The Athletic layoffs

Chad-
I'm not complaining about shit, I got to do everything I wanted from this business. I'd like it to survive. And I've been in the fight long enough to see the longform people call the newsprint people dinosaurs, when current events have shown it's likely we're all dinosaurs. There is no one meteor.

 

Do you know if The Athletic makes money? As in, it takes in more than it pays out?

 

No clue. But what I do know is that in every quarterly report I read from a newspaper company, I see print revenue drops by double-digit percentages. And simple math will tell you there's only so many quarters left at that pace before print isn't a viable revenue stream anymore. The Athletic might not succeed, but it also isn't a surefire money loser like newspapers are.

The Athletic careers website has 63 job openings posted. I can't imagine any newspapers are hiring 63 people in the next few months.

 

So now if a single newspaper can't matchup to an online media conglomerate, that somehow means conglomorate super awesome?

 

I'll root for anyone who is hiring journalists and trying new things. We all should.

 

Hit Bull. Win Steak.

 

I’d be curious to know.

The whole idea behind The Athletic was as a replacement model for local newspapers. We know this because, in an honest moment I appreciate, the founders kind of said as much. It’s on that argument - a flattened network of sites and coverages that destroys local outlets - that The Athletic raised its venture capital. It then hired in a way - plucking beat writers from local news outlets designed to take over markets.

It’s possible that strategy might work eventually. It hasn’t so far IMO, and I’m not sure how it does financially as a subscription service alone. The Athletic could go with ads, defeating the clean model it once espoused, and maybe that’d help, but, as it stands, it doesn’t do much advertising, and I struggle to believe it is bringing in what’s needed to cover what it’s paying out.

In other words, it’s a loss leader that expands rapidly in an attempt to overwhelm the market.

Is it great content? Oh, at times, absolutely yes, but this is key - no more than most big outlets. The Athletic has broken a few stories in the investigative department as it relates to sexual harassment and assault, but no more than ESPN, USA Today or SI. It doesn’t, IMO, have a distinct, must-read columnist voice like Dan Wetzel or or Ralph Wiley or Sally Jenkins or Drew Magary. It is sturdily, vaguely progressive in its editorial bent, which is roughly the same as most major outlets, so against no advantage there.

 

Good points in here. I think that, unlike niche subscription services like 247sports, the appeal to consumers of The Athletic is the bundle. You get the coverage of your local pro teams, your alma mater, your kid's college and your adopted English soccer team, etc.. In a vacuum, maybe the coverage of your local NFL or MLB team isn't all that distinguishable from what you get from your local newspaper beat reporter. But you get it all, plus national columnists, for no extra cost, and in a nice clean display without ads all over the place. Plus a good app and good newsletters.

In my personal opinion, the user experience is what sets The Athletic apart. In theory, Gannett/USA TODAY could offer a similar bundle by putting some money into it and leveraging all of the beat reporters in local markets. But even if they somehow got all their ducks in a row to do that, Gannett's UX is so terrible compared to The Athletic that I don't think it would be as successful.

Long term, can a website have success if subscriptions are the only revenue stream? I'm skeptical too. The Athletic has a lot of great talent, but it's also paying that talent a lot. It's hard to judge if the revenue from subscriptions offset the costs of salaries and capital. I would guess not now, with so many subscribers on introductory rates. But maybe in a year or two when more consumers are playing full price and fewer dollars are being spent on capital.

As for newspaper websites, once print is gone and they can fully commit to building a strong web product, I do think the revenue will need to come from both subscriptions and advertising. Subscriptions alone probably won't cut it.

 

You should rethink this post. One of the things so great about sports writers who have been around 10 or more years is the ones who still have jobs are excellent at adapting, excellent at taking whatever is thrown their way and excelling at it. Your post is really bad. Those who work 60 and get paid for 40 HAVE ADAPTED. None of them have failed at agreeing to do whatever things Gannett's top consultants have decided are the way to go. You are confusing SMART veterans who know much more than consultants as unable to adapt. No, they adapt. They merely have the courage to tell it like it is regarding the suits and the consultants and the profession as a whole. "Journalist" was called the worst profession in the world, one slot behind logger. The reason is not slow to adapt sports writers, the reason is the misguided suits who should take the money they pay consultants with and spread it around the sports staff.

 

Where did u get Fredrick wants the Athletic to fail? I may be despised but I have never wished ill will to reporters at The Athletic. I want them to work and be paid. Seriously find me a post where Fredrick speaks ill of reporters on the Athletic. My complaint is with all suits or "most" suits to be more accurate.

 

You are the Sherlock Holmes of this board in ferreting out the progressive agenda. Who are the culprits on the Athletic, especially since we agree that they do not have strong columnist voices. Because I have missed these voices, or any real voice, in their editorial material.

I do find it interesting that the Athletic does not promote columnists and that ESPN has deemphasized the column since Reilly and Simmons left. I guess their analytics indicate that columnists don't pull clicks.

 

What is a columnist these days?