Why the Athletic Wants to Pillage Newspapers

[SDS]

Why the Athletic Wants to Pillage Newspapers

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/sports/the-athletic-newspapers.html

 

Interesting to note that the Toronto site has 15,000 subscribers and is breaking even.

 

As I have mentioned before, we will eventually have to pay for quality.

[Saxum]

 

 

To understand why The Athletic is so brazen about its vulture strategy, one must appreciate the state of play at local and regional newspapers throughout the country. Under dire financial duress, many have put extraordinary demands on beat writers to produce heavy volumes of content, often without wage increases. The reporters are sometimes the most knowledgeable sources of information on the teams they cover, but they are afforded little opportunity to step back and write impactful articles.

 

This certainly does not apply to the Buffalo news.

But I think the strategy is perfect who want wine and cheese with their PSLs.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I can't tell you the last time I read a sports section.

I read news sections and articles from various news or tech sources, but a sports section? No way I'm paying for that kinda sht.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

are all of these a hint you'll start charging soon?

Why the Athletic Wants to Pillage Newspapers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/sports/the-athletic-newspapers.html

Interesting to note that the Toronto site has 15,000 subscribers and is breaking even.

As I have mentioned before, we will eventually have to pay for quality.

[Lurker]

"More journalists and investors will pay attention if The Athletic can get to the point that it can rely only on its own revenue, rather than having to turn to venture capital."

 

 

 

The problem with these ventures isn't quality, it's quantity. The F5 problem, if you will. Newspapers battle this every day, and TBN's Bills Blitz is showing how difficult that constant day-in-day-out demand for content that people will pay for can be.

 

Sure, everyone 'wants' high quality long form articles. But that takes time...they just don't pop out of the oven like Timbits. So quantity rules, and with it an acceptance of 'good enough' rather than exceptional.

 

The Bleacher Report analogy seems apt. And it may be all these guys want anyway if they can cash out in a few years.

 

I hope their stable of writers are getting equity. If not, they're just setting themselves up to be sold off to some deeper pocket media conglomerate who'll then start attacking the cost structure to recoup the purchase price. Rinse and repeat...

[SDS]

 

This certainly does not apply to the Buffalo news.

But I think the strategy is perfect who want wine and cheese with their PSLs.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Tim Graham might be a guy they would want. Your second sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe intelligent people want to read intelligently written pieces? Not sure why people who want to read quality pieces would be disparaged.

are all of these a hint you'll start charging soon?

 

If I hired a professionally trained journalist and paid them a living wage, then yes. However, that is not going to happen.

"More journalists and investors will pay attention if The Athletic can get to the point that it can rely only on its own revenue, rather than having to turn to venture capital."

 

 

 

The problem with these ventures isn't quality, it's quantity. The F5 problem, if you will. Newspapers battle this every day, and TBN's Bills Blitz is showing how difficult that constant day-in-day-out demand for content that people will pay for can be.

 

Sure, everyone 'wants' high quality long form articles. But that takes time...they just don't pop out of the oven like Timbits. So quantity rules, and with it an acceptance of 'good enough' rather than exceptional.

 

The Bleacher Report analogy seems apt. And it may be all these guys want anyway if they can cash out in a few years.

 

I hope their stable of writers are getting equity. If not, they're just setting themselves up to be sold off to some deeper pocket media conglomerate who'll then start attacking the cost structure to recoup the purchase price. Rinse and repeat...

 

They have to hit that sweet spot that collects the most subscriptions with the least amount of overhead. Once you build a beast, you have to feed a beast. Best to stay lean. 20,000k subscribers paying $5 month is $1.2M a year in one city with a few writers is a lot of money as long as you aren't paying a full support staff.

[Real McClappy]

Site actually looks decent.

 

I would not mind reading some of the articles now. See what you did SDS?

 

https://theathletic.com/120045/2017/10/06/banks-why-are-so-many-of-the-nfls-offensive-lines-in-disarray-let-us-count-the-reasons/

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

If I hired a professionally trained journalist and paid them a living wage, then yes. However, that is not going to happen.

 

.

I was joking but thanks

[SDS]

I was joking but thanks

 

Ha. Well, I've been asked worse questions that were serious, so you can't take any chances these days.

[zonabb]

Print media is dying, it's well established. The problem with the industry is that it's locked into it's embedded mentality and I suggest self-importance. It used to be, you went to school for a journalism degree, worked your way up from the local rag to the bigger papers. The entire process was about validating the journalist through the system of credibility that newspapers had. A journalist at a large newspaper had immediate credibility. They, in theory, earned it through education and the system. No one challenged this to any degree so long as the newspaper industry was buying ink by the barrel. Small townie papers and neighborhood papers used the same approach, although with less skilled reporters at smaller circulating rags.

 

This worked great until the internet. Internet did a few things, some slowly, some immediately. One, it hit back at the idea that only college educated white guys could be reporters. A blog and some good takes got people noticed. Two, it gave the newspapers, once a dominant local monopoly, a challenge from anywhere. This actually started with the USA Today, mainly, but the internet took it to new heights. The cost of entry used to be a massive investment in presses, distribution, staff, materials, etc. The price was slashed and people got in, it turns out in droves. And the 24 hour news cycle has been a massive challenge. It used to be 'news' was released in the morning, making us line up for the paper. Now it's released in seconds, usually by someone outlet not the local paper.

 

The newspaper business' response has largely been to keep being a print newspaper. Keep printing the paper, keep with the same ideas and beliefs and approaches. There is so much emotion and so little ration in the newspaper business. And for our local rag, it's moved away from talent in the newsroom (I don't read the sports, I read local news if I read it) and dumbed down the coverage. Now they have more photo galleries than news stories. We have no investigative journalism coming from that rag, it comes in better form and fashion from the Investigative Post and The Public. Instead of delivering better news, they're intent on delivering better visuals. And that is not what a newspaper is for.

 

I get my national news from national news outlets. I get my Bills news on the way to work on the radio, haven't read more than maybe 3 Bills articles in TBN in the last year. I read TBN occasionally for local news.

 

I'll never pay for sports news, ever. I'd pay for Investigative Post (I've donated) for local before paying a nickel to TBN. They're like cable, buying a lot of junk I don't want.

[Lurker]

 

 

I'd pay for Investigative Post (I've donated)

If you think Jim Heaney is objective and knowledgeable, I've got a great deal on a slightly used bridge for you....

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Print media is dying, it's well established. The problem with the industry is that it's locked into it's embedded mentality and I suggest self-importance. It used to be, you went to school for a journalism degree, worked your way up from the local rag to the bigger papers. The entire process was about validating the journalist through the system of credibility that newspapers had. A journalist at a large newspaper had immediate credibility. They, in theory, earned it through education and the system. No one challenged this to any degree so long as the newspaper industry was buying ink by the barrel. Small townie papers and neighborhood papers used the same approach, although with less skilled reporters at smaller circulating rags.

 

This worked great until the internet. Internet did a few things, some slowly, some immediately. One, it hit back at the idea that only college educated white guys could be reporters. A blog and some good takes got people noticed. Two, it gave the newspapers, once a dominant local monopoly, a challenge from anywhere. This actually started with the USA Today, mainly, but the internet took it to new heights. The cost of entry used to be a massive investment in presses, distribution, staff, materials, etc. The price was slashed and people got in, it turns out in droves. And the 24 hour news cycle has been a massive challenge. It used to be 'news' was released in the morning, making us line up for the paper. Now it's released in seconds, usually by someone outlet not the local paper.

 

The newspaper business' response has largely been to keep being a print newspaper. Keep printing the paper, keep with the same ideas and beliefs and approaches. There is so much emotion and so little ration in the newspaper business. And for our local rag, it's moved away from talent in the newsroom (I don't read the sports, I read local news if I read it) and dumbed down the coverage. Now they have more photo galleries than news stories. We have no investigative journalism coming from that rag, it comes in better form and fashion from the Investigative Post and The Public. Instead of delivering better news, they're intent on delivering better visuals. And that is not what a newspaper is for.

 

I get my national news from national news outlets. I get my Bills news on the way to work on the radio, haven't read more than maybe 3 Bills articles in TBN in the last year. I read TBN occasionally for local news.

 

I'll never pay for sports news, ever. I'd pay for Investigative Post (I've donated) for local before paying a nickel to TBN. They're like cable, buying a lot of junk I don't want.

 

Amazingly, I agree with this take, at least partly.

 

I gave up on the print media more than a decade ago when it became clear that they were propaganda outlets for the left. I'm glad I did.

Edited October 24, 2017 by joesixpack

[Paulus]

I can't tell you the last time I read a sports section.

 

I read news sections and articles from various news or tech sources, but a sports section? No way I'm paying for that kinda sht.

Honestly, do better asking for donations.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Honestly, do better asking for donations.

 

Dun step on snek

 

Seriously though is there anything less useful to society than sports journalism?

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Dun step on snek

 

Seriously though is there anything less useful to society than sports journalism?

You and your attitude.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You and your attitude.

 

guffaw.

 

I still think you're a swell guy, even if you're mistaken about just about everything, Kelly.

[fridge]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but as a pretty big sports fan I can confidently say that I will never pay for sports journalism, especially opinion pieces. I don't find a lot of value in them, even if they're well written, and (especially when it comes to the Bills) it's rare that I encounter an angle I hadn't thought of or hasn't been discussed at length here.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

guffaw.

 

I still think you're a swell guy, even if you're mistaken about just about everything, Kelly.

Now I know I'm doing the right thing. That's pretty much proof.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Now I know I'm doing the right thing. That's pretty much proof.

Hats funny is I feel the same way in reverse!

[row_33]

Why pay if you get other outlets for free? Podcasts are better than newsprint. We have all info available in seconds now, we dont have to wait for some hack to regurgitate the box score in a pointless column and pretend this is big news.