3 ms·
Financial Times do the same thing. About €60 a month for a subscription and they still insist on putting ads in the app. I estimate that the ads only generate
by kolp 7y ago
Financial Times do the same thing. About €60 a month for a subscription and they still insist on putting ads in the app.
I estimate that the ads only generate a miniscule amount of revenue, yet it really detracts from the user experience.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThe ads for paying users are probably worth a lot more than for non paying users.
- tomatocracy 7y agoFor the FT specifically, I get the impression that a pretty large portion of subscriptions are corporate/paid for by employers so I'm not sure how true that really is.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThe companies paying for a FT subscription for their employees are going to have well compensated employees, hence valuable eyeballs for advertisers.
- JohnFen 7y agoThis. Also, some of those eyes are going to belong to people who make purchasing decisions on the behalf of their employer. Those people are exceptionally valuable to advertisers.
- te_chris 7y agoThat's why I like the Guardian, if you're a digital sub app is ad free.
- datenhorst 7y agoIs it also data-collection free?
- fortran77 7y agoI pay for NY Times (as well as several other papers, like the WSJ). NY Times runs giant banner "subscribe" ads even if you're a paid, logged-in member. I still need ad blocking on! I wouldn't mind ads equivalent to what you see in the real paper -- a Macy's ad at the end of an article, etc. But they should be in the page, and not popping up on top, on the bottom, or over the article.