3 ms·

> I think ArsTechnica is also an example of where publishing needs to go because they don't show ads to subscribers. I think subscriptions are the way to go, b

by byuu 11y ago

> I think ArsTechnica is also an example of where publishing needs to go because they don't show ads to subscribers. I think subscriptions are the way to go, but these sites really need to work on their pricing. Ars wants $5 a month for a few articles of text a day; whereas Netflix gives me millions of hours of movies for $8 a month. Frankly, I can't even imagine how Netflix pays for the bandwidth, let alone all the licenses, to allow that to be possible. The value proposition is extremely out of balance ... as if one is selling you a bottle of soda, and the other a brand new car, and they're asking similar prices. While I spend maybe 2-3 hours a month on Ars for content that's traditionally been free, I spend probably 30-60 a month on Netflix consuming content that's traditionally charged around $10-20 an hour for their content. It's not that a lot of us are too cheap for $5 a month, it's that we visit a hundred or more sites, and the bottom 90% of the population cannot afford $500-$2000 a month in website subscription fees. I know supply and demand is a balancing act, but I really believe sites would make a lot more money if we had a sort of Paypal-like subscription management site, and could easily manage lots of site subscriptions for $1 a month or so per site.

nemothekid 11y ago
Except its entirely unclear that $5/month is sustainable, much less $1/mo. Consider that the stodgy "print media" like the New York Times had a customer base of 800,000 that were sold for $700/year (that included ads in them!) - thats half a billion dollars a year, Ars would need 100% american penetration to get that on $1/mo. Now obviously the cost side is changing for print, but the same is true for Netflix. I think Netflix prices are currently deeply discounted by the fact that (1) Studios are realizing they can make some money having it on Netflix rather than the Pirate Bay and (2) Home Video and Syndication prices still pay well enough that studios aren't majorly concerned. I interested to see if Netflix can even think about raising their prices while more and more studios pull their content off Netflix and Netflix has to continue relying on in house programming.
- byuu 11y ago
  > Except its entirely unclear that $5/month is sustainable, much less $1/mo. Right now, how many people are going to subscribe to a site? You have to trust them with your real info and credit card details, and maintain your login and card expiration. Cancellation's probably a hassle, too. You figure, probably one in ten thousand visitors are going to subscribe. Have some sort of service, let's call it "Subscrybe", with a fancy button that sites put on their page. You click the button, agree to pay $1/mo, and you're back on the site ... ad-free, tracking-free, and with premium features (say, extra articles, rights to post comments on stories, etc.) No account hassles, no management hassles, no personal information given out. Maybe even better, have $1/mo be the "suggested" amount, and let people specify what they want. That sort of model has worked well for indie band/game downloads before. My guess is the 1:10,000 figure changes to 1:1,000. Now you're making at least twice as much, even though each person is paying less. I can't prove this will be the case, but I feel it's an idea at least worth trying out. Just need a really big player to handle the subscription backend, and get some major sites onboard. Your alternative right now, is that you get absolutely nothing, and they block your ads. And if you still can't sustain a site with a few tech articles a day, then you'll have to fold. It's probably a sign the market's too saturated. As sources for quality news drop, they'll also have an increased paid viewership, until they're once again sustainable. > I interested to see if Netflix can even think about raising their prices while more and more studios pull their content off Netflix and Netflix has to continue relying on in house programming. I definitely fear this as well. Already, I'm up to Netflix+Hulu+Amazon Prime+Crunchyroll. CBS, Funimation, HBO, Showtime et al also want their own money, which I'm not going to do. Even still, with just those four at around $30 a month (and no ads!), it feels too good to be true. But if they keep forking, well ... I didn't ditch cable so I could split my $150/mo bill into 15 x $8-20 a month bills.
  - tajen 11y ago
    I would pay for ... Hacker News. The value of journalism is so often negative (with writers removing facts from the original scientific paper and adding a deceptive title), the only real value in my online parkour is a hundred comments from Hackers News. Ten of them will add facts, dozens will bring various point of views for/against the essay, one will really put the story into perspective. I wouldn't know how to monetize HN without disturbing the savvy balance of profiles and the quality of comments, but to this day HN is the one journalism work that adds value to my life.

by byuu 11y ago

nemothekid 11y ago

Except its entirely unclear that $5/month is sustainable, much less $1/mo. Consider that the stodgy "print media" like the New York Times had a customer base of 800,000 that were sold for $700/year (that included ads in them!) - thats half a billion dollars a year, Ars would need 100% american penetration to get that on $1/mo. Now obviously the cost side is changing for print, but the same is true for Netflix. I think Netflix prices are currently deeply discounted by the fact that (1) Studios are realizing they can make some money having it on Netflix rather than the Pirate Bay and (2) Home Video and Syndication prices still pay well enough that studios aren't majorly concerned. I interested to see if Netflix can even think about raising their prices while more and more studios pull their content off Netflix and Netflix has to continue relying on in house programming.

byuu 11y ago
> Except its entirely unclear that $5/month is sustainable, much less $1/mo. Right now, how many people are going to subscribe to a site? You have to trust them with your real info and credit card details, and maintain your login and card expiration. Cancellation's probably a hassle, too. You figure, probably one in ten thousand visitors are going to subscribe. Have some sort of service, let's call it "Subscrybe", with a fancy button that sites put on their page. You click the button, agree to pay $1/mo, and you're back on the site ... ad-free, tracking-free, and with premium features (say, extra articles, rights to post comments on stories, etc.) No account hassles, no management hassles, no personal information given out. Maybe even better, have $1/mo be the "suggested" amount, and let people specify what they want. That sort of model has worked well for indie band/game downloads before. My guess is the 1:10,000 figure changes to 1:1,000. Now you're making at least twice as much, even though each person is paying less. I can't prove this will be the case, but I feel it's an idea at least worth trying out. Just need a really big player to handle the subscription backend, and get some major sites onboard. Your alternative right now, is that you get absolutely nothing, and they block your ads. And if you still can't sustain a site with a few tech articles a day, then you'll have to fold. It's probably a sign the market's too saturated. As sources for quality news drop, they'll also have an increased paid viewership, until they're once again sustainable. > I interested to see if Netflix can even think about raising their prices while more and more studios pull their content off Netflix and Netflix has to continue relying on in house programming. I definitely fear this as well. Already, I'm up to Netflix+Hulu+Amazon Prime+Crunchyroll. CBS, Funimation, HBO, Showtime et al also want their own money, which I'm not going to do. Even still, with just those four at around $30 a month (and no ads!), it feels too good to be true. But if they keep forking, well ... I didn't ditch cable so I could split my $150/mo bill into 15 x $8-20 a month bills.
- tajen 11y ago
  I would pay for ... Hacker News. The value of journalism is so often negative (with writers removing facts from the original scientific paper and adding a deceptive title), the only real value in my online parkour is a hundred comments from Hackers News. Ten of them will add facts, dozens will bring various point of views for/against the essay, one will really put the story into perspective. I wouldn't know how to monetize HN without disturbing the savvy balance of profiles and the quality of comments, but to this day HN is the one journalism work that adds value to my life.