Beardown wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
DAC wrote:
A lot of hockey fans on the Athletic are dropping their subscriptions due to their lack of coverage of the entire league after laying off a number of reporters. Seems like half the league doesn't have a writer yet Chicago has two.
Re-reading p1 here I’m as confused as ever on why the NYT did this, particular to gut the thing 18 months later.
Because they're thinking losing some subscribers is worth dumping the cost of salaries. There is a percentage hit they're willing to take for the greater good of the bottom line. They think it's worth the gamble. If the subscriber hit ends up being too much, they'll just blow the entire thing up. No big deal.
A commentor on the Athletic who sounded like he really knew his shit, talked about how the lost subscribers would be much more expensive from a marketing standpoint to replace. In the past, subscribers were quick to sing the praises of the Athletic and did a lot of marketing and promoting for them. This describes me perfectly as someone who raved about the Athletic and suggested to any sportsfan I came across to get a subscription. Now, you have many subscribers leaving and others, like myself, that view the product as inferior to what it was a couple years ago. I guess their bean counters make all these projections.