5 ms·

The problem is that newspapers still make the majority of their income from advertising. This is why ads still appear after you're subscribed and logged in to t

The problem is that newspapers still make the majority of their income from advertising. This is why ads still appear after you're subscribed and logged in to their websites. Shifting to a subscription-only revenue model is not an easy proposition, and requires a huge adjustment that most newspapers are not yet ready to make. Source: I used to work for a major regional newspaper.

cepth 8y ago
Condé Nast seems to have figured out a workable majority-subscription revenue model. https://www.wsj.com/articles/conde-nast-to-put-all-titles-behind-paywalls-by-year-end-11548244800 https://www.wsj.com/articles/conde-nast-to-put-all-titles-be... > “The New Yorker, which introduced a metered paywall in late 2014, generated about $115 million in paid-subscription revenue in 2018, up 69% from 2015, people familiar with the matter said. That revenue includes consumers who subscribed to the digital and print editions, although subscribers today no longer have the option of subscribing solely to the print magazine. The New Yorker’s regular renewal price for a print and digital bundle is moving to $149 a year from $119. The magazine will publish 47 issues this year.” Granted, there’s a big difference between publishing 47 issues of long form writing a year, and 365 issues of a much longer daily-reported newspaper. EDIT: not to mention that the Times and other big newspapers probably see themselves as informing the public discourse. It probably wouldn’t fly to put general newspapers behind a paywall, though the FT has greatly increased profitability with this strategy.
- jammygit 8y ago
  What's it like to try to unsubscribe from the new yorker? Do they still track you digitally and show ads with a sub?
dec0dedab0de 8y ago
This is what I had always heard, that the price of the paper just covered the printing and shipping. It seems like all these papers already have advertiser contacts and should have been able to easily transition into an online advertiser only model. and as far as paying for ads, I find it absurd that anyone pays for cable tv anymore.
- LocalPCGuy 8y ago
  I still pay for cable TV because 1) its my cheapest option to have local channels 2) of the DVR options (so I don't deal with those ads), it still has the best experience (tried Hulu, DirecTVNow, YouTubeTV) - YouTubeTV was the closest, but they inject ads you cannot skip in on demand programs and replace your "recordings" with on demand programs as soon as the network makes them available.
  - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
    1) its my cheapest option to have local channels cheaper than an antenna? Do you live somewhere with too much interference?
- max76 8y ago
  I'm not a cable subscriber but I don't think it's a bad deal for the average American, especially families. DVRs have allowed cable subscribers to skip ads with a bit of planning and a slight delay in viewing for over a decade. This allows for unlimited viewing of the newest content on demand without advertisement. Basic cable seems to start at about $40/month which is about 2x more than having a Netflix and Hulu subscription while offering more movies, the latest season of every show, cable news, and sports.

cepth 8y ago

Condé Nast seems to have figured out a workable majority-subscription revenue model. https://www.wsj.com/articles/conde-nast-to-put-all-titles-behind-paywalls-by-year-end-11548244800 https://www.wsj.com/articles/conde-nast-to-put-all-titles-be... > “The New Yorker, which introduced a metered paywall in late 2014, generated about $115 million in paid-subscription revenue in 2018, up 69% from 2015, people familiar with the matter said. That revenue includes consumers who subscribed to the digital and print editions, although subscribers today no longer have the option of subscribing solely to the print magazine. The New Yorker’s regular renewal price for a print and digital bundle is moving to $149 a year from $119. The magazine will publish 47 issues this year.” Granted, there’s a big difference between publishing 47 issues of long form writing a year, and 365 issues of a much longer daily-reported newspaper. EDIT: not to mention that the Times and other big newspapers probably see themselves as informing the public discourse. It probably wouldn’t fly to put general newspapers behind a paywall, though the FT has greatly increased profitability with this strategy.

jammygit 8y ago
What's it like to try to unsubscribe from the new yorker? Do they still track you digitally and show ads with a sub?

dec0dedab0de 8y ago

This is what I had always heard, that the price of the paper just covered the printing and shipping. It seems like all these papers already have advertiser contacts and should have been able to easily transition into an online advertiser only model. and as far as paying for ads, I find it absurd that anyone pays for cable tv anymore.

LocalPCGuy 8y ago
I still pay for cable TV because 1) its my cheapest option to have local channels 2) of the DVR options (so I don't deal with those ads), it still has the best experience (tried Hulu, DirecTVNow, YouTubeTV) - YouTubeTV was the closest, but they inject ads you cannot skip in on demand programs and replace your "recordings" with on demand programs as soon as the network makes them available.
- dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  1) its my cheapest option to have local channels cheaper than an antenna? Do you live somewhere with too much interference?
max76 8y ago
I'm not a cable subscriber but I don't think it's a bad deal for the average American, especially families. DVRs have allowed cable subscribers to skip ads with a bit of planning and a slight delay in viewing for over a decade. This allows for unlimited viewing of the newest content on demand without advertisement. Basic cable seems to start at about $40/month which is about 2x more than having a Netflix and Hulu subscription while offering more movies, the latest season of every show, cable news, and sports.