The Athletic layoffs

Papers still print because papers still make money.

when they don’t, they won’t. And then the industry may be truly screwed because *people don’t care enough about their local communities anymore* to desire anything outside of whatever is on FB and maybe the local TV to pay a lot of money for it.

ready for the NYT and Washington Post and maybe WSJ and I’m-sure-soon-to-exist Amazon News Service to have an outpost in your town? You’d better.

 

And, if you want to see what people see as "news" on FB, this Twitter account is illuminating:

https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10

It will be interesting to see how big tech adapts to a new administration, and vice versa.

 

Some fair points in here, but also remember that newspapers didn't start treating digital subscriptions as a revenue stream until after The Athletic (among others) showed that it could be done. Now every news organization is trying to create a revenue stream from digital subscriptions. As they should. As print subscribers die off, they won't be replaced. As print advertisers realize they have cheaper options to reach larger audiences, they won't be replaced either. And the cost of newsprint isn't going down. The Athletic has a business model that might actually work, which isn't something any newspapers can say, so I'm sure rooting for them because they represent a future for our industry. It's stunning to me that so many people want to see them fail.

 

My guy, there are other hobbies out there that seem much more fun.

 

Newspapers have a monopoly on baby boomers. They will purchase newspapers until they die. Period. Baby boomers can't function without their morning ritual (get it out of the driveway, put that coffee down and read day old news or two-day old news). To show you how despicable and/or incompetent the suits are ... given this kind of a headstart in subscriptions (a group that is going to subscribe no matter what) they still can't work from a position of strength and hook the other age groups. Instead ... keep negotiating deals to sell those prime buildings and plots of land newspapers sit on, suits; keep getting rid of your highest dollar older employees.

 

Look, I like the Athletic and want it to succeed, but this is Grade A bullshit.

The Washington Post and NYTimes were knee deep in pushing digital subscriptions before the Athletic arrived in 2016. Countless other local newspapers hocked e-editions, virtual papers, and digital only subscriptions, including several that I worked at.

And numerous other sites had subscription-only models, including the Rivals/247 recruiting sites.

The Athletic did not reinvent the wheel. They streamlined it and made it accessible. And as has been mentioned numerous times in recent posts, the Athletic had the advantage of not having to serve two masters. It could start fresh with no overhead.

By the way, as much as I want it to succeed, there is still no evidence that at its current size it is profitable on its own.

Finally, while you may be championing the new wave of journalism as digital only, dancing on the graves of local newspapers that can't adapt because of their corporate overlords is still a bad look. Just because Gannett or Lee is killing the industry doesn't mean local news isn't important.

 

Isn't The Athletic's preferred way to make money to seek out individual donors? Is The Athletic profitable without these donors (bless them, I'm not criticizing the backers who are making it possible to employ outstanding writers)? Or are the individual donors/investors the sole reason for The Athletic's continued existence? Why can't elite sports writers attract their own donors and run their own Websites?

 

Fredrick, your data is old as the boomers. The New York Times just had a record year.

The Wollongdongadingdong Daily Bugle might not be coming back, but a post-pandemic world has the potential to look a lot different for metro newspapers.

 

This is an odd thing to post on a thread that has devolved into a running Athletic layoffs thread. And as Alma noted, they generally weren't hiring new voices, unless they had super duper Twitter followings. They were tossing life preservers to legacy writers looking to get out of Dodge before the Turk came knocking. A lot of those three-year deals are up now and the Turk is still knocking on doors.

 

BS. The Athletic has changed sports journalism and all journalism. First, they invented feature stories, then they invented analysis pieces and finally they’ve invented game coverage. They’ve also invented podcast and invented and uninvented video.

I heard a rumor they may invent sports photography soon, but I don’t even know what that would look like.

(Seriously, agree with you top to bottom here. Despite my snark, I like The Athletic but you are on point here.)

 

The unpivot to video was particularly impressive!

 

Here’s how venture capital works. People invest in your company because of what they think it has potential to be 15 years down the road. Not one, three or even five. And honestly the way so many legacy media brands are circling the drain, and assuming ESPN still exists in some form, don’t you kinda expect The Athletic to be one of the last standing at the final poker table?