RIP, Sports Illustrated

[Irish Beck]

Cracked had an amazing run until it became solely list based drivel pop culture bullshit. Regularly visited their website because their writers were hilarious.

SI does have a website. The same writers published on that platform as the print copy. If their business model relied so heavily on the print publication in 2024, that's was a poor strategy.

It's almost like the same audience that preferred paper over electronic wouldn't tend to visit their website and the audience they were actually after wasn't interested in big girls/transexuals. Could just be me, but there really isn't a place for Sports Illustrated in a world where social media exists.

Nightwish just outlined it pretty clearly.

 

[IdaCat]

Does anybody read paper anymore? I thought that platform mostly went away years ago. Again, if that's the excuse, it was incredibly dumb business strategy.

 

[Irish Beck]

The only paper I read is a monthly newsletter my town manager sends out and that's because I have trust issues. I'd argue if your business model is having "premium" writers for sports in 2024 locked behind a paywall, it's a dumb business model because there are too many places to get, often better, takes for free.

This would not apply (in my mind) to a place similar to Cats Pause that also gives recruiting information and hyper unique details for a specific school / team.

 

[*CatinIL*]

I read a couple of SI issues/leaflets over the last couple of months that had articles on F1 racing and that's only because a friend gave me the issues. One has to wonder how many mags will survive over the next 5 years.

 

[IdaCat]

The woke movement certainly was part of it. SI obviously hoped to get a bump from the pRoGrEsSiVe craze and it didn't happen. And hopefully that idea dies in a fire.

People can pretend to be more sophisticated when talking about it agreeably, but you can't get a guy to pay to look at pictures of fatties or chix w/dix and enjoy it. Just dumb.

 

[IdaCat]

Yeah, they were literally printing money until Ashley Graham showed up.

It's part of the reason SI was sold to Arena Group in 2019 and they literally said they were more interested in putting the SI logo on everything through endorsement deals rather than coming out with a magazine/ezine. The business is failing because it's getting left behind, not because you want to be some weird bot about culture wars.

Hell, there's an article today that states SI will likely continue, but not in it's current form, which further points to the desire to milk the brand since no one buys magazines anymore.

I didn't say it was the only reason. It was another poor business decision that didn't help. And it's reasonable and OK to say it. I'm not navigating eggshells here.

 

[Irish Beck]

There's literally 0 indication that the WoKE MoVEmENt had anything to do with their downturn other than being what you called it, a grasp at straws. I suppose it made the death spiral more precipitous, but when you're facing the firing squad, sometimes you throw all the shit at the wall.

The problem for a lot of these companies is that they pander to a target demographic that was never in their universe to begin with and then act shocked when there's backlash (or use it for free publicity). The problem with that is that once the publicity wears off you lose die hards and the "new" target audience realizes they were duped and don't have a genuine interest in your product.

Not 100% sure on the accuracy of the article from 2019 when SI was last sold but apparently Arena Group wanted to use the SI brand for lucrative endorsement moreso than journalistic excellence. There's even an article today that states SI will likely continue in a different capacity.

It's a dying business model, regardless of antics.

 

[Irish Beck]

I didn't say it was the only reason. It was another poor business decision that didn't help. And it's reasonable and OK to say it. I'm not navigating eggshells here.

Yeah, my bad, I misread some of your statement and reworded my response.

 

[AustinTXCat]

In it's prime, MAD Magazine was the best political satire, and for a long while, the only ACTUAL political satire going. I was damn near raised on it. Getting an unvarnished, and cynical/realistic view of the world wasn't easy in the early 70's, but MAD filled the void. And also, cartoon big boobs. LOL

Out of touch, white suburban parents would have been horrified at the subversive nature of that magazine. Which made it all the MORE awesome.

Please add National Lampoon to your monthly analog reading lists. TIA

 

[WayneDougan]

WoKeNeSs and diversity aren't killing these things.

Wrong in terms of that and SportsCenter. They got rid of the talent and put a bunch of multicultural flunkies.

 

[IdaCat]

The diminishing quality of sports entertainment. Wait till you see what DEI does to services you rely on for your life. That's what's coming.

 

[WayneDougan]

The diminishing quality of sports entertainment. Wait till you see what DEI does to services you rely on for your life. That's what's coming.

Imagine Brazil with nukes. That’s what we will be in 30 years.

 

[funKYcat75]

For me, the almost-GOAT of the SI swimsuit, Vendela. picture not quite SFW

Spoiler

 

[WayneDougan]

Y'all know I hate the woke nonsense, but SI was toast long before they started putting trannies on the cover.

SI worked back in the day because of two reasons:

• Print significantly limited the availability of sporting news you could get (more on this in a moment)
• Readers were willing to spend for sporting news

With the creation of the internet, the availability of sporting news went up exponentially. Twitter gives us access to all breaking news as it happens. ESPN.com provides us scores, insights, etc. And there are a billion niche sites out there (like KSR) that provide us team specific content.

SI - in my opinion - perhaps could have said "we're going to be the high quality online sports media company", and built that out accordingly (similar to the Athletic). But three things went wrong.

1. They sort of tried to be the leader in online sports back in the early days of the net, but ESPN.com beat them to the punch.
2. No one was willing to pay for premium sports content when they were trying to do that, meaning there was limited demand for actually paying for online subscriptions.
3. By the time 'The Athletic" came along it was too late. And it's not like "The Athletic" is profitable.

I want to address one thing I mentioned earlier re: availability of news. How did you consume SI back in the day? If you were like me it went like this. You got an SI two days after UK won the title in 1996. You'd rush home and excitedly read the article on the Cats. Then you might read the opinion piece on the last page. Then you'd probably throw it on your coffee table and go about your business. Then later that night you might read an article previewing the Masters. Then the next day you might read the "Faces in the Crowd" and letters. Then later since there is nothing else to read you might read the special on some random NASCAR story even though you don't care about racing. Then later the tennis article. By the end of the week you probably read the entire SI.

I'd argue the above made us more connected as Sporting fans. We all knew what was going on across all sports. Hell, there were even bowling articles I'd read. We'd know who won the "America's Cup". We know about the Tour de France. We'd know who the upcoming tennis stars are.

Now, it's very niche. We know a lot more about UK sports. We listen to podcasts about the NFL. But you're probably more out of the loop in terms of sports you don't care about. For example, I can't remember the last time I even thought about NASCAR.

There's no going back to that, however. SI could hire the second coming of Frank Deford, and I won't read an article about NASCAR, F1, tennis or bowling.

So yeah, you could take the brand of SI and replace "The Athletic" with it. But there is no going back to the glory days of SI.

 

[Dncmaxwell]

View embedded media

If they think SI died in 2023, may want to get a better source, LOL

 

[Dncmaxwell]

Y'all know I hate the woke nonsense, but SI was toast long before they started putting trannies on the cover.

SI worked back in the day because of two reasons:

• Print significantly limited the availability of sporting news you could get (more on this in a moment)
• Readers were willing to spend for sporting news

With the creation of the internet, the availability of sporting news went up exponentially. Twitter gives us access to all breaking news as it happens. ESPN.com provides us scores, insights, etc. And there are a billion niche sites out there (like KSR) that provide us team specific content.

SI - in my opinion - perhaps could have said "we're going to be the high quality online sports media company", and built that out accordingly (similar to the Athletic). But three things went wrong.

1. They sort of tried to be the leader in online sports back in the early days of the net, but ESPN.com beat them to the punch.
2. No one was willing to pay for premium sports content when they were trying to do that, meaning there was limited demand for actually paying for online subscriptions.
3. By the time 'The Athletic" came along it was too late. And it's not like "The Athletic" is profitable.

I want to address one thing I mentioned earlier re: availability of news. How did you consume SI back in the day? If you were like me it went like this. You got an SI two days after UK won the title in 1996. You'd rush home and excitedly read the article on the Cats. Then you might read the opinion piece on the last page. Then you'd probably throw it on your coffee table and go about your business. Then later that night you might read an article previewing the Masters. Then the next day you might read the "Faces in the Crowd" and letters. Then later since there is nothing else to read you might read the special on some random NASCAR story even though you don't care about racing. Then later the tennis article. By the end of the week you probably read the entire SI.

I'd argue the above made us more connected as Sporting fans. We all knew what was going on across all sports. Hell, there were even bowling articles I'd read. We'd know who won the "America's Cup". We know about the Tour de France. We'd know who the upcoming tennis stars are.

Now, it's very niche. We know a lot more about UK sports. We listen to podcasts about the NFL. But you're probably more out of the loop in terms of sports you don't care about. For example, I can't remember the last time I even thought about NASCAR.

There's no going back to that, however. SI could hire the second coming of Frank Deford, and I won't read an article about NASCAR, F1, tennis or bowling.

So yeah, you could take the brand of SI and replace "The Athletic" with it. But there is no going back to the glory days of SI.

This. How many of you have subscribed to SI before 2000 since 2000?
honestly the only reason I knew sports illustrated still existed was posts about the “body positivity” nonsense.

I am biased though. I asked SI if I could be in the next one. Even offered to compete in a dance off with Chris Farley….they never answered back. guess not all bodies are “positive”…

 

[the nail at the foul line]

This just in.

Sports Illustrated is still dead.

 

[JumperJack]

Double edged sword. Print media at one time unified us. We all read the same local paper, same magazines like SI and Time.

For whatever reason, and I’ll leave that aside, print media chose to begin admonishing and browbeating its’ readership at precisely the point in history when it became possible to get news and opinions from a huge array of sources.

So I’m glad to see it fail, but yet I know it’s just one more signpost on the way to disunity and division.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

This just in.

Sports Illustrated is still dead.

Their website sucks anyways. Espn and cbs sports are way better. Si tries to force u to pay for their article drivel as well. Lame.

 

[WildcatofNati2]

Go woke, go broke

SI has always been left- as to why a sports publication was compelled to have a political lean in the first place is puzzling, but, whatever. That it's going under probably has more to the decline of paper media than anything else.

 

[Mdnerd]

SI has always been left- as to why a sports publication was compelled to have a political lean in the first place is puzzling, but, whatever. That it's going under probably has more to the decline of paper media than anything else.

Nah sorry, the second they put a man dressed as a woman on their cover, it was over. No one wants their kids seeing that junk. Crazy lefties who support that nonsense were never part of their core customers.

 

[Tskware]

Weekly sports publication's time ended years ago, probably 20 years ago to be honest. GOLF magazine used to be monthly, then went bi monthly, now I think it is only online (I get it via email, don't think it is mailed any more). Just no way to make a weekly work when there is 24-7 sports coverage and commentary from all sources, many of which are free.

A bit OT, but several years ago I heard Tim Kelly, who was the editor of Lex Herald Leader, speak at a breakfast meeting, and he said rather than losing audience, as some would have you believe, the LHL is read now by more people than ever, because it is available electronically. But the huge problem facing LHL and all papers is how to monetize all those viewers, which has proven to be very difficult to do. I get the LHL and the WSJ daily via electronic subscription, but they are really very inexpensive, I guess they stay in business with ads, but it is a tough row to hoe, for certain.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Weekly sports publication's time ended years ago, probably 20 years ago to be honest. GOLF magazine used to be monthly, then went bi monthly, now I think it is only online (I get it via email, don't think it is mailed any more). Just no way to make a weekly work when there is 24-7 sports coverage and commentary from all sources, many of which are free.

A bit OT, but several years ago I heard Tim Kelly, who was the editor of Lex Herald Leader, speak at a breakfast meeting, and he said rather than losing audience, as some would have you believe, the LHL is read now by more people than ever, because it is available electronically. But the huge problem facing LHL and all papers is how to monetize all those viewers, which has proven to be very difficult to do. I get the LHL and the WSJ daily via electronic subscription, but they are really very inexpensive, I guess they stay in business with ads, but it is a tough row to hoe, for certain.

I wanted to get the WSJ but it’s 38.99 a month. I don’t consider that inexpensive.

 

[WayneDougan]

For whatever reason, and I’ll leave that aside, print media chose to begin admonishing and browbeating its’ readership at precisely the point in history when it became possible to get news and opinions from a huge array of sources.

Yep - the Louisville Courier Journal went so far left that I ended my subscription. I got the print version, but their editorial group basically said if you vote for McCain instead of Obama you might as well join the klan. I wrote them a note that said cancel my subscription. Some dude called me and asked if I would reconsider. I said I would, but only if Joe Gerth would come to my house, bend over, and kiss his own ass. Needless to say, I don't get that paper anymore.

 

[AIChatGPT]

The monoculture is dead

 

[Tskware]

I wanted to get the WSJ but it’s 38.99 a month. I don’t consider that inexpensive.

I got a deal at $100 a year, but it is worth it to me

 

[Catemus]

Good riddance

I agree. That rag dogged Adolph Rupp about being “racist.” It should have died a long time ago.

 

[Girthang]

For over a decade now, maybe 2, specialized content magazines have been the bread and butter of the TIME magazine family of publications. Sports Illustrated screwed themselves out of a lucrative sports model of the same with their hit pieces always looking to make either a victim, a hero, or a demon out of someone for something, while ignoring the 50 other people that did the same or worse.

The last SI Mag I purchased for myself was an MJ commemorative edition. That's where their strength was and should be still, but they are just another, hollow, corporate shell of what they once were and could have been. They had the audience, the vehicle, and the staff to produce an incredible quality, tabletop, collectible archive of iconic photos and stories, BUT they went the way of sensationalism and op eds. Why? Because #1 most journalists were/are toddleresque, lazy af, and #2 aren't that knowledgeable about the sports they cover. #3 the franchises and programs don't/didnt really want ANYONE to cover everything and do it well, much less make money off of them. #4 advertising dollars were the driver of print mags and newspapers, because that's the depth of corporate ingenuity. #5 they couldn't adapt to a model where people told THEM what they wanted to buy.

The swimsuit editions have been the SSDedition for roughly 30yrs. Largely replaceable by your average swim catalog and dwarfed by sensual content on the web. There were niches that SI could have capitalized upon, but they refused to do so and fractured their brand rather than expanding it. They left room for abundant competition and "whatta ya know?" people filled the void. (And there's still a HUGE VOID there that is mostly untapped or not well done.)

I watched sportscenter not for the content, but the way it was put together, just as I once enjoyed the MNF half-time summary of that week's games. The humor, the creativity, and the capturing of the best of the game. It made you feel connected or reconnected to it. I could read the stats in the paper or online, and still do at times.

Websites and their coverage of teams and games is biased and stunted. It's shocking how little is there to see of any variety or indicator of how the games actually progressed. They're still opinion pieces. They're likely poorly written. They seem to be done by someone who didn't attend or understand the game.

There's no art to any of it anymore. It's just plugging square people into round holes to regurgitate mostly didconnected and empty content. There's essentially less rather than more and people are disconnecting from it more than being drawn in. They want to be seen at the games, but couldn't tell you much that took place beyond who lost.

Sports "journalism" died when it became just about personalities, faces, and endorsements rather than in depth reporting about the games and teams. Corporate politics and the push for big profit and the big story (even if they had to create it) did it. Bleeds it leads did, too.

Greed will finish it all off

 

[bigblueinsanity]

SI was a dead business walking. I actually think their foray into the woke space was actually pretty smart. If they weren't going to change their business model, at least the woke move got them way more exposure than they had in years. With rare exception, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I don't know if that's why they made the move, but it was smart nonetheless.

 

[M4CAT]

SI does have a website. The same writers published on that platform as the print copy. If their business model relied so heavily on the print publication in 2024, that's was a poor strategy.

Agreed, one would think they could have had still existed in some manner like Yahoo Sports outside of the main networks like FOX Sports & ESPN. ESPN The Magazine has been finished since 2019.

 

[JDHoss]

This. How many of you have subscribed to SI before 2000 since 2000?
honestly the only reason I knew sports illustrated still existed was posts about the “body positivity” nonsense.

I am biased though. I asked SI if I could be in the next one. Even offered to compete in a dance off with Chris Farley….they never answered back. guess not all bodies are “positive”…

I had a subscription to SI starting in 1969. I subscribed to Cat Paw whenever it first started in the (IIRC) late 70s. I subscribed to The Sporting News starting in the early 80s, and I subscribed to The Rolling Stone starting in the late 70s. Between 1996 and around 2002 or so, I dropped all of them. It wasn't because I was mad at any of them, I just no longer needed them. I kept getting a Cat Paw Yearbook, mainly for the tradition/sentimental value of it up until about 2010. Like the rest of them, I no longer needed it.

My wife subscribed to the USA Today and the local paper back in TN when we lived there, and then here in Florida. She finally gave up the local paper(s) as they had gotten to a point where there was nothing of real value in them and gave up the USA Today last fall when we got a new carrier who couldn't be counted on to deliver the paper without missing one or two days a week. She now subscribes to it online, while I have subscriptions to the St Lucie Tribune (they do an excellent job with local sports and local goings on) and Miami Herald online. Our local paper back in TN started dying out in 2002 when three guys from the sports department built a website dedicated to covering the region's high schools, small colleges, ETSU, UT and VA Tech. Once those guys left, their sports department went into the crapper and never returned, along with a lot of subscribers who took the paper mostly because of the sports coverage.

Books? I haven't bought a hard cover or paperback book since I bought a Kindle, probably 10 years or so ago. I also used to spend a bunch on the preseason football rags, but stopped doing that as well, what with the ability to look all that up online too.

In summary, print media is dead or dying, mostly because as I told an old fella one day who asked me what was so interesting on my phone as I was eating alone in a restaurant and scrolling along. I told him I was just catching up on the news. He said that's what the newspaper was for, and I told him when he was reading the paper, he was reading yesterday's news. It seemed to piss him off, but that was the truth.

 

[WildcatFan1982]

I started subscribing to Rolling Stone in middle school in the 90s. Paid $20 a year from then until 2022. Watched it deteriorate very rapidly (can't imagine what people from the 60s thought) to the point where I often didn't even open it. Then one day I got my renewal notice and it went from $20 a year for a bi weekly magazine to $150 a year for whatever the crap it is now. Had no problem smacking cancel on that one. THe last time I paid for a subscription to a magazine was 2 years ago when I was 20 frequent flier miles from a free round trip ticket and I used American Airlines website to buy a $10 subscription to Entertainment Weekly that put me over the top for the free flight.

 

[d2atTech]

This is more of a rant than a comment. I had an extraordinarily large collection of SI swimsuit editions that my mom threw out after I got married because she thought my wife would be weirded out by it. It's been 10+ years and I'm still upset by it. Now my son will never have the chance to build a similar collection.

 

[PhDcat2018]

Posting swimsuit covers and complaining about trannies is fine too I suppose. I said similar about ESPN layoffs. Yes, they added political talking points to their programs which was incredibly stupid but the bigger problem was paying some of their hosts millions as if the viewer is there for them, not sports. And two, I can't imagine waiting for SportsCenter when we have instant access to replays, winning shots, and brutal injuries in seconds. With social media, we're all experts, so who cares what Around the Horn or PTI has to say from now on.

As we age, we're seeing the end of things we grew up with. WoKeNeSs and diversity aren't killing these things. That's just a right wing talking point to shift make believe blame against progressives. Sorta like the gif of the guy spilling his popcorn then looking up with anger and saying "Thanks Obama!" Take a gander at a calendar (on your phone, not on your wall because who still has wall calendars? Hopefully the wokeness didn't kill wall calendars). We don't need sports magazines, ESPN shows, and yes, wall calendars anymore. Why? Because it's 2024. (None of this is directed at you, I'm just adding to the convo).

Diversity for the sake of Diversity is killing sports reporting and shows though(see the thread of the dumb reporter asking about the bucs lions game).

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

Go woke Go broke. I mean Martha Stewart was a recent cover.

 

[Nightwish84]

Diversity for the sake of Diversity is killing sports reporting and shows though(see the thread of the dumb reporter asking about the bucs lions game).

I can probably point you to hundreds of dumb questions asked over the decades. Are there diversity hires? Yes. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves. I saw the dome/weather question as someone who is either incredibly nervous, didn't do their homework, unqualified, or all of the above. I did not see it as she's a woman who asked a dumb question therefore woke, diversity, and despair. I think at times sports fans and folks constantly online lose their sense of humor. Again, very dumb question but 15 years ago everyone would've laughed about it and moved on. Now? We must have super serious deep discussions about the pros and/or cons of diversity and why? Because some woman none of us knew existed asked one stupid question. Let's all put down the pitchforks for once. I'm sure the reporter is catching hell on social media with angry people calling her names and wanting her to lose her job. The positivity of social media, am I right?

 

[Col. Angus]

Go woke Go broke. I mean Martha Stewart was a recent cover.

I’d rather see a dusty old wrinkled snatch than some morbidly obese walrus with a cavernous navel or some dude with tits pretending to be a chick.

 

[IdaCat]

I’d rather see a dusty old wrinkled snatch than some morbidly obese walrus with a cavernous navel or some dude with tits pretending to be a chick.

RACISSST!!! You're going to need to be sent to a Social Justice Tribunal and ordered to attend Reeducation Camp for Anti-Bias and Sensitivity Training, comrade.

Like they're now doing in the pRoGrEsSiVe People's Republic of Canada for this type of horrendous HaTe SpEeCh!11!!

 

[Col. Angus]

RACISSST!!! You're going to need to be sent to a Social Justice Tribunal and ordered to attend Reeducation Camp for Anti-Bias and Sensitivity Training, comrade.

Like they're now doing in the pRoGrEsSiVe People's Republic of Canada for this type of horrendous HaTe SpEeCh!11!!

View embedded media

👍

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

I’d rather see a dusty old wrinkled snatch than some morbidly obese walrus with a cavernous navel or some dude with tits pretending to be a chick.

I'll go with "none of the above".