The Athletic ... any thoughts ...

[icoverbucks]

... about their business model, their coverage of sports in their cities, any ideas on expansions?

Just looking for any pertinent information. Thanks!

 

[Batman]

What the hell is The Athletic?

 

[typefitter]

I don't know how they're doing, but the Toronto edition has some real heavyweight talent behind it.

 

[Steak Snabler]

I have read a few pieces that Joe Sheehan linked off his baseball newsletter and enjoyed it.

Is it pretty much a Chicago version of what Dejan Kovacevic is doing in Pittsburgh?

 

[CD Boogie]

What the hell is The Athletic?

It's where the unathletic go to learn.

Seriously, I have no idea. In the absence of links and context, I guess we'll have to Google it.

EDIT:

The Athletic

 

[Songbird]

It's where the unathletic go to learn.

Seriously, I have no idea. In the absence of links and context, I guess we'll have to Google it.

EDIT:
View attachment 2254

The Athletic

Oxford comma before an ampersand?

 

[CD Boogie]

Oxford comma before an ampersand?

yeah, but no ads, no fluff. interested to know how they generate money. Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow. I'm done Googling for today.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

They sell subscriptions. Think that's it.

 

[typefitter]

Yeah, it's a subscription-based model. City-specific coverage of pro sports, although I think a sub grants you access to all the sites. (I could be wrong on that.) In Toronto, they hired a bunch of well-regarded newspaper people. I believe the plan is to expand to other cities.

 

[Kayaugstin Kott]

Know next to nothing about The Athletic, but it seems very similar to what DK's doing in Pittsburgh. As for DK Pittsburgh Sports, that site is thriving far better than I could have imagined. He's brought in great writers, they produce pretty solid original content, they price it fairly, and subscriptions are up every single week. They seem to spend a lot of money, too. That partnership with the soccer team seems to be working out swell.

 

[Fredrick]

Know next to nothing about The Athletic, but it seems very similar to what DK's doing in Pittsburgh. As for DK Pittsburgh Sports, that site is thriving far better than I could have imagined. He's brought in great writers, they produce pretty solid original content, they price it fairly, and subscriptions are up every single week. They seem to spend a lot of money, too. That partnership with the soccer team seems to be working out swell.

What? Nobody will pay for news. Anybody can write a sports story. Newspapers don't need talented, famous columnists, veteran writers who know their cities' teams better than anyone. Anyone can do that job ... That's what the clueless think-tankers said in getting newspapers to give away their products for free on the Web. The rise of The Athletic and the other organization cited above PROVE there's still demand for what newspapers were doing 20 years ago. You think there's not current demand for those huge sections of the past, incredible analysis and columnists, all the box scores in one area for fans to read, incredible coverage of high school sports, satisfying grandmothers and grandfathers and mommies and daddies happy to pay for subscriptions.
Just think ... all newspapers had to do to continue thriving was not panic at newsprint costs, resist the urge to cut page after page from the newspaper. All it would have taken for newspapers to continue making $$$ is HIRE BETTER ADVERTISING PEOPLE and develop innovative ways to ADVERTISE. Instead, papers took the easy way out, shrinking the newshole to nothing, firing people, changing deadline times to make the product worthless. Of course newspapers are failing. Compare a gawd-damn newspaper now to one 20 years ago. You need your head examined if you pay for a newspaper today.

 

[AD]

i pay for the washington post. paper is damned incredible.

 

[justgladtobehere]

All it would have taken for newspapers to continue making $$$ is HIRE BETTER ADVERTISING PEOPLE and develop innovative ways to ADVERTISE.

Something more detailed than 'just do better' would be helpful.

 

[Kayaugstin Kott]

What? Nobody will pay for news. Anybody can write a sports story. Newspapers don't need talented, famous columnists, veteran writers who know their cities' teams better than anyone. Anyone can do that job ... That's what the clueless think-tankers said in getting newspapers to give away their products for free on the Web. The rise of The Athletic and the other organization cited above PROVE there's still demand for what newspapers were doing 20 years ago. You think there's not current demand for those huge sections of the past, incredible analysis and columnists, all the box scores in one area for fans to read, incredible coverage of high school sports, satisfying grandmothers and grandfathers and mommies and daddies happy to pay for subscriptions.
Just think ... all newspapers had to do to continue thriving was not panic at newsprint costs, resist the urge to cut page after page from the newspaper. All it would have taken for newspapers to continue making $$$ is HIRE BETTER ADVERTISING PEOPLE and develop innovative ways to ADVERTISE. Instead, papers took the easy way out, shrinking the newshole to nothing, firing people, changing deadline times to make the product worthless. Of course newspapers are failing. Compare a gawd-damn newspaper now to one 20 years ago. You need your head examined if you pay for a newspaper today.

I'll just leave this here, too ... a recent post from the website I'm citing.

"Well, self-congratulatory as it might come across, our subscriptions being as inexpensive as they are — $3.99 for month-by-month, $29.99 at the annual rate, $66 for the three-year — is an actual topic that’s commonly raised from the subscribers themselves. We’re asked about it all the time, generally out of concern. They look around at other online publications, see their prices, look at the quality and quantity offered here, and wonder why we aren’t charging more.
The city’s only surviving newspaper, for example, charges $6.50 every four weeks for a sports-only subscription to its online content. I’ll go so far as to include the link if you don’t believe me. And they offer no option to get a lower rate by buying further into the future. It’s $6.50 every four weeks, not a penny less."



Saturday Site Stuff: Why is a subscription so inexpensive? - DKPittsburghSports.com

 

[Fredrick]

i pay for the washington post. paper is damned incredible.

Isn't the Post one of the few that hasn't given up? I forgot who owns it but I recall reading something about how the Post added staff recently and pages, etc. So the Post doesn't count. 99 percent of the papers have given up; we're talking about those.

 

[Fredrick]

I'll just leave this here, too ... a recent post from the website I'm citing.

"Well, self-congratulatory as it might come across, our subscriptions being as inexpensive as they are — $3.99 for month-by-month, $29.99 at the annual rate, $66 for the three-year — is an actual topic that’s commonly raised from the subscribers themselves. We’re asked about it all the time, generally out of concern. They look around at other online publications, see their prices, look at the quality and quantity offered here, and wonder why we aren’t charging more.
The city’s only surviving newspaper, for example, charges $6.50 every four weeks for a sports-only subscription to its online content. I’ll go so far as to include the link if you don’t believe me. And they offer no option to get a lower rate by buying further into the future. It’s $6.50 every four weeks, not a penny less."



Saturday Site Stuff: Why is a subscription so inexpensive? - DKPittsburghSports.com

Wow in reading that article, I was impressed at the professional tone taken by the author. Hmmm no Gannett buzzwords, no bull**** just real people talk. Hmmm they've got almost 40,000 subscribers?? I thought nobody would pay for online content, the mantra of the snake oil salesmen who ruined the newspaper business by giving it all away for free. Hmmm, what do you know it alls say now? This company has sold 40000 subscriptions. Why? Because the readers trust these veteran reporters, respect their takes and want to read their coverage. Are all these writers for this Pittsburgh website folks who were laid off by clueless newspapers who have taken so much delight in laying off everybody over 40?

 

[Alma]

Looks like The Athletic is going big.

Big Names in Sportswriting Are Joining The Athletic

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

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.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Isn't the Post one of the few that hasn't given up? I forgot who owns it but I recall reading something about how the Post added staff recently and pages, etc. So the Post doesn't count. 99 percent of the papers have given up; we're talking about those.

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.

 

[AD]

but let's be clear here: the post is thriving because Bezos decided to give it more "runway" -- i.e. money, despite losses and no conceivable long-term future for newsprint in sight. what hasn't been said is what i've been sensing since the election: that bezos has decided to extend his "runway" indefinitely. i think he's fallen in love with his new place in the community firmament, likes the idea of himself as a defender of the republic against trumpism; hence, that new, overcooked, melodramatic "democracy dies in darkness" motto. bezos has, in fact -- and without intention -- now become a newspaper owner in the mold of chandler and sulzberger: someone so rich that he can afford to spend money on journalism just because it makes him feel good. hell, it provides a nice conscience balm for all the retail tumult and job-churn he's caused via amazon.