Live data from Hacker News

Won’t Subscribe

tbray.org

321–330 of 362 posts

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#321
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one had to limit themselves to one news source before either, but that's what publishers are trying to do now.

There is literally no publisher that would be able or trying to prevent you from reading other publishers. What they want is for you to come back to them, but you can read others too.

Publishers know you have a limited budget you’re willing to spend on news articles. If you spend it all with through the purchase of a bundle, you’re less likely to spend it on other publishers.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#322

He says he's subscribed to: - Business Insider - Washington Post - Wall Street Journal - New York Times - Guardian - Globe & Mail - Telegraph - Bloomberg - Times of London That's like reading the same opinions 10 times a day (edit: minus Telegraph which is still very centrist). Am I the only one reading from diverse perspectives? I often read NYT, BI, Guardian but also the Dailymail, RT, Fox etc. I would hate to alwa…

The WSJ is hardly on the same side as the Guardian; their editorial pages are hugely opposed.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#323

Bring back traditional advertising. No user profiling, no retargeting, no data collection. Pay for exposure and not clicks. Problem solved. Micropayments is a red herring. Print newspapers use to cost what, 50c a piece? And that included an absolutely massive printing, sales and distribution infrastructure. It is preposterous that digital publishing would cost more.

>Problem solved.

Nope. Ad CPMs in the print era were an order of magnitude higher than today. All of the shady online advertising tactics are an effort to improve CPMs and eke out something resembling a functioning business model. Removing those tricks just means making less money, for businesses who are already barely surviving.

Print newspapers used to cost 50c because of the classified section. Online news didn't kill the newspaper business - Craigslist, Zillow and Monster did.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#324

He says he's subscribed to: - Business Insider - Washington Post - Wall Street Journal - New York Times - Guardian - Globe & Mail - Telegraph - Bloomberg - Times of London That's like reading the same opinions 10 times a day (edit: minus Telegraph which is still very centrist). Am I the only one reading from diverse perspectives? I often read NYT, BI, Guardian but also the Dailymail, RT, Fox etc. I would hate to alwa…

I don't think the Telegraph and the Guardian are the same political side.

Well, apparently one side is "we have strong opinions, maybe left wing, maybe right wing, but also have journalistic ethics and try to get the facts right" vs "the purpose of our publication is propaganda" (RT, Fox).

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#325

What's strange is it used to be you would pick up a newspaper at a stand for the day, pay a dollar or whatever, and then have quite a lot of articles to read for that day. But now, it is impossible, the only way is to lock-in. And that may be for the rest of your life if the complaints about the labirynth you may navigate to unsubscribe the nytimes is to be believed. If there was some sort of daily access pass that d…

Back in the peak days of the newspaper stand model, the paper you picked up would be chock full of ads, and the newpaper made most of the money from the ads, not the purchase price. But they could probably figure out an appropriate cost and duplicate that model.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were printed newspaper I could go and get one for a few bucks. Digital has nothing to offer of that kind. As the other poster wrote, how else would you expand your readership?

> As the other poster wrote, how else would you expand your readership? By creating a valuable product, finding potential costumers, and offering the product for sale. Why would it be different than any other business? It would be ridiculous to expect every SaaS business to offer their services for "a few bucks", and yet, for some reason, people think it is egregious that publishers don't do this. Bizarre. Though, I…

Also, everyone in here is (oddly?) discounting the fact that making it easy to consume individual articles at some presumably-low price would inevitably reduce the number of monthly subscribers. Some subs would save money; some subs would think they would save money.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#327
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the other poster wrote, how else would you expand your readership? By creating a valuable product, finding potential costumers, and offering the product for sale. Why would it be different than any other business? It would be ridiculous to expect every SaaS business to offer their services for "a few bucks", and yet, for some reason, people think it is egregious that publishers don't do this. Bizarre. Though, I…

How do you expect people to go from "not customer" to "loyal customer" without going to through the intermediate step of "occasional reader"? > By creating a valuable product, finding potential costumers > Our websites, as they're designed, are probably a little annoying to people who are not our loyal readership. That's by design; > again, NOT our occasional readers As I read it, you are expecting a occasional visit…

I expect via the well-known method of signing up for a trial subscription.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#328
post #295

As a long-time publisher, there is only one primary metric that matters to me: loyal readers. I don't publish for the occasional visitor. I publish for the loyal readers that I have worked hard to cultivate, engage, and enrichen. The primary work is one of building a relationship with a loyal readership, based on consistency and quality. Our websites, as they're designed, are probably a little annoying to people who…

The problem is that all loyal readers start as nonsubscribers stopping by for the first time. When I encounter a site that is intentionally poorly designed and annoying, I don’t even consider subscribing. First impressions matter. If I walked into a store and the salespeople were grubby and obnoxious, I wouldn’t think “hmm, maybe they’ll be less grubby and obnoxious if I buy something.” I’d just leave. You no doubt h…

Subscribing means taking a risk: will future content from this publication be worth the price? In the case of a newspaper, the answer is often "definitely not" even in the absence of signs of nonsubscriber aversion.

For example, I sometimes stumble upon local newspapers covering some event of interest (e.g. details of police violence in USA cities I've never heard about, or schedules of concerts etc. wherever I'm on vacation for a few days). Regardless of high quality and low prices, I might only be interested in subscribing to such publications if I expected lots of interesting future news from that place, which is of course absurd; but I could be willing to pay (not too much) for the single article that I know interests me.

When there is a chance of subscription, the publication should prioritize convincing readers that content is relevant and high quality, by letting people access it. Instead, there are pearls of marketing like a monthly limit to free articles (e.g. the Washington Post), a surgical strike against the most interested potential subscribers.

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#329
I have the opposite problem: I don't want to buy a single article, I want a subscription that works on every news site. Individual article purchases suck for the same reason that individual source subscriptions suck.

We learned a decade and change ago that microtransactions are a bad idea and very difficult to account for. Mental and payment network transaction costs dominate if you actually ask for tiny amounts of money all the time. Functional microtransaction schemes work by separating the point of payment from the point at which costs are accrued. This is ostensibly to batch transactions together, but also has the effect of making it far harder to consider how much you've actually spent. Users either agonize about spending a penny to read another article, or they get sticker shock from how many articles they read per month.

No one likes being nickeled and dimed, so subscriptions offer an escape valve for all of this. Instead of charging the user some accrued cost that they can't really budget for, you just charge them a fixed amount per month for unlimited access to a given resource. If we can't expect the customer to spend money when everything is a transaction cost, then we shouldn't bother tracking those accrued costs. Just figure an average amount of what it should cost and bill them at the end of each month. This works great if the subscription service is largely all-inclusive for the service that you are purchasing.

The way most news paywalls work is sort of like "quartering and dollaring". You see, most people don't go straight to a single news site to get all of their news. They go to aggregators, find the story they're looking for, and then go to that particular site. So the paywall on those sites is fundamentally indistinguishable from a microtransaction popup, except instead of wanting 10 cents to read one article, they want $10/mo to read all their articles. It's not like actually subscribing to any of these will actually fix the problem, since there's tens to hundreds of different paywalled sources out there. I don't want to subscribe to one news source - I want a variety.

For the record, the only service I know of that aggregates news and has a subscription option is Apple News+. As someone who daily-drives an Android phone and a Windows desktop, this service is mostly useless to me. Don't get me wrong, I do have access to iOS and macOS devices, I'm just not interested in a news service that only works on two of the six or so different computing devices I have access to. "Oh, this article is paywalled, I guess I need to pull out my iPod" is not materially different from "Oh, this article is paywalled, I guess I need to pull out a browser I don't normally use".

(Alternatively, Google could revert the changes to their ad system they made that moved advertising revenue away from third-party publishers, and we could go back to publisher advertising being able to pay for this content.)

Re: Won’t Subscribe

#330
post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Telegraph and the Guardian are the same political side.

Well, apparently one side is "we have strong opinions, maybe left wing, maybe right wing, but also have journalistic ethics and try to get the facts right" vs "the purpose of our publication is propaganda" (RT, Fox).

You think NYT and WaPo are not mostly anti-Trump propaganda? As for RT, it's the only outlet that openly and strongly criticize US foreign policy of never ending wars, no mainstream leftist or right-wing outlets go this far. For obvious reasons.
Post reply on HN