[Football] The Athletic

[Solid at the back]

I also picked up the £1 a month deal a few months back. Won't pay anymore as I barely read it as it is. £1 pm is a fair price I'm happy to pay.

 

[Normal Rob]

I agree regular robert, but in this example, the Athletic is charging £7 pcm for all sports content, which on the face of it is decent, basically two fancy coffees. However, I personally only read the Brighton articles, so it's probably about £7 per article, which is terrible value. I appreciate some might pore through many more - I'd rather they offered an alternative wallet option and I could pay £0.50 per article or something.

I was wondering what alter-ego to give my 2nd account - thanks!

Part of the issue, especially for the smaller/less glamourous clubs (where we fit in that is probably down to what age you are/how you view the club) is that the content is too thinly spread. A wallet option would be a good path for them, but it relies on the content provider being able to lure people in to buying articles, and that means a lot of hitting people up which may get on their nerves and have the opposite effect.

Personally i think its best to just choose a fair price and stick with it, something like £3 per month for all content and then concentrate on making the content compelling so that people stick with it.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

My year is coming to an end soon. I will probably extend if I can find another deal, won't pay a lot though.

I'll stick with it as I do enjoy the pieces by some of the journo's who cover European football like Horncastle and Honigstein as well as Michael Cox and the data guys like Tom Worville. But it certainly won't be because of Naylor. I've never liked him as a writer, find him incredibly bland and basic. And most of the stuff he writes on there is just incredibly dull and offers no real insight we didn't already know. His attitude to us fans will always grate too. They should definitely look for an upgrade.

 

[mr sheen]

My discounted year ended this week. Not worth the 12 month, 7.99 a month deal I've been offered. Would happily pay half that. But will be equally content to do without if no deal is forthcoming. Like others above, I enjoy the features and some of the in depth stuff, and get no value whatsoever from Naylor's work

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Not sure The Athletic is failing is it? Anyway, it's not a news site, as such.

PS New York Times gained 2m+ digital subscribers last year alone....

I get it that you feel the need to fly the flag for your profession, and I feel your pain, sort of. Truth is nobody in their right mind is going to pay for content, least of all something as trivial as sports content. It's a doomed business model

 

[FatSuperman]

I was wondering what alter-ego to give my 2nd account - thanks!

Part of the issue, especially for the smaller/less glamourous clubs (where we fit in that is probably down to what age you are/how you view the club) is that the content is too thinly spread. A wallet option would be a good path for them, but it relies on the content provider being able to lure people in to buying articles, and that means a lot of hitting people up which may get on their nerves and have the opposite effect.

Personally i think its best to just choose a fair price and stick with it, something like £3 per month for all content and then concentrate on making the content compelling so that people stick with it.

Agree. They don't want to confuse people, and I'd not deposit a few £ in a wallet unless I already knew I wanted it - and I only know that due to the cheap first year I had. I'd be happy with a much cheaper monthly and only get to select one team and one league! Maybe get 5 guest articles a year I can go read

 

[Normal Rob]

I get it that you feel the need to fly the flag for your profession, and I feel your pain, sort of. Truth is nobody in their right mind is going to pay for content, least of all something as trivial as sports content. It's a doomed business model

Paying for what is often football opinion, maybe that model is doomed, but your wider point is completely off the mark. Most large publishing companies (now mostly calling themselves 'content creators') are successfully moving from a reliance on people paying for print to a print/digital hybrid model. In time this may well become a digital only model. They can do this because of the exact opposite of what you say - people are willing to pay for content if the content is good enough.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Paying for what is often football opinion, maybe that model is doomed, but your wider point is completely off the mark. Most large publishing companies (now mostly calling themselves 'content creators') are successfully moving from a reliance on people paying for print to a print/digital hybrid model. In time this may well become a digital only model. They can do this because of the exact opposite of what you say - people are willing to pay for content if the content is good enough.

Maybe such people exist. Maybe they don't. Personally I feel pretty sure that NSC and MSM fulfills most of my needs to know. If there's some super-secret cache of knowledge that needs to be paid for then meh! I'm pretty sure I can learn to live without it

 

[Normal Rob]

Well I can tell you with absolute certainty that they do exist. The alternative is to rely solely on people writing what is, quite possibly, unsubstantiated, opinion led drivel on internet message boards. That works for some, indeed many, but not for all.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Well I can tell you with absolute certainty that they do exist. The alternative is to rely solely on people writing what is, quite possibly, unsubstantiated, opinion led drivel on internet message boards. That works for some, indeed many, but not for all.

PAY for Andy Naylor content? Good luck with that

 

[Normal Rob]

PAY for Andy Naylor content? Good luck with that

Well that's the issue then, is it not? The content is not good enough, not the model.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Well that's the issue then, is it not? The content is not good enough, not the model.

The Athletic is a complete triviality. If it were to go bust overnight (which it will do, overnight, sometime soon) then very few would even notice

 

[Normal Rob]

The Athletic is a complete triviality. If it were to go bust overnight (which it will do, overnight, sometime soon) then very few would even notice

You remember that unsubstantiated, opinion led stuff i was talking about?...

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

I think the Athletic is brilliant, but the Albion content is largely wordcount filling PR Naylor writes on behalf of the club, which is a chronic waste of the platform.

£4 a month feels the right price. Wouldn't pay any more. £1 per month is a great deal.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

I don’t love football enough to be sucked into yet another direct debit/continuous payment, to read transfer gossip allegedly a fraction second before everyone else passes it on anyway. Who cares? Or “beautifully crafted” pieces from football writers.

We like the Telegraph - football news without the lies, plus great travel and finance sections.

 

[elwheelio]

I think the Athletic is brilliant, but the Albion content is largely wordcount filling PR Naylor writes on behalf of the club, which is a chronic waste of the platform.

£4 a month feels the right price. Wouldn't pay any more. £1 per month is a great deal.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Agree. Decent platform and some great football stuff on there but Naylor's stuff is pretty tame. He doesn't seem to have any contacts so just regurgutates what the club tell him, which isn't much. He never seems to break stories, only to comment on those of others.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Agree. Decent platform and some great football stuff on there but Naylor's stuff is pretty tame. He doesn't seem to have any contacts so just regurgutates what the club tell him, which isn't much. He never seems to break stories, only to comment on those of others.

This with bells on. I do think it is a good read its just a shame that the more general articles are so much better than the BHA ones. I decided to go with another of my e mails addresses when the £1 per month deal was on as it wasnt worth what they were asking.

My original e mail address is constantly being offered a new deal regularly with the last actually matching the £1 I now pay. I think I would probably keep it up when it runs out but at no more than £2 a month. If they upped the quality of the BHA content then would probably pay a bit more

 

[Solid at the back]

I hate the continuous plugging of old stories on Twitter from the journos. "Ben White's going to Arsenal, oh BTW here's how he likes his eggs in the morning" or something like that and link the 3 month old article.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I don’t love football enough to be sucked into yet another direct debit/continuous payment, to read transfer gossip allegedly a fraction second before everyone else passes it on anyway. Who cares? Or “beautifully crafted” pieces from football writers.

We like the Telegraph - football news without the lies, plus great travel and finance sections.

This.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I'm not sure that The Athletic is doomed. I'd guess plenty of people are renewing for less than £59.99.
I managed to renew after 12 months for £30 with a bit of jigery pokery with e-mail addresses.

In my opinion it's one of the best sources for in-depth stories with some excellent writers.

The Athletic may be struggling, it may be succeeding, but it's certainly worth reading.
I reckon I'd be happy to pay about £40 a year.

£1 a month [emoji1305]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk