The Athletic - Black Friday 1 year subscription for $1/month ($12 for a year)
$12.00
+13Deal Score
4,368 Views
If you like good sports reporting, the Athletic is a pretty good product and IMO, worth $1 a month for sure. It looks like they have a BF deal for a year's subscription at $1 a month and then resuming the normal $8 per month after a year.
They do have good articles but it bothered me that they started throwing adds all over the place. The articles (most of the writers) are definitely worth the subscription imo, but I cancelled mine due to the ads and political agenda that get strewn in to many of their articles. Sports is an outlet for me and just want it to be about sports.
Still a very good deal for those interested and I thumbed it up. Reps to you OP
They do have good articles but it bothered me that they started throwing adds all over the place. The articles (most of the writers) are definitely worth the subscription imo, but I cancelled mine due to the ads and political agenda that get strewn in to many of their articles. Sports is an outlet for me and just want it to be about sports.
Still a very good deal for those interested and I thumbed it up. Reps to you OP
Thanks. I have been trying to find sports writing that was as in depth and high quality and I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Bleacher report, SB Nation, they just didn't seem to have the depth that the athletic had. I'm allergic to subscriptions but 12 bucks for a year seems pretty reasonable. The ads thing, I can understand that. But to be honest I barely even notice ads anymore. I just kind of ignore them since they're only going to be more pervasive as every online company and streaming video place turns to it as a source of revenue! Thanks for the thumbs up
Thanks. I have been trying to find sports writing that was as in depth and high quality and I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Bleacher report, SB Nation, they just didn't seem to have the depth that the athletic had. I'm allergic to subscriptions but 12 bucks for a year seems pretty reasonable. The ads thing, I can understand that. But to be honest I barely even notice ads anymore. I just kind of ignore them since they're only going to be more pervasive as every online company and streaming video place turns to it as a source of revenue! Thanks for the thumbs up
Thing 8s if you are paying a subscription there shouldn't be ads. So by subscribing you are saying it's ok for them to double dip. Of course companies push for more profit but 5gey can only raise their profits if we enable them to do so.
Thing 8s if you are paying a subscription there shouldn't be ads. So by subscribing you are saying it's ok for them to double dip. Of course companies push for more profit but 5gey can only raise their profits if we enable them to do so.
I understand that perspective, but I think realistically that level of purism isn't going to be sustainable. Shareholders of B2C companies have gone from "growth at all costs" to emphasizing profit (the streaming services like Hulu and now Netflix are clear examples...media companies that don't leverage advertising will increasingly become more and more rare). But yeah, for $1 as opposed to $8/month, I'll take some ads for good content.
I understand that perspective, but I think realistically that level of purism isn't going to be sustainable. Shareholders of B2C companies have gone from "growth at all costs" to emphasizing profit (the streaming services like Hulu and now Netflix are clear examples...media companies that don't leverage advertising will increasingly become more and more rare). But yeah, for $1 as opposed to $8/month, I'll take some ads for good content.
in this particular case, i think the situation is different. Their model of charging for a subscription to "premium" content appeared to be working and was profitable. Profitable enough that they sold for over half a billion to the NY Times. It was only after the NY Times acquisition that they pivoted to a "bleed the customer for ever penny" model.
back to the deal. Great find OP. I canceled my subscription a few months ago, but $12 for a year of Spurs and EPL articles is worth it for me.
in this particular case, i think the situation is different. Their model of charging for a subscription to "premium" content appeared to be working and was profitable. Profitable enough that they sold for over half a billion to the NY Times. It was only after the NY Times acquisition that they pivoted to a "bleed the customer for ever penny" model.
back to the deal. Great find OP. I canceled my subscription a few months ago, but $12 for a year of Spurs and EPL articles is worth it for me.
Were they profitable? Or was it another "throwing $ down the drain" kind of acquisition by a bigger company?
Some bigger Corp throwing $ at a startup/smaller company doesn't mean the smaller company is profitable, or they won't regret throwing $ down the drain in a couple of years.
10 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Still a very good deal for those interested and I thumbed it up. Reps to you OP
Still a very good deal for those interested and I thumbed it up. Reps to you OP
Thanks. I have been trying to find sports writing that was as in depth and high quality and I just couldn't find it anywhere else. Bleacher report, SB Nation, they just didn't seem to have the depth that the athletic had. I'm allergic to subscriptions but 12 bucks for a year seems pretty reasonable. The ads thing, I can understand that. But to be honest I barely even notice ads anymore. I just kind of ignore them since they're only going to be more pervasive as every online company and streaming video place turns to it as a source of revenue! Thanks for the thumbs up
back to the deal. Great find OP. I canceled my subscription a few months ago, but $12 for a year of Spurs and EPL articles is worth it for me.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
back to the deal. Great find OP. I canceled my subscription a few months ago, but $12 for a year of Spurs and EPL articles is worth it for me.
Some bigger Corp throwing $ at a startup/smaller company doesn't mean the smaller company is profitable, or they won't regret throwing $ down the drain in a couple of years.