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

Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 183 posts

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#171

Post by josephcsible »

steve_taylor wrote: post #170
josephcsible wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't require a credit card for a free trial This doesn't bother me as much as most of the other complaints here. How else can you keep someone from creating multiple accounts to get multiple free trials?

That's an issue for a subset of SaaS products that deliver value without stickiness. Sticky products, though, should definitely not take a credit card upfront. For example, a project management product is sticky because I put my data into it and it's too much hassle to recreate that data every 14 days. For non-sticky SaaS products, there may be a case for taking a credit card in order to prevent multiple free trials…

What do you mean by "stickiness"?

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#172

Post by heartbeats »

gnome_chomsky wrote: post #84
Someone1234 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harder a service is to cancel, the more unlikely I am to ever re-subscribe. That's something they need to start studying in business/MBA school. That SOME customer churn reduction strategies directly lead to indefinite loss of customers. To give a specific anecdote: Ooma offers a very interesting service, hassle-free "landline" (VoIP) turn-key phone service, the price is reasonable, and they have multiple offerin…

I cancelled my years long nytimes subscription a few years ago once someone told me that they had to call in and suffer through customer service retention reps in order to cancel their sub. I just couldn't stand the thought of being bled for cash due to their making it too inconvenient for subscribers to cancel.

Does it work to repeat "I'd like to cancel my subscription" over and over again, without answering their questions?

If so, why isn't this more prevalent?

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#173

Post by AlwaysRock »

1123581321 wrote: post #167
AlwaysRock wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd question. I would prefer the movies that are on the service I pay for to be included in my package. It's a different service, rentals, smashed into the service I pay for, prime "free" videos. That is what makes it frustrating. I do in fact sometimes end up renting those videos which is why they include them. But it's not a good customer experience by any means.

It was a great question. Contentment eludes you if you can’t recognize you have enough, while being aware more is possible. If that’s not possible, switch to a service that gives you “everything” (but costs more or has fewer titles.)

Lol. Very HN comment. One can be annoyed with how a service mixes their paid and "free" offers while still being content.

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#174

Post by phailhaus »

1123581321 wrote: post #169
phailhaus wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool! Anyways, most people don't do this because they don't read articles frequently enough, or they read from too many sources.

I think you're misunderstanding. You're getting less from your scattered reading than he is from investing in a few, well-packaged publications, assuming you spend the same amount of effort reading. A regular reader of a publication gains an expertise that saves a lot of time and allows for much more reading between the lines. That's a big part of what people are paying for. It wouldn't make sense to pay for more pub…

I am not misunderstanding, I am telling you the reality of the situation: People don't do that. That is literally what this report is about, that "a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24 hours". They read articles sparingly across many different sources, and they will not pay for a recurring subscription across them all. Newspapers can either ignore that and slowly die out, or find more effective business models that match how people actually consume content now.

This mindset of "no, it is the people who are wrong" is completely backwards, and no amount of lecturing will make it true.

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#175

Post by 1123581321 »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #173
1123581321 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a great question. Contentment eludes you if you can’t recognize you have enough, while being aware more is possible. If that’s not possible, switch to a service that gives you “everything” (but costs more or has fewer titles.)

Lol. Very HN comment. One can be annoyed with how a service mixes their paid and "free" offers while still being content.

Haha. I'd argue most of HN isn't interested in contentment!

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#176

Post by 1123581321 »

phailhaus wrote: post #174
1123581321 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding. You're getting less from your scattered reading than he is from investing in a few, well-packaged publications, assuming you spend the same amount of effort reading. A regular reader of a publication gains an expertise that saves a lot of time and allows for much more reading between the lines. That's a big part of what people are paying for. It wouldn't make sense to pay for more pub…

I am not misunderstanding, I am telling you the reality of the situation: People don't do that. That is literally what this report is about, that "a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24 hours". They read articles sparingly across many different sources, and they will not pay for a recurring subscription across them all. Newspapers can either ignore that and slowly die out, or find more…

Sorry, I knew I should've headed off a tangential response about the people who don't read news. Most of them shouldn't start doing that. My comment was in response to you saying that you read 1-2 articles from a wide variety of sources and seemingly not understanding the value of concentrating that same volume of reading into fewer sources. As for newspapers in particular, the mid market is giving way to fewer paywalled papers of record, and a wider variety of periodicals.

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#177

Post by phailhaus »

1123581321 wrote: post #176
phailhaus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not misunderstanding, I am telling you the reality of the situation: People don't do that. That is literally what this report is about, that "a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24 hours". They read articles sparingly across many different sources, and they will not pay for a recurring subscription across them all. Newspapers can either ignore that and slowly die out, or find more…

Sorry, I knew I should've headed off a tangential response about the people who don't read news. Most of them shouldn't start doing that. My comment was in response to you saying that you read 1-2 articles from a wide variety of sources and seemingly not understanding the value of concentrating that same volume of reading into fewer sources. As for newspapers in particular, the mid market is giving way to fewer paywa…

> about the people who don't read news

I don't think you're listening, because the point is that these people do read the news. That's what this report is about: they read the news, but they're not willing to pay for a recurring subscription. Lecturing one person (me) about the value of subscriptions is not going to change anything. I do pay for a few subscriptions. There's just far more that I can't read because it's just not worth the monthly cost. And that's the reality of the newspaper business.

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#178

Post by 1123581321 »

phailhaus wrote: post #177
1123581321 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I knew I should've headed off a tangential response about the people who don't read news. Most of them shouldn't start doing that. My comment was in response to you saying that you read 1-2 articles from a wide variety of sources and seemingly not understanding the value of concentrating that same volume of reading into fewer sources. As for newspapers in particular, the mid market is giving way to fewer paywa…

> about the people who don't read news I don't think you're listening, because the point is that these people do read the news. That's what this report is about: they read the news, but they're not willing to pay for a recurring subscription. Lecturing one person (me) about the value of subscriptions is not going to change anything. I do pay for a few subscriptions. There's just far more that I can't read because it'…

I have been reading closely. We're on a subthread started by you saying you thought it was audacious to charge a subscription for news and microtransactions are more appropriate. Now you've said you do pay for news subscriptions, which I think someone wouldn't do if they didn't understand the value, so I think we've gotten to the bottom of this.

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#179

Post by phailhaus »

1123581321 wrote: post #178
phailhaus wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> about the people who don't read news I don't think you're listening, because the point is that these people do read the news. That's what this report is about: they read the news, but they're not willing to pay for a recurring subscription. Lecturing one person (me) about the value of subscriptions is not going to change anything. I do pay for a few subscriptions. There's just far more that I can't read because it'…

I have been reading closely. We're on a subthread started by you saying you thought it was audacious to charge a subscription for news and microtransactions are more appropriate. Now you've said you do pay for news subscriptions, which I think someone wouldn't do if they didn't understand the value, so I think we've gotten to the bottom of this.

You're missing the forest for a single tree (me). Again, the point is that there are way more publications that I want to read but I can't due to those monthly subscriptions. It is audacious for newspapers to demand recurring subscriptions, but I have no other choice, so I've picked two. This model is not sustainable, as the report demonstrates. There is a huge market that is willing to pay less than a monthly recurring subscription that is totally unaddressed.

Re: Nearly a third of new subscribers to news publications cancel in the first 24hrs

#180

Post by 1123581321 »

phailhaus wrote: post #179
1123581321 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been reading closely. We're on a subthread started by you saying you thought it was audacious to charge a subscription for news and microtransactions are more appropriate. Now you've said you do pay for news subscriptions, which I think someone wouldn't do if they didn't understand the value, so I think we've gotten to the bottom of this.

You're missing the forest for a single tree (me). Again, the point is that there are way more publications that I want to read but I can't due to those monthly subscriptions. It is audacious for newspapers to demand recurring subscriptions, but I have no other choice, so I've picked two. This model is not sustainable, as the report demonstrates. There is a huge market that is willing to pay less than a monthly recurr…

Yes, there is also a market for paid aggregated news. Apple News+ (acquisition of Texture) is probably best known. Some obvious limitations, of course.
Post reply on HN