3 ms·

"The solution to this of course, is to simply make a high quality product. Ensure the content is top-notch, kill anything that isn't. Make sure page performance

"The solution to this of course, is to simply make a high quality product. Ensure the content is top-notch, kill anything that isn't. Make sure page performance is excellent. Hand-curate ads such that they're non-invasive, fast, and not killed by ad-blockers." I agree with this strategic sentiment, but I'm not sure the solution is as simple as you think it is. Higher quality content generally requires much more expensive production costs, and it's far from clear that the revenue side of the equation will support these costs at anything more than hobby-level scale. "Admittedly the last point is difficult, but it can be done. If the publication is sufficiently niche, a subscription model could actually be appropriate in lieu of ads; nautil.us is a fantastic example of this." I love Nautilus, as I imagine a lot of HN readers do. But how is it doing as a business? Is it thriving? Is it crushing it? Is it barely scraping by? I'm not posing these questions Socratically; I'm genuinely curious to know the answer. Extremely curious, in fact, as someone who's spent a lifetime in the content business and desperate for any glimmer of hope along these lines. My instincts lead me to a similar hypothesis as yours: find a niche, overservice it, and invest in quality as a differentiating factor. But historically, these sorts of publications have rarely been goldmines. Many of them, especially in the old days of print, were borderline nonprofits -- heavily subsidized by charitable publishers or donors. I suspect there is a niche out there for the specialty publications of the world: your web equivalents of Road & Track, Field & Stream, Wine Spectator, Robb Report, Foreign Affairs, and so forth. I am not as sure there is a lucrative niche in general-interest categories, such as news. Even still, I'd love if any of the niche publications in today's brave new world -- Nautilus, for example -- would let us in on their business data. Even just a slice of it.

rl3 11y ago
>Higher quality content generally requires much more expensive production costs, and it's far from clear that the revenue side of the equation will support these costs at anything more than hobby-level scale. True, but high-quality content also serves to build reputation. Positive reputation can still drive revenue, even in this day and age. If major publications haven't failed on that front, then they've failed on others, such as presentation. Excellent products have to achieve and maintain excellence in all areas, and any chink in the armor is reason for people not to regularly use a product. I don't know of a single major publication that's checked all the boxes. >I love Nautilus, as I imagine a lot of HN readers do. But how is it doing as a business? That's a good question. I don't know, but I really hope it's doing well.
- jonnathanson 11y ago
  "Positive reputation can still drive revenue, even in this day and age." Can it drive a business model, though? Again, let's turn to the case of Nautilus. We can probably assume it has a great reputation amongst an admittedly small group of readers. But is that reputation driving subscription revenue sufficient to keep the publication in the black? To keep it growing? To keep it securely in business? Once again, I'm 100% aligned with you in my hopes and desires for the industry. But hope isn't a business model. I'd like to hope that Nautilus is a great example of how to run a content business; unfortunately, at the moment I have insufficient economic evidence to back up that claim. I agree with you that excellent products can outcompete commodified trash under certain circumstances. I'm less sure that enough people want to pay for the product at all in this case, however, be it excellent or otherwise. Whatever the case, thank you for a compelling take on this subject. I quite sincerely hope you're right.
  - rl3 11y ago
    >I'm less sure that enough people want to pay for the product at all in this case, however, be it excellent or otherwise. In that case publications like Nautilus would probably have to be ad-supported. Hand-curated ads would go a long way towards preserving design, performance and even revenue since most ad blockers wouldn't block them. However, there's still massive benefits to outsourcing ads—namely advanced analytics, targeting, and click fraud detection right out of the box. Implementing any of those in-house is certainly non-trivial. That said, most publications—especially niche ones—are selling direct to their audience right now. There's nothing wrong with that, unless consumers prove adverse to paying for content in a subscription manner. I tend to strongly agree with you on that point. While perceived value is one issue on that front, I think a lot of it has to do with the inconvenience of signing up, paying, and logging in. App stores don't have this issue, and they offer a lot of print media content these days, though I don't think they've really solved anything yet. Film has Netflix. Music has Spotify. Print media doesn't really have an equivalent. So, it's possible that may be one angle. I know there's startups that have tried this, but none have approached the scale or success that Netflix or Spotify has.
djhn 11y ago
Self-selecting for an affluent demo is an easy way out - and leads to more advertising income. AFAIK The Economist and the like are steadily growing paper subscription rates. And isn't the fact that most publications doing "general-interest" news can't survive actually great - if there isn't enough demand on the market, then the market agrees with my (and most of HN's?) subjective assessment: most news is worthless.

rl3 11y ago

>Higher quality content generally requires much more expensive production costs, and it's far from clear that the revenue side of the equation will support these costs at anything more than hobby-level scale. True, but high-quality content also serves to build reputation. Positive reputation can still drive revenue, even in this day and age. If major publications haven't failed on that front, then they've failed on others, such as presentation. Excellent products have to achieve and maintain excellence in all areas, and any chink in the armor is reason for people not to regularly use a product. I don't know of a single major publication that's checked all the boxes. >I love Nautilus, as I imagine a lot of HN readers do. But how is it doing as a business? That's a good question. I don't know, but I really hope it's doing well.

jonnathanson 11y ago
"Positive reputation can still drive revenue, even in this day and age." Can it drive a business model, though? Again, let's turn to the case of Nautilus. We can probably assume it has a great reputation amongst an admittedly small group of readers. But is that reputation driving subscription revenue sufficient to keep the publication in the black? To keep it growing? To keep it securely in business? Once again, I'm 100% aligned with you in my hopes and desires for the industry. But hope isn't a business model. I'd like to hope that Nautilus is a great example of how to run a content business; unfortunately, at the moment I have insufficient economic evidence to back up that claim. I agree with you that excellent products can outcompete commodified trash under certain circumstances. I'm less sure that enough people want to pay for the product at all in this case, however, be it excellent or otherwise. Whatever the case, thank you for a compelling take on this subject. I quite sincerely hope you're right.
- rl3 11y ago
  >I'm less sure that enough people want to pay for the product at all in this case, however, be it excellent or otherwise. In that case publications like Nautilus would probably have to be ad-supported. Hand-curated ads would go a long way towards preserving design, performance and even revenue since most ad blockers wouldn't block them. However, there's still massive benefits to outsourcing ads—namely advanced analytics, targeting, and click fraud detection right out of the box. Implementing any of those in-house is certainly non-trivial. That said, most publications—especially niche ones—are selling direct to their audience right now. There's nothing wrong with that, unless consumers prove adverse to paying for content in a subscription manner. I tend to strongly agree with you on that point. While perceived value is one issue on that front, I think a lot of it has to do with the inconvenience of signing up, paying, and logging in. App stores don't have this issue, and they offer a lot of print media content these days, though I don't think they've really solved anything yet. Film has Netflix. Music has Spotify. Print media doesn't really have an equivalent. So, it's possible that may be one angle. I know there's startups that have tried this, but none have approached the scale or success that Netflix or Spotify has.

djhn 11y ago

Self-selecting for an affluent demo is an easy way out - and leads to more advertising income. AFAIK The Economist and the like are steadily growing paper subscription rates. And isn't the fact that most publications doing "general-interest" news can't survive actually great - if there isn't enough demand on the market, then the market agrees with my (and most of HN's?) subjective assessment: most news is worthless.