The Athletic ... any thoughts ...

Dummy's Guide to The Athletic, courtesy of the NYT:

Why The Athletic Wants to Pillage Newspapers

 

Play stoppages allow you to tweet without missing game action, but you aren't going to write your entire story during those stoppages.

 

I only read a couple pages of the comments here, but here's what I think...

I subscribed to The Athletic. Well worth the price, but seeing these comments in the NYT just kinda sucks. Why does The Athletic have to position themselves this way? Yeah, I'm sure they will pillage the newspaper business, but why does that have to be a conscious goal? I would rather see them saying 'We want to take advantage of things we're seeing in the industry and do something good for people who love reading good sportswriting?' I don't see what's so hard about not being an asshole in an industry where no one is safe.

As far as The Athletic's content: they probably promised too much. There are some stories I really like, others that I just find too run-of-the-mill or cliche or whatever else. Or trying too hard. But it's nice to have this app where I can read great sports coverage without having to sort through all the bullshit video/multimedia/quick hit garbage ESPN serves up (the NYT piece calls this empty calories, and that's a good analogy).

The other great thing from the NYT piece was when they said that the sports section doesn't get the same respect as the rest of the paper, even though it's the most important. Amen to that.

 

I talked with the local SID about this last night. He told me about how he signed up for The Athletic, but sounded like he almost regretted it after reading the NYT comments because hes someone who likes to support the newspapers. Told me he still picks up both the local daily (my shop) and the big metro paper every day to read.

 

I don't know if it's the same across all markets, but the local writers have talked about how they'll be able to change what they're writing about in order to cater to what the subscribers want to read.

 

At the bottom of each Athletic story are three buttons you can use to rate the story you just read, basically meh, good or great. I happily did the year-long subscription but at this point I don't know that I'll stick with it when the time comes.

 

If I had a serious allegiance to a certain city's teams, which I don't, I'd probably consider subscribing. If I felt like I owed newspapers anything today, I probably wouldn't.

 

Assuming this was directed at me. I'd definitely stick around the Athletic if I found more of the stories compelling. And maybe in time I will.

Most of the Athletic reading that I do is about the Warriors, but the other markets don't have anything for me and so far the CFB and CBB stuff has mostly been run of the mill, IMO.

 

Yep. Not bad, but mostly features and the usual commentary. Pat Forde and Andy Staples are free. Why do I need The Athletic's stable of national writers?

 

This is why, like many people, I think The Athletic will be a modest success. It will do well in some, perhaps many, local markets. But on a national scale, for college football and basketball, what are they giving the reader than we can't already get 10 other places? Stewart Mandel is hardly a must-read. He doesn't break news. Some of their stuff is good, but the same can be said for ESPN or CBS or SI or any number of national-type sites. I think The Athletic would have been better off putting its VC cash into more local markets, and not gone with the national stuff.

 

They have quasi-analytics stuff they think will resonate such as "wide receiver efficiency rankings" and stuff like that. I'm a subscriber because I think they've made some good hires and want to support, but I have not clicked on any of the aforementioned analytics stuff. They do need a kick-ass national columnist.