The Athletic (1 Viewer)

[Capella]

I follow a bunch of their nhl reporters on Twitter and they constantly send them off to cover these long road trips. One said she is on a two-week trip now. That has to cost 7k after per diem, hotel and airfare. Times 32 teams and that’s just one road trip I am using as an example. 
 

All these teams are doing zoom now - I don’t get it. No way are they getting enough subscriptions for the Nashville Predators or Carolina Hurricanes to justify that cost. 

 

[chet]

Is there a referral link to join?  I have missed many articles from the Athletic.

 

[Eephus]

Their Black Friday special is $1/month for twelve months for new subscribers. They're trying to boost subscriber numbers so they'll be a more attractive acquisition candidate.

 

[JaxBill]

Is there a referral link to join?  I have missed many articles from the Athletic.

@TheAthletic: Unrivaled sports coverage. Unbeatable price. 

Take advantage of our Black Friday deal and get a new subscription to The Athletic for just $1/month: http://theathletic.com/checkout2/bf

 

[pantherclub]

Its insane to me that if you are a sports fan on any level that you would not have a subscription to the Athletic.  Its such a good product

 

[gruecd]

Its insane to me that if you are a sports fan on any level that you would not have a subscription to the Athletic.  Its such a good product

Really the best writing around.

 

[ChiefD]

Ads* wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me

*within reason

Yeah. Agree.

Would hate to see the ads. But if they were small static ads I guess I could live with that. I just don't want to see autoplay junk and crap popping up every time I scroll.

 

[gruecd]

Yeah. Agree.

Would hate to see the ads. But if they were small static ads I guess I could live with that. I just don't want to see autoplay junk and crap popping up every time I scroll.

You're hard to please.

 

[Barry]

does anyone use a kindle with the athletic? any problems?

 

[massraider]

Its insane to me that if you are a sports fan on any level that you would not have a subscription to the Athletic.  Its such a good product

This

Really the best writing around.

And this. 

The Athletic is so good, I read about teams I don't follow, just because some of their features are so good. 

 

[whoknew]

If the choice is between reading the site with ads and the site not existing - I choose the former.

 

[TLEF316]

Just announced...the NY Times is buying them for $550M

Not liking this move at all. I just want to read about sports. 

 

[Capella]

Sold to the New York Times today for 550M. Seems like a really really low price. 

 

[ChiefD]

Well, it was great while it lasted.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Sold to the New York Times today for 550M. Seems like a really really low price. 

I’m surprised the NYT has even that much money to spend to acquire them. Isn’t the NYT constantly hemorrhaging money and put up for sale about every 5 years themselves?

 

[TLEF316]

I’m surprised the NYT has even that much money to spend to acquire them. Isn’t the NYT constantly hemorrhaging money and put up for sale about every 5 years themselves?

I'm sure its not a cash only purchase, but yeah, I was surprised about this as well.  I figured they (like pretty much all traditional newspaper publications) are in survival mode, not acquisition mode.

I just dont see how this is a positive for us (the Athletic readers).

 

[Capella]

I’m surprised the NYT has even that much money to spend to acquire them. Isn’t the NYT constantly hemorrhaging money and put up for sale about every 5 years themselves?

Nah they’ve had their biggest years ever recently. 

 

[thecatch]

I'm sure its not a cash only purchase, but yeah, I was surprised about this as well.  I figured they (like pretty much all traditional newspaper publications) are in survival mode, not acquisition mode.

I just dont see how this is a positive for us (the Athletic readers).

Given that the Athletic is apparently losing money hand over fist, I think some decrease in quality/content or serious increases in price were coming regardless. 

 

[whoknew]

I hope they don't lose too much quality. Raising the price is fine - its worth it. 

 

[Capella]

Given that the Athletic is apparently losing money hand over fist, I think some decrease in quality/content or serious increases in price were coming regardless. 

It’s likely to be stripped down significantly. Sucks. 

 

[McBokonon]

I’m surprised the NYT has even that much money to spend to acquire them. Isn’t the NYT constantly hemorrhaging money and put up for sale about every 5 years themselves?

nope

 

[Eephus]

It’s likely to be stripped down significantly. Sucks. 

The objective from early on was to be acquired.  They couldn't keep running on VC money indefinitely.  If you're going to be acquired, better to be bought by a media company than one of the private equity firms that have been buying up newspapers and cannibalizing their assets.  The Times provides some scale and a potential subscriber base that's 50x larger than The Athletic's.

The future is unwritten but for now, this is probably the best possible outcome for The Athletic as a publication.  I have no idea whether the price was good or if the investors made out.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Their writers are now posting that the plan is to remain operationally independent.

 

[massraider]

The objective from early on was to be acquired.  They couldn't keep running on VC money indefinitely.

This for sure.

Everyone got paid, and they did what they were supposed to do, build a brand. They were losing money, but building a brand usually isn't profitable. 

Off the top of my head, I think the Times should be looking to really focus on podcast and YouTube growth. It costs nothing, and they get really profitable quickly. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Well this sucks.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Their writers are now posting that the plan is to remain operationally independent.

that was the main take i had heard over the past several weeks, that nyt would just own them but still operate it as a separate vertical.

 

[Capella]

that was the main take i had heard over the past several weeks, that nyt would just own them but still operate it as a separate vertical.

Well that’s always what gets said until it starts losing money or not showing enough profit for the times. Hope I’m wrong. 

 

[Eephus]

Well that’s always what gets said until it starts losing money or not showing enough profit for the times. Hope I’m wrong. 

It's never been profitable. The acquisition buys more time to grow the brand without having to search for more venture capital this year.

The jury is still out whether there's enough of an audience for a paywalled sports site. I think it's a positive sign that it was acquired by a company that's committed to print journalism rather than a company that's focused on sports betting.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It's never been profitable. The acquisition buys more time to grow the brand without having to search for more venture capital this year.

The jury is still out whether there's enough of an audience for a paywalled sports site. I think it's a positive sign that it was acquired by a company that's committed to print journalism rather than a company that's focused on sports betting.

Probably also a positive that it’s also a company that paywalls their content as well.

 

[rockaction]

New York Times - Kevin Draper - Oct. 23, 2017 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/sports/the-athletic-newspapers.html

By the time you finish reading this article, the upstart sports news outlet called The Athletic probably will have hired another well-known sportswriter from your local newspaper. In a couple of years, once The Athletic has completed its breakneck expansion, perhaps that newspaper’s sports section will no longer exist.

“We will wait every local paper out and let them continuously bleed until we are the last ones standing,” Alex Mather, a co-founder of The Athletic, said in an interview in San Francisco. “We will suck them dry of their best talent at every moment. We will make business extremely difficult for them.”

...

Bleacher Report was the big sports media winner of the era when scale and online advertising revenue seemed like the future of media. It was rarely profitable and raised $40 million in venture capital funding before being bought by Turner in 2012 for about $175 million. According to skeptical media executives and investors interviewed for this article, something similar is most likely the best-case scenario for The Athletic.

__________________________________________________________________________

Guess so regarding that last sentence. I honestly what to know what a several hundred thousand dollar subscription to an information news service looks like. Most spendy I'd ever heard of before hearing about The Information and Political Pro in this article was Lexis-Nexis. 

 

[massraider]

They cannot be profitable with this current model only. 

But look, we have a massive thread whining about ESPN, there is a gap to be filled. There are other ways to monetize. Books, Podcast, YouTube, streaming shows, anything people can advertise on that's NOT live sports. That's a lot of stuff

 

[Eephus]

Bleacher Report was the big sports media winner of the era when scale and online advertising revenue seemed like the future of media. It was rarely profitable and raised $40 million in venture capital funding before being bought by Turner in 2012 for about $175 million

Bleacher Report was a hot property back when the blogosphere was a thing. Turner hasn't done much with B/R and its brand equity is much less than it was a decade ago.

The Athetic's $550M purchase price is higher than what Spotify paid for The Ringer ($150-200M) or Penn's investment in Barstool ($136M for a 36% share).  The attraction for Spotify was Simmons' podcasts.  Barstool is more of a lifestyle brand than a sports entity.

But look, we have a massive thread whining about ESPN, there is a gap to be filled. There are other ways to monetize. Books, Podcast, YouTube, streaming shows, anything people can advertise on that's NOT live sports. That's a lot of stuff

A lot of the same people whining about ESPN in the other thread are probably whining about the NY Times in the PSF.

 

[rockaction]

A lot of the same people whining about ESPN in the other thread are probably whining about the NY Times in the PSF.

This is true and applies to me, but my beef isn't political with ESPN. I don't see too much political about ESPN, but maybe I'm missing that because I immediately have to shut it off when I'm not watching a sporting event. ESPN just rubs me in insane ways because it seems their intent is to promote insane yelling and grotesque utterances as product -- as bellicosely loud and opinionated lifestyle, even. I've seen some Barstool tweets and escapades. I don't dig it, and wonder about their audience 

I think the Times has fully jumped the shark as the paper of record for factual reporting, not because of any left/right bias, but because the narrative they bring to reporting is so skewed. The narrative they are in search of is causing them to completely misstate basic facts, abdicate certain essential stories or facts, or they openly advocate for particular positions. IK does a nice job in the PSF of noting when reporters are baring their policy agendas on Twitter. I can attest to this being true.

So yeah, I guess the nub of it is people have problems with the Times and ESPN, but there's a big tent of dislike for the two outlets and myriad reasons for that dislike. 

 

[Eephus]

This is true and applies to me, but my beef isn't political with ESPN. I don't see too much political about ESPN, but maybe I'm missing that because I immediately have to shut it off when I'm not watching a sporting event. ESPN just rubs me in insane ways because it seems their intent is to promote insane yelling and grotesque utterances as product -- as bellicosely loud and opinionated lifestyle, even. I've seen some Barstool tweets and escapades. I don't dig it, and wonder about their audience 

I think the Times has fully jumped the shark as the paper of record for factual reporting, not because of any left/right bias, but because the narrative they bring to reporting is so skewed. The narrative they are in search of is causing them to completely misstate basic facts, abdicate certain essential stories or facts, or they openly advocate for particular positions. IK does a nice job in the PSF of noting when reporters are baring their policy agendas on Twitter. I can attest to this being true.

So yeah, I guess the nub of it is people have problems with the Times and ESPN, but there's a big tent of dislike for the two outlets and myriad reasons for that dislike. 

The hard news content of the NYT is still solid. The opinion section like everywhere else including ESPN are designed to provoke because that's the best way to drive engagement.

The Athletic has largely been able to navigate the culture wars (the comments section notwithstanding) but I think that's due to it being a much smaller target than ESPN.

 

[rockaction]

The hard news content of the NYT is still solid. The opinion section like everywhere else including ESPN are designed to provoke because that's the best way to drive engagement

Fair enough. I only go by the free articles I get, and I note when the more notorious writers (like the lead COVID reporter) say very controversial things on Twitter that would seem to be coloring their coverage. You probably read the Times daily and know better. 

I actually have a good acquaintance/former casual friend that covers the presidential beat. I'm pretty sure he won a Pulitzer there. I trust him, and he's generally a straight shooter and centrist Democrat for the most part. All the guys I knew that worked the Washington beat for the Times were all left-of-center. We used to give them crap for it. It seems to have gotten a little harder left as the years progress.

My friend that went to Columbia School of Journalism said you wouldn't believe the liberalism of politics that went on in the news rooms. He freelanced for Rolling Stone, and did feature articles. Nobody would ever know he's right-of-center just because he's got a very modern outlook on life. But guys like that are doing much better than the Times writers are of keeping their politics secondary to their work. That friend now works at CNBC, of course, and fittingly, doing the business beat, which he loves. Which I can't understand, but all the power to him. 

But that's my opinion. Everybody's point on the spectrum and tipping point of the fulcrum is just different. 

And I hope the Athletic continues to navigate the culture wars successfully. It would seem, maybe only to me, that the Times owning a stake in the product will mean that the narrative skews. That's too bad. 

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

They cannot be profitable with this current model only. 

But look, we have a massive thread whining about ESPN, there is a gap to be filled. There are other ways to monetize. Books, Podcast, YouTube, streaming shows, anything people can advertise on that's NOT live sports. That's a lot of stuff

Bingo.

Agree podcasts/YouTube/streaming shows is their possible growth. Maybe they strike gold with someone like Pat McAfee who struck it rich after a short time with his show. Drew lots of eyeballs and inked huge deal.

JMO there's no growth with print journalism in today's on-the-go multi-task world.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Wondering if anyone knows the current going rate with a discount or where I can find the best discount available? I paid full price through auto-renew for a couple years, finally remembered to cancel before the auto-payment a couple weeks ago and am now looking to re-up.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Wondering if anyone knows the current going rate with a discount or where I can find the best discount available? I paid full price through auto-renew for a couple years, finally remembered to cancel before the auto-payment a couple weeks ago and am now looking to re-up.

Nevermind. Just used the link upthread from last year Black Friday deal to get $1/mo. for 6 months.

 

[thecatch]

I just went to cancel my auto renewal at $72 a year, and the site automatically offered me a discounted rate of $20/year after I hit cancel. Conveniently, that’s about the most I’d pay for a subscription.

 

[rockaction]

Also in on the Athletic. Got a $1/month subscription for six months. I like it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I just went to cancel my auto renewal at $72 a year, and the site automatically offered me a discounted rate of $20/year after I hit cancel.

Thanks for highlighting the $72 renewal. I just reupped for $22 for 12 months in June, but didn't realize that would happen next year.

I did not get a $20/year offer when I turned the auto renew off though. Probably because I'm still 10 months out I guess.

 

[thecatch]

I just went to cancel my auto renewal at $72 a year, and the site automatically offered me a discounted rate of $20/year after I hit cancel.

Thanks for highlighting the $72 renewal. I just reupped for $22 for 12 months in June, but didn't realize that would happen next year.

I did not get a $20/year offer when I turned the auto renew off though. Probably because I'm still 10 months out I guess.

That might be it. I was only 1 month out, and had just received the "your subscription is about to auto renew" email.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

NY Times is shuttering their own Sports division and will now basically just use The Athletic for sports coverage.

 

[ChiefD]

NY Times is shuttering their own Sports division and will now basically just use The Athletic for sports coverage.

Yeah, saw that today. The Athletic is going down the toilet too. They've fired a bunch of their beat writers and aren't bringing them back. The Royals haven't had one all year.

A shame. That was a good website for awhile.

 

[massraider]

Yeah, saw that today. The Athletic is going down the toilet too. They've fired a bunch of their beat writers and aren't bringing them back. The Royals haven't had one all year.

Premier League and NFL are driving all their traffic, so that coverage won't suffer, which frankly, is why I am there. Those two leagues.

I have read some stories from other sports because there is so much good writing, but if coverage of teams isn't getting any traction, cutting people makes sense.

Kind of a bummer, I follow the Athletic NFL writers list on Twitter, but like any list on Twitter, it's never updated, so you wind up with people who no longer write for the Athletic. I actually made my own list of the Athletic NFL writers, because the old one was out of date.

 

[thecatch]

NY Times is shuttering their own Sports division and will now basically just use The Athletic for sports coverage.

Yeah, saw that today. The Athletic is going down the toilet too. They've fired a bunch of their beat writers and aren't bringing them back. The Royals haven't had one all year.

A shame. That was a good website for awhile.

I’m sure that makes economic sense on some level but it sure is frustrating as a fan of a smaller market team. The Kings haven’t had a beat writer for a couple years, but the Athletic has like 3-4 people covering the Warriors. So my feed during their playoff series was all pro-Warriors content. I’ve said it a few times in this thread already, I think, but I only subscribe because it’s gotten so cheap.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Big recommendation for the 5 episode series on Athletic's podcast "The Playcallers."

Covers Kyle Shanahan, Sean McVay, Matt LaFleur and Mike McDaniel - fantastic work from Jourdan Rodrigue.

 

[thecatch]

A reminder to monitor your subscription renewal dates. They won’t send you any notice of the renewal and they apparently won’t give you any refund if you miss the cancellation date by 2 days. What a scam.

 

[GroveDiesel]

A reminder to monitor your subscription renewal dates. They won’t send you any notice of the renewal and they apparently won’t give you any refund if you miss the cancellation date by 2 days. What a scam.

That sucks.

I saw a one year for $1 a month deal but you could not apply it while you were a subscriber. So I went it and cancelled my subscription. Only when I went to cancel it offered me a year for $10 if I stayed. So trying to cancel my subscription a few weeks before it was up ended up being a great deal.

 

[thecatch]

A reminder to monitor your subscription renewal dates. They won’t send you any notice of the renewal and they apparently won’t give you any refund if you miss the cancellation date by 2 days. What a scam.

That sucks.

I saw a one year for $1 a month deal but you could not apply it while you were a subscriber. So I went it and cancelled my subscription. Only when I went to cancel it offered me a year for $10 if I stayed. So trying to cancel my subscription a few weeks before it was up ended up being a great deal.

Yes, they’ll automatically give you a better deal if you hit the cancel button.