Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, k-met57 said:

i hate to say it but who the F pays for sports media content in 2021? there is so much of it out there for free.

Agree, but I think $5/month to the guys over at Jet X Factor is worth it.  They do more than just get sound bites from Saleh's pressers and tweet during the game...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd disagree 1 million times. Clay travis single handedly brought us college football last year. Agree or disagree with his opinions if you want. But he calls it how he sees it. And Clay travis h

Clay Travis sucks. 

I think it is a great read if you love sports.  It certainly puts NY talk radio to shame.  The Athletic is like a Mensa meeting and the Fan is like a bar of drunks at 2 am.  Night and day.

1 hour ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

Their NHL coverage is so much more comprehensive than anything else it makes it well worth the minimal cost. 

I was unaware that the NHL existed anymore.

  • Confused 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year I tried a $1 per month trial sub at The Athletic, but I ended up cancelling after just a couple of months because of technical problems.  The articles were okay and the cost obviously minimal, but their site kept logging my account out every few days. I'd get articles regularly sent to my email, but when I'd click on the links, I'd get a screen asking me to sub to read the full article.  And I couldn't get the login page or links to work in either of two browsers....I tried clearing cache, etc., then contacted their tech support.

Their tech support told me that they were working on the problem, and gave me a workaround that involved a link in an email to click on, then following through several pages to get to another login page, IIRC, but I'd get logged right back out again in a few days, and when I bookmarked that page and tried to return, it didn't work on its own for some weird reason. I think my account had somehow been flagged as a trial one, and they never did get it fixed. Eventually tired of jumping through hoops to get logged in and read their stuff every few days, I just cancelled and haven't missed the content.  

Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

I agree.  Their content is good and have some insightful writers over there.  The problem is that there is so much free content out there that it’s hard to justify paying for their stuff.   I have a subscription, I think it’s only $2.99 a month, but I know A LOT of people who simply won’t pay anything for these types of services just out of principle and the sheer amount of other free content.   
 

I do wonder how many subscribers they would need and at what monthly price to become profitable, and then compare that to if they went to free content and monetized it with advertising.  

I have a subscription as well, its not breaking the bank, and there is some good content mixed in amongst the generic stuff.  Their NHL content is excellent for one.

But then I go on websites or facebook and see their paywalled content cut & pasted by people in its entirety for the world to read for free, so I wonder, why am I paying?  Its a tough business model to make profitable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maxman said:

Google and Facebook invented something.

The athletic isn't doing anything new. They are trying to reinvent something but the odds are against them.

They're providing long-form and deep-dive content on a subject of interest, at a significantly higher level than most competitors. I'm not sure it's going to work - I'm not a subscriber and I'm their target market - but the trendline says success remains possible, and (and this is the important part) nobody who put in money in these first years thought that it would already be profitable. This was always a long-term investment play. So "look, it's doing what they expected and losing big dollars in its initial years (less and less every year)" isn't the shocking indictment Travis wants people to think it is.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to pay for the athletic or any other content provider mainly because I can find 99pct of this info for free and I don't want to encourage the practice of paying for content. Let them figure out a way to monetize their business via ads/etc... 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, T0mShane said:

I was unaware that the NHL existed anymore.

I feel the same way about MLB and the NBA.  In fact, baseball isn't the same sport anymore.  There are tons of strikeouts, walks, home runs and pitching changes, but no balls are hit in play anymore and those that are need to find holes among the 7 fielders on one side of the field.  Add in the 30 seconds between pitches and the sport is unwatchable.  The NBA is all about the names on the back of the jerseys and not the front and success is based on maximizing cap space and convincing 2-3 top free agents to join a franchise at the same time to win a title.  NHL hockey is tremendous in my view, but to each their own.  Bottom line is that the Athletic's NHL coverage is second to none.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maxman said:

Google and Facebook invented something.

The athletic isn't doing anything new. They are trying to reinvent something but the odds are against them.

I'll put up with popup ads all day, but not paying for content. I ponied up $55 in the day, but no more. There's nothing the Athletic does that you cannot get for free. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

I don't know much about The Atlantic, but I do remember The National. Those were the days!

The Greatest Paper That Ever Died

Remember the Sporting News? I think I still have an article they did on Nick Fotiu way back when that I cut out and filed ... Talk about hoarding.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow opinions available behind a pay wall from people that don’t really know what they’re talking about? I cannot believe that it’s not working out!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SteveAoikiAsics said:

 

First of all, and this was slightly touched upon, free cash flow does NOT equal profit or loss. That's just finance. Statements and trends like these are incredibly common for newer companies and this information says very little about the financial well being of the company. They did not simply 'lose' $100 million.

 

That being said, I like the athletic. Their soccer reporting is outstanding and I far prefer Hughes to any other Jets writer. They've proven to be consistent and reliable.

 

Also, Clay Travis is an idiot, so there's that too.

  • Upvote 3
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Travis is terrible. 

Also, want to guess how long it was before, say, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and other web businesses were profitable? Their trends and projections are going the right direction. Those aren't losses, they're investments

Nice to see the usual suspects downvoting 🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

They're providing long-form and deep-dive content on a subject of interest, at a significantly higher level than most competitors. I'm not sure it's going to work - I'm not a subscriber and I'm their target market - but the trendline says success remains possible, and (and this is the important part) nobody who put in money in these first years thought that it would already be profitable. This was always a long-term investment play. So "look, it's doing what they expected and losing big dollars in its initial years (less and less every year)" isn't the shocking indictment Travis wants people to think it is.

He should take a look at Uber.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

They're providing long-form and deep-dive content on a subject of interest, at a significantly higher level than most competitors. I'm not sure it's going to work - I'm not a subscriber and I'm their target market - but the trendline says success remains possible, and (and this is the important part) nobody who put in money in these first years thought that it would already be profitable. This was always a long-term investment play. So "look, it's doing what they expected and losing big dollars in its initial years (less and less every year)" isn't the shocking indictment Travis wants people to think it is.

I question whether they're going to be able to build a sustainable economic moat long-term, but they're still in a growth stage to grow their subscriber base, so costs will undoubtedly be higher for growth potential. At some point, I would imagine they're going to raise prices and tactfully reduce labor costs to maximize profitability as well. Not to mention any branding/advertising opportunities they partake in such as for betting and daily fantasy sites or other businesses that target young men.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jets Voice of Reason said:

I question whether they're going to be able to build a sustainable economic moat long-term, but they're still in a growth stage to grow their subscriber base, so costs will undoubtedly be higher for growth potential. At some point, I would imagine they're going to raise prices and tactfully reduce labor costs to maximize profitability as well. Not to mention any branding/advertising opportunities they partake in such as for betting and daily fantasy sites or other businesses that target young men.

 

Exactly. Does that mean they're going to be successful long term? No. Is there anything about their financial trajectory to date you'd expect to be significantly different if they were on a path to success? Also no.

Which, politics aside, is exactly why Clay Travis sucks. As a media and business guy, he knows this. He also knows his audience doesn't - and he's got no concern at all about misleading them for clicks

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ALl i know about the athletic is i tried to listen to the Jets podcast and it sucks. Its some dude named connor that im pretty sure has never had a job in his life and he and his team seem really trying hard to sell me some health cereal. I tried to listen to it again and same bad cereal commercials and them endlessly talking about other stupid crap rather than the jets, followed up by how great Connor is and how great his work is as he talks about not being able to get up earlier than 10 am..

I can not imagine paying for anything they do. I feel like they should pay me for the time i wasted listening to them, while i could have been counting blades of grass or watching clouds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Exactly. Does that mean they're going to be successful long term? No. Is there anything about their financial trajectory to date you'd expect to be significantly different if they were on a path to success? Also know.

Which, politics aside, is exactly why Clay Travis sucks. As a media and business guy, he knows this. He also knows his audience doesn't - and he's got no concern at all about misleading them for clicks

A grifter through and through.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnnyHector said:

I've been a subscriber since around launch, because their NHL coverage is excellent.

Someobdy on a NYR site posted Athlletic's breakdown of this season, and said basically losing Buchenivich is a catastrophe because analytics. And really doesn't account for he's a 3rd liner as long as Kakko and Larfrenniere are decent players who step up a bit. Given Buch's slotted salary under the NHL cap and what his role would be here now as opposed to those guys and the guy they got from the Blues, Blais, it was a pretty sensible move.  In short, if that is  kind of myopic analysis is what you are paying for, no thanks. 

Long term though think it's gonna be very hard to get people to pay for stuff on the internet. Heck, they're  giving porn away. Why would someone pay for a lousy breakdown of the Blais/Buchenevich trade when free boobies? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachEY said:

He should take a look at Uber.

Had a mess of clients doing Uber when  it started. And every year it's fewer and fewer. It's very tough on the people doing the actual driving. Unfortunately very few understand the paperwork and finance end of it. It mostly turns into a disaster. The few for whom it's worked out farmed out the driving and simply rented the cars; all the bills and mileage expenses and locked in income. 

When Uber laid people, was wondering who the hell actually works for them spare the CEO and his braintrust and a few IT guys maintaining their servers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bugg said:

Someobdy on a NYR site posted Athlletic's breakdown of this season, and said basically losing Buchenivich is a catastrophe because analytics. And really doesn't account for he's a 3rd liner as long as Kakko and Larfrenniere are decent players who step up a bit. Given Buch's slotted salary under the NHL cap and what his role would be here now as opposed to those guys and the guy they got from the Blues, Blais, it was a pretty sensible move.  In short, if that is  kind of myopic analysis is what you are paying for, no thanks. 

Long term though think it's gonna be very hard to get people to pay for stuff on the internet. Heck, they're  giving porn away. Why would someone pay for a lousy breakdown of the Blais/Buchenevich trade when free boobies? 

Yes, Dom Luszczyszyn writes analytics-focused articles and does it quite well, imo.

However, I don't think you need analytics to determine that the Rangers had an awful off-season for a team with the makings of a great, young core.  I've never seen a team make foolish, reactionary moves on this scale in response to a single incident.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darnold Schwarzenegger said:

Well last year when covid scared people only the sec committed to playing out the season.

Big ten and a few other conferences (pac 12) canceled all there games.

Clay travis brokered a phone call with Kevin Warren ( commissioner of the big 10) and Donald Trump and they basically convinced the big 10 commisioner to play football. 

That's from memory. Here is a quick article I googled for u

https://barrettsportsmedia.com/2020/09/02/clay-travis-set-up-call-from-donald-trump-to-big-10-commissioner/

and you believed this?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Morrissey said:

and you believed this?

The Big 10 commish was absolutely trying to cancel the season and finally realized he was going to be public enemy one when the SEC and the ACC played.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jets Voice of Reason said:

I question whether they're going to be able to build a sustainable economic moat long-term, but they're still in a growth stage to grow their subscriber base, so costs will undoubtedly be higher for growth potential. At some point, I would imagine they're going to raise prices and tactfully reduce labor costs to maximize profitability as well. Not to mention any branding/advertising opportunities they partake in such as for betting and daily fantasy sites or other businesses that target young men.

 

Which media entity is backing the athletic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bugg said:

Long term though think it's gonna be very hard to get people to pay for stuff on the internet. Heck, they're  giving porn away. Why would someone pay for a lousy breakdown of the Blais/Buchenevich trade when free boobies? 

This.

Connor Hughes does a 60-90 minute podcast every week that goes into far more detail than any 1000 word article.  And it's free.  

SAR I

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SAR I said:

This.

Connor Hughes does a 60-90 minute podcast every week that goes into far more detail than any 1000 word article.  And it's free.  

SAR I

Guy who gladly donates money toward "PSL's" thinks a CONNOR HUGHES PODCAST is preferable to paying $1/month for good sports writing.

Got it.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, nj meadowlands said:

Guy who gladly donates money toward "PSL's" thinks a CONNOR HUGHES PODCAST is preferable to paying $1/month for good sports writing.

Got it.

I’m not talking about the quality of the content, merely pointing out that there is no way to get someone to pay money for 1 minute of written print when they are giving away 90 minutes of spoken audio at no charge.  It’s a stupid business model.  It’s like asking customers to pay for a movie preview while giving them the movie for free.

SAR I

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...