The Transformation of Condé Nast
newrepublic.com
The Transformation of Condé Nast
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#2I have stopped reading Wired when they've decided to block new visitors that use ad blockers, essentially telling them to expose themselves to a proven malware distribution channel. They have relented since to a more sensible paywall with a handful of free articles every month, but they've likely lost a bunch of readers and mind share because of that initial decision.
https://www.wired.com/how-wired-is-going-to-handle-ad-blocki...
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#3[dead]
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#4I have stopped reading Wired when they've decided to block new visitors that use ad blockers, essentially telling them to expose themselves to a proven malware distribution channel. They have relented since to a more sensible paywall with a handful of free articles every month, but they've likely lost a bunch of readers and mind share because of that initial decision. https://www.wired.com/how-wired-is-going-to-handl…
They are optimizing for profit. Your mind share is not mind share they care about because the chance of converting you into a paying customer is close to nil. You might as well not exist to them.
These practices are all about extracting more money from potential customers.
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#5I have stopped reading Wired when they've decided to block new visitors that use ad blockers, essentially telling them to expose themselves to a proven malware distribution channel. They have relented since to a more sensible paywall with a handful of free articles every month, but they've likely lost a bunch of readers and mind share because of that initial decision. https://www.wired.com/how-wired-is-going-to-handl…
They are optimizing for profit. Your mind share is not mind share they care about because the chance of converting you into a paying customer is close to nil. You might as well not exist to them. These practices are all about extracting more money from potential customers.
I know they need money to continue publishing stories, but I don't feel like getting nickeled an dimed by every publication wanting a subscription.
At the same time, quality journalism costs money.
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are optimizing for profit. Your mind share is not mind share they care about because the chance of converting you into a paying customer is close to nil. You might as well not exist to them. These practices are all about extracting more money from potential customers.
I know they need money to continue publishing stories, but I don't feel like getting nickeled an dimed by every publication wanting a subscription. At the same time, quality journalism costs money.
I feel the same way, just trying to share some perspective.
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are optimizing for profit. Your mind share is not mind share they care about because the chance of converting you into a paying customer is close to nil. You might as well not exist to them. These practices are all about extracting more money from potential customers.
I know they need money to continue publishing stories, but I don't feel like getting nickeled an dimed by every publication wanting a subscription. At the same time, quality journalism costs money.
Well, that's how people used to get magazines and newspapers for the most part. They bought an individual subscription.
That said, it's hard to see many people paying for a lot of individual subscriptions outside of mostly global brands like The Economist. On the other hand, we haven't seen aggregation that works from both the perspective of readers and publishers.
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#8I have stopped reading Wired when they've decided to block new visitors that use ad blockers, essentially telling them to expose themselves to a proven malware distribution channel. They have relented since to a more sensible paywall with a handful of free articles every month, but they've likely lost a bunch of readers and mind share because of that initial decision. https://www.wired.com/how-wired-is-going-to-handl…
They are optimizing for profit. Your mind share is not mind share they care about because the chance of converting you into a paying customer is close to nil. You might as well not exist to them. These practices are all about extracting more money from potential customers.
Blocking potential customers on their first visit is a strange profit optimization strategy.
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know they need money to continue publishing stories, but I don't feel like getting nickeled an dimed by every publication wanting a subscription. At the same time, quality journalism costs money.
Well, that's how people used to get magazines and newspapers for the most part. They bought an individual subscription. That said, it's hard to see many people paying for a lot of individual subscriptions outside of mostly global brands like The Economist. On the other hand, we haven't seen aggregation that works from both the perspective of readers and publishers.
The problem being nobody is going to sub £5/mo for everything they want to read that's an insane amount of money. But mentally signing up for £5/mo or £0.05/mo is the same hurdle it seems, putting any flow like that drops users.
My youtube alone would be ~£330/mo if everyone did 1 video.
Re: The Transformation of Condé Nast
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's how people used to get magazines and newspapers for the most part. They bought an individual subscription. That said, it's hard to see many people paying for a lot of individual subscriptions outside of mostly global brands like The Economist. On the other hand, we haven't seen aggregation that works from both the perspective of readers and publishers.
The problem being nobody is going to sub £5/mo for everything they want to read that's an insane amount of money. But mentally signing up for £5/mo or £0.05/mo is the same hurdle it seems, putting any flow like that drops users. My youtube alone would be ~£330/mo if everyone did 1 video.
>nobody is going to sub £5/mo
The Economist runs more than that. So does The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. And people used to routinely have many magazine subscriptions that were at least $1/month.
I agree expectations have changed for many people. But spending what you do on Spotify for all you can eat magazine subscriptions is actually an unsustainably low number.