The Athletic keeps growing .......

I’m reading BSJ stories right now with datelines from Tampa and Milwaukee. So, superb point, travel budget BLOWN.

 

Are you just trolling now, or are you too stupid to comprehend what someone means by "let's see how long this lasts"?

 

Sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking with the bookkeeper of the Boston Sports Journal

 

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, it is completely fair to question how long a pay website with 8,000 subscribers can afford to staff every road game for four major sports, using just the revenue from those subs, while also paying salaries for writers that, based on the names (Price, McAdam), we are assuming didn't come cheap. The Boston Globe has over 100,000 digital subscribers and is backed financially by John Henry, one of the deepest-pocketed owners in North American sports. The Washington Post is backed by Jeff Bezos, whose net worth is valued at more than $125 billion. Say what you want about The Athletic -- and yes, absolutely, I can buy their explosive growth in such a short amount of time being a red flag -- but they also just secured $20 million more in funding. And the Boston Sports Journal has...what...? A small but loyal readership? A weekly gig on Felger and Mazz during the Patriots season?

Look, I'm rooting for BSJ like everyone else, but the questions being raised about the site's long-term health are 100 percent legitimate. There is no magic elixir here.

 

It's kind of sad the thread devolved into this pissing match. I'd think most of us would be rooting for all these sites to make it.

One thing I'm curious about though is the assertion The Athletic local sites aren't getting 8K subscriptions. Is that coming from anywhere? I have no idea, maybe it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me either if some of them have that many or are on pace to get them soon.

There has been a lot of buzz among civilians in some places they have launched.

 

I'm not here rooting "against" the Athletic. If they succeed, more power to 'em. But the word I've heard from some in the biz is that, while some cities have posted relatively decent numbers (Toronto, San Fran, maybe Minnesota and Chicago), many more have had relatively paltry numbers. Or, not near enough to afford five or six salaried writers and a large travel budget. We'll see. They don't post any internal financials, so all we have is their word that they're doing just A OK and that this ISN'T some scheme by some tech bro rich kids at spending a lot of venture money to get a pumped up valuation and then sell at the drop of a hat to some corporate entity and make themselves a nice profit, then watch as the corporate bean counters come in and say 'woah, we gotta cut staff here." Seen it too many times in this biz not to think it's a distinct possibility otherwise.

 

The National didn't rely on venture capital. Perhaps it should have.

 

I've heard few from anyone under, say, 45 say much about the Athletic. I think it's mostly us industry types that have been buzzing about them. The demographic they appear to be shooting for is "old guys who used to read the paper a lot." Unfortunately for those of us in the biz, those people are dying off every day and not being replaced.

 

Some of the former Sports Illustrated people told me personally that they are contractors, not staff.

 

My experience has been different. Fans of teams I follow have talked a lot about it.

 

Not me. I follow a couple teams rabidly where Athletic has a stake, and can truthfully say I haven’t heard one talk about them.

 

Are you Dejan Kovacevic?