3 ms·

The article did phrase it as an approximation ("With those 35 people, they've grossed about $9,000."). If 35 people sign up to pay $260 per year, that's $9100.

by pohl 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
If they signed up per year, yes. But their subscription terms are '$5 per week'. So, unless I'm completely uninformed about consumer law, that means they have to do recurring billing on a weekly schedule charging $5 each time the subscription renews, and customers can cancel at any one point in time. See here: http://www.newsday.com/services/7.387?registration=true&online=true http://www.newsday.com/services/7.387?registration=true&... Any two bit webmaster running a site with a subscription model would be able to tell you some of the downsides of that registration page and why you really don't want to do this (the $5 / week charge) but that's their problem. So, what they've grossed is the number of subscribers times the number of weeks, once they've figured out their 'life cycle' they can project to future earnings. People do not as a rule fork over a years subscription in advance, another truth of online recurring billing. That's a great way to have to refund all of the money if the customer is not 100% satisfied during the run of the subscription. So, the 'middle ground' is monthly billing, with in case of a dispute a maximum 3 month refund. I also love their 'opt-out' for spam checkbox (check to opt-out, default 'unchecked'), and the fact that they (optionally) ask you to fill out your gender and birth date. > " Please check this box if you prefer not to be emailed " The marketing joys of double negatives.
- pohl 17y ago
  Apparently those 35 people did sign up for a year. (Edit: I guess not. I think the author is just establishing a best-case calculation). According to the article, anyway, which unveils the number 35 as the answer to the following question: "...how many people have signed up to pay...$260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?"
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    /me thinks that they made the connection between the $5 per week and the year all by themselves, the website is mum on $260, but prominently displays the $5. That's the one thing they did right, if they had put $260 up front you'd be looking at 3 in stead of 35 subscribers :)
    - pohl 17y ago
      No doubt the author made the connection himself. It's sensible for him to have calculated the best-case since the gist of the piece is that even the best-case annual revenue is abysmal.
- gridspy 17y ago
  It would be interesting to know the conversion rate of that hideous page.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I highly doubt they would even understand the question if you asked them. That page is just about against every bit of best practice regarding sign up forms that I'm aware of. - don't ask for stuff you don't need - make it *one* step to register and pay - ask positive questions not negative questions - put the form at the top and the benefits to the right the form is where you make your sale, so it should come first - make it a light page with black lettering - make it a secure server - if you will be using an email address as a login (bad) then you don't need to ask for a username - do not split your billing step and the signup step And so on...
    - prawn 17y ago
      Agree with all, but just curious as to your preference for login combo? I tend to use and prefer email/password and sites like Facebook and Twitter use the same. Never been a fan of username/alias (too much variation per site - can never remember if I used John, JohnD, JohnDoe, JohnDoe77, etc) and no one can remember every account number they might have across the net.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Email address sign-ins have lots of problems with respect to support, and you have to factor in your support costs. The automatic verification of the user identity is a bonus but for most sites you don't really need that. In the case of this particular website, which already seems to have a bunch of free options, the 'freemium' model would seem to work a lot better, get them in small steps at the time and make a conversion funnel. Goal 1 would be to get the user to visit several times Goal 2 would be to get them to invest a bit of their identity in the site, make them a 'registered user' Goal 3 would be an upsell, give them access to premium content for a fee It's a tough model to market, but because you have a number of steps you can automate the analysis of how effective the various steps of the funnel are. By the time you are ready to ask for card&expiry you have built up a trust relationship already and 90% of the signup process is over.
- idlewords 17y ago
  Subscriptions in newspaperland are never weekly. They get marketed as $x/week in order to reduce sticker shock, but you pay yearly or twice a year.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I can see a few very pissed off users in their future then, and it makes me wonder what would happen if they would simply make it a monthly subscription. Do you have any proof of this ? The website says very clearly $5 / week.
    - icey 17y ago
      Whenever I've gotten a newspaper subscription they've said it would cost $x a week, and then when it was time to settle up they'd either charge for 6 or 12 months in advance.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        I can't equate 'subscribing to a newspaper' with 'subscribing to a website owned by a newspaper'.
    - qeorge 17y ago
      Here's the NY Times home delivery signup page: https://www.nytimesathome.com/offer.php?id=31&SPTR_ID=hdNYT&MediaCode=W47AF&CMP=34U7J https://www.nytimesathome.com/offer.php?id=31&SPTR_ID=hd... Prices quoted weekly, but appear to be billed bi or tri monthly (depending on payment option).

The article did phrase it as an approximation ("With those 35 people, they've grossed about $9,000."). If 35 people sign up to pay $260 per year, that's $9100.

by pohl 17y ago

The article did phrase it as an approximation ("With those 35 people, they've grossed about $9,000."). If 35 people sign up to pay $260 per year, that's $9100.

jacquesm 17y ago

If they signed up per year, yes. But their subscription terms are '$5 per week'. So, unless I'm completely uninformed about consumer law, that means they have to do recurring billing on a weekly schedule charging $5 each time the subscription renews, and customers can cancel at any one point in time. See here: http://www.newsday.com/services/7.387?registration=true&online=true http://www.newsday.com/services/7.387?registration=true&... Any two bit webmaster running a site with a subscription model would be able to tell you some of the downsides of that registration page and why you really don't want to do this (the $5 / week charge) but that's their problem. So, what they've grossed is the number of subscribers times the number of weeks, once they've figured out their 'life cycle' they can project to future earnings. People do not as a rule fork over a years subscription in advance, another truth of online recurring billing. That's a great way to have to refund all of the money if the customer is not 100% satisfied during the run of the subscription. So, the 'middle ground' is monthly billing, with in case of a dispute a maximum 3 month refund. I also love their 'opt-out' for spam checkbox (check to opt-out, default 'unchecked'), and the fact that they (optionally) ask you to fill out your gender and birth date. > " Please check this box if you prefer not to be emailed " The marketing joys of double negatives.

pohl 17y ago
Apparently those 35 people did sign up for a year. (Edit: I guess not. I think the author is just establishing a best-case calculation). According to the article, anyway, which unveils the number 35 as the answer to the following question: "...how many people have signed up to pay...$260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com?"
- jacquesm 17y ago
  /me thinks that they made the connection between the $5 per week and the year all by themselves, the website is mum on $260, but prominently displays the $5. That's the one thing they did right, if they had put $260 up front you'd be looking at 3 in stead of 35 subscribers :)
  - pohl 17y ago
    No doubt the author made the connection himself. It's sensible for him to have calculated the best-case since the gist of the piece is that even the best-case annual revenue is abysmal.
gridspy 17y ago
It would be interesting to know the conversion rate of that hideous page.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I highly doubt they would even understand the question if you asked them. That page is just about against every bit of best practice regarding sign up forms that I'm aware of. - don't ask for stuff you don't need - make it *one* step to register and pay - ask positive questions not negative questions - put the form at the top and the benefits to the right the form is where you make your sale, so it should come first - make it a light page with black lettering - make it a secure server - if you will be using an email address as a login (bad) then you don't need to ask for a username - do not split your billing step and the signup step And so on...
  - prawn 17y ago
    Agree with all, but just curious as to your preference for login combo? I tend to use and prefer email/password and sites like Facebook and Twitter use the same. Never been a fan of username/alias (too much variation per site - can never remember if I used John, JohnD, JohnDoe, JohnDoe77, etc) and no one can remember every account number they might have across the net.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Email address sign-ins have lots of problems with respect to support, and you have to factor in your support costs. The automatic verification of the user identity is a bonus but for most sites you don't really need that. In the case of this particular website, which already seems to have a bunch of free options, the 'freemium' model would seem to work a lot better, get them in small steps at the time and make a conversion funnel. Goal 1 would be to get the user to visit several times Goal 2 would be to get them to invest a bit of their identity in the site, make them a 'registered user' Goal 3 would be an upsell, give them access to premium content for a fee It's a tough model to market, but because you have a number of steps you can automate the analysis of how effective the various steps of the funnel are. By the time you are ready to ask for card&expiry you have built up a trust relationship already and 90% of the signup process is over.
idlewords 17y ago
Subscriptions in newspaperland are never weekly. They get marketed as $x/week in order to reduce sticker shock, but you pay yearly or twice a year.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I can see a few very pissed off users in their future then, and it makes me wonder what would happen if they would simply make it a monthly subscription. Do you have any proof of this ? The website says very clearly $5 / week.
  - icey 17y ago
    Whenever I've gotten a newspaper subscription they've said it would cost $x a week, and then when it was time to settle up they'd either charge for 6 or 12 months in advance.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I can't equate 'subscribing to a newspaper' with 'subscribing to a website owned by a newspaper'.
  - qeorge 17y ago
    Here's the NY Times home delivery signup page: https://www.nytimesathome.com/offer.php?id=31&SPTR_ID=hdNYT&MediaCode=W47AF&CMP=34U7J https://www.nytimesathome.com/offer.php?id=31&SPTR_ID=hd... Prices quoted weekly, but appear to be billed bi or tri monthly (depending on payment option).