Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Not really....the Chronicle is free, while the Athletic has to be paid for. 

Different demographics amongst fans so some variation should be expected

Don't see why that should make a difference tbh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Don't see why that should make a difference tbh. 

Well it shouldn't, but it does. As much as i don't want to be insulting i'd think that 60/70% of the fan base would not want to pay for an Athletic subscription.

 

The ones that would be prepared to pay are more than likely better informed of the situation, and less susceptible to the 'support the team, not the regime' that seems to be prevalent amongst a large section of the match day going crowd. The ones that just go to 'get away from the missus, or a piss up day in town' are not likely to pay for any kind of serious analysis

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, joeyt said:

How does paying for The Athletic make it for a higher percentage to be happy with Bruce/the club?

Older fans who have the means to pay and remember the truly grim times, and consider being in the top division the pinnacle of achievement 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Older fans who have the means to pay and remember the truly grim times, and consider being in the top division the pinnacle of achievement 

I very much doubt your EastStanders, grumpy old sods in their 60s, are paying for an Athletic subscription.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think I am...the Athletic readership compared to the Chronicle is miniscule, and generalising  it is likley to be the older more affluent crowd who can/will pay for the Athletic and seem to think that these last couple of seasons are good comparted to the late 80's

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Well it shouldn't, but it does. As much as i don't want to be insulting i'd think that 60/70% of the fan base would not want to pay for an Athletic subscription.

 

The ones that would be prepared to pay are more than likely better informed of the situation, and less susceptible to the 'support the team, not the regime' that seems to be prevalent amongst a large section of the match day going crowd. The ones that just go to 'get away from the missus, or a piss up day in town' are not likely to pay for any kind of serious analysis

Proof of this? I'd be inclined to believe the opposite tbh. Those that are of the means and desire to pay for the more detailed and involved reporting of something like the Athletic would be more likely to be critical of this whole sham operation. Than those who only really read things from local papers all things NE and Newcastle more likely to be a bit more apologetic and dismissive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Proof of this? I'd be inclined to believe the opposite tbh. Those that are of the means and desire to pay for the more detailed and involved reporting of something like the Athletic would be more likely to be critical of this whole sham operation. Than those who only really read things from local papers all things NE and Newcastle more likely to be a bit more apologetic and dismissive. 

Yeah, I'd agree with this. I think it would be more likely to be the other way around too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Don't think I am...the Athletic readership compared to the Chronicle is miniscule, and generalising  it is likley to be the older more affluent crowd who can/will pay for the Athletic and seem to think that these last couple of seasons are good comparted to the late 80's

Struggle to believe this, like.

How was The Athletic survey done? To be fair to the Chron, it was at the very least open to one and all to have a say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, toon25 said:

Struggle to believe this, like.

How was The Athletic survey done? To be fair to the Chron, it was at the very least open to one and all to have a say. 

Even if they conducted identical surveys, the Chronicle will have a far larger reader base than the Athletic just by the nature of being free.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Athletic is probably one of the best collections of sporting journalism going, but compared to a free long established (disregarding quality) paper is always going to be more popular

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gonzosgone said:

Looks like a flawed survey - minimum possible score of 20%. So they asked people to rate from 1-5 so if everyone scored us as a 1 (lowest) we would still score 20%

Ah. :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

If people were asked a range of 1-5 bad to good, and 20% of people thought it was being ran some variation of goodish+, then that means 20% of people likely answered 4 or 5. Its not everyone clicked 1 so its 20%. Thats not how they work

They explained it as being the mean average of all respondents' scores converted into a score out of 100. It's a daft way to do it, like.

 

 

Edited by NEEJ
Because I wanted to edit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NEEJ said:

They explained it as being the mean average of all respondents' scores converted into a score out of 100. It's a daft way to do it, like.

Yes.  People are interpreting the figures as percentages, but they're not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...