The Athletic ... any thoughts ...

I know someone who was in contact with them recently. He didn't expect to take them seriously, but he told me whoever spoke to him made a great offer and was an excellent pitchman.

I'm a subscriber. They've hired some good reporters. If you are into a mix of analytics and reporting, there's lots for you. In the few months I've been aboard, they've added Cleveland, Detroit and the San Francisco area. There are rumours of Florida. I also heard about New York, but some guys disputed that as the area remains well-covered.

I don't know enough about the business model to understand if it will work. But I am rooting for them.

 

A fellow named Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.

It isn't a matter of "giving up" or "not giving up." The news business is like just about everything else in a supply and demand world. In the aftermath of the election, there was a surge in demand from a niche but substantial enough group of people, looking for publications (online largely) that speak truth to power.

The Washington Post and New York Times have been the biggest beneficiaries. The Times more than the Post, even. If they weren't delivering what those consumers want -- mostly solid investigative journalism geared toward politics -- the demand wouldn't be there. They have delivered apparently, because their subscriptions (and revenues) have surged. In order to produce that kind of journalism, they have needed the resources to deliver what those readers want. So yeah, the Washington Post has beefed up in manpower over the last half year to a year.

Of course the Washington Post counts. The reason most of the industry is failing has nothing to do with one publication trying, while the others have "given up." It's that there is limited demand for what newspapers offer, much less than there used to be. We are oversupplied. That doesn't mean what the Washington Post offers is invalid. It means that in a VERY competitive marketplace, the Washington Post is competing really well to supply the demand that exists.

 

I am not sure what you mean by losses. By all accounts, it's the exact opposite in the case of the the Washington Post. It is profitable.

You are right. Bezos injected $50 million into it in 2015 (according to his accounts), if that is the runway you are talking about.

But (this is going by the memo he sent to staff at the end of last year and numerous public statements he has made), that investment led to the newspaper being profitable last year, and it has now grown revenue in double digits each of the last three years That is kind of how capital expenditures work when you are successful. You invest money into your business, and if you do it well (i.e. -- invest to meet demand), the business earns you profits. I suspect you are right about Bezos romanticizing the role he can play as a media mogul. And I also suspect that he WOULD be the type of guy (kind of like Rupert Murdoch with some of his ventures) who would keep sinking money into something and take losses on it for some psychic benefit he gets from keeping it going. But in this case, if it is profitable (and why would he lie about that?), that isn't what is actually happening. It seems very likely that is the case, because the paid subscriber growth has been dramatic and you can extrapolate that the ad revenue has probably been as robust as he has said. That really is supply and demand at work. There was apparently demand for something and Bezos has figured out how to supply it. And it is proving (at least for the time being) to be a profitable endeavor.

 

I get a complimentary subscription thanks to my .edu email address (working for a university), which is a steal that I just recently found out about. But I also pay for the NYT, so I don't consider myself a complete freeloader.