The Athletic “gutting” British newspapers

fergosaurus

Full Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
4,408
First they were offering £1 for a month, then £1 a month for 6 months, now £1 a month for 12 months.

Must be getting seriously desparate.
I'm looking at their website now and can only see £3.99 per month for 6 months. Would've signed up for a year for £12 but can't find that offer anywhere. Maybe it was a flash sale.
 

Nero

Full Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
3,283
I'm looking at their website now and can only see £3.99 per month for 6 months. Would've signed up for a year for £12 but can't find that offer anywhere. Maybe it was a flash sale.
It was just a one day sale for the 26th.
 

pablo__p

Full Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
1,926
Location
Wrocław
Both quality. Although, Totally existed before The Athletic - became part of The Athletic over the summer.
True and was worring about what it was going to mean for Totally. Fortunately, literally nothing has changed since the acquisition.
 

Daysleeper

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
4,790
Supports
Barcelona
The athletic is absolutely worth it, superb articles constantly
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
2,231
Location
Daenerys' pants
Nobody is paying to read a football website.

Have these people not heard of Youtube?

Some random dude pays £4, then aggregates all the bullshit together in one 10 minute video and viola, your website is down the shitter inside a year.
Exactly this. Written Journalism itself will slowly be squeezed out in the long run in favour of podcasts and Youtube. It's really an obsolete form of journalism now hanging onto an older audience base that is not being replaced at all by the younger generations. Perhaps they can have some short term growth by cannibalizing other newpaper readers with better articles but the Athletic won't be viable long term IMO.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,317
Exactly this. Written Journalism itself will slowly be squeezed out in the long run in favour of podcasts and Youtube. It's really an obsolete form of journalism now hanging onto an older audience base that is not being replaced at all by the younger generations. Perhaps they can have some short term growth by cannibalizing other newpaper readers with better articles but the Athletic won't be viable long term IMO.
They do free podcasts too. I’m surprised they don’t put it all behind the paywall, but I’m guessing they get more money through advertising than they would new subs.
 

noelyman

Full Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
316
That worked, cheers!
@Dan_F and for me too. Thanks. For anyone else wanting to snag the offer a heads up. Wouldn't work for me at first (cos i'm overseas) but once I used VPN and 'fooled it' into being in England it worked a charm. Bargain! Thanks for sharing.
 

BluesJr

Owns the moral low ground
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
9,047
I like the Athletic podcasts. The United one is really good.
 

Based Adnan

Full Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2014
Messages
4,064
Just subscribed for the first time. Can imagine the podcasts coming in handy whilst I'm working from home.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
2,231
Location
Daenerys' pants
They do free podcasts too. I’m surprised they don’t put it all behind the paywall, but I’m guessing they get more money through advertising than they would new subs.
Yeah I bet in 5 years they’ll need to pack in the writing part all together and just do the podcast. They seem to feel they can make some quick cash from the remaining Paper readers in the mean time though.
 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
14,445
I've done the 12 months at a £1.... see how it goes, but I've been mostly getting stuck on it for NBA/NFL stuff as opposed to Football stuff before actual paying it for it. Doubt I'll keep it into 2022, we'll see, got a year to convince me....
 

Rocksy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Messages
1,347
Supports
Blackburn Rovers
Anka seems to be United’s biggest writer at the moment and easily the worst. Loads of articles where he gets a picture and writes spurious analysis over it.

He was on today about how he only started going to games at stadiums 4 years ago. How did he end up covering United?
 
Last edited:

SqualorVictoria

Full Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2013
Messages
715
Supports
City
He was on today about how he only started going to games at stadiums 4 years ago. How did he end up covering United?
How many years should one attend football games to be allowed to write about football?
 

roseguy64

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
12,172
Location
Jamaica
Also, he said he's stayed away from stadiums because his family didn't want him to encounter the racism his father had faced while going to matches
 

Rocksy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2016
Messages
1,347
Supports
Blackburn Rovers
Also, he said he's stayed away from stadiums because his family didn't want him to encounter the racism his father had faced while going to matches
Fair enough when he’s a kid but 4 years ago he must have been late 20s at least. It shows, he doesn’t really know much about football.
 

No Spring Chicken

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
116
Fair enough when he’s a kid but 4 years ago he must have been late 20s at least. It shows, he doesn’t really know much about football.
Never understood this fetish about going to stadiums, going to the game doesn't give you any sort of magical insight to formation and team selection.
 

mazhar13

Kermit Inc. 2022
Scout
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Messages
36,537
Location
Toronto, ON, Canada
Fair enough when he’s a kid but 4 years ago he must have been late 20s at least. It shows, he doesn’t really know much about football.
Carl Anka isn't necessarily there to offer insightful analysis over United's performances or their day-to-day operations (that's for Laurie Whitwell). He's there to write more artistic (for lack of a better word) articles (the ones that have more vivid imagery in them) and not necessarily write informative reports (which Whitwell does). Example:

I won't typically read his articles, but at least he's a decent writer.
 

JJ12

Predicted Portugal, Italy to win Euro 2016, 2020
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
10,841
Location
Wales
Fair enough when he’s a kid but 4 years ago he must have been late 20s at least. It shows, he doesn’t really know much about football.
It doesn’t show that at all.

Keane out Venkys out
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,317
I thought that he brings quite insightful stuff into the podcast when he gives his opinions, rather than just hosting. You’ve got Mitten for the fan point of view, Laurie for the day to day stuff in the club, it’s a decent blend.
 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
5,816
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany

some big numbers there
The way Athletic was constantly reducing their membership fees to get more people, it only seemed a matter of time to me that they would fail and close down. No surprise to see that they still aren't making any profits.
 

padzilla

Hipster
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
3,329
I subscribed for a few months and while I found the journalism to be of an excellent standard, it wasn't anything I couldn't get elsewhere for free from other sources. I don't see why people would pay a tenner a month for such a niche service. If the price was drastically reduced, which appears to be the case now then maybe...
 

yumtum

DUX' bumchum
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,117
Location
Wales
The way Athletic was constantly reducing their membership fees to get more people, it only seemed a matter of time to me that they would fail and close down. No surprise to see that they still aren't making any profits.
And yet still worth half a billion, always makes me laugh how companies can make zero profits yet be worth ridiculous amounts.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,543
Location
Sydney
And yet still worth half a billion, always makes me laugh how companies can make zero profits yet be worth ridiculous amounts.
its very scalable so its understandable

they have 1m subscribers and its growing fast

I just use my mates login for free though, they should probably stop people doing that somehow
 

Champ

Refuses to acknowledge existence of Ukraine
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
9,888
And yet still worth half a billion, always makes me laugh how companies can make zero profits yet be worth ridiculous amounts.
Depends where that valuation came from.
Probably feel like due to the assets the company have, alongside the staff and knowledge base/IP that that valuation is accurate.
Doesn't make it correct however, as if it's only making £80m, then I doubt a new owner would keep on all the high earners moving forward.
 

yumtum

DUX' bumchum
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,117
Location
Wales
Depends where that valuation came from.
Probably feel like due to the assets the company have, alongside the staff and knowledge base/IP that that valuation is accurate.
Doesn't make it correct however, as if it's only making £80m, then I doubt a new owner would keep on all the high earners moving forward.
Why would someone buy it for 500m only to get rid if the talent? And what physical assets do they actually own?

@Tarrou Scalable yes, but at only 80m revenue being valued at 500m seems a little overvalued, I've said it before, but I remember WeWork being valued insanely high, but they didn't actually own any buildings or make any sort of profit.

I'm not a businessman so there's probably a reason for it, like all the data they get from their subscribers etc.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,543
Location
Sydney
Why would someone buy it for 500m only to get rid if the talent? And what physical assets do they actually own?

@Tarrou Scalable yes, but at only 80m revenue being valued at 500m seems a little overvalued, I've said it before, but I remember WeWork being valued insanely high, but they didn't actually own any buildings or make any sort of profit.

I'm not a businessman so there's probably a reason for it, like all the data they get from their subscribers etc.
this is presumably their own valuation for the merger - if it goes ahead I expect it will get negotiated down
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,954
Location
Moscow
And yet still worth half a billion, always makes me laugh how companies can make zero profits yet be worth ridiculous amounts.
And yet that was the case for Facebook & Twitter, for Netflix at the moment... because investors actually think ahead and consider potential opportunities of monetization.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
4,595
Supports
Chelsea
And yet that was the case for Facebook & Twitter, for Netflix at the moment... because investors actually think ahead and consider potential opportunities of monetization.
In the case of the Athletic, what are the other opportunities for monetization? If they can’t make a profit and $140m already put in the correct value of it is likely zero. Unless there's some other revenue stream or cost cutting they can do we're not seeing to make a profit.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,954
Location
Moscow
In the case of the Athletic, what are the other opportunities for monetization? If they can’t make a profit and $140m already put in the correct value of it is likely zero. Unless there's some other revenue stream or cost cutting they can do we're not seeing to make a profit.
The same as with the other media — ads targeted at a specific and loyal audience and/or an increased subscription fee.
 

yumtum

DUX' bumchum
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
7,117
Location
Wales
And yet that was the case for Facebook & Twitter, for Netflix at the moment... because investors actually think ahead and consider potential opportunities of monetization.
I did say later that I'm not a business man, not sure why the need to be passive aggressive.

Facebook, Netflix and Twitter were and are a completely different business model, like I said above, they could probably sell data (ads) extra but their customer base is likely to be very small - Netflix, Facebook and Twitter are pretty much global.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
4,595
Supports
Chelsea
I did say later that I'm not a business man, not sure why the need to be passive aggressive.

Facebook, Netflix and Twitter were and are a completely different business model, like I said above, they could probably sell data (ads) extra but their customer base is likely to be very small - Netflix, Facebook and Twitter are pretty much global.
Even wonder about Twitter and Netflix values longer term. Though both are profitable, how much they can grow medium term is very much open to question. Twitter has been trying to monetize tweets more but it's gone down like a lead baloon with the user base. Facebook is a different story though even there you can see given the toxicity around privacy and generally around "social media" could see it struggling to grow and go in to serious decline on a longer term timeline. Especially if ultimately you get regulation and much more control on it (and Twitter).

Not sure the Athletic will ever really be viable as is, can get similar content from normal newspaper subscriptions or even for free forums like this, reddit etc and elsewhere.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
Even wonder about Twitter and Netflix values longer term. Though both are profitable, how much they can grow medium term is very much open to question. Twitter has been trying to monetize tweets more but it's gone down like a lead baloon with the user base. Facebook is a different story though even there you can see given the toxicity around privacy and generally around "social media" could see it struggling to grow and go in to serious decline on a longer term timeline. Especially if ultimately you get regulation and much more control on it (and Twitter).

Not sure the Athletic will ever really be viable as is, can get similar content from normal newspaper subscriptions or even for free forums like this, reddit etc and elsewhere.
10 years ago people were asking about Facebook, and how it had never made a profit, and couldn’t monitise the platform.

it’s not something I subscribe to, but I can get everything on Netflix or Spotify for free if I wanted, but still I subscribe. The user base is the asset.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,543
Location
Sydney
Even wonder about Twitter and Netflix values longer term. Though both are profitable, how much they can grow medium term is very much open to question. Twitter has been trying to monetize tweets more but it's gone down like a lead baloon with the user base. Facebook is a different story though even there you can see given the toxicity around privacy and generally around "social media" could see it struggling to grow and go in to serious decline on a longer term timeline. Especially if ultimately you get regulation and much more control on it (and Twitter).

Not sure the Athletic will ever really be viable as is, can get similar content from normal newspaper subscriptions or even for free forums like this, reddit etc and elsewhere.
They’ve proved their model is working already, of course it can be successful. 80m revenue is huge for a 5 year old company. VCs put 140m in for a reason.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,207
Netflix was valued highly because it had a huge addressable market and was attempting to buy market share by offering a better price and better content. How many people can The Athletic sell paid for news subscriptions to in a market that's usually free?

Everybody knows company valuations have gone beyond reason now and lots of VCs will never make money that way. How many investors they have is not a reliable barometer.
 

Haddock

Full Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
729
Carl Anka isn't necessarily there to offer insightful analysis over United's performances or their day-to-day operations (that's for Laurie Whitwell). He's there to write more artistic (for lack of a better word) articles (the ones that have more vivid imagery in them) and not necessarily write informative reports (which Whitwell does). Example:

I won't typically read his articles, but at least he's a decent writer.
From where I stand as a consumer I don't see what The Athletic offers that anyone else doesn't.

1. I'm not sure how much fans want to consume day-to-day stuff in extraordinary detail. Even diehards want to get away from football's minutiae from time to time.

2. What does the Athletic do better than anyone else?

The tactical analysis wing has Cox but he isn't any better than Wilson. Not to mention Wilson for all his stubbornness is way more endearing, better read, a better writer and has a firm grasp of history.

Football admin is covered better in Josimar. The Blizzard does the more esoteric stuff. David Conn, Tariq Panja and co. do the business side better.

Beyond Daniel Taylor, the Athletic's stable of writers are fairly unmemorable. Anka is dreadful. He writes in that homogenised 2010s BuzzFeed style (he used to work there) and is a shit stirrer but not an especially interesting one ("Pogba would be appreciated more if he was 5 inches shorter"). It's hardly like you are reading bloody Gideon Haigh or Scyld Berry is it?

The best football (prose) writers writers are still Rob Smyth (King of the retrospective) Auclair, Ronay and occasionally Liew.

4. The long reads are rarely worth the effort. Some topics (Newcastle takeover) merit 10K words but a minor bust up after a 5-0 loss?

I'm told the Athletic is the best source for US Sports so maybe they do these things better over there.

Never understood this fetish about going to stadiums, going to the game doesn't give you any sort of magical insight to formation and team selection.
It helps massively. I used to accompany a cricket writer for a while. I can't quite explain it but do you see things differently. The way formations change, the birds eye view, the crowd pressure, being in the mixed zone later.