The Athletic seemed to be doing just fine without them, but I suppose $550 million is too much money to pass up.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2022/01/ ... letic.html

The Failing New York Times sure found a lot of money under the couch cushions.

_________________

Think its sort of the opposite. Word is the athletic has been looking for a buyer for awhile now. I think the athletics ownership is thrilled with this

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

They seemed to have a ton of high quality people working for them. I just assumed that was because they had decent revenues, maybe they didn't.

They must’ve either figured out the subscription model thing or the NYT just bought $550m of future impairment charges.

_________________

Isn't that generally why many of these businesses are started?

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share


“We cannot turn away from this truth in this election, putting patriotism ahead of partisanship is not an aspiration —it is our duty.” -Liz Cheney

I think if their business model was sound they wouldnt continually beg for subscriptions for 99% off the sticker price as a “limited offer”

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

This whole subscription business model for everything(podcasts, streaming, news) doesn't seem to be sustainable. Someone like Netflix or Spotify needs to get it all under one umbrella.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?

The only winners in this one are the Seed funders and the Series A or B investors. Athletic closed a Series D funding round 24 months ago at a $530 million valuation so at a $550 million purchase price here, this exit is down round when adjusted for inflation or against what any other investment return would've been in that time period.

Early investors made money here, late investors lost it.

As for NYT, they overpaid. This is a media entity that has never been revenue positive and has been reporting the same subscriber number for a few years now which tells you their churn rate is insane and those who are replacing them are paying a lower rate than the previous subscribers. Add in the fact there is no longer room for growth here as they are essentially already in every NA city and those who would subscribe likely already have.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

I initially subscribed to the Athletic for access to Joe Posnanski, but have stayed with the site since then. I constantly find articles of interest across a wide spectrum of sports and viewpoints.

I am sure changes will occur, but hopefully not to many.

i think google or someone will eventually develop a micropayments system that would exist alongside these sites subscription models. So if you wanna listen to a song on spotify, you have a browser or app based wallet that sends 2 cents (or less, most likely) to spotify for listening to a song or maybe a nickel (or less) to read a long form piece on The Athletic.

Brave tried micropayments with btc initially, more recently Brave Rewards uses bat. I don't think anyone actually uses Brave rewards to pay for content currently. It's gonna take google or apple or microsoft or amazon even to throw their weight behind a micropayment solution for it to be widely adopted. Google probably not in a hurry to support micropayments b/c users paying for content would maybe expect to see fewer-to-no ads in that content and advertising is still where google makes bank.

NYT had a call yesterday on the deal. Some notes from the transcript:

-Their editorial team has 450 people,
-1.2m subscribers,
-The Athletic will run independently,
-They had 2021 revenues of $65m and an operating loss of $55m.
-They expect profitability in 2025. Advertising revenues will be a part of the solution.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

I’ve never looked at media companies but how can this be an accretive purchase for NYT? They’re paying $550m for a business they hope will be profitable in 3 years?

It seems like they’re chasing this 10m subscriber thing without a clear explanation of why that’s meaningful as anything other than a nice, round number.

_________________

They can make the money selling advertising on a service you pay for until enough people realize "Why am I paying money to read ads?" and then they can offer an even more expensive option that doesn't include ads.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

It is not accretive at all. NYT is going to have lower earnings because of it until at least 2025. It is a long term investment in what they feel is a growing market. Apparently NYT has a subscription/advertising split of 70/30, and the Athletic is no where near that. That is where they expect to improve the business.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

_________________

I think NYT is misreading this as "growing" market when the subscriber base has been hovering between 1 million and 1.2 million for several years now. That just tells you they have to offer those $1 deals to get enough new subscribers to replace the churn.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Plus a lot of people have multiple email addresses and multiple credit cards. I have a reminder somewhere on my calendar to cancel at 11.5 months pretty soon. With baseball on break, the Bears a mess, and Lazarus and Powers covering the Blackhawks, I won't resubscribe until baseball gets a new CBA.

That said, NYT has done a pretty good job keeping the focus over at Wirecutter. So I'm not convinced that they will ruin the Athletic.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

It depends on the ad placement and the overall amount. As a loyal Athletic subscriber, their lack of ads is not a selling point for me. I do enjoy no ads on the podcast but it doesn't really matter to me on the website. Now, if there are a bunch of pop-ups and shit, that is a different story but I have no problem with ads if it results in the survival of the product I thoroughly enjoy.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

I just don’t get it given the dollars involved. Seems really, really stupid.

_________________

It's not worth anything. They're in the red and always have been. Slowly but surely we are finding out where the capital is coming from. Big tech, Bill Gates, Hollywood moguls, etc.

Look for The Athletic to become part of the establishment propaganda machine.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?

Barstool is the only untainted sports media operation.

_________________

Maybe Barstool is why The Athletic is now under the umbrella of The Former Newspaper.

_________________
Wattabout Kodak Black?

Seemed quite odd the amount of free publicity the Athletic got from certain sports radio outlets, the score hosts would trot out the Athletic people show after show, day after day, even though most of the content they put out was readily available.

It kind of became a last stop for sports media types that lost their gigs and the hosts on the score seemed to realize they needed to give as much pub as possible to the outlet in case they lost their gigs and needed somewhere to land. The fact that the NY Times purchased them should generate a rabies type frothing at the mouth amongst the left wing hacks that work at the score...Lil' Dan Bernstein/Parkins would get so much self worth from being able to sit with their fellow tribesman and say, "I work for the NY Times", it's a liberals wet dream to work for the NY Times.

I'm surprised Bernstein hasn't offered to work for them for free already.

I joined at $42 per year when The Athletic first started. Now, I'm getting offers to rejoin for $9.99 per year and they say the normal rate is $71.99 (Not buying that anyone is paying that). I wonder how long the New York Times can continue to prop them up with so much free content out there.

_________________
"I give you my word as a Biden"

I pay the normal amount. I know I could play around and get it cheaper but I love the product so I don't mind supporting it. It is my main source of information for hockey and auto racing and I occasionally read articles about other sports as well. I listen to podcasts from the site most days. So I easily get $72 worth of value from the Athletic every year.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

I would join for that...link?

_________________

https://theathletic.com/checkout2/stand ... mG1HIS8ooM

I think you need to click the annual plan for .83 per month.

_________________
"I give you my word as a Biden"

Thanks...when I click the link it says 0.83 per month but then switches to 3.99 and says the 0.83 deal is unavailable. Oh well.

_________________

The Athletic lost 6.8 million dollars in February and March, and another 12.6 million dollars in the 2nd quarter according to an article in the Washington Post. They've started including ads in the past couple months which they've never done before.

The blurb I read said that the NY Times wants them to be profitable in 3 years.

_________________
"I give you my word as a Biden"