Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model • Hacker News Board

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#21

Post by factotvm » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:13 AM UTC

MRD85 wrote: post #20

factotvm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to pay for all the meals I eat, a large number of them are terrible... So I don’t go back. But you have to pay for what you eat.

I doesn't physically cost any practical amount of money to read an article, a tiny amount of processing power and data transfer. A physical meal costs orders of magnitude more. I understand why we should pay for articles but if you enforce payment then you'll see a flood of poorly written click bait and a race to the bottom.

Im not suggesting that it will work (to pay per article as we’re describing). But the idea that you should get something for free because you don’t like it isn’t how most things work. Caveat emptor.

Conversely, people said it didn’t cost any practical amount of money to listen to music, yet Spotify thrives.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#22

Post by lubujackson » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #16

mirimir wrote: post #2

> Like many, I was wrong about the subscription model for the news media. I thought that a possible scheme for subscriptions could be: one for national media, in the $12–20 a month range, another, less expensive ($5–$9/month) for local news, and the last one for specialized content, whether it is a business or a leisure publication. I can't imagine how that could ever have worked. Back in the day, I mostly read stuff…

> Now it's mainly from HN. But either way, I'd need perhaps 20-40 subscriptions. No, you should be paying one subscription, to HN, which should be making arrangements with the news sources. Paying for subscriptions from the sources when HN is your gateway is like readers directly subscribing to wire services when they get their news by opening up a newspaper. The old media “portals” have been displaced and become sou…

If news subscriptions ever get around to working it has to happen the way things progressed with music: siloed content people mostly don't pay for (check), widespread piracy that allows people to enjoy unfettered access (let's say the Google trick/private browsing trick counts). Next comes the switcheroo phase, when a company comes along and makes heaps of illegal money off the piracy while negotiating with the content owners in a bid for legitimacy.

The economics are too hard otherwise. The New York Times won't cede pricing control willingly and consumers won't pay subscription prices to individual producers. And middleman companies will always have two impossible battles, pricing and content coverage.

Music might just be the sweet spot, though. Spotify works great while Netflix is getting torn apart by the sharks. Video might be too expensive/lucrative to aggregate and news articles might be too cheap/pervasive to bother.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#23

Post by mirimir » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 6:57 AM UTC

factotvm wrote: post #19

mirimir wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the monthly digital subscription model, you end up paying for all you could possibly ever eat . Most of which you could never eat. Unless you automated the "eating", and resold what you didn't need. Which is disgusting, and in the case of online media, almost certainly illegal. But that is an interesting idea. Buy digital subscriptions to every media outlet that you'd ever want to read, and resell page views, us…

What you were suggesting in the parent comment was a pay-as-you-go system wherein you pay something like $0.10 per article.

True.

I was just riffing on how to deal with pervasive paywalls that required full subscriptions.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#24

Post by mirimir » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:01 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #16

mirimir wrote: post #2

> Like many, I was wrong about the subscription model for the news media. I thought that a possible scheme for subscriptions could be: one for national media, in the $12–20 a month range, another, less expensive ($5–$9/month) for local news, and the last one for specialized content, whether it is a business or a leisure publication. I can't imagine how that could ever have worked. Back in the day, I mostly read stuff…

> Now it's mainly from HN. But either way, I'd need perhaps 20-40 subscriptions. No, you should be paying one subscription, to HN, which should be making arrangements with the news sources. Paying for subscriptions from the sources when HN is your gateway is like readers directly subscribing to wire services when they get their news by opening up a newspaper. The old media “portals” have been displaced and become sou…

Why should HN handle media payments? It's more of a discussion forum than a news aggregator. Indeed, users submit links, so maybe they (we) ought to be making payment arrangements.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#25

Post by Doxin » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 7:56 AM UTC

numakerg wrote: post #13

> Netflix eats online news If Netflix is eating online news both in terms of attention and money then why wouldn't they partner with Netflix? I know a few seniors that are reluctant to switch because it doesn't have news or weather.

Honestly having a daily news show on netflix seems like such a no-brainer that I can't fathom why it isn't on there yet. You'll get a whole load of people opening netflix at least once a day for basically.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#26

Post by draw_down » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 9:14 AM UTC

Doxin wrote: post #25

numakerg wrote: post #13

> Netflix eats online news If Netflix is eating online news both in terms of attention and money then why wouldn't they partner with Netflix? I know a few seniors that are reluctant to switch because it doesn't have news or weather.

Honestly having a daily news show on netflix seems like such a no-brainer that I can't fathom why it isn't on there yet. You'll get a whole load of people opening netflix at least once a day for basically.

Those by definition have to be produced every day, and they are regional to boot. And they go stale pretty much instantly. Netflix wants to produce content that can be successful in more than one region of the world, that doesn’t expire quickly, that can be added to the catalog and watched some time into the future.

A show like that would be everything they don’t want.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#27

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 2:14 PM UTC

factotvm wrote: post #21

MRD85 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doesn't physically cost any practical amount of money to read an article, a tiny amount of processing power and data transfer. A physical meal costs orders of magnitude more. I understand why we should pay for articles but if you enforce payment then you'll see a flood of poorly written click bait and a race to the bottom.

Im not suggesting that it will work (to pay per article as we’re describing). But the idea that you should get something for free because you don’t like it isn’t how most things work. Caveat emptor. Conversely, people said it didn’t cost any practical amount of money to listen to music, yet Spotify thrives.

Spotify thrives because it is more convenient than piracy.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#28

Post by RandomBacon » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

factotvm wrote: post #18

pessimizer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of articles don't nourish me, they make me stupider. I wouldn't pay for a poisoned meal.

I know of no restaurants that would charge you if you got food poisoning. But saying that when you ordered a colossal burger it went straight to your waistline isn't a good excuse not to pay. Don't go in if you don't want to pay.

Beginning to be off-topic, but I'm curious...

The problem is, the food poisoning usually manifests after you've already paid and left the resturant.

Could one do a credit card charge-back if they get sick after eating out? (Too bad I pay using cash though, so I am SOL.)

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#29

Post by deaps » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #16

mirimir wrote: post #2

> Like many, I was wrong about the subscription model for the news media. I thought that a possible scheme for subscriptions could be: one for national media, in the $12–20 a month range, another, less expensive ($5–$9/month) for local news, and the last one for specialized content, whether it is a business or a leisure publication. I can't imagine how that could ever have worked. Back in the day, I mostly read stuff…

> Now it's mainly from HN. But either way, I'd need perhaps 20-40 subscriptions. No, you should be paying one subscription, to HN, which should be making arrangements with the news sources. Paying for subscriptions from the sources when HN is your gateway is like readers directly subscribing to wire services when they get their news by opening up a newspaper. The old media “portals” have been displaced and become sou…

I agree with this -- whether the portal be HN or something else. I'd gladly pay a subscription to a portal and ingest the content as I see fit.

I'd be against paying $.10 per article read (or clicked) because most articles, I never fully read. HN is an exception to that rule - I find most of the content linked from HN to be beneficial and worthwhile.

Re: Consumer Trends That Destroyed Media’s Business Model

#30

Post by CM30 » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

Eh, I think most of this is only true because the internet has basically destroyed the barrier to entry for posting/sharing news and content. Why should people pay for news/subscriptions to news if there are thousands of news sites/publications out there offering the same information for free?

Plus unlike the forms of entertainment sold on services like Spotify or Netflix, news is basically a commodity. For many people, the source of the news isn't some unique selling point that makes them want to pay for it.

So even if their 'favourite' news source does become paid, they'll just go somewhere else and get the same information. Especially given that anyone can basically just copy the giist of a news story and rewrite it in their own words, and most of the media does exactly that. Even if some news site publishes a 'unique' story, it'll be on their competitors sites in one form or another in five minutes flat.

Contrasts this to other forms of media/entertainment people suggest aggregators/services for. Your favourite music artist, video game, TV show, etc can't be 'replaced' by a generic alternative. If you like Star Wars or Marvel or what not, you're gonna have to go through Disney in some way.

There's no generic brand Star Wars or Avengers that's 'good enough' for many people.

Have trends changed? Sure, but they've changed because tech and competition have enabled them to.