When the sports website The Athletic launched in January 2016, one of its big selling points — aside from its ambitious and skillful sports coverage — was that it would be free from advertising. Subscribers could read The Athletic’s journalism, including long-form pieces, without being interrupted by ads.
But subscribers were met with a surprise when they went to the site on Monday: an advertisement for Bleu De Chanel.
And for many, the whole thing smelled rotten.
According to the comments under an Athletic story announcing the ads, readers were not happy.
“So you lied to us when we subscribed,” the first commenter said.
“If I’m paying for the service, there shouldn’t be ads. If you want ads, then I shouldn’t have to pay,” another said.
Many threatened to cancel their subscriptions.
The reason for the ads is quite obvious: money.
The New York Times bought The Athletic for $550 million in January and is looking for a return on its hefty investment. Ever since the Times took ownership, it felt like this day was coming. In fact, the Times even announced earlier this year that it would eventually run ads.
Simply put, there’s too much money to be made not to do it.
In announcing the use of ads, the Times said, “This launch signifies the next step in building a premium ad business to support one of the largest and most talented sports journalism newsrooms in the world. Our ad experience will focus on high-quality, relevant advertising placements that complement The Times’s subscription strategy. This means fewer, better ads alongside our in-depth stories, breaking news, extensive podcasts, and insider knowledge you can’t find anywhere else.”
In a note to subscribers, David Perpich, publisher of The Athletic, wrote, “The Athletic has a large and talented newsroom — with more than 400 full-time writers, editors and producers — that enables us to provide insightful, differentiated and timely coverage to our subscribers about their favorite teams and leagues around the world. The introduction of high-quality advertising should feel seamless and will allow us to invest further in this world-class sports journalism. And we’ve been deliberate about creating a premium and relevant advertising experience for our subscribers.”
Flowery words such as “seamless” and “high-quality” and “premium” are descriptions meant to dress up a strategy that won’t go over well with many readers. But, clearly, the strategy is necessary if the Times wants to start turning a profit with The Athletic. When the Times bought the site, The Athletic had 1.2 million subscribers. In its first-quarter earnings report for 2022, the Times reported The Athletic lost $6.8 million in February and March. From April to June, according to The New York Times’ Katie Robertson, adjusted operating losses at The Athletic were $12.6 million — down from about $19.4 million in the first quarter.
Reports are The Athletic has yet to turn a profit in any year, and the Times expects it will continue to lose money until at least 2023.
As far as what kinds of ads The Athletic will run, Axios’ Sara Fischer wrote, “The Athletic's chief commercial officer Seb Tomich said the company is using the same types of ad products used in other Times products to create continuity within The Times experience and to bring advanced capabilities, like shopping, to The Athletic's advertisers.”
Tomich told Fischer, “The Times has such a great advertising playbook for how to have premium ads and a subscription product, so that felt like a no brainer.”
Tomich told Fischer that rates for the ads will be on the “higher end of the market,” but as a whole, “We want to be largely in line with The Times.” Fischer wrote, “The average CPM (cost per 1,000 impressions) of a display ad on The New York Times website is between $15 and $25, depending on how much targeting is layered on top of it.”
The Athletic will not offer a more expensive subscription so that readers can get out of seeing ads. Tomich told AdWeek’s Mark Stenberg, “I truly believe that premium digital ads are not something that people are paying to get out of. People are paying for the journalism — and as long as we don’t introduce a bunch of bad ads that get in the way of the experience, we are confident in our ability to grow both businesses side by side.”
The Times announced that following Chanel, there will be ads for Polestar and a technology campaign.
I’m a subscriber and regular reader of The Athletic. In fact, I’d go farther than that. I’d consider myself an avid reader. The ads Monday were certainly noticeable, especially after being accustomed to never seeing an ad on the site. I don’t know that I would call the experience “seamless,” but they weren’t overly intrusive and not enough to ruin the experience.
As Awful Announcing’s Joe Lucia wrote, “I can stomach the ads as long as they’re not intrusive. Once they start interfering with the reading experience, they become a burden and a disservice to subscribers. If that day comes, I wouldn’t be shocked if the company adds an ad-free tier for an extra cost to their subscription model.”
Haberman’s book