The Athletic vs. ESPN City Sites

The subscription model either will or won’t work. I think it will. But regardless, ESPN’s city sites were optional add-ons and not a stand-alone business. They threw money at something as ESPN always does, then got bored after a little while.

It really is. It’s the closest I’ve gotten to the old days of paper when we used to get the Wall Street Journal. We would always discuss renewing when the bill came again, and we always decided to do it because regardless of how busy we were, there were always a couple of stories every week that made us stop and read. That’s The Athletic for me.

 

I'm sorry, I know this might be bad karma, or it might be because I'm apparently one of the three sports writers in the business who have yet to get an offer from the Athletic, but...I think the sites are weak. Bad design, fuzzy and small pictures, too much run-of-the-mill, same old same old stuff we've seen at all the newspapers most of their new hires come from. What's so "new" and "different" about their brand of journalism? Not much, from what I can see.

 

Some buzz in the industry (may be just from jealous haters, but...) that Athletic's finances are already groaning from the weight of too many salaries to too many people and not enough subscriptions to come close to covering the cost.

 

C'mon... They're going to need some additional revenue streams.

It can be done, but it's very tough.

I'd start using a ton of quality freelancers and spend money on things like video rights & clearances.

Explore branded content.

The people who negotiate these deals for ESPN are amazing at what they do.

 

I don't think that's the case at all. Maybe you need to get out of the NYC bubble. There are a lot of people who know it exists.

 

I really have trouble believing this. If they thought the sub pickup was going to be this strong, this quick, that’s some bad business planning. In reality they need a year or two of runway before even making any serious assessment. There’s a reason why they kept on seeking out VC money.

And yeah, I’m also skeptical given the rapid expansion. Smells like Patch. I hope I’m wrong.

 

Well that settles it.

 

Good sources? So many of us are thinking the same thing. How can The Athletic pay all these excellent writers and pay all their travel costs? Maybe not paying benefits is the key.

 

I think they'd laugh at you. They don't need freelancers. They have hired excellent full timers. Also do they care much about video? I thought they were doing the smart thing: leaving video to TV and audio to radio. Do what writers do best. Write and report.

 

The Web travels at magnificent speeds around the universe. Something shiny and new pops up every other day then fades as the next shiny and new thing pops up. Pinterest was the rage till it wasn't. Tumblr was the rage till it wasn't. The only true constants the last 10 years are Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

Yahoo Sports with its stable of sportwriting stars was supposed to be all the rage. Grantland. SB Nation. Sports on Earth too.

18 months from now, or sooner, Jeff Pearlman will write about why The Athletic try-try-tried but just couldn't make it.

 

I'm not sure Patch is a stinker.

Patch Breaks Traffic Records, Increasing Audience by 25 Percent in 2017

Patch Rebounds After Split From AOL

The Athletic's business model of VC funding combined with subscriptions is just as likely to succeed or fail as anything anyone else has tried.