More Thoughts on the Future of Sports Betting Media
How Things Became the Way They Are, What’s Ahead?
Last week’s article about the future (or non-future) of sports betting media was the most-read feature in the brief history of this writing project. Thanks to everyone who read! I wanted to share some more thoughts on the topic before the super-busy NBA playoff schedule ignites several weeks of intensive coverage.
First, some terms I want to put on your radar…
*The Peter Principle: from a book written in the late 60’s, the reality that companies eventually promote people to the point where they’re in over their heads. Anybody doing a great job wants a promotion. They eventually rise to a job they can’t do very well.
Still a real-world problem. People doing a good job want promotions. They get demoralized and disinterested if they don’t get promoted. A company thrives when everyone’s great at their job. A company is in big trouble if employees lose their enthusiasm. Yet, a company is also in big trouble if everyone’s in over their heads in their current role. Kinda unresolvable.
*The Norman Syndrome: a moniker I made up last week watching so many out-of-form LIV golfers struggle at the Masters…because Greg Norman gave them bazillions of dollars to not stay razor sharp. I’ll use this term to describe anyone (usually men) who assume that…because they’re truly an expert at one thing…they assume they’ll be experts at EVERYTHING.
I know YOU’VE seen this somewhere in your own life. It’s almost omni-present these days. It’s the essence of “mansplaining,” and “mansplaining” is omnipresent (here, let me explain it to you…HA!). Greg Norman thought, because he was a legitimately great golfer, that he would be a great “czar” of golf. But, that takes much different skill sets, a much different vision, much less arrogance and more getting everyone on the same page. The Norman Syndrome.
Maybe there will be a better title if we think harder. It’s not exactly new. Movie stars thinking they can be governors. TV stars thinking they can be president. Magnates in one field thinking they can run a social media company. It’s a fraternal twin to the Peter Principle. People who are great at their job think they’ll be great at other, bigger jobs. If they don’t get promoted into that, they force their way in by some other manner.
Let me stop here to say that the early days of “sports betting media” was rife with this kind of thing. IT HAD TO BE. Totally new industry. Hyper-confident mainstream broadcasters were thinking “I could do that. Talking about sports betting is EASY!”
Surprisingly, many oddsmakers who weren’t natural broadcasters also maneuvered into positions (“I listen to sports radio all the time, I could do THAT”). Even hotel executives too (“I love sports, I bet on sports more than my colleagues realize, I could do THAT.”). And, some big spenders backing these ventures also found a way to be frequent “guests” on shows to give their takes on teams and players.
Mostly Norman Syndrome. But, surely some mainstream broadcasters were initially approached and recruited in a way that was more Peter Principle. They were essentially “promoted” into a position where they were in over their heads.
Continuing with our categories…
*Flowers and Gardeners: I figured somebody like Dr. Phil had made this analogy first. But, many spots credit the movie “I, Tonya.” It says that marriages (or relationships in general) have a flower and a gardener. Somebody’s the flower that soaks up all the attention and is the “star” of the relationship. Partner is the gardener who goes around doing more of the work it takes to keep everything moving smoothly. Flowers aren’t good at gardening, but can be truly great at being flowers. Gardeners have no interest in being flowers, and back out of the light if it starts to shine on them.
*Singers and Reporters: This is another one of mine, which is why it isn’t smooth and pretty yet. But, it struck me that “reporting” has almost DISAPPEARED from modern media. Somebody just telling you what’s going on. Or, what you need to do. “Singing” (or “presenting as a performance) is everywhere. The image in my head is Neil Diamond doing concerts and singing the same songs over and over every night. He has the same pre-song banter (though I may just be remembering the Will Ferrell skits from SNL). It’s a “presentation.”
If you attend a Neil Diamond concert, you’ll enjoy the presentation. If the concert hall catches on fire, you DON’T want Neil Diamond trying to explain to you where the exits are and how to get there safely. He’s not a reporter. He’s a singer. For some things you need reporters looking out for the audience.
Now, back to sports betting media. Very true in the early days…still more than half true most likely…on-air personnel were/are very clearly FLOWERS and SINGERS who enjoy being the center of attention and who like hearing the sound of their own voices. Many don’t exactly sing the same songs show after show…but they kinda do because they present their material the exact same way.
*These teams are too inconsistent to trust (plug in names of teams)
*You shouldn’t bet a game like this after the line moved so much (plug in names of teams)
*Boy this lousy team sure stinks! (plug in sport and name of team)
You see the same thing over and over again. And, it’s usually about what the flower/singer is thinking about things rather than a detached report about what’s happening.
Same is true with some guests…
*”This exciting team is a great futures bet.”
*”This bad team won’t win enough to reach it’s win total”
*”Things aren’t the way they used to be.”
I’m not sure if I’m expressing this well. But, audiences are hearing the slowly-paced equivalent of comfortable songs rather than a fast-paced report of what’s happening. Same structure over and over again. Same presentation form.
Final category…
*Venture Capitalists and Executive Producers: For venture capitalists, imagine rich people thinking of ways to make more money (or, more typically, jibber-jabbering on their phone about their ideas for making money). For Executive Producers, think of Don Hewitt, well-known Executive Producer (and creator) of “60 Minutes” in its glory days. Hewitt was very much behind-the-scenes in terms of media (he eventually became famous anyway…but he was trying to do an important news magazine rather than trying to become famous).
Executive Producers are trying to serve an audience. Some venture capitalists are too. Others are trying to exploit the audience. Some predators (in the sports betting field anyway), are essentially trying to eat the audience.
Bringing those themes together...
In its short lifetime, sports betting media was/is largely VENTURE CAPITALISTS hiring FLOWERS AND SINGERS to put on shows with little regard for the dangers of the PETER PRINCIPLE and the NORMAN SYNDROME. They’re trying to attract eyeballs, more investors, and possibly purchasers that would allow them to sell, take a profit, and move on. Nothing near a “Don Hewitt” level of regard for content. Flowers and singers learned that gushing about their bosses kept them in good with their bosses…and that gushing about their colleagues allowed for networking that allowed show churn. Still, to this day, a lot of content is just everyone interviewing each other on each other shows in front of negligible audiences.
Show content suggest few gardeners, virtually no true “reporters,” and no Don Hewitt-types bringing an intense passion for informing and serving the audience.
There’s less concern these days about too many on-air types on the most prominent broadcasts being in over their heads and just faking their way through it. Though, still plenty of shaky advice about what constitutes “value” or “a good bet.” Probably due to flowers “singing what their bosses want them to sing.” I think most hosts could be reporters if asked.
So, back to the questions we raised last week. What does the future of sports betting media look like? Is there a future?
I don’t see the current pathway as one that would lead to prominence or success. Audience is already teeny-tiny compared to what else is happening in social media. Little demand now, not much in the future for this much gushing about bosses, about the people writing the checks, and about guests (before you go and appear as a guest on their show---where they’ll gush about you).
And, while I hope for a day with more Don Hewitt-types leading reporters and gardeners in an intensive “tell the audience what’s happening” framework…I’m aware there may not be much of an audience for THAT either in this field. The audience wants to bet! Rather than watch people talk about their own bets.
Thanks for reading. And, thanks for being part of a niche THAT LIKES READING about how sharps are betting, how key indicator stats influence sharp strategies, and how you can try to find approaches or selections that make sense within that overall context. It means a lot to me that you’ve invited me into your email boxes to read this kind of content. I’ll always do my best to deliver for you.
Schedule is about to get very busy. We probably won’t discuss the future of sports betting media again for awhile. But, if we do, we now have some terms we can use to help describe what’s happening. And, in our own lives, we can be aware of the Peter Principle (people get promoted to jobs where they’re in over their heads), the Norman Syndrome (experts on one thing believe they’re experts on everything), the need to be a good gardener for your flower spouse—or an appreciative flower to a gardener spouse, and the need to seek contributions to a quality life from both reporters and singers.
Upcoming article schedule:
*Friday before lunch: UFL estimated “market” Power Ratings
*Friday mid-afternoon: How Sharps are Betting NBA Knockouts
*Saturday morning: How Sharps are Betting Saturday NBA Grand Slam
*Saturday midday: Box score summaries from Friday Night’s Knockouts
*Saturday night (probably): Game summaries from early playoff tips
*Sunday morning: How Sharps are Betting Sunday NBA Grand Slam
*Sunday sometime: Remaining box score summaries from Saturday’s NBA
*Sunday night: UFL box score summaries
I’ll schedule a few naps for myself in there, too. Going to be a bit hectic during all the first round best-of-sevens.
Paid subscribers get ALL material emailed directly to their inboxes. If you’re reading for free today…and you LIKE this kinda stuff…
$20 gets you a calendar month (a really LOADED calendar month if you’re an NBA fan).
$75 gets you a calendar year that would take you through the full NFL and college football seasons, and March Madness in college hoops (original subscribers have read more than 400 articles in their nine months so far).
You can also sign up for a “free” subscription that at least gets you periodic free articles, and any free “preview” sections (a few notes, parts of one game) from all the daily material.
See you again soon.