If you are not a subscriber of Huddle Up, join 56,000 other professional athletes, business executives & casual sports fans that receive it directly in their inbox each morning — it’s free. The newsletter is presented by… Stop renting Airbnb’s…invest in them.
It's alarming to me that "increase advertising" is the key idea they have for reducing losses at The Athletic. The Athletic is a subscription based site, people (like me) who subscribe, do that because we wanted to get away from ad-based free news outlets. I do not want to pay for a service then spend my time on that service looking at adverts. This is a proven way to make existing customers really mad.
"Making existing customers really mad" - surely isn't a smart move when keeping those existing customers is critical to achieving your goals!
Unpopular opinion, but they need to increase the price of the service, perhaps by 30%, but at the same time make a pledge that not a single advertiser will ever get anywhere near the service. Oh, and promise to cover cricket.
They have already got me agreeing to pay £60 or whatever it was each year, the difference from that to £90 is psychologically small compared to £0 to £60. Yet if done correctly would possibly make them profitable.
NYT take note: I (and millions like me) want a top quality sports site/magazine - I will pay for it, more than you are currently charging. I hate being advertised to.
The Athletic's Financials Since The New York Times Acquisition
It's alarming to me that "increase advertising" is the key idea they have for reducing losses at The Athletic. The Athletic is a subscription based site, people (like me) who subscribe, do that because we wanted to get away from ad-based free news outlets. I do not want to pay for a service then spend my time on that service looking at adverts. This is a proven way to make existing customers really mad.
"Making existing customers really mad" - surely isn't a smart move when keeping those existing customers is critical to achieving your goals!
Unpopular opinion, but they need to increase the price of the service, perhaps by 30%, but at the same time make a pledge that not a single advertiser will ever get anywhere near the service. Oh, and promise to cover cricket.
They have already got me agreeing to pay £60 or whatever it was each year, the difference from that to £90 is psychologically small compared to £0 to £60. Yet if done correctly would possibly make them profitable.
NYT take note: I (and millions like me) want a top quality sports site/magazine - I will pay for it, more than you are currently charging. I hate being advertised to.