The Athletic TO: Has Anyone Subscribed? Is it Worth It?

[Confucius]

well i know the sun is doing that or has done that for ages (but you got 10 free reads). the star's online content is woefully short.

Thing about the Sun is they give you a paragraph or two of everything before it's blocked from view. For me that's enough about the topic and gives me a snapshot of what is going on. If I'm very interested I can google it and find it somewhere else. It's eye opening experience on how many articles are shared between outlets.

 

[Anthrax442]

well i know the sun is doing that or has done that for ages (but you got 10 free reads). the star's online content is woefully short.

Next time you max out, try going opening the browser as Incognito and go in, does the trick for me.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Thing about the Sun is they give you a paragraph or two of everything before it's blocked from view. For me that's enough about the topic and gives me a snapshot of what is going on. If I'm very interested I can google it and find it somewhere else. It's eye opening experience on how many articles are shared between outlets.

that's what the Athletic does now, gives you a paragraph then goes blocked from view.
the article sharing from the outlets is because it's the CP news services? so like a good chunk is shared between everyone (including TSN/Sportsnet)

 

[thewave]

Hopefully we go to a pay per post model here at HFBoards. We need to restrict content for paying members and start charging for internet use per web page metering or something. Subscribe to this quality news service.

 

[Borschevsky]

I'm all for paying when it comes to good quality content i.e music, movies, shows.

Sports journalism doesn't into that category for me. There's only so many things and ways to read about hockey.

I mean, let's be honest. The major reason most people here have been happy with The Athletic is that it has been mostly, if not all, positive about the Leafs so far.

 

[thewave]

I'm all for paying when it comes to good quality content i.e music, movies, shows.

Sports journalism doesn't into that category for me. There's only so many things and ways to read about hockey.

I mean, let's be honest. The major reason most people here have been happy with The Athletic is that it has been mostly, if not all, positive about the Leafs so far.

Smart man.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I'm all for paying when it comes to good quality content i.e music, movies, shows.

Sports journalism doesn't into that category for me. There's only so many things and ways to read about hockey.

I mean, let's be honest. The major reason most people here have been happy with The Athletic is that it has been mostly, if not all, positive about the Leafs so far.

to be fair, i've read many negative things about the Leafs. if it's written well, it shouldn't matter.

 

[IArgueWithMyself]

I've subscribed. I don't think it's necessairly worth it with the content now, but I'm definitely going to support this kind of journalism. The SUN is doing the same now (with showing a sample paragraph before asking you to subscribe) but my god is the quality between them and the Athletic unparalleled

 

[Jack Bauer]

I never understand why people pay to read articles when they can get the same articles from countless others for free

How do you expect to get unbias and real coverage if you're not paying for someone to do the work?

We're about to go down a very slipepry slope in society as every person born after 1990 or so has this "why pay for anything" attitude as they complain about things like "why does news coverage suck?" or one of my recent favorites "why has there been no good music for 20 years?"

 

[Menzinger]

I've been contemplating subscribing. I like Mirtle and Alter.

How are their podcasts?

The Leaf report is fantastic- haven't given he others a listen yet

 

[Menzinger]

I'm all for paying when it comes to good quality content i.e music, movies, shows.

Sports journalism doesn't into that category for me. There's only so many things and ways to read about hockey.

I mean, let's be honest. The major reason most people here have been happy with The Athletic is that it has been mostly, if not all, positive about the Leafs so far.

It's positive but let's face it, it's because there's been more positive than negative things to talk about as of late. Most of its articles tend to be pretty open about their arguments (ie using stats to support views) so it's not just. "The leafs are great because I said so" type pieces

 

[thewave]

How do you expect to get unbias and real coverage if you're not paying for someone to do the work?

We're about to go down a very slipepry slope in society as every person born after 1990 or so has this "why pay for anything" attitude as they complain about things like "why does news coverage suck?" or one of my recent favorites "why has there been no good music for 20 years?"

There is nothing wrong with paying for content. When it comes to sports I am surprised many people pay much attention. I mean, you could be a good citizen and read political publications, economy or what have you buying the dip all day but, hey if this your bag go for it. Shocked there is a market for the Athletic. I can't imagine it has much staying power though.

They should charge per game viewing Leafs games. $5 per game per TV. 2c to post here, 25c to unlock and view a thread. Web tokens is where the future is. Foundation is being laid now. I don't believe this is good nor do I feel it will work BTW.

I guess what I am suggesting in a roundabout way is... Entertainment is essentially subsidized and kept free while information that matters and empowers you is pay to play. The Athletic is attempting to charge for their opinions that subsequently matters not to the majority of its subscribers. Eventually the readers who are not professionals will see the duplicity of content as overlapping articles are released or mentioned free. They will weight this against importance of the content and deem it a waste of time and money.

Happy hunting.

 

[ObscureAlien]

Hopefully we go to a pay per post model here at HFBoards. We need to restrict content for paying members and start charging for internet use per web page metering or something. Subscribe to this quality news service.

User CP FAQ Community New Posts Search Quick Links Forum Jump Log Out
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

 

[theaub]

tbh I'd have no issue if they made this a pay site

 

[BM14]

The Leaf report is fantastic- haven't given he others a listen yet

Thanks, I'll give them a go this wknd.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

I personally don't see any reason to pay for content from a site like Athletic when there are so many other free options out there. I understand why papers and websites go to the pay-per model, I just don't know how sustainable it is.

Sincere question here for those that do subscribe. Is the content that unique that it is worth the money? In the end, these are a bunch of people (whether they were let go or left on their own) whose work we previously had access to.

 

[The CyNick]

I agree with the idea of supporting writers if you like their work.

The paywall concept doesn't work for me because I don't value any opinions other than my own. Certainly not enough to pay for random person's opinion on a subject I cover as closely as they do, if not more.

 

[The CyNick]

tbh I'd have no issue if they made this a pay site

I will quickly start a free site and offer any valuable content for free.

 

[theaub]

This site provides zero valuable content outside of its existence as an established message board for many years.

 

[theaub]

I personally don't see any reason to pay for content from a site like Athletic when there are so many other free options out there. I understand why papers and websites go to the pay-per model, I just don't know how sustainable it is.

Sincere question here for those that do subscribe. Is the content that unique that it is worth the money? In the end, these are a bunch of people (whether they were let go or left on their own) whose work we previously had access to.

I'd say its more quality than uniqueness (unless we consider quality to be a unique feature now, which is more of a sad commentary on the current status of sports writing on the internet).

My issue is, that while the two cities they picked are very convenient for my fandom, what do I really not know about the Blue Jays/Blackhawks/Raptors that would compel me to pay $50 per year? And then you get further down the road into teams like TFC (where the writers are just general sports guys instead of picking from a rather well-established base of long-time soccer writers in the GTA), and I'm fairly confident I know far more about the sport/team than they do.

The one thing I would potentially pay for is access. Although it is a ghost-written, extremely biased website, I would say the Players Tribune is my favourite sports journalism (maybe 'journalism' is better) site right now, because it provides content that I have zero chance of re-creating myself from watching the games/events.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

I'd say its more quality than uniqueness (unless we consider quality to be a unique feature now, which is more of a sad commentary on the current status of sports writing on the internet).

My issue is, that while the two cities they picked are very convenient for my fandom, what do I really not know about the Blue Jays/Blackhawks/Raptors that would compel me to pay $50 per year? And then you get further down the road into teams like TFC (where the writers are just general sports guys instead of picking from a rather well-established base of long-time soccer writers in the GTA), and I'm fairly confident I know far more about the sport/team than they do.

The one thing I would potentially pay for is access. Although it is a ghost-written, extremely biased website, I would say the Players Tribune is my favourite sports journalism (maybe 'journalism' is better) site right now, because it provides content that I have zero chance of re-creating myself from watching the games/events.

I agree with this. What I'd be looking to pay for is in-depth, unique articles that you won't get anywhere else. I'm thinking of Sports Illustrated and The Hockey News (back in the day) type of things.

Hot takes on the Leafs' rebuild or fancy manipulation of advanced stats? You're right...those can easily be found elsewhere without coughing up money to do so.

 

[Alerion]

I've been a subscriber for 3 weeks and I think it's worth it. The analysis is definitely a notch above the stuff you get in the newspapers or on TSN's site in terms of the depth and the graphics presented. They've managed to hire my favourite Leafs writers, so I thought it was worth paying for their work. If you're an analytics fan like myself, Scott Wheeler and Dom Lucszynsnsn (I can't spell his name) both do pieces on their site that are fantastic. In addition, they've got a guy named Jack Han who does pretty solid systems analysis that you pretty much never see in other forms of sports media. Mirtle's been pumping out a ton of content for them and he was easily the best Leafs writer in the mainstream media prior to joining The Athletic. I'm also a Raps fan so I get value from that side of things as well (I hope Koreen can manage to get Lowe on sometime), so if you're a fan of multiple Toronto sports teams then I'd say you have a better chance of getting your money's worth (once their Blue Jays section is up and running anyway).

 

[Daisy Jane]

i actually unsubscribed. it was good, but but i just needed the cash right now. ah well.
it was nice to see what it was about, though

 

[Epictetus]

My issue is, that while the two cities they picked are very convenient for my fandom, what do I really not know about the Blue Jays/Blackhawks/Raptors that would compel me to pay $50 per year? And then you get further down the road into teams like TFC (where the writers are just general sports guys instead of picking from a rather well-established base of long-time soccer writers in the GTA), and I'm fairly confident I know far more about the sport/team than they do.

The one thing I would potentially pay for is access. Although it is a ghost-written, extremely biased website, I would say the Players Tribune is my favourite sports journalism (maybe 'journalism' is better) site right now, because it provides content that I have zero chance of re-creating myself from watching the games/events.

I'd say something like Fangraphs is unique and full of quality. What baseball fan or person within the game wouldn't find that site useful or objects to it? You know you've made it when major sports networks latch onto your content as an authority in its presentation of information or facts in its sports news.

I'm sure, if they truly decided to create a subscription-based thing, a lot of people would happily pay for access to a statistical database\blog type site that is as rich in content as they are (i'm not talking about paying for extra access or more features, but access to the site in its entirety).

As for the Athletic, I tend to agree. Some insightful articles, and great writers, but that's about it.

 

[theaub]

There are definitely a number of free sites that provide content that I would consider paying for if they went to a paywall. In fact I'm relatively certain I flipped FG $20 when they started their membership drive, which would mark the only time I've ever paid for sports content. That being said, even they have become somewhat more 'mainstream' over the past little bit. The only truly unique articles that I like there nowadays are the Sunday notes and the contact score stuff. (I would say ZiPS scores but I have a truly deep-rooted hatred of ZiPS).

Even something like Grantland/Ringer is good to an extent because their feature stories are usually top notch (the recent oral history of the Tuck Rule game was very good). At least from scrolling the Athletic article listings, I don't see any longform stuff like that either. A vast majority of the stories seem to be game recaps or on basic mainstream news which is...meh.