6 ms·

New York Times app autoplays video ads on articles even with paid subscription

219 points by jamesknelson 8y ago

pacifika 8y ago
Not sure what you expect? This is the internet
- yummybear 8y ago
  I think it’s reasonable, and normal to expect a reduced add experience or no ads when you’re a paid subscriber.
sigfubar 8y ago
Just install an ad blocker and be merry. If this particular nastiness isn’t caught by one of the major ad blockers, simply plug the device into Charles Proxy and capture the ad requests being made, and submit an enhancement to the ad block list. Ezpz. Public indignation accomplishes nothing. Direct action leads to results.
- Synaesthesia 8y ago
  I find videos still autoplay on iOS even though I have an adblocker and iOS supposedly blocks auto-play videos.
- stevula 8y ago
  That’s great if you’re on the web, but as far as I know there’s no way to block on ads on a native iOS app.
  - iuwhagtr 8y ago
    You really don't need an app to read a newspaper.
    - selectodude 8y ago
      I use the app "safari" to block ads on the app "nytimes.com" and it works perfectly.
  - ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
    Pi-hole should. It blocks the ad servers at the DNS level.
  - syshum 8y ago
    Network Level ad blocking. PiHole or some other solution to block things at the network level. PiHole is basic DNS, some firewalls will give you ability to actually block the traffic using IP Lists.
- nottestuser 8y ago
  The ads often crash the app on my tablet and occasionally my phone too. I've taken to refreshing the content and then switching to airplane mode to cut off network connectivity. You don't get images but you can read all the text as articles are downloaded to your device.
- blackbrokkoli 8y ago
  You're just getting downvoted because of your phrasing. You sound like this isn't a problem because people can use adBlock. I think most people who downvote actually agree that his is an efficient counter measure.
hliyan 8y ago
I wrote the following in 2015: "...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, the exact same people advertisers look to target. The more buying power you demonstrate, the more advertisers will target you. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. With the way the world currently works, selling ads, it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content." Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803
- jamesknelson 8y ago
  This is a really interesting point. And to be honest, I don't even really mind that I'm being shown ads after purchasing a subscription. The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. When I was searching for a way to disable the video ads, somebody made the point that the New York Times' business model has involved showing ads to subscribers for longer than I've been alive. The difference is, those ads didn't move around the page and start screaming at you. Like most things, there's a sensible middle ground here. Show people with buying power ads, but don't drive those people away with your desperation.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    I killed my subscription largely because of the ad issue - if I’m paying I don’t want ads. Thankfully most premium streaming services work this way.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      Funnily enough they don't. Netflix is pretty big in product placement. https://ben.productplacement.com/ https://ben.productplacement.com/
  - capdeck 8y ago
    > The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. That will never be the case, except may be for some isolated incidents. As far as ads are concerned from NYT's perspective -- we are not the customers (we are the product), advertisers are. In fact, they are so much the customers, that they not only control the ads, they also control the content (by saying which content their ads can be shown on (hence for which content they will pay to be produced) -- but I digress). Now, you might say, advertisers would want to have ads in "good taste" -- yes, but you know what they'd want even more -- those ads to leave an imprint on your consciousness. So if they can't make an ad in good taste, or the ad in good taste is less effective than an obnoxious ad -- they'll choose the latter, any day, 10 out of 10. That is why we'll rarely have "tasteful" adds. Another thing tangentially related to taste: how many times exactly you'd want to see a "tasteful ad"? 1, 3, 5 or 500? After how many repetitions the "tasteful ad" becomes "distasteful"? As it was aptly put in "Ready Player One" -- ad industry will only stop putting ads on your screen once you start having seizures (because at this point it will physically prevent you from buying their stuff). Until then anything goes. Hoping that you can pay and no longer see ads is naive. Ad revenue is so lofty, nothing end users can pay can even remotely match advertising budgets of the giants.
throwaway2048 8y ago
There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. This is not, and never has been true.
- BoorishBears 8y ago
  The way I look at it is simple. The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay. If you don’t like the content, don’t view it. I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk... I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content. And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me. What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that. --- But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support. You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
  - yholio 8y ago
    > What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? Some of us care about tracking and are unwilling to pay what we consider a massive price, far above the monetary value of those services. Yet, we are unable to opt for the paid, no-tracking alternative, and indeed, we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
    - BoorishBears 8y ago
      > But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. > You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. > You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content? I mean look at how you're talking about these companies, if you view them as such villainous entities don't even bother with them right?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
village-idiot 8y ago
This is why I aggressively block ads in my household. There are basically no good actors in the ad space, and I’d prefer they all go away.
xae342 8y ago
I like NYT’s articles, but have been hesitant to actually subscribe due to issues like this, and other stories where they make it hard to unsubscribe, require you call them etc.
- mikestew 8y ago
  Subscribe through iTunes or (I think) Amazon. I know on iTunes it’s a flip of a switch to unsubscribe. And then run some form of PiHole to turn off the adds.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  The Economists had the same bullshit (plus it was an international call, only in a limited hours), so I sent them a very angry (and I admit abusive, which I am not proud of, even if what they were doing were basically fraud) email. Wof now I am unsubscribed, no call necessary.
mikestew 8y ago
I’m a subscriber, and like a print newspaper I’m fine with ads. Yet the online version of NYT was a large inspiration for propping a PiHole. Why? Because unlike print, the ads are blinky and distracting. And because ad blockers don’t help in the NYT iOS app. So now I, a high-income subscriber, don’t see your ads anymore, NYT. You pushed me too far, NYT, and the only one that suffers is you, because my experience just improved.
- deftturtle 8y ago
  Adguard works, too. I’ve been using it a while but eventually would like to try a PiHole. Do you find yourself having to adjust the settings often, or does it work fairly well?
  - mikestew 8y ago
    It’s pretty much fire-and-forget. Set your lists (or take the defaults), point your router DNS to the Pi-Hole, sorted. That’s the simple version. You’re on HN, you’ll want to fiddle, but if just loaded it with default lists and never updated it, it would still probably serve well for some years. Once in a great while I’ll disable it for five minutes to look at something (Facebook or the like). But that a few button clicks.
bambax 8y ago
Disabling JavaScript on the NYT website completely bypasses the paywall and has few ill effects except preventing images to load (which is an acceptable trade-off).
Crontab 8y ago
It is sad to me that advertising has turned every browser technology available into something annoying. This has been going long since the introduction of the blink tag.
wallflower 8y ago
Contrast with the very small world of cash flow positive paid subscription sites like The Information. 2.8 million views for each and every of The Information’s 730 yearly articles based on $1.90 average CPM to break even on revenue with paid subscriptions. > The subscription model is easier with The Information because of the focus. People know what they’re getting. If you’re The New York Times, not everyone is interested in everything you do. You’re just counting on people who like your brand.” > Assuming the site makes at least 4 million from 730 stories a year, according to some back-of-the-napkin math, the site generates about $5,500 per article published. To earn that same amount from general display advertising — which advisory firm Peter J. Solomon Company pegs at an average CPM of $1.90 — each and every article The Information publishes would need to attract more than 2.8 million ad impressions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500
vzaliva 8y ago
Not only video ads. They also show regular ads to paid subscribers. If you have an ad blocker they detect it and show a request to disable it! I was pissed off because I am paid subscriber (for many years). So, I emailed them about that and they responded that their business model is based on both ad and subscription revenue.
- thibautg 8y ago
  This is why I cancelled my subscription. After a 20-minutes retention chat with a person/bot.
butterfi 8y ago
What is the value proposition for the user to use the app over the website? I tend to avoid content apps because they seem to offer the company more value then the consumer. Web browser works just fine and I can more easily determine what the publisher is up to.
notacoward 8y ago
NYT is still desperate to gets ad revenue because they've chosen a subscription model that doesn't work. The same subscription model that doesn't work for a gazillion other newspapers and magazines online, precisely because it's a gazillion-subscription model. Most people are information omnivores. Few want to pay $X/month to the New York Times and $X/month to the Washington Post and $X/month to the Wall Street Journal and $X/month to each of a dozen other publications, just to read an average of less than one article per month on each of them. It's not just the expense, it's also the hassle of having to create logins and remember passwords for all of them, plus the security risk of having to trust every one of their IT departments not to leak your info. I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-publication price to have a single subscription that would work across all of them, with articles on any counting against my monthly quota. I suspect I'm far from alone, but because nobody's making that offer we all continue to use ad blockers and workarounds, while the publishers continue to be desperate. That's why they keep getting in our faces like this, and also why their product is cruddier than it used to be. If we want a strong press, we need a better subscription model.
- michaelt 8y ago
  I for one would be glad to pay several times the single- publication price to have a single subscription that would work across all of them Perhaps you'd like to try https://blendle.com https://blendle.com ? Although it's in beta in the US, I got an invite to join the beta within minutes of expressing an interest. Admittedly it doesn't cover every publication, but you can't expect them to when it's not even out of beta yet.
  - EwanG 8y ago
    Only one I didn't see there that I read commonly is Bloomberg. But they (like NYT and so many others) can be easily worked around by using an Incognito window - use up all your "free articles", close the window, open another one, here's 10 more... Which makes me inclined to believe that, knowing it is relatively easy to work around their pay wall, they are more concerned with total eye balls than total subscriptions. As another data point, while you can read the main Bloomberg this way, you can't read their Bloomberg Terminal Online without a horrendously expensive subscription - which I suspect reflects what the true cost of news is...
bonestamp2 8y ago
Thanks for the heads up! I was literally just thinking I miss the sunday times and was going to get the sunday paper delivered and use the online subscription throughout the week.
justinph 8y ago
Some players adhere to the prefers-reduced-motion a11y setting and won't autoplay with that. https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/ https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/ Depends on the implementation of the ads and the network they're coming from. This presently only works in Safari and Firefox nightlies.
AzzieElbab 8y ago
And nyt print edition still contains advertising...

219 points by jamesknelson 8y ago

pacifika 8y ago

Not sure what you expect? This is the internet

yummybear 8y ago
I think it’s reasonable, and normal to expect a reduced add experience or no ads when you’re a paid subscriber.

sigfubar 8y ago

Just install an ad blocker and be merry. If this particular nastiness isn’t caught by one of the major ad blockers, simply plug the device into Charles Proxy and capture the ad requests being made, and submit an enhancement to the ad block list. Ezpz. Public indignation accomplishes nothing. Direct action leads to results.

Synaesthesia 8y ago
I find videos still autoplay on iOS even though I have an adblocker and iOS supposedly blocks auto-play videos.
stevula 8y ago
That’s great if you’re on the web, but as far as I know there’s no way to block on ads on a native iOS app.
- iuwhagtr 8y ago
  You really don't need an app to read a newspaper.
  - selectodude 8y ago
    I use the app "safari" to block ads on the app "nytimes.com" and it works perfectly.
- ObsoleteNerd 8y ago
  Pi-hole should. It blocks the ad servers at the DNS level.
- syshum 8y ago
  Network Level ad blocking. PiHole or some other solution to block things at the network level. PiHole is basic DNS, some firewalls will give you ability to actually block the traffic using IP Lists.
nottestuser 8y ago
The ads often crash the app on my tablet and occasionally my phone too. I've taken to refreshing the content and then switching to airplane mode to cut off network connectivity. You don't get images but you can read all the text as articles are downloaded to your device.
blackbrokkoli 8y ago
You're just getting downvoted because of your phrasing. You sound like this isn't a problem because people can use adBlock. I think most people who downvote actually agree that his is an efficient counter measure.

hliyan 8y ago

I wrote the following in 2015: "...people who can afford to pay for content are people with money, or people with buying power, in other words, the exact same people advertisers look to target. The more buying power you demonstrate, the more advertisers will target you. So the more you pay to keep ads away, the more advertisers will pay to put them back in. With the way the world currently works, selling ads, it seems, will always be more profitable than selling content." Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9935803

jamesknelson 8y ago
This is a really interesting point. And to be honest, I don't even really mind that I'm being shown ads after purchasing a subscription. The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. When I was searching for a way to disable the video ads, somebody made the point that the New York Times' business model has involved showing ads to subscribers for longer than I've been alive. The difference is, those ads didn't move around the page and start screaming at you. Like most things, there's a sensible middle ground here. Show people with buying power ads, but don't drive those people away with your desperation.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I killed my subscription largely because of the ad issue - if I’m paying I don’t want ads. Thankfully most premium streaming services work this way.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    Funnily enough they don't. Netflix is pretty big in product placement. https://ben.productplacement.com/ https://ben.productplacement.com/
- capdeck 8y ago
  > The thing is, the ads have to be in good taste. That will never be the case, except may be for some isolated incidents. As far as ads are concerned from NYT's perspective -- we are not the customers (we are the product), advertisers are. In fact, they are so much the customers, that they not only control the ads, they also control the content (by saying which content their ads can be shown on (hence for which content they will pay to be produced) -- but I digress). Now, you might say, advertisers would want to have ads in "good taste" -- yes, but you know what they'd want even more -- those ads to leave an imprint on your consciousness. So if they can't make an ad in good taste, or the ad in good taste is less effective than an obnoxious ad -- they'll choose the latter, any day, 10 out of 10. That is why we'll rarely have "tasteful" adds. Another thing tangentially related to taste: how many times exactly you'd want to see a "tasteful ad"? 1, 3, 5 or 500? After how many repetitions the "tasteful ad" becomes "distasteful"? As it was aptly put in "Ready Player One" -- ad industry will only stop putting ads on your screen once you start having seizures (because at this point it will physically prevent you from buying their stuff). Until then anything goes. Hoping that you can pay and no longer see ads is naive. Ad revenue is so lofty, nothing end users can pay can even remotely match advertising budgets of the giants.

throwaway2048 8y ago

There is a great deal of magical thinking surrounding the idea that if you pay companies they wont exploit your data and sell you to advertisers. This is not, and never has been true.

BoorishBears 8y ago
The way I look at it is simple. The amount of money the content provider wants to make is price you pay + amount ads pay. If you don’t like the content, don’t view it. I removed AdBlock a few months ago because I’ve been talking the talk for a long time but I wanted to walk to the walk... I take 5 seconds before watching a YouTube video, maybe 10 seconds for something unskippable, then watch 30 minutes to an hour of videos. Compare that to 30 minute tv slots with 22 minutes of content. And it’s not been a big deal. At least to me. What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? I’m not willing to pay that. --- But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. If you visit and disable Js and hide half the elements, you’re still consuming media from a content provider you don’t support. You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content?
- yholio 8y ago
  > What do a I care that Google is tracking my preferences? What would I have to pay for a product with the kind of investment Google Search, GMail and Youtube have alone? Some of us care about tracking and are unwilling to pay what we consider a massive price, far above the monetary value of those services. Yet, we are unable to opt for the paid, no-tracking alternative, and indeed, we are being forced to pay the onerous data price even by companies we have no contractual dealings with and that provide us no services whatsoever.
  - BoorishBears 8y ago
    > But that’s me. If you have a problem with it, don’t visit the sites. > You still incrementing the number of page views. You’re still clicking on that link and showing search engines that they’re relevant. > You’re supporting the content provider yet you apparently are not ok with how they fund their content? I mean look at how you're talking about these companies, if you view them as such villainous entities don't even bother with them right?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

village-idiot 8y ago

This is why I aggressively block ads in my household. There are basically no good actors in the ad space, and I’d prefer they all go away.

xae342 8y ago

I like NYT’s articles, but have been hesitant to actually subscribe due to issues like this, and other stories where they make it hard to unsubscribe, require you call them etc.

mikestew 8y ago
Subscribe through iTunes or (I think) Amazon. I know on iTunes it’s a flip of a switch to unsubscribe. And then run some form of PiHole to turn off the adds.
tomjen3 8y ago
The Economists had the same bullshit (plus it was an international call, only in a limited hours), so I sent them a very angry (and I admit abusive, which I am not proud of, even if what they were doing were basically fraud) email. Wof now I am unsubscribed, no call necessary.

mikestew 8y ago

I’m a subscriber, and like a print newspaper I’m fine with ads. Yet the online version of NYT was a large inspiration for propping a PiHole. Why? Because unlike print, the ads are blinky and distracting. And because ad blockers don’t help in the NYT iOS app. So now I, a high-income subscriber, don’t see your ads anymore, NYT. You pushed me too far, NYT, and the only one that suffers is you, because my experience just improved.

deftturtle 8y ago
Adguard works, too. I’ve been using it a while but eventually would like to try a PiHole. Do you find yourself having to adjust the settings often, or does it work fairly well?
- mikestew 8y ago
  It’s pretty much fire-and-forget. Set your lists (or take the defaults), point your router DNS to the Pi-Hole, sorted. That’s the simple version. You’re on HN, you’ll want to fiddle, but if just loaded it with default lists and never updated it, it would still probably serve well for some years. Once in a great while I’ll disable it for five minutes to look at something (Facebook or the like). But that a few button clicks.

bambax 8y ago

Disabling JavaScript on the NYT website completely bypasses the paywall and has few ill effects except preventing images to load (which is an acceptable trade-off).

Crontab 8y ago

It is sad to me that advertising has turned every browser technology available into something annoying. This has been going long since the introduction of the blink tag.

wallflower 8y ago

Contrast with the very small world of cash flow positive paid subscription sites like The Information. 2.8 million views for each and every of The Information’s 730 yearly articles based on $1.90 average CPM to break even on revenue with paid subscriptions. > The subscription model is easier with The Information because of the focus. People know what they’re getting. If you’re The New York Times, not everyone is interested in everything you do. You’re just counting on people who like your brand.” > Assuming the site makes at least 4 million from 730 stories a year, according to some back-of-the-napkin math, the site generates about $5,500 per article published. To earn that same amount from general display advertising — which advisory firm Peter J. Solomon Company pegs at an average CPM of $1.90 — each and every article The Information publishes would need to attract more than 2.8 million ad impressions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15901500

vzaliva 8y ago

Not only video ads. They also show regular ads to paid subscribers. If you have an ad blocker they detect it and show a request to disable it! I was pissed off because I am paid subscriber (for many years). So, I emailed them about that and they responded that their business model is based on both ad and subscription revenue.

thibautg 8y ago
This is why I cancelled my subscription. After a 20-minutes retention chat with a person/bot.

butterfi 8y ago

What is the value proposition for the user to use the app over the website? I tend to avoid content apps because they seem to offer the company more value then the consumer. Web browser works just fine and I can more easily determine what the publisher is up to.

notacoward 8y ago

NYT is still desperate to gets ad revenue because they've chosen a subscription model that doesn't work. The same subscription model that doesn't work for a gazillion other newspapers and magazines online, precisely because it's a gazillion-subscription model. Most people are information omnivores. Few want to pay $X/month to the New York Times and $X/month to the Washington Post and $X/month to the Wall Street Journal and $X/month to each of a dozen other publications, just to read an average of less than one article per month on each of them. It's not just the expense, it's also the hassle of having to create logins and remember passwords for all of them, plus the security risk of having to trust every one of their IT departments not to leak your info. I for one would be glad to pay several times the single-publication price to have a single subscription that would work across all of them, with articles on any counting against my monthly quota. I suspect I'm far from alone, but because nobody's making that offer we all continue to use ad blockers and workarounds, while the publishers continue to be desperate. That's why they keep getting in our faces like this, and also why their product is cruddier than it used to be. If we want a strong press, we need a better subscription model.

michaelt 8y ago
I for one would be glad to pay several times the single- publication price to have a single subscription that would work across all of them Perhaps you'd like to try https://blendle.com https://blendle.com ? Although it's in beta in the US, I got an invite to join the beta within minutes of expressing an interest. Admittedly it doesn't cover every publication, but you can't expect them to when it's not even out of beta yet.
- EwanG 8y ago
  Only one I didn't see there that I read commonly is Bloomberg. But they (like NYT and so many others) can be easily worked around by using an Incognito window - use up all your "free articles", close the window, open another one, here's 10 more... Which makes me inclined to believe that, knowing it is relatively easy to work around their pay wall, they are more concerned with total eye balls than total subscriptions. As another data point, while you can read the main Bloomberg this way, you can't read their Bloomberg Terminal Online without a horrendously expensive subscription - which I suspect reflects what the true cost of news is...

bonestamp2 8y ago

Thanks for the heads up! I was literally just thinking I miss the sunday times and was going to get the sunday paper delivered and use the online subscription throughout the week.

justinph 8y ago

Some players adhere to the prefers-reduced-motion a11y setting and won't autoplay with that. https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/ https://webkit.org/blog/7551/responsive-design-for-motion/ Depends on the implementation of the ads and the network they're coming from. This presently only works in Safari and Firefox nightlies.

AzzieElbab 8y ago

And nyt print edition still contains advertising...