According to executive Jamie Mottram, For The Win is the first sports site designed specifically to reach readers on viral networks like Facebook or Twitter. Owned by USA Today, the site is staffed by veteran sports writers from outlets like Deadspin and the New York Times who are tasked with finding sharable content.

“You don’t have to be a sports fan to laugh at the ridiculous new logo of the New Orleans Pelicans or openly weep at the 30 year old bat boy with Down Syndrome’s reaction to a Reds home run,” said Mottram, in a phone interview.

Mottram, whose pasts gigs include creating Yahoo! Sports’ blog network and AOL’s Fanhouse, is fond of using terms like “viral lift” and “social currency” to explain For The Win’s plan to build an audience through social media.

For The Win’s social-first approach follows the playbook of viral powerhouse BuzzFeed and newcomer Upworthy. Both these sites, which rely heavily on analytics and A/B headline testing, have acquired enormous audiences by looking to social media, rather than their homepages, as a primary source of traffic. Mottram thinks such tactics can give For The Win an edge as it competes with traditional outlets like ESPN and CBS Sports, and with popular digital natives like Deadspin, SB Nation and Bleacher Report.

“I think a lot of those sites are catering to legacy behaviors and technology,” said Mottram. “SB Nation was born on online communities — message boards around each team. Bleacher Report is a search-oriented content farm. For The Win is produced on a basis of really sharable content.”

The site’s distribution and content strategy will also rely on the sprawling sports network of USA Today parent, Gannett Company, which has affiliation agreements with properties like MLB Trade Rumors and Black Sports Online. For The Win’s content will also appear in legacy properties like the paper edition of USA Today.

For The Win is opening shop with 10 writers and editors and, for the first two months, is relying on Right Guard as an exclusive sponsor. Down the road, says Mottram, the site will rely on a dual revenue stream of display and native advertising.

Correction: this story was updated at 11:45ET to reflect that Gannett has affiliation agreements with certain properties but does not control them as previously stated.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How big data analytics drives competitive advantage
• Why mobile must be part of the shopping experience
• Sector RoadMap: Social customer service in 2013

The latest attack on Bleacher Report came last week in a long SF Weekly article, which said that the network “floods the web with inexpensive user-generated content” and is “a long way from any quaint notions of journalism.” The story includes a number of examples of what it says is the kind of sloppy writing that comes from BR’s volunteer contributors, and the author criticizes the network for focusing on cheap SEO (search engine optimization) tactics, such as “reverse-engineering content to fit a pre-written headline” that is stuffed with popular keywords in order to attract clicks.

Unpaid writers “competing for virtual crumbs?”

The SF Weekly piece also spends a lot of time talking about how a majority of Bleacher Report’s traffic is driven by unpaid writers — like the 19-year-old who admits to author Joe Eskenazi that even he doesn’t really buy the headline on his post. The obvious implication is that the network is nothing but a content farm filled with day laborers who churn out posts to fill a quota, and are encouraged by the “virtual badges” they earn for posts rather than an actual salary. As the piece describes it: “Unable to earn actual crumbs, they compete for virtual crumbs.”

Ryan Chittum at the Columbia Journalism Review characterizes the network in much the same way in a post based on the SF Weekly piece, saying Bleacher Report is engaged in a “race to the bottom.” As he puts it:

“Bleacher Report is a sort of Demand Media of sports, a content farm engineered to get search engine visits with lowest common denominator clickbait.”

These criticisms about Bleacher Report aren’t really a surprise — after all, they have been made about virtually every other digital-media entity from Demand Media and The Huffington Post to BuzzFeed: the idea that user-generated content is just a sop to readers in an attempt to bolster SEO-driven metrics, and that it is an endless rush towards the bottom with little or nothing of actual value to add to either media or journalism.

And as the SF Weekly story notes, even Bleacher Report insiders to some extent acknowledged this: the magazine quotes from a speech given by King Kaufman, who was hired last year by the network to upgrade its editorial standards, in which he says that BR had gotten a reputation for “lowest-common-denominator crap.” Of course, the article also fails to mention that Kaufman and his team have spent a considerable amount of effort on boosting the quality of the network, to the point where it is actually more stringent about things such as plagiarism than mainstream outlets like ESPN.

An alternate route to a career in writing

Not only after the SF Weekly article appeared, someone else added an interesting — and I think important — perspective to the picture: Matt Miller, a senior writer for Bleacher Report’s NFL unit, described how he went from being a would-be sports writer with no experience to a member of the senior team at the network, based solely on his contributions to the site. As he put it:

“Fast-forward to today. I’m no longer in marketing, I now work full-time for Bleacher Report as an NFL Lead Writer. I have benefits and vacation time. I have a salary. I have these things because I was able to work my way to the top at B/R. I wasn’t handed a job based on my résumé.”

This is part of the problem with the traditional media response to “content farms” or user-generated media sites like Huffington Post and Bleacher Report — the sense that they can’t possibly be as worthwhile as a regular content operation because people are writing for free, and therefore the only possible value has to be the creation of low-quality content for cheap traffic purposes. But what about the writers? Why do they do it? And isn’t there value there as well?

Miller’s account makes it clear that there is value: unlike the old days of traditional media, where writers had to toil for years in dead-end jobs with newspapers or magazines or trade publications before some of them could be “discovered” and elevated to the higher ranks of the profession, sites and networks like Bleacher Report, Huffington Post and BuzzFeed give anyone the ability to rise to whatever level their writing ability justifies.

Is the content produced by places like Bleacher Report the equivalent of a mainstream outlet like ESPN or the New Yorker? In most cases, no — but does that mean it is of no value? Of course not. Readers seem to like it, and who are we to say they are wrong? Not only that, but Miller makes the point that he and many other writers see a lot of value in what they have done, even if that value isn’t recognized by members of the mainstream media, because it allows them to bypass the traditional barriers that used to encircle journalism. And isn’t that ultimately a good thing?

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users D. Miller and Yan-Arief Purwanto

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise
• Frenemy mine: The pros and cons of social partnerships for online media companies

The term “copyright troll” is familiar to many thanks to Righthaven, an infamous band of lawyers who extracted large sums from bloggers who reproduced news clippings without permission. Federal judges became disgusted with Righthaven’s scorched earth approach and finally knee-capped it late last year.

Righthaven may be gone but its business model is still alive and well. Under this model, lawyers scour the web for copyright infringement and then take a cut from defendants who pay a settlement to avoid being sued. Unlike Righthaven, however, the new breed of copyright trolls don’t represent newspapers but instead stock photo sites.

“There’s literally thousands of letters a year. They’re just pumping them out,” said publisher Matthew Chan, who received such a letter in 2008. He has since watched the process mushroom and, in response, set up a site to track what he calls “extortion letters.”

An email posted on the site provides insight into the trolling tactic. The email is from Dan Levine, a lawyer looking to recruit other lawyers to join a gun-for-hire scheme:

Given the rampant copyright infringement on the Internet today, a virtually endless supply of such cases is available. That said, I would suggest that initially you would start with ten (10) such cases, which would enable you to begin work immediately in a way that we all can independently assess whether to pursue more together later. [see full email here]

Levine, the recruiter, promises he will provide quality leads on who to sue (“We do not go after the perverbial [sic] 14 year old blogger”) and says lawyers who pursue the cases can keep one third of the bounty. The other two thirds are presumably to be split between Levine and whoever owns the copyright to the images. Levine did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This style of copyright trolling has gone on for some time but has largely flown below the radar. According to Chan, this is because sites like Getty and other image owners have been more restrained in filing lawsuits and rely instead on extracting quiet settlements (Righthaven, on the other hand, just sued anything that moved). Chan says the letters’ demands for payments can range from a few hundred to $20,000 per image.

All of this, of course, raises the question of whether what Getty and others are doing is fair play. After all, photographers have a right to be paid for their work. And, these days, most people have a pretty good idea that internet images aren’t just there for the taking. If Getty and others don’t enforce their copyright, what exactly are they supposed to do instead?

It’s a good point, but the issue here isn’t the principle: it’s the tactics. Nearly all of the letters and the lawsuits from the image owners aren’t about compensation for a real loss. Instead, they’re opportunistic shakedown ventures that seek penalties that are far disproportionate to the offense. Chan frames it well:

“I’m a publisher and author and I’ve been infringed on. Know how I handle it? I send an email asking them to stop.”

This is what most of us do. I hate it when people jack my writing, but almost always the offender turns out to be ignorant, careless or lazy — not a hardened thief or criminal. And almost invariably they will remove the infringing item. In the case of Bleacher Report, the complaint (see below) doesn’t say the sports site is in the habit of ripping of others’ photographs. Instead, it’s a good bet that this was an intern’s mistake rather than company policy. But instead of having an opportunity to fix the error by removing the photographs, Bleacher Report is now in a copyright purgatory that will cost it tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This mess shows we need a legal system that can distinguish between the two types of infringers — the careless and the criminal. If we instead allow the odious methods used by the trolls to gain traction, more innocent people and businesses will be damaged for no good reason and the overall internet economy will suffer.

Here’s the complaint. If you’re curious, the offending photos were for a story “Hayden Panettiere, Mark Sanchez in and out as Football’s newest “It” couple”

Bleacher Report Complaint

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Survey: How apps can solve photo management
• Social networks will displace business processes, not socialize them
• Sector RoadMap: Social customer service in 2013

The round was led by Oak Investment Partners, the VC firm that has also invested in media companies like the Huffington Post, Bleacher Report and Demand Media, and Oak’s Fred Harmon will join Thrillist’s board of directors. Lerer Ventures and Pilot Group also participated (Thrillist founder Ben Lerer is the son of Lerer Ventures’ Ken Lerer).

Thrillist launched in 2005 with under $2 million in funding from the Pilot Group. The company now publishes email newsletters in twenty markets, has over five million subscribers and says it’s “on pace to approach” $60 million in revenues in 2012, compared to $33 million in 2011. About 30 to 40 percent of Thrillist’s revenue is derived from advertising, with 60 to 70 percent coming from JackThreads clothing.

The company plans to use the new funding to build out its current content business, develop mobile and expand into “new commerce categories.”

Thrillist has “big plans for evolving the Thrillist experience on the web, as well as on mobile and in video,” said cofounder Adam Rich. “We also have significant aspirations to continue developing JackThreads into a lifestyle destination that doesn’t just sell products, but also perpetuates a lifestyle that we know our guys covet.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet Q1: Content Farms and Niche Networks on the Rise
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks
• Frenemy mine: The pros and cons of social partnerships for online media companies

Zite was already working with CNN (its parent company), Fox Sports, the Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Bleacher Report, HLNtv, Motley Fool, The Next Web and VentureBeat.

Zite publisher partners share their “best-of” content in their own sections of Zite’s app, which is available for iPad, iPhone and Android. Like the rest of the content delivered through Zite, partner publishers’ content is subject to an algorithm that delivers personalized stories to users based on their likes and dislikes.

Publishers don’t pay Zite to be included in the program. “We believe there is adequate value being created for both parties in the terms of the agreement,” a company spokeswoman said.

Zite’s competitors are also entering into more partnerships with publishers, though their business models work in different ways. The New York Times is now making its content available to paying subscribers through Flipboard as part of its “NYT Everywhere” program, with Flipboard’s revenue derived from advertising. Pulse partnered with the Wall Street Journal  to offer content subscriptions through its app and is sharing the subscription revenue.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure
• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro

The site’s growth has been fueled by fans contributing absurdly specific slide shows like “Five Reasons CC Sabathia should eat fewer pork chops on game day”. Lately, though, Bleacher Report has been stocking up on real writers who are covering everything from the NFL draft to college sports. The site has hired 25 “lead writers” this year and will be bringing on more as football season heats up.

The pro writers are drawn in equal part from established bloggers and from Bleacher Report volunteers who are promoted through the ranks. The site’s co-founder, Dave Finocchio, says Bleacher Report looks for able writers who have a strong grasp of social and ability to build communities.

“The lead writers serve as voices for the site and as spokespeople,” he said, noting that Bleacher Report writers are now appearing on more than 50 external radio and tv spots every week. They are also expected to attend “have a beer” events with fans and volunteer writers.

Grooming writers as media figures in their own right is nothing new of course, but Bleacher Report stands out for how aggressively it is working at that mission. The site’s splash factor may also be driving the rumors that it’s a $200 million acquisition target for Turner.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

One of Bleacher Report’s new YouTube offerings is dedicated to a year-round discussion of the NFL draft while another offers updates on the college recruiting scene. The weekly shows are made by veteran TV producers and promise to offer penetrating insight into topics like the “NBA’s most notorious heckler” and “candid memories from current and former NFL stars on their draft experience.” Another channel borrows from Bleacher Report’s infamous “5 whatever whatever” formula and offers a daily round-up of buzzworthy stories hosted by minor MTV personality Desi Sanchez.

While it’s easy to mock Bleacher Report’s content, there’s no denying its ambition or success. Since launching in 2008, the site has grown by leaps and bounds and disrupted traditional sports journalism by relying on unpaid fan reporters led by a handful of mentors. According to the company, Bleacher Report is the web’s fifth biggest sports destination with 25 million unique monthly users. comScore (NSDQ: SCOR) counted 9.2 million unique visitors in December and 10 million in January.

The business strategy behind Bleacher Report’s YouTube launch is not clear from its release, but it appears videos of its “top 5″ show are also available on its regular website. The NFL draft and recruiting “shows” (at one to six minutes, they are actually more like clips) appear for now to be available just on YouTube.

Meanwhile, competitor Sports Illustrated (NYSE: TWX) appears to have tested the YouTube waters but then lost interest — the SI channel has not been updated for months. The same is not true of SI’s swimsuit channel on YouTube which features a Valentine’s Day interview with a young woman who “sees herself on the cover of the SI Swimsuit issue for the first time and talks about what the prestigious honor means.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Frenemy mine: The pros and cons of social partnerships for online media companies
• Connected consumer first-quarter 2013: Analysis and outlook
• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1
• When video gets democratized, who wins and who loses?

Since its launch in 2008, Bleacher Report has been a disruptive presence in sports reporting. Its army of amateurs has led it to acquire over 20 million unique visitors a month and placed it in the top ranks of sports sites behind gorillas like ESPN (NYSE: DIS) and Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) Sports.

Bleacher Report’s new hires, who will cover specific fields like baseball and soccer, will join the five existing “Lead Writers” who were brought on last year to provide football-centered coverage.

The lead writers are in part responsible for guiding the thousands of volunteer contributors who produce a slew of often-absurdly specific content along the lines of ’5 reasons Albert Pujols will like the french fries in Anaheim better than St. Louis.’

“We see this growth as another big step in creating a purer meritocracy for sports content creation on the Web,” wrote Dave Finocchio, Co-Founder and Vice President of Content and Product at Bleacher Report.

While the site is often derided by other news outlets, it’s hard to gainsay its business model which relies on sports team devotees to produce free content lapped up by insatiable fans. A spokesman described a typical Bleacher Report writer as “a guy who works by day and is a 49ers fan by night.”

The move to add more professionals may in part be to persuade advertisers that it’s a quality brand. In October, Ad Age reported that sponsors find Bleacher Reports hyper-specific demographics appealing but that at least one advertiser chose not to renew its contract because of the questionable content.

In addition to selling ads, Bleacher Report is also syndicating its content to national and regional partners like USA Today and Philly.com. Last week, it launched a tablet version of the site.

Bleacher Report’s success raises the intriguing question of whether its model could be replicated in other domains such as fashion, or whether there is something unique about sports readers that allows it to work.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure
• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• The capex connection: Why we pay for privacy on the Web

Gannett did not disclose the purchase price for Fantasy Sports Ventures, a property in which it acquired a minority share in 2008. But a 2010 report valued the company’s flagship site, The Big Lead, in the “low seven figures.”

Sports properties are hot items these days as a series of upstarts have emerged to challenge the 800-pound gorillas in the vertical, ESPN (NYSE: DIS) and Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) Sports. The most successful new players include SB Nation and Bleacher Report, sites that rely heavily on local, often-unpaid contributors who are obsessed with individual teams and topics. The popularity of the sites suggests that sports readers are not put off by amateur or opinion-based reporting.

On its website, Big Lead Sports claims it was fourth in comScore (NSDQ: SCOR) sports rankings in July of 2010 with 17 million unique visitors. In its announcement, Gannett claims that all of the Fantasy League Ventures blogs — which cut across all major sports — received 19 million unique visitors.

Gannett says the combined property will place it into the top five of digital sports properties. The claim appears reliable based on this recent AdAge report which list USA Today’s Sports Media Group as the ninth most popular property with about 11 million unique views.

The acquisition is also a shrewd play for Gannett because it gives the company a big toehold into fantasy sports. The new property reportedly has 500,000 subscribers in a growing market that fantasy business site Rotobiz claims has 32 million participants.

More details about the acquisition can be found in the company’s press release.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Content monetization: News licensing and syndication still need marketplaces and infrastructure
• How social discovery is transforming entertainment
• Trouble in Tinseltown