I'd like them to make it - I'm not even against ponying up for them. My real roadblock is maybe they're a modern day The National, but how would I find out since none of their stuff gets shared? I think they'd do better even with a stricter Washington Post style paywall, because at least people like me would come across a few articles a month to get hooked.Originally Posted by westofyou
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
They do have free trials every once in a while.
If I were still in my 20s or 30s, I'd probably be all over this. I used to devour the Sporting News every week. Anything I could get my hands on that had sports info in it I would read. But I don't have a lot of time these days even though information is literally at my fingertips.
Damn you are old. I am in my 30's, like the Athletic, tend to read an article here or there daily. I followed a lot of the guys on twitter who would tease and article and then put it behind a paywall so I couldn't read it.
Two of the three sites that I like the most are the WSJ and The Athletic, both behind paywalls (Eleven Warriors is the other.) I find that there is less "bait" and more quality journalism behind those walls. The adds aren't as bad, and I don't have to deal with cranky old journalists who have yet to adapt write daily or weekly "get off my lawn" or "the good old days were so much better" articles. What I think The Athletic has done is create a network of already embedded writers with a following, and allow them to continue. Its kinda like the difference between network (cable) TV and premium stations. Network TV can be good, but behind that paywall the stuff can become amazing.
In today's environment, if you give me good writing, I am more than willing to pay for it.
NYT is buying The Athletic for $550 million.
I'm a subscriber to both, but I don't generally like deals like this. The Athletic is doing the best baseball writing out there, but it isn't yet profitable. I could see the NYT more or less acquiring subscribers while squeezing the staff budget. Hope I'm wrong.
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
They had been searching for a partner for quite sometime to help them gain subscribers and make them profitable...They had been looking for 800 million for the sale but settled around where they are valued. I would imagine this will keep them afloat I wonder if the Times will try and repackage the product at all to focus on major markets.
If you have a losing record at Reds games, please stop going.
1.2 million subscribers is nothing to sneeze at. Theoretically that would be north of $50 million a month in subscriptions, but I know a lot come in at less than the $5 per month that I pay. Then you have some podcast revenue.
Couldn't read the original link due to paywall. Here's an article based on that article:
"The Athletic brought in $47 million in revenue in 2020 while burning $41 million, the Information reported, and projected 2021 revenue would jump to $77 million."
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...thletic-report
Ha, I just signed up for $1 a month for a year
What would you say.....ya do here?
RiverRat13 (01-06-2022)
It's impressive that it's stayed true to the subscription model and remained ad-free to this point. Wonder if that changes. I don't know of many editorial sites that can sustain that (Defector does comes to mind).
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
I believe the bros at the helm of The Athletic recently said they see their future including advertising, and I'd think being bought by the NYTimes would make that more likely.
NYTimes has a couple interesting models going now, aside from the legacy news operations. The Wirecutter, a product review site they also bought, makes most of its money through links to products. Both NYT Cooking and Games (crosswords, etc.) are separate subscription products, and I would imagine that's the route they'll go with The Athletic, though it's kinda a funny fit with the already-existing sports reporting.
I do think we're starting to see the next stage news media. The big winners are the operations in big markets (principally, NYT, WaPo). As they get reallyreally big, I think they'll slowly start opening up local shops and operations in smaller metros and regions. Axios recently announced a similar-ish plan, and ProPublica is on a similar track. The Athletic makes sense on this front as well.
*BaseClogger* (01-06-2022),WildcatFan (01-06-2022)
God I hope so. My fear is that they don't make the investment in local, boots-on-the-ground journalism, and it allows corruption to blossom at the local/state government level. That's a discussion for another thread though.
I think you're probably right about the metro bureaus though, which is kind of the chickens coming home to roost for publishers that didn't keep up with the move to digital. In that scenario, NYT more or less becomes a publisher a la Gannett and Tribune. It'll be interesting to watch, but I don't have high hopes.
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
BillDoran (01-06-2022)
I did that for a year. After a year I was gonna cancel a few weeks ago and I went through the process but right at the end a window popped up “we hate to see you go, how about 1 year for ~22 dollars.” I bit on that.
Just FYI.
I'll bet you're right. I'm guessing the quality of the writing will decrease as well since I bet people will be let go.
My immediate thought upon seeing the news was, “if I was working there, I’d be updating my resume right about now.” Hope I’m wrong.
Chip R (01-06-2022)
It's hardly fait accompli, but that's my guess, NYT, WaPo, WSJ become publishers.
As far as chickens coming home to roost, I'm not sure many places really can compete interest-wise. People are more drawn to national reporting and seem more willing to pay for that type of reporting. It's one of the odd discoveres of the internet; people are really interested in the high stakes, large scale stuff, especially when it comes to politics. Most mid-size city dailies have stalled out on digital subs, and it doesn't seem like there's much to be done. Lots of these mid-size city dailies are still largely dependent on an aging print subscriber base that will continue to decline until it effectively zeros out.
Remains to be seen. You may well be right, but NYT is in really good financial shape and has an aggressive vision for their future. It will be interesting to see what becomes of their regular sports section, and how it's all branded. I imagine the Knicks/Mets/Yankees/etc. beat writers just get folded into The Athletics's NY vertical. I suppose the national writers fit right in with The Athletics's stable of national writers.
Last edited by BillDoran; 01-06-2022 at 07:49 PM.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote