4 ms·

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.

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.