OT: NYT on "The Athletic"
Article in NYT about "The Athletic" a new sports journalism cite. Paywalled, and focused only on sports. Hiring journalists in various spots around the city (often away from the local newspaper). Trying to kill the local newspapers sports efforts by replacing them with something better.
I was wondering: does anybody on here read this thing? Comments on its quality, etc.? I do note they have Detroit (and thus, M sports) as one of their locales.
October 24th, 2017 at 8:14 AM ^
I believe they hired Quinn full time. MLive hired a new Michigan Basketball guy.
October 24th, 2017 at 8:37 AM ^
They did. They are hiring everyone they can find. I was just stating where they came from. I also saw Nicole Auerbach from BTN, and Ty Duffy who I believe was another Michigan Daily writer who went on to The Big Lead.
They are gutting many local newspapers. It will be interesting to see if anyone will pay for their service.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:39 AM ^
Nicole was actually from USA Today.
In general I find the business model to be a bad one. I follow a lot of the writers on Twitter, see the articles they tweet out, and not once have I felt like there's been something I want to read.
I'm sure they have a large round of VC to live off of for a while, but the number of subs they need to have to keep the business going has to be huge.
Take Nicole for example, as a national writer I'd bet they had to pay her around $100k to leave USA Today. Likely more. So take that salary, add some benefits to it, and then add travel to go cover events, and you're probably close to $200k for her just for a year. At their discounted annual rate of $4/mo for subscribers, you'd need to have 4100 subscribers just to break even with her.
Locally, for someone like Quinn, that's probably around an annual sunk cost of $75k when you add it all up. That's 1500 subscribers just to read his local content.
I could be wrong, but I just don't see that many people clamoring to pay to read content that is basically the same as everything else on the web.
October 24th, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^
Their Lions coverage is also from a local dude, Chris Burke. UofM alum, previous Daily writer and most recently from SI.com. I've enjoyed his writing from those cites/sites/sights.
October 24th, 2017 at 3:21 PM ^
Having never seen the site, I am for it on its face if THEY CAN PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP THE FUCKING POP-UP ADS!
October 24th, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^
Never once had a pop up add or an auto-play video.
October 24th, 2017 at 4:37 PM ^
Never once had a pop up add or an auto-play video.
October 24th, 2017 at 8:12 AM ^
It can't be worse than what I get with the local Detroit reporters on the professional teams.
October 24th, 2017 at 8:41 AM ^
Maybe you get what you pay for, but those articles are free at least.
October 24th, 2017 at 8:27 AM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 8:41 AM ^
I was going to cite his mistake as well, Rob
October 24th, 2017 at 8:31 AM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 8:43 AM ^
I subscribe and have been very happy with the coverage. The national writers they have for college football and baseball are top-notch. The local writers for UM/Detroit on the whole are also very good, but I have not been overly impressed with the Tiger's writer. There seems to be an aboslute ton of material on college basketball (way more than college football), so if you are a big CBB fan, I could also see it being worth the money. As an aside, I am also jelous of the beat writer that OSU has for college footbal, he is 1) incredibly prolific with numerous articles seemingly daily and 2) seems to have good insight to the team. Not that UM's are bad, just the comparative insights into each team and volume of material is drastically different.
October 24th, 2017 at 8:46 AM ^
So far, their coverage is pretty much Midwest (Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburg, St. Louis, etc.). They are based out of San Francisco, so they list the Bay Area in their cities too. What's a bit funny is that under Cities, they list Minnesota. West Coast bias or just misunderstanding?
October 24th, 2017 at 8:54 AM ^
under Cities, they list Minnesota
And people wonder why "flyover country" is so pissed off at the East / West Coast these days.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:45 AM ^
You're right, it makes absolutely no sense to name their site "Minnesota".
I mean, c'mon, we all know the teams are called the Minneapolis Vikings, Minneapolis Twins, Minneapolis WIld, and Minneapolis Timberwolves...
October 24th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^
Well, they don't cover the Detroit Woverines and Spartans, nor do they cover the Cleveland Buckeyes. I'm just saying if they are going to say "Cities" then be consistent and say Minneapolis. Otherwise, list them as "Regions"
October 24th, 2017 at 10:07 AM ^
All of the initial Athletic "sites" were pro-sports focused. They started off in the Bay Area, then expanded to Chicago and Toronto, and then have expanded out to their current cities today. So it makes sense to call their site "Minnesota", since there's not a single (current) pro-team there that goes by Minneapolis.
It's only been in the last months that they expanded to the college teams
October 24th, 2017 at 9:06 AM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^
Not to mention the lack of ads. The comments also aren't like mlive. I got a deal like you got but don't think I'll continue it. Not because there isn't good stuff there, but I just don't actually read enough sports articles to make it worth it. I mostly just visit mgoblog. I don't even visit sbnation and college football is my favorite sport.
There's no problem seeking free stuff, and like I said, I'll be doing it myself, but I hate how some people act like they're being principled by not paying to read other people's work. You see that a lot on Twitter accounts for The Athletic or their writers.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:24 AM ^
I find it good for the national view, and I imagine they will improve as they find what works and what doesn't. I was going to say the same about Faux Pelini. It's rare to find columns that so consistently make you laugh out loud. His do every week.
As mentioned here, the comments are generally thoughtful. And the mobile app is very user-friendly.
We are lucky that we have MGoBlog. If we didn't it would likely be the best source for Michigan coverage. They can't compete with Brian, but it's several steps above mlive.
I expect I will renew. It's not an exhorbitant cost.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:23 AM ^
...so will the checks to their writers. This is a bad business model that's doomed to fail with so much free content out there. For every one person that says they have a subscription, there are ten other non-subscribers that they need to stay afloat.
They will not be able to survive as an ad-free entity unless they (a) increase the price, (b) sell the email addresses of subscribers to a "partner company" or (c) broadcast live content which will allow them to sell ad time.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:24 AM ^
the NYT story last night. i'm with Clarence Beeks: Their arrogance will eventually be their undoing. That, and pay walls on news sites rarely work.
October 24th, 2017 at 9:35 AM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 9:44 AM ^
Reminds me of HailandUnite
October 24th, 2017 at 9:57 AM ^
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2017/01/10/why-2-1-million-w…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Athletic
"In 2017, subscription fees were lowered to $4.99 per month or $39.99 annually. Under that model, Mather and Hansmann reported that the company could turn a profit with 8,000 to 12,000 subscribers per city."
October 24th, 2017 at 10:02 AM ^
FWIW, I've subscribed solely on the basis for quality Red Wings reporting, and can honestly say their coverage is 100x better than the local diggers. The team they've assembled makes for far better reads, and discuss questions and topics fans actually want to read about. I'm actually seeing articles which question Ken Holland and some of his moves the past few years, which if you follow the Wings, you know the local writers are a little lazy and have written like they're in a bubble (they all write about the same topics, at the same times, and tend to resist criticizing the organization). The Athletic covered the Athanasiou situation better than anyone, and had a lot of updates close to both camps, including tidbits and thoughts of other GMs across the league on trade value and how they see AA as a player (though only anonymously).
October 24th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^
I've seen multiple comments here criticizing the model. As much as I don't want to pay for internet info (and I do not subscribe to The Athletic), I think the model is smart -- or at least worth an honest try.
As the article states, they were just rounding into form when ESPN axed a ton of writers. Fox Sports pivoted to video or whatever the hell that was and canned a bunch more. Local newspapers have been running on fumes for a decade. What is the better model? You get everything for free? That's not cutting it.
I'm no sports media insider, but it's been a constant conundrum since the inception of the internet to try and figure out how to make money off of sports writing (or any writing). Everybody blocks ads. Nobody watches video advertising. MGoBlog has had the same problem. You can only pack so much advertising onto your site without losing the actual content. Brian is currently selling up-front advertising space right in his column to HomeSure Lending and others. Why? Because he likes leading off his articles with 2 paragraphs about Attorneys?
He's trying to figure out how to make this profitable and pay Ace and the gang a living wage without pissing off us readers with an overload of crappy ads that we don't care about. Everybody's struggling with it. How do we pay these writers a salary if we're giving away their product for free?
The Athletic is the first sports outlet to jump straight into the deep end on the paywall. That way they can hire quality writers and allow them freedom to write quality articles. If your financial livelihood is solely contingent upon clicks and the eyballs that see your paid advertising, that's when you end up paying some chump bottom dollar to churn out sensational headlines about Harbaugh. And we all love that angle.
It's not a bad idea. And last I heard this week, The Athletic reached a subscriber number to break even in its first city (forget which one). Many others are expected to reach that point in the near future. So it's working for now. I wish the founder didn't admit to trying to murder local newpapers, but I get it.
October 24th, 2017 at 10:28 AM ^
October 24th, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^
I joined, but cancelled after 7 weeks. It was a lot of fluff - nothing really in-depth. It's the standard stuff that I could write myself from watching games on tv. I'm hoping that it picks up for college hoops.
October 24th, 2017 at 10:12 AM ^
I haven't read it. They are somehow affiliated with UM Hoops as links for the Atlantic articles appear on the UM Hoops sidebar.
October 24th, 2017 at 10:19 AM ^
Two Michigan Daily alums on the cfb site - Nicole Auerbach and Chantel Jennings. That said if the attitude of yesterday's hot take is company-wide, they won't have much good will to spare and will struggle to maintain the site through the offseason.
October 24th, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^
The reason pay models don't work is because, just as people have figured out how to block ads and nobody watches video ads, readers have figured out the ways to get around pay walls, and there are dozens of ways. The Atlantic magazine, Newsday, and a huge chunk of the New York Times all had paywalls and abandoned them because they failed...why and how is The Athletic going to be different?
October 24th, 2017 at 10:33 AM ^
Fake post! NYT has not abandoned their paywall, and it is regarded as a success. I do not know about the other sites.
October 24th, 2017 at 10:36 AM ^
Not sure if any of you have listened to Sam Harris' "Waking Up" podcast, but he is ad free and asks for patronage based on your ability to give and willingness to do so based on the content. A subtly different (and arguably way less arrogant) approach. Sam also believes that not taking sponsorship money allows him the editorial freedom he wants.
That being said, I am a believer in both the Athletic (for which I bought a discounted subscription) AND Sam Harris. Mostly because I'm interested and willing to pay for the content I consume. For MGoBlog that has mostly been buying "Hail to the Victors" at a higher tier than the base.
I hope the stuatute of limitations has run out on this, but back in the '80s I played a bunch of pirated computer games. At some point I realized that I wanted to pay for the games that I liked to encourage the creation of more of that type of stuff. Now I'm more than happy to buy lots of games on Steam and try to get money directly to those responsible for making what I want. What I pay depends on how interested I am. I tend to wait to buy most games until they are vastly reduced from "new release" pricing. But for the games I am most eagerly anticipating, I might buy them when they first come out.
Something similar holds true for digital music. I have a Spotify Premium subscription for the family. I also still like to buy my favorite stuff on CD because then I feel good about using the content I paid for the way I want to (home, computer, car, etc.).
In general, I think the ideal is moving to a model where we all pay for what we consume. All the stuff you think you get for "free" really isn't. It is just a matter of how someone else is monetizing it. The trick is figuring out an equitable mechanism for exchanging value.
October 24th, 2017 at 11:45 AM ^
sam harris: amazing.
and yes, all of what you said applies to me too.
one reason TV is so much better now: I can just pay companies to produce great TV, instead of some stupid ad-driven model.
I hope we eventually come to understand that, as you say, nothing is free -- and it's better to directly pay for things you want than to be the product of monetization itself.
final point: I wonder if you are in your 40's (as I am). Why? I suspect this "pay for things" idea works well for older, more established people who make a decent living, and less so for 20-somethings who are still figuring life out... (just a guess though)
October 25th, 2017 at 1:37 PM ^
Right in the middle of mid-40s. :)
October 24th, 2017 at 10:46 AM ^
I haven't read the NYTimes article, but probably will because it sounds interesting.
I do subscribe to The Athletic for about $4 per month. So far, I'm pleased. While it offers the sorts of gamers I can often find elsewhere, there has been some high-quality content that is different from but comparable in quality to what I love about MGoBlog.
For example, there have a been a few articles about Michigan's passing game. The writer has started with some general discussion about the good and the bad he has seen, followed by a series of video clip examples and discussions. There was a particularly good one about Speight's difficulties passing in the red zone against Air Force. I'm happy to pay $4 per month for stuff like that. So if it keeps up the quality, I'll keep subscribing.
That said, I'm someone who likes pay sites. In my experience, you get what you pay for, and I'd rather pay for good content with a dollar a week than pay for it by being bombarded by ads. Now that's me; The Athletic will be a decent test to see how many of me are out there.
October 24th, 2017 at 11:05 AM ^
They've definitely hired a lot of good talent, and I think it's an interesting idea (not interesting enough for me to sign up though)... but they should be focused on how they are taking on the big guys like ESPN and Fox Sports and actually want to pay writers instead of going all video content. Not bragging about killing local papers.
Also, since most people here are probably blocked by him on twitter, I noticed Tim Kawakami is the editor-in-chief for The AthleticSF
October 24th, 2017 at 11:08 AM ^
i didn't say the Times "abandoned their paywall," i said they abondoned "a huge chunk" of it. That's true. Originally the Times locked down/charged for the whole site. It had no advertising. That didn't work because it got far fewer subscribers than it anticipated. So slowly it released some content for free (and added advertising back in to the mix). At the moment there is a lotof free content on the Times. The Times claims it is slowly going to again lock down more and more editorial behind the paywall. But it didn't work before, so why should it now? Besides, as i said, there are so many ways around paywalls they're really kind of joke
October 24th, 2017 at 11:13 AM ^
I listen to the radio for my news these days.
October 24th, 2017 at 11:48 AM ^
On the original topic, I subscribe, they have my favorite hockey writer, Brendan and some others that I enjoy. I consider it like a magazine subscirption. So far I like it, and I enjoy the no videos.
October 24th, 2017 at 11:49 AM ^
Go Blue!!! Fuck Penn St
Double Post
October 24th, 2017 at 6:57 PM ^
I agree with mvp, a (soft) subscription model may be the way of the future, and Sam Harris has been great in promoting this. This allows the content creators to be paid for their work while still maintaining editorial independence. When you read "free" sites like mlive you are actually paying by being limited to mediocre content and being inundated with ads.
You see a similar dynamic in TV, where the quality of content on HBO is head and shoulders above the channels that rely on ads.
October 25th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^
Because I subscribed to the Athletic because of Stewart Mandel and Nicole Auerbach being there, and because it's not really all that expensive. I did not think I would be handing my money to two tech dipshits who talk like they could use a good punch in the face to disrupt their noses.
I doubt I'll re-up my sub. The content isn't as deep as I was expecting for a subscription and those owner guys are skeezy.