6 ms·

It makes me wonder if there's a business opportunity here. A beautiful app / website, that functions perfectly, and is basically a netflix for real journalism.

It makes me wonder if there's a business opportunity here. A beautiful app / website, that functions perfectly, and is basically a netflix for real journalism... The company itseld would be the one doing the journalism, and providing the app. Similary to how netflix has "netflix originals". Payed service.

ativzzz 6y ago
What you're describing is just an online newspaper. There's a reason most newspapers can't survive this way: people aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription.
- rubicon33 6y ago
  Maybe, but: a) I'm describing a video service. Not text. I think that makes a huge difference. b) How do you explain Apple News? Personally I have no idea if they're profitable but they seem to be betting on news subscriptions being worth while.
  - jimmygrapes 6y ago
    I believe that some attempts have been tried, at least in the general area of what you are proposing. Far as I can tell they have all been labeled conspiracy theorists, alt-right white supremacist fake news nazis, left wing radical SJW eco-fascists, or some other combination of epithets and denigration. And all it takes is for one of those labels to be plausible for a single article or contributor before some aspect. of the internet hive mind (incapable of forgiveness, nuance, or contextual interpretation) latches on and never lets go.
  - alisonatwork 6y ago
    This kind of exists in the US as Unicorn Riot. There are some other alt/indie news sites that operate the same way. They're far from unbiased sources in what they choose to cover, but I think that's a given when you're working with so little capital to begin with. Well-funded sites that can afford to send reporters out to cover "everything" will probably end up being biased in a different way, given the sorts of people who have enough money to fund a global outfit.
  - irrational 6y ago
    What do you mean about Apple News? I have an iPhone and have looked at the news app (I think that is what you mean by Apple News). It seems to just be a conglomeration of various articles (some news, others not news). Most are "free" to view, some have a News+ icon that indicates that that article is only available if you have a subscription, however I've found that if I want to read one of those articles I can just go to Safari and search for it and read it for free over there. So... I really don't understand how Apple News could ever be profitable. Why would anyone ever pay for a subscription?
- Yizahi 6y ago
  Newspapers aren't making it easier for people. I'm considering subscribing to The Economist for several years now and I can afford it. But the horror stories about being unable to unsubscribe or a need to call someone by phone to do it (yeah, half across the globe, with several dollars per minute roaming rate) is always putting me off it.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > But the horror stories about being unable to unsubscribe or a need to call someone by phone to do it (yeah, half across the globe, with several dollars per minute roaming rate) is always putting me off it. The answer to that is government regulation - it must be mandated that terminating a service must be at least as accessible and fast as the most accessible/fast way of signing up. Not just for newspapers, but also for other services - a particularly common target of complaints are fitness studios.
  - manishsharan 6y ago
    Economist subscription is very easy to unsubscribe .You signup for a year and you don't have to extend beyond one year. Economist does not automatically charge you for the next year. I did not renew my subscription due to my financial constraints and I did not have to speak to anyone to not renew.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    I unsubscribed from the Economist, and apart from the occasional email with a special offer to resubscribe every ~year it was hassle-free.
ok_coo 6y ago
Independent journalists have been moving to Substack. I subscribed to one, for about a year, who charged like $5/month. I felt that it was good value, this particular solo journalist did a ton of investigative research and posted almost every day. So, I think there's a business model for it if you can get enough subs to sustain yourself.
- bwb 6y ago
  Usually substack is just reposting news with your opinion... it is editorial in nature not journalism.
  - snakeboy 6y ago
    Substack is essentially blogging, isn't it? So I don't understand your saying "usually" here. It's 100% dependent on the person writing it.
    - bwb 6y ago
      Yes, but a lot of people think it is news / journalism, and it is being heralded as that. In fact there is a good argument to be made it hurts news because it is purely editorial and summaries. It currently doesn't have many examples of empowering people to do real journalism / investigations.
      - snakeboy 6y ago
        I'm not sure exactly where the line between "news" and "editorial" is being drawn. If you have journalists from WaPo in DC writing articles on something happening in Israel, what is the difference between them and a respected journalist writing on Substack? If it's someone with a good reputation, I'd probably attribute a bit more weight to the Substack author's analysis on the situation. Obviously there's space for investigative journalism like what, e.g. ProPublica is doing, but if it's just "news", I'd rather get it from an individual backed by a strong reputation than an institution backed by a strong reputation, unless the journalist has a useful on-the-ground insight.
cosmodisk 6y ago
Look at the Economist- it covers many aspects worldwide, however ask yourself if an average Joe on the street would read it instead of the usual suspects.
- throwaway2037 6y ago
  I just Googled annual subscription cost for The Economist: ~200 USD. That is the same for the New Yorker. I agree with your point: Their readership is a drop in the ocean compared to other English language news sources. That said: It is worth considering the effect of "high/difficult paywall" on readership. Both have almost zero free content, high subscription costs, but excellent reporting. To state the obvious: Good media isn't cheap!

ativzzz 6y ago

What you're describing is just an online newspaper. There's a reason most newspapers can't survive this way: people aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription.

rubicon33 6y ago
Maybe, but: a) I'm describing a video service. Not text. I think that makes a huge difference. b) How do you explain Apple News? Personally I have no idea if they're profitable but they seem to be betting on news subscriptions being worth while.
- jimmygrapes 6y ago
  I believe that some attempts have been tried, at least in the general area of what you are proposing. Far as I can tell they have all been labeled conspiracy theorists, alt-right white supremacist fake news nazis, left wing radical SJW eco-fascists, or some other combination of epithets and denigration. And all it takes is for one of those labels to be plausible for a single article or contributor before some aspect. of the internet hive mind (incapable of forgiveness, nuance, or contextual interpretation) latches on and never lets go.
- alisonatwork 6y ago
  This kind of exists in the US as Unicorn Riot. There are some other alt/indie news sites that operate the same way. They're far from unbiased sources in what they choose to cover, but I think that's a given when you're working with so little capital to begin with. Well-funded sites that can afford to send reporters out to cover "everything" will probably end up being biased in a different way, given the sorts of people who have enough money to fund a global outfit.
- irrational 6y ago
  What do you mean about Apple News? I have an iPhone and have looked at the news app (I think that is what you mean by Apple News). It seems to just be a conglomeration of various articles (some news, others not news). Most are "free" to view, some have a News+ icon that indicates that that article is only available if you have a subscription, however I've found that if I want to read one of those articles I can just go to Safari and search for it and read it for free over there. So... I really don't understand how Apple News could ever be profitable. Why would anyone ever pay for a subscription?
Yizahi 6y ago
Newspapers aren't making it easier for people. I'm considering subscribing to The Economist for several years now and I can afford it. But the horror stories about being unable to unsubscribe or a need to call someone by phone to do it (yeah, half across the globe, with several dollars per minute roaming rate) is always putting me off it.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > But the horror stories about being unable to unsubscribe or a need to call someone by phone to do it (yeah, half across the globe, with several dollars per minute roaming rate) is always putting me off it. The answer to that is government regulation - it must be mandated that terminating a service must be at least as accessible and fast as the most accessible/fast way of signing up. Not just for newspapers, but also for other services - a particularly common target of complaints are fitness studios.
- manishsharan 6y ago
  Economist subscription is very easy to unsubscribe .You signup for a year and you don't have to extend beyond one year. Economist does not automatically charge you for the next year. I did not renew my subscription due to my financial constraints and I did not have to speak to anyone to not renew.
- sofixa 6y ago
  I unsubscribed from the Economist, and apart from the occasional email with a special offer to resubscribe every ~year it was hassle-free.

ok_coo 6y ago

Independent journalists have been moving to Substack. I subscribed to one, for about a year, who charged like $5/month. I felt that it was good value, this particular solo journalist did a ton of investigative research and posted almost every day. So, I think there's a business model for it if you can get enough subs to sustain yourself.

bwb 6y ago
Usually substack is just reposting news with your opinion... it is editorial in nature not journalism.
- snakeboy 6y ago
  Substack is essentially blogging, isn't it? So I don't understand your saying "usually" here. It's 100% dependent on the person writing it.
  - bwb 6y ago
    Yes, but a lot of people think it is news / journalism, and it is being heralded as that. In fact there is a good argument to be made it hurts news because it is purely editorial and summaries. It currently doesn't have many examples of empowering people to do real journalism / investigations.
    - snakeboy 6y ago
      I'm not sure exactly where the line between "news" and "editorial" is being drawn. If you have journalists from WaPo in DC writing articles on something happening in Israel, what is the difference between them and a respected journalist writing on Substack? If it's someone with a good reputation, I'd probably attribute a bit more weight to the Substack author's analysis on the situation. Obviously there's space for investigative journalism like what, e.g. ProPublica is doing, but if it's just "news", I'd rather get it from an individual backed by a strong reputation than an institution backed by a strong reputation, unless the journalist has a useful on-the-ground insight.

cosmodisk 6y ago

Look at the Economist- it covers many aspects worldwide, however ask yourself if an average Joe on the street would read it instead of the usual suspects.

throwaway2037 6y ago
I just Googled annual subscription cost for The Economist: ~200 USD. That is the same for the New Yorker. I agree with your point: Their readership is a drop in the ocean compared to other English language news sources. That said: It is worth considering the effect of "high/difficult paywall" on readership. Both have almost zero free content, high subscription costs, but excellent reporting. To state the obvious: Good media isn't cheap!