LadyStanley
Registered User
Nice milestone.
Hope to reach 1 million by the end of the year
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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'd never pay for it, I can find the same content for free online
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 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?
Absolutely, it's just I don't follow 10-15 NYT or Wapo writers like I do hockey/local writers on the athletic.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.
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?
Like you said, words like "profitable" "most" cities, etc have some wiggle room.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.
So you can find each article all these writers write elsewhere?I'd never pay for it, I can find the same content for free online
Seems to be significant buyer's remorse RE: the Athletic for most. They will have a problem with renewals.
I added Mirtle—who I greatly respect—two days ago, and unfollowed today. The amount of spam tweets was too much.