The Athletic keeps growing .......

And The Athletic thinks they can be profitable with this? Quality always matter, even in the details.

 

That’s not even really a lede. Just awful.

 

That lede is awful. I don't even know what to say anymore about The Athletic. I just don't see how it survives. Writing stuff like that doesn't help its chances.

 

That’s because she spends more time on Twitter embarrassing herself acting like a 13-year-old kid who skipped her ADHD medication than she does her actual job. And it shows.

 

They’re banking on conning some billionaire doofus into acquiring them for big bucks in five years and cashing out. This is a pump and dump straight up

 

How much VC money are they already in?$100m? And reportedly over 1 million subscribers? Story I read had them legit valued at $300m - with 300 employees. I guess my question would be, if this model has been "proven" - you would think a name journo or four could plant their feet in DC and do it with politics, Hollywood for entertainment or NY with business news. Sports seems to be about the most labor intensive of all topics to cover, requiring boots on the ground in locker rooms and at stadiums.

 

Politico PRO and Axios

 

Sadly, you've described like 75 percent of the content on the site. I'm a big hockey fan and it's rare that I finish a story because almost all of it is either rife with typos or errors or both. I found a "Tthey" in a story this morning and "shtots" in one about a week ago.

I don't want to pile on writers I don't know, but the Hurricanes example is a good one. That team has been a good story since the playoff run but the content is all over the map. I don't know who she's writing for (herself, really) but 3/4 of it is incoherent. My brother in law lives in Vancouver, so I try to keep up with the Canucks, but I can't on that site because it's all juvenile Barstool humor. How that passes the muster, I don't know. The only people worth reading are the national writers who actually know what they're writing about.

Former colleagues who work there say their interactions with their "editors" are basically left to telling them what they plan to write over the course of the week and asking about their metrics. There's a copy desk but almost all of them ignore it, which I ... don't see how that's even possible. Ignore the copy desk?

And when it comes to jettisoning the quality writers because they don't move enough subscriptions, I just don't understand how having someone who hasn't covered a team is going to move the needle even more. Are you more likely to read someone who has covered the Heat for six years or someone who hasn't ever done so? And who's going to be better at moving subscriptions: The experienced person with a wealth of knowledge or someone who has 432 followers on Twitter?

It's all a confusing mess. We'll figure it out as we go along!

 

You guys are trying awfully hard to take a dump on The Athletic.

It's certainly not flawless, but there feels like some sour grapes happening around here.

 

The Vancouver site is filled with great features and in-depth analytical writing. To each their own but The Athletic is easily the best place for intelligent hockey analysis.

 

I have no grapes to go sour and no plans to pick any that could go sour.

I'm a subscriber to The Athletic and enjoy it. I look at a lot of stories. I look at things I'm not interested in, sometimes simply because of the headline. I love the fact I can create my feed but quickly see other things. Some things I ignore. I don't care about announcers or media people, or the "film room" and data-stats stories, so I don't read those. Just like with a newspaper, I can pick and choose.

But the things I read, some from the same writers, have errors and often are too long. It's like they're trying to be Gary Smith with everything, if not in weaving the heart-wrenching tale then by hitting The Big Word Count. They need editors with a deft hand, scalpel and some gumption to make changes but let the writer(s) know why. Good editors do that. Sports Illustrated editors did that, back in the day. They were gatekeepers. The Athletic appears to have a copy desk with hinged gates and no latch.

Just because you can write as long as you want on the Internet doesn't mean you should. No place is flawless, as noted. But when it's obvious to many that they have issues to be addressed and corrected but are not, that's a problem.

 

I really want The Athletic to make it, but it seems to me they’ve had a lot of people leave. I’m sure a good amount of it was due to contracts expiring, and so forth, but does anyone have an idea of how many departed?