The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
niemanlab.org
The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#2Those numbers are a shame. I really like how well-researched and informative the LAT articles seem to be.
Could the case be made that finance and politics grip the nation far more than tech and Hollywood?
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#3Those numbers are a shame. I really like how well-researched and informative the LAT articles seem to be. Could the case be made that finance and politics grip the nation far more than tech and Hollywood?
It could. If you read deep-down in the article you can also see that the NYT and WSJ are making massive efforts to keep new subscribers, but the LA Times doesn't appear to be investing much at all. It's possible that could be the biggest factor.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#4Part of the problem is also that LAT just costs more. I can get the WaPo through Amazon for $4/month, and the NYT is about $6/month on an educational discount. LAT has no obvious digital discounts, and their base price is $8/month. If they dropped that down to the WaPo price, I'd seriously consider it, just to get the state and local coverage for SoCal.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#5Part of the problem is also that LAT just costs more. I can get the WaPo through Amazon for $4/month, and the NYT is about $6/month on an educational discount. LAT has no obvious digital discounts, and their base price is $8/month. If they dropped that down to the WaPo price, I'd seriously consider it, just to get the state and local coverage for SoCal.
no one reads in socal , they are too busy with orgy parties and doing drugs
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#6It's offered as part of Apple News+, but I can't figure out if that means all the articles are offered or only some bastardized "curated" subset.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#7[deleted]
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#8The LA times website looks more like a boutique apparel store than a newspaper - there is blue sale signs on a while background. What were they thinking ?
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#9$2 per week? Even if I lived in LA I doubt I could find that kind of value in it, but I don't. If they think they'll get substantial subscription rates, they're dreaming.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#10Those numbers are a shame. I really like how well-researched and informative the LAT articles seem to be. Could the case be made that finance and politics grip the nation far more than tech and Hollywood?
It could. If you read deep-down in the article you can also see that the NYT and WSJ are making massive efforts to keep new subscribers, but the LA Times doesn't appear to be investing much at all. It's possible that could be the biggest factor.
The NYT at least has been investing a lot into tech (and reporting) and the results are evident in some of the really cool stuff they produce. I remember they were amongst the first who really got into D3 and some of their charts at the time were superior to pretty much any other .org.
Also, the recent magazine like articles they’ve had have been exceptional in the tech, while not messing with the default browser behaviors too much (such as overriding scrolls).
That’s gotta be the direction the news orgs have to take. They have to increasingly become tech companies.