They should follow Forbes and start “Councils” that professionals pay to belong to. That should more than offset the revenue issues they have if people still value the brand.
The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#12Second LA Times related article I’ve seen on here recently. The former was published by the LA Times: a piece on global warming with a corresponding game. I’d say the HN commentary was quite positive.
I have a friend working there as a SWE/data viz contributor, and he’s really excited about the editorial and data viz staff.
That being said, it does sound (from article and friend) like they just got out of the technical woods with the release of their revamped website. They obviously still have work to do based on these churn numbers.
The price is high though. I subscribe to NYT, so do I need another?
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#13Last year the L.A. Times was offering a 3-month subscription for free, so I signed up. I wanted to support “independent journalism” so I let it keep renewing until last week — honestly, though, I just forgot to cancel it in February. Anyway, I finally cancelled my digital sub this week.
If you live outside of L.A., this paper has no actual value to your news intake for the day. IMO it seems their entire focus is California and that’s it — yes.. it is the “LA TIMES” but they have many different sections.
For example, if you visit ~/Science/Medicine, you’ll see they went almost an entire month without one post on this topic — June 26th to July 15th.
Do you want to see what’s happening around the world? ~/World section was recently stripped of all subsections — Mexico, Middle East — and instead all posts fall under the general umbrella on the main page.
Not to mention, a lot of their articles are borderline tabloid-TMZesque. Do you want to read about Heidi Klum’s Bel-Air home she recently put on the market? The business section is prime reading for you.
In all reality, once the L.A. Times’ formed their guild, many writers found employment elsewhere, and those that have stayed are constantly bailing water out of their sinking ship.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#14Those 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?
They're not focusing on retention. The author offers admittedly anecdotal evidence, but it's telling. Lots of these pubs that are "implementing paywall" like it's a feature that'll print consumer revenue may experience the same thing, especially the ones that start at $5/year and increase to $50/year on year two.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#15I wonder if there's a missing subscription model that allows for casual, not devoted, subscribers.
I'm never going to sit down and read the LA Times website like it was a newspaper. That ship has sailed. I will, however, occasionally check it for the breaking news of the day. I'm definitely going to read their annual 100 LA Essential restaurant list, and I will also visit articles that my friends post to facebook. That being said, I know from experience that there will be entire weeks that I will not visit once. In the end, it's just not worth $100 to me.
I know there's someone at the times screaming "But look at what you get", but that same person is ignoring my cries of "but look at what I actually use".
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#16I wonder if there's a missing subscription model that allows for casual, not devoted, subscribers. I'm never going to sit down and read the LA Times website like it was a newspaper. That ship has sailed. I will, however, occasionally check it for the breaking news of the day. I'm definitely going to read their annual 100 LA Essential restaurant list, and I will also visit articles that my friends post to facebook. Th…
Another thing: for every digital subscription service, I always wonder if someone has tried a "the more subscribers, the cheaper the subscription" model. For example, I imagine a "If we get 1 million digital subscribers, we'll knock $10 off the annual price for EVERYONE" promo.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#17No fucking kidding. I subscribed, and then they sent me email newsletters all the time. Unsubscribe; they invent a new one the next week. Cancel, cancel, cancel, never resubscribe, tell everyone I know to never subscribe.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#18Last year the L.A. Times was offering a 3-month subscription for free, so I signed up. I wanted to support “independent journalism” so I let it keep renewing until last week — honestly, though, I just forgot to cancel it in February. Anyway, I finally cancelled my digital sub this week. If you live outside of L.A., this paper has no actual value to your news intake for the day. IMO it seems their entire focus is Cali…
They're called the la slimes for a reason
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#19Part 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
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers
#20Last year the L.A. Times was offering a 3-month subscription for free, so I signed up. I wanted to support “independent journalism” so I let it keep renewing until last week — honestly, though, I just forgot to cancel it in February. Anyway, I finally cancelled my digital sub this week. If you live outside of L.A., this paper has no actual value to your news intake for the day. IMO it seems their entire focus is Cali…
> once the L.A. Times’ formed their guild, many writers found employment elsewhere
...eh? Which LA Times writers quit because the newsroom unionized?