The evolution of sports talk content

I've written so much about sports being disrupted I thought it was worth exploring a bit deeper what it could mean for content today and going forward, specifically around all the talk and studio shows that still represent a huge part of the non live sports content. This is one area that is heavily challenged in a world where anyone can voice an opinion and where you can start a sports media from your basement with a camera, a mic and a good internet connection. Broadcasters around the globe are going to be fighting to stay relevant.

Here are a few insights on how to approach this content area.

Preview beats Review

That's an easy one and let's not kid ourselves, most editorial teams that would rather do a review versus a preview want that because it's way easier. Preview is harder work, it's a lot of prep, it's going through history, statistics and coming up with original angles and storylines. Most shows were also built around reviews because it's the perfect container for hot takes, a place where super intense talents will not make the show but be the show instead. Not only it's easier, but in many ways it has been more efficient.

But I'd rather go all in on previews. First the appetite of fans to listen and watch content is bigger before than after the event. The anticipation is strong. When it's Masters week it's excruciating for me waiting for the start of the broadcast window in the afternoon, give me anything from 7.00 CET to 13.00 CET and I'll watch! Of course in many cases a preview will also feature a bit of review and that's to be expected but the editorial should focus more on what's coming than what's behind for no other reason than... helping the bettors!

Preview is perfect for betting and fantasy, it's all about trying to predict what will or could happen. Integrating betting as a tool and added value for the sports editorial is an absolute must, no way around that. But while you are seeing more business deals between media and betting companies, I still feel that much more could be done on the editorial side to serve that segment better. If you do not integrate betting properly, betters will simply integrate more editorial and sports media will die. It's a rather simple equation.

Back in 2017 I launched a show on Facebook to surf on the new live feature. We were quickly approached by a betting company to produce basically the same show but before the games of the week and including all the odds and betting advices from the top experts... In the end the branded content show with all the betting info was much more interesting than the original. Betting simply made it better.

Data is king

"I think he might be more efficient in the box than this player". We all heard those type of comments. It's always been unacceptable to me but in 2023 with the type of advanced analytics that we have, it's simply unbearable. You know if one player is more efficient or even if there is doubt, data analytics will at least support it.

Advance analytics are getting more and more complex, to the point where I don't think that you can afford to not have a data analyst as part of the editorial team. The issue is that whenever editorial teams use data analysts they usually use them as assistants and usually come up with storylines from feelings and then look for analytics to support that when it should be done the over way around.

When I was at Canal, I launched a dedicated football preview show centered around data. The concept was that data is the most important therefore it can use more space in the screen than the talents (which was outrageous to some I must say) and I wanted all arguments to be scripted beforehand using only analytics to support claims. The goal was to educate as much internally as externally, It was a very complex show to do and I made the decision to stop doing it after a season and a half because it was burning too much ressources for what was a niche product for our digital platforms only. I'm still very proud of that one, I wanted to produce the geekest sport show ever, and I might have succeeded.

On site beats In studio

I don't know about you but seeing people talking about an event that's on the same channel from a huge studio miles away from where it's happening doesn't make a lot of sense. The main thinking behind that was essentially that most big broadcasters love spending millions in huge HQ infrastructure with big studios and then need to fil it as much as possible to try and make it worth it. I'd rather have no fake background, a much simpler set and having the people right where it's going to happen. Of course it cost money but I'll be more than happy to dig a bit deeper in what true remote production should mean and how it should free up editorial talents to spend more time on site in an another article.

Nothing beats being on site, being pitch side is great but I believe the true winning strategy is being on site in front of the stadium as College Game Day is doing so brilliantly (cover picture of the article). In a time where it's harder and harder to connect fans with broadcasts and to connect editorial with the business strategy, nothing beats having a huge set in front of everyone in the city and with the stadium as a backdrop. While it's pretty common in the US to do that, in France being on site is usually being on the pitch, which is still better than in a studio but not quite as efficient for branding, geo marketing and the overall business than having a set just outside. You are making an event within the event with your show. That's a unique shot at really taking over the city with the proper programming. Public TV in France has been so successful at doing that for decades on the Tour de France that you have to wonder why it's not being done more. It's also the perfect situation to be closer to your fans and customers and more connected to them. More on that front later.

One good analyst beat four average ones

One easy move that i see too often, is bundling as many pundits as possible on set to hopefully create discussions, hot takes, and magically end up with a good show. Even when people around the table are above average it's rarely a magic recipe. Rhythm of the show and how it is ultimately fun to watch rely more on those behind the scene and the more people you have on air the harder is it to achieve compelling sport content in my opinion.

Even worse is when you have subpar pundits and basically go for the "two half decent talents will equal one good one". Believe me, many think like that and 100% of the time you will end up with terrible content.

When Amazon acquired Ligue 1 they quickly announced Thierry Henry as their star pundit. It was really a masterclass, not only he had more star power than any other ligue 1 pundits but he was also, by far, the best. It made the entire editorial simpler and also better. Of course he was much more expensive but definitely worth every penny.

The Longer the better

Linear Television is all about compressing time, shorter takes, shorter show, quicker rundown. For years I was stressed about keeping up with the timings of the rundown while producing shows for Canal+. You had a window in which your show had to fit perfectly, almost to the frame. You had the best guest ever, too bad, you had to respect the timing. Linear is all about timing, usually the shorter the better.

We live in a different world now. Youtube, Twitch, OTT platforms offer a whole new sandbox to play with, one with less constraints on the timing. When we decided to launch a channel on Twitch we did it with an F1 live review from the previous GP. I know I wrote that it was less compelling than a preview but of course we were also doing that. The goal was to stay on air as long as we had things to say. During our streams we had guest like Frederic Vasseur, Alain Prost, Pierre Gasly, Jean Todt or Esteban Ocon for lenghty live interviews in a much more casual environment than a regular TV show. The results were beyond all my expectation, the conjunction of casual situation and a lot of time to talk, without any restriction, lead to some of the best interviews we had ever done, to the point where they decided to air some of it on TV during official F1 Live windows.

More time is one of the few magic recipe that I know to create better content from talent and with platforms replacing linear there's no reason not to allow for longer, much longer forms of content. Of course, you can always edit it later to produce shorter pieces of content. Best of both worlds!

Sport is culture and culture is sport

I remember the first time my kid saw an actual NBA Game, our discussion went like this :

"Dad, picture looks like crap"

"Come on, we are watching the game in Full HD, quality is great"

"But Dad, it looks so bad compared to NBA2K, picture looks blurry, I prefer the video game"

Culture and sports have deep ties. Hollywood made movies about sports, rappers made songs about athletes, video games allow for everyone to feel the thrill of being an actual pro. To me it's simply impossible these days to approach sports content without mixing those elements together. It might seems antinomic to do that and go to the the deep analytics that I mentioned before but It makes total sense to me. It's actually the perfect balance to make a fun but expert content, appealing to hardcore and casual fans alike.

Producing a sports show and not talking about NBA2K ratings, not using all the possibilities offered by EA Sports FC, including simulating the game before it happens, is really missing the point and more importantly missing the younger demographics.

In 2019 I produced a show previewing the big Football game between Marseille and Lyon by bringing together Canal+ talents and pundits along with influencers and pro gamers. It was fun to do and it added a new flavor to our programming leading up to the game. It was good enough that we re-aired it in place of the actual game on prime time when Covid stopped everything a few months later.

Interaction with fans is a must

The reason I also believe in all the above points is those are tools to allow for a better relationship between viewers, fans and broadcasters, streamers.

TV is historically very top to bottom, we will tell you what is going on, we will explain it to you, we will almost tell you what to think. These days, hardcore fans will know more than many people on TV and social media allows for interaction between everyone at all times. Producing a show like we would do in 1986, without taking that into account is borderline madness to me.

When we implemented the interactive part of our live sports experience in the myCANAL OTT app, my goal was to really drive the editorial for post games shows from the fans reactions. The idea was to have viewers make their opinions heard on every big events during a game.

"Do you think that warranted a penalty?"

"Is it the best goal of the season?"

We could then build storylines from that and have a show that connects better with our viewers. Of course, it was very, very hard to convince my TV editorial counterparts to go with it. For them it was loosing some control, if not all control and they feel like they still know better when it comes to sports editorial. I've been working in sports media editorial for 25 years and I strongly believe that they are wrong. Pure players in the digital space rely heavily on analytics to build editorial from that, that's just the obvious way to do business, listen to your consumers!

I always feel sports is being too conservative and sports content often gets a pass where technology doesn't. Innovation is much needed in content, whether it's implementing more tech like data viz, interactive features, multi-feeds and so on or just going with new ways to talk about sports, closer to the action and in a more inclusive manner, we all need to take a step back and look at who we are really speaking to and what those fans expect from sports media.

In the end, my strong belief is that you can rarely go wrong with a mix of passion and innovation.

Let's all strive for this!

Thanks for reading and please share the article if you liked it ??