4 ms·

There are an awful lot of comments on this expressing disgust and outrage for the "dark patterns" employed by the Boston Globe to increase subscriptions and rev

There are an awful lot of comments on this expressing disgust and outrage for the "dark patterns" employed by the Boston Globe to increase subscriptions and revenue and my guess is that a hefty portion of the people expressing said disgust and outrage are also using ad blockers. Publishing is in a very uncomfortable place right now - at the bottom of this comment I've attached a 2014 report from Adobe which, TL;DR, says that most people are unwilling to pay for content online and also unwilling to see ads online. This sort of behavior is forcing publishers to squeeze revenue of any stone they can find. I understand that this may not be a popular opinion here, but content doesn't create itself, people do, and people need to make a living. Maybe before we all start admonishing the Boston Globe (founded in 1872, btw) for making a close button on a modal perhaps a tick too light, we should consider why these practices are becoming more and more common place. http://downloads.pagefair.com/reports/adblocking_goes_mainstream_2014_report.pdf http://downloads.pagefair.com/reports/adblocking_goes_mainst...

__jal 11y ago
Traditional newspapers were losing money long before ad blockers became widely used. It is the switch to the net that is strangling them. Sure, ad blockers aren't helping, but are a response to highly annoying crap, malware, etc. being shoveled by the increasingly desperate. It is an arms race, but not one newspapers can win. Also, little hint: having your revenue threatened isn't an excuse for being unethical. Nobody (even corporations, slowly becoming more equal than others) has a right to a profit, or even staying in business.
boie0025 11y ago
I agree, and it seems clear that publishers are caught in a tough spot.. but I don't think that's a very good excuse to employ deception. To me it reads like "We're honest when we're making money, but when we're not... better hold on to your wallets" oh and "We'll decide when we're doing well."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
samirm 11y ago
No one asked them to publish anything online, that was their choice. Most users don't want to pay for content because they're used to it being free on the internet - after all, most content is. BG needs to come to terms with the fact that some industries just die out and cannot always be profitable.
- brettz 11y ago
  You're implying that people will produce quality news content for free? Or that we will switch back to a paper based (or at least physical) product?
  - samirm 11y ago
    >You're implying that people will produce quality news content for free? Yes.
acomjean 11y ago
Honestly these patterns are the reason I don't subscribe, You can't find the price. I say this as a former editor (photo) of a college paper who grew up loving the news and knowing that journalism is a tough and important business. This might be a reaction to The Boston Globe having trouble with the "older" paper copy version too. For those that don't know by trying to save money by switching to a cheaper deliverer; end result nobody was getting their papers. Nobody could get through on the phone lines to cancel. I don't subscribe the NYTimes for this reason. They always say "99 a week for 4 weeks" and finding out what it costs in he future proved to be frustratingly difficult. Odd because I'd be willing to pay a buck or 2 a week. I donate and listen to local new on my radio station which is quite good instead.
nabla9 11y ago
From the english language papers I'm willing to pay for the Economist. It's high quality and there is lots of good stuff every time. It's worth of the price. I would like to pay for more articles if there would be Netflix style subscription where I pay, say, 25 EUR per month for subscription for everything and the only thing I have to do is click. The current subscription model where you subscribe to the whole paper for long periods of time is not the future. Neither is one where you have to register and pay $5 for articles one by one. I'm not ready to pay 2000 USD per month to subscribe to every magazine I want to read articles from and I'm not willing to pay $5 per article either.
wmeredith 11y ago
This is the exact sort of behavior that led me to use an ad blocker.

__jal 11y ago

Traditional newspapers were losing money long before ad blockers became widely used. It is the switch to the net that is strangling them. Sure, ad blockers aren't helping, but are a response to highly annoying crap, malware, etc. being shoveled by the increasingly desperate. It is an arms race, but not one newspapers can win. Also, little hint: having your revenue threatened isn't an excuse for being unethical. Nobody (even corporations, slowly becoming more equal than others) has a right to a profit, or even staying in business.

boie0025 11y ago

I agree, and it seems clear that publishers are caught in a tough spot.. but I don't think that's a very good excuse to employ deception. To me it reads like "We're honest when we're making money, but when we're not... better hold on to your wallets" oh and "We'll decide when we're doing well."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

samirm 11y ago

No one asked them to publish anything online, that was their choice. Most users don't want to pay for content because they're used to it being free on the internet - after all, most content is. BG needs to come to terms with the fact that some industries just die out and cannot always be profitable.

brettz 11y ago
You're implying that people will produce quality news content for free? Or that we will switch back to a paper based (or at least physical) product?
- samirm 11y ago
  >You're implying that people will produce quality news content for free? Yes.

acomjean 11y ago

Honestly these patterns are the reason I don't subscribe, You can't find the price. I say this as a former editor (photo) of a college paper who grew up loving the news and knowing that journalism is a tough and important business. This might be a reaction to The Boston Globe having trouble with the "older" paper copy version too. For those that don't know by trying to save money by switching to a cheaper deliverer; end result nobody was getting their papers. Nobody could get through on the phone lines to cancel. I don't subscribe the NYTimes for this reason. They always say "99 a week for 4 weeks" and finding out what it costs in he future proved to be frustratingly difficult. Odd because I'd be willing to pay a buck or 2 a week. I donate and listen to local new on my radio station which is quite good instead.

nabla9 11y ago

From the english language papers I'm willing to pay for the Economist. It's high quality and there is lots of good stuff every time. It's worth of the price. I would like to pay for more articles if there would be Netflix style subscription where I pay, say, 25 EUR per month for subscription for everything and the only thing I have to do is click. The current subscription model where you subscribe to the whole paper for long periods of time is not the future. Neither is one where you have to register and pay $5 for articles one by one. I'm not ready to pay 2000 USD per month to subscribe to every magazine I want to read articles from and I'm not willing to pay $5 per article either.

wmeredith 11y ago

This is the exact sort of behavior that led me to use an ad blocker.