOTBALL WEEKLY, LLC, a partnership, and contrary to popular perception, I have been neither the majority owner nor the managing partner for quite some time. I was the publisher/editor responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business, an employee with a minority interest in the partnership. That is probably irrelevant, though, as there really are no bad guys in this story.

Over the last five years our majority owner and each of the minority partners invested a tremendous amount of money, time and effort to try to build a bridge for PFW from the rapidly deteriorating world of old media to the new, exploding market of digital media and glitzy, new products. We built some truly great stuff that you all seemed to love, but try as we might, we couldn’t get enough of you to pay what it cost us to deliver it. There comes a time when there is just no more money to lose, and now we are forced to close the doors.

 

Posted in NFL