5 ms·

Magazines are dead, go to a grocery store and see what's on display in the checkout line. The most recent iteration of Sports Illustrated was just about squeez

Magazines are dead, go to a grocery store and see what's on display in the checkout line. The most recent iteration of Sports Illustrated was just about squeezing the last ounce of revenue you could from an already dead brand/product.

mlrtime 3y ago
I'd hargue SI has brand value for now. It needs to be reinvented away from print magazine.
- apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
  Even if they were to reinvent away from print, the market is so congested they'd never find a customer base again. Sports news can be had, for free, from hundreds, perhaps thousands of websites. The big news gets broken, again for free, on Twitter by the likes of Woj/Chams (NBA). Long form sports journalism already has a large, struggling entity: The Athletic. Beyond that, every major publication in the country covers long form sports stories in some shape or form. Highlights and analysis can be found on YouTube (for free) and the websites, podcasts, and social media accounts for each league/team. Not to mention the heavyweights like ESPN and TSN, who also focus more on the entertainment side of it. Then you have discussion, which already freely happens on Reddit, various blogs, Twitter, and other social media. The market is incredibly saturated from every single angle. Even with the brand value of Sports Illustrated, finding a profitable niche would be incredibly difficult.
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    >> Long form sports journalism already has a large, struggling entity: The Athletic Struggling? The New York Times paid over half a billion dollars for it in 2022.
    - graphe 3y ago
      > The company began exploring a sale to a larger media company in 2021, following continued unprofitability, driven by high expenses and reliance on venture capital funding instead of operational revenue. As of that time, the site had 1.2 million subscribers and $80 million in revenue, having raised $55 million in venture capital funding. The article on Wikipedia said NYT laid off it's own sports writers. Why would it need to be sold if it wasn't known to be struggling?
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        Why would someone pay $550,000,000 for it if it was known to be struggling? The founders were criticized at the time for having left money on the table by selling.
        graphe 3y ago
        Apparently to save money on unions.
        apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
        Most common theory is union busting. NYT would eventually layoff its entire (unionized) sports division in favor of the Athletic, which isn't unionized. Most critics have accused them of union busting by outsourcing their sports reporting to a non-union shop.
    - apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
      Yes. They sold to NYT because they didn't have a path to profitability or IPO. They were looking at a possible closure before the sale and lost $55M the year before the sale. Since the sale, things have been a little less clear because NYT is more opaque about it. Regardless, they had layoffs last year and ended their entire beat reporter team because it wasn't drawing national audiences enough. There have been various reports over the last year that NYT is struggling to turn the unit profitable as well.
- bdcravens 3y ago
  They have brand value, but less than a few years ago, which is when they should have reinvented. At this point they're close to the "Toys-R-Us" level of brand value: remembered by the previous generation, and seen as a relic by the current.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    If a young person thinks of them at all, I imagine they're "that magazine that used to have a swimsuit edition."
  - gs17 3y ago
    Even then, the reputation with the previous generation was dented by SI trying to make the swimsuit issue more progressive (that's the only time I ever heard a peep about it from older relatives, not that they bought it in the first place), which didn't make the current generation care more about it.
    - pasttense01 3y ago
      What exactly do you mean by more progressive? [I've seen Sports Illustrated when I was young--but that was a long time ago.]
      - gs17 3y ago
        It's mostly more inclusion of trans, plus-size, disabled, older, etc models, a lot of getting press with "first X cover model". It's a nice thought, but a lot of their usual audience was likely turned off.
      - bdcravens 3y ago
        Attempting to be more inclusive about the types of models they feature.

mlrtime 3y ago

I'd hargue SI has brand value for now. It needs to be reinvented away from print magazine.

apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
Even if they were to reinvent away from print, the market is so congested they'd never find a customer base again. Sports news can be had, for free, from hundreds, perhaps thousands of websites. The big news gets broken, again for free, on Twitter by the likes of Woj/Chams (NBA). Long form sports journalism already has a large, struggling entity: The Athletic. Beyond that, every major publication in the country covers long form sports stories in some shape or form. Highlights and analysis can be found on YouTube (for free) and the websites, podcasts, and social media accounts for each league/team. Not to mention the heavyweights like ESPN and TSN, who also focus more on the entertainment side of it. Then you have discussion, which already freely happens on Reddit, various blogs, Twitter, and other social media. The market is incredibly saturated from every single angle. Even with the brand value of Sports Illustrated, finding a profitable niche would be incredibly difficult.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> Long form sports journalism already has a large, struggling entity: The Athletic Struggling? The New York Times paid over half a billion dollars for it in 2022.
  - graphe 3y ago
    > The company began exploring a sale to a larger media company in 2021, following continued unprofitability, driven by high expenses and reliance on venture capital funding instead of operational revenue. As of that time, the site had 1.2 million subscribers and $80 million in revenue, having raised $55 million in venture capital funding. The article on Wikipedia said NYT laid off it's own sports writers. Why would it need to be sold if it wasn't known to be struggling?
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      Why would someone pay $550,000,000 for it if it was known to be struggling? The founders were criticized at the time for having left money on the table by selling.
      - graphe 3y ago
        Apparently to save money on unions.
      - apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
        Most common theory is union busting. NYT would eventually layoff its entire (unionized) sports division in favor of the Athletic, which isn't unionized. Most critics have accused them of union busting by outsourcing their sports reporting to a non-union shop.
  - apocalyptic0n3 3y ago
    Yes. They sold to NYT because they didn't have a path to profitability or IPO. They were looking at a possible closure before the sale and lost $55M the year before the sale. Since the sale, things have been a little less clear because NYT is more opaque about it. Regardless, they had layoffs last year and ended their entire beat reporter team because it wasn't drawing national audiences enough. There have been various reports over the last year that NYT is struggling to turn the unit profitable as well.
bdcravens 3y ago
They have brand value, but less than a few years ago, which is when they should have reinvented. At this point they're close to the "Toys-R-Us" level of brand value: remembered by the previous generation, and seen as a relic by the current.
- ghaff 3y ago
  If a young person thinks of them at all, I imagine they're "that magazine that used to have a swimsuit edition."
- gs17 3y ago
  Even then, the reputation with the previous generation was dented by SI trying to make the swimsuit issue more progressive (that's the only time I ever heard a peep about it from older relatives, not that they bought it in the first place), which didn't make the current generation care more about it.
  - pasttense01 3y ago
    What exactly do you mean by more progressive? [I've seen Sports Illustrated when I was young--but that was a long time ago.]
    - gs17 3y ago
      It's mostly more inclusion of trans, plus-size, disabled, older, etc models, a lot of getting press with "first X cover model". It's a nice thought, but a lot of their usual audience was likely turned off.
    - bdcravens 3y ago
      Attempting to be more inclusive about the types of models they feature.