Sports Illustrated is changing its social media game -- but does it have to?

In the sports media industry, everyone seems to have their own lane. For ESPN, it’s entertainment. For The Ringer, it’s creative content. And for Sports Illustrated, which has been known as America’s most well-respected, integral sports magazine since its inception in 1954, it has been quality, well thought-out journalism. It is famous for longform stories that were rich in detail, reflecting a willingness to invest in meaningful work.

But things are changing for SI, and these changes are now shown through their approach to social media as well.

Like most news organizations, the magazine has made a large number of cuts over the past 5-10 years. There are now fewer reporters than ever, as less money is going towards longform writing and more is going towards video and entertainment-based content.

For fans of old-school journalism, this change is sad but predictable. The magazine struggled to adapt to a rapidly changing industry and has had to change their approach to business in ways that they feel will make it sustainable.

While most could see that the industry -- and therefore, the product -- was changing, what most SI diehards didn’t quite see coming was the brand overhaul that the magazine would pursue. The website and app are now increasingly video-heavy, with short video links and the newly formed “SI TV” function featured prominently.

Stories about pop culture and clickbait news populate a sizeable portion of the front page, a far cry from the journalism that the company prided itself on since its start. However, usually the company’s longform reporting is still featured front and center.

This branding change has carried over to social media as well, but with a different feel. The magazine now posts clickbait stories about the Kardashians alongside longform features on its Facebook and Twitter pages. They market their posts as clickbait, shamelessly selling pop culture stories at the same rate as 10,000-word pieces.

I feel like I am not alone when I see a problem here. While I understand that the nature of the company’s financial situation has led them to go a different way with their website content, I don’t understand why they are lowering the value of their best work on social media. It’s their approach that bothers me (and, I feel, many others), given the relevance of social media in today’s media consumption world.

It seems that even if they might need to produce different types of content, they should still promote their best work in a brighter light. The easy (and cost-free) way to do this is through social media, and it would convey to readers that they still understand and appreciate the type of work that got them to this point.

So, if I were SI, how would I do it? I’d keep posting some of the clickbait (because it is on the front page of the website, after all), but I’d keep it 75/25 in favor of the more well-reported and original stories.

The financial nature of the industry might have forced SI to cut writers, but it doesn’t have to force them to bury their best work.