Holy hell at that thread. It was and is wild. There was and is so much here. There's no way I could respond to everything. Lots of shots. Lots of inaccuracies. And a lot of information. But again, that's OK. In many ways, I think it's what makes The Grove great. There's no thought police. You can come after us and we'll let you.
So I'll do my best to consolidate my thoughts and then go enjoy my day off.
First and foremost, if what happened was a one-off, neither Chase nor us (and it's important to note here that Chase, who is basically one of you guys in terms of his upbringing and his fandom) would give much of a damn. In a week where we published 20 podcasts or so (I don't feel like counting, but I hosted 14 and participated in one other), not having an additional podcast isn't that big of a deal. It's just not a one-off. It's simply not. After 14.5 years on this beat, I'd believe in the Easter Bunny before I believed this was a one-off. And if it was a one-off, the Grove Collective should be more than a bit angry, and not at us.
That said, it led to a very informative post from William, one with a piece of information I wasn't aware of. If the player simply has to be registered to a collective or to the university's NIL program or whatnot, it's essentially now legal pay-for-play. It really changes nothing for us. Every single NIL deal we've been part of has been run through a business, and only two of those were through the GC. And we've got analytics, both on the video side and especially on the podcast side, to tell us whether those shows work. But if a player can get paid without any exchange of services, there's not a lot of incentive for him or her to work with us -- unless they're wanting to build media skills or something along those lines.
Other outlets on this beat have signed NIL deals with players under the premise that those players will conduct interviews for written content and for podcasts. In the spring, there was a belief from one of those outlets that the arrangement provided exclusivity. When players came off the field after spring practices and met with the media en masse, that outlet learned that exclusivity wasn't a real thing. We never asked for exclusivity with a player, as we assumed that was impossible. We assumed correctly.
In other markets, and possibly here (I don't know), players are being paid to be sources of information. I'm never going to do that. I think it's unethical. One of the agreements that I have with the players we've done shows with and are doing shows with is I won't pester them for information regarding things that are happening inside the building, injuries or whatnot. I think that's crossing a journalistic line. Others may disagree. Others may not care about journalistic lines. I do. Frankly, I think it's one of the reasons our site has grown over the last few years during a time when most sites like this one have struggled to tread water (that's not a shot at anyone; it's an industry observation, one that has been validated by people I've talked to at the top of a couple of these networks).
So for us, nothing has changed. I've said for a while now that we're going to seriously re-evaluate how we do/if we do player shows moving forward. Are they worth the time? I will spend my Sunday, in all likelihood, waiting on players to get out of meetings, to get through with film, etc., so that I can tape a show with them and send it to post-production. It's fine; I'm not complaining, but last week, that meant a Sunday that lasted until 8 p.m. What happens if a player gets hurt? Is the show compelling if a player misses six weeks or is lost for the season? What if a player gets demoted and doesn't play? What if the team starts losing? When Ole Miss' baseball season hit the skids, the numbers for the Peyton Chatagnier Show's ratings fell off a cliff. I mean, wow, they were rough. You probably heard how that story ended, so it was more than worth it for The Rogue in the end. By the time I paid for art and for post-production, our profit on that show, which ran from February through June, was in the three figures. So it was worth it for us in an intangible sense, but had Ole Miss not made the NCAA Tournament, it would've been a waste of time and resources. That's just the truth.
What happens if a football team has a three-game losing streak? Are fans going to watch a show in which the host asks a player about his favorite Halloween candy? I mean, maybe, but I wonder. Those are conversations I have with potential sponsors. They have to decide if it's worth the risk and then I have to decide if the goodwill we receive (and I get plenty of it, if emails and DMs and such are any indication) is worth the fairly unprofitable time. Again, we have analytics and we know what works. I'm not going to give away the business model here, but we definitely know what drives eyeballs and ears. A conversation Chase and I were already having just got sped up. A pivot that I was already strongly considering just gained considerable steam.
There's no anger. I, as witnessed by my "pushback" on Kiffin's crowd comments this week, don't believe in telling people what they should do with their time or their money. I'm never going to tell people to donate or not to donate to the Grove Collective. However, it's worth noting, for those of you who have taken some personal shots here, that we have given our time and our "airwaves" to the Grove Collective whenever they've wanted. And we've been more than friendly to Ole Miss student-athletes in the NIL space. Our show with Chance Campbell was the first in the market. When someone reached out to see if we could throw a NIL deal/show together with a player right before the season, we accommodated within 48 hours. One potential deal that Chase was part of fell through, but it had to do with a potential advertiser, not our unwillingness to do it. And yes, the Grove Collective pitched in one of our deals (16.7 percent of it, to be exact), but that money is going to the player, not us. We simply don't make much money off player shows. I'm not sure that could change.
Regardless, the whole out-to-get-Ole Miss narrative has been and is beyond ludicrous. It's old. It's tired. Frankly, it's insulting. As I've said many times, if I were out to get Ole Miss, after 14.5 years, you'd know. I'm not the world's greatest reporter, but I'm good enough and intrepid enough to do damage if I wanted to do damage.
However, that's not what we're about. As @rebelotis123 said in this thread, we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we make more money if Ole Miss is winning. This business model thrives off winning or chaos -- and nothing in between. Basketball seasons like last year, where the team is losing but there's no chance for change, are brutal for "ratings." They're not fun to cover, either. It's drudgery. That said, I feel strongly that it's not my job to do anything to try to facilitate the winning. It's my job, and yes, I believe this strongly, to be professional, objective and neutral. I can't control whether Ole Miss beats Kentucky on Saturday. I can control how we cover that win or that loss. I believe you pay for coverage and for community, and I think we provide both. Obviously, as evidenced by @GOLDENBEARREB, some of you disagree.
That said, I look back on our week of coverage and give us pretty strong marks. I think we checked all the boxes and provided an array of content. I'm always thinking about what else we could do, how we could pivot, what we could change, what I would take from here and not take from here if I ever decided to try to do something like this in another market.
However, as it pertains to Grove Collective, there's no grudge on our part. Like I said, yesterday was educational and it sort of reinforced something I was thinking -- and, to some degree, articulating -- in our meeting last week with Walker Jones, Zach Scruggs, Tyler Lott and Lauren Hoselton. I kept wondering what it was they could really do for us and what it was we could really do for them. I suppose we provide an outlet for them, via shows or sponsored interviews or sponsored diaries or whatnot, to provide NIL opportunities to student-athletes. That seemed to be at the forefront of Jones' mind that day. However, if @WL3 is right, and I have zero reason to believe he's not, that transaction isn't really necessary for players to get paid. And again, if he's right, we don't offer a lot to the Grove Collective and it's debatable what they really offer us.
When Jones told Chase that the university had asked them not to do any media prior to Friday, Chase, not really knowing whether Keith Carter or Lane Kiffin or whoever would speak today or what they would say or if things might change, said we would hold off. Had we known they were doing other interviews and certainly other interviews that would be published prior to the press conference, we would have taped and, upon realizing a competitor had published, we would have published. But what happened, happened. Live and learn. And that's exactly what we did.
For what it's worth, I wish the Grove Collective nothing but the best and all the success in the world. All we said is there's no reason to do the "sloppy seconds" podcast, rehashing an interview that has already been done -- twice, by the end of the day -- on a competitor's network. If we see a path to advancing that interview into new, interesting ground, we'll pursue that. But for all intents and purposes (or intensive purposes, as a competitor once wrote), we got beat playing by the rules. It's a mistake we haven't made in a while, but it happened. We'll watch the film, hit the practice field, make the necessary corrections and try again.
Have a great Friday. If you're traveling to Oxford this weekend, be safe. I'm going to try my damnedest to get off the board and go enjoy a day off. I'm blessed. My mom turns 80 today and we're having her and my dad over tonight. I'm cooking jambalaya and smoking some chicken wings and lighting an outdoor fire. I'm lucky to have them close to us.
Anyway, there's a lot of content here if you wish to consume it. I'll have post-game coverage from Vaught-Hemingway tomorrow and I'll join Chase for a segment on his postgame show. Good luck to your team against the Wildcats.
So I'll do my best to consolidate my thoughts and then go enjoy my day off.
First and foremost, if what happened was a one-off, neither Chase nor us (and it's important to note here that Chase, who is basically one of you guys in terms of his upbringing and his fandom) would give much of a damn. In a week where we published 20 podcasts or so (I don't feel like counting, but I hosted 14 and participated in one other), not having an additional podcast isn't that big of a deal. It's just not a one-off. It's simply not. After 14.5 years on this beat, I'd believe in the Easter Bunny before I believed this was a one-off. And if it was a one-off, the Grove Collective should be more than a bit angry, and not at us.
That said, it led to a very informative post from William, one with a piece of information I wasn't aware of. If the player simply has to be registered to a collective or to the university's NIL program or whatnot, it's essentially now legal pay-for-play. It really changes nothing for us. Every single NIL deal we've been part of has been run through a business, and only two of those were through the GC. And we've got analytics, both on the video side and especially on the podcast side, to tell us whether those shows work. But if a player can get paid without any exchange of services, there's not a lot of incentive for him or her to work with us -- unless they're wanting to build media skills or something along those lines.
Other outlets on this beat have signed NIL deals with players under the premise that those players will conduct interviews for written content and for podcasts. In the spring, there was a belief from one of those outlets that the arrangement provided exclusivity. When players came off the field after spring practices and met with the media en masse, that outlet learned that exclusivity wasn't a real thing. We never asked for exclusivity with a player, as we assumed that was impossible. We assumed correctly.
In other markets, and possibly here (I don't know), players are being paid to be sources of information. I'm never going to do that. I think it's unethical. One of the agreements that I have with the players we've done shows with and are doing shows with is I won't pester them for information regarding things that are happening inside the building, injuries or whatnot. I think that's crossing a journalistic line. Others may disagree. Others may not care about journalistic lines. I do. Frankly, I think it's one of the reasons our site has grown over the last few years during a time when most sites like this one have struggled to tread water (that's not a shot at anyone; it's an industry observation, one that has been validated by people I've talked to at the top of a couple of these networks).
So for us, nothing has changed. I've said for a while now that we're going to seriously re-evaluate how we do/if we do player shows moving forward. Are they worth the time? I will spend my Sunday, in all likelihood, waiting on players to get out of meetings, to get through with film, etc., so that I can tape a show with them and send it to post-production. It's fine; I'm not complaining, but last week, that meant a Sunday that lasted until 8 p.m. What happens if a player gets hurt? Is the show compelling if a player misses six weeks or is lost for the season? What if a player gets demoted and doesn't play? What if the team starts losing? When Ole Miss' baseball season hit the skids, the numbers for the Peyton Chatagnier Show's ratings fell off a cliff. I mean, wow, they were rough. You probably heard how that story ended, so it was more than worth it for The Rogue in the end. By the time I paid for art and for post-production, our profit on that show, which ran from February through June, was in the three figures. So it was worth it for us in an intangible sense, but had Ole Miss not made the NCAA Tournament, it would've been a waste of time and resources. That's just the truth.
What happens if a football team has a three-game losing streak? Are fans going to watch a show in which the host asks a player about his favorite Halloween candy? I mean, maybe, but I wonder. Those are conversations I have with potential sponsors. They have to decide if it's worth the risk and then I have to decide if the goodwill we receive (and I get plenty of it, if emails and DMs and such are any indication) is worth the fairly unprofitable time. Again, we have analytics and we know what works. I'm not going to give away the business model here, but we definitely know what drives eyeballs and ears. A conversation Chase and I were already having just got sped up. A pivot that I was already strongly considering just gained considerable steam.
There's no anger. I, as witnessed by my "pushback" on Kiffin's crowd comments this week, don't believe in telling people what they should do with their time or their money. I'm never going to tell people to donate or not to donate to the Grove Collective. However, it's worth noting, for those of you who have taken some personal shots here, that we have given our time and our "airwaves" to the Grove Collective whenever they've wanted. And we've been more than friendly to Ole Miss student-athletes in the NIL space. Our show with Chance Campbell was the first in the market. When someone reached out to see if we could throw a NIL deal/show together with a player right before the season, we accommodated within 48 hours. One potential deal that Chase was part of fell through, but it had to do with a potential advertiser, not our unwillingness to do it. And yes, the Grove Collective pitched in one of our deals (16.7 percent of it, to be exact), but that money is going to the player, not us. We simply don't make much money off player shows. I'm not sure that could change.
Regardless, the whole out-to-get-Ole Miss narrative has been and is beyond ludicrous. It's old. It's tired. Frankly, it's insulting. As I've said many times, if I were out to get Ole Miss, after 14.5 years, you'd know. I'm not the world's greatest reporter, but I'm good enough and intrepid enough to do damage if I wanted to do damage.
However, that's not what we're about. As @rebelotis123 said in this thread, we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we make more money if Ole Miss is winning. This business model thrives off winning or chaos -- and nothing in between. Basketball seasons like last year, where the team is losing but there's no chance for change, are brutal for "ratings." They're not fun to cover, either. It's drudgery. That said, I feel strongly that it's not my job to do anything to try to facilitate the winning. It's my job, and yes, I believe this strongly, to be professional, objective and neutral. I can't control whether Ole Miss beats Kentucky on Saturday. I can control how we cover that win or that loss. I believe you pay for coverage and for community, and I think we provide both. Obviously, as evidenced by @GOLDENBEARREB, some of you disagree.
That said, I look back on our week of coverage and give us pretty strong marks. I think we checked all the boxes and provided an array of content. I'm always thinking about what else we could do, how we could pivot, what we could change, what I would take from here and not take from here if I ever decided to try to do something like this in another market.
However, as it pertains to Grove Collective, there's no grudge on our part. Like I said, yesterday was educational and it sort of reinforced something I was thinking -- and, to some degree, articulating -- in our meeting last week with Walker Jones, Zach Scruggs, Tyler Lott and Lauren Hoselton. I kept wondering what it was they could really do for us and what it was we could really do for them. I suppose we provide an outlet for them, via shows or sponsored interviews or sponsored diaries or whatnot, to provide NIL opportunities to student-athletes. That seemed to be at the forefront of Jones' mind that day. However, if @WL3 is right, and I have zero reason to believe he's not, that transaction isn't really necessary for players to get paid. And again, if he's right, we don't offer a lot to the Grove Collective and it's debatable what they really offer us.
When Jones told Chase that the university had asked them not to do any media prior to Friday, Chase, not really knowing whether Keith Carter or Lane Kiffin or whoever would speak today or what they would say or if things might change, said we would hold off. Had we known they were doing other interviews and certainly other interviews that would be published prior to the press conference, we would have taped and, upon realizing a competitor had published, we would have published. But what happened, happened. Live and learn. And that's exactly what we did.
For what it's worth, I wish the Grove Collective nothing but the best and all the success in the world. All we said is there's no reason to do the "sloppy seconds" podcast, rehashing an interview that has already been done -- twice, by the end of the day -- on a competitor's network. If we see a path to advancing that interview into new, interesting ground, we'll pursue that. But for all intents and purposes (or intensive purposes, as a competitor once wrote), we got beat playing by the rules. It's a mistake we haven't made in a while, but it happened. We'll watch the film, hit the practice field, make the necessary corrections and try again.
Have a great Friday. If you're traveling to Oxford this weekend, be safe. I'm going to try my damnedest to get off the board and go enjoy a day off. I'm blessed. My mom turns 80 today and we're having her and my dad over tonight. I'm cooking jambalaya and smoking some chicken wings and lighting an outdoor fire. I'm lucky to have them close to us.
Anyway, there's a lot of content here if you wish to consume it. I'll have post-game coverage from Vaught-Hemingway tomorrow and I'll join Chase for a segment on his postgame show. Good luck to your team against the Wildcats.
