In sports journalism, when we talk about digital subscription models, we’re almost always talking about The Athletic.
But over the past several years, newspapers have started to rely more heavily on digital subscriptions as a business model, with some companies experimenting with sports-only subscriptions.
In a study recently published in Journalism Practice, Michael Mirer and Jennifer Harker interview five editors at a newspaper chain that implemented the sale of subscriptions to its digital sports section. (Disclosure: Both Michael and Jennifer are good friends. Michael and I, in fact, co-authored a book chapter on breaking news in digital sports journalism that is scheduled to be published this year.)
Mirer and Harker framed their research around the following questions:
RQ1: What are newspaper sports editors’ perceptions regarding this paid sports-only digital subscription for sports news?
RQ2: How do sports editors conceptualize this niche digital audience?
RQ3: How have sports editors adjusted work routines and coverage plans to accommodate a sports-only digital subscription model? What future changes are sports editors anticipating in response to this shift toward niche digital subscriptions?
While five interview subjects is an admittedly small sample size, even for a qualitative study, Mirer and Harker recorded some incredibly interesting findings that can serve as a guidepost for future research in this area.
The editors interviewed had a positive view of their company’s initiative to sell digital sports subscriptions. It was viewed as “a long overdue step forward,” and something newspapers should have done 20 years earlier. They viewed digital subscriptions as a way to potentially get away from the page-view, click-driven mentality they feel has taken over sports journalism. What’s interesting about that is they seemingly view that click-driven model of journalism as something that happened to them or in the world, not recognizing their role in perpetuating that business model through coverage decisions.
Mirer and Harker also found that while the editors are eager to implement this economic strategy, they have not “changed much about the ways their sections operate, what they cover or the type of work they produced.” The editors appear aware that such changes could come because of a digital subscription model. For example, digital subscriptions may change coverage of high-school sports, focusing solely on popular sports if that’s why people are subscribing (more football, less tennis). One editor said that the model “could change some story decisions by emphasizing content that helps develop loyalty.” But what does that mean? As Mirer and Harker point out, that’s not in the journalism code of ethics. Part of journalists’ self-conception is telling news that the reader needs to hear. But those stories may conflict with a business model that’s framed around getting readers to pay for news that develops loyalty. Does this lead to more positive coverage of a team? Fewer critical columns?
The subscription model could also influence the traditional beat structure. People who pay for digital sports subscriptions are probably big fans already - so are they willing to pay for the types of stories that the traditional beat model provides but are often free elsewhere? Mirer and Harker also found that the editors are having to sell and market their sections more, and “are getting comfortable with the notion that good content is not enough.”
Mirer and Harker also address the idea of markets and communities in their interviews. Sports journalism has historically been economic engines for newspapers but also a way to “build a cohesive local identity.” The idea is that Republicans and Democrats will come together to cheer for the local team. Markets and communities have always been defined geographically. But digital media changes that. Mirer and Harker write “digital only consumers may live outside the newspaper’s market and have only a passing interest in the newspaper’s (non-sports) content.” I saw this in Binghamton, when I covered the then-Binghamton Mets and realized that my most loyal readers and commenters didn’t live in Endicott and Johnson City but instead on Long Island and in Connecticut, and were Mets die-hards. As I teach in my media economics classes, digital media has changed our conceptualization of markets beyond geography.
The editors interviewed had mixed views on The Athletic. Four of them viewed the site as direct competition, and they aren’t fans of how the site poached newspaper journalists to build its own roster (Alex Mather’s infamous “bleed them dry” quote didn’t help). But they also see The Athletic’s success as validation of the traditional model of newspaper sports journalism. This tracks with what Galen Clavio and I found in our study of the “Why I Joined The Athletic” letters, that The Athletic positions itself as the platonic ideal of daily sports journalism.