Reddit: You nailed it at the end: they're a glorified aggregator, not a producer of content. They're not in our niche at all, IMO.

Deadspin: Horrid design. My mockup with the Exciter theme eats it's lunch in my humble opinion. I'd say content wise, my ideas about having an additional focus on the ameteur athlete and adding sports fitness and nutrition sections would be a sizeable plus on our end. It skews less mainstream, but it can potentially bring a lot of people our way.

Shadow League: Nothijng special and nothing to worry about. The sheer number of contributors at launch would likely lead to overtaking this within a few months. IMO they're a non entity and just another fish.

Sports on Earth: Where is the personality here? I'm perusing quickly but I don't see a real persona or a niche outside of sports. Design doesn't lend itself to interaction and it's poorly organized.

The Classical: Need to spend more time here to see what's what. You mentioned a lack of fan interaction, and our aim is to make that a hallmark. We can be the Zappos of fan interaction.

SB Nation: Blech. This thing leeches a lot of garbage from bleacher report and is typically late. I like nothing about it and to be honest, I don't see the personality there either. It's well organized but a large portion of the content on there is of the 'Lakers Must Trade Pau Gasol/Lakers Foolish To Trade Pau Gasol/Lakers Must Deal Pau For Luol Deng" variety. Whenever they come up in a search, that's the kind of nonsense I see- and it's usually ripped from another article published days earlier.

Grantland: Again, I think you noted the difference.

All in all none of them really do what we're setting out to do. We're essentially bringing OKS into that format. The articles and segment concepts proposed on that sheet already illustrate much more interesting, forward thinking in terms of content.

A successful website really requires three things:

1. Content
2. Interaction
3. Design

That's it. Innovating isn't even necessary, it's merely a bonus. Even a vanilla site just like those, given the sheer breadth of contributors and their individual networks gives us a strong foothold on launch. That's half the battle.

1a) Are we happy maintaining this site for our little circle + extended family/friends or do we wanna think BIG- globally.

I say think big- but then we need a financial plan. Big=money. Who gets a cut? What level of involvement, and when, determines that?

1b) If so or not who is our target audience?

Young urban males who like sports, probably 15-30. I think sometimes we can overthink things like this. The number of contributors with varying perceptions allows for a wide and varied approach that can easily target multiple sub-genres.

2a) What content are we going to provide thats different from above sites?

The same content we already post, just more focused and cleaned up. Everything on that sheets stands out and doesn't feel like just another sports site. Maybe I'm being lazy, but I think that foundation is already there. Again, I'd say my suggestions onf sports health and nutrition, a focus on ameteur athletes and leagues is a solid point of division.

The sites that have huge fan interaction (i.e, Reddit) don't really fit our overall niche. In the end, the combination of diverse people, content concepts that have already been stated, and a heavy emphasis on fan interaction coupled with our own shows and



2b) How are we different? Not just content wise, but in our culture and tone.

Again, maybe I'm just lazy or my brain is on hold, but you answered this perfectly. We're a diverse group and we hit a wide range of topics on the whole. The whole 'agenda wars!' culture here has lent itself toward finding interesting angles in which to approach those topics. Content wise I think our culture and tone is already there.

"As I investigate this more--I'm learning more about the power of Habit and routine in internet usage. Whats going to make somebody change their habit and routine and come to our site? When they get exactly what they THINK they want now? in their little internet bubbles?"

Interaction. As I suggested earlier, when you have people who consistently provide quality content, we highlight them. Interview them, give them a little shine for their contributions to the community. People that show and prove, why not give them a shot to do their own column?

I've got more incentive to contribute quality material more often if there's a chance for some sort of recognition or even a short writing gig, do I not? So I think that focus on our readership will have a huge payoff in the end.

Honestly, I think you've answered most of your own questions. Not that there isn't more to be had- but with what we've got right today, we're good. Anything else is a bonus. I'm curious about your potentially revoltutionary concept, too.