BaseballHQ and USA Today

[L-Mets]

This seems a strange marriage. Longtime subscribers had an advantage over many of our competitors precisely because we DIDN'T rely upon USAToday. How many people of us have walked in an auction room and seen a couple of guys pouring over the annual USAToday fantasy publication and thought, "Easy mark."

I have all the respect in the world for Ron Shandler. I hope he's a ga-zillionaire -- he's earned it. But I fear this is not a good thing for the product that has made many of us winners. I hope I'm wrong.

[Michael@HQ]

I'd guess that you'll read Ron's views in his Friday column this week.

[RON@HQ]

I'd guess that you'll read Ron's views in his Friday column this week.

I had no plans to write about this in my column. Frankly, I had nothing to do with this acquisition and don't know a whole lot more than what was in the press release. What I do know is that this was a natural marriage in that USAT was already a large investor in FSV. This deal would have probably happened a few years ago if not for the economy tanking and the publishing industry going into a funk.

I relinquished control of BaseballHQ.com when I sold to FSV in 2008. I do not know how we have managed to remain untouched since then, but that has been a good news-bad news situation for nearly 4 years. We've had no advertisements plastering the site, but then again, it's the same old site. We've spent the past year developing the new site - FINALLY - and we hope to launch that within the next week.

But from here, I don't know. USAT says they want to maintain the brand and I have no reason to doubt that in the short term. The BaseballHQ.com name means something in the marketplace, and as previously mentioned, probably has more positive cachet than USAT. They extended my expiring contract for another year with an option on a second. They find value in us. To my way of thinking, our content makes them better; their money makes us better. It could conceivably work.

I'm a natural diehard cynic, so for me to state that I am cautiously optimistic says a lot.

[Michael@HQ]

Well, I guessed wrong!

In any case, it's good to see you give your own take on the transaction for our subscribers, Ron.

[L-Mets]

Thanks, Ron. You're incredibly accessible and responsive. I really appreciate it. There's a lot I don't understand about the business end of this and I'm glad you are optimistic. I guess what gets me is that many of us feel that baseball HQ is still a secret -- and we'd like to keep it that way!

[Doc1966]

As a subscriber who moved over from Matt Berry's TalentedMrRoto site when he sold to ESPN (and I'm very glad I did) I recall hearing similar arguments for why it would be good to merge a small but passionate membership-driven site with the resources of a huge media giant. That didn't really pan out - ESPN swallowed that community whole.

Now USAT is a little different than the "Worldwide Leader", but I'm a cynic - I can't see this ending well for those of us who love the personal nature of BBHQ, and the specialized knowledge and advice it provides. I do take some comfort in Ron's post, and I hope they leave BBHQ alone, but I would not be at all surprised to see the next Forecaster be a USAT publication, dumbed down for the masses. I can also envision BBHQ being sucked in to USAT's fantasy baseball site, and once that happens I doubt we'll have useful and informed forum conversations as easily.

But I don't view these things as reason to blast anyone - business is business, and when something is this good, those who made it happen should be rewarded. I'm happy if Ron's baby is finally paying dividends beyond the love of the fantasy baseball game - and it isn't like all we learned about how to play this game right evaporates.

[NICK@HQ]

Doc, USAT would have to be pretty clueless to dumb down the Forecaster for the masses. You can already get that sort of publication on the market, so making the Forecaster USAT's version of the same thing as everything else would be pointless. They'd have to know that the loyal readers would give up on it, and then what would they have?

[RON@HQ]

USAT's intent is not to assimilate us into their site. They recognize that their sports coverage is far lacking. It's not that they have bad writers - most of them are very good - but there has never been a strong focus. The principles who orchestrated this acquisition have both been with USAT for less than a year; they were brought on board from other, more successful sites to make USAT competitive again. That will not happen by dumbing down our product. The way to beat the ESPNs and Yahoos at their own game is to provide BETTER content. That's where we come in.

[Doc1966]

I hope for all our sakes that is truly the case - but I am always uneasy about such promises made by big operations. My experience has always been that despite the opportunity to make a quality product that appeals to discerning consumers, big operations will invariably choose to make a mediocre product that appeals to the undiscerning masses. Even though it would be better to maintain the better product and thus stand out from the pack, organizations are risk-averse, and will almost always play it safe and give you the same thing the competition does - even when the right move is to do things differently.

But maybe this will be the exception, and we will see the data-driven processes of BBHQ reach the mainstream - we'll still have the advantage of having used the concepts and strategies longer.