Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 365 posts

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#81

Post by calcifer »

scandox wrote: post #74
calcifer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

Yeah I get that. It’s not crazy. It’s just a world away from the kind of thing I can engage with. If that means I’m on my way out in terms of relevance I’d accept that. I’m not cross about it...I just can’t take it seriously.

Celebrity drama - political or otherwise - seems daft and boring to me as well, but I think people who think so are on their way out (in terms of age, if nothing else). So if the idea is to reach a younger audience in a language they'd understand / in a way they find appealing, I'm all for it.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#82

Post by stfu »

calcifer wrote: post #64
scandox wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

> They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo

No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about.

Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I just have other things in life going on.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#83

Post by throwawayyx96 »

calcifer wrote: post #17
Theodores wrote: post #11

I thought the begging letter was shown just because I had an ad blocker on. The site works well for the ad blocking crowd, maybe they make it so deliberately, so at least they can send you the begging message.

> begging letter > begging message I keep seeing this in many online spaces and for the life of me, I just can't understand how asking for money in exchange for value (journalism in this case) is considered begging. Seriously, this [1] is their ask, can you (or anyone else) show me exactly which part of it is begging? [1] http://www.niemanlab.org/images/guardian-membership-ask.jpg

It's not so much the message as its persistence, timing and size. It shows up every time and takes up half the screen. It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. Feels like one of those many many sites that immediately ask you to fill out a feedback form before you've even browsed anything. If it's not a beg, it's most certainly a nag.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#84

Post by calcifer »

stfu wrote: post #82
calcifer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

> They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about. Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I…

> Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday.

Sure, you may not be a fan of it, but you don't find it a big enough problem to complain to the city.

For the editorial in question, the subject is Trump and their opinion is that finding Trump not big enough a problem to complain about is not an acceptable position for someone of such wide social reach. You may not agree with that assesment, but I think it's a fairly normal position for an editorial board to take.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#85

Post by calcifer »

throwawayyx96 wrote: post #83
calcifer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> begging letter > begging message I keep seeing this in many online spaces and for the life of me, I just can't understand how asking for money in exchange for value (journalism in this case) is considered begging. Seriously, this [1] is their ask, can you (or anyone else) show me exactly which part of it is begging? [1] http://www.niemanlab.org/images/guardian-membership-ask.jpg

It's not so much the message as its persistence, timing and size. It shows up every time and takes up half the screen. It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. Feels like one of those many many sites that immediately ask you to fill out a feedback form before you've even browsed anything. If it's not a beg, it's most certainly a nag.

> its persistence, timing and size.

> It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again.

What do you mean ? It's an inline box that always appears after the article. It's not a popup, it doesn't hinder navigation, it doesn't even have position:fixed so you can just scroll by it if you want. I don't think they could be nicer about it if they tried.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#86

Post by Jedd »

As much as I enjoy the quality of journalism from them, claims of The Guardian struggling, or being without sin (in the context of throwing stones around tax avoidance, especially post-Panama & Paradise papers, and at the risk of being labelled a whatbouter) should be considered in context.

That context is that they've got some pretty serious claims of tax avoidance in their not-too-distant past.

The Spectator ran a story [1] the middle of last year on the subject, though they've clearly got some fiscal & political views that could best be described as orthogonal to the Guardian.

The Independent ran their own story a few years earlier [2] that went into a bit more detail on the somewhat regrettable ratio of profits to domestic tax paid.

[1] https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-...

[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/guardian-med...

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#87

Post by peeters »

calcifer wrote: post #44
peeters wrote: post #35

I think that most media outlets make a wrong assumption about online content. They think that everybody wants content that's free above all else, so they swamp their content with ads. But I think it's more that people want diversity. I'll happily support news outlets financially, but at $300/yr for Globe&Mail and $260/yr for NYTimes, etc, the cost is just ridiculous. I WANT to support good journalism, but I want to p…

For me it's the other way around. I pay for the Guardian because I think they do important, much needed journalism in many areas - including ones I'm not personally interested in. I like the idea that my money helps pay for articles that wouldn't get funded if it depended on a popularity contest.

For some publications I might agree. But many of them have comedy, sports and pop culture sections that I think blur their focus. I don't feel the need to spend a single dollar on supporting that content, I'll find better elsewhere if I want it.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#88

Post by peeters »

ethagnawl wrote: post #68
peeters wrote: post #35

I think that most media outlets make a wrong assumption about online content. They think that everybody wants content that's free above all else, so they swamp their content with ads. But I think it's more that people want diversity. I'll happily support news outlets financially, but at $300/yr for Globe&Mail and $260/yr for NYTimes, etc, the cost is just ridiculous. I WANT to support good journalism, but I want to p…

> The salable entity in the internet era shouldn't be a subscription to a newspaper, it should be an article. I think this is spot-on. My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge (a la Brave and its Basic Attention Token).

> My guess is that a browser based micropayment solution/ecosystem will emerge

I think so too, I think it's just a question of outlets realizing that the lost profits from cannibalizing their subscription sales does not compare to the income from allowing consumers to buy pieces of your publication.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#89

Post by Chris2048 »

calcifer wrote: post #77
Chris2048 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since the status quo is Trump Why would a British newspaper think that?

It's an international newspaper, which has significantly invested in their US presence [1] in the past decade. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US

Not in print though, and the linked article is from the UK version, so statements about the status-quo in the UK edition are still relevant.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#90

Post by dtf »

alva wrote: post #69
drinchev wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Guardian is successful, because of "supporters" and not >subscribers<. It's different than WSJ, where they lock the content, until you pay. The Guardian way looks more like the Wikipedia one.

Important to note that the Guardian is not actually financially successful at all. They have been suffering heavy losses for years http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/01/heavy-losses-...

Things have got a little better since Viner stepped in. Good take on the state of newspapers, and the particular success of the FT, from ex-editor of Guardian Peter Preston.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/26/financial-time...

Post reply on HN