The Athletic Was Purchased By the Ny Times

[GASabresIUFAN]

How long until it’s merged into the failing NY Times? 6 Months, a year? Less?  

[SDS]

Is failing supposed to be ironic?

[Broken Ankles]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

How long until it’s merged into the failing NY Times? 6 Months, a year? Less?  

Why is it failing?  Revenue, profitability and paid subscriptions are up YOY.  Subscribers are almost 9 million vs the Athletics 1 million.    Or is this statement just a political one?  I hope it is part of their offering as I couldn’t see spending $60/year for the subscription to the Athletic but the times digital is only $4/month.

[GASabresIUFAN]

No it’s business commentary.  This company was once twice the size it is today.  It’s revenue has been mostly flat for a decade.  

[klos1963]

17 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

No it’s business commentary.  This company was once twice the size it is today.  It’s revenue has been mostly flat for a decade.  

after the transition to digital that all publications went through, the Times revenue has been increasing steadily over the the last few years and looks like it's past year has been a larger revenue increase than it's most recent years.

[erickompositör72]

1 hour ago, klos1963 said:

after the transition to digital that all publications went through, the Times revenue has been increasing steadily over the the last few years and looks like it's past year has been a larger revenue increase than it's most recent years.

fake news!

[freester]

The Athletic had a flawed business model without advertising. I don’t understand how the New York Times makes money on the deal. 

[inkman]

7 minutes ago, freester said:

The Athletic had a flawed business model without advertising. I don’t understand how the New York Times makes money on the deal. 

Is it possible their main objective was to report the news 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

No it’s business commentary.  This company was once twice the size it is today.  It’s revenue has been mostly flat for a decade.  

Newspapers around the country having been falling by the wayside in this digital age. The media business in general, especially local news broadcasting and papers , has been subjected to a lot of financial stresses resulting in a lot of consolidations. Compared to the struggles of most paper/media outlets the NYT is doing relatively well in making the transition to functioning in the digital age. The NYT may not be a good investment for investors but it is a viable enterprise. That in itself is an accomplishment.   

[triumph_communes]

They’re not there to make a profit. They’re there to squawk for corporate gains. The owners of the papers also own the big biz. NYT has been foreign corporate owned for a decade or more now. It’s a rag

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

They’re not there to make a profit. They’re there to squawk for corporate gains. The owners of the papers also own the big biz. NYT has been foreign corporate owned for a decade or more now. It’s a rag

You may want to research that a bit more. 

As for being a rag, it’s 162 Pulitzers suggest otherwise. 

[JohnC]

32 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

They’re not there to make a profit. They’re there to squawk for corporate gains. The owners of the papers also own the big biz. NYT has been foreign corporate owned for a decade or more now. It’s a rag

What is your source that it is a foreign owned company for more than a decade? From what I gathered it clearly is not. There may be some foreign owned shares but it is a fraction of the shares of the company.   

[triumph_communes]

13 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You may want to research that a bit more. 

As for being a rag, it’s 162 Pulitzers suggest otherwise. 

Aw yeah I didn’t know the class a shares were still all owned by Sulzberger. Carlos slim bought into all the non voting shares 

Pullitzers?  Just like the Nobel prizes are there to make you think the Nobels did more than just make TNT and drill for oil. It’s a charade 

Edited January 9, 2022 by triumph_communes

[K-9]

30 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

Aw yeah I didn’t know the class a shares were still all owned by Sulzberger. Carlos slim bought into all the non voting shares 

Pullitzers?  Just like the Nobel prizes are there to make you think the Nobels did more than just make TNT and drill for oil. It’s a charade 

The point is “rags” don’t win Pulitzers for journalism, your attempt to diminish their status and the people who’ve worked to earn them notwithstanding. “Rags” don’t employ the talent required to do what it takes to write a piece worthy of consideration, let be awarded one.