31 ms·

I subscribe to the NYT and yet still get asked to be whitelisted. So a subscription model will not generate enough revenue for them without ads. It's like the

I subscribe to the NYT and yet still get asked to be whitelisted. So a subscription model will not generate enough revenue for them without ads. It's like the cable tv model - we pay to watch more ads.

cr1895 10y ago
You're still served ads with a paid NYT subscription? edit: well, I had been thinking about a subscription. I suppose not anymore.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Yeah, I brought that up when I called to cancel and they said "well the ads help keep the cost of your subscription low!". But that's not the point! I pay to remove ads, I don't watch ads to keep the price low!
  - a3n 10y ago
    That's what you think you're buying, but that's not what they're selling.
- sheeshkebab 10y ago
  Yes, and WSJ does the same - shows ads even if you are a subscriber. I'm not sure why they do it though - since not annoying their paying customers seems to be worth more than the few extra cents/a couple of bucks they generate per year off us.
- vermontdevil 10y ago
  Yep - http://i.imgur.com/76xzA5X.png http://i.imgur.com/76xzA5X.png
- a3n 10y ago
  The subscription is not to get rid of ads, it's to allow access past the N free articles per month. I used to pay for someone to throw a newspaper in my driveway. They still had ads. In fact when I stopped paying, they still threw the newspaper, so they could say to their ad auditors that they had N viewers of ads.
hyperbovine 10y ago
I wonder how much of this is cultural, with respect to newspapers like NYT. In the early days of print, newspaper ads were both unobtrusive and useful, such that paying subscribers had no problem with the double dip model. Advertising has always been a thorny ethical issue for papers and it would be great if NYT, WaPo etc. could get out if the ad business altogether and support themselves entirely through subscriptions. Maybe we'll see this in the coming years as more and more people switch to ad blockers.

cr1895 10y ago

You're still served ads with a paid NYT subscription? edit: well, I had been thinking about a subscription. I suppose not anymore.

freehunter 10y ago
Yeah, I brought that up when I called to cancel and they said "well the ads help keep the cost of your subscription low!". But that's not the point! I pay to remove ads, I don't watch ads to keep the price low!
- a3n 10y ago
  That's what you think you're buying, but that's not what they're selling.
sheeshkebab 10y ago
Yes, and WSJ does the same - shows ads even if you are a subscriber. I'm not sure why they do it though - since not annoying their paying customers seems to be worth more than the few extra cents/a couple of bucks they generate per year off us.
vermontdevil 10y ago
Yep - http://i.imgur.com/76xzA5X.png http://i.imgur.com/76xzA5X.png
a3n 10y ago
The subscription is not to get rid of ads, it's to allow access past the N free articles per month. I used to pay for someone to throw a newspaper in my driveway. They still had ads. In fact when I stopped paying, they still threw the newspaper, so they could say to their ad auditors that they had N viewers of ads.

hyperbovine 10y ago

I wonder how much of this is cultural, with respect to newspapers like NYT. In the early days of print, newspaper ads were both unobtrusive and useful, such that paying subscribers had no problem with the double dip model. Advertising has always been a thorny ethical issue for papers and it would be great if NYT, WaPo etc. could get out if the ad business altogether and support themselves entirely through subscriptions. Maybe we'll see this in the coming years as more and more people switch to ad blockers.