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

The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#21

Post by baggy_trough »

addicted wrote: post #10
heyyyouu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beh…

Those overproduced tech demo articles are a big waste of time, in my opinion. Harder to read and annoying.

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#22

Post by kbenson »

windowtoss wrote: post #13

Last 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…

> 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.

I'm not sure I can fault them much for this. I imagine most that care for national news care enough to get it from some more well known agency, like WaPo, NYT, etc. You can either try to compete with the likes of them, or focus on what they can't easily provide, which is more local news.

This is just what the Internet does, consolidate services into the few players that do it best. It would be interesting if their were bundled subscriptions for local papers. If there was an integrated offering such that you could buy NYT or WaPo with LA Times, or SF Chronicle, or whatever your local paper was tacked on for a moderate fee, I imagine a lot of people would opt for that. Enough that it might be beneficial for both agencies.

NYT and WaPo definitely have the online resources and talent to do something like that, and if they did it well, they could offer a platform for newspapers to use for publishing that allowed enough branding that they could probably make quite a bit of money while making it trivial to combine articles between sources very smoothly.

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#23

Post by kbenson »

sambroner wrote: post #12

Second 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 technic…

At this point I'm just wondering why some major online news player hasn't made a platform good enough that these papers don't feel the need to make their own. It could also make bundled subscriptions trivial and a way to get good national and local coverage while reducing cost.

Does the LA Times really have a chance of competing with NYT or WaPo? At this point I'm not sure why they should try, other than hubris.

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#24

Post by killjoywashere »

sambroner wrote: post #12

Second 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 technic…

I have family in LA and they subscribe to the NY Times over LA Times.

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#25

Post by projectileboy »

kbenson wrote: post #22
windowtoss wrote: post #13

Last 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…

> 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. I'm not sure I can fault them much for this. I imagine most that care for national news care enough to get it from some more well known agency, like WaPo, NYT, etc. You can either try to compete wi…

I very much agree. There’s no real reason for the second tier city newspapers to do much beyond local - that’s actually what I want them to do. When I want national or world news, I look at a short list (NYT, WSJ, Economist, maybe WaPo) that other newspapers just are not going to be able to compete with. But what’s going on in my neighborhood? St Paul Pioneer Press has it covered.

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#26

Post by Merrill »

But how are their digital advertising revenues doing? Aren't digital ads the main revenue source for most newspaper web sites beyond the "big 3" in digital subscriptions?

Website readership might be a better indication of relative health for these newspapers.

The other factor in success is whether they have been quick enough to shed costs of production and distribution of print.

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#27

Post by blueboo »

windowtoss wrote: post #13

Last 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…

> 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.

Check your notes, folks. There were layoffs at the behest of good ol' Tronc (the famously mismanaged Chicago Tribune conglomerate) but it appears that very few writers left the LAT of their own volition after unionization -- on the order of 1. (https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/la-times-cuts-layoffs.p...)

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#28

Post by [deleted] »

windowtoss wrote: post #13

Last 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…

[deleted]

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#29

Post by pandaman »

tedunangst wrote: post #17

No 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.

~10 years ago it was worse. They would just subscribe you themselves to the actual newspaper and then bill you. If you lived in a multi-unit building you wouldn't even know you had been receiving LAT for several months before the bill came!

This is literally a scam and would be bad for any business but 10x worse for a newspaper. "Hey, would you like to get your news from scammers like us?"

Re: The L.A. Times’ disappointing digital numbers

#30

Post by alphaomegacode »

windowtoss wrote: post #13

Last 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…

Wow, it's strange that I could've written this same post.

Similar reasons for subscribing digitally and the same lack of other stories I would find interesting. I'm sure it's great for LA but a lesson learned - subscribe digitally to national or local.

Cannot fault the LA Times for their focus but there is a real concern with the way they do business when it comes to these digital subscriptions. You can sign up easily enough yet when you want to cancel, you have to call in and spend 10 minutes on the phone. Plus, you're given multiple sales pitches for lower-priced offerings when cancelling.

This type of dark pattern for a well-known newspaper could itself be a tech news story.

What could be worrisome is this kind of difficult cancellation process will put people off from supporting other news organizations via subscription.

Post reply on HN