New York Times in talks to buy The Athletic

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
The New York Times is looking into a potential acquisition of The Athletic, three sources familiar with the matter tell Axios.

Driving the news: Sources say the Times approached The Athletic following a report about a potential deal between The Athletic and Axios in March.

  • The Wall Street Journal reported in May that The Athletic and Axios are no longer in talks for a potential merger via SPAC, and that The Athletic viewed The Times as a better contender for a merger.
The Times has been reaching out to former employees to vet The Athletic's business and culture, sources say.

  • The Times is eyeing a full acquisition, not a joint venture or strategic partnership.
  • The Athletic raised $50 million last year in a Series D funding round, just before the pandemic, putting its latest valuation at around $500 million.
By the numbers: Sources say The Athletic has about 1.2 million subscribers, some on discounted rate plans.

  • The company did around $80 million in revenue last year, sources say, confirming a report from the Wall Street Journal. It isn't profitable.
https://www.axios.com/new-york-times-nytimes-acquisition-athletic-7f1dabf4-9315-4975-93f9-68e13c642a43.html



I don't know how I would feel about this, hopefully they let them do their thing and dont try to interfere with the good work they have done
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
https://www.axios.com/new-york-times-nytimes-acquisition-athletic-7f1dabf4-9315-4975-93f9-68e13c642a43.html



I don't know how I would feel about this, hopefully they let them do their thing and dont try to interfere with the good work they have done
It's hard to see how they would continue to operate without some sort of deal like this, given the numbers. 600 employees, with only 1 million subscribers and revenue of $80 million... I think a NYT acquisition would be good overall just for the continued viability of the site.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
On the one hand, the Athletic needs to be acquired to survive so this would be good. On the other, the NYT isn't exactly well run, and one thing I like about the Athletic is it isn't a hot take factory, and I worry about NYT involvement making it into one.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Depends on what you mean by "well run". They are a profitable news organization in 2020 so they're doing something right.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I'm old enough to remember Ken Rosenthal and the rest of the Athletic brass getting snippy when someone suggested they were out to destroy local newspapers. Hard to see how this is anything but proof that they were full of it.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,434
On the one hand, the Athletic needs to be acquired to survive so this would be good. On the other, the NYT isn't exactly well run, and one thing I like about the Athletic is it isn't a hot take factory, and I worry about NYT involvement making it into one.
What about the NYT suggests it'd make The Athletic a "hot take factory?" I'm not sure their sports section has made a headline since Murray Chass was mercifully shown the door.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
What about the NYT suggests it'd make The Athletic a "hot take factory?" I'm not sure their sports section has made a headline since Murray Chass was mercifully shown the door.
The way they generally treat opinion writing. Maybe they won't feel that way with the Athletic, but they pretty aggressively sought out controversy at the expense of quality control, and it even spilled over into their news coverage. I think that their sports section is a non-entity that they don't care much about is probably the reason that they are after the Athletic, and that makes you wonder... do they just see it as an easy way into sports through using an established name, or are they looking to be more active in the sports world, and what does that mean?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The way they generally treat opinion writing. Maybe they won't feel that way with the Athletic, but they pretty aggressively sought out controversy at the expense of quality control, and it even spilled over into their news coverage. I think that their sports section is a non-entity that they don't care much about is probably the reason that they are after the Athletic, and that makes you wonder... do they just see it as an easy way into sports through using an established name, or are they looking to be more active in the sports world, and what does that mean?
My guess? More agonizing over the political implications of sports stories and worse content.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,434
The way they generally treat opinion writing. Maybe they won't feel that way with the Athletic, but they pretty aggressively sought out controversy at the expense of quality control, and it even spilled over into their news coverage. I think that their sports section is a non-entity that they don't care much about is probably the reason that they are after the Athletic, and that makes you wonder... do they just see it as an easy way into sports through using an established name, or are they looking to be more active in the sports world, and what does that mean?
I don't think they'd intentionally mess with day-to-day team coverage in order to stir things up, but your example, which I'm embarrassed I didn't think of, definitely gives me pause. At a minimum, I could see them encouraging more long-form pieces with a political angle. Fingers crossed they don't mess this up.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
I'm old enough to remember Ken Rosenthal and the rest of the Athletic brass getting snippy when someone suggested they were out to destroy local newspapers. Hard to see how this is anything but proof that they were full of it.
Local newspapers were destroyed long before The Athletic came along. If anything, The Athletic has been a lifeline for local reporters who would have been laid off otherwise.
 

AbbyNoho

broke her neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,177
Northampton, Massachusetts
The way they generally treat opinion writing. Maybe they won't feel that way with the Athletic, but they pretty aggressively sought out controversy at the expense of quality control, and it even spilled over into their news coverage. I think that their sports section is a non-entity that they don't care much about is probably the reason that they are after the Athletic, and that makes you wonder... do they just see it as an easy way into sports through using an established name, or are they looking to be more active in the sports world, and what does that mean?
Bari Weiss
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,370
The Athletic never had a chance to succeed and the owners are bailing on it now before they have to raise more money at a worse valuation. So they'll cash out and a couple of the key writers who got equity early will get something, but for most this is the end. $80M in revenues and 400 writers and 200 staff. That's $200K in revenue per writer and $133k per employee? I mean that is a DISASTER.

If the NYT pays 6x revenues for something that isn't growing then they deserve what comes to them
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
It can be an extremely lucrative model for individuals that have built up a brand. For example, I and many others pay $120 a year to read Ben Thompson's work, which does not rely on advertising and does very well. There are others who have pulled off similar models. It runs the risk of going out on your own and building up your brand but it is a wholly viable model for digital. Substack will be an interesting use case to follow in that, for many prominent writers at least, it caps the upside but limits the downside.

Regardless, I would say the NYT is a digital content company at this point given where it derives its subscriptions and revenue.
 

Murby

New Member
Mar 16, 2006
1,790
Boston Metro
My instinct to never buy into one of these subscriber model content vehicles continues to be the right decision. They have become a way for people to use labor to gain wealth for themselves and then sellout. Good for them, but I don't wish to help you make money.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I will be pretty disappointed when and if The Athletic is downgraded. The quality of coverage is pretty impressive for (at most) five bucks a month, especially if your interests run beyond just following one or two favorite teams.

The websites for ESPN, SI, etc. are vastly inferior to what they once were, yet that is the future of sports reporting because people aren't willing to spend in monthly subscription fees what they shell out on a trip to Dunkin' Donuts.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
You just proved my point. WSJ is both expensive and niche.

Edit: @OurF'ingCity beat me
Maybe it's just me or a semantic discussion of the meaning of nice but the WSJ (or FT or Economist or NY Times for that) don't seem to be niche products. All four have hundreds of thousands of subscribers---here's a year old article saying the NYT and WSJ have 2 million plus digital subscribers.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/02/the-wall-street-journal-joins-the-new-york-times-in-the-2-million-digital-subscriber-club/
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
The NYT has 7.5M paid subscribers, of which 5M are digital-only News (not Games or Cooking). They're a digital publication. I wouldn't characterize them as particularly niche. They have a focus / bend but that doesn't overly limit what they choose to cover. They are exceptions though in the sense they have a big enough following and provide content that matches up with their subscribers' desires. Traditional newspapers largely relied on a local monopoly business model, which got blown up with the advent of the Internet.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
Maybe it's just me or a semantic discussion of the meaning of nice but the WSJ (or FT or Economist or NY Times for that) don't seem to be niche products. All four have hundreds of thousands of subscribers---here's a year old article saying the NYT and WSJ have 2 million plus digital subscribers.

https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/02/the-wall-street-journal-joins-the-new-york-times-in-the-2-million-digital-subscriber-club/
WSJ is also $40 a month and gets a lot of their subscriptions from businesses (my company pays for mine).

The Athletic is $5 a month and isn't likely to get a lot of corporate subscribers. It's much harder for them to be sustainable at that price point. And some people still think it's too expensive!
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
WSJ is also $40 a month and gets a lot of their subscriptions from businesses (my company pays for mine).

The Athletic is $5 a month and isn't likely to get a lot of corporate subscribers. It's much harder for them to be sustainable at that price point. And some people still think it's too expensive!
Yes, the WSJ business is massively dependent on corporate subscriptions. I know a lot of people with a WSJ subscription and I don’t think a single one of them pays for it out of their own pocket.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
WSJ is also $40 a month and gets a lot of their subscriptions from businesses (my company pays for mine).

The Athletic is $5 a month and isn't likely to get a lot of corporate subscribers. It's much harder for them to be sustainable at that price point. And some people still think it's too expensive!
Yeah, we're having a purely semantic debate here. I just don't think the WSJ is fairly characterized as a niche product. Certainly it's generally paid for by companies.