4 ms·

How the Atlantic Went from Broke to Profitable in Three Years

37 points by giuliomagnifico 3y ago

jprd 3y ago
https://archive.is/YRUNj https://archive.is/YRUNj
achow 3y ago
From the article.. Atlantic annual revenue: $100 Million For comparison.. NYT & WSJ: ~$2.4 Billion
- giuliomagnifico 3y ago
  Yes obviously, but the NYT has also 1700 employees, The Atlantic less than 500.
  - rfrey 3y ago
    I think the point stands... 3.5x the employees, 24x the revenue.
- mb7733 3y ago
  What's your point?
  - achow 3y ago
    Sheesh! I read revenue figure for Atlantic, was curious about how does it compare to NYT, WSJ, found those, got some sense of the publishing landscape, so shared that. People are becoming too aggressive here.
    - mb7733 3y ago
      Didn't intend to be aggressive. I was just wondering what you were getting at.
- jletienne 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rKarpinski 3y ago
The pre condition seems to be getting bought out by a patron Billionaire (Laurene Powell Jobs).
- giuliomagnifico 3y ago
  …and: > A core part of Thompson’s strategy was to figure out how much readers would be willing to pay for a subscription. He ended up raising subscription prices by more than 50%, and made it harder for people to read stories without paying
- alephnerd 3y ago
  She's owned it since 2017. In my experience as a reader, their strategy change happened after the Biden election, because they lost a major source of demand gen.
gumptionary 3y ago
Interesting. Focus on the quality of the product and more people will want it and pay more for it. Someone should put this case study into a four sentence LinkedIn post so more startup CEOs will want to do it.
- darby_eight 3y ago
  I guess people with money want "both sides" reporting for whatever reason but that doesn't seem very appealing to me compared to a well-defined agenda, especially for a newsroom that started with an explicitly abolitionist end. If I wanted to pay a bunch of money just to be confused about my values I would subscribe to virtually any major newspaper.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
I think this highlights an actually disturbing trend of billionaire’s buying establish mass media. Laurene Powell Jobs buying Atlantic, Jeff Bezos buying Washington Post, Elon Musk buying Twitter.
- Tyrek 3y ago
  won't someone think of the multimillionaires who were outbid when trying to buy mass media?
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    Billionaires are in a separate category. It's not good that one person has enough money to control so much.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    The problem is the concentration. One person majority owning a platform as influential as Twitter or an expansive media empire (Murdochs) is not good for democracy. If the empire was split up to ten different multimillionaires we'd be better off.
    - dazc 3y ago
      In the UK we have the BBC where every word is considered to be a fact. They have TV channels and radio shows where 'today's curated and extremely edited sound-bites' are broadcast every 30 minutes, 24/7. At least with billionaire owners it's taken as read there is going to be some nuance.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  This isn't a new trend. Rich people have always purchased news media, often to help their other businesses. It's been going on for the longest time. Indeed, in the US many of the newspapers were started by political parties who used the papers to push their candidates.
  - 3y ago
karaterobot 3y ago
> the magazine had a $20 million deficit and months earlier had laid off 17% of its newsroom... He ended up raising subscription prices by more than 50%, and made it harder for people to read stories without paying... Subscriptions now account for two-thirds of revenue, compared with a little less than half when Thompson took the helm... Thompson said plenty of challenges remain, including finding ways to sustain subscription growth and attracting young audiences. I like The Atlantic well enough, and am glad it's not circling the drain like so many others. However, nothing in this article makes me believe they did more than reduce costs (aka lay off people) and extract more money from their existing pool of committed subscribers. That may not be the case, but I see nothing here that argues against that hypothesis. And I think it's safe to say that that would not be a good long-term strategy. (I assume 'subscription growth' is subscription revenue growth, not necessarily the number of subscriptions, based on its use in the article)
- sdwr 3y ago
  I read a lot of hate online about how executives are evil, greedy, exploitative leeches. Here's a story looking at the other angle - this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people, and maintaining an American institution. Sure, what he did might not have been novel or revolutionary, but someone had to do it. And you only get one shot!
  - llm_trw 3y ago
    >this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people He sounds like his doing his best to lessen that burden.
    - falcor84 3y ago
      It does, but on the other hand, especially after reading Bullshit Jobs, I'll argue that a business has something akin to a moral obligation to not create more roles than are actually needed to run the business.
  - al_borland 3y ago
eatonphil 3y ago
I noticed in the last few years that The Altantic's front page was almost constant negativity, fear-mongering, click-bait. Surely there is much bad going on in the world but I just couldn't handle their style. So I cut it completely out of my news. I wonder if it was tied to this. For similar perspectives but more even coverage I've been preferring The Nation, New Republic, and, to a lesser degree, Jacobin.
- zeagle 3y ago
  I lean (non-American) left and read the Atlantic with some of the same criticism, but really enjoy delayed gratification for this. Only two paper periodicals that have stayed constantly subscribed to for years. The guardian weekly is good too. Thanks for the suggestions!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Balgair 3y ago
  The Atlantic has always been a rag. So much so it was lampooned in the montage sequence in 1984's Ghostbusters. Even back then, 40 years ago, people knew what a nosy-Nancy sponge it was. So much so that Aykroyd, Ramis, and Moranis thought it would be funny to poke fun in a brief shot mushed into the movie, complete with a caricature cover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s
Ajay-p 3y ago
"we make something worth buying." That is interesting. The "buying" ostensibly refers to journalism, which is where IMO the media has failed terribly in the past 2-3 decades. Most of it became too opinionated that the product being sold was no longer news and analysis, but opinions and echo chambers. I think over time people got tired of paying for opinions, but others were content to continue to do so. A newspaper that read more like analytical research would be more appealing. The media would benefit as a whole, and prosper, if they strove to remove the personal opinions and beliefs from their reporting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- refulgentis 3y ago
  This is a grand vision and diagnosis. It also maintains a studied distance via blanket assertions that are agreeable, and a 100,000 foot view. That makes it hard to discuss directly without seeming disagreeable. Going with Socratic method: Did anything else happen the last 2-3 decades? Anything that would cause tree pulp, that could charge for ads and subscribers, and thus afford to pay more and subsidize longer research, less popular? Or is it just that the media/journalism/etc., these large faceless groups, all just universally started making opinionated content 20-30 years ago? I'm curious: what did media/journalism looked like 50, 70, 100 years ago. Maybe I could look up newspaper front pages from back then. Was it less opinionated?
- metabagel 3y ago
  > A newspaper that read more like analytical research would be more appealing. Most people want their news in the form of stories, and especially stories about people they can relate to.
vundercind 3y ago
> a successful turnaround that offers a glimmer of hope for the rest of the industry, which has laid off reams of journalists since the start of the year. National- and international-focused journalism is relatively healthy. It’s also the least important part of the news media. Doing great? No. Still kickin’? Yes. 2nd-tier and lower city papers, and small town local papers (and tv journalism, too)… those are mostly dead already. Slowly strangled to death by technology, bought by private equity and gutted, or scooped up into giant propagandist media empires that don’t care about local issues and journalism, but about laundering their national agenda through “neutral” local outlets as a kind of astroturfing-adjacent activity. Those were way more important, they’re already all but extinct, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to reverse the damage.
netbioserror 3y ago
Mouthpieces for the reigning State Department ideology. Absolute shitrag. The fact that they raised prices and people were willing to pay tells me their audience is DC club regulars circulating the money pool. From our pockets to their cocktail lounges.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Do you have any examples or evidence?
  - netbioserror 3y ago
    Nope, that's my pure speculation.

jprd 3y ago

https://archive.is/YRUNj https://archive.is/YRUNj

achow 3y ago

From the article.. Atlantic annual revenue: $100 Million For comparison.. NYT & WSJ: ~$2.4 Billion

giuliomagnifico 3y ago
Yes obviously, but the NYT has also 1700 employees, The Atlantic less than 500.
- rfrey 3y ago
  I think the point stands... 3.5x the employees, 24x the revenue.
mb7733 3y ago
What's your point?
- achow 3y ago
  Sheesh! I read revenue figure for Atlantic, was curious about how does it compare to NYT, WSJ, found those, got some sense of the publishing landscape, so shared that. People are becoming too aggressive here.
  - mb7733 3y ago
    Didn't intend to be aggressive. I was just wondering what you were getting at.
jletienne 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rKarpinski 3y ago

The pre condition seems to be getting bought out by a patron Billionaire (Laurene Powell Jobs).

giuliomagnifico 3y ago
…and: > A core part of Thompson’s strategy was to figure out how much readers would be willing to pay for a subscription. He ended up raising subscription prices by more than 50%, and made it harder for people to read stories without paying
alephnerd 3y ago
She's owned it since 2017. In my experience as a reader, their strategy change happened after the Biden election, because they lost a major source of demand gen.

gumptionary 3y ago

Interesting. Focus on the quality of the product and more people will want it and pay more for it. Someone should put this case study into a four sentence LinkedIn post so more startup CEOs will want to do it.

darby_eight 3y ago
I guess people with money want "both sides" reporting for whatever reason but that doesn't seem very appealing to me compared to a well-defined agenda, especially for a newsroom that started with an explicitly abolitionist end. If I wanted to pay a bunch of money just to be confused about my values I would subscribe to virtually any major newspaper.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

I think this highlights an actually disturbing trend of billionaire’s buying establish mass media. Laurene Powell Jobs buying Atlantic, Jeff Bezos buying Washington Post, Elon Musk buying Twitter.

Tyrek 3y ago
won't someone think of the multimillionaires who were outbid when trying to buy mass media?
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Billionaires are in a separate category. It's not good that one person has enough money to control so much.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  The problem is the concentration. One person majority owning a platform as influential as Twitter or an expansive media empire (Murdochs) is not good for democracy. If the empire was split up to ten different multimillionaires we'd be better off.
  - dazc 3y ago
    In the UK we have the BBC where every word is considered to be a fact. They have TV channels and radio shows where 'today's curated and extremely edited sound-bites' are broadcast every 30 minutes, 24/7. At least with billionaire owners it's taken as read there is going to be some nuance.
xhkkffbf 3y ago
This isn't a new trend. Rich people have always purchased news media, often to help their other businesses. It's been going on for the longest time. Indeed, in the US many of the newspapers were started by political parties who used the papers to push their candidates.
- 3y ago

karaterobot 3y ago

> the magazine had a $20 million deficit and months earlier had laid off 17% of its newsroom... He ended up raising subscription prices by more than 50%, and made it harder for people to read stories without paying... Subscriptions now account for two-thirds of revenue, compared with a little less than half when Thompson took the helm... Thompson said plenty of challenges remain, including finding ways to sustain subscription growth and attracting young audiences. I like The Atlantic well enough, and am glad it's not circling the drain like so many others. However, nothing in this article makes me believe they did more than reduce costs (aka lay off people) and extract more money from their existing pool of committed subscribers. That may not be the case, but I see nothing here that argues against that hypothesis. And I think it's safe to say that that would not be a good long-term strategy. (I assume 'subscription growth' is subscription revenue growth, not necessarily the number of subscriptions, based on its use in the article)

sdwr 3y ago
I read a lot of hate online about how executives are evil, greedy, exploitative leeches. Here's a story looking at the other angle - this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people, and maintaining an American institution. Sure, what he did might not have been novel or revolutionary, but someone had to do it. And you only get one shot!
- llm_trw 3y ago
  >this is a person responsible for the livelihoods of lots of people He sounds like his doing his best to lessen that burden.
  - falcor84 3y ago
    It does, but on the other hand, especially after reading Bullshit Jobs, I'll argue that a business has something akin to a moral obligation to not create more roles than are actually needed to run the business.
- al_borland 3y ago

eatonphil 3y ago

I noticed in the last few years that The Altantic's front page was almost constant negativity, fear-mongering, click-bait. Surely there is much bad going on in the world but I just couldn't handle their style. So I cut it completely out of my news. I wonder if it was tied to this. For similar perspectives but more even coverage I've been preferring The Nation, New Republic, and, to a lesser degree, Jacobin.

zeagle 3y ago
I lean (non-American) left and read the Atlantic with some of the same criticism, but really enjoy delayed gratification for this. Only two paper periodicals that have stayed constantly subscribed to for years. The guardian weekly is good too. Thanks for the suggestions!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Balgair 3y ago
The Atlantic has always been a rag. So much so it was lampooned in the montage sequence in 1984's Ghostbusters. Even back then, 40 years ago, people knew what a nosy-Nancy sponge it was. So much so that Aykroyd, Ramis, and Moranis thought it would be funny to poke fun in a brief shot mushed into the movie, complete with a caricature cover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s

Ajay-p 3y ago

"we make something worth buying." That is interesting. The "buying" ostensibly refers to journalism, which is where IMO the media has failed terribly in the past 2-3 decades. Most of it became too opinionated that the product being sold was no longer news and analysis, but opinions and echo chambers. I think over time people got tired of paying for opinions, but others were content to continue to do so. A newspaper that read more like analytical research would be more appealing. The media would benefit as a whole, and prosper, if they strove to remove the personal opinions and beliefs from their reporting.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
refulgentis 3y ago
This is a grand vision and diagnosis. It also maintains a studied distance via blanket assertions that are agreeable, and a 100,000 foot view. That makes it hard to discuss directly without seeming disagreeable. Going with Socratic method: Did anything else happen the last 2-3 decades? Anything that would cause tree pulp, that could charge for ads and subscribers, and thus afford to pay more and subsidize longer research, less popular? Or is it just that the media/journalism/etc., these large faceless groups, all just universally started making opinionated content 20-30 years ago? I'm curious: what did media/journalism looked like 50, 70, 100 years ago. Maybe I could look up newspaper front pages from back then. Was it less opinionated?
metabagel 3y ago
> A newspaper that read more like analytical research would be more appealing. Most people want their news in the form of stories, and especially stories about people they can relate to.

vundercind 3y ago

> a successful turnaround that offers a glimmer of hope for the rest of the industry, which has laid off reams of journalists since the start of the year. National- and international-focused journalism is relatively healthy. It’s also the least important part of the news media. Doing great? No. Still kickin’? Yes. 2nd-tier and lower city papers, and small town local papers (and tv journalism, too)… those are mostly dead already. Slowly strangled to death by technology, bought by private equity and gutted, or scooped up into giant propagandist media empires that don’t care about local issues and journalism, but about laundering their national agenda through “neutral” local outlets as a kind of astroturfing-adjacent activity. Those were way more important, they’re already all but extinct, and there doesn’t seem to be a way to reverse the damage.

netbioserror 3y ago

Mouthpieces for the reigning State Department ideology. Absolute shitrag. The fact that they raised prices and people were willing to pay tells me their audience is DC club regulars circulating the money pool. From our pockets to their cocktail lounges.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
Do you have any examples or evidence?
- netbioserror 3y ago
  Nope, that's my pure speculation.