3 ms·

I feel like I'm getting old. The youth ethos of "information should be free!" has been replaced with the reaction "gee, I really hope great journalism can make

I feel like I'm getting old. The youth ethos of "information should be free!" has been replaced with the reaction "gee, I really hope great journalism can make money, otherwise we won't have any".

annoyingnoob 5y ago
Back in the day, the newsstand price for a newspaper, if you got it at the newsstand everyday of the week, was maybe $10-$11 a month. But you could get a subscription for less. You could also read the front page right there at the newsstand without paying anything. You could walk into just about any office building, especially any business with waiting room (like a doctor), and find the daily paper there to read for free. If you didn't want to pay for the paper then you could always find one - just ask someone that read theirs already. Back in the day news was plenty available for free, you just had to know where to look or ask. Now there is no such thing as a free look. No one has a paper they already read to share. I'm all for paying for subscriptions but that alone does not bring the balance the world once had. Just try to figure out what say the LA Times will charge you after the 'introductory period' - and they won't tell you up front that you have to call to cancel and that the call will take like 30 minutes while they try to retain your business (after jacking up the price by many times after the intro period). And you probably cannot choose the length of your subscription, subscriptions now go on in perpetuity until you complete the onerous cancellation process. I have no love for the way modern news charges for its product and treats its customers. You can blame the internet and cheap people but that isn't the whole story.
asteroidp 5y ago
They should pick one: pay for it, OR fill the page with 50 shitty ads You shouldn't have to deal with both
- seanp2k2 5y ago
  Not doing both = money left on the table. Game theory says they will as long as they can, as in the extra $ outweighs the subscriber loss. It’s terrible that the brand damage isn’t weighted more heavily and the calculations seem to be so short-sighted, but that’s where we are I guess.
- duckmysick 5y ago
  Newspapers did both. You paid for them and they had a classified section. On the other hand, they didn't have invasive tracking of modern websites.

I feel like I'm getting old. The youth ethos of "information should be free!" has been replaced with the reaction "gee, I really hope great journalism can make money, otherwise we won't have any".

annoyingnoob 5y ago

Back in the day, the newsstand price for a newspaper, if you got it at the newsstand everyday of the week, was maybe $10-$11 a month. But you could get a subscription for less. You could also read the front page right there at the newsstand without paying anything. You could walk into just about any office building, especially any business with waiting room (like a doctor), and find the daily paper there to read for free. If you didn't want to pay for the paper then you could always find one - just ask someone that read theirs already. Back in the day news was plenty available for free, you just had to know where to look or ask. Now there is no such thing as a free look. No one has a paper they already read to share. I'm all for paying for subscriptions but that alone does not bring the balance the world once had. Just try to figure out what say the LA Times will charge you after the 'introductory period' - and they won't tell you up front that you have to call to cancel and that the call will take like 30 minutes while they try to retain your business (after jacking up the price by many times after the intro period). And you probably cannot choose the length of your subscription, subscriptions now go on in perpetuity until you complete the onerous cancellation process. I have no love for the way modern news charges for its product and treats its customers. You can blame the internet and cheap people but that isn't the whole story.

asteroidp 5y ago

They should pick one: pay for it, OR fill the page with 50 shitty ads You shouldn't have to deal with both

seanp2k2 5y ago
Not doing both = money left on the table. Game theory says they will as long as they can, as in the extra $ outweighs the subscriber loss. It’s terrible that the brand damage isn’t weighted more heavily and the calculations seem to be so short-sighted, but that’s where we are I guess.
duckmysick 5y ago
Newspapers did both. You paid for them and they had a classified section. On the other hand, they didn't have invasive tracking of modern websites.