Athletic, Axios talking merger?

The Athletic Burned Through $95 Million Between 2019 and 2020

Big day for everyone on here who roots against journalists having jobs!

 

Never heard'a The Information.

We founded The Information in late 2013 with a simple idea: write deeply reported articles about the technology industry that you won't find elsewhere.

Since then, we've moved markets, gotten the early scoop on billions of dollars of acquisitions and told you what's happening deep inside companies like Apple, Facebook and Google. Our stories have been followed by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Bloomberg and other major outlets thousands of times. How we compete is simple. We recruit the best reporters, give them the freedom to write about important topics and tell them not to worry about the small stuff.

Because our articles are deeply reported and written for an engaged audience, they have real impact. Our coverage of the secret terms of VC deals—and what they mean for employees—has reshaped how some investors and companies approach those deals. And our Future List project about the lack of diversity among tech investors has been cited by more than a hundred publications.

Quality stories breed quality subscribers. As our subscriber community grows, we're investing aggressively in our team and reporting. We believe this formula is far more scalable than relying on traffic or conferences, and it's totally—100 percent—aligned with our readers.

Unlike most other news sites, we don’t have venture capital or corporate owners. I own the publication. Like other publications, we do sometimes do business deals with companies that we cover, such as event sponsorships. Those never affect coverage.

If you have any questions about us, our business or our team, we'd love to hear from you at hello@theinformation.com. Thank you for your interest in what we're building.
​

 

The author of this biased hit piece is clearly jealous they aren’t working at The Athletic

 

In a fashion befitting of this board's glory days, you continue to completely miss the point.

 

Also, found this pretty interesting: My annual subscription price is making a healthy jump up 20% to $71.99. Still a very low price but if I had to decide if I find more value in my local paper or The Athletic, it's my local paper -- which is a Gannett publication and more or less stinks.

Contrary to Felter's sarcastic posts to deflect from his Athletic stanning, nobody on sportsjournalists.com is hoping jobs are lost. I really hope cuts aren't coming over there, but based on some of the recent trends, that might be in the works in coming months.

 

Just checked and I did back in September, so that's on me for being surprised. But like you said, not a big deal.

However, this line from the note is pretty rich (no pun intended): "Our updated pricing reflects the growth in value that a subscription to The Athletic provides." I don't think that's true when you look at how coverage has actually shrunk (see the gutted combat section) and other beats that haven't been replenished.

But I get it. It's business.

 

That's great.

We're so good and making you pay more, fucker!

 

I noticed a $60 charge on my credit card statement about a month ago. They provided no notification of this, which I find irritating and unprofessional.

A couple of years ago when I questioned the bump from the introductory fee (I think it was $30) to the current $60, I questioned them and got rude email replies. It was essentially, screw you, this is how we do it, if you don't like it, cancel. That doesn't sound like the way to build readership.