3 ms·

There's already an NBA App, I imagine they could set up their own social network, but I guess then the headache is, they'd have to manage a social network - whi

There's already an NBA App, I imagine they could set up their own social network, but I guess then the headache is, they'd have to manage a social network - which can be a bunch of monkeys at typewriters flinging the vilest things at each other, the topic might not even be basketball. I guess there's a market for shovels* there, a white label social media app/backend, customizable for organizations. Sure there's the fediverse, but companies would rather deal with someone they can call to fix things. *) if you're in a gold rush, don't be another goldminer, sell shovels instead.

barkerja 3y ago
Then you have market fatigue for the user. After living in a world of Twitter where you can consume all the things you desire and discuss all those things in the same setting, very few people want to be jumping from app-to-app, website-to-website to talk to different groups of people about different topics. Twitter was (still is?) a true community center, digestible in a format that's quick and easy. That's the allure to the average user. There is also the discovery component. The Athletic (https://theathletic.com https://theathletic.com), which is an excellent source of news for all sports leagues, does have a pretty decent place for discussion, but its engagement pales in comparison to the likes of Twitter (and even Threads now).
- rglullis 3y ago
  The discovery component is overblown. Any news org that has a website with a "Follow us on Twitter" button could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address.
  - barkerja 3y ago
    > could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address Ah! I do agree there. I mistook the op I replied to. I was assuming they were referring to the website itself being the source of content and discussion, not simply a referral to AP/Threads/X/whatever.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Yeah, I mean that these orgs could have their own servers and set it up for federation. Like you said, The Athletic already has a place of discussion which pales in comparison with the Fediverse. Imagine if they transformed their forums into a Lemmy-compatible system, and each of their journalists had their own @theathletic handle. They would be at the same time: - keeping control of their social media presence - stop contributing to someone else's platform - creating opportunities for extra revenue based on their extended audience.
rglullis 3y ago
> I imagine they could set up their own social network, The point is not running their own network to have everyone there, the idea is to have a federated instance where they set up accounts for their teams, coaches, players, etc. What is more valuable, brand-wise? "Follow @lebron@threads.net" or "follow @lebron@nba.com"? > they'd have to manage a social network Pretty sure they already have a sizeable team dedicated to managing/running their social media accounts and presence? > companies would rather deal with someone they can call to fix things. Of course, just like they have someone to manage their website, the mobile app development, etc, etc.

barkerja 3y ago

Then you have market fatigue for the user. After living in a world of Twitter where you can consume all the things you desire and discuss all those things in the same setting, very few people want to be jumping from app-to-app, website-to-website to talk to different groups of people about different topics. Twitter was (still is?) a true community center, digestible in a format that's quick and easy. That's the allure to the average user. There is also the discovery component. The Athletic (https://theathletic.com https://theathletic.com), which is an excellent source of news for all sports leagues, does have a pretty decent place for discussion, but its engagement pales in comparison to the likes of Twitter (and even Threads now).

rglullis 3y ago
The discovery component is overblown. Any news org that has a website with a "Follow us on Twitter" button could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address.
- barkerja 3y ago
  > could just as easily have a "Follow us on the Fediverse" link pointing straight to their AP address Ah! I do agree there. I mistook the op I replied to. I was assuming they were referring to the website itself being the source of content and discussion, not simply a referral to AP/Threads/X/whatever.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Yeah, I mean that these orgs could have their own servers and set it up for federation. Like you said, The Athletic already has a place of discussion which pales in comparison with the Fediverse. Imagine if they transformed their forums into a Lemmy-compatible system, and each of their journalists had their own @theathletic handle. They would be at the same time: - keeping control of their social media presence - stop contributing to someone else's platform - creating opportunities for extra revenue based on their extended audience.

rglullis 3y ago

> I imagine they could set up their own social network, The point is not running their own network to have everyone there, the idea is to have a federated instance where they set up accounts for their teams, coaches, players, etc. What is more valuable, brand-wise? "Follow @lebron@threads.net" or "follow @lebron@nba.com"? > they'd have to manage a social network Pretty sure they already have a sizeable team dedicated to managing/running their social media accounts and presence? > companies would rather deal with someone they can call to fix things. Of course, just like they have someone to manage their website, the mobile app development, etc, etc.