This will probably pan out just as well as the Times' cash burning purchases of the Boston Glob and Worcester Telegram.

the smaller site will help the Times move toward its goal of 10 million subscribers by 2025. It currently has about 8.3 million and The Athletic has over 1.2 million.

Most of those 1.2 million subscribers already are NYT subscribers, according to my top-secret data.

1.2 million x $60 = 72 million in revenue. That’s what I’ve paid them the last 2 years, but I doubt they actually have that much revenue, they’ve done a lot of discounts here and there. They made a name for themselves by hiring a lot of high profile writers. It’s a big staff, covering all the sports. Doesn’t seem like turning a profit is likely. According to wiki, they have been seeking a buyer for a while because they are losing money. Doesn’t seem like a wise thing to spend half a billion on.

For the Times, I guess the plan is to scale back the compensation. Less competition for their own employees. Don’t have any actual numbers to back this up, but seems the Athletic was paying very well to get the high profile writers they wanted. That gravy train is over, so expect the more popular ones to leave now.

Which sets up a new opportunity for some venture capitalists to hire the top writers, build a new site, and cash in from the next deep pocketed source.

I’m sure there’s some overlap, but probably not that significant. NY Times subscribers are something like 3-4% of US adults.

Now we will get some serious investigative sports journalism. First up...Where is the USFL dollar? Trump has it.

The blogger Murray Chass could not be reached for comment.

3. Rally Posted: January 06, 2022 at 02:18 PM (#6059958)
1.2 million x $60 = 72 million in revenue. That’s what I’ve paid them the last 2 years

You paid $72 million over the last two years? Can I hang out with you? ;-) I kid, I kid! I'd hang out with you anyway, super smart baseball guy, Angels fan. Dog and a beer on me?

1.2 million x $60 = 72 million in revenue. That’s what I’ve paid them the last 2 years, but I doubt they actually have that much revenue, they’ve done a lot of discounts here and there. They made a name for themselves by hiring a lot of high profile writers. It’s a big staff, covering all the sports. Doesn’t seem like turning a profit is likely.

Yea, they're burning money.

It seems that The Athletic is running into this issue itself. According to The Information:

Last year, when Covid suspended most sports, the firm generated revenue of $47 million, while its cash burn was $41 million. The Athletic is projecting that revenue will rise 64% to $77 million this year, while its cash burn drops to $35 million. Next year The Athletic expects its cash burn to drop sharply, to about $7 million. And the company has told investors it expects to be marginally profitable in 2023 on revenue it projects will be $156 million.

The Athletic has enough cash to cover its needs for about the next eight months, said a person familiar with the situation.

But I imagine the NYT is not banking on them making a profit, just adding a name for its porfolio, maybe offering some sort of bundle.

I think I paid less than $10 for a year. Their sticker price is way more than what customers actually give them.

1.2 million x $60 = 72 million in revenue. That’s what I’ve paid them the last 2 years, but I doubt they actually have that much revenue, they’ve done a lot of discounts here and there.

This article noted that Axios had reported The Athletic had 1.2 million subscribers in May, and that The Athletic had hoped to finish 2021 with 1.2 million subscribers. As they put it:

If it had “about 1.2 million subscribers” in May, according to Axios, and it expects to finish the year with 1.2 (million) subscribers, one of two things is going on.

First, media reporters are really getting things wrong when they talk to The Athletic. Or second, The Athletic’s growth has slowed quite considerably and it is churning subscribers almost as quickly as it is adding new ones.

I have a subscription, but it was a "free for the first 6 months, no obligation after that" subscription that expires in another month or so, and I fully intend to drop it the day before that deal expires. I suspect they are getting a lot of subscriber churn now. If they were bringing in people via discounts and they're leaving when the discounts run out, they might have maxed out on potential subscribers.

In terms of content, I've found them to be sadly around replacement level. Not to say their writers aren't damn good writers. No, rather, what I'm saying is the actual information I get from them isn't much above what I can get from any other source. In the brief window I've had the subscription I got the sense, based on topics and content produced, that someone on their Red Sox beat reads the posts on Sox Therapy here before writing about stuff. I'm not going to pay The Athletic to tell me stuff that I wrote.

I subscribed when Pos was doing his top 100 series. Got a few months trial, then.$60 per year, let it run for 2 years. Pos is no longer there, and I didn’t find myself reading the site that much, so I tried to cancel. Then I got a popup offering to extend my membership at a huge discount, so I went for it. Not paying full price for this year. Beyond that I’ll see what happens and decide next year.

Given how easy it is to get discounts, both when you sign up and when you try to cancel, my guess would be that 1.2 million subscribers would only work out to 40-50 million revenue.

It is amazing to me that people can start an internet business from essentially nothing, build it to the point where it doesn't make any money and sell it for hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions).

but enough about FanDuel and DraftKings

:)

In terms of content, I've found them to be sadly around replacement level. Not to say their writers aren't damn good writers

I've said something similar in the past. I subscribe to The Athletic and I'm reasonably content with what I get for my money. The content there is pretty standard-issue sportswriter stuff -- they're not breaking any new ground or really innovating. But they just have so many of the writers I like and the biggest sportswriter names that I felt like I kind of had to subscribe, just to keep up.

12--It's most often some combo of access to user data, eliminate as competition or bolt on to existing platform. User data big.

FWIW having checked out the Athletic and especially the comments threads I really doubt many NYT subscribers in Athletic pool. Just my sense.

I've been a subscriber for four years, but I just canceled my upcoming renewal because I just don't read them enough. Over the past two years, I've thrown subscription money at writers that I like to support their work, and I can't afford to support everyone who deserves support. I really do like the service, but the Athletic content I really enjoy are the NBA podcasts, and I can get that from Spotify (which I also subscribe to).

It's most often some combo of access to user data, eliminate as competition or bolt on to existing platform. User data big.

Time to sell off the Hall of Merit?

I've really enjoyed The Athletic and found it considerably higher than replacement level. For instance this article about ash bats was right in my wheelhouse. Their Reds beat writer is miles above the other beat writers. Plus the main Cincy newspaper is now sub-only anways, so it's either the mlb.com recaps or the Athletic.

If I wasn't already using my brother's NYT login, I'd probably subscribe to get their Athletic coverage.

17-- dozen user profiles not really budging the needle

If there are multiple dozens my apologies for understating

dozen user profiles not really budging the needle

I was talking about data. We have piles and piles of data. None of it will help sell donuts.

It is amazing to me that people can start an internet business from essentially nothing, build it to the point where it doesn't make any money and sell it for hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions).

“We lose money on each subscriber, but we hope to make it up in volume.”

I've only paid the subscription once - I received two years as gifts - but I feel the price has been worth it. Their hockey coverage is incredible. I dabble in the baseball, college football, and soccer writing, but it would be worth it for the hockey coverage alone.

I’m a big, big fan of the Athletic. They’ve renewed my love for the NHL which had gone dormant. Their hockey writing generally and the Blues beatwriter are excellent. I find most of the baseball beat writers very good and the national writers (Bowden, rosenthal, gammons, Stark, Sarris, and Law are a good eclectic mix of inside reporting (Rosenthal), prospects (Law), poi pourri (stark), high level reviews (Bowden), and stuff (sarris), meandering prose (gammons).

When I get interested in soccer or pro football there’s plenty to read about. I equate The Athletic with a digital version of the old Sporting News from my youth. I loved that magazine and I like the Athletic as well.

Losing Posnanski was a shame.

I highly recommend trying it out for a year.

Rosenthal must be in seventh heaven being with the NYT. If you thought he was insufferably woke before just wait.

The Athletic is running a 36 dollars for the year promotion

I subscribed a few years ago because a friend of mine went to work there and I wanted to be supportive. They have done some good investigative reporting (the sexual harrassment issues within the Mets org was one example) and while I don't read $60 worth of articles per year I was still ok paying that.

If they sell for $550 million I'll probably cancel my subscription because (a) I already pay for the NY Times and (b) I subscribed to support good journalism, not to help some VCs make hundreds of millions of dollars.

I never even thought about subscribing to The Athletic, but since I've been a Times subscriber forever I guess I should be glad to see a new benefit. From what I've heard, The Athletic covers sports that the Times doesn't pay much attention to: Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey.

I like The Athletic, it just kinda sucks that for a lot of my sub period, MLB was either in a pandemic or a lockout.

My introductory rate is about to expire, and I've been on the fence about whether or not I should keep it at the full subscription rate. I probably don't read it enough to justify it, but sometimes you come across some really worthwhile stuff.

I've really enjoyed The Athletic and found it considerably higher than replacement level. For instance this article about ash bats was right in my wheelhouse.

Thank you for linking to this article, it was a really enjoyable read.

Just switch to a new email and credit card. Get 50% off

The Athletic covers sports that the Times doesn't pay much attention to: Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey.

ok, I chuckled

Things you need sports news for:
Schedules
Results
Stats
Transactions
Injury updates
Anecdotes
Plans and strategies
Personnel quotes
Amazing and or interesting events

All of that is easily obtainable and free

My subscription is coming up soon after 1 year and I don't intend to renew. I think "replacement level" is an underbid; more like "journeyman starting pitcher" in terms of quality. If they want to send some crazy discount my way, maybe I'd consider renewing, but we're talking like maybe $20/yr is about the most I'd want to spend. It's just not something I'm going to miss.

FWIW having checked out the Athletic and especially the comments threads I really doubt many NYT subscribers in Athletic pool. Just my sense

You're sure going to be disappointed someday when you check out the NYT comment threads.

I love the Athletic, and now I feel like a fool for renewing at full price.

Their college football coverage is outstanding, and they've got some great NBA writers like Hollinger and Sam Amick. Baseball is not quite as good, but still has some excellent in-depth reporting and fun writers like Jayson Stark and Eno Sarris. I do miss Posnanski, but can't bring myself to pay $60/year for his Substack.

The Athletic also runs weekly columns by Richard Deitsch about sports media coverage, an issue that I don't particularly care about but the columns are interesting anyway.

One other thing that makes The Athletic worth it: a clean interface with no ads, no auto-play videos, no auto-scrolling to the next article.

34. The athletic doesn’t allow you to read their pages when you turn the phone to landscape - why is that ?

I think "replacement level" is an underbid; more like "journeyman starting pitcher" in terms of quality.

Mind you, I said "replacement level" in terms of content, not quality. They have excellent writers encapsulating a bunch of information anyone can get freely elsewhere. And by that I don't mean "ESPN is reporting news that was first reported by someone at The Athletic, thus we don't need The Athletic" or some such nonsense. I mean that in the time I've had the subscription I've seen very little information I hadn't already seen elsewhere for free, and in a couple of cases I saw insight being shared that followed very closely with insight either Jose, or I, or other posters had written in Sox Therapy a couple of days earlier.

On baseball their most unique voice in terms of content is Jayson Stark, and he's the Cliff Clavin of the bunch. Like, yes, nobody else is going to do the digging to tell me what Joc Pederson's HR in July has to do with Frank Tanana, so in that sense I can't get that information anywhere else. But, like, people at Cheers would listen to Cliff, but nobody went to Cheers to find out what Cliff was saying, y'know?

I like The Athletic but more as a catch all. I feel like if I open my app and scan through it for 15-20 minutes I'm up to date enough on the sports world. I don't really care about the NFL but I like being semi-aware in case a conversation comes up. I do the same with my Apple News subscription. After a quick scan through that I feel like I can be semi-coherent in a conversation.

I've subscribed since the early days of the Athletic, and I love it. I'm a guy who likes almost every sport (except the fighting stuff), and I get a great variety of in depth coverage, and some great long form articles. Kelly Iko, who covers the Rockets, is excellent, and I read content I would never come across about non-Houston teams. The hockey and soccer coverage is very good, too. In short, there is more content I would like to read than I can ever find time to read.

The blogger Murray Chass could not be reached for comment.

Coke to you, Walt!

Have to admit my first thought was hoping Chass would blog about this just to get one more of his old-man-ranting-at-clouds piece…

What would be an example of digital sports content that you are currently not already paying for, but if it were offered, you probably would pay something for it (say, $10/month or more)?

Personally, I'd gladly pay for a combination of pro basketball, NFL, and MLB deep-dive analytics content with personalities who are actually strong communicators in addition to highly-skilled analysts. For example, Zach Lowe does NBA content that is extremely enjoyable to watch/listen to, and deeply analytic. If there was a product that combined that level of analytics and communications skill for football, baseball, and basketball, and offered a subscription that got you writing, podcasts, video breakdowns, and frequent live chats with subscribers, I would pay for that.

There are many who do elements of that: The Ringer does some of this very well, but seems increasingly focused on the gambling element (which is probably where the money is...), and doesn't have a subscriber interactive element. Baseball Prospectus obviously does writing that is deeply analytical, but my opinion is that a lot of their writing - and definitely the podcasts - are really dry in their delivery.

It has taken quite a few years, but I believe a critical mass of the public is now accustomed to having to pay for quality content, and are willing to do so. But, unless you are the NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ, and a handful of regional publications (the Boston Globe is one such example), the way to get subscribers to pay is probably not going to be from being good at a broad product; it will be by being outstanding at a very focused product. My sense is that The Athletic is trying to be the NY Times of sports journalism - but the NY Times has well over a century of that status going for it before the digitization of news as a head start. I'm not sure The Athletic could get there...so instead of trying to be the NY Times of sports, just go sell it to the NY Times and let them offer it as an add-on to their current subscription products.

The Ringer: The Athletic Set Out to Destroy Newspapers. Then It Became One.

The first is: Why would the Times spend half a billion dollars to get into sportswriting? As Times executive Meredith Kopit Levien said in today’s announcement, the Times wants to grow from more than 8 million subscribers to more than 10 million—and it has to do so (mostly) without the help of Donald Trump. For maybe the first time since former executive editor Howell Raines tried to fatten the Times’ numbers by covering more college football games, management sees sports as a growth area.

But the Times has already profited from the bleed-out of local papers in a way The Athletic’s founders could only dream of. “The Times now has more subscribers in Dallas than the Dallas Morning News does,” a recent New Yorker story noted. How many more subscribers can a very good pack of Dallas sportswriters bring in? The purchase has the whiff of legacy media hugging a digital outfit, like Condé Nast buying Pitchfork seven years ago.

In short, there is more content I would like to read than I can ever find time to read.

That's fair. I think for me it's a combination that I follow fewer sports, and fewer teams, and fewer leagues; and the primary team I follow (the Red Sox) is covered in notoriously fine detail elsewhere.

What would be an example of digital sports content that you are currently not already paying for, but if it were offered, you probably would pay something for it (say, $10/month or more)?

Sports itself? Like, if sports programming left television entirely and was only available in person or online, I'd probably pay for it online. But I'm paying for it now (on cable) as it is.

I would pay $10 a month to be able to stream all sports, maybe.

The NY Times and Washington post aren’t really newspapers. They are political organs for the democrats in the same way Limbaugh and Fox were political organs for the republicans. No one in Dallas is buying the NYTimes for local NYC news. A few people buy it for their science section but by and large it’s basically a propaganda tool which explains its massive popularity in all these other locales. WSJ and financial times are the “business” newspapers.

It’s hard as hell to actually find a real newspaper anymore. Reuters and BBC went hard left years ago but I love the BBC world news on TV. Bloomberg is ok. RCP is excellent across all the spectrums they cover trying to cover multiple views of the same topic and they have great breadth of topic coverage. But it isn’t news, it’s opinion. Good unbiased news coverage is hard to find anywhere

The NY Times and Washington post aren’t really newspapers.

I wonder what that thing is then that comes delivered every day in a blue wrapper onto my porch, with News/Business/Sports/Arts/Food/Science/Style sections....

You may not agree with the NYT's Opinions sections or what is chooses to cover and promote most vigorously as news (and believe me--I don't either), but on today's front page were articles on:
--Biden's address on the one-year anniversary of the Jan 6 "demonstration";
--the conspiracy theories/revisionism on the right about the "demonstration"---that it was peaceful, that the violence was instigated by "antifa," that it was a response to overwhelming evidence of a "stolen election," etc.; one can dismiss this as propaganda, but it's filled with quotes explaining viewpoints and factual reporting and provides context for why Jan 06 is viewed so differently by different people.
--Putin sending troops to Kazakhstan;
--Health-policy folks urging the U.S. to re-envision its Covid strategy;
--China's lockdown of Xi'an, a city of 13 million.

That all sounds like news to me. Then there are six pages of international news---Germany, Chile, England, Pakistan, China, Japan, Italy, Australia, more Kazakhstan, and South Korea.

I mean come on, like any large and influential institution, it has its biases, its blind spots, its questionable or downright poor decisions, and it certainly has an undeniable political slant. But it is a newspaper, and it is staffed by serious journalists and editors who generally try to abide by a set of professional ethics.

They're not just blind spots. Dan Okrent, then the times' own ombudsman practically guffawed at the question in 2004 admitting that, of course it's a liberal paper. It was a paragon of fairness to other points of view in 2004 compared to how it is now.

admitting that, of course it's a liberal paper

Is that supposed to be some sort of disqualifier?

Didn't some Republican complain that "facts have a liberal bias"?

And "liberal" though the NYT may be (I would argue it's more like "protect the status quo, whether from attacks from the left or the right") they've got Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat--actual conservatives--as columnists in their Opinions section, and they regularly run pieces from Republicans, both actual officeholders as well as representatives of right wing groups.

What is the "conservative" equivalent?

What is the "conservative" equivalent?

There are likely some (though none as good overall). But Rush Limbaugh's show sure as hell wasn't one of them.

It absolutely leans hard left on its editorial pages, a lean that also creeps in to the stories it chooses to run outside the opinion pages. But it's still one of the absolute best places for reporting, and suggesting that it's not a newspaper is just profoundly stupid.

Didn't some Republican complain that "facts have a liberal bias"?

Um, not really, no. That was Stephen Colbert.

Um, not really, no. That was Stephen Colbert.

And I also got the quote wrong: it should be "reality has a liberal bias."

The NYT is left on social issues, but on fiscal issues, they're very much "status quo" or business-friendly with deficit-hawkishness a prominent pillar of virtue. The reporters tend to be upper middle class liberals living in blue states, but at the end of the day it is still a major business looking to protect its interests.

It absolutely leans hard left on its editorial pages, a lean that also creeps in to the stories it chooses to run outside the opinion pages.

Someone doesn't have the vaguest idea of what "hard left" means. I'm not sure any newspaper in the U.S. has qualified for that description since The Guardian went away in 1992. Maybe if any of the diminutive Marxist-Leninist or Maoist sects are still publishing ...

Edit: Wikipedia advises that The Industrial Worker is still coming out. So there's that.

Someone doesn't have the vaguest idea of what "hard left" means.

Please. I'm not talking in reference to the rest of the world, or even historically, which should be pretty damn obvious. In the U.S. media landscape, the NYT is about as left-leaning as you'll find among mainstream newspapers.

Not disputing that (though I could -- the whole enabling-Judith-Miller thing wasn't exactly out of the supposed leftist playbook), just that "as left-leaning as you'll find among mainstream newspapers" falls far short of any non-hysterical definition of "hard left*." Except, I suppose, for those who would also consign the likes of Joe Biden to the "hard left." Whether that includes you, I don't pretend to have any idea, though certainly I hope you're considerably more rational than that.

*This just in -- words having meanings!

If we just stipulate that there is no far left in the U.S., would that make you stop?

Not a big deal. There is a far left here; it's just minuscule, IMHO, & has nothing to do with anyone with a (D) after their name.

Isn't the Wall Street Journal the "establishment" right wing newspaper?

WSJ is primarily a business paper. It’s news content is reasonably neutral but not voluminous. The editorial page is historically conservative in a traditional conservative way but is completely out of sync with the Trumpist movement. They aren’t never-trumpers but close. There’s a lot of tension between the news division and editorial division.

Mostly it’s a “markets” paper.

The editorial page is historically conservative in a traditional conservative way but is completely out of sync with the Trumpist movement.

Sure, Kim Strassel, who spent three years making up crap about Mueller et al., is "completely out of sync with the Trumpist movement."

Good crossword puzzles in the WSJ. Say, that reminds me, I need to download the ones from this past weekend.

Mueller was Demented (literally). The best comment of the whole debacle was after the first day of hearings with Mueller testifying a pundit said in disbelief that the person who learned the most about what was in the Mueller report today was Bob Mueller himself.

His lawyers were democratic operatives. The real special counsel has now completely debunked the entire Russian narrative. You would have thought Mueller’s team, if honest, would have sniffed out the Clinton skullduggery in about 15 minutes. Strassel isn’t trumpist for pointing out corruption in Mueller’s team which has now proven to be 100% correct. It’s more or less fact at this point. The onlynpwraonnwho colluded with the Russians in 2016 was Hillary Clinton’s campaign team. That’s fact.

Congratulation #61, you've may just have won my arbitrary "BBTF Post of the Day" award.
But I'm asking the "onlynpwraonnwho" crowd for more feedback.

You people are all wrong about everything. (I know this because I happen to be right about everything.)

I've actually started to get the Saturday NYT for the crossword puzzle. So far, 1 down, 2 incomplete. There was a dig at #6org recently.

These two sites are pretty good too. I prefer cryptic puzzles but there are some good American-style puzzles out there, not too hard or arcanely constructed:
http://blog.bewilderinglypuzzles.com/
https://www.brendanemmettquigley.com/

Cryptics kill me. I tried them a couple of years and got my behind handed to me. I can actually do cryptograms better than the cryptics.

@61, yes, thank you: that's a perfect exemplar of what I meant when I said "making up crap about Mueller et al." Did you have one of her columns at hand or were you able to do that from memory?