9 ms·

There are ads in the paper newspaper I subscribe to as well. Real reporting and quality writing don't come cheaply, and that hasn't changed just because the de

There are ads in the paper newspaper I subscribe to as well. Real reporting and quality writing don't come cheaply, and that hasn't changed just because the delivery method did. Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.

tjoff 8y ago
Ads on paper are not nearly as intrusive. It is also quite disrespectful considering the tracking etc. that comes with it. How many more subscribers would they get if they didn't treat them as garbage?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gunnihinn 8y ago
Out of curiosity, does anyone have a ballpark estimate for what a no-ad online subscription would cost if we assume the parent is true?
- rhn_mk1 8y ago
  > The cost of a regular LWN.net subscription is $7.00/month, with options for those wanting to pay a little more or less. https://lwn.net/subscribe/ https://lwn.net/subscribe/
  - rgovostes 8y ago
    That’s nowhere near the scope of the New York Times.
    - rhn_mk1 8y ago
      Of course, but it gives a first order estimate.
- achamayou 8y ago
  Ars Pro is ad free and starts at 25usd/year.
- gjs278 8y ago
  basically nothing. if you never click the ad you are making them a fraction of a cent each view. I doubt one person would even make the site a dollar after a lifetime of reading.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    Surely you realize this is incorrect, considering that the Times makes on the order of $200 million/year in online ad revenue.
    - gjs278 8y ago
      if you don't click the ads, they barely make anything
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        Hypothetically if people didn't click ads, then yes that would be true. But they do, so it's immaterial.
- bootlooped 8y ago
  If you look up estimates of Facebook ad revenue per user, they're all in the range of $4 - $15 per year.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  According to the New York Times latest earnings call, subscriptions account for 2/3 of their revenue. So ballpark roughly 50% more than the current subscription price would be necessary to maintain revenue at the same subscriber count sans other revenue streams.
  - bradleyjg 8y ago
    Don't think that's quite the right calculation. Revenue = subscriber revenue + ad revenue from ads shown to subscribers + ad revenue from ads shown to non-subscribers The suggestions was to eliminate the middle piece and increase the subscription price to make up for it in the first piece. That's still leaves the last piece.
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      No. The times only allows readers to read 5 articles before signing up, meaning they're effectively subscribers only.
      - bradleyjg 8y ago
        As I understand it there are a whole lot of leaks in that paywall. In fact, doesn't HN have a built in workaround?
        Godel_unicode 8y ago
        This argument is getting really tired, it's true of literally every service online. Yes there are loopholes, no they don't matter. The barrier is just high enough that a great many people just pay up.
  - bootlooped 8y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-t... The above article also states that digital advertising revenue only accounted for 37 percent of total advertising revenue. So that means digital advertising revenue is at most 12% of total revenue. Furthermore, it is unstated how much of digital advertising revenue comes from paid subscribers vs unpaid visitors. If we assumed, for the sake of argument, that half of digital advertising revenue was from paid and half unpaid, then cutting ads for paid subscribers would be doable with only about a 10% increase in price.
achamayou 8y ago
That’s unlikely to be true, some publications such as Ars Technica let you pay for an ad free tier. What’s more likely is that the subscription price does in fact cover costs and that advertising revenue is seen as a nice benefit on top that can be grown creatively without any accountability or backlash.
tensor 8y ago
It would be nice to see an option and let the user decide rather then resort to straw man hypotheticals.
bootlooped 8y ago
"Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies." There are a lot of counter examples to this. Hulu, Spotify, Ars Technica, YouTube Premium, etc... People are willing and able to pay for ad-free content.
- JasonFruit 8y ago
  (Few of these are news sources worthy of note.)
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    Why do you think news consumers are different than YouTube consumers?
    - JasonFruit 8y ago
      Because there's a difference between reading professionally produced news and watching contributed videos? Is there a reason you think they are the same?
      - bootlooped 8y ago
        I think once it's shown that people are generally willing to pay for the services they use to be ad-free the onus goes back to you to prove why news is a special case to which that trend does not apply. Otherwise we get into an argument black hole where you could infinitely claim the things in question were different than the counter-examples given.
        JasonFruit 8y ago
        I suppose you are allowed to think that, sure. On my part, I promise no black holes. Peace.
dazc 8y ago
'Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.' The author thought he was doing exactly this and, consequently, will cease to be a paying subscriber for much longer. The ads and difficulty in unsubscribing are the reasons why these organisations will never achieve a critical mass of paid subscriptions.
perl4ever 8y ago
It seems unlikely that the foregone revenue would be more than about 10% of the regular subscription price. This is based on other posts in this thread that talk about a $84/year subscription and $4-$15/year ad revenue. Since that was a reference to Facebook revenue, I imagine it would be a decent upper bound. It reminds me of how people say that it's impossible to provide fresh produce without paying people below minimum wage. In lieu of common sense, it depends on numbers, which don't need to be precise, but you can't just handwave. I'm inclined to believe the true story is simply, as others state, that no matter what the ad revenue is, it's X% more and nobody wants to give it up if they don't have to.
Rjevski 8y ago
Nobody has a problem with paper or paper-like ads, aka ads don’t stalk you, that the newspaper has actually vetted, and is happy to have its name associated with. The problem is that web ads are nothing like that. They are orders of magnitude more scummy, can’t be vetted in advance and stalk the shit out of you in order to serve you “better” ads next time, whatever the hell “better” means in advertiser’s perverted minds.
matheusmoreira 8y ago
Printed ads aren't malware vectors.
jccalhoun 8y ago
>Real reporting and quality writing unfortunately I rarely see either of those in any news outlet. Most of it is regurgitated press releases and things that I don't care about.

tjoff 8y ago

Ads on paper are not nearly as intrusive. It is also quite disrespectful considering the tracking etc. that comes with it. How many more subscribers would they get if they didn't treat them as garbage?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gunnihinn 8y ago

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a ballpark estimate for what a no-ad online subscription would cost if we assume the parent is true?

rhn_mk1 8y ago
> The cost of a regular LWN.net subscription is $7.00/month, with options for those wanting to pay a little more or less. https://lwn.net/subscribe/ https://lwn.net/subscribe/
- rgovostes 8y ago
  That’s nowhere near the scope of the New York Times.
  - rhn_mk1 8y ago
    Of course, but it gives a first order estimate.
achamayou 8y ago
Ars Pro is ad free and starts at 25usd/year.
gjs278 8y ago
basically nothing. if you never click the ad you are making them a fraction of a cent each view. I doubt one person would even make the site a dollar after a lifetime of reading.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  Surely you realize this is incorrect, considering that the Times makes on the order of $200 million/year in online ad revenue.
  - gjs278 8y ago
    if you don't click the ads, they barely make anything
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      Hypothetically if people didn't click ads, then yes that would be true. But they do, so it's immaterial.
bootlooped 8y ago
If you look up estimates of Facebook ad revenue per user, they're all in the range of $4 - $15 per year.
Godel_unicode 8y ago
According to the New York Times latest earnings call, subscriptions account for 2/3 of their revenue. So ballpark roughly 50% more than the current subscription price would be necessary to maintain revenue at the same subscriber count sans other revenue streams.
- bradleyjg 8y ago
  Don't think that's quite the right calculation. Revenue = subscriber revenue + ad revenue from ads shown to subscribers + ad revenue from ads shown to non-subscribers The suggestions was to eliminate the middle piece and increase the subscription price to make up for it in the first piece. That's still leaves the last piece.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    No. The times only allows readers to read 5 articles before signing up, meaning they're effectively subscribers only.
    - bradleyjg 8y ago
      As I understand it there are a whole lot of leaks in that paywall. In fact, doesn't HN have a built in workaround?
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        This argument is getting really tired, it's true of literally every service online. Yes there are loopholes, no they don't matter. The barrier is just high enough that a great many people just pay up.
- bootlooped 8y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-t... The above article also states that digital advertising revenue only accounted for 37 percent of total advertising revenue. So that means digital advertising revenue is at most 12% of total revenue. Furthermore, it is unstated how much of digital advertising revenue comes from paid subscribers vs unpaid visitors. If we assumed, for the sake of argument, that half of digital advertising revenue was from paid and half unpaid, then cutting ads for paid subscribers would be doable with only about a 10% increase in price.

achamayou 8y ago

That’s unlikely to be true, some publications such as Ars Technica let you pay for an ad free tier. What’s more likely is that the subscription price does in fact cover costs and that advertising revenue is seen as a nice benefit on top that can be grown creatively without any accountability or backlash.

tensor 8y ago

It would be nice to see an option and let the user decide rather then resort to straw man hypotheticals.

bootlooped 8y ago

"Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies." There are a lot of counter examples to this. Hulu, Spotify, Ars Technica, YouTube Premium, etc... People are willing and able to pay for ad-free content.

JasonFruit 8y ago
(Few of these are news sources worthy of note.)
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  Why do you think news consumers are different than YouTube consumers?
  - JasonFruit 8y ago
    Because there's a difference between reading professionally produced news and watching contributed videos? Is there a reason you think they are the same?
    - bootlooped 8y ago
      I think once it's shown that people are generally willing to pay for the services they use to be ad-free the onus goes back to you to prove why news is a special case to which that trend does not apply. Otherwise we get into an argument black hole where you could infinitely claim the things in question were different than the counter-examples given.
      - JasonFruit 8y ago
        I suppose you are allowed to think that, sure. On my part, I promise no black holes. Peace.

dazc 8y ago

'Probably neither the author nor I would be willing to pay for a subscription without ad subsidies.' The author thought he was doing exactly this and, consequently, will cease to be a paying subscriber for much longer. The ads and difficulty in unsubscribing are the reasons why these organisations will never achieve a critical mass of paid subscriptions.

perl4ever 8y ago

It seems unlikely that the foregone revenue would be more than about 10% of the regular subscription price. This is based on other posts in this thread that talk about a $84/year subscription and $4-$15/year ad revenue. Since that was a reference to Facebook revenue, I imagine it would be a decent upper bound. It reminds me of how people say that it's impossible to provide fresh produce without paying people below minimum wage. In lieu of common sense, it depends on numbers, which don't need to be precise, but you can't just handwave. I'm inclined to believe the true story is simply, as others state, that no matter what the ad revenue is, it's X% more and nobody wants to give it up if they don't have to.

Rjevski 8y ago

Nobody has a problem with paper or paper-like ads, aka ads don’t stalk you, that the newspaper has actually vetted, and is happy to have its name associated with. The problem is that web ads are nothing like that. They are orders of magnitude more scummy, can’t be vetted in advance and stalk the shit out of you in order to serve you “better” ads next time, whatever the hell “better” means in advertiser’s perverted minds.

matheusmoreira 8y ago

Printed ads aren't malware vectors.

jccalhoun 8y ago

>Real reporting and quality writing unfortunately I rarely see either of those in any news outlet. Most of it is regurgitated press releases and things that I don't care about.