1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Athletic ... any thoughts ...

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by icoverbucks, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. typefitter

    typefitter Well-Known Member

    That's official. Paul Fichtenbaum (former SI EIC) came on board today and tweeted that. Also adding six more Canadian cities with a focus on hockey.
     
  2. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Didn't realize Phil Taylor is also joining up after being let go by SI. There are now more people I read who used to be at SI than people I read who are currently AT SI. Lee Jenkins and Verducci - Scott Price is still there right?
     
  3. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    Very interesting, too, that the Chernin Group is involved. It also bet on Barstool
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    They are investors in Pandora and Flipboard, also.

    People will pay for content on the Internet. ... if it is a good value proposition. Look at Netflix and Spotify. It is difficult to offer enough value, because a lot of people have much less discretionary income than they once did, with more things competing for that money.

    That is the challenge here. The question is, can these sites offer enough value to enough people (as those people see it). Sports once drove the tabloids in most cities, so it is legit to wonder if there is an audience out there for that coverage that isn't being served well anymore; people who just want the sports part the newspaper and are willing to pay a small amount for it. Maybe. If that audience exists in large enough numbers, the challenges will be getting those people in the first place, and then keeping them. They need to gain enough visibility to build the sites in the first place, and then they need to produce something good enough to justify the price tag. The fact that there are a lot of very good reporters and writers and editors out there who have been laid off bodes well for them doing good sites. It's a buyers market if you need talent.

    So it will come down to two things: 1) does the audience really exist, 2) can these guys deliver / execute. A third thing is, "Are these markets so different that this could be viable in one place, but not the next?"

    I am really rooting for this to work. I'd just love to know what they have in mind for most of these cities in terms of scale. I smell niche even *if* it works. That will put a limit on its growth if I am right. It would be my biggest question if I was an investor. But maybe I am underestimating the potential.
     
  5. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I also hope it succeeds, and it very well might. The quality will be strong, but that's true of many free sites, and many newspapers.
     
  6. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    I pay the subscription because I'm tired of having to go through seven or eight different sources and clicking through 100 ads to get a concise, smart 20-30 minute overview of the latest news and analysis on the teams I care about from a handful of reporters I know aren't going to loaf on their beat. I miss the days when I could pick up my local newspaper sports section or go to its website and get everything I need in one place and get it in 20-30 minutes and not have my desktop or phone have a seizure. The Athletic does that.

    They can feel free to put that on their book cover.
     
  7. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    The app is very good
     
  8. SoloFlyer

    SoloFlyer Well-Known Member

    The one thing that concerns me about The Athletic is the rate of growth. They're adding personnel and locations rapidly thanks to the seed money. But what happens if the subscriptions don't quite hit the benchmark to keep investors happy? It's just a web only version of every newspaper company that's owned by corporations concerned only about the bottom line.

    May have been wiser for The Athletic to slowly build their base and prove that the subscriptions can sustain each site.
     
  9. Any photography? Or just text?
     
  10. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    I read somewhere that they think an individual market can break even with 10,000 subscriptions at $40/yr. They have no advertising. That's the model. So that's $400,000 in revenue per market. Seems like a pretty low number if you're going to provide the depth of content that would compel renewals. And by that, I mean traveling with the teams.
     
  11. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    The subscription model doesn't seem that bad if it allows you to avoid the hometown papers' Web sites that force video commercials on you, then throw up a full-screen ad, then open up sinkhole videos in the text as you're reading it, and on and on and on. I get the financial realities, but turning the act of reading a story into running an effing obstacle course is going to alienate as many customers as you snag, I think.
     
    Old Time Hockey likes this.
  12. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    It's kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario -- need subscriptions to sustain, need to be impressive right out of the gate to get subscriptions. But investors aren't giving you seed money to sit on it, you gotta go show everyone how strong the product can be.

    I wonder if they might add national writers in sports like golf and auto racing, which have taken massive hits in coverage. That's value that can be added to each site for the price of one reporter.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page