The Athletic keeps growing .......

What I have noticed is that The Athletic seems to be hiring some writers based on how many Twitter followers they have. Some teams I follow that seems to be the case because the quality of their work is nothing special and nothing more than what the newspaper guys in those particular cities are doing.

 

Granted, every story isn't going to be a gem. But, they've hired writers they feel are the cream of the crop, so "uninspiring reads" should be few and far between. I've seen too many of 'em so far.

 

There are three major newspapers that, if not for super wealthy benefactors who essentially bought them as trophy pieces to brag to their other rich friends about, would be close to insolvent now (Jeff Bezos Wash Post, John Henry Boston Globe and the new guy who bought LA Times). Add in Rupert Murdoch subsidizing a few papers and you have more, along with Glen Taylor in Minnesota.
Rich guys are keeping afloat a new sports media entity called The Athletic that, I’m sure is selling some subscriptions. But to suggest that what is propelling the Athletic to some kind of “prominence” right now is their out-of-the-box new way of sports journalism - and not the rich guys - is faulty logic. It’s the VC cash.

 

The Washington Post does indeed have a super-rich guy's backing, but it's making all kinds of money on its own because it's relying on (and selling) digital subscriptions.

 

Is the Post making money? I thought I read it is losing money. Not sure though.

 

To be clear, when I use the word "success," I'm not implying that they are in the black or guaranteed to be around in five years. What I'm saying is that they are selling subscriptions to customers who are turning away from the local newspaper as the place to get premium, top-of-the-heap, expert content on their local team. They're attracting a lot bigger audience of those sorts of people than I'd anticipated.

 

They are profitable, yes. It's unclear how profitable, but they are not losing money.

Scoop: WaPo hits 2nd year of profitability, plans expansion

The Times is also profitable ($24 million last quarter), and we know how much as they are still a publicly traded company.

New York Times Co. Reports $24 Million Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

 

To be sold to make money for its 'donors', the Athletic is going to have to show it is a viable business, which would be a good thing.

 

The D.C. launch isn't going so well, apparently:

https://deadspin.com/the-athletic-fails-to-raid-the-washington-post-sports-d-1828532944

 

This is what I said all along about going into the D.C. market. The Post is already there. It is well funded. It has not slashed travel budgets. It has recognizable names who people want to read.

The Athletic has done its best in hiring writers from markets where the newspapers were they're slashing and burning and the staffers are fed up and looking for something stable. The Post is not that paper.

 

I mean, they had to know there was stiffer competition in DC for both talent and readers, right? Otherwise it would have been much higher on the launch list.

Or, what Cosmo said. They have made it a point to be in every pro market now. But some will work better than others.