The Athletic hits 500,000 subscribers

[LadyStanley]

Nice milestone.

Hope to reach 1 million by the end of the year

Click to read more...

 

[David Dennison]

I literally muted 'athletic' on Twitter for a week because I don't need every single Athletic writer retweeting it in my feed. Having the writers advertise it on Twitter is probably really cheap and effective advertising, but f*** is it annoying for current subscribers.

The Athletic, a sports-news subscription service launched in 2016, said it has reached more than 500,000 subscribers and expects to nearly double that total by year-end.

The site, which attracted 300,000 subscribers last year, crossed the half-million mark in June, said Alex Mather, co-founder and chief executive officer. “We’ll end the year somewhere close to a million,” he said.

What's up with the math?
Open in 2016
2018 - 300k added
As of June 2019 -500k cumulative
By end of 2019 - 1 million cumulative?

If they added 300k in 2018, that leave 200k created between 2016-2017 and the first half of 2019. So either they had like no subscribers 2016-2017, and growth in 2019 is close or up a little bit to 2018, but even that growth rate doesn't double your entire base in 6 months. Is this pie in the sky thinking or am I misunderstanding the numbers that they cited?

 

[LadyStanley]

Nope. They're expanding to add the Premiere League. Adding an entire new country of possible subscribers, plus many more interested fans in North America.

 

[StreetHawk]

I literally muted 'athletic' on Twitter for a week because I don't need every single Athletic writer retweeting it in my feed. Having the writers advertise it on Twitter is probably really cheap and effective advertising, but **** is it annoying for current subscribers.



What's up with the math?
Open in 2016
2018 - 300k added
As of June 2019 -500k cumulative
By end of 2019 - 1 million cumulative?

If they added 300k in 2018, that leave 200k created between 2016-2017 and the first half of 2019. So either they had like no subscribers 2016-2017, and growth in 2019 is close or up a little bit to 2018, but even that growth rate doesn't double your entire base in 6 months. Is this pie in the sky thinking or am I misunderstanding the numbers that they cited?

I agree. If they got 300k new subscribers in 2018, the math would indicate that there were 200k new subscribers in 2016, 2017, & half of 2019.

And assuming 2019 just matches 2018, then it should be 150k so far in 2019 leaving just 50k for 16/17 combined. Yet they expect another 500k for the rest of the year?

Are they expecting a massive jump when football season begins in September?

 

[Ernie]

Not everyone who signs up is going to renew, particularly those who signed up with one of their discounted deals but then is going to have to pay full freight in year 2. So that could account for a lot of the discrepancy.

I do agree that they have optimistic forecasts but perhaps they are planning some serious discounts for the remainder of the year as well as continuing to invest in content. With that amount of funding backing them, no reason not to go aggressive with their attempts to build their subscriber base. They've raised $60m in the last 10 months.

 

[Tawnos]

I agree. If they got 300k new subscribers in 2018, the math would indicate that there were 200k new subscribers in 2016, 2017, & half of 2019.

And assuming 2019 just matches 2018, then it should be 150k so far in 2019 leaving just 50k for 16/17 combined. Yet they expect another 500k for the rest of the year?

Are they expecting a massive jump when football season begins in September?

They would know best when they see spikes in new subs. And alternatively, it could be a poorly worded phrase and maybe they gained 300k subscribers *in the* last year.

But it doesn't make sense for them to grow by the same raw numbers each year. They should be gaining more subscribers each year.

 

[StreetHawk]

Just using the 2018 numbers as a base to show that the numbers the way it was worded doesn’t jive. If 2019 had larger numbers that just makes 16&17 numbers much smaller.

They must be expecting large growth somewhere.

 

[Bookie21]

I'd never pay for it, I can find the same content for free online

 

[XX]

Seems to be significant buyer's remorse RE: the Athletic for most. They will have a problem with renewals.

 

[neelynugs]

I literally muted 'athletic' on Twitter for a week because I don't need every single Athletic writer retweeting it in my feed. Having the writers advertise it on Twitter is probably really cheap and effective advertising, but **** is it annoying for current subscribers.

seems like part of their agreement to work for the athletic is to advertise the living shit out of the athletic on
their feeds. rah rah read this person's blog it's awesome. subscribe now. oh yeah, here's a story about the team
i cover. to each their own i suppose. but i'm with you.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

What's up with the math?
Open in 2016
2018 - 300k added
As of June 2019 -500k cumulative
By end of 2019 - 1 million cumulative?

If they added 300k in 2018, that leave 200k created between 2016-2017 and the first half of 2019. So either they had like no subscribers 2016-2017, and growth in 2019 is close or up a little bit to 2018, but even that growth rate doesn't double your entire base in 6 months. Is this pie in the sky thinking or am I misunderstanding the numbers that they cited?

Welcome to "Creating Absurd Valuations for Companies: The Post-Financial Crisis Era" where the numbers are made up and no one cares about the accuracy of past historical projections. Just talk about exponential growth going on forever, and watch the money roll in.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I'd never pay for it, I can find the same content for free online

Basically. I signed up with a 50% discount last year and at this point I find myself ignoring 95% of the alerts on my phone from their articles.

 

[PredsHead]

I literally muted 'athletic' on Twitter for a week because I don't need every single Athletic writer retweeting it in my feed. Having the writers advertise it on Twitter is probably really cheap and effective advertising, but **** is it annoying for current subscribers.

Its not just annoying for customers, its annoying for everyone. Honestly, I probably would have given it a try by now if it weren't for their shameless self-promotion.

What's up with the math?
Open in 2016
2018 - 300k added
As of June 2019 -500k cumulative
By end of 2019 - 1 million cumulative?

If they added 300k in 2018, that leave 200k created between 2016-2017 and the first half of 2019. So either they had like no subscribers 2016-2017, and growth in 2019 is close or up a little bit to 2018, but even that growth rate doesn't double your entire base in 6 months. Is this pie in the sky thinking or am I misunderstanding the numbers that they cited?

Yeah the numbers don't really make much sense, but then again neither does the idea of asking people to pay for the news. I mean what is stopping someone from essentially making the Un-Athletic? Just buy a subscription to the Athletic pay college kids to read everything as soon as it posts and write synopses. Put them up on a cheap domain and sell ads, that would be a lot less overhead to cover than the Athletic has and you would basically have the same information.

 

[Iggys Dome]

I got the 1 year membership when they had the 50% off sale. I would not renew it at the full price though.

 

[mouser]

I literally muted 'athletic' on Twitter for a week because I don't need every single Athletic writer retweeting it in my feed. Having the writers advertise it on Twitter is probably really cheap and effective advertising, but **** is it annoying for current subscribers.



What's up with the math?
Open in 2016
2018 - 300k added
As of June 2019 -500k cumulative
By end of 2019 - 1 million cumulative?

If they added 300k in 2018, that leave 200k created between 2016-2017 and the first half of 2019. So either they had like no subscribers 2016-2017, and growth in 2019 is close or up a little bit to 2018, but even that growth rate doesn't double your entire base in 6 months. Is this pie in the sky thinking or am I misunderstanding the numbers that they cited?

I added Mirtle—who I greatly respect—two days ago, and unfollowed today. The amount of spam tweets was too much.

 

[TheLegend]

Hate to say it folks but just about every media outlet regularly retweets their stuff to death out there.

It isn't just The Athletic, it's many of the mainsteam media outlets as well.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Count me in the unlikely to renew boat. I just don't care enough.

 

[David Dennison]

Hate to say it folks but just about every media outlet regularly retweets their stuff to death out there.

It isn't just The Athletic, it's many of the mainsteam media outlets as well.

Absolutely, it's just I don't follow 10-15 NYT or Wapo writers like I do hockey/local writers on the athletic.

Yeah count me in the cancel when my sub is up too. The local content is just okay, and I don't read the national writers enough. I don't think the price is outrageous or anything, but there is just so much free sports coverage out there it's tough to justify spending money on it. RIP ESPN Insider btw.

 

[Pilky01]

But guys.....if you don't renew your subscription how will you know who has the best fenwick in the NHL?

 

[LeHab]

hat's up with the math?
Open in 2016
2018 - 300k added
As of June 2019 -500k cumulative
By end of 2019 - 1 million cumulative?

If they added 300k in 2018, that leave 200k created between 2016-2017 and the first half of 2019. So either they had like no subscribers 2016-2017, and growth in 2019 is close or up a little bit to 2018, but even that growth rate doesn't double your entire base in 6 months. Is this pie in the sky thinking or am I misunderstanding the numbers that they cited?

I think what they mean is as of 2018 they had 300K subs. In other words they went from 0 in 2016 to 300K in 2018 then added around 200K as of June. Forecasts are always painted rather optimistic especially when you are going through rounds of investment. Notice they target "close" to a million which can have a wide range.

Interesting model given proliferation of ad blockers these days. Surprised they are actually profitable in most cities given investments to attract writers and grow consumer base.

 

[David Dennison]

I think what they mean is as of 2018 they had 300K subs. In other words they went from 0 in 2016 to 300K in 2018 then added around 200K as of June. Forecasts are always painted rather optimistic especially when you are going through rounds of investment. Notice they target "close" to a million which can have a wide range.

Interesting model given proliferation of ad blockers these days. Surprised they are actually profitable in most cities given investments to attract writers and grow consumer base.

Like you said, words like "profitable" "most" cities, etc have some wiggle room.

I think the company was smart to go subscription route over being reliant on ad revenue. I don't think the site has ads at all (for now...), I'm sure they sell your data on the back end but so does everyone. If most newspapers could go turn back time they would have gone that route to begin with.

I think the company is well positioned and all but yeah it's gonna be a climb to get to and maintain scale and profitability in smaller markets without controlling costs or adding revenue streams like ads.

 

[LadyStanley]

What to expect from The Athletic UK

(Paywall)

Article describes the Athletic's expansion into UK. 50 new writers, new coverage of sports (EPL, Women's World Cup, and more).

 

[BigZ65]

Subscribed last year when they said they were expanding to Winnipeg. Thus far no beat coverage of CFL or the Jets. Basically just a blogger who writes about the Jets. Feel a little abandoned and don't think I'll renew. I do enjoy some of the long reads.

 

[SupremeNachos]

I'd never pay for it, I can find the same content for free online

So you can find each article all these writers write elsewhere?

 

[Dolemite]

Seems to be significant buyer's remorse RE: the Athletic for most. They will have a problem with renewals.

I renewed and will keep renewing. The amount and types of spectacular articles never stops. It’s just great reading all around. I love the fact that there isn’t limits on articles due to space in papers. The article about how the recently fired Wild GM drove the team into the ground is some of the best writing I’ve ever read.

The downfall of Paul Fenton: Inside the GM's turbulent 14...

I added Mirtle—who I greatly respect—two days ago, and unfollowed today. The amount of spam tweets was too much.

Mirtle lost his way a long time ago. I don’t blame you. He’s not the good reporter he once was.